Sitting of 4 July 1934

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newport Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Newport Extension Bill [Lords] (by Order).
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wey Valley Water) Bill [Lords].
Read a Second time, and committed.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.
Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

PROSECUTION (T. MANN AND H. POLLITT).
Mr. MAXTON: I beg leave to present a Petition protesting against the infringement of the rights of free speech and calling for the withdrawal of prosecutions that are taking place against Mr. Tom Mann and Mr. Harry Pollitt:
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament Assembled:
The Humble Petition of British citizens sheweth that Mr. Harry Pollitt and Mr. Tom Mann have been arrested and charged with delivering seditious speeches and have been committed for trial at Swansea Assizes.
And wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that the above-mentioned charges against Mr. Harry Pollitt and Mr. Tom Mann be immediately and unconditionally withdrawn"—
Mr. LEWIS JONES: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give your Ruling whether it is in order for an hon. Member to ask leave to present a Petition affecting a matter which is at the
1884
very moment on trial before His Majesty's Judges in the High Court?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's petition is quite in order.
Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member might have credited me with at least the decency of having inquired from Mr. Speaker whether what I was doing was in order, or not—
"And wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that the above-mentioned charges against Mr. Harry Pollitt and Mr. Tom Mann be immediately and unconditionally withdrawn.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
The petition has been signed by 75,000 persons situated in all parts of Great Britain and several parts of the Dominions and Colonies, and is representative of a very wide and very strong feeling.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Italy has now withdrawn from her position of insistence on the execution of existing arms contracts in connection with the embargo on the export of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay; and whether any other country is maintaining this attitude?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): According to my information the position as regards Italy remains for the moment as described in the reply returned to the hon. Member on the 26th June. I am not aware that any other country has raised the question of the exemption from the embargo of existing contracts.
  Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say how long Italy is likely to go on holding up the whole world in this matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: We have made representations on the subject, and I have information that the Italian Government are further considering the matter.

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of the Government, any international convention is still possible as a result of the Disarmament Conference; and, if not, what action the Government now proposes to take in support of the collective system of the League of Nations, or whether they have any alternative policy?
  Sir J. SIMON: The position of His Majesty's Government in this matter remains as stated by myself at Geneva on the 30th May and as expressed in the resolution which His Majesty's Government, together with other members of the Disarmament Conference, adopted at the General Commission of the Conference on the 8th June last.
  Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say how he reconciles that with the statement made by the Secretary of State for Air, that all hope of the Disarmament Conference has now been abandoned by the Government?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that is an accurate statement of what my right hon. Friend said: it is not for me to deal with that question, but I might say that what my right hon. Friend said is quite consistent with what I have said now.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the adjournment at an early date.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BRITISH AND FOREIGN SHIPS (INFORMAL VISITS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what visits have been exchanged between the British and foreign navies during the last five years similar to those now in progress with the Germany navy?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): Informal visits are not arranged on any reciprocal basis and there is therefore no exchange of visits in the strict sense of the term. British ships are continually paying visits to foreign ports, and foreign ships to British Ports, but the number of such visits is so large that I regret that
    1886
    it is not possible to supply particulars without causing a disproportionate amount of labour.
    Mr. MANDER: Does not the First Lord feel that it might be desirable, in view of the outbreak of savagery in the last few days in Germany, to postpone this visit for the time being?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the British taxpayer or the German Government are paying for bringing the Germans from Portsmouth to London; and whether any official arrangements are being made for their visit?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No expense to the British taxpayer will be involved by any visit that may be paid by officers and men of the German ships to London. The official programme for entertaining the crews of these ships does not include any such visit.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If they can pay these expenses, cannot they pay us?

    OIL FUEL RESERVES.
    Mr. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the total fuel reserves available in the United Kingdom for the use of the Royal Navy in an emergency; and will he consider the advisability of increasing these reserves?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It is not in the public interest to disclose what reserves of oil fuel are held for the Royal Navy. It is a matter which the Admiralty has under constant review.

    CEYLON (CRIME).
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the figures for the total number of convictions for crime in Ceylon in the year prior to the introduction of the present constitution, and in the years 1932 and 1933?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The total number of convictions in Ceylon for all offences against the law was 60,031 in 1930 and 55,654 in 1932. Figures for 1933 are not at present available. Full particulars of offences against the Penal Code during the last six years

    1887
    are given on page 13 of the Administration Report of the Inspector-General of Police for 1933, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House.

  PALESTINE.

    MURDERS (JEWS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Jews who have been convicted of murdering Jews in Palestine during the last 10 years or any convenient period?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not in a position to give the right hon. Member the figures for which he asks. The statistics of crime received from the Palestine Government do not specify by race either the perpetrator or the victim of a crime.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to obtain these figures from Palestine, as the right hon. Gentleman has done in other cases?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I do not think it would. I doubt very much whether it would be possible, and I do not think that it would be desirable.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not desirable in the interests of the inter-racial feeling in. Palestine that it should be made clear that these murders have not taken place between Jew and Jew? In view of the trouble which the Stavisky case has involved, should it not be made clear that there has been no previous case of a Jew murdering a Jew?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it be the object of the question to try and prejudice the case which is now before the Court of Criminal Appeal, then it is perfectly plain that it would be most improper for me to further this inquiry.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it would prejudice a case coming before a court of justice if facts of this nature were known to the court?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Absolutely.

    TRAVELLERS' DEPOSITS.
    Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is
    1888
    to be any revision in the Palestine immigration rules applying to deposits that have to be made by prospective tourists to Palestine arriving other than by first class; whether there is to be any diminution in the £60 deposit; and whether there is now any information available as to the extent to which the tourist industry of Palestine has been adversely affected by this regulation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The rule requiring deposits from prospective travellers to Palestine now applies to travellers by all classes. It is not proposed to make any change in the amount of the deposit, namely, £60, but consular and passport control officers have been given discretion to exempt persons who they are satisfied are genuine tourists or pilgrims, or who are in possession of £1,000 capital. In April last the High Commissioner for Palestine reported that the imposition of this requirement had not affected the tourist movement to Palestine and that in fact the country had this year enjoyed its most successful tourist season for a number of years. I have no reason to suppose that there has been any change in the situation.

    LIQUOR LICENCES, TEL-AVIV.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the increase of the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Tel-Aviv from 175 in 1930 to 265 in 1933 has led to an increase in convictions for drunkenness in that city; and what was the total number of such convictions for the year 1933?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part of the question is three.

  TRANSPORT.

    ACCIDENTS (PEDAL BICYCLES).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Minister of Transport how many of the fatal accidents in the latest year for which he has records occurred in consequence of the riding of push bicycles in towns?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Separate figures for towns are not available, but the report on fatal road accidents during the year 1933 shows

    1889
    that in that year 874 pedal cyclists were involved in fatal accidents which occurred in built-up areas.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Do the figures show whether the pedal cyclists were the aggressors or the victims?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not in some cases almost impossible to avoid these pedal cyclists? I ask the question in order to ascertain whether some system could be devised to prohibit pedal cycling in very crowded areas.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In 485 cases of fatal accidents in built-up areas the sole or main cause of the accident was the pedal cyclist. In answer to the Noble Lady, may I say that I quite appreciate her humanity of view.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Is it not a fact that when the discipline which a motorist should have is properly applied pedal cyclists and pedestrians will have as fair use of the road as motorists?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not time that separate roads were constructed for cyclists?

    CHURCH STRETTON BY-PASS.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to a grant from public funds towards the construction of the by-pass road at Church Stretton?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret I am unable at present to indicate the possibility of a grant to the Church Stretton by-pass.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I ask what the hon. Member has been doing since he took office?

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (SAFETY GLASS).
    Mr. KNIGHTasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of public safety he will make it compulsory for all public vehicles to be equipped throughout with safety glass?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Since the 1st of January, 1932, the regulations have required, as regards new vehicles, that all
    1890
    glass fitted to windscreens or windows facing to the front on the outside of any motor vehicle, except glass fitted to the upper deck of a double-decked vehicle, shall be safety glass. As at present advised I do not think it necessary to make the use of such glass throughout public service vehicles compulsory.
    Mr. KNIGHT: While appreciating the valuable change the hon. Member has indicated, may I ask whether he is aware of the numerous cases recently of accidents in which public vehicles, omnibuses and tramcars, have caused serious injury through broken glass, and will he give further consideration to this matter in order to provide further protection to the travelling public?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I shall be ready to give further consideration to any suggestion.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SPAIN (BRITISH IMPORTS).
    Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY (for Dr. LEECH)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state that negotiations have, since 20th June last, progressed towards a new Anglo-Spanish trade agreement, in order to put the export of British coal and goods to Spain on a more satisfactory footing?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am unable at present to add to recent replies which have been given on this subject.

    COTTON INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports, by quantities, of cotton piece goods for each year from 1929 to 1933, inclusive, into British India, Australia, South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand, respectively, and the quantities imported into each of these countries from the United Kingdom and from Japan, respectively?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the answer will involve a tabulated statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    STATEMENT showing the quantity (or value) of Cotton Piece Goods imported into British India, Australia, Union of South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand during the years 1929 to 1933.

    —

    Total.

    Of which from (a):—

    United Kingdom

    Japan.

    British India.

    Thousand yards.

    Thousand yards.

    Thousand yards.

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,874,400

    1,262,659

    520,693

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,238,661

    792,678

    390,535

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    720,022

    350,775

    335,587

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,126,652

    541,854

    551,893

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    827,297

    445,294

    372,107

    Australia (b). (years ended 30th June).

    £'000

    £'000

    £'000

    1928–29

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7,572

    6,537

    277

    1929–30

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    7,489

    6,701

    291

    1930–31

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,138

    3,658

    226

    1931–32

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,200

    3,650

    302

    1932–33

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5,091

    4,371

    539

    Union of South Africa (c).

    £'000

    £'000

    £'000

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4,392

    2,683

    305

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,501

    2,223

    343

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,309

    1,745

    676

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,472

    1,449

    467

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3,560

    2,805

    392

    Canada (d). (years ended 31st March).

    Thousand yards.

    Thousand yards.

    Thousand yards.

    1928–29

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    116,373

    43,303

    877

    1929–30

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    106,220

    35,944

    322

    1930–31

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    82,866

    29,214

    411

    Thousand lbs.

    Thousand lbs.

    Thousand lbs.

    1931–32

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    17,100

    6,119

    109

    1932–33

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    12,601

    5,949

    50

    9 months ended 31st December, 1933

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    10,873

    6,446

    22

    New Zealand (e).

    £'000

    £'000

    £'000

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2,012

    1,757

    58

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,873

    1,627

    56

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,161

    1,047

    23

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,372

    1,285

    24

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1,284

    1,169

    50

    (a) Imports are classified according to countries of consignment in the case of British India and Canada and according to countries of origin in other cases.

    (b) Quantities are not available. The figures shown relate to the value of Cotton and Linen Piece Goods (excluding Canvas and Duck).

    (c) I. Quantities are not available.

    II. During the period from September, 1931, to December, 1932, when there was a disparity between South African currency and sterling, the values shown above represent sterling equivalents converted from the original currency at the average prevailing rates of exchange.

    (d) I. From 1st April, 1931, the Canadian returns record quantities in lbs.

    II. Full particulars for the fiscal year 1933–34 are not yet available.

    III. Exclusive of a small number of Cotton Piece Goods items (about one per cent. in 1930–31) which are shown by value only in the original returns.

    (e) Quantities are not available. The figures shown relate to the value of Cotton, Canvas and Linen Piece Goods.

    RUSSIA.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will give a list, with value, of the exports to Soviet
    1892
    Russia since the trade agreement came into operation; and will he state how these exports compare in value with our imports from Soviet Russia during the same period?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the answer involves a detailed statistical statement, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir A. KNOX: Can the hon. and gallant Member reply to the second part of my question?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes. During the period the ratio is rather more than five to two in Russia's favour, but orders placed are not reflected in the returns.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Member include in the statement the orders which were placed this year as compared with the orders placed last year?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a separate question. It is difficult to make a return of the orders as firms are not bound to let me know what orders have been received.
    Mr. THORNE: Would it not be much better to cultivate trade with Russia rather than with Germany?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We desire to cultivate trade with all countries.
    Following is the statement:

    STATEMENT OF TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE SOVIET UNION FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY TO MAY, 1934.

    (Figures taken from the accounts of trade and navigation of the United Kingdom.)

    £

    Exports of United Kingdom, pro-produce and manufacture to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    1,375,122

    of which:

    £

    Iron and steel manufactures

    529,000

    Non-ferrous metals and manufactures thereof

    397,000

    Machinery and parts thereof

    259,000

    Raw Wool

    94,000

    Chemicals and Drugs

    23,000

    Pottery and Glassware

    16,000

    Vehicles

    8,000

    Cutlery and Hardware

    7,000

    Re-exports of Imported Merchandise to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    955,278

    of which:

    £

    Rubber

    499,000

    Non-ferrous Metals

    257,000

    Beverages and Cocoa preparations

    83,000

    Chemicals and Drugs

    14,000

    Total Imports into the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union during the same period

    5,770,579

    NOTE.—The Trade Agreement did not actually come into operation till ratification on 21st March, but the schedule of the balance of payments attached thereto provides that it should be retroactive to 1st January, 1934.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Sir MURDOCH MCKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the arrangements to provide the necessary credit to finance the Russian herring contract have been completed?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The present position with regard to the arrangements for financing the proposed contract between the British Herring Trade Association Limited and the Co-operative Wholesale Society for the sale of herring to Russia is, I understand, as follows:—The negotiations for financing the transaction by the Co-operative Wholesale Society have not been successful. Negotiations were, however, opened last week between representatives of the association and the National Bank of Scotland for a loan to the association.
    In my opinion the basis on which the bank was prepared to make advances was generally reasonable and if credit is still desired the representatives of the association should, without delay, continue these negotiations with a view to adjusting details. I may add that a telegram has been conveyed to me this morning which suggests that if the herring are supplied the curers may now be prepared to undertake the scheme irrespective of financial assistance. I am making further inquiry on this point. I am glad to say that fishing is proceeding at the principal centres.
    Sir M. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that in not; providing this credit he is causing the situation to get worse every day? Will he answer the question, which I have put to him before, whether he does not consider that he has a responsibility to find this credit for the industry without delay in view of the fact that they cannot get on without it?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of my responsibilities in the matter, and I have made clear to the parties concerned the views I have taken on certain proposals. As I have stated in my answer, I

    1895
    received a telegram this morning, which I shall be happy to show to the hon. and gallant Member—
    Sir M. WOOD: Is it an official telegram?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It comes from a very responsible quarter; otherwise, I should not have made it known to the House. In it it is said that the necessary financial assistance has now been secured.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in the closest touch with the situation so that in the event of the negotiations breaking down he will be able to step in and do whatever may be necessary?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure the hon. Member will believe me when I say that I am in constant, almost hourly, communication with the different ports and the various representatives on this very important matter.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand that the matter has been satisfactorily settled and that no further negotiations are necessary?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The information in the telegram I have received leads me to think, I will not put it higher than that, that the necessary financial assistance from outside sources will not be required.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House the total amount of credit facilities required?
    Sir G. COLLINS: About £50,000.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of the negotiations breaking down, as they have done on several occasions, what action is the Secretary of State prepared to take?

  SCOTLAND.

    CRAIGHALL MILLING COMPANY, GLASGOW.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade how long the Craighall Milling Company, Glasgow, has been closed; whether he can state what was its productive capacity of flour; and how many employés have become unemployed as a result of the closing of the mill?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that the Craighall Mill ceased to manufacture flour on the 3rd November, 1933; that its productive capacity is 30 sacks of 280 lb. per hour; and that the number of men discharged as a result of the closing down of the mill was 50.

    FLOUR SHIPMENTS (LIVERPOOL TO GLASGOW).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of flour, stated in number of sacks, arriving coastwise in Glasgow from Liverpool in each of the following years, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I regret that the desired information is not available.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the number of sacks carried by coastwise steamers from Liverpool to Glasgow is noted, and that the number unloaded in Glasgow is also noted. Could not some method be devised for securing this information?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am advised that the Customs do not compile these statistics.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that there has been a large increase in the number of sacks sent from Liverpool to Glasgow, and cannot the hon. and gallant Member get the information from people in the trade?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have seen Press statements to the effect that there has been an increase, but the Customs advise me that they have no official figures.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the Customs the only source from which the hon. and gallant Member receives figures?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The only official source.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not the case that foreign imports of flour are responsible for the closing of these mills, and should not an import duty be imposed?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that the Import Duties Advisory Committee considered the matter a short time ago.

    RAILWAY COMPANY'S PASSENGER STEAMERS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the log books of the passenger steamers run by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, which carry passengers from Wemyss Bay, Largs and Fairlie to Dunoon, Rothesay, Millport and the Arran holiday resorts, are inspected by the Board of Trade; and if the departures from and arrivals at those places are maintained according to the time-tables published by that railway company?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, but only to ensure that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts have been complied with. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that I have no information.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONTRACTS (TENDERS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the special commercial envelopes permitted by the Post Office bear marks of identification as to the source of origin and that complete secrecy in respect to tenders for local authorities is in some manner transgressed; and what action he proposes to take?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The hon. Member no doubt has in mind the clause in the model standing orders which my right hon. Friend has issued for the guidance of local authorities when making contracts, which requires that tenders shall be submitted in envelopes not indicating the sender. Where a local authority has a standing order in these terms any firm submitting a tender will be unable to use envelopes bearing an indication of origin, but no action on my right hon. Friend's part seems called for.
    Mr. GROVES: If such is not in order, will his Department take the necessary steps to include this in their regulations?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is a question for the Post Office, and not for the Ministry of Health, except in so far as they are a breach of the standing orders of local authorities.
    Mr. GROVES: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Postmaster-General
    1898
    to see if arrangements can be made to assist these firms in not breaking the rules and regulations?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have already been in touch; but I see no inconsistency between the Post Office allowing an identification mark on an envelope for general purposes and our standing orders, which do not allow that in the case of contracts.

    GERMAN LOANS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the outcome of the Anglo-German negotiations regarding German loans?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): Negotiations are progressing favourably, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to their outcome.

    COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many persons have been found employment by the present Government on advisory committees, commissions and other bodies, including the Customs Department, and the annual cost of wages, salaries and other remuneration; and how many of the said employés will be entitled to pension rights?
    Mr. COOPER: Certain particulars as to the staffs employed in Government Departments, including the Department of Customs and Excise, as at the 1st April, 1934, will be found in the annual returns of staffs employed in Government Departments (Command Paper 4622) and of ex-Service men employed in Government Departments (Command Paper 4621), which have just been presented. The further information asked for in the question is not available and could not be collected without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, but if the hon. Member has any particular committee or commission in mind and will communicate with me, I will see if information can be obtained.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that when he and his colleagues

    1899
    were on this side of the House they insisted on such information being provided by the Labour Government? Why cannot the present Government find that information now?
    Mr. COOPER: I have already explained that the information is not available.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But surely there must be available information as to how many commissions and committees have been established and how many people have been appointed? Would it not be comparatively easy to compile the information?
    Mr. COOPER: No. It would involve a great deal of work and expense to collect the information. If there is any particular point on which the hon. Member wants information, it can be given.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this information was in the main collected by the last Government at the request of the then Opposition, why should the present Government not be in a position to supply similar information?
    Mr. COOPER: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given. The collecting of the information would cause so much work and cost so much money that we do not think the money and the work would be justified.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Would the expense be any greater now than it was when the Financial Secretary's party insisted on it being obtained? Why should the responsible Opposition not be supplied with the figures as their predecessors were supplied with them by the Labour Government?
    Mr. COOPER: The present Government are observing stricter economy than the Labour Government.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is it because of the vast additions to the number of officials appointed by this Government?
    Mr. COOPER: On the contrary, the number of officials has decreased considerably.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (DERELICT AREAS).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity
    1900
    of discussing before the Recess the reports of the commissioners regarding the distressed areas?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would remind the hon. Member that these reports will be confidential, as was made clear by the late Minister of Labour on the 19th April; any action which the Government may take as a, result of consideration of the reports will, of course, be brought before the House, but I see no prospect of the reports being completed in time to permit of any action upon them taking place before the Recess.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the Lord President aware that the Northern Commissioner met several Members of the National Government the other night upstairs in a Committee room, and why should not the whole House have a similar opportunity of discussing the question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not suppose for a moment that the hon. Member would object to my hon. Friend meeting anyone. I am sure he would not suggest that my hon. Friend made to them statements which he should not do upon his report. I have no control over whom he may meet, but I have been in touch with him and he denies entirely any report which may have been made as to his having made remarks on the nature of his report, which indeed is not completed.
    Mr. BATEY: If the report has so developed that the commissioner can meet certain Members of the Government, why cannot the whole House have an opportunity of discussing the matter with him?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member will have, I think, nothing of any interest to tell the House at this moment. The hon. Member has met members of his own party. He has had conversations with regard to the work he is doing, but not with regard to the report. He has had conversations with members of the hon. Member's own party, and I am sure that if any hon. Member desired to talk with him about the work he is doing in the North he would be delighted to see him.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there was a widespread feeling, when the Commissioners were first appointed, that there was already sufficient information in the

    1901
    hands of the Government about this matter? The Commissioners have now been busy two and a-half months, and there is not a single opportunity of discussion before the end of the Session. It will be November before we have any discussion on the matter at all. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to let matters drift in that way?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Matters are not drifting, because reports are being prepared and will have to be considered. I am aware of the widespread feeling, because I remember the questions which were put in the House.
    Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the Lord President to say that, while reports will be made by these Commissioners to the Cabinet and to any groups of private individuals who may be on friendly terms with the Commissioners, the House and the country as a whole will have no information placed before them as to what these men have done and the ideas they have?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No. The hon. Member affects to misunderstand.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am being neither humorous nor cynical. I do think there is something wrong in the procedure that is being adopted and I want to ask the Lord President if there cannot be any steps taken by which the work of these Commissioners will be made known in a proper, regular, House of Commons manner, instead of by this haphazard, back-door, unofficial method that is being taken just now?
    Mr. BALDWIN: What I meant by my reply just now was that I have great respect, as everyone has, for the hon. Member's intelligence. But the latter part of what he said was not the case. No back-door methods are being adopted. No disclosures of any kind have been made, for the excellent reason that the reports are not yet ready. The procedure, whether or not it commends itself to the hon. Member, is the procedure that was outlined during question and answer in this House in the month of April. These reports when received will be most carefully studied, and if action, as I hope it may be, is taken on them, there will be opportunity, when the proposals for action are brought before the House, to discuss the whole matter.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anything said by the Commissioner to the Northern group upstairs was entirely non-committal?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says that there will be nothing done until the autumn. Does that mean that there will be nothing done for this incoming winter in those areas that are lying derelict? It was because of the dreadful state of affairs there that the Government appointed these Commissioners. There is evidently to be nothing done this winter at any rate.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it absolutely impossible for the Government to allow a discussion before the House rises? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last two or three years there have been fewer people employed than there were two or three years ago, and that in the four industries particularly there is steady deterioration? Cannot he, in view of that fact, let us have a discussion before the House adjourns?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Let us be quite clear and not mix up two subjects. It is open to hon. Members opposite to put down a pertinent Vote at any time to discuss the question of these areas or any cognate question. It will not be possible for the Government to discuss the outcome of these visits that have been paid until they have had the reports and have had time to consider them.

    AERIAL WARFARE.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that evidence exists that experiments are being made and secret German plans perfected by the Luft-gas-angriff department for the destruction of human beings in war by aircraft carrying deadly disease germs; that experiments have been made concerning the vulnerability of under ground railways in London and Paris: whether he has considered the evidence; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have seen allegations to this effect in a published article. They have been officially denied by the German Government. The question of the vulnerability of the underground

    1903
    railways in London is kept under constant observation as part of the general question of air raids precautions, but I do not consider it in the public interest to make any further statement.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegations referred to in this question are very definite and precise and are supported by very strong evidence; and, in these circumstances, may I ask him whether this is not a matter which ought to engage the urgent attention of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have already given.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has intimated that he has nothing to add to the answer which has already been made.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (WIRELESS) BILL,
"to authorise the use of electric lines for the transmission of electric signals; and for other purposes connected there-with," presented by Mr. Liddall; supported by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Hannon, Colonel Wedgwood, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Sir Thomas Roshotham, Mr. Hornby, Colonel Broadbent, Captain Spencer, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Salt, and Mr. Young; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 18th July, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: the Duchess of Atholl, Lord Scone, and Mrs. Tate; and had appointed in substitution: The Attorney-General, Mr. Skelton, and The Solicitor-General.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Betting and Lotteries Bill
  1904
  [Lords]): Major Braithwaite; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL) (SELECT COMMITTEE).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Select Committee on the National Maritime Museum Bill: Captain Crookshank; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Gretton.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Stockport Corporation Bill,
Stockport Extension Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
South Devon and East Cornwall Hospital, Plymouth, Royal Albert Hospital, Devonport, and Central Hospital, Plymouth (Amalgamation, etc.) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable effect to be given to a Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed at Geneva on behalf of His Majesty on the twenty-fourth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one; to prohibit the taking or treating of whales within the coastal waters of the United Kingdom; and for purposes connected with matters aforesaid." [Whaling Industry (Regulation) Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  WHALING INDUSTRY (EEGULATION) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM JENKINS in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.
      CLASS I.

        TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £187,227, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."—[NOTE.— £135,000 has been voted on account.]
        3.23 p.m.
        Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I wish at the outset to take this opportunity of congratulating the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on his first appearance in that capacity in a Debate. The object of putting down this Motion for discussion to-day was not to embarrass the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to move a reduction in his salary but simply with the intention of raising a discussion on the monetary policy of the Government. That is a matter of very deep importance which affects every branch of our national life. I often think it is insufficiently realised how a sound or unsound monetary policy may affect, for good or evil, the operations not only of merchants, industrialists and farmers, but of all those who work for wages, whether on the sea or on the land or under the land. It has also a definite bearing on the important problem of unemployment.
        In the House of Commons considerable interest was aroused when an attempt was made to raise a discussion on this matter during the Debates on the Finance Bill. When an hon. Friend of mine put down an Amendment in order to draw attention to the subject, a large number of other hon. Members put down Amendments to that original Amendment, also with the object of drawing attention to the subject, though in a slightly different fashion. That must be not only our excuse but our reason for affording hon.
        1912
        Members this evening an opportunity for contributing their ideas on this subject to the general pool, and, what is more important, affording an opportunity to the Government of expressing their views and perhaps giving us an indication of their intentions in this matter.
        As everybody knows there is a great diversity of views on monetary policy. Those differing views are held most tenaciously and are supported by the most plausible arguments. It does not seem to matter how contradictory two different sets of views may be, the supporters of a particular school are always confident that the salvation of the country lies in the adoption of the particular view which they favour. In modern political economic language we have the inflationists who believe that if their methods were adopted there would be such an upward turn in the business of the country as has never been seen before. Against them there are those who may be termed the rigid and puritanical deflationists and in between there is another school whose doctrines seem more difficult to understand and would I think be still more difficult to apply in practice. They call themselves reflationists within gold.
        Then there are the people who want to go back at the earliest opportunity to the old Gold Standard. There are also those who want to return to gold but who think that we cannot return to it at present and who are doubtful whether it will be possible to return to the old standard and whether we ought not to return to gold at a new parity. Again there are those who take an altogether opposite view and who claim that the best method is that of a purely managed currency. On the outskirts of all these schools, whenever these questions are raised, we hear the voices of people who think that the great hope of salvation lies in what they call the proper use of silver. They point to the great opportunities of Far Eastern trade which would be opened up if silver were, as they put it, rehabilitated, and whether it is done by some system of symmetalism or some system of bimetallism in regard to the ratio between silver and gold. They are, anyhow, determined that a greater use should be made of silver.
        In the midst of these numerous counsellors the plain man is apt to ask himself where wisdom lies. It has been said

        1913
        that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I do not pretend to be an authority on monetary policy, but what I think the country is looking for is some lead through this maze of different theories offered by these different schools of thought. The unique position in which our country is placed by her great international trade and by the fact that she has been for so many years the centre of the world's finance, places upon us a sort of obligation, not only in our own interest but in the interest of the world to bend all our energies to finding some solution of the problem presented to us to-day. The more we look at the difficulties in which this country particularly is placed to-day, the more we realise the international aspect of this question. With our trading throughout the world, we find the necessity of having some stable standard of measurement. One of the greatest difficulties of traders to-day is to know what prices will be when they have to pay for the goods they buy, and when that condition of affairs exists it is easy to see what a terrible handicap the absence of any stable standard is.
        The present difficulties of the world are very great. The black cloud of Government debts has not yet cleared from the skies, and there are all sorts of restrictions in the way of trade put on by political action, some of them due to the influence of what is called economic nationalism, some of them possibly due to the panic induced by the idea of self-preservation, and there are restrictions put on by Governments in exchange, all of which make it extremely difficult at the present moment to hope for anything like a return to what we used to enjoy before the War in the way of an automatic working exchange based upon a currency of gold. But if we believe that the great object to attain is a stable standard, we are forced by experience to believe that that may be best found by the proper use of the gold measure. Therefore it is that at the present time, in spite of all these difficulties, I think we should endeavour to clear our minds of false ideas and hold as strongly as we can to those which experience has shown to be the truest and soundest methods.
        We have been gaining a lot of experience in the last two or three years. The world has been undergoing very extraordinary new experiences. Look at our own experience since the War. We
        1914
        naturally, when the War came to an end, were anxious at the earliest possible moment to return to the Gold Standard. We did, but we did it under conditions which we now realise severely handicapped us, and a combination of circumstances which were too strong for us eventually forced us off gold. When we were forced off, we found as a result that there was an immediate benefit to our export trade. That was undoubted. Look at another country which, owing to the depreciation of her currency, has made inroads into markets which she was never able to enter before. I refer, of course, to Japan, and though it is partly due to Japan's energy and industry, largely and, I think, to the greatest extent, it is due to her depreciated currency that she has been able to make the progress that she has made in these new markets which she has been attacking. Those results have been watched by other countries, and there are countries which are saying, "Why should we not also take this immediate advantage, which we see is to be obtained by going off gold, or by depreciating our currency and getting the immediate advantage that follows?"
        Such a prospect of a competition in debasement of currencies is sufficient to fill the soul of any sane man with alarm. In remaining on gold, of course, there are undoubted advantages. The country on gold can purchase its requirements and its raw materials at a price that the country with a depreciated currency is unable to do, and if matters were allowed to remain there, there is no doubt that, by the working of economic laws, in the course of a period of time a more or less corresponding balance would be arrived at between the country with a depreciated currency and the country that remained on gold. But those economic laws are not allowed to work, because political influences then come in, and as I said before, owing it may be to the ideas of economic nationalism or to the ideas of self-preservation, high tariffs, quotas, and restrictions are placed upon trade which still further block the channels and make exchanges more and more difficult, with the result that it becomes increasingly difficult for countries that remain on gold to enter the markets which they used to enter before; and the ultimate consequence, as far as can be seen—we are watching the struggle going on now in

        1915
        certain countries in Europe—is going to be that it will be very difficult for them to balance their budgets and meet the necessary reduction in wages that follows an attempt to remain on gold in the world as it is at the present time. In fact, the strains and stresses to which those countries will be inevitably subjected seem to point to their ultimately either being compelled to go off gold or, if they do not do that, they may see their very social structure crumble under the strains to which it will be subjected.
        I should like to ask whether it is wise for us to wait till that time arrives, which may be a time of very great chaos, and a very much more difficult time even than it is to-day, or whether it would not be wiser to try to find a way out of the difficulty, and for us, with our great international relationships, to endeavour to give a lead to the rest of the world to prevent the possibility of such chaos arising. In the meanwhile we are buying gold. In fact, we have amassed a larger amount of that metal than, I believe, we have ever possessed before, even in the times when we had a convertible currency. We have now an unconvertible currency, but still we go on purchasing gold, and I should like to ask why. It is very difficult for some of us to understand why this country in present conditions goes on amassing such quantities of so-called precious metal.
        It has been said that the hoarding and misuse of gold are very largely the cause of many of the world's troubles to-day. I do not know whether we are guilty or innocent in this matter. Are we adding to the world's troubles by piling up our gold, or are we piling up our gold with a view to some future action? This is a matter which again worries the plain man. It is difficult to understand the objective which we really set in front of us. When gold is hoarded and is not put to the uses to which it might be put, great strength is lent to the argument of those who plump for a purely managed currency. To my mind, a managed currency would be an ideal currency if we were living in Utopia, but we are living in a very imperfect world, and the experience of past years has taught us that the greatest stability is to be found, not in a managed currency in a civilised country which is well equipped with printing presses, but in
        1916
        some other method which is outside the influence of the printing presses, which could so easily be operated by a country with a managed currency.
        In the difficult circumstances to which I have alluded we have made a very new and untried experiment. At the request of the Chancellor, this House has placed in his hands £350,000,000 for the purpose of an Exchange Equalisation Account—an absolutely unprecedented experiment. There are many of us who did that with considerable misgiving. I do not wish to suggest that the account is not managed with the greatest skill and acumen, but at the same time the account is managed in secrecy; it must be so in the nature of things. We are glad to know, as we have been told from time to time, that the account shows a profit, but no one knows better than the Chancellor what it is and we shall never know what the true balance is until the assets on paper come to be realised. I should like to ask the Chancellor whether he has in prospect the possibility of winding up this Equalisation Account or whether, on the other hand, he sees any likelihood of having to ask for any further appropriation for it. I think the House and the country have throughout realised that this fund, instituted as it was in order to secure stability in a very unstable world, has been managed with skill and care, but at the same time, we feel that we have divested ourselves, as the supreme financial authority in the country, of any control over it. It will be a great relief, not only to the House, but to the whole country, when the fund is closed.
        It is certainly very gratifying to be able to recall the improvements that have taken place in our own financial conditions at home. We have balanced our Budget, we have converted the huge War Loan, we have seen a restoration of confidence, and we have seen a great improvement in the home market, the last-named largely because of the upward trend of events which have taken place during the last couple of years. Unfortunately, overseas trade remains in the doldrums. It seems now that a certain pause has come in that upward trend. Whether it be due to what might be called an approach to saturation of the home market, or whether it be a sort of taking breath before a further start forward, it is not very easy to say; but I suggest that the moment is not inappropriate

