Sitting of 22 November 1932

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

SESSIONAL ORDERS.

  ELECTIONS.
  Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if any thing shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the
  2
  matter is in Debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined.
  Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.

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

  3
  any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

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

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

KING'S SPEECH.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
In accordance with the conclusions reached by the Conference at Lausanne, a World Economic Conference is to be convened by the League of Nations and will be held in London as soon as possible next year. It is My earnest hope that the Conference will be able to reach agreement on the measures required to deal with the causes which have brought about the present economic and financial difficulties of the world.
The Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments now sitting at Geneva embodies the hope and the effort of mankind to reach the greatest measure of general disarmament that can be attained. My Government will continue, in full co-operation with all the other members of the Conference, to work for an international convention which will be a foundation for a lasting peace.
My Ministers and other Members of both your Houses are meeting in conference representatives of the Indian States and of British India. They hope thereafter to place before you proposals for further constitutional development in India. The decisions to be taken will be of great moment to the whole of My Empire, and I shall watch your deliberations with deep interest.
Members of the House of Commons,
The Estimates for the Public Service will be laid before you in due course.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
Although the various conversion schemes which have been successfully
6
carried through offer the prospect of large reductions in the service of the National Debt, it is still necessary to exercise careful supervision over public expenditure, both national and local.
The measures already taken to assist British industry in the home market and to improve our markets overseas have created a. feeling of greater confidence. My Government will continue to do everything in their power to stimulate the recovery of trade.
Agriculture has long been depressed by the general fall in the wholesale prices of its products. My Ministers recognise that though the measures recently taken in regard to meat and other products have been of real assistance to producers, further plans are necessary to enable agriculture as a whole to take its proper place in the economy of the nation. While the restoration of prosperity to agriculture. cannot be expected until wholesale prices have risen to a more normal level, My Government believe that the various steps which they have taken, combined with action upon the investigations concluded, or still proceeding, will enable the industry to put itself in a position to take full advantage of a return to more favourable conditions.
Large numbers of My people are still unable to find employment and the persistence of this situation causes Me the greatest anxiety. Unemployment as we have known it for some years is undoubtedly the gravest of our social problems. In particular I am distressed that many young men and women have never in their lives had an opportunity of regular employment.
In the view of My Ministers any provision for unemployed persons should not only afford material assistance but should also lye designed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work when opportunities can he found. My Government intend to bring forward Measures dealing comprehensively with Unemployment insurance and with the treatment of those unable to obtain work, and the considerations

7
I have mentioned will be borne in mind in framing their proposals.
Bills relating to Scotland will be introduced to amend the procedure governing private legislation, to facilitate the administration of civil justice, and for other purposes.
Measures dealing with Rent Restriction, London Passenger Transport, and other matters of importance will be introduced and proceeded with as time and opportunity offer.
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
Mr. ROY BIRD(in Court dress): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
3.10 p.m.
Possibly, Mr. Speaker, the same thought that has occurred to me has occurred to many hon. Members sitting on the back benches of this House, when they have risen in an unsuccessful effort to catch your eye for the purpose of addressing the House, and some of whom, I know, were anxious to deliver their maiden speeches—that it would have been much easier if they could have risen at a certain time and have addressed the House crowded to its very doors. But, now that I am in that favoured position, I realise that things are not always what they seem. Doubtless it is because I am overwhelmed with the great honour that has been conferred, not only upon myself, but upon my constituency of Skipton, which I have had the honour of representing for eight years—a very large Division which extends over a distance of 60 miles by 40, and comprises within its bounds pretty well every industry.
My one regret this afternoon is that, in the customary division of the King's
8
Speech between myself and my learned leader, I shall not be able to touch on agriculture, because in my normal condition, when I am not a solicitor or a politician, I am a farmer, and I know quite well what the difficulties of farming are and how easy it is to lose money. I have every confidence, however, in the fact that I am to be followed to-day, against all precedent, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies), a learned King's Counsel, who, as a general rule, takes precedence over a mere solicitor. I know that it is a tradition of this House that the Mover of the Address must not be controversial, and I hope that if, inadvertently, I hurt the feelings of some hon. or right hon. Member, I shall be forgiven in the same way in which I was once forgiven when once before I hit a certain hon. Member in this House by mistake.
The Gracious Speech from the Throne refers to the Conference on the reduction and limitation of armaments, and I am certain that everybody in this House anticipated such a reference, because the people throughout the land, almost from day to day, have followed the labours of that Conference with profound interest. I feel sure that the words of the Gracious Speech exactly represent the feeling in the country. Go where you will, throughout the length and breadth of the land, you will find a keen interest in the importance of the Conference and a determination that whatever happens, whatever action this nation may take, it shall prove a success. Of this I am certain, that there is in this country that most essential thing, the will to peace. The main purpose of Disarmament is to achieve a lasting and secure peace, and it is because this nation is so certain that only by a positive measure of Disarmament can peace be secured that we are taking such an interest in that Conference.
I feel sure that I shall carry the whole House with me when I venture to congratulate the Government on the most recent step that they have taken at Geneva. I hope and believe that the declaration made on behalf of the Government by the Foreign Secretary on Thursday last week will prove a new step forward in the problems that face not only our country but every country through-

9
out the world. It does not pretend to be a complete plan which is going to produce disarmament to an expectant world to-morrow, but at least it shows some way by which we can proceed forward with our efforts. Above all, it faces realities. All countries must co-operate on an equal basis, because, unless we cooperate equally, we shall not get very far, and I feel that this Note will enable all countries, and in particular Germany, once more to take their part in the Conference and will enable some useful steps to be taken in achieving the aim that we all have in view.
The Gracious Speech also makes reference to the World Economic Conference that is to be held next year. I need not deal with the causes of the economic sickness, as everyone is well aware of them. It is sufficient to say that every man and woman, not only in this country but throughout the world, has felt its effects. The causes are world-wide and its effects have made themselves felt by everyone. The sickness being world-wide, it cannot be successfully attacked by purely national effort. It must be attacked by international effort with all nations working for the same end. A variety of features, economic, monetary and financial, have tended towards creating what may be described as a vicious circle of depression in world trade; and, because it is world-wide, it must be dealt with from an international point of view. It is only to be expected that different nations, according to their different situation, will have different ideas as to how the problem is to be tackled, as to which phase of the problem should be attacked first and what the mode of the attack should be, but I am certain that everyone is beginning to realise the gravity of the situation, and I believe it is leading to a more general realisation of the necessity for combined action and for accommodation and adjustment between the different views held by different nations. It is, therefore, to be hoped that, when the Conference meets, the different countries will be prepared to take the long view and to see what is best not only for themselves but for the whole world, so that the ultimate interest of everyone will be to join together in a concerted effort for the purpose of find-
10
ing a solution of our difficulties, upon which depends the restoration of confidence throughout the world and a revival of world trade.
In facing the problems and difficulties of the coining Session we can look back, I think, with some degree of satisfaction on what has happened during the past one. We have adopted various measures, not always with the approval of everyone, but, after all, those measures have at least succeeded in balancing the Budget, and, to a certain extent, in assisting industry. By means of strict economies the Budget was balanced, and we have turned an enormous adverse balance of visible trade, which, I believe, last year amounted to something like £410,000,000, into a figure which is very much lower. Further economies, of course, are necessary, but, after all, with the assistance of the funding of our Debt, which has just been so successfully concluded, and with other economies which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has in mind, we shall make further progress on our way. But I would ask him not to adopt in toto the recommendations which have appeared quite recently in a publication which has reached my hands, at a rather belated date it is true—[Interruption]—and which, if the hon. Member has not got he can purchase for the modest price of 1s.
The industries of this country, which have so long been swamped by what I might call the vicious protection of foreign countries have, through the efforts of the Government, received some measure of defence. The Agreements reached at Ottawa, too, have provided means for greater inter-Imperial trade, and they not only deal with inter-Imperial trade but deal indirectly with international trade, because it is to the interest of other nations that they should now enter into negotiations with us for the purpose of fixing trade agreements, and, in fact, I believe already many countries have applied to enter into such agreements with us. At present, the Argentine, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland are in negotiation with us. The Government have applied certain remedies which do not appeal to everyone in this House, but which I condently believe will prove successful.

11
Should they not prove successful, I am proud to think that I belong to a section of supporters of the National Government which is not a hidebound party, and if, in practice, the remedies that have been applied should prove a failure we have not got to the end of our tether. We can apply other remedies, and I trust that the Government will not be frightened. I hope, if it should be necessary, they will apply other remedies which in other times and in other places and in other circumstances might have had a, label attached to them which might have offended the susceptibilities of one or other section of the National Government.
We are all accustomed in our daily lives in cases of illness to call in a medical practitioner. His treatment is not always a success, and it is sometimes necessary to call in a second opinion. The second medical attendant does not always agree with the first, and the treatment is changed. The first medical attendant does not leave the sick room with the wish in his heart that the patient will die, and I suggest to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that they should at least behave in the same way as the medical profession, and that, if we have applied a treatment which does not really appeal to them, they should at any rate in their hearts wish us and the country success. When I left school my father gave me a quotation which he said would help me through life. It was, "Possunt quia posse videntur." I was in the same predicament as I expect hon. Members and, indeed, perhaps some right hon. Gentlemen in this House are in, that the money spent on my classical education had been somewhat wasted, and my father, observing that intelligent look on my face which signified ignorance, gave me a translation. It was, "They can, because they think they can." There are many difficulties and problems still facing this country, but I am confident that, if we face them in the spirit of that quotation, if we go forward with a united front with good will, and if we see that every class of the community has a square deal, the problems that face us will not prove insurmountable.
Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES(in Court dress): I beg to second the Motion.
12
3.28 p.m.
I should like to pay a tribute to one who, for to-day, perhaps, in legal circles would be regarded as my leader. To him to-day I wish to pay this tribute for his able, powerful and most comprehensive speech to which we have listened with such great pleasure. The honourable duty of seconding this Motion has been entrusted to me as Member for the county of Montgomery. The fact that this duty has been entrusted to a representative of a constituency which depends entirely on agriculture is an earnest of the promise of the Government to assist the oldest industry in this land, which finds itself to-day in tragic and in almost calamitous circumstances. In the Gracious Speech from the Throne the attention of Parliament is directed particularly to this subject. Less than a fortnight ago Members of this House, in one of the most instructive Debates, emphasised the close relationship between agriculture and other industries. Men may not live by bread alone, but men must have bread. Throughout the world to-day men go in fear of unemployment. It is estimated that in the civilised world, as it is called, between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000 men have now realised that fear. There is a constant and deep concern among the rulers and the peoples of all countries as to how they can solve this tremendous problem. Were there not a humane and kindly feeling in each country—a realisation that in truth and in fact each is his brother's keeper—there might to-day, throughout the world, be starvation facing millions at a time when the land was never more bounteous, production easier, and transport snore rapid.
The causes of these conditions—the most extraordinary in the story of mankind—are manifold. Some attribute them to the War and the fact that millions of men were for four years taken away from their ordinary avocations and put to the appalling one of self-destruction. Some blame the monetary system and the artificial debasement of the standard of barter. Others blame national and narrow prejudices which refuse to recognise that there is a world brotherhood and an interdependence among all peoples. To my mind, while all these arc factors which contribute to the general distress, the fundamental cause is the failure of every one of us to re-adapt

13
our lives to the swift-moving changes brought about by science. We live in a wonderful age—the most wonderful and most interesting of all time—but the world has moved so rapidly during the last 50 years that the whole of past human experience avails us but little today, and in no branch of life is this so conspicuous as in agriculture.
The growth of scientific knowledge and the rapid increase of mechanical inventions have given us the telephone, the wireless, the aeroplane, and the motorcar—discoveries which have transformed our mode of life. In themselves they are amazing, but in no industry has this speeding up been so conspicuous as in agriculture. Through many thousands of years man has had to devote his time, attention and energies to agriculture, and he has done so laboriously and faithfully with astonishingly little improvement during all the centuries. Within the last 50 years, during my own life time, agricultural practice and production have been revolutionised. We often speak of the desertion of the country-side, the drifting away of the finest yeoman to the large towns, driven there by the poverty of conditions on the land, or attracted there by the wealth which might he offered by other industries. But do we realise that possibly the root cause of the depopulation of the countryside is mechanisation; the substitution of machinery for human labour. When I was a boy 10 men working a full day of 14 hours could mow 10 acres of grass, and I was privileged to take my place in such a team. To-day one man and one machine can do the same work in the same time. Nine men are off the land. Nine men are out of work and production remains the same. The march of science is ruthless. The problem facing the rulers, statesmen, and peoples of every land is the fair redistribution of the labour of all. When that problem has been solved with the assistance of all, there will remain even a greater one which will face, not merely the statesmen or the rulers, but the educationist, the teacher and the prophet, and that problem will be: "How is man to use the increased leisure which he has obtained?"
We were all grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture for his admirable speech during the Debate on Unemployment last
14
Session. We all appreciate the work which has been done, but we look forward to the day when, if I may quote from the Gracious Speech,
"further plans. … necessary to enable agriculture as a whole to take its proper place in the economy of the nation,"
will not only be formulated but carried out, so enabling that
"industry to put itself in a position to take full advantage of a return to more favourable conditions."
Britain, the greatest industrial country in the world cannot afford to allow its own agriculture to be ruined or its own land, which is small enough, to be put out of cultivation. Agricultural wages are too low. There is no farmer in the land who would not raise them if he could possibly pay them, but even the low wages are beyond his means to-day. On the other hand, the farmer must remember that, if he asks for interference, he must put up with interference. Even the individualistic Liberal knows that the greatest freedom for the individual can very often be best obtained through State interference.
Undoubtedly to-day we are suffering from defective and antiquated methods of marketing. In my short experience there have been many changes. Cattle and horses, sheep and pigs, used to be brought down to the market in my own little country town on the last Thursday of every month. We were in a privileged position. We had a market, but we did not know what supplies our neighbour would bring down. We did not know what buyers would be there to meet us, still less did we know anything at all about the prices which we should ask or even get. There was, within a very short distance, a new and probably a better system. It was a system whereby Smith-field was assembled. The farmers brought their produce there, and there was open bidding. The result was that you had a market price established, but it was only a local and a particular price in the particular market for the particular day. Even to-day the auctioneer who organises the Smithfield does not know how much produce will come down the next week, nor does he know how many buyers will come to purchase the produce. Consequently, there is no constant national price. Prices are fixed haphazardly, and the country suffers.

15
We are all glad to know that the Bacon Commission has already reported. We are awaiting the report of the Milk Commission. I hope that the Government will also set up a commission to inquire whether we cannot stabilise prices with regard to stock generally, and store stock in particular. Inquiries, however should not be an end in themselves. The Government must put into force the recommendations of those whom they have called upon to advise them.
Twelve months ago drastic but inevitable cuts were made in the earnings of a great number of the people in this country. Ten per cent. had to be deducted from the amount given to the unemployed—the poorest of the poor. A percentage was taken from the teachers who have the care of the future generation. But as much as 50 per cent. and more has, owing to the reduction of prices, been taken from the agricultural yeomen. In my county there are cases where even a chicken is more valuable than the sheep or the cattle upon the moor. The world over, wholesale prices give no proper return to the producer. At the same time, the weekly bills which we all have to face remain much the same as they were 10 years ago. We should like to know what the Government propose to do later on to do away with the disparity which so often exists between the wholesale and retail prices. I think that our professors of economics live too much in the past. They do not have a real regard for the needs of the present, and many of them do not know the horrors of want. Men cannot be moved from one industry to another so quickly as the ordinary economist of today seems to think.
The nations of the world are meeting to-day to consider how best they can further the course of peace, certainly to lessen, if they cannot abolish, the armaments of war. During the coming year the nations of the world are again to meet to consider how best we can live together in times of peace and so remove the fundamental causes of war, the jealousies, rivalries, and disappointments which only lead to bitterness and hatred. The people of this country look to them and to their leaders for guidance in this struggle to save civilisation in our own time.
16
I make my final earnest appeal to all parties to come to the assistance of the agriculturist in this country. Whether he is a farmer, a smallholder, a cottager, or an allotment holder, who has been so much helped by one society, he is the producer, and his position to-day is desperate. Should he quite lose heart and fail to produce, it is the nation as a whole that will ultimately be the loser. The task confronting our statesmen is that of keeping abreast of and providing against the amazingly rapid progress that science and mechanical invention are making in every direction. With courage, sincerity of purpose, foresight and swift action, the problem of unemployment throughout the world and the problem of Disarmament can be solved. But there must be action, and it must be swift. The nation is calling for action. It has placed its trust in the Government, and we who are supporters of the Government believe that that trust will not be betrayed, but will be carried out.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: It is customary on these occasions that the speaker who follows the Mover and Seconder of the Address should say some words of congratulation to both of them for the manner in which they have carried out their 'duty. I have particular pleasure this afternoon in saying how very pleased I am that I was able to be present to listen to both speeches. Of all speeches of a similar character that I have heard I think the two to which we have just listened will rank with the best. Without seeming to be invidious, I am sure the Mover of the Address will not mind my saying that I think the Seconder dealt with the world situation and our own situation in relation to it in a most comprehensive manner. If the House, or any proportion of the House, approached the consideration of our national economic problem, and its relationship to the international problem, without any regard to our class, our personal or our sectional interest, I should be quite satisfied with the result of such consideration. When I listen to a speech of that kind I never can understand why I am not marching side by side with the hon. Member who makes such a speech. The hon. Member has this afternoon put the situation as clearly as it is possible to do it.

