Sitting of 24 October 1935

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

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1899 AND 1933.
Address for
"Return of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, which in the Session of 1934–35 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings of each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved:
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1934–35 have been dealt with."—[Sir G. Collins.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at the latest available date at Barnsley, Wakefield, and South Kirkby, and the corresponding figures for the same date during the past five years?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of the Barnsley, Wakefield and South Kirkby Employment Exchanges at the undermentioned dates.

    Date.

    Barnsley.

    Wakefield.

    South Kirkby.

    23rd September, 1935

    12,610

    6,980

    2,201

    24th September, 1934

    11,478

    7,368

    5,132

    25th September 1933

    12,609

    9,036

    3,418

    26th September 1932

    15,572

    9,352

    6,854

    14th September 1931

    9,342

    6,984

    1,394

    15th September 1930

    11,307

    7,178

    1,260

    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the county of Durham, including the boroughs, who are being paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board the full amount of benefit and the number who are paid less than the full amount at the latest available date?
    Mr. BROWN: The number of such persons is not known and could not be ascertained without an examination of each individual case, which I should not feel justified in the Board to undertake; but I would point out that unemployment allowances are not related to unemployment benefit. Allowances are paid according to need and may be higher or lower than benefit, according to the circumstances of the case.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the total amount of money spent in the county of Durham by the commissioner of the special area in order to provide work for the unemployed and the number of men provided with employment?
    Mr. BROWN: As has frequently been stated in reply to similar questions, the undoubted benefits accruing to the special areas from the expenditure incurred by the commissioner for England and Wales cannot be apportioned on a county basis and, as the hon. Member is aware, it is not a function of the commissioner to provide relief works. It is not possible, therefore, to give the statistics asked for by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BATEY: Was it not understood when the House voted £2,000,000 that the commissioner would provide work for the unemployed and not give it to girl guides and boy scouts?
    Mr. BROWN: This amount is not included in the £2,000,000 voted by the House.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister say what amount has been spent?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already answered the question on the Paper.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at the Aberdare and Mountain Ash exchanges, giving the figures for the month of July in the following years 1930, 1932, 1933 and 1935?
    Mr. BROWN: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following table gives the information desired:

    Unemployed persons on the registers of the Aberdare and Mountain Ash Employment Exchanges.

    Date.

    Aberdare Employment Exchange.

    Mountain Ash Employment Exchange.

    21st July, 1930

    …

    3,678

    3,332

    25th July, 1932

    …

    5,817

    7,438

    24th July, 1933

    …

    6,853

    4,471

    22nd July, 1935

    …

    6,187

    4,903

    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been unemployed for periods in excess of six months up to the last date for which figures are available?
    Mr. BROWN: Statistics are available only in respect of persons applying for insurance benefit or unemployment allowances. At 23rd September, 1935, there were 560,931 such persons who had been on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain for six months or more. A proportion of these, however, will have had one or more short spells of employment, lasting not more than three days each, during this period.

    DARLINGTON.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dispute between the workmen's assessors and the chairman of the Court of Referees
    288
    in Darlington; and what steps he proposes to take about this matter?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am aware of the difficulties which have arisen. The court is continuing to function without detriment to insured persons and I am satisfied that, given good will, there need be no further friction.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Minister aware that this dispute has been going on for a long time? Cannot something be done to bring the matter to an end?
    Mr. BROWN: As the hon. Member knows, time is a great healer.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Labour the total increased amount which has accrued to the Unemployment Insurance Fund due to the increased contributions paid by the workmen since 1931 up to the most recent date; and the total amount of which the fund has been relieved by the reduction of benefit by 10 per cent. from 1931 until the restoration this year?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The share of the employed persons in the increased unemployment insurance contributions paid from 5th October, 1931, to 30th September, 1935, was approximately £24,500,000. The reduction in the amount of benefit, chargeable to the insurance account of the fund, by reason of the lower rates of benefit which were operative during the period 17th October, 1931, to 30th June, 1934, was about £15,000,000.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Unemployment Assistance Board are acting illegally, and contrary to Subsection (3) of Section 38 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, in applying the needs test to the unemployed in the absence of amended regulations; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this illegal action and make amends to the persons who have suffered from it?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir, I know of no ground for the hon. Member's suggestion that the Unemployment Assistance Board are acting illegally.
    Mr. BATEY: Has the Minister consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the action of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. BROWN: I am quite satisfied that the legal opinion I have given is accurate.
    Mr. BATEY: Has the Minister consulted the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. BROWN: No. I have been asked a question and given the answer in the terms which will be seen in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
    Mr. LOGAN: I take it that the Unemployment Assistance Board's scales will not be less than the scales when the regulations were drawn up?
    Mr. BROWN: That is another issue.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether the establishment of advisory committees to the Unemployment Assistance Board under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, has now been completed?
    Mr. BROWN: As I informed the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) the whole problem of the future arrangements is receiving the anxious consideration of the board and myself. One part of the problem is the functions within the Unemployment Act to be exercised by the local advisory committees which the board is under a statutory duty to set up, and I have suggested to the board that in the present circumstances it would be premature to take the formal step of constituting them finally.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of abolishing the household means test forthwith?
    Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) on Tuesday.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that all the other economy cuts have been restored does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time to abolish this test in view of the great hardship involved?
    Mr. BROWN: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on Tuesday.

    SECOND APPOINTED DAY.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been taken with regard to the second appointed day under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir.
    Mr. WHITE: May I ask whether this matter is to stand over until the Spring in accordance with the statement the right hon. Gentleman made this week?
    Mr. BROWN: It stands over until the whole decision is arrived at.

    SHARE FISHERMEN (INSURANCE).
    Mr. ISAAC FOOTasked the Minister of Labour whether the communications between his department and the Herring Industry Board have now been completed; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the proposal to bring share fishermen within the scope of Part I of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that the collection of the necessary information is not quite completed yet, but I hope that it will be possible shortly to proceed in this matter.
    Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately the date?
    Mr. BROWN: I think I shall be able to give the date quite shortly.

    DEDUCTIONS FROM BENEFIT (LEEDS).
    Mr. WHITESIDEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in spite of the fact that in 1932 Mr. William Wick, of 12, Moor Crescent, Dewsbury Road, Leeds, suffered a term of imprisonment for an offence under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, he was again penalised for the same offence by deductions from his unemployment benefit upon becoming temporarily unemployed in 1935; and whether, in view of the fact that he has already been punished for his offence, the deductions so made will be refunded to him?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am advised that Mr. Wick's conviction and imprisonment did not relieve him of his liability to repay to the Unemployment Fund the amount of benefit wrongly obtained. The court of referees authorised the recovery of the debt by deductions from benefit subsequently payable to Mr. Wick, and I have no power to refund them.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: Is the Minister aware that the effect of the provision is that the man's child is penalised for the man's misdemeanour, and is now being

    291
    penalised, years later, under the terms of the Act? Will he not reconsider the matter?
    Mr. BROWN: I have no power.

    JUVENILE TRANSFERENCE.
    Major HILLSasked the Minister of Labour how much money has been spent on subsidising the transport of juvenile labour and on maintaining it where the employer pays wages below standard rate; what has been the cost of partly financing hostels run by voluntary associations, such as the Young Women's Christian Association and the Girls' Friendly Society, in order to accommodate juvenile labour; what arangements are being made for ensuring inspection and safeguarding the hours of work and conditions in the expanding industrial areas where inspection has hardly overtaken the growth of the factories; and what proportion of the children of 14 transferred to the factories or workships and of those encouraged by the Ministry to enter domestic service have returned home?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The terms of my right hon. Friend's question appear to show that he has seriously misunderstood the juvenile transference scheme. No transfers under this scheme take place if the standard rate is not offered or if there is otherwise any ground for thinking that the conditions of employment are not satisfactory. In the nine months since 1st January last the amount paid in free fares under this scheme and in allowances to the juveniles when their earnings are temporarily insufficient to enable them to be self-supporting away from home was about £18,400. This figure includes sums paid in respect of juveniles accommodated in hostels, except for a grant amounting to £460 in aid of the running expenses of a hostel which was opened in June exclusively for the use of juveniles transferred under the scheme. Comparatively few juveniles are transferred under the age of 15, and in the case of girls these are almost entirely those going to resident domestic service in vacancies which have been investigated by the Department. I would add that the endeavour of the juvenile transference scheme is to place the boys and girls in permanent and progressive work. I regard it as of vital importance for the
    292
    future well-being of many of the young people now living in areas of heavy unemployment, and I am particularly anxious therefore that its object and method should not be misunderstood. I should add that the question of factory inspection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
    Miss WARD: Can some arrangement be made by which juveniles who are slightly out of health—quite small matters—could be put immediately into good health and so get the benefits of the transference scheme?
    Mr. BROWN: I will take note of that suggestion.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Minister of Labour the position with regard to the extension of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The position remains as stated by my predecessor in answer to questions by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and others on 16th May last; namely, that the Government have decided to accept the principle of unemployment insurance for agriculture.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is going to be the position of the unemployed in agriculture this coming winter? Is he not aware that owing to the second appointed day not being brought in these men are debarred from receiving what they would have received under the regulations? There is a feeling in the country that the Government have not played the game in this matter.
    Mr. BROWN: That is a matter of opinion.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered any new schemes for dealing with unemployment; and, if so, what they are and how far it is estimated they will reduce the number of unemployed in the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As regards the special areas, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Tuesday to my

    293
    hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle). In general, I may say that the policy of the Government has throughout been directed to the only effectual means of reducing unemployment and of providing the basis on which alone any exceptional measures for the assistance of particular areas can be successful; that is, by assisting in every possible way the recovery of trade and industry in this country. The measure of success which has attended this policy is shown by the fact that since the Government came into office the number of insured workers in employment has increased by 1,100,000.
    Mr. LUNN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see in that answer a confession that the Government have no policy whatever and nothing whatever to offer for the tragic position in which the unemployed are to-day and in which they are likely to be in the future?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Does not my right hon. Friend think it better to reduce unemployment by 1,000,000 than to increase it by 1,500,000?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WAGE-EARNERS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were employed in the mining industry on 1st October, 1931, and for the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. E. BROWN: At 1st October, 1931, the number of wage-earners on the colliery books in Great Britain was 823,500. At 12th October, 1935, the corresponding total was 748,100.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether between now and 14th November these figures will be placarded before the country?
    Mr. BROWN: If that were done we should also have to placard the figures between May, 1929, and October, 1931, which show a decline in the number of employed of 114,000.

    REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
    Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Secretary for Mines how much the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission has cost since its inauguration; and how
    294
    many collieries have been amalgamated as a result of its efforts?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): The cost of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission from the date of its inauguration to 30th September, 1935, amounted to £123,150. This figure includes £32,583 in respect of fees and expenses paid to professional and technical agents, which in certain circumstances are recoverable under the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. No recoveries have been made to date. With regard to the second part of the question, since the formation of the Commission amalgamations involving 228 pits have been effected, but I am unable to state how many of these are due directly or indirectly to the activities of the Commission.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: May I ask whether, if my hon. and gallant Friend must spread despondency and alarm among the coalfields, he cannot find some cheaper way of doing it?
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that in one case at least, where the Commission made a recommendation and the majority of coalowners were in favour, it was turned down owing to the action of a minority; and does the Minister propose to give more power so that where a majority of the coalowners and the Commission are agreed the recommendation will be carried out?

    LONG-TERM CONTRACTS.
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that public utility concerns are making long-term contracts for the purchase of coal; and whether, in forthoming legislation, he will see that any forestalling against increased prices is negatived by a clause making them applicable to existing contracts?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am aware of the circumstances mentioned in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I do not know to what legislation my hon. Friend is referring, but in any case I cannot answer a hypothetical question of this kind.
    Mr. DICKIE: Can the Secretary for Mines undertake to give a warning to those concerns which are engaging in

    295
    this reprehensible practice that they will not be allowed to get away with it at the expense of the mining industry?

    DURHAM.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the possibility of reopening the Hetton, Lyons, and Hazard collieries in the county of Durham?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have at present no definite information, but I understand that there is a probability that the seams in these two pits will, in the course of development, be worked from adjoining collieries.