        1917
        for a general review of the whole position. It would be an advantage, I think, that opinion should be clarified now and that we should clearly see our objective instead of waiting perhaps until events take charge and when action might be rendered infinitely more difficult.
        I should like to refer again to the variety of opinions that are being expressed in the country with regard to our system of banking. That, system has withstood the shock of a rocking world—a most remarkable fact. At the same time, there are a number of people who think that the system might be improved. They point out that there is a certain rigidity in our system which would be better removed, and that there might be a more intimate relationship between our banking and our business, and that were such more intimate relationship introduced it would certainly be to the benefit of our business. There are others who go further and believe that it would be for the ultimate benefit, not only of our business, but of the whole nation, that the banks should be nationalised. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) preaches unfalteringly that nationalisation of the banks would mean the regeneration of the country. There are people who honestly believe that it would be a benefit if the banks were nationalised, but unfortunately that honest belief which is expressed by some people may be and has been turned into a very dangerous form of political propaganda. The Open Sesame of nationalisation, if wrongly used, might not disclose the sort of Aladdin's cave which would be rich in wealth and open to all the world to make everyone richer and happier. On the other hand, it might disperse credit and confidence and make that wealth disappear in a tenuous mist in the clouds.
        These opinions, both in regard to currency and banking, are held honestly and are honestly put forward. Some of them may be very unsound, and the object of my making these remarks to the Committee to-day is to suggest to the Chancellor that it would be to the advantage of the country that the sound should be sifted from the unsound and that we should know more clearly the objective that the country is setting before itself. I venture to suggest that if an authoritative committee were to be set up to
        1918
        inquire into these matters, to set out the true facts and the issues to be deduced from them, their report would be not only of assistance to the Government, but to the nation as a whole, and not only to the nation, but possibly to the world, and might point the way back to a return to greater prosperity on all hands. I venture to believe that the setting up of such a committee would commend itself not only to the Members of this House, but to many people in responsible quarters outside.
        3.50 p.m.
        Mr. BOOTHBY: I think the whole House will be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) for having raised this vital topic. It is a topic in which I have always taken a deep interest, and I think hon. Members on all sides of the House take very great interest in it. I never think it is quite so complicated as some people make out. A lot of people are inclined to run away at the mention of the word "monetary" or "currency" or "gold" and run still harder when silver is mentioned; but certainly the story of the monetary policy of this country over the last decade is a very, very strange one indeed.
        If hon. Members will cast their minds back for a moment to the year 1924 they will remember that, although a Labour Government was in office, this country was, in a sense, straining at the leash; and there was every indication in that year of a healthy trade expansion. There were signs of it on all sides. Even the export trade was improving in 1924. Then, in 1926, we returned to the Gold Standard at the pre-war parity of exchange. There were very few hon. Members at that time who expressed any doubts about the wisdom of that step, but those of us who did have surely been justified by events. I believe it was one of the most fatal steps, from an economic point of view, that we ever took, because it put costs completely out of relationship to prices. The only possible way for us to get through was by making wholesale reductions in wages, which under our somewhat rigid wage system was really not a practical possibility.
        Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Was it not the case that in the four years following the restoration of the Gold Standard 750,000 people were absorbed into industry

        1919
        and industrial production increased by 10 per cent.?
        Mr. BOOTHBY: I should say that the position hardly moved at all during those four years, and that we in this country scarcely shared in the undoubted revival which took place elsewhere—in America in particular and also in France—in those years. The unemployment figures were practically not reduced, or at any rate there was only a very small improvement in them, between 1924 and 1929, at a time when America, for example, was enjoying unparalleled prosperity. The immediate result of our return to the Gold Standard at that pre-war parity was, of course, the coal crisis, which had to be dealt with, and was temporarily met by a subsidy. The subsidy was not continued, and there followed the General Strike, and coal stoppage, which cost this country £800,000,000. I have never denied that I believe that our return to the Gold Standard at that parity, coupled with the rigidity of our wage system, was the direct cause of the industrial upheaval of 1926. I have never been able to understand—and this is germane to the question now before us—the ideas which animated those who directed the financial and economic policy of this country at that time. Really, inflation, Protection, subsidies, and public works programmes are all variations of the same theme. They are different methods of achieving the same end.
        Though my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was advocating Protection in 1923—and rightly, as I think, and I wish to goodness the country had accepted his views—he was not nearly so far away from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was at that time, or shortly afterwards, advocating a great policy of public expenditure, as he thought; because, as I say, they are really only variations of the same theme—a form of inflation. I think that periods come when we ought to apply one or other of them; and sometimes, especially if there be a great depression, it may be necessary to employ two or three simultaneously. Yet my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council advocated Protection in 1923, and in 1925 deflation, the exact opposite, which was bound to have the very effect that unrestricted
        1920
        Free Trade, which he opposed so much, also had. Throughout the period of 1925 to 1929, and even after that, right on up to the crash, the policy of deflation generally was pursued in this country, under the auspices of Lord Snowden, to the point of obsession. Stocks of monetary gold were piling up in the Federal Reserve Bank in New York and in the Bank of France; and in every other country in the world the basis of credit was steadily contracting. We lost gold the whole time. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), may say "No," hut it is true. The basis of credit contracted, and we did lose gold. We lost gold steadily, until finally the point came when we had lost so much that we were driven off the Gold Standard. Very soon we had practically no credit left, except, of course, for the essential municipal reconstruction which we found it necessary to carry out in Germany and Austria. But apart from that the whole basis of trade was contracting all through that period.
        When the Stock Exchange inflation in America was blown up in 1929, world prices began to fall more and more swiftly, and crisis became apparent. Still we held on grimly to the old gold course, resolved to go through to the bitter end, and a bitter end it was. The National Government was formed, largely at the instigation of Lord Snowden, who has never played anything but a disastrous part in the financial history of this country from start to finish, whenever he has touched it, in order to keep us on the Gold Standard at any cost. Mercifully, that did not succeed in keeping us on the Gold Standard, and I submit to the Committee that at the very hour that we were forced off that Gold Standard the tide of our industrial fortune turned, and it has not yet begun to ebb. I cannot forgive those who, as I firmly believed at the time, and have believed for 10 years, inflicted by this mistaken policy such unnecessary suffering upon the workers of this country, but I should be the last to deny that they and we have profited by our bitter experience.
        Nobody, I think, can complain about our monetary policy in general during the last three years. If we sum up its objective in a sentence it would be, "Stable prices, and cheap and plentiful

        1921
        money," and we have been enabled to carry out that policy very largely as a result of the skilful conversion operation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was brilliantly executed, as, indeed, our whole monetary policy has been brilliantly carried through, from a technical point of view, since we came off the Gold Standard. I submit that there is a great deal to be said for the contention that that change in monetary policy, which came late but not too late, is really the basis of the present recovery. There has been a slight deviation lately into deflationary bypaths which has been reflected in a definite reduction in bank deposits. I wonder whether that is not indirectly due to the ecessive reduction of the floating debt, which has reduced bills and forced the joint stock banks to contract. I ask my right hon. Friend when he replies to refer to that question, because, as he probably knows, there are a lot of people who are quite orthodox and not at all inflationary in their views, who think we have been going a little too far and a little too fast in the policy of reducing the floating debt.
        Before I come to deal with the interesting question of future policy raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, I would like to refer to another point he mentioned in connection with the industrial revival, and to utter one word of warning. Ninety per cent. of this industrial revival is an internal revival. It is not based upon an expansion of foreign trade to any appreciable extent. We all hope that we are going to see in the course of the next few years a very great expansion of Imperial trade, but I think it will take time to develop. In the meantime, between 80 and 90 per cent. of our industrial revival is internal, and of that about 40 per cent. is based upon activity in the building industry. In default of a revival of international trade, of which there is no immediate sign, the saturation point is likely to be reached within about 12 or 18 months at the outside, if we are to proceed only along present lines.
        Therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Government ought to be considering very earnestly indeed how they can give a direct stimulus to the building industry, the activity of which is at present largely confined to the speculative
        1922
        house builder and house contractor constructing houses for the middle and lower middle classes, and has not yet begun to extend, sufficiently at any rate, to the workers' houses and the slums. I ask whether it would not be possible during the next 12 months for the Government to devise some definite means to give a direct stimulus to the building industry when the saturation point is reached? For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the Government themselves will have to take in hand a vigorous policy involving considerable loan expenditure, to deal with the whole question of slum clearance and the construction of workers' flats on a very large scale.
        With regard to the future, about which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was so anxious, I have no doubt that our ultimate objective should be to return to a properly managed international gold exchange standard. There is not such a plethora of mutual confidence and trust between the nations in the world to-day that we can afford to dispense with a metallic basis for international transactions. I think that is the answer to my hon. Friend when he asked why the Bank of England were collecting gold. They are looking, not at the next field but the one ahead of it, when we may well find that a substantial amount of gold will be extremely useful. I do not think that we should ever allow our gold reserves again to sink as low as they were in the disastrous years 1930 and 1931. I have never found any disposition on the part of any responsible authorities in any country, including Soviet Russia, to abandon gold as the basis of credit and as a method of settling international transactions. I think that it is an essential condition of the revival of international trade that we should get back to a properly managed gold exchange standard. By this I do not mean for a moment that unregulated and uncontrolled Gold Standard, which functioned well enough before the War, under completely different conditions and in a completely different situation, and was run almost entirely by us, but which brought economic catastrophe after it.
        I suggest that what we want now is both an international Gold Standard and a managed currency, and if my right hon. Friend asked me how it is to be achieved, I would remind him of some admirable

        1923
        resolutions, the only thing which came out of the Genoa Conference of 1932. I have referred to them before, and have no hesitation in doing so again. While joining in the congratulations to my hon. Friend who has just been appointed to the post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury—a well-deserved appointment, if I may say so—I would urge him at the start, and before they get at him, because they will pretty soon, to read the Genoa resolutions first. They really do repay study at the present time. They were described by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans — who, I always thought, was one of the best economists in this House, and of whom they did not make as much use as they might—as a financial code worthy to rank with the legal code of Justinian. I do not go so far as to say that they are entirely applicable to present conditions, but they are not altogether academic. They pointed out that if the nations of the world were to go back to the Gold Standard—and they laid it down as a desirable objective—it must be with the primary object of keeping world commodity prices steady by co-operation between the central banks to stabilise the value of gold in terms of commodities. In subsequent resolutions they laid down the methods by which this could be done. I will not weary the Committee this afternoon by going into this question in detail, but they believed that it could be done by co-operation by the central banks, and I believe that it can be done now by that co-operation. As a matter of fact, the Genoa Conference recommended that in order to achieve these objectives, a meeting of the central banks should be held at the earliest moment, to be summoned by the Bank of England, and before any nation committed itself to going back to the Gold Standard. The Genoa Conference was held in 1932, but that meeting of the central banks has never yet been held, though I still believe it could be, and ought to be, held as soon as it is found possible.
        No one can blame the Government for having failed to get agreement upon these questions at the World Economic Conference. The United States were not ready. I think that they ought to have told us that they were not ready before coming over; but they will come to an
        1924
        agreement and, I think, perhaps, sooner rather than later. I hope so, because the first step in all this business must necessarily be agreement between ourselves and the United States; and then all the nations can base themselves upon the sterling-dollar exchange. This may take some time, but the figures of 140s. per ounce for gold and a dollar sterling rate of 5 are already beginning to take practical shape, and coming into practical politics. At any time now we might initiate negotiations with the United States on those lines. Any agreement to stabilise the value of gold and exchanges at reasonable figures would be worth 20 tariff agreements, for I believe the immediate effect of such an international agreement would be, almost imperceptibly, to lower tariff walls all over the world without it being seen too soon, or appearing too obvious.
        I would like to close on an optimistic note. I do not think it necessary to be as gloomy and apprehensive as was my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. I think it is possible to look ahead with rather an optimistic eye. The rise in the price of gold has led, and must continue to lead, to a great increase in its production, corresponding in some degree to the discoveries of gold in the last century, each one of which was followed by a definite revival of prosperity all over the world. I believe that the rise in the price of gold and its increased production is bound to have a similar effect. Although not entirely analogous, they are sufficiently analogous to enable us to cherish hopes with some confidence. If and when we return to an international gold exchange standard, there should be, owing to this increase in production, enough gold available for monetary purposes to sustain a world expansion of at least 3 per cent. per annum. And this goes to the root of the problem. You really want to devise a currency and credit system which will enable you to sustain all over the world a steady advance of industrial activity of about 3 per cent. per annum, which, as every economist agrees, is the rate of progress at which, given reasonable conditions, the world ought to expand. If that takes place, we shall find that not only our own industrial revival will continue, but all our political difficulties, both internal and external, not even' excluding India and

        1925
        problems of that kind, will be enormously diminished in the years to come.
        4.10 p.m.
        Mr. LOFTUS: In looking to the future I suggest to the Committee that we should consider whether we, desire to restore the two former props of our monetary policy, namely, to endeavour to retain a large favourable balance of trade, and, of course, an international gold scheme. I would congratulate His Majesty's Government upon maintaining the embargo on foreign investments. I realise that there must have been considerable pressure to remove it, but I believe that its maintenance has had a great deal to do with the satisfactory economic position in which we stand. After all, a large favourable balance of trade means that payments can only be made either in gold or in foreign investments. There is no other way, and I suggest that payment in foreign investments on a large scale has grave disadvantages both to this country and to the world as a whole. First, I would suggest that the only object of export, as I think is acknowledged, is in order to import for exchange. It is argued that our foreign investments are a system of deferred payments of imports. I suggest that that is not correct.
        My first objection to large-scale foreign investment is the capital loss. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) stated very definitely that in, the 60 years before the War we lost in foreign investments at least £2,000,000,000. That is, of course, an immense capital sum. I believe that the total value of the buildings of all kind in this country is about £2,000,000,000. The loss of that sum in foreign investments represents wealth created in this country which was exported, and nothing was received in exchange. It might just as well have been sunk in the Atlantic. I have heard it stated in this House that it did not matter whether investment was made a home or abroad. I suggest that it does matter immensely. Suppose we invest money to re-house, for example, the people of Vienna, and owing to default we get nothing in return. Austria has the asset, and we have not; but if we use the money as an investment at home we have a national asset. Take, again, a harbour which might be a valuable national asset. It may not pay—it may be lost capital, but yet a valuable
        1926
        national asset. In the Argentine, however, it is a dead loss to this nation if the capital be lost.
        My second objection is that foreign investments involve a lower national consumption. I might put it this way. In a normal year we receive, on our foreign investments, goods to the value of £250,000,000, and we generally invest about £100,000,000 or £150,000,000, receiving about £150,000,000 in goods. That means that we could import £100,000,000 a year additional goods for consumption by our people. This was very clearly stated by Sir Josiah Stamp in a speech he made on 16th July last year, when he said:
        "Real wages have increased at too great a speed, so that purchasing power has been transferred from ordinary shareholders and institutions who might have used it for increasing investments abroad. It has got into the hands of millions with increased purchasing power who have enjoyed their newly-found command over foreign produce of all kinds. In this way it has become fatally easy to squeeze the favourable balance of trade into the standard of living."
        My third and most important objection is that foreign investment stimulates employment for the moment at a cost of permanent increase of unemployment. I will give my reasons for saying that. In the first place, every interest that we receive comes here in the form of goods unless it is re-invested. But these goods come as tribute, and not in trade. If they came in the course of trade they would demand exports, but coming as tribute they demand no export in manufactured goods. The heavy default on our foreign investments during the last two or three years has had the effect of stimulating our export trade, because the goods which hitherto came as tribute have now to be paid for by us exporting manufactured goods. Another reason why foreign investment causes unemployment is that debtor countries have to have high tariffs in order to find the large favourable balance of trade wherewith to meet their interest obligation. I will not weary the Committee with a long argument, but I would like to quote what was said by the present Prime Minister of Canada just after he took office in February, 1932, when he spoke as follows in the Canadian House of Commons:
        "Canada has to meet a non-trading obligation of 1,000,000 dollars daily for interest payments to foreign countries."
        He had just been attacked by the Liberal

        1927
        opposition for raising the tariff barriers of Canada to an impossible height, and that was his defence. In other words, Canada had to export every day 1,000,000 dollars worth of goods as tribute before commencing to export goods for the payment of imports. I need not remind the Committee that the League of Nations Accounts Committee went to Austria and strongly advised her to restrict imports in order to create a favourable balance of trade to meet her League of Nations loan interest. In the same way Australia, immediately upon our stopping loans to that country in 1930, had to restrict our imports in order suddenly to find the immense favourable balance of trade wherewith to pay us.
        A further reason why foreign investment causes unemployment at home is that, naturally enough, capital searching for profitable foreign investment must ultimately build factories abroad which directly compete with our English factories. Thus, British capital is helping to erect cotton mills in China and India, steel works in India, and so on. Foreign investment is a great temptation, as its immediate effect is to stimulate employment, but it is paid for by a permanent increase in unemployment. Another objection, as every economist has pointed out, is that every economic depression in the world has followed a period of excessive borrowing by debtor countries. The great depression of the seventies is described by Professor Bowley as directly due to excessive borrowing by debtor countries and over-lending by manufacturing countries. Sir George Paish describes the economic crisis of the nineties as being due to:
        "the over-borrowing of the new countries in the eighties. The price of food fell to a level which reduced the farmers of all nations to poverty. Cotton, wool and other raw material became so cheap that those who produced them had scarcely enough to live upon."
        In the ten years preceding that crisis, the total amount of the capital lent to the debtor nations was certainly not more than £1,000,000,000. In the ten years preceding the crisis of 1929–1930, the total amount loaned by the United States and Great Britain was over £4,000,000,000. That surely is sufficient indication that excessive lending was a direct cause of the world economic crisis of three or four years ago. If a creditor country refuses
        1928
        to accept goods in the payment of the interest—America did, and as we did also to a limited extent when we placed a restriction on the receipt of goods—debtor countries are forced to scramble for gold, because the creditor nations have the alternatives either of taking payment in goods or in fresh bonds of indebtedness. It was the demand for payment in gold which caused the scramble for gold, forced up its price and forced down the price of everything else.
        I will not deal in detail with the defence of this policy of immense foreign investment and immense favourable balance of trade, but I suggest to the Committee that those who say that the policy is necessary for the development of new countries should consider whether this easy borrowing on a gigantic scale does not force the development of the new countries into wrong channels. Take a country like Peru: the whole development of the country was forced into copper. When the copper price crashes the whole country crashes, and agriculture is neglected. Brazil was forced, in a similar way, into coffee. Take Australia: if Australia had not been able to borrow with ease colossal sums from this country for generations past, it would have had a more natural and healthy development, and two-thirds of the people would not be in cities and the rest of the continent open, lacking population and an object of envy to neighbouring States. I know it is said that productive foreign investments are right and that those international debts like War debts are in a different category. I suggest that in either case the problem of transfer is the same. Suppose that the United States invested £500,000,000 in this country to build factories, buying the property to return 6 per cent. We would have to transfer £30,000,000 a year in dividends and interest in the form of goods, to New York. However productive the investments were, we should be faced with the problem of transfer. Again, in Germany, steel works were equipped by the aid of American and British capital. Those factories are productive to an immense degree, but the problem of transfer connected with the capital invested in them remains unsolved.
        Before leaving the question of the favourable balance of trade, I should like to refer to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol

        1929
        (Sir S. Cripps), who said in a Debate in this House a few weeks ago that be thought that all these international debts should be cancelled. I cannot understand that attitude, which would involve deliberately accepting a lower standard of life for our people. During several generations we have exported to the world £7,000,000,000 or £8,000,000,000 of wealth created by the people of this country. About £4,000,000,000 of that foreign investment still remains, and the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should cancel it. Normally, a tribute of £250,000,000 a year comes to this country in goods, and in recent years it has been £150,000,000 or £160,000,000. Those goods have helped to feed and raise the standard of life of our people. I can only suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen a victim to the current fallacy that the aim of economic activity is employment and not consumption. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man so to arrange our imports that they are received without damage to our own industries. The hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that he could not imagine any system where imports and exports were controlled by Government except under a Socialist system. I suggest to him that within a very few months he will probably see in Germany a Government monopoly of all imports and exports, with the private property and the capitalistic system still in full being. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred to the Gold Standard. I suggest that that is impossible to-day, and that any restoration of the International Gold Standard will continue to be impossible—
        Mr. EMMOTT: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who has left the Committee, may I point out that what he said was that he favoured a return to a gold exchange standard, not the Gold Standard?
        Mr. LOFTUS: In recent years, money has not been convertible into gold. In former years, whenever a crisis came and people wished to convert into gold, the system had to be suspended. It was suspended five times in the last 100 years. It was, therefore, a fair weather system. When you did not want to convert money into gold you could, and when you wanted
        1930
        to convert you could not. The Government intervened and the national credit was used. I suggest that the use of national credit might perhaps not be reserved only for periods of emergency. As regards the use of gold as a regulator of international exchanges, the point that we have to bear in mind to-day is that, however gold is used, international exchanges are not regulated by international trade. The movements in the value of the pound to-day are not caused by international trade; they are caused by a vast mass of international capital which is floating about the world. If people in the United States get the least bit frightened about the future of their country, they buy pounds, and, in the same way, people in France buy pounds; or, if they get the least bit frightened about the future of this country, they buy francs. You have this vast block of international capital chasing round the money markets of the world, and that is what regulates the international prices of money.
        I submit to the Committee that it is really rather an absurd system that the value of the pound in international markets should not be regulated by international trade, but should depend upon whether some prominent citizens either in Paris or in the United States are in a panic about their own Government or their own future—not ours. I suggest also that the classical theory of the working of the Gold Standard requires that a nation which acquires gold should inflate its currency, thus raising prices and enabling other nations to under-sell it in its own markets. Are any of the nations likely to do that? On the other hand, a nation that loses gold must contract its currency and force down prices, to the ruin of its industries.
        I submit that there are three conditions all of which are necessary for the successful working of an international gold standard. In the first place, a country losing gold must be willing and able to make a general reduction of costs, including wages. Is any country in that position to-day? Secondly, it must have available markets for additional exports. Is that the position with any country today? Thirdly, a country receiving gold must let it flow out again when the conditions again demand it. I do not think that any country will allow that. Therefore, I suggest that an international

        1931
        gold standard is impracticable; and not only is it impracticable, but the use of a gold standard must involve periodical deflation, and deflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen has said, involves immense loss and immense misery. Recurring depressions are absolutely necessary to the successful functioning of a gold standard, and I would remind the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) warned the House in very strong language, such as I dare not use, that, unless we iron out these depressions, unless we have a money system that will prevent another depression following another boom, the whole capitalistic system involving private property will be in danger. My right hon. Friend used stronger words than I dare use. I submit that the Gold Standard cannot be restored, and that we have to face the alternatives. Therefore, I plead with His Majesty's Government that we should have an inquiry, not only into monetary policy, but into the monetary system of this country and of the world. As regards the personnel of such an inquiry, it was well set out in a leading article in "The Times" in November, 1932. That article said:
        "The problem which is now perplexing mankind is to discover by what flaw or flaws in our system it has come about that the world, never better equipped with knowledge and machinery to produce all its needs, is forced to see so much of that knowledge and machinery lying idle while millions of willing workers are unemployed and "in want. The professed authorities on these questions have expressed many conflicting opinions and have given such contradictory advice that the best hope of success seems, indeed, to lie in candid examination of the facts by men not professing to be experts, and consequently unhampered by preconceived theories."
        It goes on:
        "The situation of the world to-day is a challenge to world statesmanship, a challenge which statesmen must take up for themselves. It is impossible to shift the responsibility upon the experts, who differ so fundamentally among themselves over both the diagnosis and the appropriate remedy for the world's economic sickness."
        That leading article is a strong and urgent plea for a monetary inquiry, and it points out the type of inquiry that is required. As regards the objective of such a policy, I would suggest that it was set forth in the words of a prominent
        1932
        individual some two years ago more clearly than in any other words that I have read. He said:
        "The potential output of existing means of production is far greater than ever before. If all employable labour were employed for a reasonable number of hours per week, the world would have have at its disposal a volume of commodities and services that would enable the entire population to live on a higher level of comfort and well-being than has ever been contemplated in the rosiest dreams of the social reformer. The urgent task of the world is to bring consumption and production into proper relationship—not a simple, not an easy, but quite a possible task. The problem is one of distribution."
        Money must function as an efficient token, as a means for the exchange of goods and services. Another principle is that money should reflect the facts of production and distribution; and, above all, money must allow the full productive resources of a country to be used to supply potential demand.
        There are many schemes before the world to-day. I have not time to go into them, and will not weary the Committee by doing so, but I suggest that they should all be inquired into, and particularly the very clear scheme put forward by the London Chamber of Commerce, on which lectures have been given upstairs. That scheme, which represents the official policy of the London Chamber of Commerce, involves the rejection of the Gold Standard. It involves the rejection of trading for debts and gold. It proposes that international exchanges should be stabilised, starting within the British Empire, including Scandinavia; that trading should be for goods; and that there should be a monopoly for each central bank of the purchase and sale of foreign currency. If we sell to any foreign country and get paid in foreign currency, that is a demand on that country for goods and services, and we have to utilise it. In the same way, if any foreign country buys from us and receives pounds, it has to receive payment in British goods and services. I suggest that that would do away with all the evils of international indebtedness and all the present fear of Japanese competition and the future fear of German competition.
        There is also the remarkable report issued by the Southampton Chamber of Commerce, and there are the proposals which have been put forward by leading

        1933
        industrialists such as Lord Melchett and others; there is the Gessel Scheme, which has been tried in some places, and there are other schemes such as the Doulgas Scheme which is attracting increasing attention, not only in this country, but in our Dominions, in the United States, and in Japan. I believe that, if His Majesty's Government would announce in due course that they were prepared to set up an inquiry into the monetary system and into monetary policy, they would be astonished at the flame of enthusiasm that they would arouse throughout the country, especially among the younger people. They are not satisfied with world conditions as they are to-day; they are not satisfied with any policy of going back to 1924 or 1914; they feel that the productive capacity of the world is immense, but that it is not being utilised owing to the defects in the monetary system, which should facilitate the exchange of goods and services all over the world. The young people are demanding that this inquiry should be undertaken. I can assure the Committee that within the next year or two we shall hear that demand made to an increasing extent in every constituency, and, if it is not satisfied, many young people, in their despair, may turn to the crude policies of Fascism or Communism.
        There are many of us who defend the institution of private property because we believe that it answers to some essential need in the soul of man. We believe that, were it abolished, you could not retain liberty, you could not have that variety, that individuality, which is essential to human progress. But we recognise that we are fighting in defence of private property on two fronts. On the one hand, there is the Socialist and Communist attack, and, on the other hand, we recognise that there are certain tendencies in finance to-day which are evil and which are destructive of property, and, above all, of the moderate property owner. We see the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and ever fewer hands. As we go round the countryside we see the parks which we have inherited from the past, and which should be the priceless heritage of our children, being driven by an undiscriminating system of taxation into the hands of the speculative builder. That is a national heritage which is being
        1934
        lost. Again we see in the countryside where 20 small towns were dependent upon one factory but where people connected with big business by threats or persuasion have forced the small factory into a large combine. This results in the factory being closed down, and we see the town to-day devastated and the surrounding countryside depressed.
        We know the effect which, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen has pointed out, deflation has had upon our people; and we know also that to-day the economic problem is linked with the political problem. In Yugoslavia you have revolutionary discontent. Why? There is deflation. In Italy under the surface there is revolutionary discontent, Why? Deflation. In France, riots and revolutionary discontent. Why? Deflation. What was that bloody business in Germany the other day caused by but the pressure of deflation constantly driving down the standard of living? That was the main cause. We see these tendencies. To us who defend private property it is almost immaterial whether the world of the future is governed by international Socialism or international finance, because to the vast mass of the people the result will be the same—a servile state, organised, regimented herds, the people devoid of all variety and individuality, with machine work and machine pleasures, a people incapable of progress but capable of regression into a kind of mechanised barbarism, a barbarism worse than any before, because it will be without faith and without hope and without the real joy and zest of life.
        4.46 p.m.
        Mr. MAINWARING: The hon. Member's speech reminded me forcibly of the lines from Omar Khayyam:
        "Ah, love, could you and I with fate conspire
        To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire
        And shatter it to bits; and then
        Remould it nearer to the heart's desire."
        To what extent would several Members who have spoken to-day as representatives of the capitalist system agree to smash it up? Not a single one of them would proceed very far along the lines of reconstruction or destruction at all. They are complaining to-day of partial aspects of the problem. One thinks it is a gold problem, another thinks it is something else, and always in connection with

        1935
        this most holy of all systems it is some interfering little aspect or other that is the cause of the trouble. I suggest to them in all sincerity that they should sit down and consider the system as a whole. There seems to be a peculiar idea concerning trade within the capitalist system which I have heard repeatedly expressed, that the only purpose of foreign trade is to export in order to pay for imports. A more staggering misunderstanding of the capitalist system could not be imagined.
        What does the capitalist system of production involve? Ask any individual producer, whatever his branch of business may be. Is it not necessary for each of these people actually to sell more than he buys? Is it not true of the smallest even as it is of the greatest shopkeeper in the country? Is it not true of the smallest producer, as it is of the largest combine, that they must sell more than they buy? In other words, they must sell their products for more money than they have given for the materials employed in the process of production. Wages enter into this system of production only as one of the elements of production and wages, or in other words the price that the capitalist as an individual or the capitalist class as a whole pays to the working-class, can never purchase the product. It is an utter impossibility. One can never be two. The producing capitalist has to gather together into the process of production a number of elements, and he pays for them separately. He pays for the place in which the production is carried on—the factory or the mine. He pays for the machinery and the technique, the raw materials and the wages of the labour that he employs.
        Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. Would it be in order to move to report Progress in view of the fact that no Liberal Member is present on a Supply Day?
        Mr. MAINWARING: The point, there-for, is that since in the variety of elements brought together in the process of production labour forms one only and is a part of the total expenditure to begin with, it can never be, as such, capable of purchasing the product. The problem, therefore, must exist for the
        1936
        individual employer and for the capitalist class as a whole; and they must find consumers for their products other than their own working-class. Where are they going to find them? The hon. Member who spoke last talked about some process of tinkering with the monetary system so as in some miraculous way to enable the working-class, still within the capitalist system, to consume the product. It is utterly fallacious from beginning to end. The capitalist system cannot be confined in England. It never has been. It has had to spread abroad. It has had to invest its surplus. It has had to get rid of its surplus abroad. Has anyone ever heard a more astounding suggestion than was contained in certain words of the hon. Member when he referred to the annual income returning to this country from our foreign investments, amounting to some £250,000,000 a year, and said the major portion came back in the form of goods?
        After all, our foreign investments are not held by the nation. They are not held by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible personally for them. There are a large number of individuals and institutions who hold these investments. Do all these holders of foreign investments meet together and agree that they will accept the revenue due to them from, it may be, Canada or from a foreign country in the form of goods? Of course not. But the underlying assumption here is that in some miraculous way it is agreed by the body of investors to accept their revenue in terms of goods as to part and as to the remainder in terms of money. The suggestion is that in some mysterious way we are going to agree to receive all revenues due to us in the form of consumable goods and squeeze it into the system here; in other words that if, as capitalists, we are entitled to £100,000,000 from abroad, we agree to bring it back in goods and to give it to the working-classes to consume.
        Mr. LOFTUS: A good many of these investments are held by insurance companies and friendly societies, but the food that they purchase from abroad is consumed by everyone.
        Mr. MAINWARING: I have said that the investments are held by individuals and institutions. Can it be imagined that

        1937
        the Prudential, the largest owners of foreign investments, would agree to accept £10,000,000 due to them and give it to the working-classes? No individual capitalist or institution of capitalists would agree to such a foolhardy proposition. Hon. Members must realise that we are living under a capitalist system, and they must accept the logic of that system. If they want to change it, they must change it root and branch as we desire to do. There can be no tinkering about with a system of that kind on these lines, any more than it is possible within the capitalist system so to arrange matters that you will go on peacefully without any disturbance at all. The fact of the matter is that the final underlying cause of crisis or depression under capitalism is the poverty of the working-class. The working-class inside capitalism can never consume the products. They have not the purchasing power to do it. If you take it from the capitalists and abolish the element of profit, then you may distribute your final product to the whole community, but, until you do that, you may as well face the logic of the system and understand once and for all that you cannot get out of the contradictions of it.
        The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) argued that all that is needed is for the central banks of the nations of Europe and the world to agree to set up a gold exchange standard. There is no need for gold in internal currencies, but it may be very helpful to get an understanding to employ a gold exchange standard to cover your international relations, and then, if we go on producing the necessary 3 per cent. increased production of gold year by year so that there is a constantly expanding supply of money and credit, the system of capitalism will go on undisturbed and the rest of its days will all be summer days and you will not have a winter. How easy it would be if capitalism could be planned along those lines? What a happy world it would be.
        Unfortunately, while we are in this world, we have to accept the material contradictions that are contained in it. While one man is compelled to work for wages, he will be compelled to produce a product greater than is represented by his wages, and his master must be faced with the necessity of disposing of the surplus products and will have to find a constantly expanding market outside.
        1938
        When those conditions fail, the system brings about a condition of depression and crisis throughout the world. All that is inevitable, It is folly to suggest that the Gold Standard or anything else is inherently responsible for this state of affairs. It is true that in the last century the Currency Acts of this country had to be suspended on several occasions. But is that the cause, or the effect, of the trouble? The real cause has been that the capitalist system has been shaken to its very foundations. In desperation, as a means of getting out of its difficulties, the Bank Act has been suspended, but only, at the first possible moment thereafter, to go back to the normal and orthodox system.
        It is folly to talk of the Gold Standard as if it were an evil thing of itself and had brought all these evils. It is only by delving into this matter and getting the system as a whole into our minds that we are able to understand the difficulties and the things which have to be done to protect the people of the country, not merely to protect the capitalist investor or the great capitalist investing institutions of the land, but the people of England and of every nation. The problem will only be solved when we have grappled with the system as a whole and cancelled out its contradictions by removing the basic principles which govern our economic life. That is the position which we have to face. It is no good tinkering with the system. You will not change its nature by suggesting any means along those lines. It must pursue its eventful, fitful, and damnable course in its effect upon the suffering population of this country. There is no indication to-day, any more than there was 10 years ago, of our being able to get out of our difficulties. The same outlook is presented to the miners and other unemployed of the country. No tinkering with monetary policies or anything else will get us out of our difficulties. The system has to be grappled with as a whole and radically altered if we are to bring a greater measure of peace and contentment to the hearths and homes of the people of this country.
        5.3 p.m.
        Mr. DAVID MASON: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) will pardon me if I do not attempt to deal fully with