17
Both hon. Members spoke, not about the Speech, but very largely about matters that are not in it. When their speeches come to be read, I think it will be found that neither of them discovered very much in the King's Speech to talk about, and I congratulate them on going outside it. If the Mover does not mind my saying it, I did not quite catch the real translation of the classical quotation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) rather got the hang of it in its relation to the Government. "They cannot, because they know they cannot," and the Speech proves it. Before I say anything about the Speech, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman who will speak later if he can tell us what the course of business will be up to Christmas? Also, have the Government any proposals for dealing with unemployment in rural areas, pending a bigger insurance Bill? I think the right hon. Gentleman, after the speech that we have just heard, will agree that something ought to be done as an emergency measure to deal with the problem of unemployment in rural areas.
On these occasions it is usual for the person who speaks first from the Opposition to content himself with complimenting the Mover and Seconder of the Address and then to give utterance to a few generalities, and to wait until another day. I propose to break with that tradition, as we did last time, and as others who have stood here have done on past occasions. The two hon. Members were good enough to speak of their constituencies. If I sat on the back benches, whoever else spoke, I should speak on subjects concerning my constituency. I am here, as I have been reminded by my opponents, very often, because of my advocacy of the claims of unemployed people. I have been charged often with using them as pawns in a political agitation. I am not at all concerned to argue about that. I am here because very poor people elect me and I should not be true to my responsibilities towards them, whether I sat on the back benches or on the Front Bench, if I did not on every possible occasion take up their case and put it before the House.
In regard to the condition of the world and the condition of our country I cannot acid anything to the statement that has just been made, but when I examine the Speech I cannot find any realisation in it
18
of the gravity of the situation. I think this document is quite unworthy of Parliament and quite unworthy of being put into the hands of His Majesty. I think a schoolboys' Parliament, which had been asked to produce a King's Speech dealing with the present condition of the world, would have produced an infinitely better document than this. It does not matter what part of it one reads, it is largely concerned with the future. It is also largely concerned with what has been done but with very little of what ought to be done to-day. When I read it I said to a friend a mine that I was reminded of the present Foreign Secretary. He used to gibe at the Government of which I was a Member and say that we always talked of jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. This document is action yesterday, action to-morrow, but no really definite action to-day dealing with the great problems that confront the world, and our country in particular.
I know I shall be told that we are dealing with India through the Round. Table Conference, but there is nothing in the Speech to tell us of the condition of affairs in India, nothing to tell us of the repression that is going on in that country, and nothing to tell us that there is any possibility of the people of India, accepting or agreeing to any conclusions that may be arrived at by the Round Table Conference. Nor is there a word about Ireland. Not a word of sympathy for the people of Ireland, who are being subjected to an economic war just now. I should have thought that in a King's Speech at this time some word might have been inserted telling the people of Ireland of some proposal for dealing with the economic strife that is going on. [Interruption.] It is all very well to say that it is the folly of the Irish Government. Al ways when people are in trouble they shove it off on to somebody else, and I find that those who are most vociferous in that respect are those who are the most guilty. The contentious manner—I almost said the contemptible manner—in which this House treats this question, is perfectly disgusting. If the Irish Government are as guilty as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in their hilarity would have us believe, surely there is such a thing, I should have thought, as ordinary, com-

19
mon Christian charity on the part of one set of people towards another.
If you are at war with a nation, you never think it is a good thing that you should starve their women and children. I read in the newspapers of a sort of gleeful exultation that there will be want and suffering in Ireland because of the present economic war. I should have thought that those who are the advisers of the Monarch who rules the Irish Free State at present owe some sort of allegiance and would have put some words in his mouth to let the Irish people know that there was an avenue open by which this difficulty could be solved. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have made up their mind that there is not any solution, but that one side shall eat dirt—[Interruption]. Yes, I am certain that that is the temper of the cheering and jeering, and that what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen want is that Mr. de Valera, as representative of the Free State, shall do exactly what this House requires him to do. There is no answer to that. It is a disgraceful thing that there is not one single word of sympathy in the Gracious Speech, not one single word to indicate a desire that this quarrel, this economic war, should cease. [Interruption.] Those who are proud of it I leave with their pride and their disgrace. There ought to have been a couple of lines in the Speech dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" by which His Majesty the King should have asked Parliament to congratulate the Government on having taken the first step towards the break-up of the British Empire.
The next subject upon which I want to say a word is the World Economic Conference, which is now apparently put off into the distant future. We have heard that it might meet early in January, and we are now told that it might meet in April. What hope is there for anyone in this country who is looking to this Economic Conference for measures to deal with the economic situation if we have to wait another five or six months before it comes together? And who is there who thinks that it is any use the Conference coming together while the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to tariffs is what it is to-day? Hon. Members opposite are continually
20
telling us of the triumph of tariffs and quotas and restrictions in the restoration of trade, but the President of the Board of Trade, who has supported the whole policy of the Government in regard to tariffs, made a speech the other day in which he is reported to have said:
"Once we step into the world of high tariffs we put an end to that very freedom of international exchange which is) the essence of British trade and industry."
That is an amazing statement from a Minister responsible for the protectionist policy of the Government, and perhaps some Member of the Government, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman himself, will tell us how he squares that statement with his support of the tariff policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman also said something else. He said:
"International trade, which is impeded by the control of exchanges abroad, is also impeded by tariff barriers, quotas, and other devices, all of which are attempting to dam hack a rising flood which may overtop all obstacles. If it does, it may mean financial ruin."
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? How can lie square the policy which he advocates in this House with these two statements in which he roundly condemns it? What is the rising flood? Is it a rising flood of commodities? What does he mean by a rising flood which may overtop all obstacles, and which may bring about financial ruin? It may be that his colleagues in the Cabinet have discussed these matters with him and that one of them will be able to tell us what the right hon. Gentleman really means. If these statements are true, it must mean that the right hon. Gentleman has been supporting a policy which he knows, or is now convinced, is perfectly hopeless. What are the Government's plans for stopping this calamity? What are they going to say at the World Economic Conference? What are they going to propose there? Are they going to continue between now and next April, or whenever the Conference is summoned, to do what the President of the Board of Trade says is disastrous, that is to build more and more tariff walls? We ought to know; we ought to be able to cross-examine the President of the Board of Trade on the matter. You may go through the whole of this Speech, and there is not a single constructive proposal except tariffs, quotas, and prohibi-

21
tions. There is nothing else in regard to trade. I challenge anyone to put his finger on any proposal which does not involve tariffs or quotas or restrictions of some sort or another, and because the President of the Board of Trade has joined us in saying that such a policy is perfectly hopeless and calamitous I want the Government to tell us what their policy is in regard to the matter.
The holding of a World Economic Conference is imperative. It does not matter so much that Socialists for years and years have been saying the same thing as scientists. Philip Snowden, when he opened the Debate on Socialism in this House, made almost the same kind of statements which have been made by great scientists and financiers in all parts of the world; that is, that we are coming to a position when we have such an abundance of goods that the system of exchange and distribution is not suitable for bringing about the consumption of those goods. And there are multitudes of people who need them. Hon. Members opposite cheered the speech of the Seconder of the Address this afternoon. He put his finger right on the spot; and I want to know the answer of the Government to him, even if they do not answer me. What is the answer of the Government to those who are continually begging them to take this matter in hand before it passes altogether out of control It is a question upon which not only the future of this country but of the world depends, and I repeat my question: What is the policy of the Government?
In the King's Speech there is a mention of disarmament and war debts. What do the Government propose in regard to the American Debt? When they go to the World Economic Conference what will they propose not only in regard to war debts—they are only part of the problem—but also in regard to the question of debtor nations? You cannot take payments from those countries in the only way in which they can pay you, that is, in goods. The restrictions with regard to beef and meat will hit this country in the collection of debt from the Argentine and other countries. There is no representative of the Government who is standing up at all to this problem. How do the Government propose to deal with the problem of war debts and of
22
debts generally? I have said it once, and I repeat it now, that we are facing the nemesis of usury. Money has been lent by thousands of millions. At first it could be lent arid it went out in goods, and came back in goods by way of exchange, but to-day it is quite impossible for creditor nations to take payment. If they did, they would simply choke their country with goods; and, as the people are unemployed, there is therefore no way of handling them. That is a position which is bound to grow worse and worse unless it is taken in hand. What do the Government mean to do about it? Sir Josiah Stamp has told us that what is needed is a number of good healthy bankruptcies. Another economist has told us that what is needed now is an international bankruptcy court. Let us get down to it and find out in what way we can deal with this question. Until it is dealt with it is no use cheering the speech of the Seconder of the Address and thinking what a wonderful speech he has made, as indeed he has.
The King's Speech tells us nothing at all. You are not going to settle the question of peace and war merely by getting rid of a few armaments here and there. The Lord President of the Council shocked this House the other night when he dealt with Disarmament, and the right hon. Membar for Epping (Mr. Churchill) some months ago, speaking on Disarmament, also put the point which was put by the Lord President of the Council, that if men are desirous for a fight they will find ways and means. The most potent cause of war is the economic cause. It does more to bring war between countries than anything else, and, therefore, it is necessary to hasten the holding of the World Economic Conference in order that economic conditions may be made more tolerable and thus get rid of the menace of war.
I come now to what is the most sinister part of the Speech. It is probably the only part which I shall be told is really constructive. The Cabinet did put the truth into the mouth of His Majesty in the passage in the King's Speech:
"Large numbers of My people are still unable to find employment and the persistence of this situation causes Me the greatest anxiety."
I should think it did. These millions of unemployed are still in our midst, in spite

23
of the fact that we have had some 15 months or so of a National Government and a riddance of the Labour Government. I heard over the wireless last night the same old lie that unemployment and the financial crisis of August 12 months ago was due to the Labour Government. I thought that no one outside Bedlam ever gave utterance to that lie now; I thought it was dead and buried. Every one knows that the same world conditions that are quoted here as the cause of unemployment prevailed two years ago. They prevailed even when the right hon. Member for Epping was Chancellor of the Exchequer. They have prevailed all the time that there has been a capitalist system. [Interruption.] Yes, of course they have. Anyone would imagine that unemployment was a new problem. The right hon. Member for Epping made his first speech of statesmanship when he was responsible for the introduction of the Bill establishing Employment Exchanges. He was then at the Board of Trade. He knows that the problem of unemployment is not a new one. It has been with us ever since he was born, and since long before I was born. Obviously, the cause of it is something that is not new. The only difference to-day is that it has mounted up. If there is one right hon. Member in the House who ought to know something about the growth of unemployment during his own lifetime it is the right hon. Gentleman. In his time the story was "Establish Employment Exchanges. Regularise movements. Let people know where the jobs are." Sir William Beveridge said: "If you let people know where the jobs are, and if you give them facilities to move about, you will get rid of unemployment." We know now that that was all fudge. We know that, clever and brilliant man though he is, he did not know what he was writing about when he wrote that nonsense. There are not enough jobs to go round. The right hon. Member for Epping found that out when he first established the Employment Exchanges.
What is the policy of the Government for dealing with unemployment? Look at the King's Speech. When we were in power we were challenged again and again with the question: "What is your policy? Where are your plans? What
24
are you going to do about it?" When the present Postmaster-General was on his side of the House, he stood at this Box and danced around, and all the time e was asking: "When are you going to start?" I was told one day that the only thing we thought about was shovelling out money, doling out doles. But his is a champion dole Government. Only its doles are too low, too small, too mean, too contemptible. The one note of construction in the King's Speech is in the sentence:
"any provision for unemployed persons should not only afford material assistance hut should also be designed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work when opportunities can he found."
What does that mean? I listened the other day to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and his speech was in effect, "Back to 1834." I listened also to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. It was the same with him—no more doles, no more free education, in fact no more anything that every one of them told the electors he was in favour of during the election. We are to have an Insurance Bill which is to separate the sheep from the goats. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Epping remembers. He ought really to be sitting on the Front Bench. He and the Lord President of the Council will recall that there was one great occasion when Sir Warren Fisher and a commission were sent down to South Wales, and that they came back with a great report. They told us that the one thing that would settle the problem was transference. They said in effect: "Let us shift them. We must not let them stay there. We must move them about." The miners were moved about, and filled the East End of London, and we have them on our hands now. No one talks to-day about transference as a solution. I see opposite the right hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who was Minister of Labour at that time. He will remember that transference was then the slogan—"We will shift them round." I protested then and have protested ever since. I know it will be said: "Your Government did it." Right hon. and hon. Members opposite can chalk it up against me; I do not mind. One has to bear the sins of one's pals as well as the sins of others. My point is that trans-

25
ference, like the establishment of employment exchanges, never did one iota to find a new job for a new man. It merely put a different man into a job that was available.
I repeat my question to the Government: What are they going to do? They are going to train people again. I have a training establishment nearly next door to my home. The London County Council send to that establishment men who are nearly my age, to get them trained and to keep them fit. I see the men going backward and forward. They do physical jerks and drill and all that kind of thing. Personally, I am in favour of people having occupation. If they cannot get work, I would like to see organised occupation of one sort or another, but I am not going to be a party to saying that training men will be a means of finding them work. I beg the Government to face up to this before the Bill is brought in. It is quite true that you keep body and soul in the men and that there are probably 1,000,000 men and women whom economic causes have shoved outside the general run of the employed. But if you take these out and put them into jobs for which the men who are outside are competing, you simply take one man out and drop another in his place; you do not solve the problem; you do not help the problem one bit; you simply waste your energy and direct your attention to that which really is of no effect whatever.
What this House has to do is to face the fact that either you have to spend considerable sums of money in maintaining the unemployed or to find them work, even if you take some of those of whom you are already beginning to talk, those less fit and less capable. How did they become unfit and less capable? Because of economic conditions which do not allow them to go to work. Here and there you may have a man who never wants to work. There are many such men at this end of the town as well as where I live. But they are a very tiny fraction in any class in the country. It is the bigger thing that the Government have to see, that men and women are constantly being driven down. Although the Government may devise means of pulling them out here and there, that is not the way to deal with the situation. All of us should
26
face up to the fact that it is going to cost a lot of money to maintain these people. It would be infinitely better if the Government were to settle down and to say that pending the meeting of this International Economic Conference they would set about reconstructing this country.
The Seconder of the Motion spoke about the condition of agriculture. I remember that in 1911 I sat on the second bench opposite and begged the then Government to face up to the problem of agriculture. I learned what I knew about agriculture by going to Denmark and sitting at the feet of Sir Horace Plunket and others like him. I am confident that if years ago the problem had been dealt with on the lines of real land development in this country, our land would not be in the condition in which it is to-day. But there it is. All that we are doing is talking and talking and talking about it. [Interruption.] I do not mind a bit who jeers. Hon. Members did not jeer the Seconder of the Motion when he said the same thing. He said, "We do not want merely to talk about things, but we want action." I say to hon. Members opposite that I will stop talking when they take action, but I shall not stop talking until they do. I am not going to stand in this House and allow a continuance of the make-believe that the Government are dealing with unemployment or with agriculture when no effective means are being taken at all.
Whether hon. Members opposite know it or not, myriads of people in this country, as was said the other night, are rotting in body and soul and mind. That was stated by two hon. Gentlemen, not friends of mine, but a Conservative and a Liberal. They said that the unemployed, their women and their children, were rotting in body and soul and mind. I ask the Government, what are they going to do about it? What comfort is there in the King's Speech to any one of them? What is there of comfort to the people in my division 7 Hon. Members may describe as sob-stuff what I am about to state. They can if they like. A man came to me while I was at dinner last week. He had not a pair of boots on his feet. He said, "George, you told me and the unemployed that we ought to wait. What am I to do? I begged the public assistance committee for a pair

27
of boots, and they said 'No.' I have not come here to get them from you. I have come here with this question, what am I to do? Have I to wait four years till you can win a majority?" [Interruption.] The only thing some people can think about is jeering at the man who is starving. After all this man knew perfectly well that we hope some day to be in a majority in this House. I ask the Government, What is their answer to that man? I ask the Prime Minister, what is his answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your answer?"] My answer is that this nation is rich enough to see that no child, no woman, no man, need go without a pair of boots. While I have two pairs of boots, or any hon. Member of this House has two pairs of boots, no person ought to go without one pair. That is my answer. To say that we cannot afford it is sheer, downright cant and humbug. The country can pay for these things. When I hear someone mention what is done for these people, I reply "Do not think of what is done for them, but think of what is done to them."
The other night we were talking about sons and family incomes, when discussing the need test. Someone said that the sons left home, and every one around cheered. They said, "A good job too, the right thing." I was asked to go down the Embankment on the other side of the river to a shelter in the Belvedere Road. I invite any hon. Member to go there to-night, when the place will not be prepared for him. He will see some of the finest specimens of boys and young lads there. I asked some of them why they were there. They replied, "We could not stand it at home any longer." These lads are tramping the streets and lanes and highways, and there they are, lying on boards, covered with paper night after night, and going hither and thither. What are the Government going to do about them? What is the answer to that? The Government have the biggest majority they ever had in this House, and, having that power, what are they going to do for them? The Dominions Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself have been to those people and said to them, "When we have got power, Parliament can, and will, change these things." They have got power; I have not. What are they going to do for
28
them? Go down the Belvedere Road and tell them. These people are not Socialists or Communists, but just people who have been driven from their homes. Continually it is said that there are families with £4 or £5 a week coming in. Yes, earned by boys and girls and parents. We in this House say that the nation cannot pay for unemployment, but that the family can. The family must pay for it. Why? In Britain to-day you are pulling down the standard of life not only of the unemployed but of the employed, too. You are driving a wedge, a bitter, cruel wedge into family life, and it is a brutal, disgusting thing that we should be doing that with our eyes open.
There is another thing I want to say, and perhaps hon. and right hon. Members will jeer at this. I do not mind. I have had experience of it; all my life I have been an agitator. I went to the end of this place to-day, and, as I stood there, my mind was full of this document, because I had seen it yesterday and I had had time to think about it. I stood there. I say nothing at all against any individual, but when I looked round at the diamonds and the numbers of the well-fed men and women, I remembered the people I have to face every morning, men who go to the canteen on the other side to a bit of bread and a little weak tea—hundreds of them every morning. When I see the stream going down to the public assistance committee I compare them with that. I would have liked to have taken His Majesty and the whole of that assembly and planted them in two streets in my division—Devas Street and Donald Street. I would have liked them to see the conditions under which the people live, to show them the rooms where six and seven people are herded together. I would like to make them understand that riches and poverty are two things which come into the world together. Riches come out of poverty. If this world would only do what the Seconder said—distribute the goods, distribute the produce, distribute all those good things which mankind produces, there would be no poverty. There would be no children hungry—and children are hungry. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I know what I am talking about. Here in London they take into account the miserable meals given to a child in school, and take it out of the money though the mother

29
thinks she could spend a few coppers better for the whole of the family. Nothing so mean or contemptible has been done by any local authority as that which has been done by the London County Council.
This is my final word. We cannot do much in this House, and probably we cannot do much outside. Probably outside we cannot arouse people to revolt. You merely destroy the old spirit of our people. A handful will make a noise; the great bulk of them are crushed, as the hon. Member said last week, body, soul and spirit. It is something for the National Government to be proud of, something for the London County Council to be proud of; but it is breaking the hearts of decent, wholesome men and women, and it is breaking the bodies of children. The children in the elementary day schools are gradually deteriorating. Every social worker will tell you so. Every social worker will tell you that malnutrition is going on everywhere.
I am going out to those people as one man, and I am going to tell them that this Parliament callously, cynically, knowing what it is doing, is imposing these conditions on the people. If we cared we could give every one of them a decent maintenance. If you ask me how, I say: If it were a time of war, if the enemy were at the gate, we should all say, "Share and share alike." I say that I have no business to have a half-crown meal here when 2s. is what you reckon to keep a child seven days. I have no right to a half-crown meal while there are children under those conditions. If we are so poor, if we cannot do it in any other way, let us come down as we should in a plague, an earthquake or a war, to one dead level. It is not Soviet Russia which we are discussing; it is England, and whether 3,000,000 people, or, if you like, 2,000,000, shall be treated as decent human beings, or continue to be half-starved. If I could I would bring all these people here in a row, and let you see them and make you answer the question they put: "What are you going to do for me?" You made pledges and promises to them. You have not fulfilled them. You charge us with not having done so. What are you doing? You are doing worse. You are piling more and more burdens upon them.
4.39 p.m.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The House will be very pleased to hear that I am going to begin on traditional lines, and the traditional line for the first two speakers, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, is to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Address. There was one sentence which, I thought, was a good and profitable sentence in the speech to which we have just listened, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition heartily congratulated the Mover and the Seconder. I think that this is about the tenth year since I had this duty to perform for the first time, and I cannot remember any Mover or Seconder who with more quiet modesty and yet very fine penetration into the subjects with which they had to deal, moved and seconded the Address. It was very curious that the Conservative representative of the National Government dealt with Disarmament, while the Liberal representative of the National Government dealt with agriculture. Behold the testimony of the Coalition parties for the purpose of advancing national interests!
Mr. MAXTON: Good staff work.
The PRIME MINISTER: No one better understands staff work than my hon. Friend, but let us put that on one side.. There was a question put to me which I will answer straight away. It was: What is to be the business until Christmas It is very unusual to put that question in that very full and comprehensive way on the opening day of the Session, but, as soon as we have disposed of the Address, we shall take the London Traffic Bill. The later Business to be taken will be duly announced.
I am perfectly certain that, whatever the King's Speech might reveal, the right hon. Gentleman opposite could see nothing in it. I am perfectly certain that whether there was anything in it or not, in so far as the King's Speech was vague, the speech in reply would have been vaguer; in so far as the King's Speech consisted of words, the speech in reply would have been still more wordy and still more empty. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend did not remember his experience when he himself joined in producing a King's Speech. He knows