    WAGES.
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Secretary for Mines whether in the event of the mineowners refusing voluntarily to meet the representatives of the Miners' Federation, any machinery exists which could be utilised for compelling the owners to meet the men's representatives; and, if so, whether it is proposed to invoke such machinery?
    Mrs. WARDasked the Secretary for Mines the present position in the coal industry with regard to the mine-workers' demand for an increase in wages; and what steps the Government are taking to bring the two sides together?
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary for Mines what action he proposes to take to assist the initiation of wage negotiations in the coal-mining industry?
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Secretary for Mines in view of the threatened stoppage in the coal industry, whether he will, having regard to the disastrous effect this would have on the industrial life of the nation, call the representatives of both sides to discuss the issues involved?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As I have already stated in this House, the Government would welcome the establishment of some form of machinery for the discussion of wage issues on a national basis, and both I and my predecessors in office have done all we could to this end. It is obvious, however, that to be effective, such machinery must command the confidence and support of both sides in the
    296
    industry. The coalowners have consistently maintained an attitude of resolute opposition to any form of national machinery for this purpose; and hon. Members will, no doubt, have seen in to-day's newspapers the letter which the Secretary of the Mining Association addressed yesterday to the Mineworkers' Federation, in which the Association's position is fully explained. In view of the coalowners' attitude, I can at present see no way of bringing the two sides together. During the last few days, I have had meetings with the representatives of both owners and miners, and I have found on both sides the most sincere desire to avoid the disaster of industrial conflict. I am still in touch with them, and in these circumstances I am unable at present to say anything further.
    Mr. T. SMITH: In view of the importance of the subject, could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate to the House what course of action he proposes to take to bring about a meeting between these two national bodies? His reply seems to indicate that he is considering the matter, but I suggest that at this moment it would be better to know from the Secretary for Mines what action he proposes to take to get a meeting.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the coal owners maintain their resolute attitude not to meet the Miners' Federation representatives, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman intimate just what steps the Government are likely to take to avoid an industrial stoppage?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I submit to the hon. Gentleman that when I am in the course of discussions with both parties as at present, I do not think it is really wise for him to press me at Question Time.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Minister aware that there has been an Act upon the Statute Book for nearly five years? The miners have been very patient in the face of very low wages, and are they not entitled to some lead from the Government as to what steps they are going to take in order to implement the law?
    Mr. MARTIN: Has my hon. and gallant friend had reports from the districts, because there is machinery by which they can meet together by districts?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I assume that it is common knowledge that there is district machinery for the district settlement of wages, but, of course, that is not in question at the moment.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: May we not ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to stand by and allow this dispute to drift into a national stoppage?
    Mr. WISE: Will any miners who wish to continue working pending these negotiations be protected?
    Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that the owners indicated yesterday that they are not going to do this, and that the whole thing has reached an end, what are the Government going to do? Are they going to allow it to drift?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May we ask the Prime Minister whether, now that the mineowners maintain their resolute attitude not to meet the Miners' Federation, it means in effect that the miners can hope for nothing? Is the Prime Minister willing to apply economic sanctions to the mineowners to prevent industrial war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman has had as much experience in these matters as I have, and I am convinced that nothing I can say at this

    Accidents at Hilton Main Colliery.

    Period.

    Number of Deaths.

    Non-fatal Accidents.

    Number of Persons seriously injured.

    No. of Persons disabled for more than three days.

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    —

    5

    223

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    2

    8

    209

    1934

    …

    …

    …

    1

    10

    252

    1935 (to date)

    …

    …

    …

    2

    5

    Not available.

    The number of persons killed and injured per 100,000 manshifts worked was 59 in 1932 and 1934 and 58 in 1933.

    SELLING METHODS.
    Mrs. WARDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that coal is being sold, particularly to gas and electricity undertakings, considerably below the cost of production, and that many mine-workers, as a result, are not receiving an adequate wage; and whether he will impress upon the industry the urgent need for a reorganisation in the methods of selling coal?
    moment and in these circumstances will be of any use, because my hon. and gallant Friend is at present in charge of the negotiations between the two parties and is devoting the whole of his attention to it. He is in close daily consultation with myself, and I know exactly what is going on. Every endeavour that I can use I think the House can trust me to use for the purpose, but at this moment, with every desire to help there is no statement of any kind that I can make. The moment I am in a position to say anything which I think will be of help, I shall not hesitate to say it, but I am sure that the moment the only thing we can do is to leave my hon. and gallant Friend, who is in touch with both parties, and who is to have a further meeting, to go on with his work.

    ACCIDENTS, HILTON MAIN COLLIERY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents which have taken place at the Hilton Main Colliery during the last three years and up to the latest available date?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am aware of the circumstances mentioned in the question; the desirability of reorganisation of the methods of selling coal has been repeatedly impressed upon the industry by the Government.
    Mr. CLARRY: May I inquire whether the Minister accepts the implications in the question?

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORING OFFENCES (LONDON).
    Mr. HOWARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Metropolitan police constables are expected by their superior officers to bring in a large number of summonses daily in regard to infringements under the motor-car regulations; and will he issue instructions that fair play shall be observed both to police constables and the public?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Euan Wallace): My right hon. Friend is assured by the Commissioner of Police that there is no foundation for my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is the duty of the police to deal with any infringements of the law that come to their notice, and, with the great increase in the volume of traffic in recent years, these infringements have become exceedingly numerous.
    Mr. HOWARD: Is the Under-Secretary aware that I have personal knowledge from five constables in Islington that the statement contained in the question is true, and that there is a growing discontent among the police at having to give what is virtually false evidence in order to secure a conviction?

    PARKING PLACES (WEST END OF LONDON).
    Mr. HOWARDasked the Minister of Transport whether he will confer with all interests concerned to consider the advisability of scheduling as car parks those streets in the West End of London contiguous to theatres, restaurants, and other places of amusement, which are little used after 7 p.m., and placing licensed ex-service attendants in charge thereof, thus relieving police for more important duties and facilitating business and pleasure in an area where accommodation for motor vehicles is at present limited?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The suggestion made by my hon. Friend has already been considered on several occasions, but the conclusion has been that the parking of vehicles in a public street is a privileged use of the highway and should, so far as it is permitted, be confined within narrow limits. In pursuance of this policy a number of parking places
    300
    have been appointed in the West End and elsewhere where cars may wait for limited periods not exceeding two hours. My right hon. Friend is not, however, prepared to authorise the appointment of further parking places in the West End for vehicles which in his opinion should in the general interest be accommodated in garages off the public highway.
    Mr. HOWARD: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that my request is for after the hour of 7 p.m., when the streets in the West End are practically deserted?
    Captain HUDSON: I think there is a difference of opinion as to whether these streets are deserted. The Commissioner of Police makes rules for picking up and setting down at theatres and other places, which usually meet the case.
    Mr. HOWARD: Could I invite my hon. and gallant Friend to accompany me one night?

    PROPOSED FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE.
    Mr. GUYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the proposals for a Forth road-bridge submitted to him by a deputation of local authorities concerned on 18th October; and whether he can make a statement?
    Captain HUDSON: I received a deputation a few days ago when for the first time the responsible authorities were able to submit proposals upon which they were agreed for a new bridge across the Forth. Many important aspects of the proposals require to be taken into account, and no time will be lost in giving them consideration.

    PROPOSED RIVER SEVERN BRIDGE.
    Captain GUNSTONasked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make any statement in connection with the proposals which have been put forward for a bridge over the Severn?
    Captain HUDSON: My right hon. Friend has informed the Gloucestershire County Council that, subject to approval by Parliament of the proposals for a road bridge over the Severn at English Stones, and to satisfactory contributions being received from the authorities who can properly be held to benefit by its construction, he is prepared to make a grant

    301
    of 75 per cent. from the Road Fund towards the cost, not exceeding £2,480,000 of an approved scheme. The project is one which has been recommended for favourable consideration by the Commissioner for the Special Areas.
    Captain GUNSTON: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for his most satisfactory answer, I presume that by legislation he means private Bill, so that the navigation interests will be able to have their case represented?
    Captain HUDSON: That is so.

    ROYAL PARKS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of installing automatic traffic-lights in Regent's and other appropriate royal parks with a view to regulating the increased volume of traffic which now passes through these parks?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Automatic traffic lights have been installed by the local authorities at certain of the gates to the royal parks and inside Hyde Park near Albert Gate, but I have received no suggestion that this system of traffic control would be an improvement at any other points inside the parks.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the restrictions imposed on motorists in the main thoroughfares tends to concentrate motor traffic in the parks to the consequent danger to children and pedestrians in the parks?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am fully aware that the quantity of vehicles using routes, particularly through routes, in the parks is on the increase, but I am not clear that at any particular point inside the parks automatic lighting control would be better than the existing police control.

    ELECTRIC WELDING (HEALTH REGULATIONS).
    Miss WARDasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the use of electric welding as an industrial process consideration has been given to the question of the effect on the health of the workers so engaged?
    Captain WALLACE: Certainly, and steps have been taken with a view to preventing injury to health. I may refer in this connection to Number 18 of the Shipbuilding Regulations under the Factory Acts, requiring adequate ventilation, and to the Factory Department Memorandum (Form 329) on Electric Arc Welding, copies of which I will send to my hon. Friend.
    Miss WARD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in a recent issue of the "British Medical Journal" the statement was made by medical authorities that it is doubtful whether the regulations applicable under the circular mentioned would, in fact, meet the difficulties arising in this matter?
    Captain WALLACE: If the Regulations do not meet the points my hon. Friend has in mind, no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider amending them.

    CONVICTION, BETHNAL GREEN.
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the case of the Bethnal Green man who at Old Street Police Court was sentenced to two months' hard labour for stealing two loaves of bread off a doorstep; and whether he is prepared to revise this sentence, special consideration being given to the fact that he lives with his mother, who is a widow with five children still at school?
    Captain WALLACE: The relevant facts to be considered in this case are not limited to those stated in the hon. Baronet's question, and it has not been possible yet to reach a decision, especially as the time within which this man could appeal against his sentence has not expired. My right hon. Friend will communicate the decision to the hon. Baronet as soon as possible.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give full consideration to the family conditions of this man's widowed mother?
    Captain WALLACE: All these matters will be borne in mind.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (COMMITTEE).
  Mr. GEOFFREY PETOasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state the names of the committee on the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act in relation to the settlement of claims by the payment of lump sums, the position of medical referees, miners' nystagmus, and other matters?
  Captain WALLACE: Yes, Sir. In addition to the Chairman (His Honour Judge Stewart) the committee will comprise representatives of the Home Office, the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland (two of whom will be doctors) and two representatives each of employers and workers. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. PETO: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether the Home Office and other Departments concerned will also see their way to investigate the closely-allied question of the restoration of the working capacity of those injured by accidents?
  Captain WALLACE: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health have decided jointly to appoint an interdepartmental committee to inquire into this question. It will probably suit the convenience of the House if I also circulate its terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the information:
  Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation Act.
  List of Members.

  His Honour Judge Stewart, Chairman.

  Mr. H. E. Allen (Secretary of the North Wales Coalowners' Association).

  Mr. R. R. Bannatyne, C.B. (Assistant Under-Secretary of State, Home Office).

  Dr. J. C. Bridge, C.B.E., F.R.C.S., M.R.C.P. (Senior Medical Inspector of Factories).

  Dr. J. Gilmour, M.B., C.M., F.R.C.S. (Regional Medical Officer, Department of Health for Scotland).

  Mr. F. Holroyd, J.P. (Senior Vice-President of the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations).

  Mr. Joseph Jones, C.B.E., J.P. (President of the Mine Workers' Federation).

  304

  Mr. W. Kean, J.P. (General Secretary of the National Union of Gold, Silver and Allied Trades).

  Sir Watler Kinnear, K.B.E. (Controller of the National Health Insurance Department, Ministry of Health).

  Inter-Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Persons Injured in Industrial, Road or Other Accidents.
  Terms of Reference.
  To inquire into the arrangements at present in operation with a view to the restoration of the working capacity of persons injured by accidents, and to report as to what improvements or developments are desirable, and what steps are expedient to give effect thereto, regard being had to the recommendations made in the report issued by the British Medical Association in February, 1935, on "Fractures."

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  Miss CAZALETasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to state if the examination by the Board of Education and other Departments into the question of school-leaving age has yet been completed?
  Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the school-leaving age?
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether there have been any conferences with the various religious bodies with a view to a settlement of the difficulties which are associated with the raising of the school-leaving age; and, if so, whether the Government will make public any agreements which may have been concluded between the authorities concerned?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am not yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the raising of the school-leaving age.
  Miss CAZALET: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to educational reform, in his speech last week, have anything to do with the question of the school-leaving age?
  Mr. STANLEY: I do not bear that in mind. Perhaps my hon. Friend will await a further statement.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is there no truth in the declaration made in the papers that the Government are going to make this one of the chief planks in their platform during the Election?
  Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Arising out of the statement which he has just made may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give an answer to the particular point raised in my question, namely, whether discussions have taken place with the religious bodies in relation to the problem in the denominational schools?
  Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend knows that my predecessor in office has had discussions with the representatives of these bodies.
  Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman further indicate what stage these discussions have reached?
  Mr. STANLEY: My predecessor saw the representatives of these bodies in the summer, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. JONES: May we take it that the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the raising of the school-leaving age is just so much window-dressing?
  Mr. STANLEY: No, Sir. I do not know to what statement the hon. Gentleman refers, but any statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer means what it says.
  Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the negotiations are in such a stage as to enable him to make an announcement in the near future?
  Mr. STANLEY: I hope to make an announcement before long.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. HOWARDasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of taking early action to prevent the reletting by landlords or their agents of all property which may become vacant after its inclusion in a compulsory purchase order, slum clearance, pending demolition; and also of publishing an official notice on the site of condemned property that such property is condemned and must not be relet after the date of the compulsory purchase order under penalty?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Action of the kind suggested could not be taken without further legislation, and while I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend is able to give me, I am not as at present advised, aware of any facts indicating further legislation to be necessary.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT (LONDON).
  Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the delays and inconvenience caused to the building trade by the application of the Town and Country Planning Act to London; and what action he proposes to take?
  Sir K. WOOD: I am aware that complaints of delay have been made in connection with the approval of plans under the Town and Country Planning Act by the London County Council. I have gone into the matter with the chairman of the Town Planning and Building Regulations Committee of the County Council, and I am assured that every effort is now being made to facilitate the submission of proposals by builders and architects and to accelerate their consideration.
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these efforts are likely to meet with any success whatever?
  Sir K. WOOD: I hope so. I would point out that this matter has to be dealt with by another authority. I have done my best in the matter.
  Mr. MANDER: Would it not be possible to bring to the attention of the Minister any cases of special difficulty?
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman had better communicate with the London County Council. Perhaps he has more influence with them than I have.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does not the real trouble arise in consequence of the present composition of the London County Council?