        1939
        his arguments, but I should like to make an appeal to him and to his colleagues above the Gangway. He argued that the whole root of the trouble and evils from which we are suffering is to be found in the capitalist system. I would remind him of what a great American once said with reference to currency, namely, that he who tampered with the currency robbed labour of its bread. I am sure he will agree that we could not expect to abolish the capitalist system to-morrow. We have to deal with things as they are. There are two classes of society which are more interested in the valuation of the currency than any other class, namely, the rentier and the wage earner. I would remind the hon. Member and his colleagues without going into the wider question, that we are pressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question of the value of the pound and of our currency affects the great mass of the workers, and the rentier and the trading classes. Whether you have a capitalist system or a socialist system, you must have a financial system which will, to a certain extent, guarantee the value of the pound. I think that the hon. Member will agree that the mere advent of a Socialist State would not guarantee that fact any more than is the case in a capitalist State. The causes lay far deeper. They are economic. I imagine that the Socialist subscribes to sound financial doctrines equally with the capitalist. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend and his colleagues above the Gangway will support those of us who to-day are pleading for an inquiry into the monetary policy of this country.
        We have already had many admirable speeches in this Debate, and probably we shall have more, and the fact that they are so varied is eloquent proof of the necessity for an inquiry. We might continue to have a series of these Debates which would be very admirable, and we should, no doubt, hear excellent speeches and different points of view, but we should get no further. I believe that the history of this Parliament and of previous Parliaments, and indeed of this country, confirms the fact that only by proceeding by way of Committees from time to time, and crystallising opinion both inside and outside the House, can you make even a small advance, and it
        1940
        is with the object of making an advance that I am pleading for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. There have been many appeals in the past. There was the classical instance of 1810 when the subject was brought before the House of Commons by Mr. Francis Horner, who moved for a committee to inquire into the causes of the high price of bullion. The Ministers consented to the Motion, and the committee was appointed. The report was presented on the 8th June and it developed at great length the sound principle
        "that bullion is the true regulator both of the value of a local currency, and of the rate of foreign exchanges; and that the free convertibility of paper currency into the precious metals, and the free exportation of those metals, place a limit to the fall of exchange, and not only check the exchanges from falling below the limit, but recover them by restoring the balance."
        It concluded by recommending that:
        "Cash payments should be resumed at the end of two years, so as to give the bank time to prepare for the change."
        That report is a classic; it is unanswerable. It has never been confuted. It remains to-day unanswerable as a sound basis of a sound currency. There have been many instances indicating how the adoption of the principles embodied in that report;—they were adopted by Sir Robert Peel and later on developed under the financial policy of Mr. Gladstone—led to prosperity and to the development of foreign trade which has never been equalled in the history of the world. I do not wish to obtrude my views upon the Committee. I am a gold standard man, although it is now probably impossible to get back to the old parity. At the time of the agitation for the appointment of a Committee in 1810 the paper price of gold bullion was about £5 10s., and bankers and traders were alarmed. Yesterday in the City of London the paper price for gold bullion was £6 17s. 6d. per fine ounce, and people talk of it going up to £7 and possibly £8, such is the increase of inflation and the debasement and depreciation of our paper currency. An hon. Member asked why the Bank of England bought gold bullion to-day at this inflated price. It is their only way of obtaining it in order to make further expansions of credit. The result is that these expansions are dearer because of the inflation which

        1941
        exists. This can be proved by comparing the Mint price of £4 5s. per fine ounce with the present market price of £6 17s. 6d. The fact that you have to pay £6 17s. 6d. to-day for what formerly you were able to buy for £4 5s. indicates the fall in the value of the paper pound. That fact ought to appeal to my hon. Friends above the Gangway.
        Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member said that it indicates the fall in the value of the pound. The value has not fallen at all. The purchasing power of the pound sterling has remained constant.
        Mr. MASON: I am discussing at present the inflation and debasement of the paper pound which can be proved at any moment by comparing the Mint price with the price you have to pay. That is the fact. That is the difference in the value of the paper currency. Your paper currency has so depreciated that you require more of it to purchase an ounce of fine gold. I do not take any exception to the interruption of my hon. Friend. He may say that you can still get things at a very low figure, and that there has not been the inflation, which, as we have been led to expect, results from the inflation and debasement of currency. I am prepared to admit that sterling prices have not fallen quite as much as gold prices, but it is gold prices which are the real test of our currency. The fact that we are off gold, and are working to an inconvertible gold policy, and no one is able to sell, has unquestionably led to a very serious fall in prices, but to-day there is a difference between the sterling and the paper price of the British pound on commodities, but I am referring entirely to the gold price. I say without fear of contradiction, that you can test the depreciation or debasement of our paper currency by comparing it with the Mint price. The fact that you pay more for an ounce of gold proves my statement. The reform which was carried in 1810 was referred to by the present Earl Buxton in 1888 in his "Finance and Politics," in which he says:
        "One financial reform of great importance was, however, carried through during this period of darkness."
        It is rather interesting to see how complete is the analogy in many respects between that period of history after the Napoleonic Wars and the period through
        1942
        which we are now passing. Of course, there is the difference of time, and increases of population and so forth, but there were inflationists and deflationists, paper money men and bullion men just as there are now, and it is curious and interesting to find, if one will take the trouble to read up the Debates in this House, comments and statements made almost similar to those that are being made to-day. This is what the present Earl Buxton, then Sydney Buxton, said in his book nearly 50 years ago:
        "One financial reform of great importance was, however, carried through during this period of darkness, a reform due chiefly to Peel and Huskisson, and not to Vansittart—the resumption of specie payment. This question, almost more than any other financial question, for years agitated the public mind. To some, it meant the monetary salvation of the country; to others, it was the cause of every pecuniary disaster, every discomforting fall, or every objectionable rise of price that took place. But for nearly 70 years the system has worked successfully, and no one is now found to question the great advantage that the resumption of specie payment has been to the country."
        I do not want to labour that point. There is a difference of opinion, and there is bound to be a difference of opinion, but I think there is a universal desire by men of whatever opinion, inside and outside the House, that a committee should be set up which would investigate the whole matter, a committee which would be inspired by a desire to arrive at something which is true and sound. If we could have such a committee it would be able to make recommendations to the Treasury, which the Treasury need not necessarily accept. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—to whom I should like to tender my congratulations—and their colleagues would be perfectly at liberty to reject or accept the findings of such a committee. I submit that it would be of value to have such a committee in order that we might get rid of the artificial control of the Exchange.
        Reference has been made to the fact that in the Exchange Equalisation Fund we have the huge sum of £350,000,000. The old system of open Exchange has more or less disappeared. Other countries have followed our example. Each country is watching the other, and hesitating whether they should enter upon a period of currency depreciation,

        1943
        with the object of advancing their export trade. If we could get rid of that system, if we could have a committee which would make recommendations which would help us to get rid of that system, what an immense advantage it would be. I came across a cutting the other day which seemed to confirm what I am saying. It was from the annual banking review of the "Financial News":
        "Austria and the Argentine both decided upon decontrol at the end of 1932, and have now nearly reached their goal; Czechoslovakia followed in the autumn of 1933 and has also very much relaxed her restrictions. In Germany and the other States still practising foreign Exchange control, every single transaction indirectly or directly involving payments to foreign countries is now subject to governmental supervision. An ever increasing staff becomes ever more incapable of preventing the slowing up of trade and industry."
        That is an eloquent tribute to the disadvantages of interfering with and controlling your Exchanges. Your Exchanges are your best friends, not your enemies. They are like an indicator of the weather. They indicate the state of trade. But if the Government come along with an artificial mechanism, a capital sum of £350,000,000, with the object of interfering with the Exchanges, it is just as if you had some mechanism for keeping your weather glass set fair, quite independent and irrespective of the conditions of the temperature outside. How foolish that would be. Foolish in a like degree are the artificial interferences with the Exchange rates, which are the indications of trade. The trader to-day is at a loss to know what stock to hold. He has no means of knowing the state of the indebtedness of his country. This artificial, secret interference makes foreign trade more or less of a gamble, and reduces it to a minimum.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day corrected me in regard to some remarks that I had made, but I think he agreed that he did not look for any great expansion in foreign trade. He thought that in 50 years we might make up our loss of foreign trade by trade with the Dominions, etc. If we could have a system evolved on the lines I have suggested I am confident that it would be of great advantage to the country. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man inside and outside of this House
        1944
        to create such a system. We had the system before and there is no reason why we should not restore it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to set up a committee, drawn from Members of this House and form eminent and distinguished men outside, they would evolve such a system as would enable him to get rid of all these artificial measures. It is necessary to proceed by way of a committee. We may be told that we have had the Macmillan Committee and the May Committee and that no progress will be made by appointing another committee. Let me quote from Sir Robert Peel with regard to the period to which I have already referred:
        "Then we come to the Act of 1844. I was then at the head of the Government; the Bank charter was about to expire, and it was necessary that some proposals should be made to the House with reference to it. It was certainly, then, competent for us to have relieved ourselves from direct and immediate responsibility, by proposing another inquiry. But I beg to remind the House that when, in the year 1844, I proposed a particular measure for its consideration, in five preceding years there had been five different committees, in 1836, 1837, 1838, 1840 and 1841.… In 1841 the questions and answers, then amounting to nearly 14,000, another committee was appointed, and that committee closed without any particular or specific recommendation. Mr. Tooke, Mr. Jones Loyd, Mr. Horsley Palmer and other eminent authorities, had been examined; and it appeared to the Government that the best course would be to submit a measure to the House of Commons for the regulation of the currency, preparatory to the termination of the Bank charter, and to invite the House to come at last to some specific decision. The House did come to a decision. I do not believe that there ever was a question carried by much larger majorities."
        I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government must have a policy. If the right hon. Gentleman has a scheme to submit, the House will welcome it. From all quarters, from the Opposition benches, from the Conservative benches, and from our benches we have pleaded for some declaration of policy, but we have not obtained it. If the right hon. Gentleman, as a result of all our pleadings, will stand up to-day and state to this Committee and to the world what is the policy of His Majesty's Government, I am sure that every Member of the Committee will rejoice, and there will be no necessity for the appointment of the committee. It is with the object of trying to advance that consummation that

        1945
        we make our proposition. There are many hon. Members who have made a study of this problem. My hon. Friend who introduced the question in so admirable a speech has made a study of the problem, and in my humble way I have given a lifetime's study to it. There are many hon. Members who have studied it. There is the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). He and I may not agree on this question but we have both studied it and we have our contributions to offer. We desire an inquiry. If we are able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that he will advance this subject by appointing men in this House who are willing to offer their services, for what they are worth, in order to help to elucidate this matter, then I think our suggestion ought not to be treated with scorn, and I am sure that it will not be so treated by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me quote again an admirable passage from Sir Robert Peel, in 1847:
        "Her Majesty's Government have addressed themselves to the particular question of whether or no a committee shall be appointed to consider the causes of the recent commercial distress, including the laws which regulate banking. When a Government appeals to this House for the exercise of those powers of inquiry which peculiarly belong to it, I conceive, whatever opinions I as an individual may form as to the probable results of inquiry, that it is impossible to refuse that appeal. The functions of inquiry are our constitutional functions, and if the executive Government be of opinion that there are not grounds for legislation without inquiry then I say it is impossible to refuse their appeal.
        An Amendment has been moved on the Motion of the Noble Lord, restricting the inquiry specifically to banking. I have experience enough to know that, even if the Amendment were carried, it would be impossible to exclude other branches of inquiry. When the Committee of 1836 was appointed specifically to inquire into the laws regulating banks of issue, that committee sat during the whole of 1836, was reappointed in 1837, and did not furnish a report until August, 1838. When I state this, I think it will be admitted that it serves no practical object to limit the subjects for inquiry. I therefore shall vote for the proposal of the Government, because I think that if there is to be an inquiry, none of the causes of the present commercial distress ought to be excluded from it."
        I hope that I have added weight to the appeal by these somewhat lengthy quotations from these great authorities of the past. Sir Robert Peel was a great Conservative, and although my voice or my opinion may not be treated with any particular consideration hon. Members may
        1946
        listen to the voice of a great orator and a great Conservative.
        We are seekers after truth. Whatever our party, we all desire to try and arrive at some system that will advance the happiness, the progress and the prosperity of the people of these islands. We seek no private ends. There is no man who desires to secure some party advantage. This is a non-party matter. We meet as a Council of State. We are trying to make our views prevail with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a wonderful quotation from Milton which I should like to use:
        "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; whoever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing."
        I make my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think of these great traditions of the past, and, if we are to learn anything from history, let us try to rival them in the future.
        5.30 p.m.
        Major HILLS: The Committee must have been delighted with the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Mason). He represents, with skill and good humour, a point of view which does not find much support in this. House. When he was quoting report after report issued during the last century it occurred to me that it might be rather unkind if I reminded him of a much later report, the Macmillan Report, from which I propose to quote two passages with neither of which he will agree. I make the first statement on my own responsibility; that is that the £l sterling is not a debased currency. Its purchasing power is as great, or nearly as great, as it ever has been. The second assertion I make is drawn from the Macmillan Report, that a paper currency does not get its value from its gold basis. That is now generally accepted. The exact words in the report are:
        "The sole practical use of a gold reserve is to serve as a medium of meeting a deficit in the balance of international payments."
        Therefore, the sole use of gold is not to give a value to the currency but to meet a deficit on international payments. That assertion the hon. Member will, I am sure, contradict. I want to put before

        1947
        the Committee the way in which, by Government action, I think we can get out of the financial and business difficulties in which the country finds itself now. What we want is continuity of value, a stable price in terms of money at home and stable exchange rates with foreign countries. Hon. Members know the cases which have occurred owing to a fall in value during the last few years. Take the unfortunate man who takes a farm with the rent fixed in money, which can be met by the sale of a certain number of quarters of wheat or a certain number of cwt. of beef. Then, suddenly, money falls in value and he has to produce twice as much in order to pay the rent. Take the manufacturer. He buys wool to turn into cloth, and during the time he is converting it into cloth there is a fall in values. The buyer of cloth knows that he has only to hold off because the man who has bought his wool later can produce cloth at much cheaper prices. You get, in one case, unmerited disaster, and in the other unmerited reward. What we all want is a continuity of value. How can we get this? Is it within the power of the Government? Let me quote again from the Macmillan Report:
        "It should be our object to increase the power to exercise control over the price level. There is nothing inherently impracticable in this."
        Later on the report says that with knowledge and international co-operation the possibilities of effective control will increase. I want to confine myself to the action of the Government, and, incidentally, under the Government to the action of the Bank of England and the Joint Stock Banks. I say this without fear of contradiction, that if statesmen in 1929 had known what they know now, or if they had foreseen what was going to happen, we should have avoided a great deal of the distress through which we have passed. It is absurd to blame anybody. Everybody was wrong, politicians as well as economists. If the State can do anything it is worth seeing how far we can go. But here I must issue a word of caution. When you are talking about economics and you make a statement you always have to qualify it, because there are very few general truths which do not require qualification. Many of our difficulties are not due to monetary causes,
        1948
        they are due to the War, to Reparations, to the conduct of various countries, but I believe that we can do a great deal to secure continuity in value by Government action in the monetary field. In the first place, by means of banking operations, the bank rate, open market operations, whereby the Bank of England in times of slump will release money on the market by buying securities and in times of boom will draw money back from the market by selling securities. These methods are so well known that I will not dwell upon them.
        Then I come to a third method, and here I touch a point upon which I do not think I shall get the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we can do a great deal by Government expenditure, that is, Government expenditure financed by loans, not by taxes. There are many objects upon which we can profitably spend money although there is no immediate financial return. Take slum clearance. Good houses are a national asset, and the country will benefit in health, well-being and happiness. Take the new Cunarder? I do not know whether it will pay or not, but it is a wise expenditure as it puts money into circulation, it puts money into the pockets of the people and thus increases the purchasing power of the people. Each man who gets back into work increases the purchasing power of the nation. May I mention a subject like land drainage, which private enterprise has too long neglected? Altogether, I believe that the Government can do a great deal to secure continuity of value by spending money in times of slump and refrain from spending it in times of boom. The temptation, of course, is to spend in prosperous times when money is available, but I submit that the proper course for the Government is to act in a reverse manner to the private individual, and to spend in times of slump.
        Next there comes Sinking Fund policy. There again I think that debt should be retired in times of prosperity and the Sinking Fund not put into force in times of distress. That carries with it the implication that taxation should be increased in times of prosperity. That might sound ridiculous, but I believe it is the true policy. It would, of course, be making a large demand on the common sense of the ordinary voter and taxpayer

        1949
        if he found that taxation was increased when the country was prosperous, but I believe that is the way to ease down a boom and relieve a slump. Next comes a far more difficult question—the control of investments. I am perfectly certain that we cannot go on in the haphazard way we are now and that pre-1914 methods are not applicable now. There must be some control over investments. I give this point to hon. Members opposite, that there must be some control over the Joint Stock Banks. I should like to see some control as to the proportion of their assets, that they should keep a higher proportion of liquid assets during prosperous times and release their liquid assets during a slump. That would assist us in keeping the boat on an even keel.
        I also think in the present state of the world, that we ought to have a closer control by the Treasury over the Bank of England. The Exchange Equalisation Account was a sign of the times, and like so many other signs came without our notice. If that account had been set up 20 years ago the administration would have been given to the Bank of England, instead of which this House, which is often more right than its rulers, insisted on the control being given to the Treasury and the Government of the day. The Exchange Equalisation Account is much more than a means of flattening variations in exchange rates; and here let me pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer a well-deserved compliment, it has been worked with extraordinary skill and ability. The account is also a vehicle for meeting adverse balances of payments, and it is definitely a movement of the central Government into the field of credit. As such I welcome it.
        Lastly, I do not advocate any depreciation of the currency in order to restore prices. That is a mistake. You simply invite foreign nations to depreciate against you, and you get a rush towards a very steep place. But if in the course of these operations sterling did fall, it would give me no cause for alarm. I have ventured to elaborate these various points, the Bank Rate, open market operations, State expenditure, Sinking Fund policy, taxation, control over investments, varying the proportion of banking assets, and increased control by
        1950
        the Treasury. With these I think we can get a currency stable in terms of commodities. I do not want to go into the difficult question as to what the standard should be, but I submit that you can elaborate a standard. I think the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) would agree. It need not be entirely on the value of commodities. You include the price of investments, the growth of new issues in the city, and you would get a formula that would enable you to equate your prices without penalising enterprise, without allowing profiteering, and of sufficient elasticity to meet a decrease in costs of production due to some new invention or great enterprise of manufacturers.
        Is that standard to be gold? The great disadvantage of gold is that it has its own intrinsic value and that that value changes. It changes by human demand, by human endeavour, by digging gold out of the earth, and it changes by another sort of human endeavour, the burying of that gold in the vaults of the central banks of Paris or New York. But some part of the change in value is natural, and we cannot get out of it. Whatever we go back to, whether gold or not, it must be a managed standard. The old system worked and worked well because London was the money market of the world, and the whole world followed London willingly. We set the pace and all the world was content to accept our system. Now there are three countries which claim the right to control events—Great Britain and France and the United States. Probably gold will be for international purposes the standard. It has the merit of historic fashion and all those qualities that the Committee know so well. But above all it probably has the largest amount of support. Though I do not much like it I would accept it, as the price of unity. But for the time being we shall see three separate areas: a sterling area, Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries, some of the South American countries and the Dominions; a gold area France, Holland and the other gold countries; and a dollar area.
        That system has worked perfectly well. Whether it will lead to some universal international system depends on the cooperation of the three great mercantile countries of the world, and it rests in their hands.
        5.50 p.m.
        Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not want another Committee. What could it do? It would be composed of the sort of people who have been addressing the Committee this afternoon. We should have a dash of Rhondda, Karl Marx and surplus value. It would be nicely watered down by a dash of Ripon, with control of foreign investments, and the true milk of the gospel of orthodox finance from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason); and we would get expenditure out of loans from the hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). It would unite on one point only in the end. I am not sure that Rhondda would unite even on that. The great thing would be to get dollar parity based on a new gold content. That would be either the highest common multiple or the lowest common something else. It would be quoted for all time as the Jack Hills Report. Two centuries hence the honourable successor of that right hon. Member would read it solemnly to the House, as sanctified wisdom, and I hope it would carry more conviction then than now. That is all you would get by a committee.
        What I want to address myself to is the speech of the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring). What I want to know from him is what he would do if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer now. I heard that speech of his 25 years ago exactly from Philip Snowden. Then he got on the Treasury Bench. You know there what happens to surplus value. Treasury officials get them in their grip. Though we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Member for East Rhondda to tell us what they think should be done, we know perfectly well that their masters, who are under the Gallery, will control the issue in the long run. Committees may report, and their report may be printed at Government expense, but nothing will be done. And the Treasury goes on for ever.
        I want to put this to the Government: I have been thinking all these last six months, night after night, of the troubles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. You see he has been faced with a real catastrophe. America went off gold and the dollar went into slump. He knew perfectly well all the time that if the pound went up in relation to the dollar, our
        1952
        export trade was done. The whole business mind of the country has been devoted to keeping the pound from bouncing up relative to the dollar. The more the pound rises the more the dollar falls, the more does our foreign trade vanish, and the less our debtors were prepared to pay. The question is, how has the right hon. Gentleman done it, and how is he going to keep the pound down? There is no man in the Committee who would be more delighted than the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could now get dollar parity at 5 dollars to the pound, and the restoration of the Gold Standard on that basis. That would be the ideal of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could then sing his Nunc dimittis and take up another job. We are all anxious to get that stable parity, but it is not in our power.
        It is about time, when we are all hoping to get back to a new gold standard, to realise that it is no good doing it unless the same principles of finance govern each of the countries that are to come into the new pound parity. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) talked about getting one form of sterling parity throughout the Empire. We cannot do it. We could start doing it, but how long could we retain it? Assume that Australia went on the principle that appears to sway the opinions of America now—that the best way to recover prosperity is to go in for large loans for public works, when the Budget is no longer to be balanced, because prosperity comes from spending money. If that principle were followed in Australia and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer remained here, you would not have parity between Australia and England very long. It could not be done. In the same way with America. If America is not only faced with a deficit but is welcoming that deficit, it will not be possible for America to remain on the new dollar sterling parity basis. Their gold would drain away, exactly as happened to us two years ago.
        It is all very well to desire to have a new gold standard based on a devalued pound and dollar. You can carry it on for a year or so, but if the countries joined in that consortium carry on entirely different financial policies, some balancing their Budgets and some putting by large sums to pay off debts, and others incurring large additional debts—

        1953
        not merely the national Government but municipal Governments and business firms as well—in those circumstances a new gold standard must inevitably follow in the footsteps of its predecessors. At any time of crisis some country will go off it. The unfortunate fact is that it is only the first slip which counts. It is so tempting to slip. Three years ago those on the Front Bench saw themselves being driven off gold. It meant something inconceivable. They resisted up to the last moment, borrowing from France at an untold rate of interest. Then suddenly it was found not merely convenient but respectable. That has been found out once, and it can so easily be found out again. You may re-establish your gold standard.
        It is no use talking grandiloquently about the advantages of going back to gold on a new gold content of sovereign and dollar, unless you can control the finance of those countries. Of what assistance would be a consortium of banks, what value would their advice be? It is the Chancellors of the Exchequer who would have to get together. The people who balance the Budgets are the people who can decide whether the currency goes up or down. I do not think it can be gainsaid that that is one really difficult point.
        I come to the next difficult point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far, has managed beautifully with the Exchange Equalisation Account. Goodness knows what the state of the balance sheet is now. His difficulty all along has been—at least so I am assuming—to prevent the pound from going up relative to the dollar. He is terrified because the price of gold to-day has fallen by 2½d That is pretty serious because a fall in the price of gold means that the pound is rising relative to the dollar. That is the constant source of trouble which faces even the best of Treasury officials, but that can always be met and if the hon. Member for Rhondda were Chancellor of the Exchequer I could tell him how he could meet that difficulty. All that he has to do is to sell sterling. One might think that that was a comparatively easy thing to do, but the difficulty which then arises is to know what to buy in exchange. If you took £5 notes out into the ocean and sank them, it would have the effect of keeping sterling down, but the Treasury with innate honesty dislikes
        1954
        sinking banknotes. It likes to get something for them and the trouble is what to get. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give them to America!"] If we paid the American debt that would be an infinitely better thing to do, of course, and that would also keep sterling down. Or, we could spend them on making more by-pass roads to kill children, or on slum clearance.
        Mr. KIRKWOOD: Or give it to the workers.
        Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, we could give every honest worker like my hon. Friend a £5 note every Saturday morning and that would keep sterling down, but somehow or other the Treasury do not tumble to these ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda would probably wish to do it if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer but in due course the Treasury officials would even talk to him. That, however, is the problem—what to buy with sterling if you want to sell and keep it cheap. If you sell it, you must buy something in exchange, and what I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is what he has been buying in exchange, and what is now the value of the things which he has bought. We only know that £130,000,000 of gold has gradually collected in the Bank of England. It is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's fault. It is not even Mr. Montagu Norman's fault. What else was the man to buy? Suppose he had bought dollars. Well, perhaps he did. On the gold he has made a handsome profit or at least I hope so. But how about buying dollar exchange or even worse francs exchange, or, even worse still, marks exchange. Suppose he bought foreign bonds.
        If I buy foreign exchange—which I am not in the habit of doing—what is the precise result of my action? I am buying the right to call upon some manufacturer or some farmer in Germany or in America to supply me with a certain amount of foreign goods; and if there is one thing that the right hon. Gentleman loathes it is foreign goods. Therefore it was a case of gold or foreign goods. Gold is a bit risky because if France comes off gold there will not be many left on gold. Foreign money is worse still—it brings in no interest. If you buy foreign exchange you render nugatory, to that extent, your tariffs. You are trying to stop foreign goods from coming in with your tariffs, and you are trying to bring them in by

        1955
        buying foreign exchange. If you buy gold, you are piling up a gambling counter becoming with every month more risky. If you buy foreign bonds, the risks are even greater than in the case of exchanges or gold. The difficulty in connection with this Exchange Equalisation Account is really serious. If it were merely to iron out what are called "fluctuations"—though you can never tell when they are fluctuations and when they are tendencies—then your Exchange Equalisation Account need not be dipped into deeply. If, on the other hand, you are constantly struggling to prevent the dollar running away from the pound and to preserve parity between Great Britain and America, then your position becomes more and more difficult and your commitments become greater and greater.
        I would conclude by saying this: It seems to me infinitely preferable if you want to keep the pound down that you should not go on selling sterling and buying foreign bonds or exchange or gold, but that you should change your budget so as to spend a little more, as America is spending* a little more, so that you should even waste your money as America may be wasting it. If you are anxious to keep dollar and sterling alongside, you must do as they do in Rome or Washington. If your object is to maintain parity the ideas of finance which you put into operation must be the same as those of the country with which you wish to retain parity. America seems to me to be infinitely the most important country with which to retain parity and America is going through a stage which I think we went into slightly a few years ago—the stage of spending more money than they have got, of running into debt, of failing to balance their budget. They are going into that stage and whether we like it or not, we shall have to do the same thing if we are going to retain parity. Therefore the real question at issue for the Government is: Are you going to continue the struggle to retain dollar parity and if so can you think of any other way of doing it than following that course in the nation's finances which they have followed in America. It is possible to avoid a great deal of the waste that has gone on there, if, when you do go in for spending sterling, you spend it in such a way that, while you get no
        1956
        financially remunerative investment you do at least get real permanent improvements in this country.
        6.5 p.m.
        The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Earlier this afternoon, at Question Time, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was asked about the negotiations which have been taking place with the representatives of Germany in London, and he stated that he was not then able to say anything upon the subject. I am now able to make a statement about it, and it seems to me that the Committee would probably desire that I should make that statement at this point even though it should interrupt, for a few moments, the thread of this Debate. I am glad to be able to inform the House that an agreement about the German debt question was signed this afternoon. A White Paper containing its terms will be available in the Vote Office about 7 o'clock this evening. The Agreement covers a period of six months as from 1st July, 1934. It provides that during this period the German Government will provide sterling funds at the Bank of England for the purchase at the full nominal value of all coupon's of the Dawes and Young Loans which were in the beneficial ownership of "British holders" on 15th June, 1934. For this purpose of the Agreement "British holders" means (a) in the case of sterling issues, all residents in the United Kingdom and in addition all British subjects, belonging to any part of the British Empire, wherever resident; (b) in the case of non-sterling issues all residents in the United Kingdom.
        As regards other medium and long-term debt, the agreement provides that the terms of the offer of the Reichsbank, embodied in the communique issued on 29th May, 1934, shall apply to all interest, etc., due in respect of investments which were on 15th June, 1934 in the beneficial ownership of "British holders"—as defined above—provided that if the German Government should conclude any agreement with another creditor country, under which more favourable terms are accorded to residents in that country in respect of non-Reich loans, it shall be open to the British holders to claim corresponding treatment

        1957
        in respect of the investments held by them on 15th June, 1934. Should such a claim be put forward, the question will be settled by agreement between the two Governments on the basis of non-discrimination, taking account of all the circumstances, including any advantages which Germany receives from such other creditor countries as compared with any advantages which Germany receives from the United Kingdom.
        Finally the agreement provides that His Majesty's Government will not, during the period of the agreement, that is the next six months, exercise in respect of Germany the powers given to them by the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934. The agreement is, of course, without prejudice to the Standstill Agreement in regard to short-term debts. I should add that in the preamble to the agreement both Governments affirm the earnest desire that the trade and financial relations between the two countries should continue on a non-discriminatory and most friendly basis, and that the volume of mutual trade should be maintained and as far as possible increased. In pursuance of this principle, the German Government have informed us that they are prepared to negotiate with this country an exchange agreement for commercial payments similar to those which are or may be in force between Germany and other countries. This matter is dealt with in an exchange of letters, the terms of which will be given in the White Paper. It would, of course, have been more satisfactory if the German Government could have made arrangements with all its creditors on the lines of this agreement, but as the German Government is engaged in separate negotiations with different creditors, we have been forced to take the same line, and I think the Committee will agree with me that so far as this country is concerned this agreement is a satisfactory solution.
        Reverting to the subject of the discussion this afternoon we have had expressed a variety of views. I always think that the subject of a monetary policy has a peculiar attraction for this House. It is like telling ghost stories. People always assert that they do not believe in ghosts but at the same time there is an agreeably tickling sensation caused by listening to narratives of ghosts. The proposal of the hon. Member
        1958
        who opened the discussion, a proposal which has been supported by one or two other hon. Members, though not very many, is that a committee should be set up to make a new inquiry into monetary policy. In the opinion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonl Wedgwood) such a committee is quite unnecessary because he is always here to advise us. I am sure that it must have been refreshing to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) to have been told the whole truth about this matter, just as it was gratifying for me to know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been spending sleepless nights thinking over the troubles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is only one disadvantage about this practice of worrying over things when you are in bed, and it is that it is apt sometimes to lead to bad dreams afterwards. I hope sometimes he suffers from bad dreams in which the Exchange Equalisation Account and its consequences play a part. I was relieved to hear that so far he thinks the Exchange Equalisation Account has been managed very well. Perhaps, after all, it may turn out that some of those gloomy anticipations of his about the Exchange Equalisation Account are without foundation. At any rate, I think the Committee as a whole is well satisfied that the setting up of that fund was a wise course, and that it has been of very great benefit to the traders of this country.
        The request to set up a new committee to inquire into the monetary policy of this country implies, I think, some dissatisfaction with the policy of the Government as at present carried on, and, therefore, it may be of interest to consider what that policy is. It may be very shortly stated that the policy of His Majesty's Government is, as it has always been, to create, or to restore, if you like, conditions under which it is possible for trade and commerce to expand. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) gave a short account of those conditions a little while ago; and on the reverse side of the picture one resists conditions under which certainly trade and industry will not expand. If you have, for example, constantly falling prices, as my right hon. Friend suggested, if you have mounting