31
perfectly well that the King's Speech is a general statement of the subjects which the Government are to bring forward for the discussion of the House of Commons. That we have done, and when he reads about unemployment, will he take my word for it, and not only my word, but will he draw upon his own experience, that that means that legislation dealing with unemployment is going to be produced during the Session? Will he take it from his own experience that when references are made to certain special points regarding the condition of unemployed people, that indicates that those points are also going to be the subject of legislation? The fact of the matter is, that if hon. Members will take this King's Speech and compare it with previous ones, they will find that the indications in this Speech are far more definite regarding long and strenuous sittings and much legislative work, and I want to prepare the House for a very strenuous Session with very important legislation on the Floor of the House of Commons.
I want, in the name of the House, and for the sake of the House, to protest most strongly against the frequent attempts of the right hon. Gentleman, when hon. Members laugh, to convey to outsiders the impression that it was not what was going on in the House, not the way in which things were being said or the conduct of matters in this House which caused hon. Members to laugh, but that the House was jeering at the state of the unemployed. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that such is not the case.
Mr. LANSBURY: I know them as well as the right hon. Gentleman knows them.
The PRIME MINISTER: The greatest outburst of what the right hon. Gentleman called hilarity occurred when he himself made this observation—that those who get into trouble always rim away and make others responsible.
Mr. LANSBURY: I did not say that.
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going into the country to expose to the people of the country the mind of this House. So, I hope, are hon. and right hon. Gen-
32
tlemen who sit here. I am going to do a little of that in this week. Before this week is over I shall have something to say on that very subject outside—[Interruption.] I ant very glad to hear of the right hon. Gentleman's intention. Nothing will expose that which has been put to us to-day, more than the right hon. Gentleman going up and down the country and repeating the speech which he made to-day. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has given me nothing to which to reply. He drew his great picture of what happened to-day in another part of this building. Was the right hon. Gentleman there to-day for the first time? The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to take all those who were there to-day down to some streets in his own division. But he was there in 1929. He was there in 1930. I think, if anything, the display in those two years was a little richer than it was even to-day. What is the use of talking like that? What contribution does that make to the solution of the question which concerns us all?
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know if he meant it, but he certainly conveyed this impression—takes the view that nobody cares for the unemployed except himself and his immediate friends. But that does not meet the case which we put up the other day—the case that if you are genuinely interested in the unemployed, you have to face the question of how to produce legislation and create conditions which will solve their problem. The right hon. Gentleman tried for two years. We all tried, with all our hearts, with just as much enthusiasm as the right hon. Gentleman, if with less grandiloquent expressions. We tried with enthusiasm and with determination to get at the facts of the case, to get at the root, as the right hon. Gentleman would call it, of the problem. We tried to deal with it by certain methods of providing relief for the unemployed. We failed to deal with it by expenditure on what was really relief work—certainly on things that were being specially pushed ahead and things that were being undertaken on a particularly large scale owing to the fact that there were unemployed men who required work. Work was created for that purpose—a very beneficent purpose, a pur-

33
pose which is still in front of us. But we failed, because at the moment when that expenditure was highest, the unemployed figures were going up faster and faster. As a matter of fact, comparing the conditions then and now, if we could only have seen it, that state of unemployment was really worse than it is at the present time.
What is the policy of His Majesty's Government? I will explain it very shortly. All I have to do to-day is to go very generally over the chief points of the King's Speech. What is the position of His Majesty's Government? His Majesty's Government have studied that experience to which I have just referred and they have come to certain conclusions about it. They will encourage every normal expansion of municipal enterprise. Everything that is normal expansion, everything that is capable of being turned to good use will be done. But we warn the municipalities and this House that rates and taxes cannot be drawn upon extravagantly. Moreover, in the study of who the unemployed are, and what are the prospects of the unemployed is this country, even if normal trade were restored, we are faced with this fact and nobody can deny it. We are faced with the fact that a large number could be reabsorbed into industry. If the coal trade improved, through hydrogenation or by any other expedient, more miners would he employed. If iron and steel revived more iron and steel workers would be employed but as my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Resolution pointed out, we are going to have, in the future, a larger production by the use of scientific methods than we have ever had before and a very substantially lessened body of working men and women engaged in production.
What is to be done about the remainder? There is the problem, and this Government is the first Government to face the actual problem that when trade has become as brisk as anybody can naturally expect trade now to become for this country we shall still have a residuum. We shall still have a population which, were they not human beings, one would describe—merely for the sake of making quite clear what their position was—as scrap. Are we going to allow, is this nation going to allow, great bodies of risen and women, perhaps even amount-
34
ing to a couple of million, to be, to all intents and purposes, in our society, superfluous scrap? The Government, so far as they are concerned, say "No." Therefore, the problem of unemployment is not one of temporary relief. The problem of unemployment as regards the first section to which I have referred, that is the men and women who have a good chance of being reabsorbed, may be covered by insurance, by extended insurance and perhaps by temporary measures. But that is going to leave us with the most harassing, the most heart-breaking section of the problem of unemployment as it has grown to-day.
These boys and girls—and I think this is indicated in His Majesty's Speech—these young men and women are growing up to years of adult age; they have never been inside a factory or workshop door, never disciplined, never trained, never given the skill by which they can earn their living. A Government which, at the end of 1932 with all the experience that we have got, all the record that is behind us of years and years and years of perfectly honest experimenting with the unemployment problem—the Government which to-day imagined that that section, which is a large section, could be dealt with by spending £100,000,000 on public works, ought certainly to be turned out neck and crop. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do?"] I am not going to shirk it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite could not give a satisfactory answer to a man who only wanted a pair of boots because that man had certain points. He had a very commendable pride about him—I wish there were some more—and he said to the right lion. Gentleman, "I did not come to beg from you."
Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, and I say this, that the right hon. Gentleman did not give that man a satisfactory answer.
Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, I could not.
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could not, and I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]
Mr. LANSBURY: Who are they jeering at now?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman and I wish one could really forget that this is a mere scrap. The point here is that the Government have to face this problem in a way that no Government have hitherto faced it, largely on account of the fact that all our predecessors assumed that this was a temporary thing and that by spending large sums of capital the nation and the localities—the municipalities—the taxpayer and the ratepayer would both be recouped. I want to put this to anybody who is going to refer to unemployment, during the many Debates that will arise on that subject in the course of this Session. I challenge any hon. Member to base an argument upon the assumption that this is only a temporary state of unemployment and that the whole body of unemployed can be treated as though they can be absorbed into ordinary industry. We have a different problem altogether. That problem we are facing, but I want to say to the House, and I speak for my colleagues in the Government, that we are not going to promise the production of schemes within a month. Questions can be put about it, and sneers can be made regarding it, but we are going on working out the problem with every assistance we can lay our hands upon, the Departments concerned co-ordinating, outside bodies being used.
They talk about the state of the nation at the present moment being like that of a country at war. I will use an expression which carries out that idea. A Council of War sits, plans, consults, and it will produce its proposals without delay, and beyond that I cannot say. Certainly not; no honest Government would say more. As I say, we are blazing a trail. I am not going to treat of agriculture, because I can leave that in the very competent hands of the Minister of Agriculture, but the revival of agriculture is essential to the plans that we are working out. The unused land, the partly used land, the badly used land, land which is not put to use which is the most efficient and the most economical under 1932 conditions, must be absorbed steadily, with the idea that we can put a much larger percentage of our people in direct contact with the land than has been happening during the de-
36
velopment of the factory system in this country.
As regards the foreign part, I want to say quite plainly that the International Economic Conference, about which I made some references the other day, is finding some obstacles in its way. Will the House believe me when I say that His Majesty's Government will continue to press for the earliest meeting of that conference that it finds possible? I am certain—and I do not want to say more than would be helpful—that if before the politicians met at Lausanne experts had been put in charge of the conflicting materials, the conflicting interests that we had to face at Lausanne, and if the experts had worked it out, and worked it out, and worked it out before that conference of politicians met, we should still have been sitting at Lausanne without any conclusions having been reached. The expert is a great servant, and in this country and in every other country of economic development there is a body of experts that every political negotiator must thank, and thank, and thank again on account of their extraordinarily valuable help in all these negotiations. There are a great many difficulties. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tariffs."] Supposing we do go to this International Conference and face tariffs as a problem, I would like to know what contribution hon. Members opposite are going to make, because they tell us they are neither one thing nor the other.
Mr. LANSBURY: Read "Labour and the Nation," which you wrote.
The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend told me the other day he had scrapped it.
Mr. LANSBURY: I did not say so.
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to get into an argument, but as a matter of fact he did.
Mr. LANSBURY: Well, I did not.
The PRIME MINISTER: He did, because he declared, "I am no longer one of the evolutionary pragmatists, the people who have been hanging upon my coat-tails while I have been trying all these years to put into action the perfervid orations that I make here."
Mr. LANSBURY: One of your dreams.
The PRIME MINISTER: It may have been, and I am going to nourish the dreams, and by nourishing them probably I shall be far more efficient, as an old-fashioned Socialist, in changing the face of the earth than by making perfervid speeches that ramble all over the world in order to find an uncomfortable resting place at the end. I want to give the assurance to this House and the country that the Government will do everything they possibly can to get over the little hold-ups that have happened in order that the International Conference may meet at the very earliest moment. The world cannot afford to wait. One is appalled sometimes when one reads articles as though the world is going at the rate of five miles an hour. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is going quicker than that."] It is, and the hon. Member will find it on this side, not on that. The reason is that the politicians, the direct representatives of this Government, that Government, and the other Government, brought face to face, will much more quickly find an accommodation, a way out, and will be so minded knowing the larger issues outside, knowing the tremendous importance of getting an agreement—the direct representatives of the Government meeting the direct representatives of other Governments will much more quickly and much better, as a piece of workmanship, find the accommodation which will lead to a great world agreement.
As to disarmament, I want to say nothing beyond what my right hon. Friend said here the other day and at Geneva more recently, but I would like to say—and I am perfectly certain the whole House, with practical if not with total unanimity, will support me when I say—that the message which we send this afternoon to Geneva is that we have complete confidence in the representative of this country, our Foreign Secretary. I need not go any further. I can assure the House that it is going to have a very strenuous Session and that Ministers will have an even more strenuous Session, a much more strenuous Session, than private Members. But if this House at the beginning of this Session makes up its mind that it will put the same dauntless courage, the same well-founded confidence, the same generous helpfulness behind the Government as it did last
38
Session, this Session will add one more great contribution, not merely to the recovery of this country, but to the recovery of the whole world.
5.10 p.m.
Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: My first duty is to join in the encomiums that have been passed upon the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird) told us that he was a man of varied occupations, and I have no doubt that, as solicitor, he has been fully able to redeem his losses as farmer. So, in the same way, the loss which he has caused to the House hitherto by his too constant silence as a private Member, he has redeemed to-day by being its Mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. Member revived the medical simile, of which we heard much at the time of the General Election, comparing the Government to a medical attendant. I rather suspect that he himself may prove to be like that very loyal patient who had so much confidence in his doctor that he said he would rather die under his care than be cured by anyone else. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) gave us a very able analysis of the agricultural situation, not merely the momentary situation with regard to the markets of to-day, but the underlying causes that have given rise to its present distresses, and I am sure the House heard with great interest and attention his able and thoughtful speech.
The House meets to-day for its second Session, I may truly say, gravely disturbed at the long continuance of the trade depression and at the absence of any clear signs of its speedy ending. The country—and here perhaps I may not have such universal agreement in this House—in our view is disillusioned with respect to the tariff measures that have been taken, sceptical with regard to the results of Ottawa., and gravely uneasy at the absence of any definite plans for early future action. As the Lord President of the Council has said, the state of trade is appalling. In this country and other great industrial countries there are now at least 30,000,000 of working people unemployed. The right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), although his actual proposals

39
may not have commended themselves to many Members, was right, hardly exaggerated at all, in his picture of the distresses of those who are now unemployed. It needs saying in this House, and it should be listened to with attention and respect, for the right hon. Gentleman is expressing here on the Floor of the House what is undoubtedly the feeling uppermost in the minds of millions of people in the great industrial districts.
But what of the remedies? To-day, though it was otherwise when we dealt with the unemployment question more fully a week or two ago, his proposals were only a treatment of symptoms, not an effort to arrive at the cause and cure. Undoubtedly the main cure must be international, and I was very glad to see in the King's Speech that the World Economic Conference was given pride of place, that it occupied the foremost position in the proposals of the Government this Session. I deplore the long delay that has taken place in the summoning of that Conference. Lausanne was concluded last July, and it was, on the whole, highly successful. His share in that success is one of the greatest achievements of the Prime Minister's career. It was intended that Lausanne should be quickly followed by a conference of all the Powers with a view to arriving at the causes of the world-wide depression. Now we are told that it is unlikely to meet until next April. If that be so, a full year will have elapsed since the conclusion of the Lausanne Conference before any results can be expected from the World Economic Conference. While economists falter, while statesmen tarry, while Parliaments hold Debates such as this, the march of economic events goes on and the people suffer. It cannot go on indefinitely.
"Close behind I seem to hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near."
It is essential that the effort to be made at the Economic Conference should be begun speedily. As the Prime Minister has said, if the experts who have been meeting at Geneva are unable to make practical proposals at an early date, the Conference must not wait, and statesmen themselves should take the matter in hand. The outcome of that Conference, if it is to be useful, must remove restric-
40
tions on trade. There is universal assent as to that. The Prime Minister asked what contribution hon. Members of the Labour party were able to make to the agenda for that Conference. I would venture to lay before him one definite and specific suggestion which we on these benches desire to make after consultation with some of the ablest economists and others outside the walls of this House. We recognise, though we recognise it with regret, that it is impossible in the present state of world opinion to expect a universal levelling of the barriers against trade. Although it is recognised now in many countries which were strongly Protectionist hitherto that high Protection is a great evil and a cause of the universal depression, vested interests, such as those we have been busily creating in this country iii recent months, are too strong to enable any sweeping measure of change to be effected.
We suggest therefore, that we should follow the road that has already been indicated by some of the smaller Powers—Belgium and Holland in particular—and that the Government at the World Economic Conference should endeavour to form a group, as extensive as possible, of the low tariff Powers and of all who are ready to join it. This group should undertake that tariffs should be reduced among themselves to a maximum of 10 per cent.—either 10 per cent., or less, or nothing on certain articles, apart from revenue duties which should be defined. We suggest that this association of low tariff countries, which may, if circumstances are favourable, gradually enlarge its membership until it includes a large part of the commercial area of the world, should by adopting this method show the way to a general change in international fiscal policy. It will be necessary to modify the most-favoured-nation Clause of our treaties—not to abandon it, but to supplement it. There are already recognised exceptions in that Clause, and in the general interest it may be found possible to agree to other exceptions enabling such a combination of states to be made. It will also be an undertaking of this combination that they will not increase their tariff's against the other states which remain outside it, and that all shall be admissible.

41
The present negotiations which are being conducted by the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers must prove inadequate on account of the most-favoured-nation Clause. Again and again it has been pointed out in the House, though the country has not yet realised it, that we cannot make concessions to either Sweden or Denmark or any of the states with whom we are now negotiating without making equal concessions to every other country in the world, and they cannot make concessions to us without doing the same. It is therefore essential, if we are to do more than touch the fringe of the subject, to secure the modification of that Clause by general consent.
Secondly, we suggest that some check should be put upon future tariff increases by resolution of the World Economic Conference. As things stand, tariffs are regarded as matters of domestic interest and of no concern to neighbouring countries. We suggest that a different policy should be adopted by agreement. Armaments were regarded until recently as a purely domestic and internal matter, but it is now realised that they affect all countries and should be altered only by agreement. So with regard to tariffs we urge that there is need for a, new economic covenant to be signed by the nations of the world undertaking that tariffs shall not be increased without consultation and due notice. Here, again, the way has been shown by other countries in the Convention signed at Oslo by the Scandinavian States and Belgium and Holland. If it were generally adopted throughout the world, it might show the way again to better conditions.
Thirdly, it is unanimously agreed now in all countries that in order to relieve the economic world-wide depression it is essential to arrest the fall in world prices and to secure some recovery from the low prices that prevail. We urge upon the Government that, if the efforts to raise prices are merely local and national and limited to this country while the world fall continues, the results will be not merely futile but dangerous. They will tend to restrict our exports; they will tend to encourage our imports; they will worsen the balance of trade and further upset the exchanges. What methods should be adopted is a question of great complexity and difficulty. Ex-
42
periments in what is called reflation are going on on a large scale in America and on a smaller scale in France, Italy and Germany, and I have no doubt that that aspect will be examined at the World Economic Conference. We shall be pressed there by other nations to return to the Gold Standard. The present position without any stabilised standard is a precarious one, and it is dangerous. We should stabilise, but the usual opinion is that we should not stabilise yet, and we cannot stabilise until the restrictions on international trade are lessened and the question of war debts settled. Unless these objects are achieved before a return to the Gold Standard, the same forces that drove us off the Gold Standard might force us off it again.
Something has been said in the House to-day about debts and the payment of our debt to the United States, and probably it is wise that the House should be very restrained on that subject. It is a matter which is very much in our minds, but on which we can say little to advantage and little that might not embarrass the Government. I wish that we could, in Canning's famous phrase:
"call in the new world to redress the balance of the old "—
the balance in this case being the trade balance, but it depends on whether the Americans can see that it is not only a question of whether Europe can afford to pay, but whether America can afford to receive; and whether, in view of the necessity of a trade recovery, the transfer of great sums of money coupled with exclusion of goods must not injure prosperity both in the United States and all other countries in the world.
We on these benches welcome the emphasis in the King's Speech upon the need for disarmament. We regard the Disarmament Conference at Geneva as by far the most important event now happening in the world. I had the privilege of taking some part in those deliberations for several weeks earlier this year, and one impression among others which I derived from that experience was that the delegates of all the Powers were keenly conscious of the pressure of public opinion in the background. They knew that the nations were watching, and that if the Disarmament Conference did not arrive at definite results there would be, throughout the world, not merely dis-

43
appointment but vehement resentment, and that failure would be an encouragement to subversive forces in the various countries. There is, I believe, an intense public feeling in this country upon this subject. During the many years I have taken part in public life, I do not think that I have ever known public opinion among the general body of citizens more keenly alive than it is at this moment on the subject of peace and disarmament.
I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council that the solution of this problem is a matter for the younger generation. The responsibility rests on the statesmen of to-day, and the right maxim is one that is sometimes used—"Stop the next war now!" The recent declaration made by the Foreign Secretary at Geneva indicates a considerable step in advance, particularly in relation to air armaments. With regard to the Army, I was glad to know that the Government declared a favourable view to the Hoover proposals. I trust that they will favour also the French suggestion for reduction in the terms of military service. It is with regard to the Navy that some disappointment is felt, and if the proposals are accepted for the abolition of naval aircraft and submarines, and if the other naval Powers are willing to agree, I am inclined to think that the attitude of the Government with regard to the big battleship will need reconsideration. The Memorandum of the Foreign Secretary, which has been presented to the House as a White Paper, indicates that as Germany is to enjoy an equal status, she must be permitted to build ships of the same size as may be ultimately agreed to by the other Powers. If that be so, the question of the size of battleships becomes of even greater importance for, unless it is very considerably reduced, it will mean that we are opening the door to the resumption of rivalry in the building of great battleships. I am sorry that the statement made no reference to the possibility of budgetary limitation, which is an important matter in this connection.
We on these benches find ourselves in full accord with the paragraph in the King's Speech on India. We shall gladly co-operate in giving full effect to the Declaration which has been endorsed by this
44
House, and we dissociate ourselves entirely from the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), whose return to the House in restored health we are all glad to welcome. We feel strongly that we cannot permanently govern a great people like the Indian people merely by measures of crude coercion. We regret that the Labour party have withdrawn their representatives from the conferences that are now taking place. We consider that that was an error on their part. There ought to be full national unity in working out the details which are necessary to give practical effect to the Declaration of the House, of which the Labour party approved. For our part, through Lord Reading and Lord Lothian, we are cooperating in this effort and shall continue to do so until the new Indian constitution is carried into law.
Perhaps I may be allowed to mention one omission from the Gracious Speech. It is only a departmental matter, but one in which I have been keenly interested as a former and, indeed, recent Home Secretary. I am sorry that there is no reference to any measure of penal reform. The recommendations of various committees and other proposals are numerous and practicable; the time is fully ripe for a large and important measure of reform of our penal system, and I could have wished that this opportunity had been taken for passing it into law.
Finally, one of the latest paragraphs in the Speech is that which deals with unemployment, but the most relevant paragraph on the subject is the first one, touching the Economic Conference. In old days the King's Speech used to be divided fairly definitely into two compartments, foreign affairs and domestic affairs. Now, the two are inextricably intertwined, and the paragraph most relevant to unemployment is that dealing with international affairs. As to unemployment insurance and the provision of temporary work for those who are out of employment, such measures are, indeed, necessary, and I hope that the whole House, without distinction of parties, will co-operate in carrying a large amending Bill into law. But any such measures cannot be in any degree a substitute for the measures needed to restore the workless to employment in their ordi-