  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (EMERGENCY CASES).
  Miss WARDasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the establishment of properly controlled emergency committees empowered to deal with urgent cases requiring assistance which cannot be dealt with through any of the usual channels?
  Sir K. WOOD: Public assistance authorities, through their appropriate committee or sub-committee, have the power and duty of dealing with cases of need and, in addition, relieving officers have the power and duty of relieving cases of sudden or urgent necessity which cannot immediately be dealt with by a committee. If my hon. Friend has any particular case of difficulty in mind, I shall be happy to make inquiries.
  Miss WARD: Is the Minister aware that owing to the regulations of some assistance committees there are urgent cases of necessity, particularly in relation to maternity, where it is impossible to invoke the services of the committee, and where grave danger to the patient arises; and may I give him particulars of such cases?
  Sir K. WOOD: Certainly.
  Mr. LOGAN: Do I understand the Minister to imply that in the case of any person not getting sufficient, under the Unemployment Board, application can be made to the public assistance authority?
  Sir K. WOODI should like to study that question.

  MATERNITY SERVICES (WALES).
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take with those authorities who
  308
  have not replied to his Circular 1433 (Wales) as to the steps which they had decided to take in order to render their maternity services fully effective?
  Sir K. WOOD: All the local authorities in Wales responsible for these services have replied to the circular referred to by the hon. Member.

  NATIONAL TRUST.
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the valuable work done by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest in the preservation of open spaces and beauty spots and the inadequate funds they have at their disposal, he will take into consideration the question of making the trust an annual grant to enable it to extend its work?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member may rest assured that I have great sympathy with the aims of the National Trust. Naturally if the trustees approached me I should give most careful consideration to anything they might wish to say; but I cannot now commit myself as to the nature of the reply which I might find myself able to make.

  AGRICULTURE.

    BREWING INDUSTRY (HOME-GROWN BARLEY).
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make a statement showing the result of the letter written to him by the secretary of the Brewers' Society in 1033, regarding the use of home-grown barley?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the letter to which my Noble Friend refers the then chairman of the Brewers' Society stated that:
    "in order to give the maximum assistance to British agriculture the Society will recommend all brewers to increase as far as possible the proportion of home-grown barley in the brewing of all classes of beer."
    At my request the Brewers' Society collected figures in March last showing the result of their recommendation for the previous season, and these figures I gave to the House in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on 21st March. I have no

    309
    more recent figures, but I am informed that the Society has not ceased to impress on its members the importance of continuing to implement the recommendation made in 1933.

    TUBERCULOUS CATTLE (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).
    Mr. PETHERICKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a report on the tests of the Spahlinger treatment of tuberculous cattle carried out by His Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland, and whether he can make a statement regarding his intentions in relation thereto?
    Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has read the report with much interest. It is now being examined by the Committee on Tuberculosis appointed jointly by the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council. The views of the Committee in detail will not be available for some days, but it is understood that they will probably recommend that, arising out of the report, further investigations should be undertaken in Great Britain. Any such recommendations will be promptly and sympathetically considered by my right hon. Friend.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether, broadly speaking, the results of the test have shown that the claims on behalf of this treatment have been substantiated?
    Major DAVIES: I shall be happy to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that question.

    EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of persons who were employed in agriculture on 1st October, 1931, excluding owner-occupiers and farmers, and at the latest date for which figures are available?
    Major DAVIES: The total number of workers employed on agricultural holdings exceeding one acre in England and Wales on the 4th June—excluding occupiers, their wives and domestic servants—was 716,600 in 1931 and 672,100 in 1935. Figures are not available of the numbers on the 1st October in either of these years.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the House any idea why there has been this terrific reduction in the numbers of people employed in agriculture?
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Is not the reduction primarily due to the mechanisation of agriculture?

    BEET-SUGAR FACTORIES.
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make a statement regarding the progress of amalgamation of beet-sugar factories?
    Major DAVIES: The Beet Sugar Factories Committee are, I understand, actively engaged in drawing up a scheme of amalgamation which at the appropriate time will be examined by the temporary Sugar Tribunal under the chairmanship of Sir Francis Humphrys, set up for that purpose by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture. For the convenience of Members, a copy of the Press notice which was issued on the appointment of this Tribunal is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the Press notice:
    "Following upon the decision of the Government, announced in their Statement of Sugar Policy (Command 4964) which was presented to Parliament in July last, to set up a temporary Sugar Tribunal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries have appointed the following persons to act in that capacity:—

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Francis Henry Humphrys, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.B.E., C.I.E.

    Sir Thomas D. Barlow, K.B.E., and William E. Mortimer, Esq.

    The purpose of the Tribunal is to examine and advise upon any scheme for amalgamating the companies at present engaged in the production of sugar from home-grown beet which the Beet Sugar Factories Committee may submit for the Government's approval.
    Sir Francis Humphrys is the Chairman and the Secretary is Dr. C. Burgess, to whom all communications should be addressed at the Offices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 10, Whitehall Place, S.W.1.

  INSURED CONTRIBUTORS (WIVES' PENSIONS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will be prepared to introduce legislation to make the pension of the wife of an insured man who retires at

  311
  the age of 65 available to her then, regardless of her age, so that a total sum of not less than 20s. per week is at the disposal of husband and wife?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Similar proposals have been made before, but it has not hitherto been found possible to consider them on account of the heavy cost involved.
  Mr. MANDER: What would be the cost of remedying this small but keenly-felt grievance?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say exactly what would be the cost of the proposal, in the form in which the hon. Member has put it in his question. A somewhat similar proposal with a limitation of the age at which a wife might become eligible for that pension was estimated at between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year.
  Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Would it be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to float a loan for this purpose?

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. DICKIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the imposition of sanctions under the Covenant of the League of Nations, provision will be made for compensating the industries adversely affected, so that sanctions imposed as part of a national policy may be borne by the nation as a whole and not by any section or sections?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to foretell the precise effects which any sanctions imposed might have upon particular industries. The question of mutual aid to counteract any loss which may fall on countries applying sanctions is to receive further consideration by the League of Nations. His Majesty's Government will naturally endeavour to secure that in any such consideration the possible losses to British trade and industry are given their full weight.
  Mr. DICKIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that special consideration is given to the mining industry in this matter, having regard to the fact that this is the industry to be affected and that the effects are being most seriously felt in the two most distressed areas in the Kingdom?
  Mr. MANDER: Is not peace itself by far the greatest compensation any country or industry can have?
  Mr. THORNE: Is it not quite plain now, on account of the speeches made during the last two days, that the Government do not intend to apply economic sanctions?

  SCOTLAND.

    ISLAND OF JURA.
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the population of the island of Jura in the years 1911 and 1931, respectively; and how many crofts and small holdings were in occupation on the island in these respective years?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The population of the island of Jura in 1911 was 570 and in 1931 382. The number of agricultural holdings not exceeding 50 acres in 1912 was 35, and in 1931 was 26.

    IRREGULAR MARRIAGES.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to his recent conversations with the representatives of the Church of Scotland on the question of irregular marriages in Scotland; and whether he can state the composition and terms of the committee of inquiry which he has promised to set up?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that the terms of reference and the personnel of the committee have not yet been finally settled.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can my right hon. Friend give any information as to whether legislation will be introduced when we return—when Parliament meets?
    Sir G. COLLINS: We must wait for the findings of the committee.

    SEINE-NET FISHING, MORAY FIRTH.
    Sir IAN MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the fishermen of Avoch, Cromarty, Balintore, and Portmahomack complain of the damage done by seine-net fishing in the Moray Firth; whether there have been any prosecutions recently for this offence; and whether, in order to prevent any further damage being done to the fishing grounds there, he will take

    313
    steps to provide adequate vigilance by cruisers?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There have been eight detections of alleged illegal seining in the Moray Firth during the last three months. In four of these cases the offenders have been successfully prosecuted and in the other four cases prosecution is being considered. The fishery cruisers have instructions to exercise special vigilance in detecting such offences in these areas and a new cruiser designed for the supervision of seining is being built, and is expected to be in commission next February.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to ensure that the concessions to level milk producers under the Scottish Milk Marketing scheme, made last winter for the period of one year, will be continued until the scheme has been amended?
    Sir G. COLLINS: In accordance with the statutory provisions I have directed the Committee of Investigation for Scotland to consider and report on this matter.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to expedite the full report of the Reorganisation Committee, because there are many level producers in the areas concerned who are struggling on under great difficulties, hoping that before long there will be an amendment of the scheme which will make it operate more fairly?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am very well aware of the anxieties which are being experienced by several producers in these areas, and the Committee of Investigation has been asked to give the matter its attention forthwith and to report.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. GEORGE MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the corporation of Glasgow received £69,000 from the additional moneys provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to restore the remainder of the cut on teachers' salaries; that no part of this sum has been used by the corporation to reduce the cut on the salaries of their teachers,
    314
    but that it has been added to the general educational income of the city; that the circular of the Scottish Education Department, of 25th September, 1931, recommended that all authorities should frame their schemes in such a way that the salary of no teacher shall fall below 90 per cent. of the amount payable under the local scales in force on 1st January, 1931; and, in view of the effect which the failure of the corporation to use the £69,000 to reduce the cut on teachers' salaries has had upon the pensions of all teachers who have retired since August, 1931, whether he proposes to take any action?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. Friend is aware, I recently received a deputation from the Glasgow branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland on this subject. The matter is somewhat complicated, and it is difficult to deal with it adequately by question and answer. Accordingly, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, send him a full statement of the position. I regret, however, that I am unable to take any further action in the matter.

  PETROLEUM PRODUCTION (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Marquess of HARTINGTONasked the Secretary for Mines how many oil wells have been sunk and how much petroleum, in tens of thousands of barrels, has been produced in Great Britain since the passing of the Petroleum (Production) Act?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I would refer the Noble Lord to what I said on this subject during the Debate on the Vote for my Department on 24th July last. The first licences under the 1934 Act will, I anticipate, be issued during the next week or two. Until that has been done, the Noble Lord will be aware that no drilling could be undertaken.
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: Is it the case that no oil is being produced at all?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: No licence has yet been issued. It follows, therefore, that nothing has been produced.
  Marquess of HARTINGTON: Is it not a fact that it was represented to the House that the object of the Act was to speed up the production of oil?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Indeed it is, but for the speeding-up of the production of oil it is necessary to issue the requisite licences to enable people to seek it. The earliest date for applications to be sent in was 17th June. The issue of a licence involves a great deal of time and labour, and it is a matter of congratulation that they are nearly ready as soon as this.

  PALESTINE.

    ITALIAN PROPAGANDA.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the frequent broadcasting in Arabic of Italian propaganda for reception in Palestine, Transjordania, and the surrounding districts; whether copies of such propaganda are available; and whether steps are being taken by his Department or by East African Governments to counteract this propaganda?
    Commander SOUTHBY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to certain statements broadcast in Arabic by the Italian station "Radio Bari," and copies of the reported text in a number of instances have been communicated to him. He understands that the matter has been brought to the notice of His Excellency the Italian Ambassador. It may be added that the arrangements for the Government of Palestine's own broadcast service are now almost complete, and that this will be operating in the near future.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the Colonial Office to get a report from Palestine on the Italian propaganda in that country? It has been going on for many years and is increasing.
    Commander SOUTHBY: I will direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to that point.

    TELEPHONES.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many telephones have been installed in Palestine during the last six months, and how many applications for telephones have been awaiting attention for periods exceeding three months?
    Commander SOUTHBY: The answer to the first part of the question is 1,482, and to the second 1,342. With a view to relieving the situation approval has been given for the immediate purchase of relief exchange equipment pending the installation of the proposed new automatic exchanges.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how many of these were for Italians and how many for the new Leader of the Liberal party?

    REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present value of the surplus funds held by the Palestine Government, and what was the revenue and expenditure, respectively, from the end of the financial year 1934–35 to the last available date?
    Commander SOUTHBY: According to the latest information, the surplus balances of Palestine at 30th September last amounted to £6,005,516. From 31st March, 1935, to 30th September revenue amounted to £2,960,203 and expenditure to £1,688,242. These figures are subject to revision.
    Mr. JANNER: In view of the large excess of revenue over expenditure, will the hon. and gallant Member see to it that the claims of many industries and institutions in Palestine will be examined in that light, so that the industrial state of affairs there may be improved?
    Commander SOUTHBY: All relevant matters are taken into consideration.

    JAPANESE COMPETITION.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the dumping of Japanese goods into Palestine is endangering the existence of many young industries in that mandated territory and that Japan is no longer a member of the League of Nations, he will now consider making representations to the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations that it should be permissible for action to be taken to protect Palestine against such unfair Japanese competition?
    Commander SOUTHBY: The Government of Palestine have at all times power to take any measures for the protection

    317
    of local industries which are consonant with the Mandate and which they may consider to be desirable in the interests of Palestine as a whole. The position with regard to Japanese imports into Palestine is governed by the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty to which Palestine has acceded, and which, so long as it is in force, would prevent any discriminatory action against Japanese goods.

    PUBLIC SERVICES.
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amounts which the Palestine Government have budgeted to spend for general education, Jewish education, roads, railways, postal services, ports, and public health services, respectively, for the financial year 1935–36?
    Commander SOUTHBY: As the reply contains a column of figures, my right hon. Friend will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The Estimates of Palestine for the financial year 1935–36 contain the following provision for the services specified:

    £

    General Education

    267,871

    Jewish Education

    39,035

    Roads (including bridges)

    234,405

    Railways (gross expenditure)

    855,593

    Postal Services

    341,536

    Ports (Extraordinary and Special Expenditure, Haifa and Jaffa)

    237,200

    Public Health

    245,595

  KENYA (BORDER AGGRESSIONS).
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any additional precautions have been taken to protect Kenya against border aggressions; and, if so, whether he will state their nature?
  Commander SOUTHBY: Yes, Sir. A flight of Royal Air Force general purposes machines is now stationed in Kenya; and arrangements have been made for reinforcing the troops at the Governor's disposal, should the necessity arise.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIAN TIMBER.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any official representations have recently been made to him by the British Columbia authorities with regard to Soviet competition in timber; and, if so, whether he can state the nature and the present position of the controversy?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I had some discussion in the summer with the High Commissioner for Canada regarding a reduction which had then occurred in the price of Russian timber. No subsequent representations have reached me, but the High Commissioner has informed me that further representations will be made very shortly.