        1959
        taxation, if you have dear money, if you have a constant interference by the Government in business, then you have all the conditions which are likely to make for an increase of unemployment and the contraction of trade, but if, on the other hand, prices are on an even keel or, indeed, rising, if you have a falling taxation, if you have cheap capital and plenty of it, and if you have a general sense of confidence that there are not going to be wild or revolutionary experiments carried on by the Government of the day, then I think we may expect that you may have conditions which will enable trade to be carried on with success and indeed to expand.
        Mr. D. MASON: Trade is not expanding—foreign trade is not expanding.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has qualified his first statement. He began by saying that trade was not expanding, and then he said that foreign trade was not expanding. I did not say foreign trade; I said trade. But it would have been quite possible for this Government to have pursued an entirely different policy from that which in fact we have followed. We could have indulged in the expenditure of very large sums of public money, we could have indulged in violent and repeated depreciations of the currency, which no doubt would temporarily have given a stimulus to trade, we could have kept all the business men, on whom, after all, employment in the country mostly depends, in suspense, on tenterhooks the whole time by interesting but, at the same time, extremely disturbing experiments in currency or in monetary policy. But we have preferred to follow a policy perhaps less sensational, less spectacular, but, in my belief, safer for the country, and I think we may say that, so far as we can judge by the results, they are not such as to make us think that we have made any very serious mistakes or that we have brought about any state of affairs which calls now for fresh inquiry and fresh consideration. Both trade and employment have increased—without analysing whether it is foreign or home trade; they have increased steadily, they have increased over a very wide area of industry, and that increase has been continuous; and I would call attention to the fact that that increase has not
        1960
        been, and is not now, dependent upon the maintenance of a large amount of expenditure of public money.
        We, of course, are not claiming that the whole of this expansion of trade is due to measures taken by the Government. It would be impossible for any Government to govern trade to that extent. What we have tried to do was, as I said at the beginning, to make the conditions in which this was possible, and that, I think, we may claim to have done. We have been criticised in the past because we have not spent huge sums upon housing, and I thought I heard in one or two of the speeches this afternoon a sort of echo of that criticism. I thought I heard that some huge national loan must be raised for the purpose of housing. Last year we built more houses in this country than ever before in the same time, and, as was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health yesterday, unemployment in the building trade has gone down by a very considerable figure. Then the conversion operation has not only saved us a great deal of money in the shape of interest on the National Debt, but it has, as we anticipated, spread in other directions, and to a large extent now the higher rated debenture stocks of the principal industrial concerns have been converted to lower rates, thus, of course, effecting a saving on industry's fixed charges.
        With regard to monetary policy, the Bank rate has been kept at 2 per cent. now for two years, which is the lowest it has ever been, and except, I believe, for a short period in the middle nineties of the last century, the longest it has ever been at that rate. I submit to the Committee that that policy, which has resulted in the ways that I have described, has been of greater benefit and of more solid value to trade and industry in this country than a policy of monetary alarums and excursions, which would have kept the whole business world in a continual condition of ferment. Let us remember that we have got 800,000 more people employed than we had in 1932, that we have got an increase in exports—and I would call the attention of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh to this fact—in the first five months of this year of 11 per cent. as compared with last year, and that the retail sales in May

        1961
        were 7.7 per cent. higher than they were in the corresponding month of last year. Why, in the fact of those facts, should we reopen the whole question of our monetary policy? It was only in 1931 that the Macmillan Committee reported. Its terms of reference directed them to inquire into the very subjects that hon. Members have been discussing. They made a full report, and I cannot understand what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh or the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton) thinks is going to be obtained from setting up a new Committee to go over the same ground as was gone over such a short time ago by a Committee of such tremendous authority as that which was known as the Macmillan Committee.
        If you are to have a new monetary policy, it must mean one of two things. Either you have got to bring about a change in the operation of institutions and methods which remain the same, or else you have got to set aside those methods and those institutions and substitute new methods and institutions for them. As to the institutions, the Macmillan Committee, as hon. Members will no doubt recollect, found that they were deserving of every commendation, and that there was no reason why they should be superseded by anything different. With regard to alterations in their operations, no case has been made out for any alterations. Our banking system has stood the tremendous strains and stresses of the last few years better than any other banking system in the world. Our public finances have shown a greater improvement than those of any other country. What, then, is there to complain of? What is there to justify embarking now on some fresh inquiry? If we give it out to the world that we are going to set up a new inquiry which may result in recommendations embodying sweeping changes, what will be the effect upon business? Must it not inevitably mean that the improvement and the expansion of business will be held up, that business men will suspend their operations until, at any rate, they know what is going to come out of this new inquiry? That would be the very last thing, surely, that any of us would desire at this time. I noticed that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that he was pleading, as he had pleaded before, in vain, for a statement of the
        1962
        Government's policy, and the hon. Member who opened the discussion said they wanted a lead from the Government.
        Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: You might lead them back to the other Bide of the House.
        Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Really, one almost despairs of making any impression upon hon. Members who put questions of that kind, because we have given a lead, we have stated our policy, over and over again, in the clearest and most specific terms. No longer ago than at the World Economic Conference in London last year I made a complete statement of monetary policy on behalf of the Government, and that policy still remains the policy of His Majesty's Government to-day. If the hon. Member has forgotten that statement, or did not read it, I can only give him the same answer to-day. The monetary policy which was declared then in London was the policy which had previously been declared at Ottawa. It was the policy which had received the approval of the whole of the Empire. One may very shortly summarise the conditions under which we contemplated an ultimate return to an international gold standard. We said that there must be a rise in commodity prices which would bring prices and costs more into equilibrium. We said that there must be a removal or a lowering of the barriers and obstacles to international trade that now exist. We said there must be a final settlement of War Debts, and, finally, that we must find some way to avoid the fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold arising from monetary causes.
        It is no use talking as though a committee here could bring about changes in international practice. However authoritative the committee was, you could not expect that it would make any impression upon the minds of other countries where conditions are quite different, and whose ideas, indeed, may be very different from our own in this matter. Yet we cannot possibly hope to achieve these conditions without some sort of international agreement. It is not a question which can be decided by one country alone. These conditions have not yet been fulfilled. Some may think they never will be, but, at any rate, one may say that we have gone some distance

        1963
        in the direction in which we desire to see progress. We have managed for a considerable period to avoid violent fluctuations and dislocations of exchange, in spite of the alteration in policy of the United States. We have stopped the fall in prices, while the rise in wholesale prices of primary commodities, especially in sterling, has been very considerable. I am not sure that hon. Members realise how great that rise has been. If we take the index at the time the country went off gold in September, 1931, as being 100, the index had risen at the time of the Ottawa Conference to 100.5; at the beginning of the London Conference in June, 1933, it had risen to 126.7; and in June of this year it was 137.2. It is not surprising to find that that rise in wholesale prices of primary commodities has been followed by considerable improvements in the general conditions in various Empire countries and other countries with whom we have a specially close trade connection.
        Then we have begun the process of breaking down the barriers to trade by the series of commercial agreements which we have been able to make with foreign countries. I have alluded to the expansion of our exports, and we are aware that home production is steadily increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), in a very interesting and informative speech, pointed out that there was some tendency to a fluctuation of the curve of expansion. One cannot expect that the line will move absolutely straight and not curve at all. There must be fluctuations from time to time. I myself anticipate that, although there may be a temporary check in the rate of increase, that is only a passing phase, and that presently we shall find it will proceed as it has proceeded before.
        I put it to the Committee that, in view of the conditions as we see them to-day, the policy set out by His Majesty's Government on many occasions, and the results that have followed that policy, it would be nothing less than folly to throw that policy again into the melting-pot in the hope that something fresh might come out. We have to base our policy on experience. We simply cannot afford to risk the gains that we have got already for the sake of expedients which have been entirely untried. We have restored conditions which make
        1964
        possible further improvements in the prosperity of the country. We have a sound banking system, and the banks have cash reserves to a greater extent than they have ever had before. We have also cheap capital, general confidence in the public finances and a stable exchange. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to set up a new inquiry for the purpose of investigating new experiments when we have pursued with so much success our policy of orderly development.
        6.36 p.m.
        Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having intervened to tell the Committee of the agreement on the German debts question. We on this side are very glad that an agreement has been arrived at because, whatever the terms of an agreement in international matters, an agreement is always better than a disagreement. One cannot naturally comment on the terms which the right hon. Gentleman has read, because we have not had time to study them. So far as the question of setting up a committee is concerned, we do not see any particular reason for that at the present time. It seems to us that the demand for it really arises from a sort of uneasy feeling among hon. Members below the Gangway that something is wrong but that they do not know what it is; and they want to maintain their position on the fence and to have something to play with in the form of a committee on monetary reform, hoping, no doubt, that that committee may somehow or other be able to produce for them what they have not at the present time, namely, a policy.
        It does not seem to be the function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government to perform what might be quite a useful thing for the Liberal party, but which is not essential to the nation. We do not believe that to get together a number of capitalists to argue upon what method of monetary policy or credit policy will suit the particular interests which they represent is really likely to produce any very useful results. The effect of all the measures which may be taken as regards the regulations of monetary policy is perfectly well known. It is only a question of who gets the benefit of the measures. Some of them will benefit the industrialists, some will benefit the

        1965
        finance capitalists, some will benefit the rentier and the landowner, and so on. The question is not what effect do the measures have, but who is going to get the benefit from the measures. That is really a political matter for discussion, and not for inquiry by a committee on monetary policy.
        So far as the objectives that we have in view are concerned, namely, an abundant standard of life and security for the workers, we do not think that any monetary policy will make the slightest difference. It is true that by various devices, like temporary inflation and things of that sort, we might have a period of apparent prosperity, and that during that period the standard of life might go up, and indirectly, therefore, the workers might to some extent benefit. They always have to pay the bill afterwards, however, in the deflation that follows, or in whatever the particular operation may be, and when it is all over we come back again to the precise point from which we started. In the long run, indeed, it has become apparent, and has been apparent for many years, that the present system can only thrive on some measure of scarcity. You have to have either a real scarcity provided by nature which is a convenient thing sometimes, or an artificial one. If you have not a real scarcity, you have to create an artificial one. The present Government, following the best orthodox methods of capitalism, have been struggling during the last three years to create an artificial scarcity, and they have done it with some little success.
        As long as that scarcity continues, you do not find that you get quite the same embarrassments for capitalism as you do when you are involved in periodical gluts. Indeed, you find then that you have in the hands of certain people in the State a considerable surplus of money, which represents commodities, with which they have got to do something. They have got to get rid of it somehow. They do not want it for their ordinary needs, for they have no means of expanding their insides in order to accommodate a greater amount of food and drink and other things in order to allow them to spend more money on the ordinary necessities of life. Therefore, they have to find some other way of getting rid of the surplus wealth which falls into their hands
        1966
        owing to the incidence of the economic system. If there is not a war on or a good armaments, race, which are two excellent ways of wasting money under the capitalist system, it has got to be used for something else. It is either employed for luxury consumption, and the price of yachts and racehorses perhaps goes up a little because the market is good; or it has to be used for capital investment.
        When the luxuries that are wanted have all been used by those people who have these surpluses, they have to invest their surplus either at home or abroad. It is invested at home if the company promoters can make sufficiently attractive documents to draw it into their pockets, and, through their hands, into artificial silk factories or gramophone factories, or whatever the particular stunt of the moment may be. When that market has been fully exploited, the money has to go abroad because there is nowhere else for it to go. As a result, some wretched man in Brazil is persuaded that it is a good thing to move a mountain from one side of the Rio to another, which he does, and we are all satisfied because we have been able to export some of our surplus wealth to move a mountain in Brazil instead of doing a useful thing like building a house in London. That process goes on as long as we can get foreigners to accept these gifts, which they are fairly ready to do, and a good deal of it is pure waste. We never expect seriously to get it back. The man who makes the individual investment expects to get it back, but he forgets the other people who also want to get it back, and he is frequently disappointed.
        Some of that surplus money is exchanged for commodities, which are useful commodities and come to this country to embarrass our manufacturers, and then we do our best to get them stopped. We get that incidence of one-sided trade which has proved so great an embarrassment to the Minister of Agriculture in his present efforts. One hon. Member who spoke seemed to think that all these commodities that come back in exchange for the goods that are exported were distributed among the workers. That, of course, is a fallacy. They do not come back in that form at all. They are imported to the account of the rentier, the man who has lent the money abroad, or of the merchant if they are in exchange

        1967
        for commodities. They have to be sold to the workers, and the workers in purchasing have to make up their minds notionally whether they are going to purchase these foreign goods or home goods according to their demand at the moment. They do not get them distributed free. The only way they can get any title to them is through employment under the existing system or through the Poor Law or unemployment benefit. Practically speaking, it is employment or the distribution of purchasing power which they get through employment, which enables them to buy foreign goods as well as home-produced goods.
        But that does not in any way lead to a solution of the problem of increasing the purchasing power of the worker in relation to production in this country. The worker is no better off as a result of our having exported all that surplus, than if the surplus had been retained in this country; in fact, he is very much worse off than if the surplus had been distributed for his benefit in consumable commodities at the time when it was created. Then we have discussions such as arise in the case of the Argentine Agreement between the rentier in this country who insists, quite naturally, on having his pound of flesh in the form of beef and maize, and the agriculturist here who says, "You must keep out Argentine beef at all costs; I cannot sell my beef in competition with it." That is an obvious result which must arise from every capitalist system, every system which depends upon the exploitation of foreign markets. As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) pointed out, we must always be hampered by the return of goods in payment of interest or repayment of capital—the latter, of course, very seldom occurring. He suggested that it was wrong to say that it would be a good thing to cancel foreign debts. He agrees that it is a bad thing to lend abroad, because of the embarrassment of the goods which return, but thinks it is a good thing to go on getting a return of the goods as the result of past lending. I really do not understand how he draws any distinction between the two. Under the existing system, the returns from past lendings are a real embarrassment in this sense, that the goods which are imported, not being in exchange for any manufactures, limit the area of employment.
        1968
        If instead of being paid to the account of the rentier they were paid to the account of the manufacturer in this country the manufacturer could, through employment, distribute more purchasing power. The rentier does not use them to distribute more purchasing power through manufacture—he may to a small extent, as regards his own personal needs—and may indeed, use them for reinvestment abroad, in which case they never benefit anyone in this country at all. To that extent I should have thought that even under the existing system, so far as the industrialist and manufacturer are concerned, it would have been an excellent thing to have cancelled foreign debts.
        Mr. LOFTUS: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman, but may I put the point this way? Suppose that through some circumstance we were not in a position to pay by manufactures for all food and raw materials imported which we require. Would he refuse to accept interest from investments which, while credited to the rentier, are diffused among the mass of our people? May I put an actual case? In 1926, when there was the coal stoppage and general strike, we could not pay with sufficient exports for all the imports, necessary to feed our people, and we took the whole £280,000,000 of our foreign interest in the form, chiefly, of food.
        Sir S. CRIPPS: If our productive energy in this country were not sufficient to supply the commodities which are required by the population, of course that argument might apply; but at present the trouble is that we cannot use the productive energy which we have got, and, as a result, we keep people out of work and without purchasing power. All I am suggesting is that, even under capitalism, we should have a better chance of distributing purchasing power if these goods, instead of coming in to the account of the rentier, came in to the account of the manufacturer, who would be able to put people to work to manufacture goods in exchange for them. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is probably right under the existing state of affairs. As long as those surpluses go into the hands of those who own the means of production through the channels of profit it is quite impossible for the workers ever to get a sufficiently large

        1969
        purchasing power to purchase the great quantity of commodities which we are capable of making. Of course the commodities that are actually made are purchased, but the reason we have idle such an enormous quantity of plant and labour, and, indeed, to some extent, money, is that under the existing system there has never yet been devised any means by which purchasing power can be distributed to the people. Indeed, the system cannot and dare not allow any other method of distribution, because the moment distribution was so organised that security and a high standard of life were given to the workers, the present owners of economic power would entirely lose all control.
        Under any system, once we give to the workers security and a high standard of life, they would refuse to continue to be controlled by any other set of persons. That became fairly obvious in the later stages of the War when, owing to the shortage of workers, who were fighting in France and other places, and to the high standards which existed owing to the vast inflationary expenditure, and so forth, the independence of the workers grew to such an extent that, as everybody knows, it was touch and go on more than one occasion whether the whole system might not fall in ruins because they insisted on asserting their power. Under any system, if they are given those conditions they will naturally not be content to continue as a subservient class. That is an additional reason why capitalism, even if it were capable of doing so, would not provide any solution of this problem. As a result, there are many people who are very discontented with the poverty which exists all over the country—one hears the phrase "Poverty in the midst of abundance"—and who turn, naturally, to the attractive get-rich-quick methods which are suggested by monetary reform, to the various schemes put forward as monetary panaceas by which people are going to get all the benefits without any of the difficulties. But I think one has to admit that, within capitalism, this Government is really doing very nicely. It is acting in an orthodox way according to the ordinary economic laws, and I think it is more honest to act in that way than to dangle these monetary panaceas before the eyes of the workers and pretend that by some jiggery-pokery, some "rabbit in a hat"
        1970
        sort of trick, one can produce prosperity. We must realise that there will have to be profound changes, economic and in society, before we can start to approach to the conditions in which these problems can be solved. We are putting these propositions before the people not as something easy, something to be secured without any trouble at all, but as something which has to be considered seriously and which, if it comes, will mean a very great change for a very great many people.
        In examining questions of monetary policy one has also to remember the enormous variety of monetary policies which have been tried in the post-war world. Apart from some momentary jolt which they have given to the system, or apart from some really stupid action which has influenced the competitive power of a particular country in the international market, none of them has had more than the temporary effect to which the Chancellor referred. We always come back to the cycle of booms and slumps which are the feature of capitalism, and we still have the perpetual attempt of capitalism to waste its surpluses by one means or another, though there are, at the same time, great numbers of people unable to get the very necessities of life. In the laboratory of finance which has existed in the world, and especially in the post-war world, there have been numberless attempts to find some solution for this problem within capitalism, and I think everybody will agree that, so far, all of them have uniformly failed. We have had inflation and deflation, we have had lending abroad and the stopping of lending abroad, we have had enormous Government expenditure and rigid Government economy, we have had low taxation and high taxation, tariffs and Free Trade, quotas, exchange restrictions, subsidies, price regulation, wage regulation, the shortening of hours, and the lengthening of hours. All those things have been tried, separately and in combination, in different countries at different times, and none of them has been able to effect what is the desire of everyone, and that is to distribute the enormous potential abundance which exists. Every country comes back to the same slough and to the same difficulty, and yet we persist in this system and close our eyes to the possibility of going

        1971
        outside it and trying something new. Those who have the power and influence under the existing system, and naturally do not want to lose them, close their eyes to avenues outside the system while they walk round and leave no stone unturned and no avenue unexplored within the system. As if they were in the Hampton Court maze, they go on walking round and round exploring avenues.
        Now the hon. Members below the Gangway want to start out on a fresh exploration of avenues which have been already covered many times. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) who I hope will, in the course of a few months, become a convert to our party, suggests that the only way to remedy this state of affairs is to impose more Government control—control investment, control the joint stock banks, and control the Bank of England; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke just after him, says that the one thing we have got to avoid is constant interference by the Government. Within this system the more controls there are the less does the system work. The economic laws which operate in a free and raw capitalism become more and more rigid as we impose more and more control, and when we are suffering from the rigidity which is caused by control we have more control and more rigidity.
        Major HILLS: No—flexibility.
        Sir S. CRIPPS: No—rigidity. I venture to say that very few people in the capitalist system will agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we get flexibility by imposing Government control. I am sure the Treasury Bench will agree that we cannot get more flexibility by control, but that we get rigidity, and the more rigid capitalism becomes the less the free economic laws—which hon. Members below the Gangway would theoretically like to see operating—operate. That is why the idea of trying further to control an already too rigid structure within capitalism will never afford a solution of this problem. When one analyses and examines it, one is indubitably led to the conclusion that the system itself is at fault, and not the operation of the system. I believe that the present Government, and those who are responsible for the running of the system, do
        1972
        not for a moment desire to inflict hardship upon anyone. I think they are humane and intelligent, and I am prepared to accept the proposition that they are and have been running the present system in the best and most humane way they can. They would probably accept that statement as a true statement. As a result of accepting that statement, however, one is driven to the conclusion that it is not the individual who is to blame but the system that is wrong, and that therefore one must, in fairness to those who are at present trying to run this antiquated and rotten system, come to the conclusion that they ought to be saved from the consequences of their own heroic acts in trying to stand on the bridge until the ship sinks. They ought to be taken off the ship; the ship ought to be allowed to sink, and a better and more successful ship should be put in its place.
        7.2 p.m.
        Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I have often heard hon. Members say that they came to this House without any intention of taking part in the Debate. I have never thought that a good thing to do, and I have very seldom done it myself. But it is true on this occasion that I have felt myself bound to intervene in this Debate, although I was quite unprepared to do so. In the first place, I have been asked by a number of my hon. Friends to express to the Chancellor of the Exchequer our congratulations on his successful negotiations with the German Government. We, like the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, will of course await the publication of the details of the agreement before expressing any opinion on it, but we are indeed glad to know that the Chancellor has been successful in carrying these negotiations to the point of an agreement, and we are grateful to him for his announcement, which has given additional importance to this Debate.
        Even, however, apart from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement, this Debate has a real importance, in spite of the caustic opening remarks in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have commented before in this House on the fact that the leaders of the Labour party are like those people to whom reference is made in a certain

        1973
        Book that their right hands do not know what their left hands do. More than once leading Members of the Labour party have stood up at that Box and denounced the courses which their own supporters have just been advocating. On this occasion we are discussing a proposal which was first embodied in a new Clause to the Finance Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), who obtained the support of two Members of the party to which the hon. and learned Gentleman belongs, and a third hon. Member who sits on the Front Bench only refrained from attaching his name to the Clause on account of his official position. And now there has been in all parts of the House a desire for the discussion of this particular question.
        Nor do I think that the supporters of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are quite satisfied with his indication that everything that can be said about the Government's policy was said at Ottawa or when the World Economic Conference met in London. It is not only my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh who is mystified about the direction of the Government in monetary policy. Among those who attached their names to the Clause and to a slightly different Clause which was put down by an hon. Member whom I see opposite me, and who equally asked for inquiry—but, I think, a different form of inquiry—were a very large number of supporters of the Government who must be supposed to have read the document to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred, but, like myself and others on this bench, were not satisfied with it. They included such authorities on finance as the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), an ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and such an authority on Imperial economics as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). It is not therefore possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ride off on these speeches and declarations which he made at Ottawa and the World Economic Conference, and to suppose that public opinion in the country, or a large number of his own supporters, accept them as an adequate statement of monetary policy.
        We on these benches regard monetary policy as a matter of the highest importance. We cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that monetary
        1974
        policy is of no importance to the worker. We no more agree with that proposition than do the hon. Members who sit behind him. We realise to the full the importance of this question from the workers' point of view, in that the smaller a man's income, the more important it is to him that that income should retain its our chasing power. I could not help wondering who this rentier is whom the hon. and learned Member holds out as an Aunt Sally at whom to fling his rhetorical quips. The rentier is a man whose savings enable a large number of workers of this country to make and export goods to the countries whom the hon. and learned Gentleman now invites to cancel their debts. He asks what it would matter to anybody except the rentier if these foreign countries now cancelled their debts. It would matter to the producers in this country, who would no longer find the resources accumulating to enable our trade to be financed.
        The hon. and learned Member talked about the rigidity of the present system. I never heard such an instance in this House of Satan rebuking sin. He is a Socialist, saying that the economic system of this country is too rigid. He went through it picking holes and drawing attention to all the difficulties with which industrialists and others concerned with the trade and industry of this country are confronted, but he never gave us a single indication of his constructive alternative. One must assume that it is something like that of the Government in Russia, which is the only effective Socialist Government now in operation. The foreign trade of Russia is slackening, its Five-Year-Plan is falling into complete and utter confusion, and the position of the worker there is far inferior to that of the worker in this country.
        The right hon. Gentleman says that we have tried Free Trade, that we have tried capitalism. Let us be quite clear about this. Having tried Free Trade and having tried capitalism for 100 years, we find that they have quadrupled the population and the wealth of the country, that the wealth of the country has been increasing at the rate of 3 or 4 per cent. a year, and that under no other system in the whole history of the world have such immense advances been made in 500 or 1,000 years in the production of wealth and in raising the

        1975
        standard of living of the people, as have been made during the last century under capitalism and Free Trade.
        Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Why did you cross the Floor?
        Sir A. SINCLAIR: Why did I cross the Floor? I said that I was unprepared to intervene and I do not want to make a long speech, so I shall not go into that question but merely ask the hon. Member to be good enough to look up my old speeches, in which I have dealt fully with it. The matter is not in any event germane to the subject we are discussing this afternoon. I should like to answer the hon. Member very fully, but I have too much respect for all those hon. Members who wish to follow me.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us, as he always does, an extraordinarily interesting speech, but I could not help regretting—I know he dislikes the word and I do not wish to use a word which is offensive to him; he has chided me before for using it, but I must use it on this occasion, because nothing else will express what I mean—that strain of complacency which ran through his speech. "Trade and employment," he said, "have steadily increased, and the increase is continuous." I hope he is right, but he hedged on that statement afterwards, and said that there had been a little check. Of course, as we know, there has been a little check. For the first time for many months both the monthly curve and the three-monthly average curve of business activity in the "Economist" have taken a turn downwards. I see from paragraphs that have been published in the newspapers that the Unemployment Returns are not going to be quite so good next time. I hope profoundly that that is not true, and I hope, if it be true, that it will not continue.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, however, in his speech—though he did not say it the first time—that the increase is not continuous, and there are some factors in the situation which lead one to fear that it may not prove to be continuous. He also, however, referred to the figures of trade and production and asked, having achieved "so much success" and having done all that, "what is there to complain of?" The common
        1976
        people of this country, if he went about among them, would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer what there is to complain of. If he went among the miners, the fishermen, the 2,000,000 unemployed all over the country, the cotton operators, the shipbuilders and the men who are looking for employment in ships, millions of people in the country would tell him what there is to complain of. There is enough to complain of to justify us in discussing whether, in this fundamentally important question of monetary policy, we are going on the right lines and whether the announcements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Ottawa and the World Economic Conference in London are really the last word on monetary policy.
        Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then went on to refer to the Macmillan Report and to use what is obviously, a formidable argument. He said: "There is the Macmillan Report; it is quite recent; is not that enough?" I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to this Committee that it is not enough. It is a very exhaustive report; it is a mine of valuable information, but conditions have greatly changed since that report was presented to the House. It is a report which would immensely lighten the burden of any committee which might inquire into this subject and make a great deal of research unnecessary; but it is not the last word and cannot be taken as the last word, and it does not, with all respect, apply to the situation in which we find ourselves to-day.
        The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), in the extraordinarily interesting speech with which he delighted the Committee earlier this afternoon, referred to the Genoa Resolutions. He did not refer, as I should have expected him to refer, when he was talking about consultation with the central banks as the essential method laid down in those Resolutions of giving effect to them, to the constitution of the Bank of International Settlement which has since taken place. That has to some extent provided the means of arriving at the end which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but which does not seem to have been employed for that purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, however, that he was quite clear that the

        1977
        main objective must be a return, to an international gold standard subject to certain conditions. We know that a number of conditions were stipulated in the announcements made at Ottawa and again in London at the World Economic Conference, but I should have thought that there were other policies which would have been worth consideration. I am doubtful about most of those which I have been asked to consider, but ideas have been put forward by economists, not only in this country but in other countries, which in the opinion of a great many people are worthy of consideration and investigation.
        Even if we are definitely committed to the return to gold, let us consider what progress we are making towards the achievement of those conditions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said are essential. He mentioned two—the removal of trade barriers and the raising of prices. As regards the removal of trade barriers, all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done since he talked like that at Ottawa has been greatly to increase the trade barriers. As a result of Ottawa, the trade barriers have been increased not only in this country but in the Dominions. As a result also of our adoption of Protection, it was stated in the House of Commons three weeks ago by the President of the Board of Trade that we had provoked, I think it was, 21 countries to increase their tariffs and 15 to the imposition of quota restrictions upon our exports—I do not wish to be tied to the figures, because I have not verified them. We entirely agree that the removal or lowering of tariff or quota barriers, and the removal of exchange restrictions, are essential preliminaries to any return to the Gold Standard; our complaint against the Government is that, far from making any progress in that direction, they are constantly, almost week by week and certainly month by month, adding to those obstructions which already exist.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred with great pride to the cheap money, and in so far as that cheap money is due to his financial policy and to the huge conversions of War Loan which he conducted, he is greatly to be congratulated, and I gladly pay my tribute to him, as I have frequently done, to his conduct of the finances in that respect;
        1978
        but cheap money is also a sign of something which is very much worse, namely, of appallingly bad trade. We shall not get back to better conditions of trade until we are able to lower the barriers to the international exchange of goods. Far from giving a consistent lead in that direction, the Government have never given a lead to foreign nations. When they come here they are told that it is to the excessive tariffs that we object. Our tariffs, we say, are quite new and very scientific, but we object to the excessive tariffs in foreign countries. Quotas? We have no quotas except those which are absolutely necessary for our domestic purposes, and which we are not willing to discuss, but it is the arbitrary quotas which are imposed by foreign countries to which we object. Subsidies? Shipping subsidies are most iniquitous and injurious to the nations of the world, and we want to get rid of those, but do not ask us to discuss the beet sugar subsidies or anything of that kind, because they are simply adapted to local needs. Foreign countries will not deal with us on that basis. They will only deal with us on a basis of the common interest of mankind and of the trading nations of the world to free the channels of world trade of obstructions. They will only deal with us if we show them that we, also, are quite prepared to make our contribution to that process.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, has failed to make out the case that all is well, that we are being so successful, and that the expansion of trade is continuous, in face of this wretched expansion of exports of 11 per cent. over what is the worst year but one since 1905 for British exports. The President of the Board of Trade gave us some indication yesterday, in respect of shipping, of how serious is the position of our foreign trade. In these circumstances we have no right to adopt this complacent attitude. We ought to busy ourselves in every direction we can to improve trade, realising that the monetary problem lies as the very root of the prospects of this improvement. The Government ought not so cavalierly to dismiss a demand which, although it may have been voiced mainly from these benches this afternoon, has, in fact, been made in speeches from all parts of the House.
        7.22 p.m.
        Sir JOHN WARD LAW-MILNE: As the first supporter of the Government to speak since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement in regard to Germany, I hope the Committee will allow me to add my tribute of congratulation upon the result which the Chancellor was able to announce a few moments ago. In every quarter of the Committee there will be great satisfaction that this agreement has been completed. It is true that we are not yet in possession of the whole of the details of that agreement, but from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it is evident that an arrangement has been reached which is satisfactory to both sides. I am sure that from every quarter of the Committee there is real congratulation to the Government and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the result of the negotiations which he has been able to announce to-day.
        I have listened with great interest to the speeches which have been made on a subject which is of great interest to almost everyone of us. We may congratulate the Liberal party upon the fact that they took this opportunity of raising a matter in which the House of Commons always takes a very definite, if a somewhat limited, interest. I was a little surprised at the intervention of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), because although he started to support the setting up of the committee, he went on to make a speech which was reminiscent of some I have heard him deliver before, and his speech became really an eloquent address in favour of Free Trade. I do not want to follow him in that matter, except to refer to one point which he made. He said that the Government were not only complacent, but that they acted on the principle of putting up more and more barriers against foreign trade, in the shape of subsidies or tariffs. He went on to tell us that we would never get any Government in the world to work with us if we continued on those lines. My right hon. Friend has surely entirely forgotten that there was a party in office not very long ago who also had a very active and earnest President of the Board of Trade, who spent not days and weeks but months in trying to get Governments all over the world, and particularly
        1980
        in Europe, to agree to work together on a Free Trade basis. It is well known that he had to admit quite frankly that all his negotiations on those lines had failed. I suggest that it is hardly doing justice to any Government working under the present circumstances of trade in Europe to suggest that no attempt has been made by this country to work on what my right hon. Friend would describe as a Free Trade basis.
        I rose, however, to refer to the proposal for a committee of inquiry into monetary policy, contained in a new Clause which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) has upon the Order Paper during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. Even before the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke I was convinced, anxious as I am in regard to this matter, that this was not the method by which it should be approached. I invite the attention of the Committee to the wording of the Clause, which is to "set up a Committee of Inquiry into monetary policy the Members of which shall be appointed by the Treasury."
        All I can say is God help the Treasury if they have to appoint it. If the other proposal were accepted, namely, to set up a committee to inquire into the basic principles upon which the present monetary system is founded, we should be going into matters which are of great moment, but, which, I believe, cannot be dealt with by the mere setting up of an inquiry immediately by the House of Commons. I do not approve of the setting up of the committee in this way. I am satisfied with the methods by which the Government have managed their financial policy since we went off gold. Let me qualify that: I am satisfied that they have done the best they could, but I think that anybody else would have done almost as well. The fact of the matter is that they were forced into the position of acting as they are acting now. I do not refer to the excellent management by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the conversion scheme, but to the general policy in the financial affairs of the nation in the last three years. So far as Treasury control is concerned, the principles under which the Government have had to work have been brought about by the conditions which existed in 1931 when we were forced off gold.
        I do not think that we should gain very much therefore by merely inquiring