45
nary occupations or in other effective work which the economic needs of the country require, and which ought to be carried into effect. The Prime Minister spoke at some length, but with much vagueness, as to the plans of the Government in this regard.
We asked in the recent Debate on unemployment whether, in view of the new financial conditions, the Government were proposing to take any definite action for the development especially of housing plans. We have had no answer of any kind. The Prime Minister has merely said that the Government will encourage municipalities to resume their ordinary work. Now that money is cheap and building costs have been lowered, there are many experts who think the time is propitious for housing plans on a large scale; and particularly if the provision of houses were combined with the provision of gardens, which could be done at no great increase of cost, it should be not impossible in existing conditions to provide houses which are urgently needed not only on terms much less onerous than hitherto, but on terms that might involve little or no loss at all. The advantage to the building trades, which are suffering particularly from the depression, would be immense, and I think the House is entitled to have some answer from the Government as to whether they are giving serious consideration to this matter, whether at least they will not inquire whether the different financial conditions now prevailing would not justify a more forward policy than has hitherto been followed.
Similarly with regard to smallholdings and land settlement. There, again, the Prime Minister though encouraging, was exceedingly vague, and we should like to know whether any specific, definite steps are being taken to review the whole situation. The matter is urgent, not only on account of the needs of the unemployed, but also because these money conditions may not long prevail. As soon as trade begins to revive they will gradually disappear, and the time for any action to be taken is now, if it is to be taken at all. No doubt economy is essential. We are not suggesting any lavish or wasteful expenditure, or any expenditure on objects that involve an onerous charge upon the rates or the taxes, and we
46
entirely agree with the paragraph in the King's Speech which says that careful supervision of public expenditure is still necessary. By a great effort last year we redeemed the financial situation, and it is essential that we should not slip back into the position in which we were then. But when that has been said all has not been said. True, we must not impose fresh burdens on the rates and taxes, but we do urge that, subject to that condition, there should be an inquiry as to whether works could not be carried out for national development which would not involve the evils to which I have referred. We look to the Government for action in those matters. Besides the medical simile we have had the nautical simile of "All hands to the pumps." It appears to some of us that we are in danger of finding ourselves in a ship which is all pumps and no engines. There is a need of motive power. The nation does require from the Government a policy in these matters of vigour and of action.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I wish to raise certain points with regard to unemployment which I vainly tried to raise at the end of last Session. The question of unemployment is so urgent and so grave that one does not feel justified in delaying in putting forward any proposals which might be of assistance. The Gracious Speech says:
"In the view of My Ministers any provision for unemployed persons should not only afford material assistance but should also be designed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work when opportunity can be found."
The proposals I wish to put forward fulfil those qualifications, I think, and I am also impelled to submit them by the remarks of the Prime Minister when he said that unused land, or partly used land or badly drained land would have the particular attention of the Government with a view to its becoming productive and giving employment. In the Black Country we have had for many years a scheme for the reclamation of waste lands. Those waste lands consist of slag heaps, mine dumps, pits and stagnant ponds, which are a general waste and desolation and an eyesore to the neighbourhood, and reflect very seriously on the chances of new industries settling

47
there and restoring prosperity to that great industrial area. We have been busy on this subject for some time. Members of Parliament representing Black Country divisions have had various meetings to discuss this reclamation scheme, and although they cannot all get into the Debate they are all very anxious to help forward these proposals. I see in front of me my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie), who, I know, tried to get an opportunity to speak only 10 days ago. We want to get adopted a scheme which will enable us to level that land and to use it for factory sites and building sites. I quite concur with the statement of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that we ought to press on with housing. I believe the building societies are anxious to come to some arrangement with the Government, and the more quickly they can do so the better, because there is a vast amount of unemployment in the building trade. We want houses in the Black Country, and we want gardens and allotments and extra spaces for parks and recreation grounds.
We have already started. Various small schemes have been put through. In Bilston, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, we have already levelled about 50 acres at a cost of £11,000, and we have on that site four factories. We employed 100 men for nine months in doing the work, and we are now employing 150 men—I hope permanently. I would press upon the Govment that this is not merely a temporary scheme to employ men for a few months in the winter. If we can get that land levelled and made available for practical use we shall get regular employment for the very men who are clearing the sites, because we shall get factories there which will give the men permanent employment. I am told there are at least 10,000 acres in these dumps and waste lands in the Black Country. It is not like remote moorland, where communication would be bad, houses would have to be built and drainage and water supply provided. This is land in the very middle of what has been the greatest industrial area in England, with railways running all directions, with canals, excellent roads, up-to-date housing, sewers and everything else that is needed, and why should we be so
48
foolish as to leave that land untouched? The clerk to the Bilston council, who has been largely responsible for these schemes, and has acted as secretary for eight local authorities who joined into a group for the reclamation of land in the. Black Country, came to London 10 days ago to see about these things. I advised him to go to the Unemployment Grants Committee. He did so, but was there told, so I understand, that no schemes were being considered or sanctioned at the present moment. I want to press the Government to remedy that state of affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in the House on 8th November:
"we may, and I hope we shall, find a certain number of schemes that would justify Government action.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1932; col. 260. Vol. 270.]
We shall not find them unless we look for them, and unless we consider very carefully all the schemes that are put forward, and I feel confident that, this Black Country scheme, if it is considered, will be one of the first to be adopted. What they want is a grant of 75 per cent. towards wages. That is another point of the scheme. The whole money goes direct in wages to the unemployed. It is a very practical way of employing labour. They want 75 per cent. from the Government, as they have had before, on the terms that when the land is sold the Government draw back 75 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale. Then they also want authority from the Government to borrow money to enable them to buy the land. If the Government can see their way to do this, and to make it for a term of years and not merely for a few months this winter, and we can get a scheme going, it will prove riot only of temporary benefit to the unemployed of the area but of permanent benefit to the area. I would prefer to see the money distributed over as large a number of people as possible. I would prefer to see a larger number of people employed for a few hours a week than a few people for the whole of the week. That would benefit a great number of people who, owing to the low rates of unemployment pay—necessarily low because the money for it has to come out of industry—and the working of the means test, are undoubtedly living on the verge of destitution. If we could distribute this extra money in small sums for a few hours a week, it would, as ex-

49
pressed in the Gracious Speech, enable the unemployed
"to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work."
It would enable them to bridge over these very bad times. We are up against difficulties in that direction, because I imagine that if we adopted such a method of payment it would bring down the means test and we should not be very much more forward so far as the financial position of those unfortunate individuals went. I do not know what the views of the Government would be on this suggestion, but it is possible that the local authorities might have a certain amount of authority not to reckon the whole of the proceeds against the means test. I am sure that it would enable a lot more to be done and that it would spread the available relief over a much wider area.
May I now refer to the Road Fund? A good many industries in this country depend upon the making of roads, not only those who manufacture the road materials, but those in which steel trucks and rails are made. A great many people in the Black Country depend upon the making of roads. I was told that the Road Fund had been two years in debt and that therefore no further grants could be made from the Road Fund. That was a year ago, and I presume that now the fund is only one year in debt. I respectfully suggest that the debt should he gradually, and not suddenly, written off. If we wrote off 25 per cent. of the debt in each of the next four years, that would be a reasonable way of meeting the situation. The position of this country to-day is a little like the position of a drug addict. If a man has been taking drugs for a number of years, you cannot expect suddenly to cut him off and give him no more drugs. We have been spoon-feeding the country and spending hundreds of millions of pounds on various schemes, such as road schemes, to relieve unemployment. If you suddenly cut that off, you are treating the country unfairly and you are not giving it a chance to recover. We should be more gradual in our efforts, and we should allow the Road Fund to spend at least three-quarters of its income.
One further point with which I wish to deal concerns the coal trade and hydrogenation. The Prime Minister has told us that the Government are considering
50
that question and are anxious to do what they can. If they could reduce the duty on petrol from home sources and from home coal, it would give a favourable impetus to our own coal production and prevent the importation of so much petrol and oil from abroad. I cannot see that that needs an enormous amount of consideration. I should have thought that it would give an immediate benefit to our industries.
I hope that in the unemployment legislation something is going to be clone to help industrial cripples. At the present time we are doing nothing to provide for the training and rehabilitation of those who are injured in factories and mines, in motor accidents, or in other such ways. Practically nowhere in this country can an adult get training or rehabilitation. We are very much behind the rest of the civilised world in that respect. I took it up with the Government, and I was told that the Government Departments are looking into it. I hope that they will look into it quickly, because when we do get employment restored it will be a disgrace to us if we have a large number of industrial cripples who cannot be put hack into employment. We have the money. Vast sums of money are spent in compensation for industrial or motor accidents, and only a small proportion of it will be required for the training and rehabilitation of those men. It does not need taxation. All it needs is administration and possibly sonic legislation. All it needs is for some Department to produce a scheme to deal with it. I urge the Government to deal with it, in order to bring us at least abreast of the Continent and of America in this respect.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. BATEY: The Prime Minister left some of us wondering what he really meant by some of the statements that he made. I was rather amused when he began, because he pretended to be angry with the Leader of the Opposition for criticising the King's Speech. I think the Leader of the Opposition was extremely mild in his criticism of the King's Speech. This is the eleventh King's Speech that I have heard since I came into the House, and I am bound to say that it is the most vague of any. It is the vaguest King's Speech that we could possibly have. It seems just like a skeleton of

51
dry bones. There are no fleshy parts, and there is no life in it. If King's Speeches have descended to this, one can imagine that they will be soon abolished altogether. The Prime Minister said that the object of the King's Speech was to say what the Government proposed to do during the Session. If we have to learn from this King's Speech what the Government are proposing to do during the Session, there is very little cheerful reading in it for the bulk of the working class of this country. Apart from the London Passenger Transport Bill, which the Prime Minister says the Government are proposing to take as soon as they get clear of the Address, there is nothing in the King's Speech that will give any hope to the working class.
The Prime Minister has been responsible for five King's Speeches. This is his fifth. He was responsible for the first three under the Labour Government. None of the five was anything to boast about. The first three were poor affairs that never satisfied any of us who sat on the back benches behind him. His last two have been worse. Last year's was the worst up to then, but this year the King's Speech is the worst of all. If the House of Commons cannot look beyond this King's Speech, there is very little to hope for during the coming Session. The Prime Minister did not tell us what the Government propose to do in order to find work for the unemployed. Neither did he tell us what the Government propose to do to help the unemployed who cannot get work and who, he said, were not temporarily but permanently out of work. I would have liked the Prime Minister to have told us what the Government propose to do to help the unemployed who have no prospect of getting work. This reference in the King's Speech to legislation to deal with the unemployed simply proposes to make the situation worse. The legislation which the Government proposes will impoverish the unemployed and will make their position worse than it is at the present time. There is nothing in that to give the least ray of hope to the unemployed.
I am interested in a matter that affects my own district. This morning one has read that the Government have de-
52
cided, in dealing with the means test and transitional payments in Durham County, to set aside the public assistance committee and to appoint three commissioners. They propose to appoint three bogy men to examine the people of Durham in regard to transitional payments. If the Government were determined that the unemployed in Durham should be starved, I would rather three bogy men should go down and attempt to do it than that the public assistance committee should do it, and in that sense I do not complain. I complain of the Minister of Labour having the power to supplant elected representatives of the public. There is no man alive good enough to set aside men who have been publicly elected to represent the county. I believe in public representation. I believe that the only people who ought to deal with public representatives are the people who elect them.
I want to make this protest here. This will not be the last occasion. We shall have a lot more chances to deal with this question of the action of the Minister of Labour, in supplanting the public representatives upon the public assistance committee in Durham and filling their places with three bogy men who will do just what he says in order to starve the people. The Prime Minister is still sitting for a constituency in Durham. I would like to know where he stands in regard to this action, and whether the Minister of Labour, before he took the extreme step of appointing commissioners to Durham, had the permission and the sanction of the Prime Minister to do it. Naturally, one is bound to blame the whole of the Government and to hold them responsible. One does not hesitate to hold the Prime Minister responsible for this dastardly action of the Minister of Labour in supplanting the public assistance committee in Durham, without coming to the House of Commons or of saying a word in order to give the House of Commons a chance to discuss it. The action of the Minister of Labour is a dastardly action and one that we cannot too strongly condemn.
The very district to which he is applying these three commissioners, and insisting that they shall impoverish the unemployed, is one of the distressed areas in the county. The Government are doing nothing to help the coal industry

53
in Durham. All that the Government have done since they came into office has been to make the condition worse in Durham. Large parts of the county are simply derelict. I have a statement that was sent to me to-day showing that there are 77,000 fewer miners employed to-day than in April, 1924. There is no place where they can get work. Pits are closed, and the men are rivetted to the colliery villages. All that the Government can do is to say: "We will not allow the public representatives in Durham, who know you best, to keep you. We will see that three commissioners go to Durham to carry out what the Ministry of Labour decides to carry out, and they will insist upon impoverishing all those in receipt of transitional payment." That is a very black outlook for our people.
The Prime Minister stood at that Box before the House adjourned last Session, and said that the Government had been considering for the last 12 months the question of hydrogenation, and, when one turns from the question of the men who are unemployed, and likely to remain unemployed, to the question of finding work for them by promoting industry, one naturally looks at that statement of the Prime Minister, that for the last 12 months the Government have been considering the question of hydrogenation. As a matter of fact, the Government have done nothing in the matter of hydrogenation. The Seconder of the Address talked about the march of science. Science has taught us that, in the hydrogenation process, low temperature carbonisation, colloidal fuel, and pulverized coal, there are several ways in which the coal industry might be restored, and might be restored now if we only had a Govern-merit that would take an interest in the industry and would try to help it.
When the House adjourned last Thursday, a Message was read as to what the Government had done for agriculture. This present Speech, if it says anything at, all—it does not say very much—says something about what the Government have done, and what they propose to do, for agriculture. I have no objections to the Government helping agriculture, but when, in doing so, they help the farmers and the landlords, and when one remembers that our mining classes will have to pay for that in increased cost of living,
54
I submit that the Government, while they are helping agriculture, should also be prepared to help other industries at the same time, and certainly the mining industry. In spite of the fact that we have so many thousands of men unemployed, I believe that, if the Government wanted to help the mining industry, they could do so, just as they are helping agriculture now.
When the Labour Government were in office, they made an arrangement with the banks to come to the help of industry, and in that way it was understood that they should help the cotton industry while it was reorganising. In my opinion, now is the time when the Government might say to the banks, "You have an abundance of money which you cannot use; help the mining industry in order to put it on its feet." One of the troubles at the present time is not that coal-owners would not build plant or attempt the development of the extraction of oil from coal; the trouble is that they have not the capital. I hold that the Government could encourage the banks to stand behind the mining industry so that the industry might erect the necessary plant and extract oil from coal. One sees from to-day's papers that the President of the Board of Trade was at Newcastle yesterday examining some Diesel engines, and there again there is hope for the coal industry. When miners see in the Press that there are these possibilities of helping the coal industry, they begin to think that there is some hope, but, although they hope on, nothing is done.
The Prime Minister talked to-day as if the Government wanted to help the unemployed. Here is a chance for them to help an important industry. Ministers can discuss as much as they like plans and schemes for heaping the unemployed, but there is only one way to solve the problem, and that is by putting our basic trades on their feet. Here is one most important basic trade which could he put on its feet if the Government only desired to help in doing so. The slow starvation that is going on in our mining villages, with no hope or prospect for the people there, is so tragic that we cannot leave it alone, and we are bound, in this new Session of Parliament, to keep hammering away at the Government to do something. It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to talk in the vague

55
way in which he talked to-day; I want the Government really to try to do something to help the mining industry.
The Seconder of the Address referred to the use of machinery. A great many committees and commissions have been appointed, but I wish we could get the Government to appoint one more to inquire into the use of machinery and the way in which machinery is displacing men. I have a suspicion that, although machinery is supplanting so many men, the machinery itself does not reduce the cost of production, when you reckon the capital cost of the machines and the working cost of the machines. I should like the Government, if they could, to have an inquiry as to whether it is wise to develop so much machinery, and whether, seeing that men have got to live, so much machinery should be allowed to develop and to supplant men.
I take it that, after the Prime Minister's speech to-day, we have to believe that the Government are sincere and want to do something to help the unemployed. I have suggested, first, that they should help the installation of plant for the extraction of oil from coal, and, secondly, that they should look into the question of the installation of machinery which has displaced men. My third suggestion is that, if the Government were to inquire into the overtime question, and whether something could not be done in the way of curtailing the hours of overtime worked and so giving other men a chance, the time would be well spent. I conclude on the same topic with which I started. i see that the Lord President of the Council is here, and I want to express to him my regret that the Government should have sent three commissioners to Durham to supplant the local public assistance committee without giving this House a chance to discuss the matter. We shall be bound to take every opportunity of bringing that matter before the House, with a view to restoring, if possible, public representation, and not allowing any one man, no matter who he is, to have this immense power of supplanting public representatives.
6.11 p.m.
Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) will forgive me if I do not follow all the very interesting points which he has raised, but there
56
is one of them to which I should like to refer. I am no defender of the bankers, but, when the hon. Member says that the bankers have plenty of money, and ought to make advances to the mining industry, I think everyone will agree that there is no difficulty in any mining company getting money from any banker if they are prepared to put up adequate security. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that it is the duty of the bankers to look after the money of their depositors. If he were a banker, he would surely consider it his first duty to preserve the money of his depositors, and not to advance it without adequate security. I am confident, however, that no banker would refuse accommodation to any mining company that was able to provide definite security.
I observe that, although there is no representative of the Treasury present, the Lord President of the Council is here. He was at one time at the Treasury, and, while he has now no direct responsibility with regard to the Treasury, I have no doubt that he takes an interest in it, and he is responsible, with other Cabinet Ministers, for policy. Therefore, he will perhaps allow me to ask his attention to one omission from the Gracious Speech. It contains no reference whatever to the very important question of monetary policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently very courteously answered a question of mine in which I asked whether, in view of the sudden fall in the value of the £ and the fluctuations in exchange, he proposed to take any steps to restore the value of the £ so that the notes might be equal in value to the gold to which they represented. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, referred me to the statement which he made at Ottawa to the effect that he could not see any prospect of a speedy return to the Gold Standard, nor was he prepared to say at the present time at what parity such a return should be effected if and when it took place. In answer to that, I said that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should take an opportunity at a date convenient to the right hon. Gentleman of raising this question, either on the Adjournment or on some other occasion. This seems to be an appropriate occasion.
There are many who say you cannot have a return to specie payments until