    ANGLO-RUMANIAN PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.
    Captain DOWERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Anglo-Rumanian Payments Agreement is being fulfilled?
    Mr. McCORQUODALEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the Anglo-Rumanian Payments Agreement is being faithfully carried out?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: £131,750 has been paid in respect of old debts which were due on 15th August, 31st August and 15th September. The monthly instalment, amounting to about £7,000, due on 15th October, has not yet been received and this matter and the amount which should be provided to pay for current trade is under discussion with the Rumanian Government. The sum of £270,000 is due to be paid on 1st November. Payments to creditors in this country out of the above-mentioned sums are made on authorisations issued by the Rumanian National Bank, and though until recently there has been considerable delay, substantial payments are now being made.
    Captain DOWER: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the delay is causing considerable hardship and difficulty to our exporters?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I am fully aware of that.

    SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.
    Sir WALTER REAasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to the returns filed with the Board of Trade by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, this company's assets are not based on current market values and are largely hypothecated for the benefit of foreign and Colonial policy-holders, so that the security afforded British policy-holders and annuitants is negligible; and whether, in view of the number of insurance companies that have gone into liquidation recently, the Board of Trade are taking any steps to secure reasonable security in this country for British policy-holders and annuitants?
    Mr. H. JOHNSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under powers recently vested in the Board of Trade by the Assurance Companies (Winding-Up) Acts, information is being obtained as to the market values of the securities held by the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, and the amount of free assets available for policy-holders and annuitants in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The returns filed by all insurance companies with the Board of Trade are carefully examined by reference to the statutory powers and duties vested in the Board, including those created by the Assurance Companies (Winding-Up) Acts, but it would not be in the public interest to state, in the case of any particular company, whether any or what special inquiries have been deemed necessary in the course of this examination.

    ANGLO-POLISH TRADE.
    Miss HORSBRUGHasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any special action has been taken by industries in the United Kingdom to follow up the opportunities created by the recent Anglo-Polish Commercial Agreement?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir. The Federation of British Industries have arranged a mission consisting of a number of important business men, who are leaving on 2nd November in order to collaborate with Polish chambers of commerce and other commercial
    320
    interests in a fuller examination of the possibilities offered in the Polish market. The Department of Overseas Trade and His Majesty's representative in Warsaw will give the mission all possible support. In addition to this, an increased number of commercial visitors have visited Poland, and a delegation from the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers visited Warsaw in May, 1935, with encouraging results.

    EXPORT CREDITS.
    Sir DOUGLAS THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the difficulties experienced by British exporters in obtaining sterling payment by reason of exchange and other restrictions abroad, the Government can give any assistance through the Export Credits Guarantee Department to British traders in this respect?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is now prepared to provide some protection against the risk of frozen debts in future. It will do this by a guaranteeing payment in sterling within a definite period for exports of United Kingdom goods. The general conditions of this arrangement are too long to explain here and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Since when has this new arrangement been in force?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is just coming into force now,
    Following is the statement:

    1. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is prepared to issue policies ensuring that exporters of United Kingdom goods will be paid in sterling within a definite period. This period will normally be six months after the due date for payment.

    2. The guarantee will cover all shipments coming within the terms of the policy which are made within three months after the issue or extension of the policy.

    3. The guarantee will extend to 75 per cent. of the sterling value of the goods, and the Department will have a first charge on ultimate receipts.

    321

    4. A small premium will be charged, and certain conditions will be imposed. The scheme is designed to be self-supporting.

    5. It will be necessary for the solvency of the overseas buyer to be insured under the existing facilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and for the exporter to comply with the exchange regulations of the country to which the goods are sent.

    6. The facilities will only apply where goods are invoiced in terms of sterling. No protection is offered against the risk of fluctuations in a foreign currency.

    7. The guarantees will not he available for all countries, as there are certain countries in which the exchange conditions render the application of this scheme at present impracticable.

  COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the progress of the Cotton Industry Bill?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In accordance with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, there will, I fear, be no opportunity to proceed with this Bill in the present Parliament.

  FOOD PRICES.
  Mr. DOBBIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the wholesale price of Empire butter has risen from 8.13d. per pound in May to 13.6d. per pound in October, that Danish butter has risen from 9.6d. to 14.3d. per pound, bacon from 9.4d. per pound to 10.2d. per pound, New Zealand cheese from 4.7d. per pound to 6.5d. per pound, and Dutch cheese from 3.2d. per pound to 6.7d. per pound during the same period; whether he can explain the reason for these increases in prices in the essential foods of the working classes; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about a reduction in prices?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there have been increases in the wholesale prices of butter and cheese of the order indicated by the hon. Member. The price of bacon has fluctuated in recent months, but on the average has not been higher in October than it was in May. The in-
  322
  crease in the wholesale prices of butter and cheese is mainly attributable to reduced production abroad, accompanied by some increase of Continental purchases.
  Mr. DOBBIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question?
  Sir F. SANDERSON: Is it not the fact that the rise in the price of butter and cheese is due to the fact that there is a general world shortage of all vegetable and animal oils and fats?
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that the price of New Zealand butter gives only a fair economic return to the New Zealand farmer?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is no doubt true. As to the prices of these commodities, they are a good deal less than they were five years ago.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that prices started to rise after the passing of the Trade Union Congress resolution at Margate?
  Mr. DOBBIE: May I have a reply to the last part of my question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We do not think it is necessary to take any steps. The markets will look after themselves.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any estimate as to what this rise means in the shape of an indirect reduction of wages?

  PEPPER AND SHELLAC (SPECULATION).
  Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether further action is to be taken in consequence of revelations at the inquiry held by the official receiver into the affairs of companies and individuals connected with the speculation in pepper and shellac which led to severe financial losses and public concern in the City and in the country generally?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. GRENFELL: May I put down a question after the House reassembles?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend is here he will be able to do so.

  INSURANCE COMPANIES (LIQUIDATION).
  Mr. YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of insurance companies that have gone into liquidation since the draft Insurance Undertakings Bill was submitted to the House in 1927; and the total losses to shareholders and policy-holders in such liquidated insurance companies including those at present in course of liquidation?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the years 1927 to 1935 nine insurance companies have been ordered by the Court to be wound-up, and eight have gone into voluntary liquidation. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that pensioners, in some instances, through ignorance or neglect, fail to maintain or make certain of their position in health insurance and so lose or endanger their title to benefit and contributory pension; and whether he will take steps to enable them to ascertain or establish their rights?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir. Cases of the kind referred to have come to my notice. I am glad to say that, with the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, special arrangements have now been made to meet them as far as possible. For this purpose, pensioners who are in any doubt as to their position in health insurance will be invited to communicate full particulars of their cases to the chief area officers of my Department by whom they will be placed before the Ministry of Health. Special notices are being sent out, and, in addition, instructions will be given to each pensioner in his pension book.
  Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many pensioners who have lost regular work through having to undergo treatment for their war disabilities in hospital are anxious to know, after a long stay in hospital, if they will be able on discharge to regain employment; and whether he can arrange with
  324
  the Ministry of Labour to assist them to regain employment?
  Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir; and I am glad to say that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, arrangements have been made whereby, on receipt of a form of registration from a patient who is about to be discharged from hospital, the Employment Exchange nearest to his home will take all possible steps to secure his prompt return to employment either with his former employer or otherwise. I may add that I have issued a circular—copies of which have been placed in the Library—to all war pensions committees throughout the country, calling their special attention to the points raised in this and the last question, and inviting their active co-operation.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: On what date was the paper issued?
  Mr. HUDSON: What paper?
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: The one that you just mentioned.
  Mr. HUDSON: It has just been issued—
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: Thank you. I thought so—
  Mr. HUDSON: And I have just put copies of it in the Library.
  Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Robert Parker, residing at Taylor Street, Glasgow, who has been refused a pension for a disability; whether he is aware that when this man joined the Army he was certified A 1, and had always been in perfect health; that he is now unable to walk; and that two private doctors in Glasgow state that the likelihood is that this state of health arises from war service?
  Mr. HUDSON: I have looked into this case with great care, and I much regret that I am unable to find any grounds for varying the decision taken. I am advised that, on the evidence presented, it cannot be certified that Mr. Parker's unfortunate condition, which first manifested itself in 1932, is the result of his war service.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that the man was of first-class physique and was a footballer of some renown before the war, and that two

  325
  doctors of fair repute in the city have certified upon their conscience that the injury to him is likely to have been caused during the war; and cannot an independent tribunal rehear the case in order to see what can be done for the man?
  Mr. HUDSON: I have examined the case very carefully. The man was suffering from a trouble fairly common in a civilian population. The delay in its manifestation clearly shows that it could not have been due to war service.
  Mr. MABANE: Would my hon. Friend revise his decision that Members may not look at the papers themselves, and allow Members in cases like this to inspect the papers?

  OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. J. Smith, residing at Cathcart Road, Glasgow, about 18 months ago paid to Messrs. Moses Buchanan and Company, shipping agents, Glasgow, the full passage money for the return of his son John to this country from Australia; that, despite this payment and the fact that his son has a first-class character, he has been refused permission to return; whether he has made inquiry as to the reason, seeing that this man went out under a Government scheme; and whether he will take steps to see that he is allowed to return home to Glasgow and his parents?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The facts stated in the first and second parts of the question are, I understand, correct. As regards the remainder of the question, one of the conditions on which Mr. Smith, junior, was assisted to go to Australia in 1926 was that he should in due course refund the sum of £11 which had been advanced to him towards the cost of his reduced passage rate. I am informed by the Commonwealth authorities that, although he has been in Government employment in Australia for the last seven years and should have been in a position to repay this sum, he has as yet only repaid £1, and that, in the circumstances, they are not prepared to waive their claim and to grant a clearance certificate before the outstanding amount of £10 has been refunded.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was unemployed for some considerable time and had to be helped by members of his family at home and that that is the reason why the fare was paid; and will he again make inquiry to see whether the man is in constant employment and, if so, why the authorities do not take action as they do in the ordinary course against other debtors and sue him in the courts in Australia?
  Mr. THOMAS: I will Make inquiries with regard to other questions put by my hon. Friend, but there is no doubt that the man was employed for seven years by the Government and it seems a strange circumstance that in that seven years he could not pay back the £11.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It depends upon the conditions.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHARGES).
  Mr. ANSTRUTHER - GRAY(by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether the financial position of the telephone service continues to be satisfactory, and whether he is in a position to make any further reductions of charges?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): I am glad to say that the successive reductions in telephone charges made since last October continue to give satisfactory results. Some 200,000 telephones have been added, and the use of the telephone both for short and long distance communications is increasing rapidly. I had hoped to be in a position to make further reductions in the long distance rates at the end of this year, but the large response that the previous rate reductions have produced and the need for making adequate provision for further growth have necessitated a large programme of new main trunk lines in many parts of the country. This programme is well in hand, and as soon as these new lines are available I look forward to the possibility of further modifications of trunk rates being introduced, which will enable calls of three minutes to be made to any part of the mainland of this country for a maximum charge of 2s. 6d. in the daytime and 1s. in the evening. In the meantime I propose to make some reductions in the rental charges for extension telephones

  327
  and some other minor facilities which will be of benefit to both business and residential users. The rental for ordinary extension telephones in a residence will be reduced from 16s. to 14s. a year, and a new and lower scale of charges will be introduced for private branch exchange extensions, and for certain minor facilities. These new rates will come into force on 1st January next and I hope they will enable telephone users to take full advantage of the convenience of extension facilities and so increase the utility of their telephone service.
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether anyone in this Department has worked out by arithmetical computation how much the figures denoting the mileage of telephones and the subscribers will represent in votes at the next election?
  Major TRYON: This Department has consistently made improvements throughout the whole year, and I see no reason for withholding information from the House in the fact that we are to have an Election.
  Mr. H. STEWART: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make a report upon the progress that has been made in providing call boxes in the rural areas, as he promised in an earlier statement?
  Major TRYON: No, Sir. The concession which I announced to the House last July only came into force on 1st October but, encouraged by the increased revenue, we are proceeding with the extension of the benefits of the telephone to the rural areas.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: As the Minister can make these announcements 2½ months before they operate, will he communicate with the Minister of Labour, who cannot make a statement until the Spring?

  NAVAL CONFERENCE.
  Major Sir SAMUEL HARVEY(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement in regard to the holding of a Naval Conference this year?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): As the House is aware, bilateral conversations
  328
  have been proceeding between representatives of the signatory Powers of the Washington and London Naval Treaties to prepare the way for a Naval Conference. Both the treaties contain articles, the effect of which is that those Powers must meet in conference during the present year. This country has so far taken the initiative in arranging for the bilateral discussions, and, in view of this, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have to-day addressed communications to the Governments of the United States, France, Italy and Japan inquiring whether they are prepared to be represented at a conference to meet in London on the 2nd December. His Majesty's Government are also in touch with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions on the subject.
  The purpose of the conference would be to secure agreement on as many aspects of naval limitation as possible, with a view to the conclusion of an international treaty which would take the place of the two naval treaties expiring at the end of 1936. It is hoped, once agreement between the representatives of the signatory Powers is in sight, to extend the scope of the conference so as to include representatives of other naval Powers.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements will be made in regard to the use by Members of their travelling vouchers at the Dissolution of this Parliament?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The following arrangements, which are identical with those at the last Dissolution, have been made, and I would ask hon. Members to co-operate as closely as possible with the authorities of the House in securing their observance:

  1. A Member may, if necessary, use one voucher for the single journey to his constituency immediately after the Dissolution. (Where, of course, a Member holds the return half of a ticket entitling him to return to his constituency, the use of a further voucher will not be necessary.)