        1981
        into the present system. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) with great justice looks upon to-day as his field day. This is his special day. He brings before the Committee all the advantages of the Gold Standard and he tells us quite frankly that he is a Gold Standard man. I admire my hon. Friend greatly for his pertinacity and for his staunch Conservatism. He read out at considerable length paragraphs in the speeches of Sir Robert Peel and others, 100, 120 or 130 years ago, and I began to wonder whether my hon. Friend was a Liberal at all. I am certain that he is the one person in the country who really can answer the question as to what the Gold Standard is. He is the one person who really feels that he knows what it is. I suggest to him, with great deference, that a very large number of so-called experts find it impossible to give an answer to the question. I am reminded of the story of a little girl who came home from school and asked her father what the Gold Standard was. He said, "I cannot tell you what it is, because I do not know." She said, "But the girls at school say you ought to know, because you are a banker." Her father replied: "All I can say is that, when we were on the Gold Standard, it was all wine, women and song, but now that we are off the Gold Standard it is all beer, your mother and wireless." If I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh into a disquisition upon the Gold Standard and its merits or demerits in the past, it is not that I do not realise the earnest nature of his convictions. He, possibly, is the one person who is prepared to say, "Go back to the Gold Standard at once, just as you had it in the days of the Bank Charter Act, 1844."
        The position as I see it is that we are working fairly satisfactorily on the system which was forced upon us in 1931, and no further inquiry into the working of that system, whether set up by the Government or by the House of Commons, will get us anywhere. But there is a far wider question into which the Government will have to inquire, either directly or by means of some body set up either within or without the House of Commons. I do not think that any of us who follow the position of trade and industry in this country can fail to be impressed by the fact that the expansion which has taken
        1982
        place during the past 18 months must gradually draw to an end. It is impossible that that expansion can go on at the same rate, or, indeed, perhaps at all. I think there will be very little opposition to the statement that it is very largely an expansion in our internal trade. What is going to happen—we may as well face the position—when that expansion ceases? There is here a problem, not only for this country, but for the whole world: How are we going to arrange the economic and financial system to deal with national and international trade in view of the complete change that has taken place in the whole system under which we live in the world.
        Let me try to give an illustration of what is in my mind. The change I speak of is not new; it has been going on for many years; but recently the process has become much accelerated. It is a process which is very often described as replacing man by the machine. The position to-day is that, by a very much smaller expenditure of man-power, it is possible to secure all the production that the world wants. Every possible article of consumption, whether of necessity or of luxury, can be produced with a small percentage of the man-power that was previously used. What does that mean? The world has to face the position that it ought to mean a very much larger leisured period of life for all of us; that is the real answer to the bounty of Nature and the scientific development of production. But the result up to date, instead of being of benefit to mankind, has been disastrous. I suggest to the Committee that it is on the question of what is to be the result of that development in the future, not only in this country but in the world, that inquiry is necessary.
        The other day I came across an illustration or two, which I will venture to give to the Committee, of the extent to which this change has taken place. I have said that it is not new. I find that, as long ago as 1886, the Commissioner of Labour Statistics in the United States reported that 4,000,000 persons then in the manufacturing industries were producing as much as 21,000,000 people could have produced under pre-machine conditions. That was in 1886, nearly 50 years ago. Let me give now an illustration brought right up to date. The first electrical

        1983
        grain harvester, produced in 1932, can harvest 10 acres an hour—four times the speed of the previous machines. It reaps and stacks the grain simultaneously. Two men are required for its operation. That example is from Russia. Turning again to America, in certain areas where rates for electric power are low, a nickel's worth of current will milk 10 cows, separate 1,400 portions of butter, sharpen an axe on a grindstone six times, pump two days' supply of water for people and animals, run a sewing machine for five hours, or do two big family washings.
        It is, I suggest, worth while for the Committee to take an opportunity such as we have to-day, to consider into what matters an inquiry is really needed. It is not, I suggest, into the working of the present financial system; it is not into whether the present system of Capitalism should be replaced by Socialism. Socialism is unable to give any answer to those questions; it has never even tried to deal with them, nor for that matter has Capitalism either. The fact is that the whole conditions of the world are changing, and, unless we are prepared to alter the whole, economic system under which we live, and to adapt ourselves to these new conditions, we shall find ourselves faced with continual penury and want because we have not done so.
        Mr. LOGAN: Develop mechanisation.
        Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: That is only one part of the problem. There are other factors, but I have given that as an example of the facts that the world will have to face. These are the matters that need to be inquired into. How it is to be done—whether by Government action or by international action—is too large a question for any one Member to deal with at the present time; I can only say that these are questions which every nation in the world will have to face. There is, of course, a definite and urgent monetary and financial aspect of this problem, and it is to this larger matter that I am trying to draw the attention of the Committee. Under our present system, the community becomes inevitably indebted to the banking system of this country for all the money that is required for production, by means, as we all know, of the credits supplied by the Joint Stock banks, on the basis roughly of 10 to one of their assets.
        1984
        All this money comes originally from the Bank of England. It is very doubtful whether this system can continue under the new condition of things which most of us cannot help seeing must be faced very shortly, but let me say again that that change has nothing to do with the political fights about Capitalism or Socialism; it is a much greater matter than anything of that kind—it is a change in the whole economic system of the world.
        Are we going to continue to keep money as a thing of value in itself, or are we going back to the days when money was nothing but a token? As long as money, whether it be gold or anything else, has a fluctuating value, it puts a premium on the difficulties of production. To-day production is restricted by the quantity of money available. That in itself is wrong. The object of the economic system, surely, is to supply goods and services as and when they are required, and, therefore, it is illogical that the money supply should govern production; it is production that should govern the money supply. Under the economic system of the future, if human labour is displaced, as it must be more and more by the scientific development of production, by mechanisation, and by the other changes that are coming, we shall undoubtedly have to face a change in the financial and economic system, which covers also the monetary and currency systems of the world; and that is a problem, not only for this country, but for the whole world.
        In conclusion, I would say that, if the Government can give us some lead as to what they are thinking, as to the lines to which their minds are turning, in connection with that greater problem, that I have tried to indicate the House of Commons would be a great deal happier than it is to-day. There are Members in every quarter of the House who are seriously disturbed about the future, not because they find fault with the management of the present financial system by the Government, but because they are wondering whether the Government, or those whom it employs to undertake research into these matters, really realise the changes that must come, and, if they do, what action they are going to take to meet them.
        7.42 p.m.
        Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I do not think there has been in recent weeks any Debate

        1985
        in this Chamber which will attract more public attention and interest than this Debate on a subject of which a widening circle of persons, who until recently had no interest in these matters, are every day becoming keen students. Not only in this country, but throughout the world, stirrings and studyings are going on, and it is little to be wondered at, because everybody is asking for the answer to the amazing paradox that, as the world gets richer in goods and services, the majority of the people in the world get poorer and poorer.
        Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: That is not true.
        Mr. WILMOT: The hon. Baronet says that it is not true. It may not be mathematically exact that the man who is unemployed to-day is actually living in greater misery than a man who was unemployed a decade ago, but relatively to the wealth of the community it is true, and the impression produced—and this is what I am addressing myself to—in the mind of the ordinary man and woman is that poverty, in existing circumstances, is indefensible. More remarkable still than the interest taken in the subject is the amazing attitude—I can use no other word—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One would have thought that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been addressed by Members of all parties—Members who in many cases have made a life study of these matters, and who have occupied important positions in the Government in connection with this very question, like the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), with the whole of whose speech I found myself in almost complete agreement—when such obvious public interest is reflected in the House of Commons in a subject of this kind, one would have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not merely have repeated the complacent platitudes which we have heard from the Front Government bench over and over again, The Government, apparently, are thoroughly satisfied with what is happening; they look complacently upon the world enjoying the gentle rain of their beneficence, and they are trusting to the hope that things will go jogging on much as they are. I submit with the greatest respect that that attitude is one which
        1986
        the House of Commons should find it extremely difficult to tolerate.
        There is, surely, in existing circumstances, no kind of justification for the fact that millions of our fellow-countrymen are short of food, clothing and housing. We have millions of people out of work who are capable of producing the commodities which make the difference betwen poverty and comfort. We have at the same time a glut of the raw materials from which those goods can be made. On every hand we have capital standing idle—liquid capital accumulating unproductively, and actual capital, in the form of the tools of production, standing rusting away. We have the material, we have the labour, we have the capital; but we lack the wit to bring those three essential factors together, and to replace poverty and want with employment and security and comfort.
        It is felt by an increasing number of people, whether rightly or wrongly I do not know, that the problem may be due to some fault in the monetary system. It is expressed sometimes that we are trying to force the productive capacity of the 20th century through the bottle neck of a monetary machine which was devised in the 17th century. It may be that somewhere in that direction the answer to this paradox lies. Surely one would have expected the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Minister charged with the direction of the nation's policy in this most important matter to show a little interest in a great public demand of this nature, instead of which he repeats that the Government policy is meeting things very satisfactorily and very comfortably. I should imagine that the reduction in unemployment is almost entirely due to factors outside the Government's policy altogether. The Government were elected to avoid doing the one thing which has had the greatest possible effect on the unemployment figures. It was elected to cling to the Gold Standard. The Labour Government were betrayed by their leaders because they insisted on clinging to the Gold Standard at all costs, and it was to avoid a departure from the Gold Standard that the Government were dissolved and the Election took place.
        Mr. PETHERICK: Was it the case that the Members of the late Labour Government, with the exception of those who are now supporters of the National Government, were in favour of going off gold?
        Mr. WILMOT: I said that the purpose of the formation of the National Government was to avoid going off gold. Have we forgotten the antics of the Prime Minister in paying his election deposit in depreciated German marks in order to demonstrate that he was asking for a mandate to avoid these terrible things? Surely I need not follow it any further. The whole point of dispute between my hon. Friends and those with whom they parted company was whether or not action should be taken which would force this country off the Gold Standard. It was the fact that the Government, fortunately, was unable to carry out the policy for which it was formed that put a premium on exports, which so greatly improved our export trade and the employment position. It is surely rather beside the point in a Debate of this kind, of an entirely non-party character, for the Chancellor to repeat that he in his wisdom and his party have rescued the country from the horrors of inflation. Nothing of the kind. We know very well that what has happened is due almost entirely to this change in monetary policy. But that is not the point of to-day's Debate. This Debate is to direct attention upon this essential paradox of the capitalist system, the paradox of poverty and unemployment in the midst of plenty and in the midst of wealth, with the certain knowledge that every increase in man's capacity of producing wealth will result in an increased amount of unemployment and poverty.
        We have to decide what we are going to do about this paradox. How are we going to get the increased product of mechanised and scientific production consumed? I suggest that we shall never get it consumed so long as we insist on basing our monetary policy on the Gold Standard. The Gold Standard is an inflexible standard. Its sole purpose is to secure the stability of the exchanges, to secure that the money of one country has a constant exchangeable value with the money of another country. But it fails to provide the first essential quality of a monetary system, which is to provide for the stability of purchasing power of our own coinage, and it is obvious that we have had a more stable purchasing value of the £ since we abandoned the Gold Standard than before that date. The second essential criterion of a monetary system is literally whether it will deliver
        1988
        the goods—whether it gets the goods that are made consumed. Surely the purpose of a money token is to be a means of exchange between the producer and the consumer, and if the monetary system fails to achieve that, if it fails to secure that all the goods that are produced are consumed, it is a failure. We have evidences of that failure. We are suffering from poverty, from unemployment, from stagnation of trade and from all the difficulties that we are now experiencing, not because we are over producing but because we are under consuming—because the great pool of demand for food, for clothes, for houses, for books, for travel, for education, for all the equipment of a civilised life is ineffective through poverty.
        Our monetary system has failed to enable our potential consumers to satisfy their demands, and in such circumstances the House has a right to expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing, at any rate, to listen, to examine and to inquire. The working people—not only manual workers but an increasing number of people who work in offices and banks and in the distributive trades—are facing poverty, worry, insecurity, unemployment and the threat of unemployment in the increased bitterness of knowing that it is unnecessary, that it is avoidable and that it is indefensible. The Committee would have been better pleased had the Chancellor shown some interest and some sympathy with the general public interest which we reflect here rather than repeated the fallacious platitudes about beneficence of his own actions.
        7.54 p.m.
        Sir GEORGE GILLETT: I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on the result of their negotiations with the German Government. It is the most satisfactory news that we have heard in the last few days, and it should certainly lead to increased confidence and hope in regard to our relationship with other nations. One factor which has not been mentioned to any great extent to-day, but which to my mind goes to the root of the problem in regard to money, is the question of confidence. Many nations seem to think that you can repudiate or refuse to pay a debt in a very light manner and expect at the same time that this system,

        1989
        which is built up above everything on confidence, is going to run on in the same way that it did in the past. Someone once drew my attention to the fact that the great mass of our food supplies and necessities of life come to us from other nations, are carried in ships from all parts of the world, financed on the promises of merchants, bankers, and financiers who simply put their names to little pieces of paper, and on the credit of those pieces of paper your great industrial system is being carried on. If you once get to the point that the credit of those pieces of paper cannot be relied upon, you begin to open up the endless difficulties and troubles which are perplexing the world to-day.
        Confidence, to my mind, is the first necessity of a sound financial system, and that is one reason why I welcome the agreement that has been made so successfully with the German Government. The next point that is essential is, I think, stability. I believe that the problem in regard to money is linked up with the exchange system. It is one of the misfortunes of the Liberal party that, when they bring up these questions, they always sooner or later get on to the question of Free Trade. We had a passionate appeal by the right hon. Baronet who spoke last from the Liberal benches, but it was pointed out that the late Mr. William Graham did everything he possibly could at Geneva to bring about a reduction in tariffs and not a single nation responded to the appeal. No one could say that Mr. Graham was not as true a Free Trader as anyone on that bench, with the exception of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), whom we look upon as standing by himself. I always look upon him as an emblem of 100 years ago—in the words of Milton:
        "Faithful found
        Among the faithless, faithful only he."
        When I hear an appeal like that of the right hon. Baronet that we should approach the nations it seems to me perfectly futile. It seems to be forgetting that the world has changed. These other nations have chosen, for better or for worse, to build up their home factories and in many cases to supply good which in the past they have been content to take from us. Can we imagine that a sentimental appeal is going to induce them to reduce their tariffs to such an extent that these factories will be swept
        1990
        out of existence? We have to face up to the problem on the new lines of today, which to my mind are the lines that are being carried out by the Government. We shall have tariffs and quotas. These are matters of negotiation.
        Meanwhile, hon. Members are often diverted from the much more hopeful question of whether more cannot be done in regard to the removal of the exchange restrictions. Therefore, I feel that we are facing an international situation. Many of the poorer countries have to be considered in the light almost, one might say, of a bankrupt customer. If we are to help them we have, in the first place, to consider the whole of their financial condition. Some community, either the League of Nations or a group of the Wealthier nations, will in many cases have to find out whether assistance in some form is not just as necessary to some of these other countries as it has been to nations like Austria, even though one has seen the difficulties in which a small nation like Austria is placed.
        I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). His idea seemed to be a world in which there was no trade at all between the nations, and, as far as I can gather, the ideal at which he was aiming would be reached when international trade of every kind had been brought to an end. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) seemed almost to lend himself to that idea. I may have misunderstood him, but I could not gather from the speech of the hon. and learned Member why he should have objected, even if he thought that under that system the rentiers or capitalists of this country were wasting their money. I speak of the world as it is to-day and not as it is going to be sometime, as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. One of the mysteries I have never fully understood is how and upon what lines the world is to be formed when he has drawn it up according to the methods and ideas to which he refers but never fully explains to us. Speaking of the world to-day, we have to arrive at a state when the wealthier nations will be prepared and able to lend money to some of the other nations. The extraordinary statement was made from the Labour benches that the monetary

        1991
        system does not make any difference to the workers. But when, money is lent to another nation, sooner or later, in some form or other, in nine cases out of ten, it is almost certain that money will go out of the country in the form of woods. The manufacture of these goods will produce profit and bring wages to a certain number of workmen engaged in making commodities for overseas.
        The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) said "Look at the disastrous state of this country." He compared it to the days when this country was the great lending nation of the world and when this country was the most prosperous and the workers were making goods for export to all parts of the world. I disagree entirely with the statement which was so confidently made by the hon. Member who, I am sorry to say, is not now present. We are both going to the same dinner. He has got ahead of me at the dinner table, and I shall have to delay my arrival until a later course. He is a much younger man than I am. When, 40 years ago, I became acquainted with the constituency which I represent here to-day, there was a great mass of poverty and slums, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that for the hon. Member to say that the condition of the working class to-day is worse than, or as bad as, it was 40 years ago, is utter rubbish. I do not wish it to be understood that I think that they are in a good condition, but it is absurd to say that they are in a worse condition.
        One has only to think of the social services which have been brought into existence. When I first went there, there were not even old age pensions, much less health services. The whole of the medical services for the schools have come into existence since that time. To-day there are widows' pensions, and some £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 a year is being spent on services which were not in existence at that time. Unsatisfactory as the position is to-day, it is absurd to suggest that the condition of the workers generally has not been bettered. People have begun to realise the opportunities of life, and are rightly asking for a larger share of what they consider should be possible to them. In the days when I first went to my constituency, poverty
        1992
        and want were so great that the people did not realise what life meant. One has only to consider what was given in the form of relief to realise the change which has taken place.
        The hon. Member for East Fulham also referred to the question of the mechanisation of industry, and I doubt whether he is not equally incorrect in that. I remember reading an article on the subject in the "Economist" a short time ago, in which it was shown that, if you make an allowance for the fact that mechanisation leads in many cases to cheaper goods, it has been discovered that, granting that there is a demand—
        Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
        Sir G. GILLETT: I was referring to the charge made by the hon. Member for East Fulham that mechanisation led to a reduction in employment and to poverty. I was drawing attention to the article in the "Economist" some time ago which entirely refuted the argument made by the hon. Member. I want to say something in regard to the real subject before the Committee on this occasion, namely, the money problem. I agree with the hon. Member that there are many people in this country who recognise, as, I think, all hon. Members do, the evils of our social system. Some have too little and others seem to have too much. We have seen unemployment and poverty in our midst, and undoubtedly many men and women think that, in some way, it is due to our monetary system. The result is that we have many schemes proposed by different schools of thought in an attempt to do what they can to solve the problem. It is very doubtful whether the money solution will in any way be a contribution in any way comparable to that which is expected.
        When I first heard the suggestion of the appointment of a committee, I thought that hon. Members on the Liberal benches were to suggest a committee of Members of this House which would have given some of us interested in this question the opportunity of meeting together to try to find out whether some light could be thrown upon the problem, which is so exceedingly difficult and complex. I understand that the proposal is a much larger one, and in consequence I am not so attracted by it, committees or commissions

        1993
        take such a long time, and they get so lost. It was not quite the idea I had in mind when someone approached me and asked me whether I favoured a committee of that kind. I still cannot help thinking that there would have been considerable scope for a committee of Members of this House. I agree very largely with the interesting speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in regard to the future line of action. I understand that the Government cannot say anything on this problem, the solution of which does not rest in the hands of any Government in this country, but solely in the hands of certain nations. Until we know what America is to do, it is practically impossible for us to make any definite statement as to what we are to do. It ought to be possible to come to an understanding in regard to some new monetary system. It is obvious that an understanding will have to take place. There will have to be consultation with great nations like the United States of America and France, and one or two other of the leading nations, in order to obtain a uniform policy as to the level at which the different nations now off gold are to return to gold. I cannot envisage in the world to-day any other monetary system than one which, in some ways, has to be based on some form of gold standard.
        I think that the hon. Member who said that the Gold Standard was so rigid rather exaggerated. The old standard was rigid, but I think that it is possible so to adjust and alter the whole of the working arrangements that some of the hardness of the system may be removed, and that it could be made to expand much more easily according to the needs of the producer for financial help. The hon. Member exaggerated the system as it is to-day. He said that the financial side entirely governed the productive side. That is incorrect. It has to be remembered that the system of credit is an elastic one. You might get a figure to-day, but if there were a greater demand for trade, such figure could easily be expanded by the traders themselves. They need not go only to the bankers; trade is not financed only by the banker lending money. In the past, especially, it was financed by the system of issuing and the drawing of bills, which is a matter carried out by the trader not necessarily
        1994
        in connection with the bank at all but with the accepting houses. It means an enormous expansion of credit. There are hundreds of millions of bills in the world to-day. The system could be expanded to any extent as long as there was genuine trade requiring assistance. But if one looks at the position to-day one sees large sums of money lying idle. It is most essentially a case of the banking system, waiting for trade. That is one of the things which makes me rather doubtful whether any great alteration in our financial system will meet the problem with which we are faced to-day.
        I should have been only too glad if it had been possible in some way to have explored this great unknown question, unknown in one sense, in regard to which knowledge is so important. It seems to me that the line on which the Government are moving in their financial policy is the only one that they can possibly follow, and unless one has the information, which is known only to Ministers, as to what can be done in approaching other countries or in helping to come to an understanding between this country and the United States of America, and the countries which are still upon gold, it makes it almost impossible to criticise and to say that more could be done, because we may find that the decision rests in the hands of other nations rather than our own. We are indebted to the Members of the Liberal party who have brought up this question, because among the many questions which are important to-day there are few that are more important than finding a solution of the financial problem.
        8.16 p.m.
        Mr. R. T. EVANS: I am sure that the Committee is sorry that the hon. Member who has just spoken has had to sacrifice his dinner. I do not know whether he feels that it was worth while to make the sacrifice, but those who have had the pleasure of listening to his speech will feel that it was. I think a Debate on these great issues shows up the House of Commons in an extraordinarily interesting light, in that it reveals the diversity of viewpoints. I have listened to most of the speeches and I have found that each speech had its distinctive emphasis. The hon. Member who has just resumed his seat is somewhat perturbed because certain Members

        1995
        on these benches emphasised the issue of Free Trade, Whether we discuss Free Trade or loans for development purposes or any of the other points raised to-day, they are all facets of the same fundamental problem, and that is, the spanning of the chasm between production and consumption.
        May I say that in his somewhat complacent speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather assumed that this had been brought forward as a gesture of censure upon the Government in respect of their financial policy. It is nothing of the kind. Let us give the Government full credit for the restoration of confidence. Let us assume, if you like, that all the improvements in trade, all the improvements in the figures of unemployment, the extension of industry and so forth, are due mostly to governmental action. Still, when we realise the stupendous possibilities of improvement in the standards of life if the statesmen of the world were sane, we cannot be complacent. I do not say that this country, whatever Government it has, can really solve the problem on its own account. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is full of optimism about what a Socialist Government might do. I have no doubt that they would tackle many problems, but is the ownership of industry and the ownership of the banking system really relevant to the problem we are discussing to-day? You must have some sort of standard of value, some sort of mechanism whereby goods and services can be exchanged.
        I should like to make one or two points, and the first is, that there is a real danger of overstressing the monetary factor. When one considers the position of the world to-day—mention has been made in more than one speech of the actualities of the situation—there never was a time when man's capacity to produce was as great as it is now. Civilisation on its material side consists of a multiplication of human wants, and our capacity and willingness to consume is ever increasing, but we have not yet solved the problem of distribution. There is common ground between us, whether the speeches come from the Labour benches, the Conservative benches or these benches, that we are all attacking
        1996
        the same fundamental problem, and that is how we can span the gulf between production and consumption and bring within the reach of the masses of the people the abundance of wealth which we have learned to produce.
        We are not quite right in insisting that the monetary problem is the sole problem. It does not matter very much how you reorganise the international money basis. Whether you return to an automatic Gold Standard, whether you have a reformed or managed international Gold Standard, whether you have what Sir Basil Blackett suggests a systematising and development of the present paper currencies of the Empire into the form of a Sterling Union, or whether you enlarge the functions of the Bank of International Settlement and make it a clearing house for commercial debts as well as inter-governmental debts, none can work unless you have willing co-operation between the nations and a willingness to trade one with the other. Therefore, I feel the inappropriateness of the remark of the last speaker concerning the relevance of Free Trade. I am not going to discuss Free Trade. We are living in a world that has made up its mind to limit trade, a world all tangled up with debt, a world in which nations have been trying to secure for themselves favourable balances of trade to meet their overseas obligations in respect of debts. No doubt Reparations and the question of inter-Allied debts have been contributory factors to the present world depression, and we cannot leave out their consideration from our discussion to-day.
        Whether a Committe of this House or a committee of experts drawn from outside could make any worthwhile contribution to the solution of the problem, I do not know. We had the Cunliffe Commission, which made its report. From 1920 up to 1931 we were under the spell of the Cunliffe Report. I am not at all certain that many of the disasters, the shrinkage in trade and the continuous deflation which followed were not due to the report of the Cunliffe Commission, and I cannot but feel that if another committee reported along the same lines and the Government implemented that report that our last plight might not be worse than the first. But, surely, the conditions of the world have changed. When the Cunliffe and the

        1997
        Macmillan Commissions sat the world was still on gold. There was a certain measure of willingness among nations to trade with one another, a feeling of optimism that when the aftermath of the War had been dissipated they would live neighbourly and trade with one another. The condition of the world has altered, and we have to envisage this problem from an entirely new angle. Most of the great nations are off gold. What basis are you going to give to international trade? Sooner or later nations will have to come together, they will have to anchor their currencies to something stable, there must be some common denominator as the standard of value and the basis of commercial transactions. Sooner or later the matter will have to be settled internationally, but tremendous gain would accrue if we in this country could now settle down and study the situation from our own point of view.
        Trade is improving, and the International Labour Office published figures the other day to show the universality of this improvement. We all rejoice. One feels that it is not entirely due to the action of individual governments. Governments have been resorting to artificial methods for raising internal price levels, these are cumulative in their effect, and after a period of depression there was a great void to be replenished, as in the case of iron and steel. No doubt for a time conditions of trade will show an improvement, but can you in confidence, viewing the realities of the situation, believe that this improvement will continue for any great length of time? So long as you have a tangle of debts, the necessity forced upon nations to build up a favourable balance of trade, to buy as little as they can and sell as much as they may in order to secure the means whereby to settle their overseas obligations, so long will you have economic nationalism rampant. A time is bound to come when it will be necessary for nations to come together to find a basis for international comity and economic co-operation. Sanity must surely return some day.
        There is yet another aspect of the problem. I am not certain that the last word has been said on the problem of banking. I speak only of the domestic situation. There is a widespread suspicion to-day
        1998
        that our banking system is not so sacrosanct as it used to be, when people spoke in a whisper of those people who alone possessed that esoteric knowledge which could never be vouchsafed to the general masses of the people. The repercussions of our banking policy since 1918 have been such that there is considerable disquiet as to whether the banking system of this country has been managed in a way most helpful to industry and trade. Take the boom period; the banks yielded to the boom psychology with great facility. This country experienced an orgy of optimism, it was felt that we were standing on the threshold of a new era, and we know that many harmful operations were undertaken under the direct stimulus of the banks during that period. The coal industry, the cotton industry, many other industries; it was the golden age of financial buccaneering. We in South Wales know a good deal of these manipulations, as well as people in other parts of the country in areas which have been rendered derelict as the result.
        The banks at that time had an opportunity of checking a boom which was largely psychological, which had no real basis in economic facts. When as a result of the Cunliffe Commission and the-subsequent decision to deflate and prices began to fall fears crept in, and the banks again yielded, with equal facility, to a panic psychology. Undoubtedly, a large number of industries were destroyed because of the summary withdrawal of credit facilities. A great deal of distrust was caused, and there are some people who are very apprehensive to-day. We know the commitments of the banks, we know that their assets are frozen in many large industries, that they have provided funds without due consideration, and that the Vassar-Smith Committee expressed' great doubt as to whether the banking system, as we know it, was equal to the task of exercising the wisest possible judgment in advancing credit.
        The boom period proved that some coordinating authority was necessary, and I feel certain—I say this with all earnestness and with all reserve—that the reorganisation of many basic industries is being rendered impossible as the result of our banking system Can you reasonably expect a bank which has perhaps £500,000 or £1,000,000 in debenture stock in a great iron and steel undertaking to

        1999
        stand idly by, and see these works, because of their inefficiency, closed down? Can you expect it? I am not censorious, I do not blame them, but are the Government certain that the banking re-sources of this country are being harnessed in the interests of industrial efficiency? It is not enough for the Chancellor to say that the country ought to be completely satisfied with the situation. There are great possibilities which could be achieved to-day if the world were sane and if nations were willing to co-operate, but this will not be made possible merely by implementing some ingenious device. We may yet have to get back to our old-fashioned notions. What we want is stability, confidence. If a cohort of angels brought down a perfect monetary system, without good will and confidence among the nations and a willingness to trade and live in neighbourly fashion, they would not bring the abundant life within reach of the masses.
        8.35 p.m.
        Mr. MABANE: I am not at all sure that I agreed with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans) when he said that the Chancellor is not entitled to stand at the Box and be completely satisfied with what has been done since 1931. I find myself able to agree with almost every word that the Chancellor said. I think that when we look back over the conditions during the last three years there is a very considerable justification for the Chancellor congratulating either himself or his Government or his officials on the practical results of the financial policy that has been adopted.
        There are very many reasons why a Debate of this kind is difficult in this House. It is not a party question, and particularly this is the sort of Debate which can easily degenerate into a succession of theoretical suggestions being hurled at the head of the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary—suggestions which really have no practical bearing on the problem. Yet there can be no question that in the country this is a Debate that will be very closely watched. During the last two or three years there has been a surprising development of interest in monetary questions. I observed only yesterday that a certain gentleman was convicted at the police court
        2000
        for throwing a brick through the window of No. 11, Downing Street, in order to indicate the fervour of his attachment to the Douglas credit scheme. He meant it for the window of No. 10. But surely his misdirected aim was the better one; he threw it through the window of the Chancellor's residence. That brick was some indication of the wide general interest in this monetary problem throughout the length and breadth of the country. We all find in our constituencies a very general opinion that the condition of the country and of the people is now affected by monetary policy in a way in which it has not been affected before, or at any rate in a way in which it has not been considered to be affected before.
        In this Debate so far there have been many divergencies from the main topic. We have had the advocacy of the policy of 100 years ago by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), whose views we respect but almost uniformly disagree with. There was the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring). As I listened to his Marxist speech, which we all know so well, I began to get tired of these cardboard Socialists. It is all very well for hon. Members to come down here and pretend to be Socialists. They dare not even join the Socialist League of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).
        Mr. MAINWARING: Would the hon. Member care to explain where I made any wrong statement, and to correct me in any particular?
        Mr. MABANE: The hon. Gentleman and his friends if they were in office dare not put into force one half of the things that they breach from these benches in this House. They have not got the moral honesty of the three hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway and believe in their doctrines. I give credit to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. He is a logical Socialist. I listened carefully to him this afternoon, and recognised that he must have been reading with great care Bernard Shaw's "Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism." We had whole paragraphs from that extremely erudite exposition of doctrinaire Socialism.
        Sir S. CRIPPS: I have never read it.
        Mr. MABANE: I wish the hon. and learned Member would interrupt me audibly and on his feet. Yet I did feel that this Debate really ought to hang on the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Monetary and Economic Conference last year. I listened with great attention to the quotations he made from that declaration. Quite properly he said that on 14th June of last year he made a definite statement of the general lines of the monetary policy of this country. He said that "the United Kingdom delegation endorsed the view that the ultimate aim should be the restoration of a satisfactory international standard, and that there was no doubt that a Gold Standard seemed to be the most likely to be generally accepted." In qualifications he subsequently made it clear that he meant something more akin to what was indicated by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) than to what was indicated by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason).
        The Chancellor went on to say that three conditions should be fulfilled before a real approach could be made to this ultimate objective. First was that there should be "a rise in the general level of the wholesale prices of commodities." When we compare the cost of commodity prices in the periods 1926–31 and 1931–34 there is considerable ground for gratification. If we compare price levels in 1926 with those of 1931 we find that there was a drop on the average of over 50 per cent. Lloyds Bank is my authority for this statement. Taking the mid-September, 1931, price-level index as 100, the price level in 1926 was 211. That is to say that between 1926 and 1931 prices had more than halved. From mid-September, 1931, until the present year prices have increased by 18 per cent. That is not great, but it indicates that there has been a definite move in a desirable direction. The second condition that the Chancellor made was that there should be a removal of the factors which caused a breakdown of the Gold Standard in the past—factors which he described as reparations, War Debt payments, and obstacles to international trade caused by export tariffs, exchange restrictions, and other abnormal impediments. As has been said, there is really not much ground for satisfaction on that score.
        2002
        The third condition laid down was perhaps the most interesting of all. It was that the Gold Standard was in future to be so administered that wide fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold, in so far as they arise from monetary causes, shall be to the greatest possible extent prevented. That qualification was very much in line with what was intended by the hon. Member for Eastern Aberdeen when he said that, looking to the future, we must look to a form of currency that is partly related to gold and partly a managed currency.
        I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether it is in his power to go a little further than the Chancellor went. I think we can agree that, having regard to the circumstances, the Chancellor can be gratified with the progress we have made along the lines that he indicated in June last year. But he said this afternoon that there seemed no prospect of those conditions being completely fulfilled in the near future. He went so far as to suggest that they might never be fulfilled. If his prognostication was correct, we want to know what we are going to do in the absence of the fulfilment of those conditions? I think there can be little doubt that in the absence of the fulfilment we shall have to proceed with our monetary policy on very similar lines to those on which we have proceeded during the last 2½ years.
        If I have heard any complaint at all against the Treasury, it is that they have been doing a thing at the same time as they have been vehemently denying that, they have been doing it. I know that that is in the true tradition of this country. We achieve a revolution and vehemently deny that a revolution has been achieved. But no reasonable person can doubt that during the last 2½ years the monetary policy of this country has been that of a managed currency. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, before we can get an international gold exchange standard certain conditions have to be fulfilled which in his view are not likely to be fulfilled in the near future and may never be fulfilled. Very well. We have shown during the last 2½ years that even in the absence of the fulfilment of these conditions we have yet been able to conduct our monetary policy very satisfactorily. I do not think that any reasonable person can have any serious complaint against the conduct