57
certain things have taken place, such as a settlement of the debts question and a rise in commodity prices. I hope I shall be able to show that that is not so, and that there is no reason at all why you should nit have a standard of values, just as you have a yard measure. Important as these other questions are, I believe that the return of a sound currency system would advance the debt question. For example, take the question of the interest on the American debt. As a result of the depreciated exchange, I believe it is approximately £58,500,000, whereas in normal conditions it would be £30,000,000. Many Americans are very anxious that we should return to the Gold Standard. I admit that it must in the nature of things be gradual, but, if the British Government were to indicate that that is their intention, that would tend to induce them to revise the question of the debt. It would be to their interest to do so, because it is to their interest that we should return to parity, and. if we showed a disposition to move in that direction, it would unquestionably hasten the movement in the United States towards a revision of the debt question.
Many people may ask why we should get back to the old parity. They say it would entail a great deal of distress and unemployment. They say that being on the Gold Standard accentuated unemployment and, when we went off it, there was immediately a stimulus to trade and a feeling of relief. That is true, but the stimulus was only temporary. it only lasted while we had goods on Oil r shelves that we wished to dispose of, but it penalised our imports, so that our last state was worse that the first. It is also argued that it would entail very serious deflation and a still further fall in prices. We all desire to raise prices provided it is brought about in a legitimate way, but to raise prices by manipulation of the currency would, of course, leave us in a worse state than before. [Interruption.] An hon. Member suggests tariffs. I am trying to avoid anything of a controversial character and to confine myself entirely to what will appeal to all, irrespective of whether they are Free Traders or Protectionists. We are all desirous of having a sound monetary policy. That prevails in the United States, where they are Protectionists,
58
and also in many countries in Europe. The tariff question does not enter into it, and I do not propose to bring it into the argument. Many people argue that a return to the Gold Standard will entail great distress, and they ask how will this raise prices. We are all anxious to see a rise in the prices of commodities.
The great call to-day is that the prices of the great staples are standing at such levels that there is no profit for the producer. If we can, by reducing costs, increase profits it does not alter so much the actual price at which the article is sold, the price which wool and wheat commands in the markets of the world. Surely the real question is whether commodities are selling at prices which bring a profit to the producer. I believe the profits will be brought about by the restoration of a sound monetary policy, and I suggest, as a means to that end, that the British Government should take measures for the restoration of a sound monetary policy. It is held in many quarters that our going off the Gold Standard last October was largely due to the enormous commitments that we had abroad, frozen credits, debts and so forth. While these are very important matters, I do not see why the establishment of a gold standard of values cannot be achieved, just as you have established the yard measure. The maintenance of the Gold Standard does not depend on your commitments abroad. For many years before going off the Gold Standard we had an adverse exchange. If you have an adverse exchange, there is some reason for it. In 1929 no less than £80,000,000 of gold bullion was exported.
Mr. MAGNAY: Was not the gold hoarded?
Mr. MASON: It is immaterial whether it was hoarded. It was taken from the Bank of England because it was profitable to take it. When the rate of exchange reaches a certain figure, it becomes profitable for anyone to take gold. The point is that there was some cause at work which created that unfavourable exchange. When we were working normally in the City of London, so delicately poised was this balance that £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 exported turned the exchange either in our favour or against us. When we find that during that year no less than £80,000,000 was exported, that indicates that there was

59
something at fault. The cause was that you had too excessive a fiduciary note issue. Your notes were redundant. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposed to take so that the notes should be equal in value to the gold that they represented. The redundant fiduciary issue created an artificial extension of credit leading to a still further depreciated exchange. Instead of contracting the note issue it was increased by no less than £15,000,000, so that the fiduciary issue to-day, instead of being £260,000,000, is £275,000,000. The late Government accentuated the position by running into debt to the extent of £1,000,000 a week, and the large deficit undoubtedly had an effect on foreigners who lend their balances to London. How are we to attract foreign balances to London again? If you are to re-establish London as an international banking centre, you must be able to show the foreign banker that he will get back what he lends you, and that your system is a sound one. When he saw the increase in the fiduciary note issue in August, he began to withdraw his balances. That became a run and that, accentuated by other factors, led to us going off the Gold Standard. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have challenged us to produce some constructive suggestion.
Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the hon. Member explain how the effect of restoring London as a monetary centre will do away with unemployment and put our industries on their feet?
Mr. MASON: If you reduce your note issue so that the exchange rises and your notes are equal in value to the gold that they represent, there will be no difficulty in maintaining the Gold Standard. Our role is that of a great international banker, shipper and export trader, and the fact of restoring London, so that a bill on London is as good as gold, will mean that the foreigner will keep large balances in London, and these are the resources of the London money market. When you have restored confidence and have large funds accumulated in London, you are in a position for the flotation of foreign loans. There is a great field for development in China, India, Bolivia and in all parts of South America. [An HON.
60
MEMBER: "And in England!"] Certainly, but not perhaps to the same extent, and that is why proposals to have large loans and, so to speak, to take in each other's washing in this little island, are not going to settle unemployment. You have to restore London as a monetary centre and to have great international loans. There is a demand for such a railway loan, say in China. If you had a loan floated, say of £1,000,000, for China it would not mean that it would go to China in cash, but in the supply of rails, locomotives and equipment; and it would be the same in regard to South America.
The hon. Member was anxious to know how that would affect unemployment, and I submit that I have now shown him how to get rid of unemployment. If you restore London as a monetary centre and get rid of those restrictions, encourage foreign lending and bring your note issues so that they represent money actually held against them, there will be no difficulty whatever in maintaining the Gold Standard. I have said already how this would unquestionably stimulate and advance the settlement of that important problem. It would encourage America, which is anxious to see a recovery in world trade, to revise her debt claim. It is to her interest that we should restore the Gold Standard in this country and again come into line with them and the other great Powers. I believe that if we carried out this reform it would be of great advantage. I observe that there is now a representative of the Treasury present on the Front Bench, and I shall be glad if I can, in any shape or form, impress him with the importance of the consideration of this problem. There is no reference in the Gracious Speech to a monetary policy, and the importance of expediting the country's restoration to sound finance instead of waiting either for the settlement of War Debts, or until prices rise, or until you get rid of the maldistribution of gold. If you restore the position here, these things will tend to come back to this country. All things you desire will be likely to open up to you if you pursue what I believe to be a sound policy, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to submit the consideration of this problem to His Majesty's Government.
6.33 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I have heard indeed a voice crying in the wilderness for the return of the Gold Standard, but I have heard a plea that this country should again allow its industry to be crucified on the cross of gold. The speech to which we have just listened puts the view of the City of London, and the City of London alone, and it is a speech which we might indeed have expected to-day from the ornamental figure, with the top hat and the button hole, who sat for such a short period on the Front Bench. I do not want to follow the argument on gold or silver, but I think there is much more to be said for the legalisation of silver as legal tender than getting back to the Gold Standard. But these are Treasury matters and it ill behoves a private 'Member to join in debate on these particular points. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] It is for the Minister to answer and not a private Member.
After a short holiday of three days, we are now back in a new Session and the Order of Procedure of this House must indeed have a very big effect upon the business done and upon our deliberations. At the beginning of this Parliament, Sir, when we had the great privilege of electing you to your Chair, you gave to us what His Majesty has given to us to-day, a gracious speech. It is, I think, the only time that you are allowed to address us, and, frankly, I would very much like to see the Rules of Procedure altered so that every year from that Chair you were allowed to deliver a speech to us upon procedure and the general behaviour of Members. I think that it would be of advantage to the House and would be appreciated by all.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not give one every day?
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: To some people Mr. Speaker does speak every day. You made an appeal, Sir, when you spoke from that Chair that Members of the House of Commons should speak for a shorter time, and nothing was more admirable than the sentiment contained in that wish. I have always tried to conform to such an appeal. I almost adept a shorthand type of delivery. But, looking through the OFFICIAL REPORT, I find this distressing
62
thing, that those people who speak the longest are called the most. I appeal to you, Sir, if you wish us to conform to your wishes, that it will indeed help us if those who speak for a short time get encouragement and if those who are garrulous are riot, perhaps, noticed by your eye to the disfavour of those who occupy the time of the House for lesser periods.
There is another point I should like to say a word upon with regard to procedure. There was a time when the parties in this House were numerically more or less evenly divided, and in that case there was a speech from one side of the House and a speech from the other. Consequently, the House of Commons obtained a reputation for being the finest debating Chamber in the world. That was true. But those circumstances have entirely changed, and to-day we find, so to speak, four parties in this House, and it is preposterous to have a Debate conducted on the basis of one speech from the party in power and one speech from the three other microscopic parties which constitute the Opposition. We are in a preponderance of no less than five to one, and, in that speeches of this House have repercussions and an effect throughout the country, it seems to me that we can almost claim the right of four Government supporters' speeches to one Opposition speech. I am not trying, I assure you, Sir, to lay down any recommendations to you. I should be both to do such a thing as that, and I know that from your point of view the desire is to keep the Debate going upon a high level. But, with a preponderance of no less than five to one, sometimes we back benchers think that these microscopic parties from the Clyde, and the various shades of Liberal opinion have rather more than their share of the Debate. I do not complain at this particular time, because I know that early in the Session the Government are never very hurried and time can be given to various things quite easily. But as we get more and more towards the summer the business gets more congested. We ask for your help to have shorter speeches in order that the Government may get through their business as efficaciously and as quickly as possible, and so turn the speeches in this House into action by the Government.
6.40 p.m.
JOHN WITHERS: I associate myself practically with the whole of the suggestions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), but I only propose to trouble the House for five minutes. I think that one ought to be able to say in five or 10 minutes what is necessary if he knows what it is he wishes to say. From the Gracious Speech there is one very serious omission, and that is the question of legislation with regard to the railways. The position of the railways is an extremely serious one. The earnings of railways are decreasing and causing a very serious state of affairs, and, if it goes on in the same way, in a little time the position will be desperate. The matter ought to be looked at from three points of view. First, the national point of view; secondly, the point of view of employés; and, thirdly, the point of view of the proprietors. If we look at those points of view in that order, we must come to the conclusion that the matter is very serious indeed. From the point of view of the nation, the national efficiency must seriously be affected if the railways are allowed to go on as they are. Secondly, unemployment must steadly increase. In fact, a large number of men have already been thrown out of employment.
As regards the holders of the stock, the position is really very serious indeed. In 1931 no dividends were paid on £111,000,000 of capital, and on £95,000,000 only one-quarter was paid, and for the first six months of 1932 no interim dividend was paid on £391,000,000 of capital, as compared with £371,000,000 of capital for the first six months of 1931. An important Commission, known as the Salter Commission, reported at the end of July, and made certain unanimous recommendations. I do not for a moment say that we should be tied to the different unanimous suggestions, but something really must be done without any further delay. In another place a very important Resolution was recently passed, on the initiation of Lord Buckmaster, calling the attention of the Government to it, and all I can do now is to reiterate that appeal and to beg of the Government, notwithstanding the omission from the Gracious Speech of reference to the rail-
64
ways, to do something as early as possible during the present Session.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. RAMSDEN: I wish to take the opportunity afforded by this Debate to call attention to the very serious effect upon our export trade, and consequently upon unemployment, of the exchange restrictions and other devices which are being used by foreign countries and which have the effect of making it impossible for so many of our exporters and manufacturers to obtain payment for goods which they have sold and which also make it difficult to sell further goods. The matter is a very serious one because the restrictions apply to over 30 countries. I am afraid that we cannot quite judge by the Trade and Navigation returns if we desire to form an estimate of the amount of damage which is being done to us. When we abandoned the Gold Standard, the export trade was given a certain advantage in selling goods in markets which had been closed to us for some time, and at the beginning of the present year there was, not a boom, but a temporary increase in our exports. Now, unfortunately, with the restrictions which exist in many countries business is becoming increasingly difficult.
The problem divides itself into two. There is, in the first place, the question of goods which have been delivered and for which it is impossible at the present moment to obtain payment. These are generally known as "frozen credits." This in itself is an extremely serious matter, because it means that the capital that could be utilised in developing business in other directions is frozen at the present time in those countries. The next problem is the difficulty, and in many cases the impossibility, of selling in the 30 odd countries to which I have referred. One understands, particularly those who have visited and traded with those countries, the troubles and trials that they are going through, and one sympathises with them, but our first sympathies lie with our own exporters and manufacturers and those who are unemployed here because of these foreign exchange restrictions. I will give briefly one or two examples of what is happening. Take Chile. Chile formerly was an extremely good market for British goods, but to-day it is impossible to get one single penny out of Chile. Owing to the restrictions that have been placed upon

65
the payment of foreign exchange the position now is that one cannot get money in payment for any accounts that one has in that country.
Greece is another example of a country where restrictions have been imposed which are making the position very serious. Under the regulations that exist In Greece to-day one can only obtain payment for goods in a period of five years. Settlement has to be made in 10 instalments, payable every six months. I admit that a slight amendment has been made, to the effect that if the exporter on this side is willing to accept the coin of the country, drachmas in the case of Greece, the account may be paid in two years, but, with the exchange as it is, that is of very little value. I am sorry to say that I consider the Greeks have been most unfair in their treatment of our nationals and, what is still more to the point, they have not even carried out the agreements into which they entered. Hungary is another case where very severe exchange restrictions are making business extremely difficult not only from the point of view of receiving payment for sales that have been made in good faith, but also for the sale of goods in the future. I had the opportunity of visiting Hungary during the present year and I saw the handicaps that were being placed in the way of those Hungarians who were desirous, and, in some cases very willing, to pay their accounts.
The offer that has been made by Hungary under what is known as the "Stand-still Agreement"—not, incidentally, an agreement between the two countries but merely between certain banks in this country and the National Bank of Hungary—is that debts should be paid at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. This may be a satisfactory arrangement so far as the bankers are concerned. To obtain a return of 5 per cent. per annum on the capital that has been invested in that country may be considered to be adequate remuneration, but to pay a trade debt at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum is very unfair. It means to many people who are borrowing money from their banks at the present time that the 5 per cent. they receive merely goes to pay the interest on their overdraft. At the end of 20 years the amount will have been paid, but they will still be owing the
66
capital to the bank. Those who are in business realise that 20 years is a long time not only in the history of a country but particularly in the history of a business firm, and the individual or firm to whom goods may have been sold in 1930, 1931 or 14132 may not be in existence in the year 1950, when this system comes to an end. Uruguay is another country which is telling the trading community that they must rely upon a Gold Bond for the payment of the goods they have sold. These bonds are supposed to be redeemable in five years, but what they will be worth then one cannot say. Speaking as a, Yorkshireman, I want to see actual money and not bonds of either Uruguay or of any other country. Bonds of this type are very difficult to turn into actual cash and they are of very little value in financing a business.
These are merely examples of the numerous exchange restrictions in over 30 countries which are not only penalising our exporters because they cannot obtain payment for the goods they have sold, but are making it very difficult to carry on trade at all. Turkey, Estonia, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and other countries too numerous to mention also have put on all kinds of restrictions in the way of our doing trade. I should like to mention, as an example, two things that have been done in European countries which I consider to be extremely unfair and against the interests of trade in this country. Rumania has placed restrictions upon the payment of currency for foreign accounts, by means of a Government decree, issued a short time ago which make it impossible to obtain sterling exchange in payment of a British account unlss three months' credit has been given. In many cases in a country like Rumania one is prepared to sell goods on cash terms, that is, cash against the document, but to say that we must be compelled to give 90 days' credit is unfair treatment of our nationals. In Yugoslavia they have also done something which appears to be unfair. They have allowed their nationals to settle their accounts at the rate of 200 dinars to the pound, which is well below the actual rate of exchange that exists to-day. The rate of exchange on which business can be obtained is something like 255 or 280 dinars to the pound sterling. The Yugoslavian Government, however, has laid

67
it down that payment at the rate of 200 dinars to the pound is a satisfactory settlement of a debt. I feel that they have done something which must be contrary to Treaties that are in existence. I understand that with practically all the countries of the world we have commercial or other treaties which stipulate that the nationals of the two countries shall receive equal treatment. It is certainly not equal treatment when British subjects are compelled to give credit while their own nationals are not forced to do so or are paid a sum which is a good deal below that which we have a right to receive. It appears to me that many countries have taken action which assists their nationals to break contracts and to repudiate the payment of just debts in a way which should never take place between countries that are on terms of friendship and peace. Hon. Members may say: "You are criticising the arrangement made. What do you think should be done." I have my own definite views, and I feel that the Government ought to make it very clear to foreign countries that we are no longer willing to allow our nationals to be deprived of the payments due to them, while our people in turn are expected to pay for the goods that they buy in those countries. All that I ask is that we should get fair treatment. All countries with credit restrictions are selling quite freely in this country, some of them more and some of them less. There is no impediment placed in the way of the payment of our debts to them, but, on the other hand, there are considerable restrictions placed in the way of payments to us. Each country ought to be treated on its merits. It is necessary that we should take action and see that the credits that we have here are utilised for the payment of foreign debts that are Owing to us.
I should like to read an extract from the "Manchester Chamber of Commerce Journal" for the month of October. With regard to the question of foreign exchange restrictions it says:
"Having given the subject renewed consideration in the light of existing conditions, the Manchester Chamber is convinced that it is highly important for the preservation of British export trade that action should be taken by His Majesty's Government with the least possible delay to bring about some
68
amelioration in the difficulties caused by the foreign exchange restrictions."
It goes on to say:
"If it were made clear to the countries in question that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to continue indefinitely to tolerate a situation in which British exporters were being gravely penalised, the Chamber considers that the authorities in the different countries would speedily find ways and means of meeting the British position much more adequately than they do at present."
I agree with that view entirely, and I also agree with another paragraph:
"Such measures—
Here they are referring to practical steps to be taken—
"might take the form of assuming control, either over the sterling credits arising from the sale of imports into this country from the countries affected, or of limiting, by the method of quota or otherwise, the volume of British imports from these countries. Whatever the method chosen the object would be to protect this country from the obvious injustice of the maintenance of a trade balance favourable to countries which nevertheless continue to withhold from British traders reasonable facilities for bringing home the funds arising from the sale of British goods."
I agree very cordially with the views of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and I feel that it is necessary in our own interests that we should take energetic action. The matter has been rather allowed to go by default. I do not think the effect of these restrictions is being realised as keenly as it ought to be. Other countries, such as Italy and Germany, faced with exactly the same position that we are in have taken action, energetic action, which certainly has been beneficial to their own traders.
We know that at the present time tariff negotiations are taking place with a number of countries. I hope that no tariff negotiations will take place with any country where exchange restrictions exist which make it impossible for us to obtain payment for any goods that we sell there. One of the soundest rules of business is that you do not sell your goods unless you can get payment for them. Any reduction of tariffs by any of these countries which at the present time may come to us to seek to enter into a bargain will be of no value whatsoever to us. It may be of value to the other country, because if we reduce our tariff and give them a more favourable opportunity of selling here

69
they will gain by it, but even if the tariffs of the countries where these tariff restrictions exist were removed entirely to-day it would be impossible for us to do business, for the very good reason that we cannot possibly get payment for the goods we sell. I have spoken on the first day of the Debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, because I am desirous of having this question ventilated. It is of the greatest importance. Unless we are careful we are going to have serious injury inflicted upon us by foreign countries who are not using the tariff weapon but other weapons which are still more harmful. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not wait for the Economic Conference, which is to take place sometime within the next few months, but will act energetically at once and make it clear to foreign countries
70
that we are not prepared to tolerate a system whereby we pay for the goods we buy while they (to not pay for the goods which they get from us. If the present situation is allowed to continue it will have very serious effect on our trade and, consequently, upon employment in this country.
Motion made and Question, "That the Debate he now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Sir G. Penny.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir G. Penny.]
Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Seven o' Clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
The KING being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:
"My Lords and Member of the House of Commons,
"My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"In accordance with the conclusions reached by the Conference at Lausanne, a World Economic Conference is to be convened by the League of Nations and will be held in London as soon as possible next year. It is My earnest hope that the Conference will be able to reach agreement on the measures required to deal with the causes which have brought about the present economic and financial difficulties of the world.
"The Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments now sitting at Geneva embodies the hope and the effort of mankind to reach the greatest measure of general disarmament that can be attained. My Government will continue, in full co-operation
2
with all the other members of the Conference, to work for an international convention which will be a foundation for a lasting peace.
"My Ministers and other members of both your Houses are meeting in conference representatives of the Indian States and of British India. They hope thereafter to place before you proposals for further constitutional development in India. The decisions to be taken will be of great moment to the whole of My Empire, and I shall watch your deliberations with deep interest.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the Public Service will be laid before you in due course.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"Although the various conversion schemes which have been successfully carried through offer the prospect of large reductions in the service of the National Debt, it is still necessary to exercise careful supervision over public expenditure, both national and local.
"The measures already taken to assist British industry in the home market and to improve our markets overseas have created a feeling of greater confidence. My Government will continue to do everything in their power to stimulate the recovery of trade.
"Agriculture has long been depressed by the general fall in the wholesale prices of its products. My Ministers recognise that though the measures recently taken in regard to meat and other products have been of real assistance to producers, further plans are necessary to enable agriculture as a whole to take its proper place in the economy of the nation. While the restoration of prosperity to agriculture cannot be expected until wholesale prices have risen to a more normal level, My Government believe that the various steps which they have taken, combined with action upon the investigations concluded, or still proceeding, will enable the industry to put itself in a position to take full advantage of a return to more favourable conditions.
"Large numbers of My people are still unable to find employment and the persistence of this situation causes Me the greatest anxiety. Unemployment as we have known it for some years is undoubtedly the gravest of our social problems. In particular I am distressed that many young men and women have never in their lives had an opportunity of regular employment.
"In the view of My Ministers any provision for unemployed persons should not only afford material assistance but should also be designed to maintain their morale and their fitness to resume work when opportunities can be found. My Government intend to bring forward measures dealing comprehensively with Unemployment Insurance and with the treatment of those unable to obtain work, and the considerations I have mentioned will be borne in mind in framing their proposals.
"Bills relating to Scotland will be introduced to amend the procedure governing private legislation, to facilitate the administration of civil justice, and for other purposes.
"Measures dealing with Rent Restriction, London Passenger Transport, and other matters of importance will be introduced and proceeded with as time and opportunity offer.
"I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at a quarter past four of the clock The LORD CHANCELLOR on t he Woolsack.