  2. A Member may retain possession of his current book of vouchers and will be

  329
  at liberty to commence using them as before immediately on re-election.

  3. A Member must not use any vouchers during the period between the use of the special voucher under No. 1 above and his re-election.

  4. A Member defeated at the poll must return his book of vouchers immediately after the declaration of the poll.

  5. A Member in possession of a book of vouchers and not seeking re-election may retain one voucher for use as under No. 1 above, and should return the remainder of his book to the Fees Office.

  6. A Member will be asked to reimburse the amount of any fares covered by vouchers the use of which is not in accordance with the above provisions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the business this afternoon?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Debate on the Adjournment will be concluded to-day. We also propose to take the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to approve the draft Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit in respect of Dependent Children) Order. That is exempted business. I referred to this particular item yesterday. The House will meet as usual to-morrow at Eleven o'clock, and I am informed that a Royal Commission for the Prorogation of Parliament will sit in another place soon after that hour.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this matter? understand that the Adjournment will be moved, and that, as usual, the Adjournment Debate can cover anything. Hitherto, as you will be aware, and as the whole House will be aware, by a tacit understanding certain subjects have been dealt with. May I ask, Sir, if we can have any guidance from you as to when the present Debate dealing with the Foreign situation will finish—whether it is the intention to carry it on all day? I should be deeply indebted if I could know from you whether there is any kind of tacit way by which a debate can be taken upon any other subject.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House generally is aware that on Motions for the Adjournment any subject can be raised provided that it does not deal with legislation. I am generally guided by arrangements which are made between the two sides of the House as to what subject shall be raised, but if any Member chooses to raise another subject it is not for me to say that he is out of order, because, of course, he would be in order. I understand, from what I am told by those concerned with making arrangements, that the Debate on foreign affairs on the Adjournment may come to an end at a fairly early hour, but at what time I could not say.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I, then, put a question to the Prime Minister? There is a Motion down, as he said yesterday, dealing with the proposed increase in the unemployment allowances. Could he tell us when it is proposed to take that Motion? Is it at Eleven o'clock to-night? If so, might I ask him if he could not consider taking it earlier? Is he aware that, while the 3s. itself may appear to be non-contentious, there are other issues arising from it, such as the question whether, in the case of those who are not covered by standard benefit, but are on transitional benefit, their children will have the 3s. That is a most important issue, particularly in view of what is to happen in the next few weeks. Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider taking this important question, which has relationships and ramifications far outwith it, at a much earlier hour than Eleven o'clock to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I am concerned, I am entirely in the hands of the House. If the House decide that they would like to bring the Debate on the Motion for Adjournment to a conclusion earlier, so as to allow of discussion on the Motion standing in the name of the Minister of Labour, we should offer no objection, and I think the time might be arranged by consultation through the usual channels. If, on the other hand, the House as a whole, so far as we are able to obtain its opinion as the day goes on, desires to continue the general discussion, then we shall not interfere in that case. We are entirely in the hands of the House.
Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that the Motion has terrific ramifications,

331
surely it is not too much to ask of the Prime Minister that, on a matter affecting the poor people of this country, at least an hour or two should be given to it as against affairs abroad. In view of the fact that there are other considerations than merely the 3s., would not the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing it on earlier?
The PRIME MINISTER: I can say no more at this moment than I have said, but we will take early steps to ascertain the general views in the House on the matter.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Fourth Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
3.59 p.m.
Mr. CHURCHILLWhen we separated in August, the House was concerned about the scale and rapidity of German rearmament. What has happened in the interval? The process has continued remorselessly. The incredible figure of more than £800,000,000 sterling is being spent in the currency of the present year on direct and indirect military preparations by Germany. The whole of Germany is an armed camp. Any Member of the House who has travelled there can add his corroboration of that statement. The industries of Germany are mobilised for war to an extent to which ours were not mobilised even a year after the Great War had begun. The whole population is being trained from childhood up to war. A mighty army is coming into being. Many submarines are already exercising in the Baltics. Great cannon, tanks, machine guns and poison gas are fast accumulating. The Germans are even able to be great exporters of munitions as well as to develop their own enormous magazines. The German air force is developing at a great speed, and in spite of ruthless loss of life. We have no speedy prospect of equalling the German air force or of overtaking Germany in the air, whatever we do in the near future.
We had a speech yesterday—it was a very welcome episode—from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He gave us some advice. But I must remind the House that he was very slow to recognise these tremendous developments in Germany. When I pointed out two or three years ago what was then beginning, getting on the move, he derided the idea; and he was not the only one. But neither he nor His Majesty's Government will, I imagine, disagree to-day with the statement that Germany is already well on her way to become, and must become incomparably, the most heavily armed nation in the world and the nation most completely ready for war. There is the dominant factor; there is the factor which dwarfs
358
all others, the factor which we find affecting the movements of politics and diplomacy in every country throughout Europe; and it is a melancholy reflection that in the last hours of this Parliament we have been the helpless, perhaps even the supine, spectators of this vast transformation in Europe to the acute distress of Europe, and to our own grievous disadvantage.
I do not, of course, suggest that German re-armament is directed against us. It may well be that we are the last people the Germans would wish to attack. Certainly it would be in their interest to have our goodwill while they decided their deep differences with other countries. There is even a theory that the Germans are re-arming only out of national self-respect and that they do not mean to hurt anyone at all. Whatever you believe, whatever you think, however it may be, I venture to submit to the House that we cannot have any anxieties comparable to the anxiety caused by German re-armament. The House will pardon me if I continue to press that anxiety upon it. I bear no grudge, I have no prejudice against the German people. I have many German friends, and I have a lively admiration for their splendid qualities of intellect and valour, and for their achievements in science and art. The re-entry into the European circle of a Germany at peace within itself, with a heart devoid of hate, would be the most precious benefit for which we could strive, and a supreme advantage which alone would liberate Europe from its peril and its fear, and I believe that the British and French democracies, the ex-Service men, would go a long way in extending the hand of friendship to realise such a hope.
But that is not the position which exists to-day. A very different position exists to-day. We cannot afford to see Nazidom in its present phase of cruelty and intolerance, with all its hatreds and all its gleaming weapons, paramount in Europe at the present time. In the shadow of German re-armament other dangers have taken shape on the Continent. We have, for instance, this war between Italy and Abyssinia, of which the newspapers are so full and which has occupied a good deal of our attention during this Debate. It is a very small matter compared with the

359
dangers I have just described. I do not believe that Signor Mussolini would have embarked upon his Abyssinian venture but for the profound pre-occupation of France in German re-armament, and, I must add, but for the real or supposed military and naval weakness of Great Britain. It was the fear of a re-armed Germany that led France to settle her differences with Italy at the beginning of this year, and very likely when these matters were being settled what is called a free hand in Abyssinia was thrown in. We may regret it, but we must first see and consider the forces operative upon France before we presume to utter reproaches. At that time, in January of this year, neither France nor Italy knew the length to which Great Britain was prepared to go in support of the League of Nations. They knew our views but they did not know with what vigour we should press those views. The whole world has been astonished at the energy and vehemence displayed by His Majesty's Government, and I think we have been astonished ourselves.
I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—I see he is not in his place to-day—recognised yesterday the difficult position of France. He told us, and I have very reason to believe he is correct, that the French agreement with Italy achieved in January of this year, was worth 18 divisions, that it meant a relief of 18 divisions to the French army by releasing all those additional troops for the defence of France in manning the long range of fortifications which, with their far smaller population, the French have found it necessary to erect against the terrors of a potential third Teutonic invasion. All these years we have urged France to make friends with Italy. It is a very grievous thing for them to be forced to choose between the League of Nations and Great Britain on the one hand, and their newly contracted arrangement with Italy on the other. Let us see what it means to France. The shadow of not merely two, but even of three years' compulsory military service begins to fall once again upon the threshold of the homes of France.
We have had to insist on our point of view, but it is of the utmost importance that we should understand, and show that we understand, the difficulties of
360
France. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said at one time or another many harsh and wounding, and some unjustified, things about France, but I think his words in yesterday's Debate will be read with relief throughout what is at the present time—it is no exaggeration to use the word, which appears most often in their own newspapers—almost an angonised State. We all know that the French are pacific. They are quite as pacific as we are. They want to be left alone, as we do, and, I would add, as the people of Soviet Russia also wish to be left alone. But the French seem much nearer to the danger than we are. There is no strip of salt water to guard their land and liberties. We must remember that they are the only other great European country that has not reverted to despotism or dictatorship in one form or another.
In all the circumstances I submit that the efforts that France has made to give effect to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the decision which France has come to to aid the British Fleet in certain remote contingencies—these efforts and that decision deserve the warmest recognition from all parties in the House. Whether it was necessary or not to put this hypothetical question to the French Government, at any rate in such a public fashion, is a matter for argument. It seems to me that when such assurances are obtained there must necessarily be a very far-reaching reciprocal engagement, however that may be defined. A debt of honour is the most commanding of all debts. It is also often the most indefinite. My dislike of vague and indefinite commitments was ingrained in me by the experience through which I passed in the years before the War and at the moment of its outbreak. Personally I believe that it always is very much safer, and in the long run very much cheaper, to rely on your own strength as far as possible in any case where you can do so, where you have the strength. However, I dare say that the handling of the matter, which at first seemed to me somewhat questionable, may in the conclusion be found helpful as far as the immediate case is concerned.
It is upon this basis of German rearmament and French apprehension that the Italian-Abyssinian war and the dispute between Italy and the League of

361
Nations can alone be properly considered. We are all agreed that we should walk soberly and warily and discreetly and peacefully, and even humbly, through this dangerous world. Most of us have abstained from truculent or provocative language, though there were, I think, a few relapses at Margate. But we are all agreed as to the peaceful demeanour to adopt and the abstention from violent speech which we should observe. Then there is a division. Some people say: "Put your trust in the League of Nations." Others say: "Put your trust in British re-armament." I say we want both. I put my trust in both. We have to run risks for both, and we have got to make exertions for both. I see no antagonism between the two. Neither is there any antagonism between those who would defend the Covenant of the League of Nations with their lives and those who would defend the British Empire. I believe these two ideas are at present the only practical counterparts of one another.
It is quite certain that the British Empire will never fight another war contrary to the League of Nations. Any attempt to embark upon a war of aggrandisement, or pride or ambition would break the British Empire into fragments and any Government that was even suspected of such a motive would be chased from power long before its machinations could become effective. Therefore, if ever the British Empire is called upon to defend itself, its cause and the cause of the League of Nations will be one. Where, then, is the difference? The fortunes of the British Empire and its glory are inseparably interwoven with the fortunes of the world. We rise or we fall together. Indeed, if we survive to-day the extraordinary situation it is because even in bygone times our ancestors so managed that in the main the special interests of Britain conformed to the general interests of the world. [Interruption.] Read history and find there anything which can contradict what I have said. I, therefore, make no secret of the fact that personally I regard the British Navy and its sister services and all that is implied in the Covenant of the League of Nations as allied insurances for our peace and safety, and I am sure we need them both, and we need, besides, all our wit and wisdom, and all our patience and common sense
362
in order to escape ourselves and to help the modern world out of the dangers which encompass us.
What is the great new fact about the League of Nations? What is the change that has taken place since we separated last August? It is this. The League of Nations is alive. It is alive and in action. It is fighting for its life. Probably it is fighting for all our lives. But it is fighting. No one can ever pretend that without the United States the League of Nations could be a supreme authority, but the question has been for a long time whether it, was not dead and a sham. People were despairing of the League of Nations. They pointed, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) still points, with accusing and wounding finger to its powerlessness in the Far East and to its indifference in the Chaco War. When we separated in August the League of Nations was becoming a byword. Look at what has happened since. Here are 50 sovereign States solemnly sitting down together to devise and concert hostile economic action against a great Power, prohibiting the export of arms to Italy, encouraging such export to Italy's enemy, taking concerted measures to destroy Italian credit and financial strength in every quater of the globe, laying an embargo on many kinds of exports to Italy and even attempting a complete boycott of Italian imports into each country. When we are told that there are leakages and loopholes, that difficulties will arise and disputes will break out between the boycotters and so forth, that may all be true, but these are, to anyone who views things in their due proportion, only the exceptions which are proving a most impressive rule. Such a system of pains and penalties has never been proclaimed against a single State, as far as I am aware, in the whole history of the world. If we could get away a little further from the scene and take a more general view than is possible to us living through events from day to day, I am sure we should see that we are already in the presence of a memorable event.
Still more remarkable is the Italian acceptance of these sanctions. When we separated in August, the story was, when these matters were viewed in an academic light, that economic sanctions meant war, and certainly the original attitude of Italy was that any attempt