        2003
        of our monetary policy in the last 2½ years.
        The short point which I want to make is this. In the absence of the fulfilment of those conditions, has not the time come when the practice of management that we have been pursuing during the last 2½ years might be erected into a theory? I agree that it is often a mistake, particularly in monetary matters to determine theory first—that is a theory that is strict, dogmatic and rigid as the Athanasian Creed—and to say that your practice shall not move outside the bounds of that theory. A monetary theory depends for its success on so many attendant circumstances which may not in fact be present, that if you are bound to theory you may fail. None the less, in view of the fact that we have proceeded not by the method of first having a doctrine or a theory and then putting it in to practice, but empirically and by the method of trial and error, I would ask whether we have not now got sufficient experience and sufficient knowledge of the reasons why we have achieved such success during the last 2½ years, to enable us to say definitely what we are doing and what we are going to do?
        I feel that the business community of this country would have even greater confidence than they have to-day, if they knew with some degree of definiteness what theory of money we are using to guide our policy. We do not know at the moment. We are satisfied with events as they pass. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is not satisfied but I would say that the majority of us are satisfied. But we do not know when the Government may depart from the policy which they have pursued. The present policy which has succeeded in maintaining price levels fairly stable is satisfactory to the business community but we do not know when the Government may leave that policy and indulge in a further bout of inflation. I do not believe that they are going to do so but it would help the House of Commons to be confirmed in their confidence in the Government and it would help the country and the business community if my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary could go a little further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer went in his very interesting speech and could tell us whether
        2004
        there is any prospect that the practice which we have been pursuing during the last 2½ years might now be erected into a theory and a statement of that theory issued to the country. I am satisfied that, substantial though the recovery in confidence has been, if such a statement could be made then that recovery would continue with increasing success and rapidity.
        8.50 p.m.
        Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am sure all the Committee were deeply interested as I was in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the settlement with Germany. It will remove an immediate source of great anxiety and disturbance not only in the financial world but in the business world generally. Although there is much yet to be got over, at the same time it is highly satisfactory that we have been able to come to terms with Germany by diplomatic means rather than by employing any of those methods of violence which lead to the disorganisation of ordinary trade and which are becoming, alas, all too frequent in certain parts of the world to-day. We owe a debt of gratitude to those hon. Members who ask that this Vote should be put down for for discussion to-day. As has been pointed out, this monetary question is causing a great deal of interest and also anxiety not only in this country but throughout the Empire, as I know from having made a tour through many parts of the Empire recently. The anxiety which exists today is, I think, largely due to ignorant teachers of ignorant people. I for one have to be extremely careful in anything that I say on this subject here, because I may be in the presence of an expert who does really understand this question. But one has met many so-called experts who have given themselves away completely the moment they proceeded to expound their theories in detail.
        The first question which I would ask is: What is the matter with our monetary policy to-day? I have not heard one single word in this discussion or in the discussions which frequently take place in chambers of commerce at which I attend regularly which could be taken as evidence that the monetary system practised in this country to-day is the cause of our trouble. I agree with what has been said that there are many causes for

        2005
        our troubles. There can be no question that there are troubles in the world and that we ourselves are still suffering a great deal, but those troubles are largely, if not entirely, economic and the result of the bad financial and monetary policies of other nations. For instance, why did we leave the Gold Standard? It was solely because of the ruinous and foolish policies adopted by certain other nations in diverting gold from its proper purpose.
        Mr. C. BROWN: Then it was not the policy of the Labour Government?
        Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am not discussing this matter from a party point of view. I think I did hear something from the hon. Members who have spoken on the Opposition side which savoured a little of political discussion but I do not propose to follow them in that, because it is an old story which neither amuses nor interests people very much now. I want to deal with the serious problem which is raised in this discussion and the more one goes into this question in discussion with other people the more one realises how little is known of what money really stands for. One hears people talk about money as if it were something in itself. We all here know that it is nothing in itself and that it is merely a token of the value of goods and services of one kind or another but it is impossible to get that idea into the minds of many of the people who are always complaining about our monetary system. In my recent tour throughout the Empire I found that Major Douglas attracted vast crowds of people by his addresses on this question but the people who were attracted were mostly people in a monetary difficulty to whom any way out of an embarrassment appeared welcome. It is very uncomfortable to feel that the bank may be coming down upon you for something more than you are able to pay but that, after all, has nothing to do with the general monetary system.
        I found in certain parts of the Dominions a demand that we ought to alter the currency. One man with whom I discussed the question said to me: "I want you to understand the real position. I borrowed £5,000 from the bank when maize was 6s. and maize is 3s. to-day. What does that mean? It means that the money the bank lent me is not the
        2006
        money that I owe them to-day." I asked him one question only. I said, "Tell me, what would you have done if, when you had borrowed your £5,000, maize had been 3s. and it had then gone up to 6s.? Would you have paid the bank double?" He said, "Certainly not," and I said to him, "Just think that over." Like a sensible man, he thought it over, and he came back later and said, "I think you are right. I must make the best arrangement I can with my bankers." If people would only be sensible and see the real position in these matters, they would realise that it is not monetary policy but doubtless economic policy or their own business methods that have got them into trouble.
        We have been discussing this question from many points of view, but what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was very valuable to the country as a whole, because I ask again: What is wrong with the monetary policy of this country to-day? When we look back, we can sec how we have emerged from the almost hopeless condition of two and a-half years ago, and how we have, by careful management, not only come right through it, but stand in a position to-day in which no other country in the world stands, and our currency, although it is off the Gold Standard, is looked upon as entirely reliable. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh would insist on talking about the depreciated pound. That is one of the foolish statements—I say it with all respect—that people made when we first got into trouble, but the longer we went on, the more people began to realise that the pound had not depreciated at all, but that it was gold that had appreciated. I would like the hon. Gentleman on the Labour benches who smiles at that remark to go to those countries where gold is the standard to-day, and he would find that the cost of living there has increased enormously, just because the particular measure and value of their currency is so different.
        We have been forced off the Gold Standard by the folly of others, and now we have to carry on as best we can. Every business man and everyone who deals with the trade of the world must admit that we must have some foot rule, some measure, to value the different currencies as between themselves. Every sane man must feel that sooner or later, and the sooner the better, we must get

        2007
        some common standard by which we can measure the value of each other's currencies, but I agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to-day, and I think the Government's policy is sound and that until the same sanity which exists in our Government is to be found in other countries, we can but go on as we are doing. The more people look these matters in the face and brush aside quack remedies which are produced by people in distress, the better it will be for all concerned. There are some people who put their faith in certain schemes of valuing the currency, schemes which are really nothing but shifting sands, but the business world at home does not accept such schemes. We like continuity and solidity, and that is what the business men want to see. They therefore repudiate these fancy ideas. They recognise that the Government are steering, through difficult times, a safe and sound course, and we thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement he has given us this evening.
        There is plenty of evidence that we have recovered in a way in which no other country in the world has recovered, and that trade is improving here as it is improving nowhere else, except perhaps in certain parts of the Empire which have followed in our wake. I think we should be thankful to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh for his very interesting speech and for the fascinating way in which he led us through his historical survey, but we have to face the situation as it stands to-day, and we have for the last two and a-half years faced the difficulties in front of us in spite of exchange restrictions and all the mad schemes with which different countries have tried to save their currencies but actually injured them more; while we have steadily gone on maintaining a straight line of conduct and a sound method of finance. Although I am not saying that everything in the garden is right, I do feel that the way in which things are being handled by our Government is the best in the interests of the country, and we are grateful for their wise forethought.
        9.2 p.m.
        The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I consider myself fortunate in having held my present position for such a short time
        2008
        and in the Debate being one so extremely easy to reply to. My hon. Friends in all parts of the House have really saved me most of the trouble, because they have all replied one to another. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) replied to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) replied to the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), who I am sorry is not here at the moment, the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) replied to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) replied to the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), and, finally, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) replied very satisfactorily to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. T. Evans). It leaves me very little to say. Both branches of the Opposition have, I think, concurred in their praise of the Government and in their recognition of all that the Government have done and of the wisdom as well as the success of their monetary policy, but my deepest gratitude must be due to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, who said that as long as the capitalist system continued to exist, he did not think it could be better run than we were running it at the present time. He saw no reason at all for setting up a committee to inquire into our monetary system, a view he does not share with some of his hon. Friends. I would also like to congratulate him on having used the famous old metaphor of the ship of State, and on having produced a conclusion to that simile which I had never heard before, the conclusion being that the best thing to do with the ship was to sink it.
        The right hon. Member for Caithness replied very successfully to the apologia for Socialism which we heard from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, but I must protest against the view expressed by the right hon. Baronet, a view that has been reiterated by some other hon. Members, that in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer is guilty of complacency. The right hon. Baronet worked himself almost into a fury on this particular point and began to tell us of all the ills from which the country is still suffering. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is just as well aware as he

        2009
        is of those evils, and has them as closely at heart and feels them as deeply as the right hon. Baronet. We are, however, not discussing our present discontents to-day. We are not discussing the condition of the people. We are discussing our monetary system, and the Chancellor in his speech was speaking of the monetary system when he said that there was little to complain of with regard to it. He said it was working well in a difficult and bad world where much was ill, but that in this particular phase of our political life there was a great deal that was good.
        I do think that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer permits himself to speak in a vein of extremely moderate but, at the same time, confident optimism, it is not necessary for hon. Members to taunt him with complacency or to try and undo the good work that his optimism may do by pouring forth floods of pessimism with which to drown it. Without believing in the doctrines of the late Doctor Coue, I believe it is undoubtedly a good thing that the Chancellor of a great country like this should, when he considers it right and possible to do so, use words of optimism which may help to produce the very good that he speaks of and to increase it. The hon. Member for East Fulham said that there was a great public demand for this inquiry. I do not think that the Debate has sustained that view. He made a further error when he said the Government were elected to cling to the gold system. The fact is that we were already off the gold system before the Government went to the country, and therefore they were elected for nothing of the kind.
        Mr. D. MASON: Everyone knows that one of the principal planks on which I and many others who supported the National Government went to the country, and on which the Government were returned, was undoubtedly the maintenance of the pound.
        HON. MEMBERS: No!
        Mr. BOOTHBY: May I point out that the hon. Gentleman is scarcely relevant. He stood alone as a protagonist of the Gold Standard in the whole of Great Britain, and nobody agreed with him.
        Mr. COOPER: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen has sprung into the breach and replied to the hon.
        2010
        Gentleman for me. What the Government were elected to do in October, 1931, was to restore the credit of the country and not to uphold any particular monetary system. Perhaps the electors of East Edinburgh took a different view. If so, they took a solitary view, which their representative worthily, but very often almost alone, maintains in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield expressed the hope that I should be able to make a statement in amplification of what the Chancellor has already said. In view of the fact that I have not had the opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend will not expect me to give any such assurance as he asks. In any case, I should have thought that any such assurance was unnecessary and would not do the good which he thinks it would do. My hon. Friend is surely in agreement with the Chancellor's view that the best plan, the plan for which he is working, is to get back to an international gold exchange system if that be possible. My hon. Friend said that the Chancellor implied that there were difficulties in the way and even suggested that those difficulties might prove insuperable. If they should prove insuperable, could we not, he asked, now say that the present practice, which has been so successfully followed during the last two and a-half years, would be magnified from a practice into a theory and a system to which we should hold through thick and thin. So long as we are pursuing any ideal it would surely be a mistake to crystallise into a theory what has proved a satisfactory practice. I am not quite sure at what precise moment a practice becomes a theory, whether it has to be written down, or passed by the House of Commons, or engraved on tables. Personally speaking, and on general grounds, I am always extremely reluctant to lay down any theory, and I think that often in the past economic life of this country we have suffered much by being too loyal to theories even when they do not suit the practice of the times.
        I do not think that a case has been made out for setting up a committee to inquire into the monetary system. That is, after all, the subject of the Debate to-day, although a great many Members have wandered very far from it. Of whom would such a committee consist?

        2011
        The hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to suggest that he would like, and I have no doubt other Members would like, a committee of Members of this House. We have had a foretaste today of what such a Committee would be like. No doubt their discussions would be extremely interesting and their reports extremely helpful. I say "reports" because, if there were 12 Members, I think we should certainly have about a dozen reports. We should see in print the views which we often have the experience of hearing. Perhaps that would be an advantage. There is nothing to prevent those members setting down their views now, as some Members do, and circularising them in the form of a pamphlet. There, is nothing to prevent them getting together in an unofficial way and discussing these matters and seeing whether by their own efforts they cannot work out some system which would be worthy of the Government's attention. If they do so, I am sure the Government will be glad to study anything with which they provide them. I do not think, however, that a case has been made out for the Government lending their authority to the setting up of such a body.
        If it were not a body of Members, it would be a body of experts. Who would they be? We all know who the economic experts of this country are and the differences of opinion that exist among them. We have had in recent years the advantage of the views of such experts taken after deep consideration and after hearing all the available evidence. We have had the Macmillan Report, which is hardly three years old. Since that report there have been others. There has been the report of the League of Nations Gold Delegation, which well repays study. There has been the Preparatory Report of the World Economic Conference. These are all reports made in the last few years. It cannot seriously be contended, nor in any of the long speeches to which we have listened has it been argued, that these reports are so much out of date and that there is so much new matter available, that the time has come to set up another committee of experts to produce a further report.
        After all, why should a Government ever set up a commission of inquiry? Perhaps because there are some facts which it does not know and wishes to
        2012
        ascertain; but there are no grounds for supposing that all the facts are not known in this matter. We have had evidence to-day of the wide interest in monetary problems, and that interest has manifested itself in a very large number of publications—many hon. Members cannot have the time or leisure to keep up with them; many of them are extremely valuable—produced by experts on this (Subject during the last few years. What other reason could the Government have for setting up an inquiry? Because they are themselves at a loss, because they are uncertain. Two conflicting schools of thought are brought before them, and there is a wide public demand for a certain course, and the Government are uncertain of the policy to pursue. Another reason may be that they are dissatisfied with the present position of affairs. Then they have every reason to, and they frequently do, set up a Royal Commission or a committee of some sort to make inquiry and to report. But, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already explained, we are not dissatisfied with the monetary system which we have been following during the last two and a-half years. We have no reason to be dissatisfied with it, and it has not really been made out by any speaker that we have been dissatisfied with it. Therefore, in all the circumstances, I think the Government must adhere, and have every ground for adhering, to the view which they originally expressed that there is no case for inquiring at the present time into the working of the monetary system.
        Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Austin Hudson.]
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
        The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  AVIATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hudson.]
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: I beg to ask leave to refer for a brief time to the question of night air mail services, as regards

  2013
  which, as it appears to my hon. Friends and myself, this country is in a deplorable position. I gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air and to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that I intended to raise this matter, and perhaps I may express my indebtedness to them both for being present this evening. But before going on to discuss that question I am sure the House would wish me to compliment my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the extraordinarily fine demonstration of airmanship which the Royal Air Force carried out at Hendon on Saturday. Not only were all the manoeuvres perfectly executed, but they struck a note of admiration in the hearts of our foreign visitors, which, I think, redounds greatly to the credit of all concerned. And while mentioning that, although a reference was made to the matter at Question Time yesterday, I am sure the House would also wish me to express our condolences with the relatives of that gallant officer who lost his life in such tragic circumstances that afternoon. Although the Air Ministry, by the very evidence of the Royal Air Force display on Saturday, has shown itself capable of developing that which has been initiated by its predecessors, I regret that I cannot feel so confident about its ability to initiate for itself, particularly so far as civil aviation is concerned. The dismay which my hon. Friends and I feel at the absence of British night air mail services has alone prompted us to delay the House at this hour.
  This is not, however, an entirely inopportune moment, because in a very short time now our aerodromes will be deserted, our hangar doors will be closed, our engines will be cold and mute; but for other nations this is the beginning of the hours of activity. Their aircraft will be a-wing wrestling with the night, and forging their way towards their air ports, spread with illumination. That being so, it does give us food for thought. At 10 o'clock the German night air mail plane will leave Croydon carrying the mails collected by my right hon. Friend and his servants and taking them to all parts of Northern and Central Europe. The tragedy, as I see it, is that the Government seem to be so satisfied with our position of relative inferiority. In the
  2014
  course of a series of questions which my hon. Friends and I have addressed both to the Air Ministry and the Post Office during the life time of this Parliament we have obtained a number of answers which, I fear, can be called little better than excuses for inactivity. The first reason given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air was that distance came into the question and rendered it unnecessary for us to take any initiative.
  Let me remind hon. Members of some of the comparative distances involved, if we take only these islands and the countries served by the German night air mail service. From London to Aberdeen the distance is 522 miles, from London to Inverness 568 miles. But these are the distances which the German night air mail services are flying: From London to Cologne and Frankfurt 390 miles, from Frankfurt to Berlin 254, from Frankfurt to Stuttgart 95, from, Frankfurt to Munich 180, Cologne, Hanover and Berlin 280, Hanover to Malmo 250, and Berlin to Koenigsberg 320. That is an average, for the whole German night air mail services, of 310 miles, compared with something between 400 and 600 miles from London to divers parts of Scotland. It would seem, therefore, that the distances hardly provide a solid reason for our inactivity; and if there were in these islands no opportunity for night air mail services, nor, indeed, from this country to Europe, there is at arty rate the Empire, which should be opened up by this means.
  Let us think for a moment of the position in America. They have in that country no less than 626 air-ports fully equipped for night flying. We have four. They have 18,655 miles of fully-illuminated airway; we have virtually none. The Germans, whom I have already mentioned, are flying 98 services a week. We are not flying a single one, unless my right hon. Friend should say that Imperial Airways do from time to time fly at night. With that I should agree, but let me emphasise that they have not any scheduled night services, and we have the authority of Imperial Airways themselves for saying that they only fly at night when they desire to make up time and that, for the moment at any rate, they do not propose to undertake any development in this respect.

  2015
  The second point that my right hon. Friend has made in regard to his lack of initiative—or, should I say, that of the Government—is the absence of demand. That objection, however, falls to the ground for two distinct reason". The first is that the Government, if they think a thing desirable, have not in other spheres waited until they have been driven into action, but have of their own accord initiated the desirable advance. Unless my right hon. Friend is singularly forgetful, he will recollect that there have been deputations both to him and to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General from some of the most distinguished commercial associations in the country. I have here a pamphlet with a copy in it of a press notice issued by the General Post Office in which my right hon. Friend admits that such important bodies as the London Chamber of Commerce, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries have all been on his track and on that of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air to try to prove to them that there is in fact at this moment a commercial demand for these services to be initiated. One particular plea was made by those bodies that our air mail on the Empire routes should fly at least 2,500 miles per day, which I think would be quite insufficient, though it would nevertheless be about double that which we are achieving at the present moment.
  The third objection that my right hon. Friend found to his taking any action in this matter was that it was primarily a matter for the operating companies. I presume that he had in mind, first of all, Imperial Airways. Heaven forbid that we should rely on that company, in the early future at any rate, for speeding up the air mail. It his shown itself to possess an anti-speed complex which might well eclipse that of my hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Transport. Indeed, Imperial Airways seems to regard the whole Empire as a built-up area in which it is naughty to fly at much more than 100 miles an hour. Imperial Airways have quite frankly told us that it is sitting in a very comfortable position on its subsidy and on its receipts and that it sees no reason why it should undertake any further national or Imperial development to the detriment of its shareholders unless this House pays it for such extra
  2016
  services as it may render. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is capitalism!"] That may be capitalism, but the fact remains that if we are to rely upon Imperial Airways, we must find the money for the necessary developments. The argument thus clearly comes back to the point that we depend not on the initiative of the operating companies but on the initiative of the Government. So far as new operating companies are concerned, both my right hon. Friends would agree that it would be perfectly farcical to go into operation in the hope that there might be air contracts available to them. In America, when air mail services are required, the Government have called for tenders. Surely, if their agreements with Imperial Airways permit, that is also the way in which our Government must proceed.
  I would not, however, base my argument purely on an indication of the fallacies in the objections which my right hon. Friend has put to the House at various, times, for I can advance four distinct and constructive grounds on which night air mail services are necessary to this country and to the Empire. The first is the commercial need. It is intolerable that we should be in the hands of a German air transport company to decide when and how and with what frequency our urgent commercial mails should be transported from this country to the rest of Europe. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that we must have in our own control a service giving to British commerce as fine an opportunity for quick postal facilities as any other country possesses. My second reason for believing this initiation essential is that of our Imperial unity. If some Puck could pour into our eyes the juice of Imperial contraction and we could awake to see Canada where Ireland lies, Australia where France is and New Zealand in the place of Switzerland, surely that would be a vista that would mean a very great deal to every hon. Member of this House who feels any regard for our great Empire. Such a vista is indeed what the night air mail and fast air mail services offer us in the immediate future, but it is one which the Government do not yet seem fully to appreciate. We could have our letters in India in 24 hours; we could have them in Australia in a little over two days. Yet

  2017
  we are proposing even now to take more than five times those periods.
  My third reason for thinking the night air mail essential to us is the military one. Although here I bow to my hon. and gallant Friends such as the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), whom I see opposite, I believe it is almost axiomatic to-day that pilots who fly a regular service through all weathers obtain an experience both in airmanship and in navigation with which it is almost impossible for a military service run on peace-time lines to compete. I have not found one man who, having any experience of the comparative merits of training of pilots on these air services and of training pilots in an ordinary military establishment, would disagree for one moment with that contention. Therefore, I say that we are giving to Germany an extraordinary advantage, compared with our own night-flying pilots. If we want a further example, we have only to cast our minds back to the debacle when President Roosevelt asked the American Military Air Service to try to run the air mails, the night air mails in particular, in America. It was a tragic farce; tragic because of the deaths which occurred to the personnel, and a farce because of the absence of any efficiency in getting the mails to their destination. Only last Sunday, the "Observer," in a leading article, used these important words:
  "When we look at the development of Germany's civil aviation and remember how much longer it takes to organise the handling of aircraft than to build the machines themselves, it is manifest that there is not a day to be lost unless we mean to leave our destiny at the disposal of others."
  When one takes into consideration certain other disquieting factors which have been brought to our notice regarding the use of germs from the air by certain foreign Powers, surely we cannot neglect giving our pilots every facility for a first-class training.
  There is a fourth reason, although it may not appeal to all hon. Members as much as it will, I think, to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. Our export of aircraft in time of peace is important to us as a nation because it augments our productive power in time of war. Within the last few days the British aircraft industry has
  2018
  shown to the world at Hendon its new types of aircraft. At that aerodrome I met a number of my foreign friends, and several of them expressed their amazement to me that England was giving to America, Germany and other countries a monopoly in high-speed mail and passenger-carrying craft. The Scandinavian countries who buy their military aircraft from us would not dream of buying their civil machines also. Although the Swedish air force are mounted on Hawker aircraft, all the civil planes there of the modern class are brought from the United States.
  With those four considerations in my mind, I have given to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air notice of four specific questions, and it would be of great service to all in the House and in the country who are interested in this matter if we could have the Government's answer. I ask: (1) Do the Government accept, as a result of the representations made to them by commercial bodies, that there is a genuine commercial demand for night air-mail services? (2) Do the Government appreciate both the importance to Imperial unity and commerce, and the practicability, of at least doubling the speed of the Imperial air mail in the immediate future? (3) We would like to know whether the Government agree that the experience gained by pilots flying on the regular night mail services would be of the greatest value to the nation in times of war? and (4) In the light of these considerations, and if the Government feel that there is any substance in any one of them, have the Government formulated a policy with regard to the inauguration of night air mail services? We hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to reply he will be able to give us a little more comfort than is contained in a declaration made by the Postmaster-General a little while ago, in which he said these matters were being discussed by the various Departments concerned, but that it would be a very long time before any decision was arrived at. We hope, in view of the urgency of this matter, that the Government will give us some greater crumb of comfort than that.
  At the time of the General Election I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air, with almost every hon. Member on our side of the House, poured scorn on Free

  2019
  Trade in a Protectionist world. We said that in future we would be abreast of the times, and that we would eliminate the mental hysteresis which is the curse of all Government Departments. Are the Government, in so far as night air-mail services are concerned, fulfilling this pledge? Although in 1914 it was a feat to fly at all, by 1924 that was not enough, and we expected an aircraft to fly at least 100 miles per hour and to be capable of making its way through all weathers during the hours of daylight. Again the times have changed, and it is no longer enough for our aircraft to fly 100 miles per hour in daylight; they must be able to fly at 150 or 180 miles per hour, both day and night. That is what we must do if we are to be abreast of the times and maintain our international preeminence, and even our own self-respect. On the material side, although our aircraft have not the speed of the civil machines of other nations, we could at the moment forge into action something that would fill the bill passing well.
  There is only one factor lacking, and that is the will of the Government to initiate this development. If the Air Ministry and the Post Office would bring themselves to suffer the pain of this new idea of having to fly not only in the day but in the night, we could move quickly forward. How should we regard a steamship line if, as soon as dusk fell, its vessels dropped anchor and lay hove to until the morning before proceeding on their journey? But that is precisely what our air liners are doing to-day. There are, in fact, greater reasons for our planes to fly at night than for our vessels to proceed over the sea at night. The night is more suitable for flying; it is less bumpy, it is cooler, and it is better for radio reception. Therefore, there are many reasons why the Government should modify their psychology on this matter and proceed on more modern lines. Their vigorous policy in almost every other sphere accentuates the discredit which we feel attaches to the present position of our air mail and night air-mail services. I trust that, not only for the sake of the reputation of the Government as a whole, but for the sake of their own personal reputations, my right hon. Friends at the Air Ministry and at the Post Office will adopt modem conceptions
  2020
  and allow them quickly to crystallise into practical enterprise.
  9.47 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: I congratulate the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on the very able speech that he has just made. He has covered the ground uncommonly well. I join with him in congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State on the wonderful performance that they put up at Hendon last Saturday afternoon. I have attended many of these pageants, and I think that this one was the best that I have ever witnessed. The manoeuvres were splendid, and I think it reflects very great credit on the Chief of the Staff and all those who assisted him in organising such a successful afternoon's flying. I also deplore the very sad accident that happened to the son of the Lord Mayor, with whom I have the deepest sympathy. At the time he was carrying out a public duty in my constituency at Bishops Stortford.
  I join with the hon. Member for Duddeston in asking the Under-Secretary of State to encourage night flying as much as he possibly can. When War broke out, we had very few pilots who could fly at night—only one or two had just been up—and we were called upon to defend this country from the Zeppelin menace. We could not defend the country properly until we had developed night flying, and then we knocked out the Zeppelins. I would also ask my right hon. Friend to encourage night flying as much as he possibly can because I see in the near future that we shall have to carry our mails throughout the Empire by air. I am very glad to see the Postmaster-General on the Front Bench, and I would invite him to go into the whole question of the speeds of the air machines in America. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins) was in America a few months ago, and, on his return, he told me that the pilots carrying mails from San Francisco to New York did some wonderful flying, at speeds over 200 miles an hour. In one case the speed worked out at, I think, 260 miles an hour, and now in America they are using for the air mails machines capable of 250 miles an hour in normal flying, which may be worked up to 300 miles an hour.

  2021
  The Postmaster-General has a wonderful opportunity. He has a clean sheet for developing air mails in this country and throughout the Empire, and I would ask him if he could not set up a little air department in his office to go into the whole question and study it properly, sending people out to America and getting every detail that it is possible to get with regard to the carrying of air mails. I am certain that it would be worth while. We could plot out this country, with centres between which we could fly, we could have linking lines, and I am certain that the Postmaster-General himself will see that it is necessary to carry first-class air mail matter with the greatest rapidity that is possible. The public will press for it, and I ask him seriously to go into the whole question. As speeds develop, the business men of this country will not be content to send their letters by a train which only travels at 50 or 60 miles an hour, getting their mails the next morning; they will want to get replies to their letters a few hours after they have sent them. That can be done by developing the air mail services, and I ask the Postmaster-General to give this matter his serious consideration. It has got to come; there is no question about it. Public opinion will force him to do it, and the sooner he takes up the development of our air mail services the better.
  9.53 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: In supporting my hon. Friend in this matter, I would like to call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the question of the mails to Ulster and Belfast. I have been crossing on that route from Belfast for over 40 years, and there has been practically no improvement in the time at all. When I used to cross as a boy, we left London after tea, and arrived home in Belfast for breakfast. Exactly the same time holds good to-day; you have to leave Euston at 10 minutes past six, and you get to Belfast at half-past six in the morning. It takes about 12 hours by train and steamer. By the new air route which has just been established, it is, of course, only possible to fly in the day-time. One leaves the aerodrome at Romford at a quarter to one, and is due in Belfast at hlaf-past six in the evening. The time is cut exactly in half, and the machines are not very fast ones either. When I got on to one of them
  2022
  and watched its speed, I never saw the needle go above 100 miles an hour.
  The time at which it is necessary to post letters in London for Belfast makes matters very difficult for business men in the North of Ireland. It is not always possible to have letters ready by six o'clock, and, although it is possible to post up to half-past seven with a late fee, very often that is inconvenient. It is inconvenient for passengers also, because, if they want to leave later than half-past seven, by the Holyhead-Kings-town route, they have to go through the Irish Free State, and it is not everyone in Ulster with whom that route through the Irish Free State is popular. In the first place, it means two Customs examinations, one at Kingstown and the other on crossing the border into Ulster.
  Here is a great opportunity for the Postmaster-General to seize. A great deal of time could be saved on the route to Belfast, and it certainly ought to be possible to post a letter here up till one o'clock in the morning and have it delivered when the office is opened at nine o'clock. There is an extremely good aerodrome at Belfast Harbour, on the Lough itself. It is a very flat piece of land, which has been reclaimed from the sea. There are no pylons or dangerous hills about, and it should be comparatively easy for a pilot to make a safe landing. It is true that the earth has not yet properly settled down, but, at the rate at which these air mail services are developing, I feel sure that the earth will be extremely hard before the service is introduced unless we see some improvement.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mrs. TATE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that in his opinion we could not expect to see international trade reach the proportions that it had formerly reached, and that is a view that all of us share. He said we have to look to trade in the future with our Dominions and to an expansion of the home market. In order to trade with our Dominions we have to do what we can to enable them to develop rapidly, and there is nothing that will help towards their rapid development so surely as a regular, rapid and inexpensive air mail service. We have had in the past the disadvantage that our Empire has been far away from us. That is an excuse that we no longer

  2023
  have, because by air it can be reached in a very few hours. Only yesterday the President of the Board of Trade said he was shortly going to ask us probably to grant a subsidy of some £2,000,000 to shipping. We all know why British shipping has reached its present unfortunate state. It is because British goods have been carried to British ports by foreign ships. It is certain that, whether we develop our air service or whether we do not, the normal method of transport in the future for passengers and for mails, and later on for the lighter classes of goods, is going to be the air, and it will be a lamentable and a disastrous thing if we allow the air lines of other nations to capture our trade. Our Dominions will be far more likely to do business with countries which can reach them quickly than even with ourselves if we do not trouble to reach them with the same speed. Sentiment is not going to count for ever in the modern world unless we prepare ourselves to deal with modern problems in a modern way.
  We all know that the Postmaster-General has the development of the Post Office at heart, but, if the Post Office had not a monopoly, it would not be possible for it to continue its existence, if it were a private concern, unless it were to put a very large proportion of its profits back into the modernisation of its service, and we have a right to demand that the Post Office should modernise the means of transport by giving us a cheap flat rate for air mail services. It is no longer a luxury. It is a vital necessity. When every other country is developing its service and when, above all, night flying is commonly practised by other nations, we should not allow ourselves to be so far behind. One thing we have to learn is that safety in the air depends too much in this country on the skill of the pilot. Safety in the air eventually should depend on the excellence of the ground organisation, and we have no ground organisation whatsoever. It is an absolute scandal that the safety of our air service should depend on the excellence of our machines and the skill of our pilots. They ought to be able to rely on having properly lighted air routes. They ought to have a ground organisation which can keep them in contact and describe to them weather conditions at different heights at all times of their
  2024
  flight. That is already in existence in America. It is one of the first things to ensure safety in the air.
  It is a terrible thing that we have nothing in that direction at all. It is very sad that Imperial Airways are still content to fly machines which have a cruising speed of some 100 miles an hour and have not done more towards the development of ground organisation. I sincerely hope that, where regulations are made with regard to safety, they should be left in the hands of the aircraft manufacturers. It is in their interest to produce safe machines. If they are going to develop trade, it will not be in their interest to put unsafe machines on the market. There must be a slight element of risk in the beginning, but leave the regulations for safety in the hands of the manufacturers of the craft and not in the hands of experts, who may at best only be experts of their day and who are far too prone to look at the conditions of to-day and not at the conditions of the future.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. WHITESIDE: In the Debate on the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) brought this matter up, and the Lord President of the Council replied that, as the matter was highly technical, neither he nor the Under-Secretary of State for Air was in a position to reply. I do not know why he included the Under-Secretary of State for Air, because whenever I have tried to catch him out with a supplementary question I have always found him only too alert, if not with a satisfactory answer, at least with an apt one. He has now had several months in which to consider his reply. What argument can he advance against those which have been put forward by my hon. Friend? He can say that, owing to the geographical formation and position of this country, a night air mail is not necessary. It may be contended that the distances are too short; that our railways are too efficient; or that the demand is lacking. Each one of those arguments can be spatchcocked. The average distance for the German night air mail is only 310 miles, and that between Frankfurt and Stuttgart is only 95 miles. The distances between London and Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Belfast, Dublin and Cork are all vastly

  2025
  in excess of that figure. Nor is the argument that the demand is lacking valid. If the Germans can run a night air mail service between London and Berlin, how is it that there is only a demand for that service to be run by the Germans and not by the English? I also understand that probably in the near future the Dutch Royal Air Mail Line will run a service between Amsterdam and Hull. Why is there no demand in this country for such a service when there is a sufficient demand for a service to be run by foreigners?
  It is because aviation in this country is entirely regarded from a military point of view. I submit now as I have submitted in the past, that aviation should be based on civil flying with military flying as an offshoot. It is considered necessary for us to be powerful in the air. Germany is considered one of the most powerful aeronautical countries in the world, yet she does not possess one single military aircraft. The reason is that she has taken every opportunity to develop her commercial and civil aviation by flying both day and night. In every school in Germany there has to be one master who possesses an "A" licence for gliding. In other words, in some four or five years time every German boy and girl will have practical experience in flying. It is this fact, that Germany is advancing so rapidly with her civil aviation, that is causing such alarm in Europe. So little attention is paid to civil aviation in this country that the Director of Civil Aviation is not even a member of the Air Council. It seems to me utterly impossible for the true aspect of flying to be set before the public if the man in charge of civil aviation has no say on the Air Council at all.
  In the present state of international affairs, an increase in the Air Force of this country is considered necessary. Even more important than the production of machines is the training of pilots. There is no better way to train a pilot than that he should be trained to fly at night. There is no better way, or a more useful purpose for which he could fly at night, than to carry air mails. The Postmaster-General is one of the most progressive Ministers in the Government and the Post Office has achieved wonderful success. I can assure my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air that if he would only prepare the ground organisation necessary
  2026
  for night flying, Imperial Airways would be only too willing to undertake night flying and I am sure the Postmaster-General would avail himself of the facilities of Imperial Airways.
  10.6 p.m.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: One of the most regrettable discrepancies in respect of this problem is the fact that exports from this country by air are smaller than most of those of the countries in Europe. We sent by air in 1932 not more than £1,250,000 worth of goods whereas one of the small Balkan States sent more than £1,000,000 worth. We are a great exporting country, and the fact that we are one of the smallest air carrying countries in Europe calls for very careful consideration by the Air Ministry and other appropriate departments. I took careful note of what took place when the Postmaster-General received a deputation of commercial men and which included members of the London Chambers of Commerce. Four very explicit reasons were argued before him, and very substantial and relevant facts were put in support to show how his department could vitally help the trade and industry of this country. It was pointed out that in regard to the sending of travellers' samples and of contracts, and the cost of general commercial communication, much required to be done, and that "greater speed" was vital if we were to compete successfully with European countries for orders. So long as we are tied by a "snail gallop" of 100 miles an hour in the air we cannot compete in regard to these preliminary contract matters. It is essential that we should adopt up-to-date commercial methods in regard to the sending of samples and the conveyance of trade letters and contracts, and the question of greater speed was argued before the Postmaster-General as being vital and essential to our future as a manufacturing and exporting nation.
  Another thing which is essential, and which has been referred to to-night, by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate) is the "conveyance of air mail at a flat rate." For example, the charge for the first half ounce to South Africa is 1s. and to India 8d., both of which are too much when comparing similar charges by other countries. If business firms have to send out two or three thousand letters, samples and