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

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. In doing so I desire in the first place to express my deep appreciation of the honour that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has done me in selecting me for the task. I have had little experience either in your Lordships' House or elsewhere and I feel particularly the burden of that inexperience when I have to deal with a gracious Speech which deals not only with the affairs of England but with the affairs of the whole world. However inexperienced one may be, however, it is not difficult to realise the immense importance which must attach to the forthcoming World Economic Conference, because one can see only in that Conference an escape from the present chaos which we call the world depression.
That depression and that chaos have been deliberately brought about by the actions of the Governments of the world. You all know what they have done. You all know of the fantastic tariff barriers, the War Debts, Reparations and trade restrictions of all kinds which have been a feature of international economic life for the last ten years. We can hardly conceive of a more sorry record of selfish-

5
ness, cowardice and incompetence. England, I am happy to say, in those ten years has nothing to be ashamed of, England has steadily and without ceasing endeavoured, by her banking policy and her policy generally, to save the world, even at the expense of the end of her own resources, from the inevitable consequences which everyone knew must follow from the actions of the various Governments in the world. So I think it is particularly appropriate that England should take a leading part in this forthcoming Conference. I hope that in taking that part she will not allow the Conference to be fogged by side issues. There are only two main issues to be decided the stability of the commodity value of money, and the immediate issue of the raising of wholesale prices throughout the world. And surely as a creditor country the policy of England should steadily be by raising prices to enable debtor countries to ease the difficulties of their exchange and at the same time to pay their debts in the only way in which they can ultimately be paid—in goods and services. That is the world problem.
But we must not forget that England has her own problem to face and it is a much more permanent problem. When things get very bad internationally cooperation is bound eventually to save the situation. England has to face the much more deep-rooted problem that she has two and three quarter millions of unemployed persons in this country. We talk a great deal about the slump being the reason for those unemployed. I am afraid we have to face a more unpleasant fact and that is that, owing to causes outside our own control and outside the social system under which we live, there are factors like the depletion of natural resources which mean that even in gold times we are going to have a permanent. number of unemployed up to about a million. I call that a terrible thought to which to look forward in the next three years. The Unemployment Insurance Fund, as it was first constituted, sever contemplated such a possibility. It, was intended to tide over a period between unemployment and certain reemployment, and I welcome in the gracious Speech the statement that the Government, in recognising the situation,
6
intend to take steps by altering the basis of the Fund to meet the situation.
If I might make a contribution of my own, for we must somehow get over this problem, it seems to me there is only one way, and that is not by going on only with the old industries, but by starting new ones. If we can only get one invention, such as the hydrogenation of coal, we may be doing a great deal, as Sir Thomas Gilchrist did in other days, to alter the whole course of the world. I therefore hope that whatever economies the Government, feel bound to make they will not try to economise upon, but will help forward in every possible way, the scientific research which may give us another start comparable to that in the nineteenth century.
There is also mention in the gracious Speech of a subject which is equally dear to our hearts and to the hearts of those who have known the horrors of war and have seen the victories of peace. I refer to disarmament. The Disarmament Conference carries with it, the earnest hopes and prayers of every sane man and woman in this kingdom. Our own proposals are lucid and far reaching and I would urge upon the Government that we must have, as well as disarmament, security of some kind. We have neither the means nor the inclination to enter into further commitments, military or naval. We have the means, if we have the inclination, to enter into economic commitments, and I cannot help believing that were it quite certain that England had definitely said, that an aggressor nation was going to be boycotted by England, that would be a tremendous help towards world peace. I am sure that nothing would prevent a crisis more than that a nation should know that she would be automatically boycotted by the world's largest customer and by a country that controls so largely banking and financial policy. I therefore trust that it will be seriously considered in the Government's next proposals for world peace.
Finally, I come to the subject which is perhaps the most important the Government will have to deal with this Session —the subject of India. I would like to congratulate the Government most wholeheartedly on the way in which they have continued the policy laid down by pre-

7
vious Governments. They have on the one hand repressed extra-constitutional pressure and on the other advanced to meet Indian opinion. The results of the first branch of that policy are satisfactory. Except for Bengal, India is quiet, but I think we should only be deluding ourselves if we believe that, because India is quiet, India is satisfied. There is still going on in India, and any trade returns will prove it, a silent boycott—that attitude which does not express itself in murder, riot or civil disobedience, but simply in the fact that a man will not buy British goods, and in that way shows the bitterness and suspicion which, as I think wrongly, characterises the Indian attitude to us. I am sure we all hope that the Conference will be a great success. No one can underrate the difficulties of its task. It has to take the known constitutions of the world and fit them to the Indian and on top to incorporate those safeguards upon which Parliament so rightly insists. Nevertheless, I think we can say with some confidence, not only with regard to the character of the personnel but with regard to the conditions of its working, that we can look forward to success, and I earnestly hope for that success, because it is impossible to disguise the fact that in the event of failure our friends in India, and His Majesty's Government would find themselves in a very difficult position.
In conclusion I would urge His Majesty's Government to make it as clear as is humanly possible that when we say responsibilities with safeguards we mean exactly what those words say; that they are not words incorporated in order to allay fears but that really there must be certain provisions in order to keep safe our vast responsibilities in India. In particular there are financial safeguards. The credit of a country is at any moment a delicate and dangerous thing to tamper with, and at this moment, when credit hardly exists anywhere, there is the gravest danger in transferring such a subject. In this case, of course, time is with us. Even with the best will in the world it is hard to believe that the India Bill can be got through for two years, and then, with any luck, we can look forward in time to restored prosperity, and with markets in such a state that it will be easily possible for us, providing the safe-
8
guards we put in the Bill are secured, to hand over finance to the control of India. The past Session has been a very tiring and difficult one for the Government, and I earnestly hope that the ensuing Session will be equally successful. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign.—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is only with the knowledge that your Lordships are famous for the qualities of patience and forbearance with inexperienced speakers that I venture to second this Motion, which has been so ably moved by the noble Marquess. I would like to express my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of this House for according me that privilege, and I do not think it would be out of place, for a moment, if with the very greatest respect I venture to express your Lordships' hearty congratulations to the noble and learned Viscount not only on his able and successful leadership of this House but also on the very valuable services which he has rendered to his country, both at the recent Conference at Ottawa and in other spheres of activity.
A year ago the people of this country returned the National Government to power with no uncertain voice, and with a very free and wide mandate. It is hardly necessary for me to remind your Lordships that that mandate was to consider and discuss, and if considered advisable to put into operation, any measure, without exception, which would tend towards remedying the adverse balance of our trade and would encourage the prosperity of this country. If we consider the position now, and compare it with what it was a year ago, I think we can safely say that His Majesty's Government have made a very fine and far-reaching start to carry out that mandate. By adopting the policy of protecting both our home and our overseas markets the

9
Government have not only gone a very long way towards remedying the adverse position of our trade balance, but they have given a genuine opportunity to the industries of this country, of which at the moment there are very definite indications that our industries are taking full advantage.
The proportion of our imports to our exports is considerably better and continues to improve month after month, and it is very satisfying, if we look at the figures for October, to see that our exports increased by no less than 16 per cent. over those for the previous month. A very good guide to the position of the nation's trade, and also to the amount of money in circulation, can be obtained from the bank clearances in the provinces, and the latest figures available definitely show that those figures have risen to the extent of some £27,000,000 for the period from January 1 to the middle of November of this year, as compared with the corresponding period last year. In the coal industry the reports are more and more favourable, and recently considerable new and very valuable orders have been received, both from our overseas Dominions and from foreign countries. The iron and steel trade is showing considerably more activity, and eves our British shipping, which has had a terribly bad time, is improving, and there are fewer British ships lying idle than there were a short time ago. The cotton industry has definitely regained many lost overseas markets and the prospects there also are getting brighter.
I do not mean to insinuate that the situation is in any way satisfactory yet, but I do say definitely that the prospects are brighter, and that the outlook for the future can be regarded with far more confidence. The mandate which was given so strongly a year ago holds good just as much now as it did at that time, and it is a continuation of the policy which has been adopted, and a continuation of that mandate, which is urged in the most gracious Speech from the Throne which we heard this morning.
Your Lordships will especially welcome the reference in the most gracious Speech to agriculture. Attention was frequently drawn last year to the fact that agriculture was what was described as "a notable omission" from the gracious
10
Speech at that time, but nevertheless during the past year more, and more important, legislation has been passed on that subject than ever before in the history of this country. As a direct result of the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, which was passed some time ago, prices in almost every case to producers have shown an increase, and there are very definite signs now that considerably greater home output is being prepared for. Glass houses are being built to a very great extent all over the country, and a very considerably greater area is being now prepared for vegetables for next year than ever before. The guaranteed price for wheat of millable quality is really welcome to the arable farmer, and the prospect that possibly a portion of the money which will be due to him may be paid this year will prove an absolute godsend to a very great number of farmers. The more recent restriction of the imports of meat, which I regret is only of a temporary nature, had the immediate result of increasing the wholesale—not the retail—price in the markets. It is still too early yet to say what the final results of that policy will be. But in all this legislation, which is so welcome, the important thing which our farmers appreciate is that their desperate plight has been definitely recognised, and they note with pleasure the fact that there are indications in the most gracious Speech from the Throne that other branches of agriculture will not be neglected.
Agriculture is one of our most important industries, but it is ender a very peculiar difficulty, and that is that its various branches are so independent of each other. What I mean by that is that we can pass legislation which will be of considerable value to the arable farmer, but the result to the grassland farmer who depends on live stock for his livelihood may be either nil or very small indeed. It is wrong to refer to agriculture as one industry. It must be considered as a collection of various smaller industries, and I regret that many of those smaller branches have not yet received any benefit from the legislation which has been passed. They are, however, living in hopes that they will not be forgotten. If only, with this very necessary help on the part of the Government,

11
we can weather the present storm, I venture to say that there is a sound future for agriculture. It is a very big "if," but if we can do it, if the Government will help us to do it, there is a definitely sound future. And a return of prosperity in this direction will go a very long way towards helping to cure a great many of the troubles with which the country is faced.
There was again a reference in the gracious Speech this year to the very great necessity of economy in both national arid local expenditure. I am afraid that economy is a subject which it is considerably easier to talk about than to put into effect. It is obvious that anything which comes under the name of luxury must be ruthlessly cut down. But the difficulty starts when we begin to draw a line between what are necessities and what are luxuries. There is no doubt that of recent years we have all in this country become accustomed to living extremely well—I was almost tempted to say too well. The inevitable result of that has been that we consider things as necessities because we have become so accustomed to them that we cannot visualise life without them. I sincerely hope that the Government will cut down very strictly these pseudo necessities. Of course, economy is very popular in theory, but for the reasons I have given it will be very unpopular when it is put into effect.
One point that I should like to make in connection with local expenditure is the very close connection which it frequently has with national expenditure. I had the honour not many years ago to be elected to our local county council, and shortly afterwards we were asked to do our utmost to cut down our expenditure in every way; and I was absolutely amazed when I found the very considerable amount of expenditure over which the county council had virtually no control. This expenditure is incurred in accordance with the policy of the Government, or of Government Departments. I sincerely hope that the very strictest scrutiny will be made of such expenditure and, if necessary, that the policy which necessitates that expenditure will be ruthlessly changed. Only in that way can we bring the relief so essential in regard to the very heavy burden at
12
present borne by both the taxpayer and ratepayer.
There are many other important items mentioned in the gracious Speech from the Throne, but I think I am straining your Lordships' patience possibly a little too far. I would only say that the gracious Speech from the Throne will meet with a warm reception throughout the country. It is a message of hope and confidence, and especially so because it entails a continuance of the policy of the Government which is already proving itself to be effective, successful, and beneficial to the country. I thank your Lordships for once again giving such a splendid example of your patience and forbearance, and I have the very great honour to second the Motion which is before your Lordships' House.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I always quite sincerely admire those who are allotted the very difficult task of moving and seconding the Address in either House of Parliament. Although I served for some eighteen years in the House of Commons I was never given that duty. I am afraid I was not thought quite safe. But I think to-day it has been discharged, if I may say so, with rather conspicuous ability. The noble Marquess who moved the Motion was not addressing your Lordships for the first time. I have quite a vivid recollection of his maiden speech. The noble Marquess is a representative of youth and, if I may say so, he is a striking representative of die coming generation on whom we of the older generation are rather liable to shift the responsibilities which we ourselves have failed to discharge. If the noble Marquess is representative of the coming generation I must say that we may all have hope. The noble Marquess's very distinguished grandfather was the head of the diplomatic service when I joined it in 1894, and I think, from the speech which I heard this afternoon, that some of the perspicacity and shrewdness of the grandfather seem to have been inherited, combined with a very happy eloquence from which, very skilful diplomatist as he was, the grandfather very carefully abstained.
The two speakers endeavoured to be optimistic. The noble Lord who seconded the Address, in an exceedingly competent

13
and thoughtful speech, is also a representative of youth. I know that this subject of who is young and who is old is relative. I have come to the age when I think that anybody under seventy is a young man; but the noble Lord who seconded the Address is undoubtedly also in the youthful battalion, and his speech showed that he hoped for good things in the future. Bet I do not think that either of the speakers really felt that in the programme which is put before your Lordships for the immediate future, there was anything to make him really enthusiastic. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who seconded the Address, referred to agriculture, and he displayed a certain anxiety, although he wanted to make the best of what is proposed. I shall later on have a word to say on the paragraph about agriculture, but there is one of your Lordships As hose opinion on that paragraph I should very much like to hear, and to have heard to-day, and that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings.
Well, my Lords, we have been called together, after a brief week-end, for a new Session of Parliament, as if we must make haste to get down to business because there are urgent matters to be disposed of at once. I immediately looked at the Gracious Speech with a view to seeing a great programme before us which would occupy the attention of Parliament week after week and month after month for some time to come. But that is not what we have got. This is the second Speech of the National Government. I dare say more empty and sterile Speeches than this have been delivered, but I doubt whether, in a second Session of a term of office, anything so meagre and inadequate as this has ever been presented to Parliament. The reason why it will cause very great disappointment is to be found in all the great promises and the raising of hopes which heralded the establishment of the National Government. If the National Government had not advertised themselves quite as they did, and promised that they were going to cure all the evils that beset the land and all the ills that flesh is heir to, then we might not have been so disappointed; but they raised hopes to such an extent that when we find that those hopes are not realised, and that this is what we are now asked to do (if one can really detect anything at all to be done), then I feel
14
sure that the people and the country will be very much disappointed.
The first paragraph refers to the World Economic Conference. That is very important, and I should like to ask some quite definite questions of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House upon that paragraph. "As soon as possible" it is going to be convened. May I ask what is the obstacle which prevents it being convened at any certain date? And may I ask what it is going to deal with? Will it deal with monetary problems? Will it deal nth currency? Will it deal with the stabilisation of prices? Will it deal with tariffs? And if it deals with tariffs, will not His Majesty's Government be very much handicapped, and have their hands tied, because of the Agreements that were concluded at Ottawa? At any rate, may we hope that this rather shadowy Economic Conference in the future will not be made an excuse for inaction on the part of His Majesty's Government, so that we shall lie told that this or that cannot be done until the Economic Conference has come to its conclusion. The Conference is
"to deal with the causes which have brought about the present economic and financial difficulties of the world."
Are the causes known, or is the Conference to discover the causes? I thought that the creation of tariffs, the establishment of this nation as one of the most highly protected countries in the world, was a method of overcoming the causes which have brought about this world dislocation. I do not know what they were for if they were not to deal with that problem. But it seems now that the causes have yet to be sought, or, if they are known already and the Economic Conference is going to deal with them, I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will just give us a catalogue of them to go on with.
The next Conference mentioned is the Conference on Disarmament. That Conference has been sitting for some time. I remember addressing your Lordships' House about six months ago on that Conference, and was told that mine was a. very mischievous speech because I deplored the methods that were being adopted to try to come to some sort of conclusion about disarmament; but practically everybody agrees with the view I expressed then, that a wrong start was

15
made, and that a good six months were wasted. We have now reached the point where definite schemes have been put forward, one on behalf of France and one, more recently, on behalf of Great Britain. If the scheme put forward on behalf of Great Britain has the effect of bringing Germany back again into the Conference, it will be all to the good. But I deplore, as I have said before and I will say again, the method of dealing with this question which is to regard it as a question of arithmetic. Disarmament is not a question of arithmetic, though we persist in regarding it as such. Even taking it as a question of arithmetic—the number of ships, the weight of guns, the weight of tanks, and so on—is it wise on the part of His Majesty's Government to produce a scheme which really must lead to very much further controversy?
I do not want to go into it fully now, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two of the questions that arise from the scheme propounded by Sir John Simon. He asks for the abolition of submarines. We heartily agree with that, but at this time of day, knowing what France's opinion is on this question, it seems rather unlikely that you will arrive at an agreement if that is one of the propositions. But the most unhopeful one, in my opinion, is Sir John Simon's proposition with regard to aeroplanes. The aeroplanes of other countries are to be cut down to our level where they exceed it, and then there is to be a general reduction by a third. How does that work out with regard to France? France has now 2,375 military aeroplanes and seaplanes, and we have 1,434. France must, there-force, begin by scrapping 941, and then a third, which is 478. France must make a total scrapping of aeroplanes of 1,419. I really do not think that sounds a very hopeful proposition upon which to arrive at an agreement if you insist on this arithmetical method for disarmament. I very much regret that this method continues to be taken, because I will say now—I probably shall have occasion to say it again—that so long as the Powers regard this matter as the seeking of some formula of mathematics to which all nations will agree, you will never get genuine disarmament that way. To my mind, when the Powers begin to realise
16
that security rests on disarmament, then some progress will be made.
With regard to India, the Conference is now sitting, and I should be the last person to say anything that would in any way interfere with those deliberations, difficult as they must be, and I can only say that it is the desire of every man and woman in this country that these difficult negotiations shall be carried ultimately to a successful issue.
Now we come to the domestic clauses of the Speech, and it is extraordinarily difficult to find anything to get one's teeth into. The first paragraph says:
"it is still necessary to exercise careful supervision over public expenditure."
Does that mean more "cuts"? Are the Government going to be adviser? by the Conservative Economy Committee, as I think it is called? We have had their report, a very interesting report, and perhaps the Government, who are always anxious to please their supporters, will take some suggestions from them. But perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will tell us if we are in for more "cuts."
I then come to the agricultural clause, and really I think it requires reading very, very carefully and very, very often in order to see if there is any sense in it at all. It looks to me as if the Government, not being prepared to do anything definite, thought they could not leave out agriculture but must say something about it, must be eloquent about it, and yet not put down any specific proposition at all. The only part of this very involved language in which I can detect anything like action is where the Speech says:
"My Government believe that the various steps which they have taken, combined with action upon the investigations concluded, or still proceeding, will enable the industry to take full advantage of a return to more favourable conditions."
That does look as if something was intended. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will tell us whether it is going to he more quotas, more duties, higher tariffs, and whether, consequently, the price of food is going to be further raised The rest is mere platitudes about the position that agriculture holds, which we all know and have heard of before. It is just at that point that there is some suggestion of action, and