363
to apply sanctions would be treated as an unfriendly act and an affront. But what has happened? All this has proved to be untrue. Signor Mussolini—I think it is a sign of his commanding mind; to my mind it is one of the strongest things he has done—has submitted to these invidious sanctions and still preserved his contact with the League of Nations. Instead of saying "Italy will meet them with war," he says "Italy will meet them with discipline, with frugality and with sacrifice." That is a great saying in the setting, in the difficulties, in which he stands. So I say that we are not only in the presence of an assertion of the public law of Europe but of its recognition by the State affected and by the historic figure at the head of that State. That is also a truly remarkable fact, and one that is full of hope.
What does the House suppose has been the underlying cause of the transformation in the activity and force of the League of Nations which we have seen operative in the short time that we have been absent from this House? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) seemed to be entirely unconscious of it. He seemed to suppose that it is simply the moral force of public opinion and the many good arguments used by the Liberal party and by Liberal writers which have produced this transformation. One is quite sorry to undeceive him. One would like him to have nursed his delusion for a little longer. But the reason is so apparent that it cannot be concealed. The reason why the League of Nations is now a reality and is now gripping all men's minds and inspiring loyalties in we know not what other countries which have hitherto regarded it as an academic apparition is because there has been behind it, as there was behind so many causes vital to human progress and freedom, the Royal Navy.
How did this arise? Let us see exactly in what context it arose. As I understand it, when the Government determined to take a strong line upon the League of Nation's Council it was certain that it would bring us into antagonism with Italy in the Mediterranean. We have ancient and valuable naval and military establishments in the Mediterranean. We have a fleet, a vital part of
364
our own main fleet, in the Mediterranean. No doubt, all these have been allowed to fall into a very easy peace-time state and the Government would have been greatly to blame if they had pursued the course on which they had decided at Geneva without at the same time making our defences safe in the Mediterranean. So the great machine was set in motion, and after an interval of a few weeks the impressive effect of superior sea power became manifest. That power has not been transferred to the League of Nations. Nevertheless it lies in a certain sense behind it, and it has invested every decision and every debate at Geneva with a gravity and a significance which it never otherwise could have possessed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen was interrupted in his speech on Tuesday and asked a question which, apparently, disconcerted him. He was asked whether he would use force in support of the Covenant of the League of Nations. I did not think very much of the answer that he gave on the spur of the moment. I suppose many of us will be asked that question in the country. I can only say the answer that I am going to give. If I am asked, "How far will you go in support of the Covenant of the League of Nations?" I shall say we ought to go the whole way with the whole lot. But what would have happened if this trouble had arisen not now but three or four years hence, as other trouble may arise three or four years hence? Consider our position if to-day there was a German fleet a third as large as our own and, being entirely new, equal to two-thirds in modern quality, and if at the same time the two Italian 35,000-ton Dreadnoughts which are advanced in building were actually in commision. Could England have dared to speak her mind upon the Council of the League of Nations as she has done? Certainly she could not have done it without the deepest anxiety lest most grievous reprisals would have been taken against her establishments in the Mediterranean, upon Egypt, upon Palestine, upon the Suez Canal, upon the route which joins us with our possessions in the East. If there is one practical moral to be drawn from our present experience it is that we must, without delay, and apart from any obligations that may arise in the North Sea, provide for the secure and lasting command of the Mediterranean.

365
I am not going to detain the House more than a very few minutes because we all feel, with a sense of approaching Dissolution, that we must not put too great a strain upon the fortitude of Members who are, no doubt, bracing themselves for the supreme ordeal, but I must make some remarks, or my arguments would lack completeness, about Abyssinia. I share the feeling common throughout the country of sympathy for this primitive, feudal people who are fighting for their hearths and homes and for the ancient freedom of their mountains against a scientific invader. The native independence of Abyssinia cannot be made a matter for compromise or barter. But no one, least of all the Liberal party, can justify the conditions that prevail in that country. The Abyssinian Government themselves do not pretend to do so. Whether they have the power to correct them is another matter, but they cannot justify them. No one can keep up the pretence that Abyssinia is a fit, worthy and equal member of a league of civilised nations. The wisdom of the British policy was shown in our opposing their admission and the unwisdom of Continental countries, who now bitterly regret what they did, was shown in its admission. It was a mistake. Steps must certainly be taken to make sure that the oppression by the dominant race in Abyssinia of the tribes which they have recently conquered is not perpetuated as the result of League of Nations action. Even in their own home and centre, now that they have appealed to the League of Nations, now that the searchlights of the world are beating their glare upon the history and conditions of this region, the Abyssinians must be made to put their house in order.
I understand that proposals of this character were contained in the Anglo-French suggestions which were put forward some months ago, and which were so unceremoniously turned down. I hope that the Foreign Secretary was right when he indicated that there was still a possibility, a hope, of a satisfactory settlement being reached. I think we can trust him. Perhaps I put it too strongly—that the hope of a satisfactory settlement being reached was not completely dead. Not even that?—that the hope of a satisfactory settlement being reached would always spring eternal in his breast—
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am obliged.
Mr. CHURCHILL: —and that the days through which we are passing at the present moment were the days when that hope would burn the brightest. Well, I am sure we should all share the strait-jacketed optimism of my right hon. Friend. It is of the utmost importance to the House and country to realise that the League of Nations cannot take one-sided action in a matter of this kind and only look at the faults of one side without considering its responsibility for putting right abuses and great evils on the part of the other party which has appealed to them for their jurisdiction. But we must not put too much confidence in any hopes of that character of a settlement. It is quite clear from the replies of the Foreign Secretary that he realises the fact that the differences are very real and very serious, and I have no doubt that he is determined to maintain an unflinching hold upon the realities of the controversy.
Then we must consider those economic sanctions. It was said yesterday that the economic sanctions will not really embarrass the Italian dictator, and he knows they will not embarrass him or else he would never have bowed to them. That all depends upon the length of time they are maintained. We live in such a febrile and sensational age that even a month or two is enough to make people not merely change their views, but forget the views and feelings they entertained before. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter will be one involving a long strain which will require a cool and phlegmatic temperament.
Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: From the Abyssinians?
Mr. CHURCHILL: They are fighting for their lives. But the limitations of the action which can be taken by the League of Nations are defined and well known to the right hon. Gentleman, and no one has suggested that we could do more than we have done, or that we should take isolated action. As far as we are concerned, one of the causes and circumstances which make the strain painful to us is the prolongation of the spectacle we shall have to witness in Abyssinia—the painful spectacle of the desperate

367
resistance of these people barely armed against all the resources of science. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Certainly. But still do not let us suppose that the measures which are being taken are not most formidable. We must not only look a month or two ahead. Where will the Italian dictator be at this time next year? He may be far into Abyssinia with an army of a quarter of a million men, wasting rapidly by guerilla warfare and disease, and all the time Italy, under the boycott and censure of practically the whole world, will be bleeding at every pore, her gold reserve melting away, her prices rising, her credit gone. Do not let us under-value the extreme importance of the long, slow pressures which are being applied, and do not let us under-estimate the dangers which necessarily they excite in increasing the tension which prevails throughout all Europe.
I listened, like others in the House, with the very greatest attention and respect to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook yesterday. No one who heard him will ignore the strength of the case he unfolded, and we are indebted to him for placing it so clearly before us. But it is quite plain that his view is not the view of this House of Commons, nor will it, I believe, be the view which the country will express in the forthcoming election. My right hon. Friend rendered a service in showing us so clearly where we used to stand, and where the League of Nations used to stand until a few months ago. But we have now moved on. Anyone can see that. We have moved on and we are not going to move back. The League of Nations has passed from shadow into substance, from theory into practice, from rhetoric into reality. We see a structure always majestic, but hitherto shadowy, which is now being clothed with life and power, and endowed with coherent thought and concerted action. We begin to feel the beatings of a pulse which may, we hope, and we pray, some day—and the sooner for our efforts—restore a greater measure of health and strength to the whole world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook dwelt upon the dangers of our acts, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) dwelt, unduly I thought, upon their difficulties. We can see these difficulties and
368
dangers for ourselves, but if we confront them, and when we confront them, with a steady eye, I believe the House and the country will reach the conclusion that the case for perseverence holds the field.
4.37 p.m.
Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We have listened to a characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). There are few people in this House who possess his powers of oratory and that highly florid style with which he has succeeded in boxing the compass; a speech which in some parts it appeared that he was doing lip-service to peace and in other parts he was breathing war. He strove by some curious argument, which I failed to understand, and which, I hope, one day the right hon. Gentleman will adumbrate, to prove that the might of the British Empire and the power of the League of Nations depend one upon the other. He has tried to plead for supreme naval power for this country in the Mediterranean and, on the other hand, has uttered very noble sentiments in support of the League of Nations. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to have it both ways. I have no doubt that he has perhaps succeeded in justifying his appointment to high office if the worst happens, and the National Government is returned.
During the two days' Debate we have heard a great variety of views expressed on the Government benches. We have heard the most discordant voices of the Tory party, from the wavering treble of those who say that they support the League of Nations to the thunderous bass of the frank and open militarists whose interventions by their cheers proved that they care nothing about the League. They care primarily about the military power of the British Empire. I have heard it said that my hon. Friends on this side of the House are divided, but we have never spoken with so many voices as have supporters of the Government during these two days. They have been the speeches of men living in a Tower of Babel, of people praying for peace and people believing that war was inevitable; people who were trying to pay lip-service to all for which the League of Nations stands but are prepared to pursue a

369
national policy which is in direct conflict with every principle on which the League of Nations is based.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
But grave as is the international situation, there are a large number of people in this House and outside who regard domestic affairs as being certainly of equal importance, and no smoke-screen that the Government can devise can blur the picture in the minds of masses of people of the situation of the unemployed. It is good that we should remember at this time before the House breaks up that there is a domestic problem which is exercising the minds of more people than the international situation is to-day. I cannot understand or I cannot fully explain the reluctance of the Government not only to deal with the problem of unemployment, but their reluctance even to discuss the problem of unemployment. They have shilly-shallied with unemployment. They have shown a cynical contempt for the plight of the unemployed in this country, and when they had an opportunity this week to face that situation they chose to hide it behind the fog of discussion on the international situation. The Government mean to slink away to the country this week without rendering any account of their stewardship to the House of Commons, which they have bamboozled and treated with a contempt which the House ought to resent. They do not mean a word to be said about unemployment or the distressed areas. They think they can go away with a programme of rearmament up their sleeves and say nothing whatever about the domestic situation. In 1931, exactly four years ago, I was vilified and lampooned as one of the men who ran away. Who is running away now? Here are the Government doing everything they can this week to deprive the House of an opportunity of discussing what is, to a very large number of people, a very vital matter. I believe that one of the factors in the present Italian situation, not the only factor but one of them, is that Signor Mussolini was driven to bring home to his people the dream of a great Roman Empire in order to get them to forget their serious economic position at home, and this Government appears now to be pursuing precisely the same policy
370
by trying to turn the eyes of our people to Abyssinia in order that they may forget South Wales—and Wakefield. That can never happen.
The history of this Government's dealings with the problem of unemployment and the problem of the unemployed makes very sorry reading. I remember the hopes that were raised in a most unscrupulous way four years ago in the General Election. Appeals were made to the electorate to give an undisclosed doctor's mandate to the Government to restore trade and diminish unemployment. Nobody can deny that that was the case. The Government were returned to power in 1931 with a phenomenal majority. They did not lift a single finger to help the unemployed. They did place new and heavier burdens on the unemployed. They have robbed the unemployed of £60,000,000 during their term of office. All these appeals to the unemployed and about unemployment during the General Election were forgotten after the Election, and it was not until 1932 that they ever thought that a word might be given to the world that they were considering the unemployed at all. In the King's Speech of 1932 we were told:
"My Government intend to bring forward Measures dealing comprehensively with Unemployment Insurance and with the treatment of those unable to obtain work, and the considerations I have mentioned will be borne in mind in framing their proposals."
Nothing happened for a whole year, except that the unemployed were smarting under new humiliations. In 1933, in the King's Speech, the House was told:
"You will be invited to give immediate consideration to a comprehensive Measure which will put Unemployment Insurance on a sound and permanent footing and will establish a new system for the assistance and welfare of the unemployed outside insurance."
Two years after this Government came back to office, two years after these humiliating conditions had been imposed upon the unemployed, a Bill was introduced, after two years' consideration by a Government of all the talents, drawn from the best minds, so I understand, in the three political parties. After two whole years the Bill saw the light of day on 8th November, 1933. By 23rd November, 15 days later, this House was presented with another and a different Bill. I draw the attention of the House to