  2027
  circulars at present prices by air mail, the expense is one which no industry can really stand in view of the competition with which we are faced to-day. The Postmaster-General is making considerable profit in his department, and we should have some of this money to help trade and industry, not by subsidy but in reasonable charges. More favourable air mail rates are given in Germany and in France than obtain in this country. Let us put some of the profit which the right hon. Gentleman is making—and he is making plenty of it—into this air-carrying business of his department so that air communications with the Empire also may be considerably improved and cheapened. Another claim put before the Postmaster-General was "increased frequency of service." I would not for a moment support any system which jeopardised human life.
  Let me quote some other statistics in regard to commercial air flying. From January, 1928, to December, 1932—nearly five years—there were only six fatal accidents as the result of commercial flying in this country, and there were 7,750,000 miles flown while only 20 passengers were killed. George Stevenson and his "Rocket" killed a few cows over a century ago. But human life is precious and must be considered appropriate. Reference has been made tonight to the very sad accident in which the son of the Lord Mayor of London lost his life. Those who have had the privilege of flying in the capacity of passengers know that extreme care is taken for the safety of those who travel by air, but the snail-like gallop which at present obtains will not do for commercial concerns in this country. There is the question of the carrying capacity of the air mails to be considered. Why cannot the aeroplanes be fitted with a half-ton container capacity, so that they do not interfere with the passenger service, to carry printed paper and commercial paper carriage and general small packets. There should be an arrangement for carrying mails in specially constructed compartments so as contribute to the greater speed of the machine. In conclusion, I must emphasise again very strongly that we do less exporting of goods by air than any country in Europe, and it is essential that the Postmaster-General and the Under-Secretary of
  2028
  State for Air should "get busy" and try to do something to assist commercial concerns in this country by providing better and cheaper air communications and move forward in legitimate fashion ahead of the world's competitors, the British place first as always.
  10.14 p.m.
  Captain BROWNE: I should like to add a few words to what has been said with regard to civil aviation. The cost of travelling by air should be brought within reasonable bounds; passengers should not be called upon to pay twice as much as the cost of travelling by rail. It is important that the matter should be brought before the appropriate authorities at this time, for unless we bring down the prices now people will not become air-minded and the whole system will be held back. If high prices are charged for air travel the public will not give their patronage, but if prices are brought within the reach of the people they will patronise the air services. Another air station should be provided in Ulster at Londonderry, which would be 460 miles from London. It would be about 360 miles to Belfast and another 100 miles to Londonderry. At Magilligan Strand the hinterland is very flat, and a very fine aerodrome and landing place could be made, within a few miles of Londonderry. He hoped that the Postmaster-General would take this matter into consideration and that he would take steps to have the mail service to Belfast speeded up. At the present time the journey occupied 12 hours, which was the time occupied 40 years ago. He strongly recommended this question to the proper authorities.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. HALES: The hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) has performed a public service in initiating this Debate. Our present airways are very much in the position of the motor industry when the red flag was carried in front of the car. There is little idea in this country of the tremendous strides that night flying has made between the Continent and the Dutch East Indies. When the House rises for the summer Recess I shall have to decide whether I shall take a passage on a Dutch air liner, which will take me from this country to Calcutta in a little over four days, or whether I shall be patriotic to go by Imperial Airways, which will take about double

  2029
  the time. I think that I shall be patriotic; and confine myself to our own aeroplanes. But it is not everyone who will inconvenience himself to fly in that way. We are face to face in the immediate future with tremendous competition in aircraft, of which night flying is an essential feature. To me the position is very much like that of a man going from London to Edinburgh by express train, which stops at Crewe for two and a-half hours for refreshments, while another train going on the east coast route gets to Edinburgh two and a-half hours quicker by not stopping midway on the journey. Our air service is in the position of a stopping train in competition with an express. That practically sums up our position abroad.
  At the Air Pageant last Saturday I stood among thousands of people and was struck by a comparison of our machines with the old contemptible British Army in the War. I wondered in the event of matters on the Continent or in Germany in particular becoming worse and war breaking out, how long our Air Force would last if it came to really serious fighting. I was tempted to think that in a very few weeks, or possibly days, that magnificent Air Force would be almost exterminated, because it would be outnumbered by 10 to one in competition with the aircraft of Continental nations. An aeroplane night service would be a splendid training ground for pilots, who could be depended upon in a national emergency, and I would strongly urge on the Air Minister, in collaboration with the Postmaster-General, to give earnest attention to the possibilities of what can be done in the way of developing air services at night.
  There should be no parsimony so far as finance is concerned. No one can travel abroad by air without having the fact brought home to them at every moment that we are in a very backward position compared with foreign nations. Take, for instance, the journey from here to the Far East. You leave London by air and arrive in Paris. Then you get on a train and go right through to Brindisi. You stay the night there and land at Cairo in the afternoon of the next day. You wait there until the next morning, and then arrive at Gaza where you stay the night. You leave early the next morning about five o'clock and get through to Baghdad, where a whole night is wasted
  2030
  again. You start at six or seven o'clock the next morning for Bahrein where another night is spent. Then you get to Karachi at about four or five o'clock the next afternoon and leave the next morning. Another night wasted. And so you proceed to Calcutta, where you arrive at five o'clock in the afternoon and leave the next day. In this way the whole of the nights are wasted by sleeping in hotels when you could be making your way to your destination.
  If we have competition we cannot expect to retain our business if we go on in this way. Other people just as capable as ourselves are ready to take our place. The weakest will go to the wall, and at the present moment we are a C3 rather than an A1 nation in the air as far as speed is concerned. One would like to think that the winning of the Schneider Cup and many other remarkable feats in the air should be turned to commercial use. Let us keep in front of other nations rather than lag behind and get their dust. What we require is energy, imagination and determination. Given these three qualities British aircraft will be second to none in the world. I ask the Postmaster-General to put the coping stone on the magnificent work he has done at the Post Office by leading this great nation right into the forefront of civil aviation, and then he will be able to challenge his opponents to do better if they can.
  10.23 p.m.
  Captain F. E. GUEST: At this late hour I can assure hon. Members that I do not propose to occupy more than a few moments, but I must take this opportunity, as a Member of the Air Committee, to add my views to what has been said this evening. Year after year, month after month, whenever a chance has occurred, everything in the way of friendly criticism has been addressed to the Government but no notice has been taken of it whatsoever. Month after month, in Debate after Debate, arguments have been put forward and elaborate speeches have been made to which light replies have been given. The net result, so far as the military side of aviation is concerned and so far as civil aviation is concerned, is that literally nothing has been done. I defy anyone to contradict me. I gather that on an Adjournment Motion one is not necessarily restricted to the question of civil

  2031
  aviation, and I submit to the Government that on the military side during the whole of the long summer and spring not a thing has been done except to give expression to platitudes, and to say that if, and if, and if, the Disarmament Conference fails then they would not be content to remain in the ignominious position of sixth Power in the aviation world, which we are to-day.
  We shall not get a chance to say a word on this subject until next October. The House will rise in a few weeks; the long Recess will follow; October will come; the Disarmament Conference has gone to smithereens; and yet we do not know. Surely this House is entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know, whether something is being done and not merely being thought about and whispered about. My charge against the Ministry is not ill-founded. I submit, with great respect, that nothing has been done. The Air Committee and those who have helped it have time and time again tried to draw the attention of the country and the Ministry to the great national military aviation danger in which we stand to-day. Every day I am seeing officers who are on the fringe of retirement, some of them priceless men with 20 years of experience behind them. They do not know; nothing is told to them. But I know, and most of the people in the Air Force know, that to lose these pivotal men would be a great loss. Many of them would be almost irreplaceable. Yet in spite of the talk about possible expansion there is no indication that expansion is taking place. If you lose your personnel you are lost. I submit that with respect to the Treasury Bench as being a true statement of affairs. I have never been one of those who argued in favour of immense development of equipment. I know that equipment can be produced in a very short time. But the ground organisation and personnel are the foundation of any Air Force, and for us now at this critical moment to lose valuable men would be a very serious thing indeed.
  So much for the military side. On the civil side less than nothing has been done. For two or three years now in succession the contribution made by the State to encourage civil aviation has been
  2032
  diminishing. When it has not been diminishing it has been a matter of a thousand or two pounds more. One tries to make some reasonable comparison between our activities and those of other countries, but there is no comparison possible at all. We are just being laughed at. Every other country has taken proper and reasonable steps to encourage the civil population to understand the meaning and the use of the air. We are making no attempt whatever. Our little humble flying clubs can hardly carry on. A little effort was made the other day to get a reduction in the Petrol Duty. Members were pushed off to some other Department and were told to approach the Treasury. It is not the business of the Treasury; it is the business of the Air Ministry to fight the battle for civil aviation.
  I submit that I am not wrong or improper in saying that the Air Committee have been patient to a degree, and that those who support the committee have been equally patient; but this country has now become the laughing stock of Europe, tnd it has become a discredit to the main body of the electorate of the country, largely because there is a lack of courage on the Treasury Bench. They know that as well as I do. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for Air know perfectly well the position that Britain occupies to-day in aviation, both military and civil, is really unworthy of a great political party such as they represent. The aftermath will come. There is not the slightest doubt that Europe is in a turmoil which they cannot control. I doubt very much whether any one knows which way it is going. Can we, who have gone through so much and made such sacrifices in the past, afford to sit back and take chances?
  The Government carries great responsibility on its shoulders. It is one direction in which the cheapest form of insurance can be undertaken. It is a question of a few millions. Last year we voted £6,000,000 to the wheat grower, and it is well known that in subsidising wheat you are simply handing £6,000,000 out to the people who grow wheat. Yesterday it was intimated that we proposed to hand out £2,000,000 to those who build ships. The Under-Secretary of State for Air knows that with £2,000,000 he could do an immense deal to strengthen both the military and civil sides of aviation. I feel

  2033
  sure that this Government will be carrying a grave responsibility if they ignore the demands in this connection which the country will put upon them before they are very much older. I support strongly my hon. Friend who has raised this subject to-night and those other hon. Friends of mine on the Air Committee who have supported me in this matter. I only wish that we could to-night record our disapproval of the Government's attitude. It would be the disapproval of friends and not of enemies, but there is only one way in which to record such disapproval, and on this occasion certainly if a vote were being taken, I would vote against the Government.
  10.32 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who himself occupied the supreme position in the Air Ministry in such brilliant fashion, has just made a most important contribution to this Debate, but he will understand, just as the House generally will understand, how impossible it is for me, in an Adjournment Debate and occupying the humble position which I do occupy, to make any statement upon such important matters of Government policy as those which he has raised. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Whiteside) has almost made it unnecessary for me to speak at all because he told the House exactly the kind of answer which I could not fail to make to the questions addressed to me. I would like at the outset of my remarks to thank the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) and other speakers for the very kind remarks which they made about the skill and efficiency of the display given by the pilots of the Royal Air Force last Saturday. I also thank them for the condolences and the tributes paid to the victim of the very tragic accident which occurred on that occasion. These, I know, will be deeply appreciated by the relatives of that gallant officer.
  The hon. Member for Duddeston has raised a subject upon which he has spoken on other occasions and on which he has asked my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and myself questions from time to time. I am sorry that the answers which he received to those questions have not relieved his
  2034
  anxieties, which I know are due to a genuine desire for the welfare of British flying and the safety of these islands. The hon. Member's argument was based upon two major premises; first, that the air defences of the country have been jeopardised by the neglect which the Air Ministry has shown in regard to night flying, and, secondly, that the gap in our defences in this connection can be filled by subsidising civil night flying. I respectfully submit that both these premises are false. We are not neglecting and have not neglected night flying. Night flying is one of the most important parts of the duties of the Royal Air Force and is carried out to a far greater degree than my hon. Friend imagines. Moreover, the amount of night flying which takes place in the Royal Air Force has very largely increased during the last three years.
  I am advised, and I concur in the view that it would not be in the public interest to give precise figures as to the amount of night flying carried out year by year in the Royal Air Force but, knowing the interest which hon. Members take on the subject, I would like to give them as much information on the subject as I can. The extent to which night flying is practised by units of the Royal Air Force varies, naturally, according to the different duties which they undertake, but altogether there are about 70 squadrons of the Royal Air Force which in one way or another practise all the year in night flying. In addition to those 70 squadrons, a great amount of night flying is done by other units at Farnborough and by headquarter units in various stations. In a matter of this kind, one must necessarily be guided by expert opinion, and I am sure the House will be satisfied with the assurance that the amount of night flying which is undertaken in the Royal Air Force is considered to be ample, in the opinion of those who are best qualified to judge.
  I may perhaps give the House a clearer idea of the amount of night flying which is undertaken in the Royal Air Force if I give some simple illustration. If civil night air mails were instituted running from London to Penzance, to Swansea, to Liverpool, and to Edinburgh, and the journeys were return ones, and were undertaken every night all through the year, the amount of mileage to be

  2035
  flown in the services would be substantially less than that which is undertaken and performed every year by units of the Royal Air Force. Moreover, the night flying which is done in the Air Force is not by any means fair-weather flying. The pilots who practise night flying in the Air Force fly in all weathers, except perhaps in circumstances of fog, in which even an air mail pilot perhaps would not be able to leave the ground.
  I hope I have said enough in this connection to make the House realise that the air defence of these islands is not being neglected, and perhaps I have said enough to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston that that is the case. I think I may have already done so, because I feel that in this question tonight he has somewhat shifted his ground from what he has said previously, because to-night he seemed to be concerned rather less with adding to our night flying experience and more with speeding up the air mail. No doubt it would be possible, by a sufficiently heavy subsidy, to set up a night air mail which would very considerably speed up the Empire air mail, and no doubt the experience gained by the pilots who would be flying those machines would be of value to the nation in time of war, but it is a complete misapprehension of the facts of the situation to think that this would be of the greatest value. As a matter of fact, the effect would be very small indeed. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt justified in adopting the German method and allocating public money to the maintenance of unremunerative night air mail services, the number of civil pilots who would obtain experience of night flying in this way would be absolutely negligible compared with the number of pilots who get this experience in the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Does not that depend entirely on the frequency with which those pilots fly? If each pilot flew every night in the year, which is manifestly absurd, possibly what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, but otherwise I think he should modify his statement.
  Sir P. SASSOON: I am informed that it might not mean that more than 10 to
  2036
  12 civil pilots would be trained on night flying during the year. We are pot in a position to adopt German methods with matters of this kind, even if we desired to do so, and before public money is allocated for a purpose of this kind it is necessary to get the permission of the House for that money to be spent. It would therefore be necessary to show that it would be justified by the results. It must be shown that there is a public demand for these services sufficiently large to justify a subsidy of this kind. Otherwise we are going to spend money without any thought for the taxpayer or without the Treasury being the watch dog of the taxpayer, as happens in other countries. It is difficult in this country to justify a large expenditure of public money without showing there is a case for asking for it or that there is a demand for the expenditure. The other reason why we might do that would be if the provision of night flying pilots trained in this way were really essential to the public safety. I consider, in spite of what my hon. Friend has so ably and eloquently said to-night, that neither qualification exists at the present time. There has been no evidence that there is any demand for night passenger service and air mail traffic by itself, taking the figures, are entirely insufficient—
  Mr. SIMMONDS: May I without wishing to interrupt the sequence of my right hon. Friend's argument say that he is entirely misstating the case. I would inform him on the best grounds that there is now half a ton of mail, which is just the appropriate quantity to fly from this country to India each week. Why cannot that be taken night and day instead of going to sleep at night on the ground with the passengers and crew?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I listened with the greatest patience, and with pleasure too, to the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend, and I think he might allow me to complete my argument. I do not complain of interruptions, but perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my sentence. Although he will not agree with me, I may succeed in persuading other people. I was in the middle of a sentence in which I was saying that the air mail traffic of itself was entirely in-sufficient

  2037
  to make a night service remunerative. On the other hand, as I have shown, the amount of night flying which is done by the Royal Air Force is quite sufficient from the point of view of safety, and would not in any way be materially affected by the handful of pilots which my hon. Friend suggests would be trained. He is not right in saying that a genuine commercial demand exists if he means a demand on anything approaching a commercial scale. The total daily air mail from this country to Europe amounts to 353 pounds. Of this, 129 pounds is carried by the Luft Hansa night service between London and Cologne. My hon. Friend gave the most poetic description of this hour of the night when our wings were folded and our engines were mute, when our hangar doors were closed and the machines of all these other countries were tuning up to carry this immense amount of mail and freight, which amounts, as I have said, to 129 pounds. What that means financially can be gathered from the fact that the total weight of mails and freight which is carried on that service averages only 35 per cent of the pay load capacity.
  Although the hon. Member said that practically all other countries in the world except ours have these night flying air mail services, neither France nor Belgium has night flying. A night air mail service was tried out in Belgium in 1930 or 1931, but was discontinued and not restarted. In Germany, only 10 per cent. of the regular air service mileage is night flying mileage; and Germany has no military air service. Therefore, so far from Germany, as the hon. Member said, having a monopoly of night-flying skill, it would be far fairer to say that the night-flying experience of Germany cannot possibly compare with our own. On the other hand, though no regular night flying is done by Imperial Airways, as everybody knows the company's aircraft land at nearly all times of the year, except in the middle of summer, after dark, and that on some of our longdistance air services in the Empire they nearly always start before the dawn and land after dark.
  Further, the hon. Member referred to the "débâcle" in America when the service pilots tried to run the air mail there.
  2038
  No lesson can be drawn from that failure of the United States Air Arm Corps to operate flying services which can fairly be applied to the Royal Air Force. The reason why the service pilots in America, put up such an unfortunate show when trying to run civil air mails was not that they had no experience of night flying; but that they had no experience in instrument flying. Everybody knows that month by month experience of instrument flying increases in the Royal Air Force, and that now there is hardly a pilot in the Royal Air Force who has not learned to fly by his instruments. Therefore, when he flies in bad or foggy weather, he is able successfully to navigate his machine. After all, when the Royal Air Force was called upon, as it was for five and a-half years, to run the civil air line between Cairo and Baghdad it did it with the greatest possible success.
  It follows from what I have said that I am unable to accept the hon. Member's premises, either that there is at this moment a genuine commercial demand sufficient to justify a subsidy or that the training of civilian air pilots in night, flying is essential for the safety of this country. That night flying on Empire air routes will come one day I have no-doubt, and the sooner it arrives the: better. I hope that even this year, on portions of the Imperial route to India, there will be even still further night flying than there is already. From the air mail point of view, if there is a separate air mail line, the more night flying there is done the better; but from the passenger point of view, people who have flown these long distances realise that there is a certain amount of fatigue to the passenger, and that if they fly all day and all night for a certain period a great many passengers get very tired. But I think that it will be found in the very near future that there will be an increase in the amount undertaken on these routes, and that as a result the time will be speeded up. When a substantial demand arises for night air services, internal or otherwise, the civil air companies over here will certainly not find the Air Ministry unsympathetic or unhelpful. Meanwhile, the policy of the Ministry necessarily remains that which has already been indicated to the hon. Member in replies to his questions. At the

  2039
  same time, I would congratulate him on his speech which, as a contribution to this subject, was most interesting and instructive.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Without wishing to detain the House, might I thank my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

  MILK POOL (POOL PRICE).
  MILK POOL (POOL PRICE).
  LIBERIA.
  LIBERIA.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WRITING ASSISTANTS).
  COLONIAL STOCK (LEGISLATION).
  COLONIAL STOCK (LEGISLATION).
  CEYLON (COTTON IMPORTS).
  CEYLON (COTTON IMPORTS).
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  PALESTINE (RAILWAY JUNCTION, TEL-AVIV).
  PALESTINE (RAILWAY JUNCTION, TEL-AVIV).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (INTERIM FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MAIDSTONE WATERWORKS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to intro-
320
duce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Clyde Valley electrical power.
Bill presented (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed.

EXPLORATION FOR OIL IN PALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they have taken any steps to secure that the oil in Palestine and in Trans-Jordan shall be absolutely secured to British Government control; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in order to save your Lordships' time I ask permission practically to read what I have to say on this subject. It is very short, and I hope it will be quite clear to the noble Earl who is going to answer me. There are no traps in it. It is simply a plain Question to which I humbly ask a plain answer. I think it is now generally admitted that the oil position of Great Britain, with the much increased needs of her Navy, leaves much to be desired and that in case of war it may become truly perilous. I submit therefore that we had no right to neglect anything that might help to improve the situation, and once more I call upon His Majesty's Government to develop the oilfield which lies in the mandated territories of Palestine and Trans-Jordan.
This oilfield up to the present has been left to private enterprise, which is paralysed by many obstacles. The sceptical attitude of the Government discourages the British investor, and it has been found impossible to raise the necessary funds. The powerful international oil combines use all their influence against the project, and there is strong opposition from the German potash industry, which, I understand, fears the competition to its industry of the vast beds of mineralised potash salts, which were disclosed below the ground by the Standard Oil Company when drilling for oil. But were His Majesty's Government to develop the oilfield, these obstacles would disappear. They have the right under the Mandate to institute the necessary test drilling, but they say that oil development is a risky business, not suitable for Government funds. Were

321
they not, however, actively engaged in securing British participation in the oilfields of Persia and Mosul before the value of these oilfields had been proved? They say that views are conflicting with regard to the amount of oil in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, but I maintain that a strong case has been made out for the existence of a considerable amount of oil at depth.
There are twelve important manifestations, direct or indirect, for which oil experts look, when reporting on a district, and every one of these signs is present in Palestine, including natural gas, thermal sulphurous and saline springs, and exudation of asphalt, etc. The quality of the oil in the seepages is high, and though seepages alone are not evidence of a large supply, they are sufficiently important to warrant the institution of drilling tests, for practically every important oilfield in the world has been discovered by seepages alone. Incidentally, how is it that several reports of experts in favour of the matter have been published, while no adverse reports appear in the light of day? Are there really any adverse reports, or are the Government influenced by outside commercial interests?
Much preliminary work has already been done on the oilfield, so if the Government instituted test drilling forthwith, it would cost some thousands of pounds, and not the exaggerated sums which the Government visualise. And if oil should be discovered to exist in considerable quantity, would it not be of untold benefit to this country? Surely, then, the possibility of this benefit is worth the risk of a few thousands of pounds. His Majesty's Government should seize such an opportunity now before it is too late, and the oil is lost to Britain. What will the country say if His Majesty's Government refuse to act, and the rights in the oilfield having passed to representatives of another Power, it proves on development to be rich in oil? If only for the sake of the Navy, who are, I understand, keenly anxious for test drilling for oil in this strategically important spot in Palestine, I ask the Government to act at once, and so avoid the possibility of such a calamity.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH):
322
My Lords, the noble Viscount asked a very similar Question to this not many months ago. I then took the opportunity fully to explain the position with regard to the development of oil in Palestine and Trans-Jordan. I do not think your Lordships would wish me on this occasion to recapitulate in detail what I then said. I really have very little to add to it. The point is this that, no substantial oil resources have yet been proved to exist in Palestine or in Trans-Jordan, and consequently the development has not passed beyond the exploratory or speculative stage. His Majesty's Government are following the policy which has worked well in a number of other places—namely, a policy of development by private enterprise under the safeguards imposed by up-to-date mining legislation. The progress of development, I need hardly say, will be very carefully watched in the future.
I do not fully understand what the noble Viscount means by the phrase he has used in his Question, "absolutely secured to British Government control." I think I made it perfectly plain when we last debated this question that Palestine and Trans-Jordan are mandated territories, and that under the mandatory system it is the interests of the mandated territories themselves which have to be considered. The Palestine Order in Council of 1922 vests all minerals in the High Commissioner—that is, subject to any rights subsisting at the date of that Order. The organic law of Trans-Jordan similarly vests the ownership of minerals in the Amir. Any one who wants to prospect for oil in either of those territories has to obtain a licence from the Government of that territory, and any one who finds and works oil has to pay a royalty to the Government concerned. To this extent the Government have control of the situation, but I must repeat that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government, as mandatory, in this case to safeguard the interests of the mandated territories, and they are proposing to do this in accordance with the experience they have gained elsewhere by permitting suitably qualified experts to explore the oil possibilities under conditions laid down by the mining legislation to which I have referred.
The noble Viscount has asked what the position would be in times of emergency. I have already explained what the policy

323
of his Majesty's Government at present is, and I have further explained that there is as yet no certainty of the presence in either of those two countries of oil in economic quantities. In those circumstances the question of control of the oil supplies in a time of emergency has not yet arisen. That will only happen, firstly, when the time of emergency occurs, and in the second place, when the presence of oil in those two territories has been proved and the issue of mining leases under the existing legislation comes under consideration. What I can tell your Lordships is that His Majesty's Government in their capacity as mandatory have every intention of examining the question to ensure that in a time of emergency the oil resources of Palestine and Trans-Jordan would be used in the best interests of the two territories concerned.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the noble Earl. I suppose—shall I say as a matter of precaution?—I ought to say that I am not satisfied with the reply, but I am very much in sympathy with a very great deal that he has said. I only hope that when the time comes when he wants to have his finger on the oil that is there he may not find it in the possession of somebody else. That is all I am trying to get the Government to see. I should like to be allowed to say—I have not mentioned it before—that I was at one time chairman of a syndicate drilling for oil in Wyoming, one of the richest parts of the world. We drilled on behalf of two very large Continental companies and I should like to tell your Lordships of our experience in a few words to show what uncertainty there is about oil drilling.
We drilled to an average depth of 1,000 feet and we found oil in ten or twelve wells. One day we had a cable asking whether we would drill to 3,000 feet. I said "No." I said we had always found oil at 1,000 feet and I did not see any good in risking money by boring to 3,000 feet when it was not necessary. That did not satisfy this continental company and they sent a deputation from Brussels to see me. I told them they could look at the books and see at what depths we found oil, and that it was usually at a depth of 1,000 feet. I told them that if they were anxious
324
to drill to 3,000 feet they would be paying for that when a depth of 1,000 feet was sufficient. However, they insisted, and I said: "Very well, I want £3,000 in this office next week and I will move my drills." At the end of ten days a cable came to us from the engineer saying: "We have struck a gusher, 800 barrels a day. Am I to go on?" We stopped. The result was that they paid £3,000 for £1,000 worth of work just because they would not take the evidence in front of them. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON'S HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL MONUMENTS.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That the monuments, historical and architectural, of the Capital City of the country are matters of national and not solely municipal concern, as would also be any radical modification of sites familiar from long association; and that, therefore, independently of the source from which funds for the purpose may be derived, no interference with such monuments or sites as may be scheduled by a Commission appointed for the purpose should be undertaken without reference to and approval obtained from Parliament.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Resolution which stands in my name is designedly of a very general character. If, as I hope it may, it should secure favour and support, much thought and careful examination, and investigation no doubt of particular interests which may be involved would be necessary before any measure could be framed to give effect to it. Let me begin by saying that such an affirmation of principle is not inspired by any desire to criticise anything that has taken place in the past, even though I may have been myself a little surprised at the almost exulting manner in which the recent demolition of Waterloo Bridge was commenced in virtue, I understand, of an old Statute of the time of George III. But I will frankly admit that it was the conflict of view of which we have had recent experience between a majority of the representatives of the nation and a majority of the London County Council which suggested to me that it would be opportune

325
to determine with whom the ultimate decision should lie when it was proposed to modify or to demolish buildings of an historic or artistic value in the national capital.
In the first place let us bear in mind—there is no need to remind your Lordships of it—that this venerable City, which was already an important trading market as long ago as the days of Tacitus, has claims upon sentiment such as few other cities can boast. Not only is it the Capital of a great people, but it also represents the heart and in a sense the Metropolis of a greater Commonwealth of Nations whose citizens many thousands of miles away, even though they have never actually seen it with their own eyes, are familiar by tradition and illustration with its every monument, with the aspect of its streets and its squares and with the river frontage of what, after many generations, they still refer to as "home."
It would be superfluous and unnecessary in such an assembly for me to enumerate or to enlarge upon the kind of monument that I have in view. Time and circumstance have already deprived us of much that we would gladly have seen preserved. The Great Fire of London left only some seven of the City churches standing, and who will contest, that such edifices as St. Bartholomew's or St. Giles', Cripplegate, where lie buried John Milton and his father and Martin Frobisher, the pilot of the Pole, are not of national interest? I have also included in the Resolution sites which from long association have become indisputably associated with popular and national sentiment—such, for instance, as Broad Sanctuary and Trafalgar Square—any important modification in which would to my mind be inconceivable, without the national assent.
It will perhaps be contended by those who may differ from me, if there are any, that London is a very wealthy City and perfectly well able to look after itself. That is no doubt, true in that all concerns administration and the amenities and conveniences of so great a City, but there may well be obligations of sentiment which it would transcend the capacity of even a well-provided municipality to discharge, and which at the same time it would be a national obligation to fulfil. I do not wish to suggest for a
326
moment that the Corporation of the City of London or the London County Council or any of those administrative bodies which look after Crown, State, or ecclesiastical property are in the least likely to be possessed with a wave of iconoclasm, or that they are any less likely to be zealous in matters which concern national sentiment than any of ourselves. But it is in the natural order of things that such bodies should be to some extent governed in their deliberations by material and economic considerations, and therefore the dignity and preservation of the monuments of this venerable City seem, to my mind, properly to be a trusteeship which should be ultimately controlled by the representatives of the nation.
I will give those who differ from me, as a present, the argument which they may use that it was a Resolution of Parliament which decreed the destruction and the fusion of Lesueur's statue of Charles I, and that it was due only to the loyalty and perhaps the artistic sense of the brazier River to whom the job was entrusted that the finest equestrian monument in London was hidden and preserved, to be re-erected when times were more propitious. Happily such an occasion is not likely to arise again. I should like to add, especially to-day, with very cordial appreciation, that I saw an announcement, yesterday that the present London County Council, after a long period of apathy on the part of their predecessors, have taken a decision to co-operate with private enterprise to the amount of £50,000 in saving the site of the Foundling Hospital to be an open space and a happy playground for the children of this great City. What private enterprise has done there also has been remarkable and worthy of all commendation; but the fountains of private enterprise are not inexhaustible. They are being drained to-day by over-taxation, and the calls which are made upon this self-imposed form of super-tax are increasing daily almost beyond endurance.
My experience in other countries has shown me that the course which I am advocating has found acceptance there. That remarkable leader who has for some ten years presided over the destinies of Italy some years ago laid down very definitely the principle that the status and decorum of the national capital was not

327
solely a municipal but was a national concern, and that the cost of important works to contribute to its dignity and embellishment should, if necessary, be provided from national funds. I think that any who have seen what has been done in the last few years to increase the interest and the magnificence of Rome will admit that a most important result has been obtained, and I have met with hardly any critics except those few eccentrics who would prefer to see grass growing in the streets of the ancient capital of nations, and rows of mean houses, occupying and disfiguring sites of immense historic value. I do not think that the case which I have the honour to submit to your Lordships will gain by diffuseness. I have stated it as briefly as it admitted of. I am anxious to obtain an affirmation of that principle which is in the Resolution before you; and I therefore beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the monuments, historical and architectural, of the Capita] City of the country are matters of national and not solely municipal concern, as would also be any radical modification of sites familiar from long association; and that, therefore, independently of the source from which funds for the purpose may be derived, no interference with such monuments or sites as may be scheduled by a Commission appointed for the purpose should be undertaken without reference to and approval obtained from Parliament.—(Lord Rennell.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Lord has placed upon the Order Paper is one which so far as its motive goes will command the immediate and united support of everyone in your Lordships' House. London is not so rich in beautiful things that we want to see even one of them wantonly destroyed, and therefore a discussion as to the best way to preserve them and to extend our knowledge and appreciation of them cannot be other than useful. But the Motion as it is stated creates a certain amount of alarm in the minds of those responsible for municipal administration, and I propose to deal first of all with the viewpoint of the London County Council with regard to it. I may properly say at this point that I ought not to burden my friends behind me with responsibility
328
for the unpopularity of that admirable but suspected and harassed and unappreciated body. I therefore speak entirely for myself.
If it is true, as this Motion states, that the monuments of London "are matters of national and not solely municipal concern", it becomes of interest to local authorities to enquire what the nation's stake in these monuments happens to be, and whether the control of such monuments is to rest with the nation while their protection and their upkeep are to fall upon the local ratepayers. Is it proposed, as a matter of equity, that Parliament should bear a part of the expense, should share in the burden as well as in the benefits of these monuments scheduled as matters of national concern? Or is it proposed that Parliament should satisfy its passion for beauty in the West End of London at the charge of the ratepayers of Shoreditch and Limehouse who are rarely able to participate in it?
The London County Council, I repeat, regards the suggestion with some apprehension. The effect of the Motion would appear to be that a body not accountable in any way to the ratepayers would have the power to sterilise the use of buildings and land vested in local authorities in London for the purpose of enabling them to carry out specific statutory duties, and would be in a position to hamper those authorities, in certain cases as regards their use of such lands and buildings, while the expense of maintaining them would remain a burden on the local rates; and this is proposed notwithstanding the fact that the Motion lays it down that such buildings are to be deemed to be matters of national and not solely municipal concern. In the view of the London County Council that proposal is constitutionally objectionable, and it would in their opinion in practice prove to be unworkable. I should like to illustrate the difficulty by a reference to the County Hall on the other side of Westminster Bridge. This was built by the people of London at their own expense and, judged by any high standard of dignity and efficiency, it is a very notable structure. It is destined, as we believe, to be regarded as one of the great architectural achievements of the age in which we live. Is it really suggested that the authority that built the County Hall, and that