17
if the noble and learned Viscount can be a little more explicit we shall be very grateful.
Next we come to the unemployment clauses, and here we touch something which I regard as the gravest question with which we have to deal. Even in this paragraph the Government have not been able to avoid copybook platitudes, nor is there anything that is very suggestive or constructive. A terrible thing about unemployment is that it has been reduced to statistics. It has been dehumanised. We are always talking of the 2,750,000 or the 2,500,000, and how many hundred thousands that are here and hundred thousands there; and in that sort of talk we lose sight of the human side of the question. We lost sight of the vision of the numberless people up and down the country living in very distressing circumstances with their wives and their children, of the young people who, as the Speech says, have never been able to work. It really is the most distressing thing for the morale of the coming generation that they should be deprived of the opportunity for work, and the gracious Speech dwells on that distressing situation.
I do not know what the Government have done to deal with it. I do not know that the Government have dealt with the children of the unemployed. Have the Government suggested that the children of the unemployed in schools should get free meals? Was it not noble Lords opposite who rejected our proposition that children should be kept at school another year? And is not the Government very fond, and its supporters still more fond, of putting restrictions on all educational facilities, for which they have had to apologise? But the fact remains that there are a great number of people in the Tory Party who do want to cut down educational facilities for the workers, and just now it is the most fatal thing to do, because, when they are in this depressed condition, it is then that their children should be taken over, if need be, by the State, and seen to both physically and mentally.
We see that there is going to be some pleasure dealing with unemployment insurance. No doubt further "cuts"! Training. Something can be done with training, but there is no definite suggestion. I cannot help visualising the two
18
great ills that we have got side by side. Two and three quarter millions out of work on the one side, and on the other side miles and miles of slums not fit for human habitation. That subject is going to be talked about by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester the day after to-morrow. I think he must be rather despairing. He comes to your Lordships' House, to one Government after another, and begs that something should be done, and nothing is done. There ought to be something done. There you have, on the one hand, men waiting for work, wanting to work, ready to work and capable of working. On the other side, you have houses that ought to be demolished and houses that ought to he built for the enrichment and for the real improvement of the population of this country. You cannot bring these two together. You cannot meet these two great needs and make them cancel one another out. I quite admit that the Labour Government could not do it, but then the Labour Government, confronted with all the intricate difficulties connected with housing, had no Majority. Here we have a Government with a sufficient majority to do anything it wishes. I do not think it has got the will, or the initiative, or the constructive power to undertake a great campaign' of this sort, to which the whole country would rise and which would receive general public approval. It would cost money, but money well spent is true economy—not this cheese-paring, this cutting dawn of people's salaries, this cutting down of educational facilities, but spending money on remunerative and fertile purposes.
I come now to the end of the Speech, and there is what I call a, mystery phrase:
"Measures dealing with rent restriction, London passenger transport, and other matters of importance will be introduced and proceeded with as time and opportunity offer."
We want to know what this doctor's mandate includes in "other matters of importance." I am glad, and not the least surprised, to see that the Government have not thought it part of the doctor's mandate to ask your Lordships and Parliament to enter into a scheme for gerrymandering the constitution and for the so-called reform of your Lordships' House. I was rather nervous

19
about it; not because of the scheme itself, which I am afraid has been laughed out of court altogether, but because it was supported by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who, as we all know has very great influence, not only in his Party but in the country. But I should like a definite assurance from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that "other matters of importance" do not include the so-called reform of the House of Lords, for which by no conceivable stretch of imagination has this so-called National Government got any mandate whatsoever.
The Speech has next to nothing in it. Its omissions are very, very serious considering the state of things with which we find ourselves confronted. But I do not believe that it is possible to do anything so long as the Government think it necessary to bolster up the present system of society. I do not believe that under the capitalist system you are going to cure these evils, and I do not believe you are going really effectively to tackle any of these great problems so long as you have rivalry, competition, opposition, clash, and class war. The Communists and we are supposed to encourage class war. We do nothing of the kind. Class war is inherent in the system. So long as you have people not acting in cooperation for the common good but competing against one another, so long as you have the monetary basis of society in which the haves are treated in one way and the have-nots in another way, it is impossible for us all to pull together, shoulder to shoulder, to pick our country out of its present distressing condition.
There is no plan in this, no construction in this, although the National Government (let us say) is a good one, consisting of the best men picked from all the Parties. The Government have the biggest majority of modern times. The Government, I fully admit, have among their number men of great ability and great eminence. You have there an instrument which, according to old notions, is very suitable to carry out a revolution. But they cannot do it. They have nothing to offer to the hundreds and thousands of people in this country who are now saying, and repeating: "How long, how long is this to go on?" We are at a moment of very great change.
20
The old dominance of the aristocrat has passed. We are now in the age when plutocrats and commercials have got their sway. A great change, I believe, is imminent, a great change which may involve the fall of the Parliamentary representative system itself. Look at this Speech. Look at these Conferences. If the World Economic Conference reports, if the Disarmament Conference draws up a Convention, if the Indian Conference arrives at an agreement your Lordships' House and the House of Commons will not be able to alter a sentence, a phrase, a word, a comma of those agreements. It is the new international method. I think it is a good one, but do not let us go on talking about Parliamentary control. Parliamentary control is going by the board because of the new great international system which has been brought about by nations being linked together closely.
I think it is good, but it means that we are on the threshold of a very great change both from the view of the constitution of society and from the view of Parliamentary institutions. We are looking forward to these changes. We believe that there is great hope in a fundamental change, but that the present Government, hampered as they are by adherence to the old methods, cannot bring about that change. We want that change to come peacefully. We want that change to come by the method which we in this country have always adopted because we have learned that any violence only brings reaction in another direction. But while the present Government are wavering, are inert, are always doubtful and afraid, we have no doubt at all as to the future which we are striving for. We are able to say in the well-known lines:

Our doubts are traitors,

And make us lose the good we oft might win,

By fearing to attempt.

THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, on behalf of those associated with me in your Lordships' House I desire to offer very sincere congratulations both to the noble Marquess who moved and the noble Lord who seconded the Address. The name of the noble Marquess is so well known in our Imperial and international affairs that he bears a special responsibility, and it must be a gratifica-

21
tion to all your Lordships that he has to-day and on other occasions fulfilled his task in a manner that speaks forcibly for the argument founded upon heredity. I was very much struck by the observations which seemed to be directed to the chief points on which the attention of the Government must be concentrated at this moment, and in all that he said I find myself very much in agreement. The noble Lord who seconded had evidently given much thought to the various subjects on which he addressed your Lordships, and may I be permitted to say that I wish he would oftener take part with us and give us the benefit of his views? Listening to their Lordships it occurred to me that it would be very much better if in this ancient House we had more of the younger men taking part in our debates so that we could feel that they were really active amongst us and would follow the example set by the two noble Lords. In regard to what the Leader of the Opposition said in his respect I agree, except that I have a quarrel with one observation. He observed that in his opinion everyone under seventy was young. My question to him is: Why not over seventy?
I wish I had been able to agree with him in other respects. I listened to his speech with great interest and of course I quite understand that he is representing the views of his Party which are not in accord with those of the National Government. Well, we Liberals are not in accord with the views of the Government in all respects, but I do desire to state quite clearly and emphatically that it is our intention arid wish to give every possible support to the National Government. Because we may be forced to differ in some respects does not mean that we propose to come into opposition to the Government. I am fully impressed with the importance of His Majesty's Government speaking in the counsels of the world as well as in Dominion counsels with the great authority of the support of the vast majority, and even of some members of the Labour Party, so that the world should know that the Government is speaking not only for a Party, but for a nation and, as we believe, in the interests of the nation and of the Empire. I shall myself try in every possible way I can to support them.
22
There is very little I find to criticise in the gracious Speech. In the main we must wait until we know more details. Obviously the concern of the Government must be in the main, at the moment, with international affairs, and with unemployment, agriculture and all those questions that are part and parcel of the present economic situation. I am sufficiently familiar with the difficulties experienced in international affairs not to be ready to acquiesce in the criticism directed by the Leader of the Opposition. I am a believer in conferences. It may be quite easy to criticise and. scoff at them, but more will be achieved by conferences among nations than by us sitting in Parliament. Everything must depend upon what is to happen in these Conferences. I am not disposed to speculate upon what will take place. All I desire to do is to beg the Government on behalf of my Party to continue to concentrate all their attention upon bringing about some agreement of real value in relation to disarmament. I believe there is no difference of opinion generally, although of course there will be differences as regards details, in this country. I am convinced that the country is intent, as are all your Lordships, not only on peace at the moment, but upon its maintenance, preservation and, as far as is humanly possible, its perpetuation.
With regard to the Economic Conference it is difficult to speak of that at this moment, especially in view of what is happening in America, because we have presumably to await, or may have to await, the views of the incoming Administration. All I would venture to suggest is that every attempt should be made to widen rather than to narrow the sphere, and that His Majesty's Government should strive as far as possible to remove any restrictions on debate. I cannot understand how we can discuss or attempt to discuss with any possible expectation of satisfaction world economic affairs if we are not allowed to take into account also world debts, Reparations, tariffs, and all these kindred questions. They are all part and parcel of the same question; you cannot separate them. In that connection I only desire to add that in all these economic questions we are a little too prone to regard them as pure economics and finance, whereas they are

23
inseparably interwoven with political conditions throughout the world. I am perfectly convinced that the Government are well aware of that, but unless we can get quiet and tranquillity in the political world internationally, our task becomes ever so much more difficult in relation to economic and financial matters.
I hope—and this observation is not intended to be at all controversial—His Majesty's Government will continue to pursue the policy they announced before they went to Ottawa, which I regarded as the major policy in relation to tariffs. That is that by the use of the tariffs imposed in this country we are seeking to get a reduction of tariffs throughout the world, so that there may be greater outgoings—a greater export rather than lesser export such as we have seen almost daily. So far as I am aware there has been no correction of that view, which was certainly stated on behalf of the Government, even after Ottawa, and I think I am right in saving—the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will, I am sure, correct me if I am in error—that this is still the policy of the Government, that they hope to reduce tariffs throughout the world and that they will so far as they possibly can use the tariffs imposed in this country for that purpose.
All I will say in conclusion is that as regards unemployment undoubtedly we shall welcome any measures which may be introduced by the Government which will help to relieve that situation. We do not know at present of what they will consist, and we shall await them. There is only one observation I should like to make upon that. I do hope that the Government have not closed their mind to the possibility of finding employment by means of curing the slum conditions throughout the country. Whatever the difficulties may have been, it is very earnestly to be hoped that they will find some means of meeting the serious situation in unemployment, which they themselves point out in the gracious Speech, and that when it comes to the consideration of the relief which may be found, attention may be most earnestly devoted to the finding of some means of achieving a great social reform, which cannot in any sense be called unproductive expenditure, but which is in essence reproductive, and which has been calling loudly to us for a long time. It has had
24
some start, but is stopped or at any rate reduced at the present time. I do beg of the Government again to direct themselves to this point before they make answer to the Motion which I believe is to be introduced in this House in two days' time.
With these observations I will conclude by merely saying that we will do what we can to give support. I am not so much concerned with the failure to bring about the remedies which were in our minds when the National Government was formed. After all, it is not an easy matter to bring nations together, but I hope that they will continue on the path they have mapped out in this direction, and if they continue in the direction of the World Economic Conference arid of world disarmament they will receive from us every support.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have no wish to interpose myself between you and the Leader of the House, but I should like to claim your indulgence while I say some few words about one part of the gracious Speech—namely, that which deals with the problem of unemployment. In the first place I cannot deny myself the pleasure of repeating what has been said, with the hearty concurrence of the whole House, in the congratulations which were 'offered to the noble Marquess who moved, and the noble Lord who seconded, the Motion for the Address. I do not think I have ever heard two speeches—speeches which on this occasion are apt to be so ceremonial—which have been distinguished by so much freedom, originality and ability, and although I have not yet reached seventy, that limit of youth put by the noble Lord opposite, I am getting very near it, and I heartily welcome to the ranks of youth in this House—to which by such arithmetic I belong—the mover and the seconder of the Address this afternoon.
I venture to speak on this subject of unemployment because the gracious Speech rightly alludes to it as the gravest problem in our social system, and if that be true it seems only natural that some words should be spoken on behalf of those interests throughout the country which I may be taken in some sort to represent. I think it has been justly said that there is a tendency to be-

25
come too much accustomed to these monotonous statistics. Certainly it was a great shock to me to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that even supposing there is considerable recovery of trade we must still contemplate, for; many years to come, the possibility of at least a million unemployed. If I may borrow a phrase from the Leader of the Opposition, when we look at those statistics in terms of Kaman life it seems quite impossible to acquiesce in such a permanent burden on the social life of the country. It is undoubtedly very hard to find remedies, and in fact the whole problem has changed in its character since some of us were familiar with it on previous occasions.
I remember being personally associated with the problem in the early part of the twentieth century, about 1906–7, and belonging to what was called the Unemployed Body in London, which had to deal with this matter. I remember that all along our problem was to meet the necessities of the moment in the confident expectation that what was then regarded as the normal cycle of prosperity End depression would in time take a. turn for the better. We are no longer under this delusion. The whole state of the world makes recovery a matter of great difficulty and length of time. In our own country we are all deeply concerned with the problem that even if there be some revival in existing trade and industries all over the world, our old customers have become our rivals. A leading business man in the North of England, speaking to me, said that thirty years ago he watched the simultaneous building of large cotton mills in Lancashire and the sending out by a great engineering firm of enormous consignments of machinery for cotton to all parts of the world, and he wondered how long it would be before those great machines abroad outran the demand for cotton at home. So far as the world is concerned I should be wasting your Lordships' time if I called attention to the completely new features which confront us. Summarised in this way, it may be said that whilst the world was never snore full of things for the benefit of human life, it is impossible for the great majority to reach them. Evidently production on a vast scale has wholly outrun consumption.
26
Well therefore may we look forward with eager hope to the meeting of this World Economic Conference, because it is quite plain that this problem must now be faced in an entirely new way, and with a readiness to contemplate entirely new solutions. I am bound to say, as I pass, that I do not think that we shall be much benefited if, instead of facing the issues which are before us with a new readiness to find solutions, we lift up our eyes and behold that distant scene to which the noble Lord looks with such eager anticipation. I think we must put our first hope in the industrial system as we have it, and try to build better upon that foundation before we attempt to build that more romantic but less stable edifice which he desires. But, within that limit, I am quite certain that those who attend this World Economic Conference must go to it with readiness to face the issues in such a way as, so far as I know, they have never been faced before.
It would be futile on my part to enlarge now upon that theme. But I would say that I cannot but agree with what was said by the noble Marquess a moment ago, that our hopes of this World Economic Conference would be enormously strengthened if we could have some assurance that the measure of success in dealing with the problem of Reparations which was achieved at Lausanne will be implemented by the action of the United States, and we await with profound concern, apprehension, and hope the result of the conversations which are now taking place in that country. Because obviously if the World Economic Conference which has to deal with these vast problems is unable to touch the problem of War Debts and Reparations which lies behind, its benefits will be gravely curtailed. But these are subjects upon which this is not the occasion to dwell.
I do wish to urge one or two considerations upon the Government and the country about the way in which we must deal, pending the solution of these great problems, with the existence in our midst of these millions of unemployed. I hope that we shall not get into the way of looking at the problem of State assistance merely from the point of view of the amount. I conceive it might quite well be that we should come to see that a much larger expenditure was really more

27
economical. What we must be sure of is not the amount of State assistance, but the manner in which it is applied. We have no right to be generous to the unemployed so as to be unjust to the employed. We have no right—it would be false kindness—to assist the unemployed in such a way as to prevent their having the desire to resume work, if it could be found for them; and, above all, we have no right to burden industries with an excess of taxation which would be the very greatest evil alike for the employed and the unemployed. But, within these safeguards, we ought not to accustom ourselves merely to consider the amount which has to be spent upon maintaining people who are out of work through no fault of their own at least above the measure of serious want.
And here it is, I think, that I would ask the Government to consider one or two ways in which the action of the State may even be increased. In the first place, I cannot but associate myself with what was said by the noble Marquess opposite and by the noble Lord who leads the Opposition. I do beg the Government to give some fresh consideration to the question of large grants or facilities for borrowing for public works. No one knows better than I do the futility of relying upon what are ordinarily called public works as a solution of this grave problem. These have too often been works invented merely for the sake of creating work, and without regard to permanent utility. But can it be doubted that the clearance of the slums and the building of houses for a class, as we have often been reminded, not yet sufficiently considered in house building—those who cannot pay the rents which are expected in almost all the present housing schemes—can it be doubted that these are matters of permanent value to the whole State? At the present time borrowing is infinitely easier than it was before confidence had been restored by the balancing of the Budget. Money is cheap, materials are cheap. These things are for the permanent advantage of the whole community. I really would beg the Government to consider whether the time has not come when they ought to undertake on a rather large scale the facilitating of these public works throughout the country.
28
In the second place, I would ask them to consider whether they might not encourage, rather than discourage, the acquisition of land for allotments for the unemployed. Experience proves—I could give many instances if there were time—how working on an allotment not only helps the feeding of the home, but also the morale and physique of the workman; and yet I understand that, so far from encouraging a further use of allotments as one of the best means of keeping the unemployed in wholesome work, the Government have actually withdrawn the grants that were made for schemes of this kind. And in the third place, if the noble Lord the President of the Board of Education will forgive me, I cannot but return to a proposal which I made to your Lordships' House that, having regard to the fact, to which the gracious Speech calls attention, that the most serious problem is the number of young men, boys and girls who have never had employment in their lives, the Government would reconsider the extension of the system of continuation schools, where, at least up to the age of sixteen or seventeen, these young men and girls, many of whom have never had any chance of employment at all, can have continuous education, discipline and preparation for the tasks in which they may ultimately he engaged. As I said before, I delight to know what is being done by the Ministry of Labour through the juvenile employment centres, but much more is needed in the way of continuity and discipline; and once again I would ask the Government to consider whether it is not the truest economy to go great lengths in preventing the wastage of what must be the most substantial asset in the country, the men and women who are to be the workmen and workwomen of the future.
I have only one other thing to say, and I hope I may be forgiven in this place for saving it. We must not suppose that State action is all. There is much that can be done by the members of your Lordships' House. It is for us, with all the various opportunities we have, to co-operate with the State in anything that it may do. I am sure that a great deal can be done throughout the country in the very direction, to which the gracious Speech calls attention, of keeping up the spirit and the morale of those who are deprived of the chances of work.