371
these facts, which have been mentioned before. We had a Second Reading of the Bill at the end of November. I have quoted in the House, and I will not quote them again in full, the most extravagant claims which were made for this Bill by Members of the Government. The Minister of Labour of that day, patting himself on the back in a way which seemed to me to be indecent in public, said that he regarded it as one of the most comprehensive and constructive pieces of social legislation introduced for many years. As he saw the possibilities of the Measure in his mind, and feeling the glow of oratory within him before the close of his speech, he was even more extravagent and called it the greatest Measure of social progress presented by any Government for many generations. The Bill was to be the great charter which was to free the unemployed from charity, which was to put the system on a new basis and which was to give humane and generous assistance to the workers, whether in insurance or out of insurance.
The Government got their Bill on to the Statute Book towards the end of June of last year, two and three-quarter years after they took office. In the interval they had revolutionised the fiscal system of the country in the interests of the big industrialists. They had begun to pour out millions of pounds in doles to industrialists, without a means test, without any inquiries, but two and three-quarter years passed before they got on to the Statute Book the shining example of social legislation which was to bring in the millennium for the people who were unfortunate enough to lose their work. The new regulations operated on the 7th January, 1935, and there broke out a storm of protest unparalleled in the history of this country. Men and women of all parties and of no party, people of all kinds of social circumstances, representatives of every church in the land raised their voices of protest against the inhumanities that were being committed under the legislation.
At the beginning of February, when the country was in a state of complete turmoil, we had the Debate in this House and we had the spectacle of the then Minister of Labour, the Number 2 Minister of Labour, having to get up
372
and say: "I must suspend for the time being the operation of these regulations, because, in spite of the fact that we have now had over three and a-quarter years in which to deal with this problem, the result of our efforts is a set of regulations which prove to be unworkable and which the country will not tolerate." Nine months have elapsed since then. What has been happening behind the scenes in the meantime? The chief thing that has happened is that Minister of Labour Number 3 appears on the scene. He has brought his great mind to bear on the problem, following on all the discussions that there had been, presumably, if the Government were doing their duty since the end of October, 1931.
What has been happening during all these weary months? The Government have had four years in which to do something. They promised legislation three years ago. They have had the minds of three Ministers of Labour devoted to the problem, and they have latterly been assisted by the Unemployment Assistance Board, yet we are here to-day in a situation where, after a further nine months, the Government have not a single word to say about the revision of these hated regulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour gave an answer on Tuesday which was very interesting. The House might have thought now that he had been in office some time, now that the Government have been in office four years, and seeing that nine months have elapsed since the beginning of this Session, the right hon. Gentleman was suddenly faced with this problem for the first time. He said:
"As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the subject is one of great difficulty and complexity."—
A great discovery on the part of the right hon. Gentleman:
"and in view of the importance of a right decision, not only to the unemployed but in the whole fabric of our social life,"—
A good piece of word spinning—
"it is essential that before new arrangements are submitted to Parliament for approval they should first be examined thoroughly from every standpoint."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 2, Vol. 305.]
Putting that reply into ordinary English, the English of the man-in-the-street, it means that after nine months the Government are in just as big a hole as they

373
were nine months ago. They have no proposals ready, for reasons with which I am not familiar. What is the truth about this unsatisfactory position? It must be one of two things. Either the Government are completely baffled by the problem—the Prime Minister admitted in the Summer that he was—or they have some solution up their sleeve which commends itself to the supporters of the Government but which they dare not bring down their sleeve before the General Election; a policy which they are ashamed to produce. What is the secret that is working in the right hon. Gentleman's breast? Is it that he is really baffled and completely at a standstill in regard to the regulations, or is it that there is forming in the minds of the Government a policy which they dare not before the General Election tell the country that they mean to impose?
It seems to me to be unfair to the people of this country to leave this question at this time suspended in mid air, and we are entitled to ask this perfectly plain question. Have the nine months of their anxious thought yielded nothing? Have the Government reached no conclusions of any sort, apart from the obvious electoral bribe to which I will refer in a moment? If they have nothing to say now, before the House rises, they stand condemned before the people for having betrayed the unemployed. We learned with astonishment that the Government are going to increase children's allowances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Some of them."] Yes, some of them, not all of them. They are going to increase the allowances of certain children of parents who are receiving statutory benefit. It is extraordinary that this should have been cast upon the world at such a time, because the Statutory Committee strongly recommended this increase to the Minister in a report which was dated 4th July. It was mentioned in the report of the Statutory Committee as early as February but not as a definite recommendation. It was said then that an increase of one shilling in children's allowances would cost about £1,350,000 a year. The cost now will be only £1,250,000 so that their delay has saved the fund £100,000. It may be they delayed for that reason.
In the recommendations that were made there was one which I did not approve myself, but it is important that the House
374
should be reminded of it. There was a proviso that in making this addition to children's allowances the total benefit to any claimant should not exceed 41s. per week. The Minister in his note on the report, which he is required to make under Part I of the Act, says he is not adopting this suggested proviso as the issue is another one that wants a lot of consideration. "It is one," he says, "that requires a full discussion in relation to the present Order." In other words, "Perhaps this proviso will be adopted after the Election. We will be generous to the unemployed now. We will impose no new limit. We will not give children's allowances with one hand and take them away with the other from those with large families. We will not make a maximum of 41s. because of all these considerations involved, the chief one being the General Election." After the General Election they will come back with a mandate to do precisely that kind of thing—if they get back. It is this kind of treachery to the unemployed against which I am protesting this afternoon.
Why are the Government to expect thanks for these small crumbs? We know, and the Government have known for many months, that there has been a substantial surplus in the Unemployment Fund. It is not their fund. It is a fund to which they subscribe, but to which working people and employers also subscribe, and the £1,250,000 they are giving away does not belong to them. It is money the people have contributed. I have very great objection to the Government using the Unemployment Fund for purposes of political bribery, for that is what this new proposal means. The question was so simple, taking away this complicated question of the 41s. which needs so much consideration. The question of an additional 1s. was so simple that it might well have been settled in July, before the House rose, but it is left until a General Election looms up and the Minister has been to the House and declared that he has not a word of comfort to give to the unemployed. He says, "We must do something, so we will put another shilling on children's allowances." That seems to me to be doing what my hon. Friends have been accused of, exploiting the unemployed for party purposes, and doing it in the most blatant possible way. If the Government had done anything substantial to

375
produce and follow a coherent, constructive policy for dealing with the restoration of trade it would not have been so bad, but they have not done that. They and their policy remind me of an old definition of metaphysics—a blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat that is not there.
The Government's constructive policy as regards unemployment is precisely the same as it was in July. I do not remember that I got any reply to the arguments I used then about the trade position. I said our trade position was precarious. I said our trade position, in so far as it was advantageous to us, was due to accident and not to design on the part of this Government. I think I showed that it was not so much our actions here but actions elsewhere, and the fact that we slipped from the Gold Standard unwittingly, that has caused what improvement there has been. I had no reply whatever to those arguments and so far as I know no member of the Government, not even the Home Secretary, who followed me at Luton, has tried to deal with these arguments.
The more we try to face our difficulties the better. My complaint is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite never do face the argument. They always put up something entirely irrelevant to the arguments put by this side. The real test of our economic situation is to be found in the depressed areas. They are the symptom of the economic disease from which we are suffering. There you see the results of the Government's policy. In the distressed areas of this country are concentrated some of our basic industries, coal, iron and steel, shipbuilding. If there had been a return of 80 per cent. prosperity, there ought to have been a 80 per cent. return to prosperity in those depressed areas. If it be true that the economic situation has improved, if it be true now that the nation is treading the pathway to prosperity, there ought to be signs of it in the depressed areas. There are no signs. The Government do not seem prepared to lift a finger to deal with that situation. It threw contemptuously £2,000,000 to them. It has done nothing more. If the Government want to apply sanctions they might apply some sanctions to the people responsible for economic policy in this country, and especially in the distressed areas.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, when asked a question by a Government supporter on this matter of the depressed areas, made a most evasive reply. It is even more evasive than the right hon. Gentleman. I withdraw the word "even"; it is more evasive. This was a question by the hon. Member for one of the Newcastle divisions who asked:
"What special measures, if any, are proposed by the Government to assist the depressed areas, especially the North-East coast and whether it is intended to put into operation all or any of the recommendations of the Special Commissioners for those areas?"
That was a perfectly intelligent and simple question. This is the Prime Minister's answer:
"The Government have made a close examination of the reports of the commissioners and of all other relevant factors. The commissioners—with the full co-operation and support of the Government—have been increasing and extending their activities in accordance with the terms of the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, with results which are likely to be beneficial and, accumulatively, of considerable importance."
That statement is just meaningless. It was no answer to that question, and when the same hon. Member put a supplementary and asked whether there was not to be any definite proposals put before the country, the Prime Minister said:
"That does not arise from my answer."
I know that form of answer. It is the easiest one to give, but it did not answer the second point that was put. Then he was asked by my hon. Friend here as to whether the Government meant to increase the sum of £2,000,000 in the distressed areas. And we get this great constructive and illuminating reply from the Prime Minister:
"I have nothing at this moment to add to what I have already said."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col 4, Vol. 305.]
That appears to be the Government's policy with regard to the depressed areas up to the present moment, unless we get some statement of policy to-night.
I think the Government have very seriously under-estimated the importance of this problem of the distressed areas. I remember the first speech the right hon. Gentleman made as Minister of Labour. He was appearing in double harness with the Prime Minister at one of those

377
Saturday afternoon gatherings in the summer which seem to be the favourite kind of propaganda in the Conservative party.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Was it the present Prime Minister?
Mr. GREENWOOD: The present Prime Minister. I had a newspaper cutting of his speech. Unfortunately I lost that before I spoke in the House subsequently, but I have been reminded of it since. The Minister of Labour raised a sheet of paper with a small black dot on it and told of a boy who was asked what it was. The boy said "A black dot," and the Minister of Labour said that it was a black dot on a white piece of paper.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Marvellous, this fellow. He ought to go to the top of the class.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Then, after getting this very important fact made quite clear to his audience—that this was a black spot on a white piece of paper—the right hon. Gentleman went on to say "That is true of the country. That spot is the depressed areas. Always remember the white paper." A political commentator said of him—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hannen Swaffer."] Yes, it was Hannen Swaffer—
"Several Tories in the audience cheered. They were too far away to see the blot. Tory Members of Parliament on the platform were delighted. Mr. Brown was in front of them. There was no black spot on the back of the paper."
I am bound to say that this infant-school method of teaching the peurile minds of the Tory party what the distressed areas are seems to me to betray a complete ignorance of the fundamental importance of this problem. It is not a case of a black spot on a piece of white paper. It is a case of a cancer eating out the life of this country. What are the Government going to do about the depressed areas? Are they going to be content with hearing these great words of the Prime Minister on Tuesday, or are they going to produce a policy here and now and tell the House what it is they mean to tell the country? The Government have been preening itself on the fact that there are more people at work. It is very little comfort for the 2,000,000 people out of work. It is no answer to say that there are more people at work if you have three or four festering sores
378
in the country which are draining the nations vitality. There is little pride to be taken in that. I have raised this question to-day primarily as a protest against the Government's refusal or inability to declare a policy regarding the unemployed to this House, a question which it has discussed for four years.
Mr. BRACKEN: And the last Government.
Mr. GREENWOOD: It is this Government which is going to the country. I do so also as a protest against the shameful political profiteering, which is all that the increase in the children's allowance is. A million and a quarter of money, not their own money, does not cover up their misdeeds and neglect of the general body of the unemployed. I do so because I think it is unfair to leave the unemployed of this country throughout the winter months in a state of uncertainty as to what they are going to have. I do so because the Government know that if they alter the standstill arrangements they will alter them for the worst, and they dare not tell the country. I do so as a protest against their admitted and complete failure to deal with the problem of the depressed areas, and because it is perfectly patent to everybody that the Government has no coherent policy for dealing with the economic depression. Political stunts will not this time blind the eyes of the electors to the terrible and indeed tragic position of the distressed areas. We part, to go our several ways, with a Government which has been prepared to give time to discuss what is admittedly an important matter but which is ashamed to face this House on a fundamental domestic issue. It is four years ago, or a little over when Mr. Snowden, speaking on 15th September at the close of a very important Debate, used these words:
"I have admired the way in which they have cheered to keep their spirits up"—
that is the Labour party—
"and I have admired those who have done that knowing—knowing—that only a few weeks, possibly, remain before the place which knows them now will know them no more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th September, 1931; col. 801, Vol. 256.]
It will know many of us again. But there are those in this House to-day, carried in on a wave of panic in 1931, who will be seen no more. If the Government try by a trick election—and we

379
welcome the election—to pretend that they are concerned about international affairs when they are laying their ground bait for an increased volume of armaments, they will be mistaken. We shall go to the country and hold the Government responsible for the plight of the people. We are prepared to abide by the result.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) if I interrupt the course of the discussion which he has started. The Minister of Labour and the right hon. Gentleman know that I almost invariably take part in the Debates on unemployment, and had I known that this opportunity would have come to-day I should undoubtedly have devoted myself to that subject, but I have been asked to say a final word on behalf of my own party on the subject of international affairs and I do not think the House would tolerate it if a back-bencher tried to devote himself to these two subjects at this stage in the dissolution of Parliament. May I give an answer to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who criticised a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I should like hon. Members to notice the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member and compare the answer given by my right hon. Friend and the answer given by the right hon. Member for Epping. They will find that the answers are practically identical. The question put by the hon. and gallant Member was—I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"What would the right hon. Gentleman do in those circumstances?"
That was in regard to military sanctions, and my right hon. Friend replied:
"Take the same lead at Geneva for enforcing further sanctions as the right hon. Gentleman has for enforcing economic sanctions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 52, Vol. 305.]
The answer given by the right hon. Member for Epping was, "go the whole way with the whole lot." Allowing for a difference of style natural to the two right hon. Gentlemen, I should say that there was no difference whatever. In
380
dealing with the international crisis I am anxious not to embarrass the Government. That has been said by many other hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and I hope that I shall be more successful than he was in not embarrassing the Government. At the end of a Parliament one cannot help casting one's mind back over the whole course of its history. I remember that our activities here started with the Statute of Westminster, upon which there was a Conservative revolt against the National Government, and that it ends with a Debate on a subject upon which there is another Conservative revolt. In the interval between these two revolts there have been innumerable other revolts, including that of the Liberal party, but it appears that it is against us alone that these disagreements are held to be a charge. The other bold rebels seem to have prospered by their rebellion; nothing has been done in regard to them. They seem to have prospered, and an unending succession of fatted calves have been killed in their honour. I should say that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth is almost tired of a diet of veal; for us alone has been reserved the cold shoulder. It seems to be a hard world, but I will reserve any further remarks on this subject for the volume which I may publish, "Memories of Ten Parliaments," which may come out in the year 1965.
I am going to pass to the actual election issue put before us by the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him how he expects to get a mandate on the issue of foreign affairs at the present election. You can lead a horse to the water, you can lead the electors into the garden or up the garden, but you cannot determine what flowers they are going to pick when they get there. The electors will make the issue of this election for themselves, and a great many of those who vote against the Government, indeed the majority, will vote against the Government on the matters which have been put forward to-day by the right hon. Member for Wakefield, the means test and the depressed areas. A great many of those who vote for the Government will do so for all kinds of special reasons, because their particular local industry has benefited by a subsidy or some special trade measure, or because they