329
worthily uses it, must ask the permission of Parliament, which has no financial concern with it, that did nothing to build it, and that frequently harassed the Council in the prosecution of its work—is it proposed that the Council must ask Parliament whether it may adapt that building to meet the needs of its own services?
If the question is one of efficiency, I believe that the London County Council could with some assurance instruct Parliament itself, both in regard to the character of its building and in regard to the method by which it does its work. As a workshop for the performance of certain specific duties, the County Hall is as much superior to the Houses of Parliament as for medical purposes a well-equipped clinic is superior to a draughty barn, and before this Motion is passed the London County Council would like to urge, with all the modesty it can command, that it should be the custodian of its own property. London local government is getting tired of the perpetual snubs to which it is subjected, and to which no other local authority in this country is subjected, and it objects to be put in this position of inferiority. We allege, that the powers that already exist are sufficient for the purpose for which they wore framed. We consider that to extend the control of Parliament to buildings under the control of the local authorities would be unjustified, and would, be an infringement upon their rightful authority, and that such infringement would have serious results.
The existing legislation was designed to preserve and protect monuments of general national and historical importance. Some of London's monuments are of that character and some are not. If anybody proposed to pull down Westminster Abbey I, personally, would do my very utmost to prevent him from doing so. If, on the other hand, he proposed to pull down Waterloo Bridge, or the national monument to Nurse Cavell, who is suffering her second martyrdom in St. Martin's Place, I should certainly not got in his way. But if this Motion becomes effective it will hamper local authorities in the use of their lands and buildings, which have been entrusted to them and which are necessary for the efficient performance of their duties. A national monument should be character-
330
ised by age and historical interest. Which are and which are not monuments of that character may well be left to the local authorities to decide.
I can raise no kind of complaint as to the tone or courtesy of the noble Lord in introducing this Motion, but there was behind his speech an implied censure of the London County Council. The noble Lord illustrated what could be done by the State by what had taken place under the rule of Mussolini with regard to the Capital City of Rome. Well, my Lords, if the noble Lord will give me the powers which are given to Mussolini in Rome I will make improvements of the same character. I will see that St. Paul's Churchyard does not crowd and destroy the dignity of Wren's great masterpiece, and I will make certain other clearances upon the same terms. The fact that I should have the noble Lord supporting that work will encourage me to work harder for the return to power of a Labour Government, when we should have, I am sure, support in doing work of that character.
This Motion suggests, however, that only in the reverent and intelligent hands of Parliament are these national monuments safe. Let us test that by reference to the past, and enquire who have been, the vandals in these matters—Parliament or the local authorities. Let us test that by one or two illustrations. There was the celebrated case of the Painted Chamber. That could have been rebuilt and preserved. It came within the ambit of these matters. It was of national and historical importance. It was familiar from long association, and the old pictures show that it could have been preserved and restored. Yet Parliament not only did not protect it, but swept it away. That was not done by the Labour County Council, but by the Tories and Whigs of the early nineteenth century.
There was the case of St. Stephen's Chapel. There were, in that, two parties concerned. On the one hand there was the Gothic-minded section, who wanted the Chapel rebuilt, and on the other hand, there was the dominant party that perpetrated these buildings in which we meet. So we have these buildings, which are neither historical nor suitable for the purpose for which they were built, and their present piebald condition suggests that Parliament did not even know

331
how to re-build what had been destroyed. That takes away from Parliament, I suggest, the very last claim it has to be regarded as a satisfactory guardian of these great treasures. And instead of St. Stephen's Chapel we have now St. Stephen's Hall, in which innocent visitors indulge in prolonged and impatient meditation on their way to the Strangers' Gallery. That was not clone by the London County Council. That was done by Parliament, into whose hands the noble Lord would entrust these treasures. Then there was the case of the Holbein Gateway, built by Henry VIII, leading through Whitehall Palace. It was removed in 1757 as part of a scheme for improving the approach from Charing Cross to Westminster. Again the London County Council was not responsible. There was the case of the old London Bridge built in the reign of King John—which, like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, was one of the sights of the world. It was removed in 1831, long before the London County Council was created.
Then there was the case of Temple Bar, a Wren structure built in 1670, and removed in 1878 and 1879—because it obstructed traffic, if you please! The stones of it were left lying derelict in a stoneyard for ten years, Parliament was not in the least concerned, and it had to be rescued by private people and erected in another place. I need not continue, but there were other cases, such as Christ's Hospital, Northumberland House, the Whitehall Tennis Court, and the outrage upon Carlton House Terrace. I personally tremble to think of what would happen to the monuments of London if they were taken from the loving care of the London County Council and entrusted to Parliament, which has been guilty of frequent and flagrant and futile vandalism from one generation to another.
The noble Lord dealt implicitly with the case of Waterloo Bridge as being the occasion, if not the real motive, for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. I do not desire to avoid discussing that incident, and your Lordships will perhaps expect me to do so, but I ought to say that in this matter I cannot speak for the London County Council as a whole, because, as in every other assembly, some persons are not in favour of any particular policy adopted, and therefore I must not associate the whole
332
of the Council with what I am going to say. But I suggest to your Lordships that the purpose of a bridge is to enable the people to cross a river, and not merely to decorate it, and I would suggest that Waterloo Bridge was not a national monument. It was not built in honour of the Battle of Waterloo, and it did not serve the purpose for which it was built. The Americans have a great word which I wish your Lordships would allow me to use to you—it is the word "debunk." They say that when a thing has got into such a state that it is necessary that the buncombe attached to it should be taken away. The æsthetes have been able to "put it over" that Waterloo Bridge was a great triumph of architecture, that it was unique and irreplaceable, a sanctified monument, a supreme example of great architecture, and that the ghost of Rennie would be disturbed if it were removed. I feel that it is time someone had the courage to say a few plain words concerning it.
I personally have no kind of technical training which entitles me to pass judgment upon any work of architecture, but I did learn to love, and I hope know, beautiful things at the feet of William Morris, the greatest artist and the greatest Socialist that I have ever known, and I believe that Waterloo Bridge was not a great architectural triumph. It was, at its best, a straightforward piece of engineering. It is not vandalism to remove it, and it is not impossible to build a better bridge in its place. Then again Rennie was not an architect at all. He was an engineer. There was a ghost architect somewhere attached to this bridge and Rennie has been wearing his crown—if ghosts do wear crowns; I am not sure—for some time. And it is precisely those parts for which Rennie was responsible that have become derelict. The Battle of Waterloo was fought on June 18, 1815, and the bridge had been begun many years before that time. It was called Waterloo Bridge as a profit-making device of the promoter, who wanted to use the outburst of patriotism at the time to increase the number of tolls that he would be able to take.
In this matter the language of artists is even more imaginative than many of their pictures, but the language of the bargemen who are in danger of being sunk as they pass underneath the arches

333
of Waterloo Bridge has a quality of penetrating, blistering efficiency and a sustained fluency which is in itself a great work of art. Now I always enjoy listening to artists when they give themselves the pleasure of yearning and sighing over works of art. It gives them great comfort, and it supports their belief that they are not as other men; and when the occasion to indulge in these sentiments coincides with the opportunity to goad and defame a Labour Council the theme is absolutely irresistible. I would suggest that when this matter came before Parliament the issue was not dealt with on its merits. I do not want to submit proofs of that, though I could do so if necessary, but on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo Bridge it may be said that there was again
"a sound of revelry by night
And England's Parliament, had gathered then
All her bigotry and drivelry."
I apologise to the spirit of Lord Byron in passing, but I felt I would just like to say that because I did not want to sit down under the reproach that the position that the majority of the London County Council took could not be defended.
We are not the only people in trouble in matters of that kind. America is in trouble just now about the alteration of the White House, a national monument familiar to everybody, and the President only last week used these words:
"Architects and builders were men of common sense, and knew how to blend new with old. It is this combination of the old and the new that makes orderly and peaceful progress, not only in building buildings but in building government itself."
Well now, the London County Council also loves beauty, and it loves efficiency, and if it has taken a course in regard to a structure which was neither ancient, nor historical, nor perfect in architectural quality, it did so under a stern sense that a certain duty had to be performed. We want beauty to be extended and not restricted, to become a general inheritance and a delight, and we believe that the artists of our own day are capable of interpreting the spirit of our age just as efficiently as artists in previous generations interpreted the spirit of the days in which they lived. Nevertheless we welcome the discussion of this matter as introduced by the noble
334
Lord, and I have ventured to put before you—inefficiently, I fear—a few inquiries and criticisms which I hope will not be entirely disregarded.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord must have thoroughly enjoyed himself. I have been wondering all through his speech which phase would in the end predominate, the inferiority complex or the arrogance. On the whole, I think, the arrogance has taken the lead. I am sorry he should have introduced so bellicose a note. It was hardly provoked by what was said by the noble Lord below the gangway. I am sorry he should have gone out of his way to cast ridicule upon those who do believe—against his view—that Waterloo Bridge was a great historic entity in London. We have too few national monuments in England, many too few in our Capital, and the glee with which he and others contemplate the loss of something which he knows—he must know—is dear to untold thousands is, I think, frankly regrettable. But still more regrettable is the deliberate manner in which he ignores this fact, that the destruction of Waterloo Bridge, which is already paralysing the road transport of London, which is still more going to paralyse the water transport of London, and which is going to inflict all kinds of costs and inconveniences on the community as soon as it is found out that the temporary bridge is ceasing to be safe for traffic, is going to inflict the gravest injustice upon South London by putting an absolute stop to its development. I cannot help profoundly regretting the way in which he ignored that fact. The London County Council, without spending more than a day or two in discussing this question after its return to power, did not realise the reactions upon the whole of the far greater problem of Charing Cross.
Let me, before I come to the substance of what Lord Rennell said, deal with one other analogy used by the noble Lord opposite. He asked what right had Parliament to speak on these things—Parliament which in 1757 allowed the gateway in Whitehall to be destroyed? He said, in effect: "London County Council can instruct Parliament in these matters. Look at the building over the road and compare it with this building here. How infinitely superior is the London County

335
Council building." I should hope so. It was built one hundred years after this building. The whole thing has changed since then. Again, he mentioned the Painted Chamber. The Painted Chamber is almost destroyed, and in 1834, if that is the date when it was destroyed, Parliament was not thinking about these things and neither was the local authority. Nobody was thinking about these things then, and it is only because of our great carelessness and oversight in the past that Parliament is interesting itself in these things to-day. As for saying, as Lord Snell said, that the idea proposed in the Motion was wrong and technically was unworkable, he ought not to say that unless he knows how these things are regulated in Paris, in Rome, in Venice, in Berlin, in Brussels, or in Madrid, where this very alliance between the municipality and the State in the Capital Cities is far more intimate than it is in this country and far more effective in consequence. If Lord Snell makes it a personal point and always goes off the deep end, then he is going to injure the interests of the Metropolis for which he is almost as much responsible as the Government.
At the same time let me make one point quite clear. Perhaps it is Lord Rennell's fault for not having defined his Motion more clearly. In technical parlance a monument is something of considerable age and the London County Council building, in my opinion, is not technically a monument. It is a great building, a handsome structure, on the whole commodious. I knew the architect very well indeed who built it, he was a friend of my own; but it is not a monument in the technical sense of the word or in the sense Lord Rennell means it. Nine out of ten of the buildings which Lord Snell mentioned as being possibly potentially threatened have nothing to do with him. Westminster Abbey can be destroyed to-morrow without the London County Council being asked their view. All through his speech he seemed to think that because these buildings are in the area of the London County Council, therefore the London County Council are responsible. Not a bit. I am thinking of really national monuments in the broader sense and at the same time in a more technical sense. I said just now we have got very few in London. No great Capital in the world has got a
336
smaller schedule of monuments in its area of acknowledged international fame and distinction than London. What have we got? Greenwich, the Tower of London, Somerset House, Waterloo Bridge, the Palace of Westminster, and, at the other end of London, Hampton Court. We have got the Palace of Whitehall, and we have got the two great churches and Chelsea. That is under a dozen anyhow. In none of these except Waterloo Bridge are the County Council remotely concerned.
We have lost in the last twenty or thirty years great buildings either through destruction, like Newgate, or through alteration, like the Bank of England, and this country ought to realise the position and not treat the problem in the flippant and sour manner employed by Lord Snell. What we ought to do is to see how we can ensure that what is left is properly preserved to posterity. A good deal is being done in the matter, of course in a rather general fashion. I happen myself to be the Chairman of the Royal Commission which schedules national monuments in different parts of the country. We spent four years in scheduling the national monuments of London. We now know from the historical point of view every national monument in London. We have a full technical description of each of them; we have a plan of every single one, and where photography is possible we have got the prints. Our date, it is true, does not permit us to deal with the national monuments erected in our own time—that is to say, no modern building is included. We have that body of information and 'at the same time we have the powers conferred by the Ancient Monuments Act, which Lord Snell completely ignored.
I do not know why, when talking of his love of beauty and all that, he made no allusion to these two things which reflect the interest and concern of Parliament for forty years. It must be twenty-five years since I myself passed a Bill through Parliament to extend the Ancient Monuments Act. Under that Act, subjected as it always is to limitation of finance, the Government have tremendous powers to prevent the demolition, and in certain cases to prevent actually the bad restoration, of existing ancient monuments. I fear it is no good talking about giving greater power to

337
the Government in these matters, because they always come back to us and say: "Well, go to the Treasury and see if they will give you a quarter of a million." So let us extend the powers we have already got. The Treasury on the whole have treated us very well in the matter. We have got between 3,000 and 4,000 monuments actually scheduled in this country—3,000 to 4,000 which nobody has a right to touch if the statutory authority set up by Parliament says they have to be left alone.
What, I should like to do would be to persuade the Government—I have been talking about this for thirty years ineffectually—to realise how much could be done by maintaining this patrimony of historical monuments. Thousands of people go abroad in order to see the historical monuments of France, or Italy, or Greece, or Spain. Thousands went every week in the old days. The assumption is that we have got a relatively small number of monuments in this country, and it is lamentably true, so far as London is concerned, that while we offer incomparable attractions, in that respect I am afraid our attractions are rather limited. But that is no reason for inaction. On the contrary, there is every reason why greater efforts should be made to maintain what we have got both here and in all parts of our country. I would, therefore, very strongly urge my noble friend below me who replies for His Majesty's Ministers to give us a sympathetic answer, to tell us that the Government are anxious to extend the protection which already exists, are anxious to make it possible for the Ancient Monuments Board, the Office of Works and so on, to do more in taking over monuments, and thus to extend the life and usefulness and, in spite of what Lord Snell says, the beauty, the honour and the dignity of this country.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken, I think, seems to have lost his sense of humour on this occasion, because he described my noble friend's speech as bitter, bellicose, sour, and flippant. I think it was a model of very graceful banter and that the noble Earl failed to meet any of the arguments which my noble friend put forward very cogently, fairly, and with great moderation. I do not want to be led into the Waterloo
338
Bridge controversy again, as I took part in it two years ago when there was a debate in your Lordships' House, but I must take exception to the declaration of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that Waterloo Bridge was dear to untold thousands. I really think that is the language of gross exaggeration. You can only see the full expanse of Waterloo Bridge if you can get on the other side of Charing Cross Railway Bridge, or below the Waterloo Bridge from the lower side of the river.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not want to interrupt, but you cannot see the full expanse of any bridge in the world from any single point of view any more than you can see the full extent of the Coliseum or Buckingham Palace or any other monument you like to mention.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I would take exeception to that in the case of Waterloo Bridge. I dare say the noble Earl has walked across the footpath of Hungerford Bridge, and from the centre of that footpath you can see the full expanse of Waterloo Bridge. I often cross there from Waterloo Station and have seen the full extent of Waterloo Bridge from there. But very few people see that beauty, and, although it may be in conformity with the architecture of Somerset House and form a very pleasant whole, this adoration for it, I think, is entirely exaggerated. I feel very often that the way to get support for anything is to declare that it should be demolished, then support comes quickly enough. My noble friend Lord Snell simply expressed some doubt as to the advisability of superseding the local authority, and he did not in any way suggest that there should not be an alliance between the local authority and Parliament.
But, there is no question about it, Parliament is not a suitable body to govern the aesthetic or historical monuments of this City. I should rather like to turn the debate from this very vexed question of Waterloo Bridge to the suggestion made in a more general way by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion. I cannot help feeling that a Commission is not required for the preservation of our monuments so much, because I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that under the Ancient Monuments Acts there has been an extension which has brought to light a very large number of

339
these beautiful buildings. Through the influence of the Office of Works they are admirably preserved, and an enormous advance has been made in that way not only in their preservation but in making them accessible to the public. That might be further extended possibly. It may be advisable that it should be for the sake of the real ancient monuments which in this City are so few. But I should like to see a Commission set up, not for preservation, but for the demolition of some of our ancient monuments. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion referred to equestrian statues. We have an enormous number in London, and only one good one.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Two.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Two good ones. But some of our equestrian statues, by the exigencies of traffic, have been driven further and further west into Kensington, and I do not think the demolition of one of these would cause any great grief to any one who has any artistic feeling. At the same time there is no doubt that if you suggest that one of these statues should be removed there will be correspondence in the newspapers, and there will be many a protagonist who will declare that they are of great and high artistic beauty. I have always advocated that no statue should be erected in this great City of ours until ten years after the subject has died. We should have far fewer statues than we have to-day if that had been the rule, and I think if such a rule was adopted by the County Council or Parliament it would be very effective in preventing the large number, especially of equestrian statues, which continually crop up, which have no sort of artistic merit and which in time to come will perhaps have very little historical significance.
The motive behind the noble Lord's Motion is undoubtedly one with which everyone will have great sympathy. He foreshadows a Commission. I think the Historical Monuments Commission and the Office of Works are sufficient. I think that when a building can be scheduled it will be preserved in that way. As to the principle of the extension of Parliamentary control, I agree with my noble friend Lord Snell that that is quite unadvisable as Parliament by itself is not an authority that is capable of dealing with matters of this kind.
340
But as the whole motive apparently of introducing this discussion has been the decision with regard to Waterloo Bridge, I cannot help feeling glad that your Lordships should have had the opportunity of hearing a defence of the decision from the Chairman of the London County Council, who can not only speak with authority, but who, as all who know him will realise, has a very great and high appreciation of the artistic and historical monuments of London. I do not know if the Government are going to reply sympathetically. I dare say they will. The general idea is good, but the practical working out of it, if it amounts to a complete divorce of the municipal authority from any control over matters of this sort, I think would be undoubtedly a very great mistake.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I intervene in this discussion, but inasmuch as we have here a noble Lord who has been described as the Prime Minister of London I should like, in view of a certain sentence which has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to make an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Snell. Is it really too late to suspend the operations which have been begun? I venture to believe—I may be wrong—that if some of that imagination which is supposed to belong to artists, of which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, spoke a few minutes ago, had been applied to the question, and if, after the House of Commons in its wisdom or unwisdom had rejected the application for funds, the Prime Minister of London had come back to Parliament and said: "Well, if you are not prepared to make this contribution to the process of demolition, will you contribute over the next twenty years £10,000,000 for the reconstruction of the centre of London?" that he would have got it.
I believe if you bring a large programme to Parliament, embracing the whole Charing Cross area, it will capture the imagination of the citizens of London and this country, and that you will get from Parliament funds which you would never get for a small scheme or for a scheme which is mainly one of demolition. I ask the Prime Minister of London whether it is yet too late because of the remark which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that demolition might be the best way of attracting atten-

341
tion and possibly getting a reversal of a decision. So I understood him to say. If that is true, is it too late for the London County Council to come forward with the general scheme and come back to Parliament and say: "We do not want £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, or whatever the sum is, but give us £10,000,000 for a scheme which will include the whole Charing Cross area"? I would like to put forward that suggestion in the hope that possibly it may receive attention.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I do not feel inclined to allow this debate to conclude without some other member or late member of the London County Council saying a word on the subject. After all, the present London County Council has only been in office four months next Monday and the doings of those four months can hardly be said to represent what the County Council can do. Personally, I am very jealous of the reputation of the London County Council. The Motion before your Lordships' House rather emphasises the fact that there should be co-operation between the municipal and Parliamentary authorities. No reference has been made to Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. There powers are given both to the municipality and to the Ministry of Health to protect ancient monuments. For both authorities the main bugbear of the whole business is £ s. d. As has been already suggested this afternoon, if a Government Department went to the Treasury to try to preserve an ancient monument the chances are that the Treasury would make it very difficult. It is just as difficult in the case of a municipal authority for the committee concerned to get the sanction of the finance committee.
But I am not so concerned with Waterloo Bridge, although I have known views on that. I feel that it is very largely a matter of town planning, for the preservation of what exists of ancient monuments and what exists of suitable buildings to be regarded as monuments in the future. I would urge that His Majesty's Government through the Ministry of Health should encourage all local authorities, whether in London or elsewhere, to exercise the powers given by Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act. There you get a com-
342
bination of Government Department and municipal authority laid down. If only the Ministry of Health would encourage local authorities in this matter I feel sure that a very great step forward would be made. I have nothing but praise for the Office of Works in regard to their management of ancient monuments. I happen to be the owner of an ancient monument, and just after the issue by the Ministry of Munitions of an Order forbidding all building during the War, I got a demand from the Office of Works to put my ancient monument in order forthwith. Needless to say, I took no notice of that demand because it would have been contrary to the Order of the Ministry of Munitions.
Since 1920, however, some splendid work has been done by the Office of Works in regard to ancient monuments. I think too much praise cannot be given for the work done. I hope they will continue to do that work, and that there will be co-operation with the Ministry of Health as well, to encourage local authorities to schedule under Section 17 ancient monuments which are not already within the Ancient Monuments Acts. I feel that by co-operation more can be done for the maintenance of monuments and the beautifying of our country than in any other way. Instead of evoking vituperation between different Parties, I should have thought that as a matter of fact this was really a matter in which, there was no Party at all. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred to the noble Lord, Lord Snell, as the Prime Minister of London. I must say that I should feel much more happy if he were the Prime Minister of London instead of the individual who is the actual Prime Minister—namely, the leader of the majority Party in the London County Council. But be that as it may, I hold that no matter what our politics may be, ancient monuments ought to be under the guardianship of every Party and of every individual who is proud of his country, and nothing can be done better than by co-operation in a matter like this.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I listened with every care and attention to the remarks which fell from my noble friend Lord Rennell in introducing this Resolution in your Lordships' House. I was equally interested in the remarks which fell from other noble Lords who

343
have spoken in support of the Motion. Let me say at once that so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned they believe that all the monuments, historical or architectural, which are situated in London, are matters of national interest just as much as they are matters of local interest, and indeed it is their intention, as it always has been the intention of successive Governments, to give every help they can give to have the monuments of London safely guarded. But I could not help thinking that my noble friend Lord Rennell, when he made the remarks which fell from him, was under a misapprehension, perhaps because he was unaware of the various Acts of Parliament which have been passed and the legislation which affects local authorities in the fulfilment of their duties as regards monuments of historical and architectural importance.
Perhaps I might deal quite briefly with three forms of property, Crown property, Church property and private property, which are situated in London. The first, Crown property, about which I hardly think I need say very much, is naturally well protected, for Parliament has to find sufficient funds for any alteration or improvement that may be necessary. Any improvements are referred to the Royal Fine Art Commission, while the newly-appointed Crown Lands Advisory Committee exists to guide the Commissioners of Crown Lands on the management and development of their estates such as Carlton House Terrace, Regent's Park, and others which my noble friend will probably call to mind. Before passing from that to Church property I may mention that the squares and gardens of London are equally strongly protected by the very stringent provisions of the London Squares Protection Act.
As regards Church property, I would venture to suggest, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, that if Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral were to be wantonly destroyed or demolished by some individual or by a body of persons, there would be a very strong and indignant feeling on the part of the public. Parish churches, which were mentioned in my noble friend's speech, are under the control of the Bishop's Chancellor, who has the assistance in architectural and archæological matters of the Diocesan Advisory Committee and
344
of the Central Council for the Care of Churches.
I now come to the third form of property—namely, private property. I refer here to what my noble friend describes as monuments, which I take to include all large houses and modern buildings which certainly are of architectural interest, and such-like buildings and property that we know of. Owners of places such as Chesterfield House, Holland House, and what I may describe as the late Dorchester House, and other buildings in private ownership in London, which are or should be of historical or architectural importance, are in no way bound by any legislation at all. Such buildings can, however, now be protected by Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which was referred to by the noble Marquess behind me, Lord Aberdeen. That section of that Act gives power to the local authorities, after they have prepared a plan for the town-planning of that particular district, to present their scheme to Parliament and to have the scheme duly ratified. My noble friend will recollect that under that section the local authority is empowered to buy out the private owner of the property and compensate him. It will be readily appreciated that the payment of very large sums of money would fall upon the London County Council if that Act were put into effect in the case of a building of gigantic size, for the value of property in the West End of London amounts to many pounds per square foot.
Having dealt with those three forms of property, and I hope shown the noble Lord that the only one that I have mentioned up to now over which the local authority has control is that dealt with in Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, let me pass to the statues of London. An Act which was passed in 1854 placed the public statues in the Metropolitan Police district under the control of the Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings, and no statue can be moved without his authority. From that let me pass to the latter part of my noble friend's Motion, which declares that
"no interference with such monuments or sites as may be scheduled by a Commission appointed for the purpose should be undertaken without reference to and approval obtained from Parliament."
As I read that, and indeed as my advisers have also read it, that Commis-

345
sion would be appointed by Act of Parliament with perhaps the greatest and most autocratic powers which have ever been given to a Commission, for after they had declared that a particular monument should be scheduled as of historical or architectural importance, the matter would have to come before Parliament in the form of an Order or Private Bill, which I should imagine would be either accepted or rejected but could certainly not be amended. From that Commission there would be no appeal. They would declare one particular monument to be scheduled and the owner would have no appeal to any Court or other body. If that became the law, there would still arise the question: who is going to pay the compensation? Up till now I have heard no suggestion from any noble Lord who has spoken as to where this money should come from. Indeed, I have no suggestion to make.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I made a suggestion which I should have thought the noble Earl would have received with enthusiasm.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If my noble friend really believes that the finances of the country are sufficient to allow that Commission to schedule various monuments in London and order Parliament to buy them up with large sums of money, I fear that he and I would never agree. Now I come to one other point which I rather want to make clear, and it is this. Parliament in its wisdom, From time to time during the last 125 years, has transferred to the London County Council, by legislation, various responsibilities which they have been asked to bear. I have from my short experience of that body seen Acts of Parliament passed by the Labour Government, and indeed by the National Government, which have not received the support of the local authorities; but after an Act has been given the Royal Assent I can definitely say, and I feel that Lord Snell will support me, that the London County Council have carried out the obligations imposed upon them in the proper spirit of a local authority.
I hope I have dealt with the questions which Lord Rennell addressed to me. He will see at the moment, from summing up the arguments which I have stated, that the only point which affects
346
the London County Council at the present time is Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. That is the only power they have to deal with monuments of this kind. As Waterloo Bridge has been mentioned, and I need not weary your Lordships with my views again, or even antagonise Lord Crawford with the views I have upon this subject, let me say quite definitely that an answer was given in another place on Monday afternoon by the Lord President of the Council, in which he said that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to open up this question again. But I would point out to your Lordships that under Acts of Parliament dating back at the earliest to 1803, the London County Council have powers, duties, and responsibilities, of maintaining London bridges in a proper working condition. They have, as I read it, and as I am advised by the officials of the Council, the absolute right, when they like, of pulling down a bridge, rebuilding a bridge, or altering a bridge in any way they see fit, and Parliament, again be it noticed, has imposed this legislation upon them and given them powers over these bridges, which I believe myself they have carried out in a proper spirit.
My noble friend Lord Crawford asked me whether the Government were still in favour of putting into further effect, and enlarging the scope of, the Ancient Monuments Act. I am advised that the scheduling of an ancient monument is done on the advice of the Ancient Monuments Board, and my noble friend, from the position he has occupied, will know the procedure that has to be adopted on these occasions. From a book issued by the Office of Works I should like to read a, very short statement that is made by Sir Patrick Duff, in writing the preface to this book. He says:
"The present enlarged list of monuments cannot be regarded as covering in a systematic way the whole of the more important ancient monuments of Great Britain. Much yet remains to be done before this aim can be achieved. In compiling the lists, the Commissioners have to rely to a large extent on the voluntary assistance of local archaeologists, to whose labours they are greatly indebted. The collection of the necessary information is often attended with difficulties, but the progress made cannot, in all the circumstances, be regarded as unsatisfactory."
The present list contains the names of over 3,600 monuments, in all parts of the

347
country, and I have no doubt that from time to time this list will be enlarged. As I have said, it receives the full sympathy of His Majesty's Government.
But, my Lords, I cannot say from my own point of view, and indeed from the point of view of the Government, that the Motion on the Paper is in any way going to help to solve the difficulty of the fear of the destruction of ancient and historical monuments. At the moment the London County Council have power only over one particular section—namely, bridges. They have power imposed upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act, and other ancient monuments situated in London are either the property of the Crown or of the Church or of private individuals, and with each category I have dealt to the best of my ability. I hope, in the circumstances, and in view of the case I have made out, that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the Resolution on the Paper.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I can only feel grateful for the attention which has been given to the Resolution which I have brought before you to-day. I thought I had most carefully avoided saying anything that could be considered a criticism, either directly or impliedly, of any action of the London County Council. I might have had a deal to say about Waterloo Bridge, but I avoided the matter deliberately, and therefore I am a little surprised that we should have had such a warm and controversial defence of what, so far as I was concerned, was a case which had never been raised. I am afraid I cannot altogether accept all the contentions of my noble friend Lord Snell. I do not feel that it is any argument to say that it would have been better to leave such a thing as old London Bridge in the hands of the County Council, because that case happened before the Council had ever been dreamt of. But I think we have passed away from that.
We have been assured that sufficient powers exist to safeguard all monuments except that relatively small number which has been transferred to the control of the London County Council. In bringing forward this Resolution I had conceived also that some provision was required for the administration of these buildings and monuments. It is possible
348
that that matter can always be raised in Parliament, and therefore that control would be there, but I cannot altogether abandon the point of view from which I started, that matters of national and historical sentiment are essentially a trusteeship of the highest authority in the country, and I know of no higher authority in that respect than Parliament. That was the reason why my Resolution was drafted in the manner in which it was. In view of the assurance which has been given us that the situation is fairly safe, I do not know that I have any option to-day except to withdraw my Resolution. I am glad, however, that the matter has been discussed, and I think the principle that matters of national interest and national sentiment are also matters of national and not of municipal concern has been accepted by a majority of your Lordships' House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, That Standing Order No. XXXVIII be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a, The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first of all express to your Lordships my regret at the form in which the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has been put down. Owing to an oversight for which I must bear my share of responsibility, this Bill, which came up from another place on May 30, remained on the Order Paper for a number of days in excess of that laid down in the Standing Order. Therefore, in order that we may get this Bill placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible-it is necessary to ask your Lordships' leave to dispense with the Standing Order for that purpose.
As to the Bill itself, it is, I think, admitted that a better distribution of population as between town and country is desirable. Something in this direction can be done by means of this Bill, which places at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland an increased sum for the provision of small holdings in Scotland. In the circumstances of the day it seems to the Government that there is an opportunity opened to form in the industrial belt of Scotland near

349
large consuming centres holdings ranging from about five to nine acres, to be devoted to the intensive production of poultry, eggs, pigs, market garden and glasshouse product1, and fruit of various kinds. Such holdings, with good markets in proximity, offer a reasonable livelihood to the tenants, who will be selected from applicants qualified by the possession of sufficient capital and experience to cultivate the land successfully and to undertake the obligations of tenancy. It is intended to let these holdings on lease governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts. This is competent under the existing powers of the Department. Ordinary agricultural tenure is being adopted because it is considered to be better designed than landholders' tenure to encourage the proper development of this special type of holding. In this respect the proposal is in conformity with the recommendation of the Nairne Committee on land settlement in Scotland in 1927.
The programme in view is to make provision for about one thousand holdings over a period of three years, and the Bill makes available to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for this purpose a sum of £250,000 in the current year and in each of the two succeeding years, as compared with £100,000 actually provided last year, and with the maximum sum of £175,000 per annum available for land settlement under existing legislation. As the provision proposed to be made under this Bill will be fixed over a period of years, the Department will be enabled to develop the programme in orderly fashion, and thus secure a measure of economy not otherwise possible.
350
I would like to add that, while the increased provision is required mainly for the special class of holding in the industrial districts of Scotland, land settlement in the Highlands will not be overlooked. The provision of additional money will in no way prejudice the position of such areas, and the Government will continue to take suitable opportunities of developing land settlement there, as, for instance, by forming enlargements of existing holdings in relief of conditions in crofting townships. I may add that this Bill was passed through another place without any amendment. It is a certified Money Bill, and, with the explanations I have given, I hope your Lordships will grant it a Second Reading.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXVIII be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.
Committee negatived.

FINANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order: Bill reported without amendment.

WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULA- TION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.