29
Even if there is not actual destitution, there is the growth of debt. There is the gradual wearing out of clothes and the like. There is the sickness of heart which collies from deferred hope which is more demoralising than anything else. And there are many opportunities, if your Lordships are not already acquainted with them but would make yourselves acquainted with them in the various parts of the country from which you come, where a great deal can he clone by co-operative effort in preventing the unemployed from slipping further down in the Slough of Despond. I know that I can speak for the Church which I represent, that in a characteristically unspectacular way throughout the country the Church of England and other religious bodies are doing everything they can in this direction, and through many agencies of which it is not for me now to speak. I would beg of your Lordships to throw yourselves into every effort that may be made in your various neighbourhoods to give to the unemployed regular work if possible, but at least opportunities of keeping up the health of their bodies and the hopefulness of their spirits.
I know it is said by those whom noble Lords on the Benches opposite represent, that they do not want charity but justice. This, my Lords, ought not to be charity in any offensive sense. Charity is offensive if it is given in a spirit of patronage, or as an excuse for blinding our eyes to the grave social evils which we ought to tackle; but when charity is given in a spirit of comradeship and neighbourliness, I am sure it will not be resented. Nothing within my experience is more beautiful, and nothing, I think, more hopeful in regard to this very matter than the neighbourliness of the poorer working folk to one another; but I learn in all parts of the country that the sources of that neighbourliness are being exhausted, and there is need of a wider comradeship and a larger company of neighbours. If we in your Lordships' House, in the different parts of the country in which we live, come in with this spirit of neighbourliness and readiness to help, I am sure it will be widely appreciated. It is for all of us outside the Government to stand behind it in this matter, in a spirit of ready and neighbourly help, and meanwhile to
30
trust the Government, as I hope we may, that it will give to this matter of great and essential importance unremitting attention, ceaseless planning, and determined courage.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my first duty, by tradition and in this case by strong inclination, is to join in associating myself and those for whom I speak with the compliments paid by every previous speaker to the mover and seconder of the Address in the debate to which we have just been listening. On this occasion certainly, although conventional, it is no empty compliment, and when they were respectively good enough to thank me for giving them an opportunity of speaking this afternoon, I could not help thinking that it was your Lordships' House as a whole who really ought to have been grateful to me for affording them an opportunity of making so valuable a contribution to our discussions.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said that he could detect no note of enthusiasm in the speeches of either the mover or the seconder. I at least thought that I was able to find in what they said a spirit of real satisfaction with what the Government had been able to do during its twelve months of office, a spirit of real confidence in the future under the National Government; not indeed an enthusiasm for the state of industry and agriculture which we find prevailing around us, but a belief that all that can be done is being done, and a belief that the measures which we are taking are bringing about an amelioration of the difficult conditions in which we find ourselves at present.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to say that he found nothing in the Speech—that it was (I think) unparalleled in the meagreness of its promise and of its proposals. I was a little consoled when I found that he made the same complaint last year; it is becoming, I suppose, a stock phrase. But at the same time, when I look back on the twelve months through which we have passed, I do not think it can be said that Parliament has not been asked to do quite enough work during the last twelve months. I certainly do not believe it to be true to say that there has ever

31
been a Session of Parliament in which more measures of first-rate importance have been brought forward and passed into law. We have already heard from my noble friend the seconder of the Address of the effects on agriculture; we have to look back on the Horticultural Products' (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, the import Duties Act, the Ottawa Agreements—a whole series of measures designed to help agriculture and industry and to build a better relationship between this country and our Dominions, and a better Opportunity for inter-Imperial trade. I am not ashamed of the record of the Government during the last twelve months, and if the noble Lord is right in thinking that last year was meagre and this year is no more full of matter—well, if we do as well next year as we did in the past year, I do not think that we can complain of idleness.
The noble Lord asked me certain questions about the World Economic Conference. He wanted to know what was the obstacle to summoning it at once; he wanted to know what exactly were the matters which were to be discussed and what precisely were the causes which we assigned to the present economic difficulties. Like the noble and learned Marquess who leads the Liberal Party, I believe in international conventions, but I believe that the worst way to carry on an international convention is to summon the convention together first and then try to thresh out an agenda when you have got them there. I believe it is one of the lessons which we have learnt since the War, that if you want to make a success of an international convention, it is of the first importance that the ground shall be carefully prepared, that there shall be preliminary discussions between the Governments concerned, so that when the convention actually meets the parties may be agreed as to the matters upon which they are going to engage in discussion and as to the general lines upon which that discussion is calculated to proceed.
The noble Marquess said, and I personally agree with him, that it would be a very great pity to limit the discussions of the World Economic Conference. I should like to see them take as wide a scope as is possible, but I would not enlarge that scope in the subjects of the Conference at the expense of driving from
32
the Conference some of the more important nations whom I wish to see represented there. And it is because I should like to see the matters about which we are to confer clearly defined, that I think it is necessary to take some little time for preparation, and not to assign any immediate or too definite a date for the meeting. I agree entirely that the sooner the meeting takes place the better, but that must be subject to this one qualification: that it is no good meeting until we are agreed exactly as to what it is about which we are going to talk when we do meet.
Then the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition went on to complain of our disarmament proposals. He said that the speech of my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary was very ill-calculated to produce satisfactory results because it introduced controversial items into the discussions at Geneva, and he would have desired a speech, and proposals, which were entirely uncontroversial. My Lords, I wonder what sort of proposals he would have put forward at Geneva? The only one which I have ever heard the noble Lord propose which may be described as having that character was the proposal that this country should disarm completely and that no one else should be asked to disarm at all. At least, I understand that is the policy for which the noble Lord stands, but with which his Party do not agree. It may be that would have been non-controversial at Geneva, but I can assure your Lordships' House and the noble Lord it would have been very far from non-controversial when it was introduced at home. We have put forward the proposals which we believe are best calculated to ensure a fruitful discussion at Geneva. We cannot guarantee success there.
I agree with every word that the noble Marquess said when he pointed out the supreme importance in the present condition of the world of trying to bring about some satisfactory solution of that dreadful problem of disarmament. It is a vital factor in the progress of the world that the nations of the world should he able to agree on a practical form of disarmament which will remove or lessen the threat of war which always seems to hang over the deliberations of each one of us to-day. We cannot promise to attain success. Agreement does not only

33
rest with this country. We are willing to strive our utmost to arrive at a measure of agreement. We are willing to go to the utmost limit consistent with the essential security of this people in order to reach agreement, but we cannot promise to surrender the security for which we are responsible in order to achieve a paper success which would infallibly result later on in an actual disaster.
With regard to India, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to point out that whilst the Round-Table Conference was meeting in this building he did not desire to embark on a discussion of that topic, because he felt that it might conceivably do something to hinder the success of the discussions at the Round Table. I am grateful to tae noble Lord for his forbearance. I will only say that His Majesty's Government are embarking on these discussions in an anxious desire to reach a solution of the difficult problem of constitutional advance for India which shall be consistent in every way with the undertakings that were given when the Round-Table Conference last met—a solution which will he successful in finding at once a satisfactory measure of responsible self-government for India and at the same time safeguarding; those essential interests which we undertook should not be neglected.
The noble Lord went on next to deal with the question of economy, and he asked with a sneer: "Are we to see more cuts'?" To that question I will only give this answer, that if the Government are able to detect in national or local expenditure any unnecessary expense or any waste of public money, then certainly we shall do our best to cut it down at the very earliest moment, and we shall avail ourselves for that purpose of the investigations and suggestions which are made by any responsible people without pledging ourselves to adopt them, but pledging ourselves at least to consider any proposals which may be put forward to that end. We have succeeded during our twelve months of office in restoring the national credit to an extent which t suppose few people can have hoped for when we commenced our task. We have succeeded in achieving a reduction in interest on the public Debt which, I think, must have surprised as well as gratified
34
almost every one of us. But we are not going to stop there. We recognise that the burden of taxation, as the most rev. Primate pointed out, is a real hindrance to industry, and if we can find means of reducing public expenditure without sacrificing the essential interests of public efficiency we shall not hesitate to adopt them. And we shall not be deterred in adopting them by the knowledge that we are going to be met with the sort of comment which the noble Lord was good enough to make just now.
The noble Lord went on to ask what precisely were the proposals which we were putting forward with regard to agriculture. He said he had read the gracious Speech several times over, and I am sure that if he did so he would have noticed that the action which we intend to take is to be based upon investigations concluded or still proceeding. So long as those investigations are still proceeding we desire to reserve our concrete proposals until we know the results of the investigations, and until we are in a position to formulate our proposals as a whole I think it would be a very great pity if we were to bring them forward piecemeal to be criticised without their whole bearing being understood.
The noble Lord went on to talk about unemployment. It is not difficult for political Parties on one side or the other of this House to bandy with one another accusations each that the other has not been able to cure unemployment. The noble Lord said we had not been able to do so. I could retort by saying that the Government of which he was a member had been equally unsuccessful, but I do not think that that sort of taunt is going to help. It is true enough that at election times we hear each Party in opposition blaming the Government for the existence of unemployment. It is true enough that we hear from the friends of the noble Lord opposite suggestions and promises at every election that they are in a position to cure unemployment by Government action, but the noble Lord will search in vain for any such promise by the present Government. It is not a matter which any Government by Government action alone can cure. It is a matter which every Government must take into the most careful consideration. Your Lordships have listened only these

35
last few minutes to the eloquent words of the most rev. Primate, in which he pointed out that it is not merely a question of the individual being out of work. It is much more than that. It is a question of the physical and moral deterioration of the person who remains unemployed, remains a liability instead of an asset to the community, and who, as the months roll on, finds his courage and his hope failing, his skill and aptitude leaving him, so that he sinks at last from the ranks of the unemployed to the ranks of the unemployable.
I do not think any of us in this House either ignore the seriousness of that problem or, if the truth be told, that we believe that the rest of us are ignorant of the seriousness of that problem. I do not believe the noble Lord himself, if he were to speak his whole mind, would venture to say that he did not know' that the members of His Majesty's Government are just as keenly alive to the human tragedy that underlies unemployment as he himself can claim to be. I profoundly regret that the unemployment should be on the scale which it has reached. I should be profoundly happy to see any solution produced by any Party in the State which could cure that state of affairs. Suggestions have been made this evening by the noble and learned Marquess and again by the most rev. Primate of methods by which unemployment can at least be alleviated. I am not going at this stage into the merits of one or other of the proposals, but I can assure both of the noble Lords, and I can assure your Lordships, that those proposals not only will receive, but are receiving, the most careful and sympathetic consideration from his Majesty's Government.
They are not quite so easy to carry into effect as they are to propound, but if by any scheme of slum clearance, if by any scheme of allotments, if by any other means we can find an effective alleviation of the condition of unemployment, then your Lordships may rest assured that the Government will be only too glad to grasp at any suggestion which promises any real measure of success. I would like to add, to prevent misconception, that it is a mistake to suppose that the Government have abandoned the provision of allotments for the unemployed.
36
There are, I believe, to-day—I have had to get the figures at short notice—something like 60,000 unemployed already in possession of allotments. The Government are at this moment going forward, not indeed with the provision of allotments by the Government, but with the assistance of private societies and enterprises which are providing allotments, to whom the Government are furnishing help on the basis of £1 from the State for every £1 which is put up by the society.
There are such societies as, for instance, the Society of Friends, which, as the most rev. Primate knows, is doing most valuable work. There are also a number of other societies of the same character, working some on a large scale and some on a small scale, but all working with more intimate knowledge of local conditions and needs than a Government Department can enjoy, and to whose philanthropic efforts the Government are very glad to render financial hacking and help in the belief that the work they are doing is likely to result in substantial improvement in the condition of the unemployed. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture tell me that they have high hope that if things go well as many as 30,000 additional people will be provided will allotments during the coming year.
Of course that only touches the fringe of the problem. Sixty thousand, thirty thousand—one may well ask what is that compared to two and three-quarter millions? But one has to remember that two and three-quarter millions is not a static body. They are not the same people who are unemployed all the time, and although the number is tragical one would exaggerate if one looked at this vast army of unemployed persons as being persons permanently out of employment, or, indeed, in most cases, out of employment for any very prolonged period. The real cure for unemployment is to find work. The real cure for unemployment is stimulation of industry. His Majesty's Government during the last year have been actively engaged in trying to encourage agriculture and industry by every means which they could devise. We cannot make work—all we can hope to do is to make oppor-

37
tunities for work—but we hope and believe that the opportunities which we have created have already had some effect.
They are already encouraging the manufacturing industries in this country to develop and to go forward, and as the noble Lord the seconder of the Address said a little while ago, there are real signs of more confidence, of a brighter outlook and of better promise for the future. We cannot hope that we are going to have a prosperous Britain or a prosperous Empire while the rest of the world is bankrupt. We can claim that during the year that has passed, while unhappily the economic condition of the world at large has been getting worse, we in this country have been able at least to hold our own. That is something to put to the credit, perhaps, not of the Government, but at least of the industrialists and of the workmen because only by combination can they hope to succeed. It is something to put to the credit of the working classes and of the employers of this country.
The noble Lord opposite said that in this Speech he saw no sign of revolution. He is quite right. We do not intend revolution. We do not believe in revolution. We believe in evolution. The noble Lord said that the class war was always with us. It is not the fault of the noble Lord and his friends if the class war is not always with us. We at least believe that the true method of advance is not by stirring up strife between the different component parts of the industrial whole. It is by encouraging cooperation and help and mutual confidence between the unemployed and the workmen. We believe that that method is bearing fruit. We believe that the workmen of this country are learning the folly and menace of this Socialist doctrine of the class war, and we believe that in the defeat of Socialism and in the evolution of our present form of society lies the best hope for the future prosperity of us all.
Your Lordships' House will be asked to deal with a number of problems during the next twelve months. In fact, while the noble Lord complains of the meagreness of this programme, I am somewhat alarmed to see how much it includes. India, world economy, industry, agriculture, unemployment, rent
38
restriction, London passenger transport —these matters are matters any of which in the old days would have been quite enough to provide sufficient legislation to last for a Session. If we hope to deal with all of them it is because, like so many of the noble Lords opposite, we are still young. In the task which we have set ourselves we hope and believe that as a National Government we can still expect and claim the backing of the nation as a whole. We believe in the assurance which the noble and learned Marquess gave that, although his friends may bring criticism to bear, although they examine closely the proposals which we lay before Parliament, they examine them not in the desire to pick holes in them and to destroy them, but rather in the desire to make them more fruitful and to make them more constructive and more effective.
We believe that in your Lordships' House there is a great wealth of talent and ability which can give real useful help in dealing with the measures which we bring forward. It has always been a matter of regret to me since I have had the honour to be a member of this House to see how much available talent there is and how little use we seem to make of it. We have men who have served the State in the highest offices which the State has in its power to entrust to them, Governors-General of our Dominions, Governors of our Colonies, men who have reached the very top rungs in the professions or in the Forces of the Crown, men who have served as Envoys and Ambassadors of Empire, men who have served an apprenticeship in the other place and who have been rewarded for distinguished services by being translated to this House. We have an immense wealth of ability and yet somewhow we do not seem to get the full contribution which we have a right to expect from the men whom we have available here.
It may be that the fault lies in some measure in the constitution or in the powers of this House. That is a matter which, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said in another place, has not been considered by the Government. It is not a matter therefore with regard to which I have any proposals or suggestions to make, but I would like to say—I speak here for myself and for myself

39
only—that I think it is a ridiculous misconstruction of the proposals which have been brought forward by my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury and the committee over which he presided to say that they have already been laughed out of court. They have not met with the consideration of the Government, not from ally disrespect for their merits, but because time has not permitted them yet to be examined. But I am far from saying that, when examined, they may not contain valuable and fruitful suggestions for the consideration of the Government. These are not matters which are included in the gracious Speech as matters likely to come before you in the near future, but I did want to safeguard myself from the suggestion that because they do not form matter of immediate consideration the Government will therefore permanently remain blind to their importance. I believe this House has functions of the highest value and importance to perform. I believe it contains among its members persons who can give services of the highest value to the State, and I believe it is a waste of valuable public material if we fail to take the fullest advantage of that potential help.
I think the Government may well be congratulated on the fact that apart from the speech of the noble Lord whose business it is of course to find fault—His Majesty's Opposition would be failing in its duty if it did not criticise His Majesty's Government—we have met with a measure of approval and support in all quarters of the House which will encourage us to go forward in the task we have undertaken, and I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government, conscious as they are of the difficulties which lie all round them, are yet facing those difficulties with confidence and courage, secure in the knowledge that they have behind them the support of their fellow countrymen.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I venture to intervene in the debate on a specific matter in the gracious Speech, but before doing so I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the terms of that Speech because I believe that they portend a year of great and fruitful results—a year which will be as successful as the past career of the Government. I wish specifically to refer
40
to the Bills relating to Scotland which are to be introduced to amend the procedure governing private legislation, to facilitate the administration of civil justice and for other purposes. I welcome any Bills which will improve conditions in Scotland or which will improve the relationship between Scotland and this country, and for that reason I welcome these Bills. At the same time I cannot help referring to the origin of these Bills.
It may not be known to your Lordships that in Scotland to-day there is a considerable stirring of the calm atmosphere of Scottish conditions owing to a campaign which has been going on for some time for Scottish Home Rule. Candidates have stood for Parliament at the last two General Elections and candidates have stood in the municipal elections, and have not, I submit, achieved any great success; but as a result of the propaganda we find to-day in Scotland what might be called four bodies of opinion. The first body is represented by the extreme Scottish Nationalists with a programme which is in some respects almost separatist in effect. The second body is the moderate Nationalist Party led by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Next we have another Party which has recently arisen, which I may call the Oppositionist Party, and which desires nothing to be done at all and gives reasons for that attitude. Then we have the largest body of opinion in Scotland which is bewildered by all the propaganda of the other three Parties, does not know exactly where it stands, and is not able to decide what is the best for Scotland in this connection. They are further bewildered by the fact that the two leading Scottish newspapers, the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman, both of Unionist persuasion, are practically taking opposite sides for the first time on an issue of vital importance to the whole country.
In accordance with the terms of the gracious Speech the Government have the intention to introduce certain Bills which may or may not meet that situation. I sincerely hope that those Bills will meet the situation, but I submit to His Majesty's Government that the case which I have just stated is one that demands not a Bill here or there, but inquiry of a properly constituted nature —an inquiry, whether by Royal Commis-

41
sion or by some other composite body such as His Majesty's Government might think best fitted for the purpose—to go into the whole subject and to advise this great moderate mass of opinion in Scotland what is the best thing to do in the circumstances. I belong to that fourth body and that is why I have ventured to intervene in this debate and to ask the Government to give consideration to setting up such an inquiry. It may be that the Government will say they have already gone too far, that they are not, prepared to appoint a Commission or to set up such an inquiry. If that be so I venture to ask them not to leave out of mind altogether the possibility of having to set up such an inquiry in future.
I am very anxious—and I know there are others who are—about the situation as it exists. I suggest to the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House that if these Bills which will in due course come before your Lordships' House do not meet the situation, owing to the clash of opinion that may and probably will result as a consequence of these various bodies acting and speaking against each other, it may happen that it will be too late to establish the inquiry which I suggest. That is all that I propose to say this afternoon. I do not desire to detain your Lordships any longer, but I felt that it was necessary to put this point. In doing so I wish to say to your Lordships that I, for one, believe that there has been no time in the history of this country when it has been more necessary for Scotland and England to stick together, when we have to deal with all these vital and serious problems which have been discussed in your Lordships' House this afternoon—problems which are of equal importance to Scotland and England and in the solution of which both Englishmen and Scotsmen must take their part. Therefore my suggestion this afternoon is made with the object of seeking a solution which will prevent further and worse difficulties occurring in my country in the future.
On question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BUXTON GAS ORDER, 1932.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen end burgesses of the Borough of Buxton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CLITHEROE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Clitheroe, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, and parts of the rural districts of Settle and Bowland in the West Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LLANGYNWYD MIDDLE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1932.
Special Order in respect of the parish of Llangynwyd Middle, in the rural district of Penybont, in the County of Glamorgan:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, arid referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Earl of Onslow be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee foe the Journals—Appointed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask the noble Viscount if he can tell us the business proposed for the rest of this week, and possibly next week?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: So far as I know there is no effective business for to-morrow. Lord Strickland had a Motion down but has removed it for the time being, and therefore I suggest it is not necessary to have a formal sitting tomorrow. We will therefore adjourn until Thursday. On Thursday there is a Motion on the question of housing by the
44
Lord Bishop of Winchester, on which, I think, a number of your Lordships desire to speak, and which will possibly involve a very interesting debate. I am afraid I have no business for next week yet, but I will try and let your Lordships know on Thursday.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.