381
are going to get benefit out of a pig scheme, or a milk scheme, or a mangoldwurzel scheme. None of those who vote in this way can give the Government any kind of mandate on the question which is said to be at issue. That is the difficulty in which I find myself and in which many electors will find themselves. But, even suppose you can get attention entirely concentrated on the issue of foreign affairs, and suppose the "Times" is right to-day when it says:
"The lines of the Government's foreign policy are plain enough by this time for everyone to understand, and no intelligent elector can say that he does not know what he is being asked to vote for."
If that be true, what is the intelligent elector to do in a constituency like Middlesbrough West, which I know, where you find first a Liberal who supports the Government in the imposition of sanctions, a second candidate who also, I understand, supports the Government in the imposition of sanctions, and a third candidate, the National Government representative, who uncompromisingly opposes the Government in the imposition of sanctions? He has said in most unequivocal and irrevocable terms that he will never support sanctions of any kind, economic or otherwise, whether in combination with other nations or not. In that case, which is typical of many, the only way for the elector to express agreement with the National Government is to vote against its candidate. An extraordinary situation. The National Government in hundreds of seats will get a better mandate from the seats they lose than from the seats they win. A most extraordinary situation. I am sorry that in the international crisis, when the real national voice and decision would have been of enormous value and influence in the world, the whole situation is being obscured by the conditions under which the election is being held. I support the foreign policy of the Government. I have drawn certain lines in time; if one can do that. I draw one line immediately before the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Geneva, and I draw another one, provisionally, at the date of Sir Eric Drummond's recent visit to Mussolini. I am told that these lines exist only in my imagination.
Take the first line. We have been told that the Government's foreign policy has been one piece of fabric without a join
382
or a seam. To my mind the seams stick up several inches; you cannot miss them. Can it be denied that the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Geneva came as a considerable surprise to Members of the Opposition and as a tremendous surprise to members of his own party. Many who are now sailing on the good ship The League of Nations must feel rather as if they had been shanghaied—I think that is the proper expression. However, they are there now, and I hope that they will stop there. But the speech also came as an immense and disastrous surprise to M. Laval and many people in France. I am told that whoever else did not know, Signor Mussolini knew; he had been told all the time. I wonder how he was told? Is it not possible that something like this may have happened. Someone said to Signor Mussolini, "His Majesty's Government cannot view with equanimity the actions of the Italian Government if such and such a thing should happen," and Signor Mussolini said, "I know their equanimity. I will march into Abyssinia on Monday; they will send a strong protest to my ambassador on Tuesday, and on Wednesday they will ask my ambassador to dinner in order to make it clear that no offence is meant. Carry on with the war." I cannot help wondering whether on the previous actions of the Government they had not some reason for thinking that such might be the course of events.
I think it would have been timely if the Government had made some sort of public pronouncement that would have made the position plain to the eyes of the world, even at the time of the Debate in this House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) made a remarkable statement as to what he thought the action of the Government ought to be. On that occasion I, following the right hon. Gentleman, in my humble capacity invited the Government to say that that was their policy. They did not do so then in any sort of plain and unequivocal language. At that time it was not too late for Signor Mussolini to withdraw. He had taken some steps but he was not irrevocably committed, and a great deal might have been done by a pronouncement at that time.
I am also drawing a line at the other end of the period of Sir Eric Drummond's visit to Signor Mussolini. I have been

383
told that it is in an imaginary line and I hope that is true. I accept entirely the statement of the Minister for League of Nations Affairs that there has been no change of policy but I think he would agree that the things which appeared in the Press were extremely alarming to anybody who was watching the situation from a League of Nations point of view. I cannot help quoting the Press because we have been referred to the Press by the Prime Minister for some of our most vital information. I find it stated in the Press that the situation between ourselves and Italy is easing, that a better atmosphere prevails between ourselves and Italy and, finally, that Italy is pleased with our Foreign Secretary. Of course Italy and ourselves are old friends. Unfortunately, one of the two old friends is at the moment badly wanted by the police—we cannot deny the fact—and the other old friend represented by ourselves is a member of the police force. Translate the remarks we have heard into those terms and we find that the situation is eased as between the burglar and the police; that a better atmosphere prevails between the burglar and the police and, finally, the placards say that the burglar is pleased with the police.
To bring it home personally to the Prime Minister may I say that I believe there are two days in the course of the summer when, wherever his visible presence may be, the right hon. Gentleman's soul and spirit are at Lord's cricket ground? If on such an occasion he was doomed, as so many of us are, to rely on the Press for information and he saw a placard saying "Eton pleased with Harrow bowling," I do not think he would be reassured as to the course of the match. That was precisely my feeling when I saw placards of the kind I have described. I find in "L'Oeuvre," which is, I gather, a paper of some influence in France, the following passage:
"It is thought in London circles that as Mussolini is not reported to demand any of the uplands of Abyssinia, Great Britain would not be intractable regarding any other part of Abyssinia."
I hope we may receive some assurance that there is nothing in those remarks. They would seem to indicate a position which might be expressed by adapting the words of the old song:
384
"We'll tak' the uplands and ye'll tak' the lowlands
And we'll get to Addis Ababa before ye."
I trust that it will be made clear that we are not going to bargain with the territory of the injured nation. I desire to express the warmest appreciation I have at my poor command, as a humble citizen of the British Empire, for the conduct of our Foreign Secretary and our Minister for League of Nations Affairs within the limits of time I have mentioned. I have been proud of them as my representatives at Geneva. I felt that they were avoiding the temptation to take the easy path and the line of least resistance; that they were taking the leadership in international affairs which I think ought to be ours in the councils of the League, and, above all, that they were showing that they could read a plain document like the Covenant of the League and make it out to mean what it obviously does mean in ordinary English.
It may seem superfluous to praise statesmen for being able to read a document of that kind, but from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) it is apparent that he reads that document quite differently, or rather does not take the trouble to read some parts of it at all. I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice in the ordinary course that I intended to refer to his speech, but, unfortunately, he has had to leave the House early. But he apparently thinks it is possible to be a member of a club and to refuse to be bound by its rules. To put it in another and perhaps more cogent way, he believes that this country can be one of the principal underwriters of a great policy of international insurance, and then when a claim is made should say, "No, we are not going to meet that claim. We do not like the colour of the claimant's face or some of the claimant's domestic habits," and that on those grounds we should refuse to meet the plain obligations undertaken.
One really impressive part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook was that in which he referred to the tragedy of Gordon at Khartoum. He is old enough, like some others in this House, to have had that humiliation brought personally before him. It was handed on to me

385
from my father, but I cannot help remembering it. When he said that the tragedy of Adowa was the same to Italy as the tragedy of Khartoum was to us and that Italy was now only doing the same thing as we had done when in the Omdurman campaign we redressed the balance by subsequent action, so far I think he was mainly right. I am not concerned to dispute what he said. But surely he is leaving out one important fact, namely, that between the date of Adowa and the present day Abyssinia has been made a member of the League of Nations on the invitation of Italy and with Italian support. What if, in the interval between Khartoum and Omdurman, we had pressed for the inclusion of the Mahdi and his tribes in a League of Nations, surely the campaign of Omdurman would have been impossible. We should have been wrong had we undertaken it in those circumstances. With the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, whose presentation of his case, particularly when it is inclined to be a losing case, always wins the admiration of the House, I think he has left out one of the most important factors in the situation and I am glad that the Government have shown a greater sense of their responsibilities.
I want to say something of military sanctions. I am not a fire-eater. I think I may say that I know enough about war never to want to see it again, either for myself or anybody else. I earnestly pray for this above everything, that the measures which the Government have already taken to meet the situation may be the only measures needed and that it may not be necessary to go further. That is my great desire, but can any hon. Members opposite say that in no circumstances and in no event would they support military sanctions? I would refer them to the admirable speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) in which he explained the need for the British Navy in order that the League might be able to function and we have heard the same line of argument from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Not by itself.
Mr. GRIFFITH: The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct. Also we heard yesterday from the Minister for League
386
of Nations Affairs that you cannot play your part in a fully-armed world without the means to do it. Does not that imply the use of military sanctions? What is the good of saying that we must have armaments in order to play our part in the League if a cardinal point of our policy is that in no circumstnaces in no conceivable event are we ever going to use those armaments? It does not seem to be a sensible conclusion. I share to the full the feeling of everybody in this House and I put it from my own point of view and that of my own local regiment when I say that I would not count the whole of Abyssinia worth the bones of a single private soldier of the Green Howards. At the same time it is more than Abyssinia that is at stake to-day. It is the whole future of the world and if the League does not act now a great many more private soldiers of the Green Howards may die eventually because weakness was shown at a critical moment. Therefore, although I hope and pray that military sanctions may never be needed, I envisage that in the last resort we could not shrink from them.
I would say in regard to armaments that you cannot discuss armaments in the abstract. The need of this country for armaments depends upon the position of League of Nations affairs, upon how the policy of collective security succeeds, upon the armaments of other nations and particularly upon the armaments of those nations who are outside the League. All those circumstances have to be taken into consideration. What I deplore is that this question of armaments should be brought into the cockpit of a General Election at this time when the essential features for deciding the question are not in our possession. I will tell the Minister for League of Nations Affairs what I am afraid of in this matter. In the atmosphere of elections, with which he is familiar as much as I am, we may find people drifting to opposite extremes. We may find one lot of people drifting into the position of saying, "Let us abandon every kind of armament and then declare war on all the other nations." On the other hand you may find people saying, "Let us pile up armaments; let us measure our victory at the Election by the extent to which we can multiply armaments, but let us at the same time resolve not to use those armaments or allow them to be made into an

387
influence in the general affairs of the world." Both those conclusions to my mind are lamentable.
What I want is sane, balanced consideration and conclusion as to what are the needs of the country in the matter of armaments. If I am convinced that some advance and some increase is necessary I should vote for it, whatever the electoral consequences because I owe a responsibility to the people of the future. But I do ask that the question should be considered still in the mood of collective security as long as that lasts. The old cry:
"Come the three corners of the world in arms
And we shall shock them."
was well enough for its day. I trust that day is past. If I may use a paradox we ought to try the miracle of squaring the circle. We ought to try still to bring the three corners of the world to the round table where, I think, there is yet a chance to achieve a real programme of disarmament. It may be that in some parts of my speech I have appeared to be critical. Perhaps in the minds of some here I have been unduly critical. I do not wish to end on a critical note although we are just about to go into an electoral battle. Still foremost before my mind is the great speech of the Foreign Secretary at Geneva. I cannot forget it. I do not want to forget it and I do not want it to be lost in the conflicting cries of the General Election. I want it to continue to be heard and to be the key to our foreign policy in the future, whatever Government may succeed this one, and I want it to take its rightful place as one of the decisive speeches of the world.
5.44 p.m.
Miss HORSBRUGH: Never before have I intervened in a debate on foreign affairs or on the international situation. In doing so to-day I realise fully how much has been said during the past few days by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have much more knowledge and experience in these affairs than I have. I realise that in some respects nothing more need be said and that although the Opposition asked for a debate on the international situation they think perhaps now that that debate ought to
388
come to a close. Some of the greatest speakers whom we have heard during the last two days have told us their point of view. We have heard the point of view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, but I believe that at a time like this the point of view of every hon. Member in this House should be considered and that, however difficult the situation is, each one of us should try, from our personal point of view, to look at matters as we see them to-day in the world and try to play some part in the great work of building up peace throughout the world.
I am glad that I have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) and that I start upon the note on which he left off, the note of congratulating the members of this Government who, in Geneva, have put forward what they believe and what I think is the point of view shared by the enormous majority of people in this country. I have one advantage in speaking in this Debate, and it is that I have had the honour and privilege during the past three years of being a member of the British Delegation to the League of Nations Assembly. I have seen there the League in working. I had the great advantage of being there during those weeks in September when the great speech was made by the Foreign Secretary, and I shall never forget the influence that I believe was felt when that great speech was made and when it was followed by all that has been said by our Minister for League of Nations Affairs in the Council Chamber. I think, above all, we have to keep our minds on this fact, that the quarrel between the League and Italy is a quarrel started by Italy, as a member of the League, definitely giving up the method of settling disputes by consultation round the Council table and deciding to settle them on the battlefield and by slaughter. The main dispute between the League and Italy is, I believe, a dispute which had sooner or later to come before us, the dispute whether in future international arrangements are to be settled by bloodshed and bombing or by consultation, discussion, and debate. That is our problem to-day, and I believe that if we look at it from that point of view, we shall realise that the first great victory in this crisis will be

389
won by the League when consultation and conference take the place of fighting in Abyssinia.
During this Debate we have heard a good deal on the subject of an honourable peace, and we have heard some feeling expressed by hon. Members that they were not altogether easy about the present situation—it was underlined rather by the last speaker—and the fear that, because we were told things seemed rather better, they began to feel doubtful about the Government policy. But surely the first sign of the situation being better should be the first sign that some idea of conference and consultation, and not continued fighting, was possible. That would be the first victory. As to an honourable settlement of the dispute and the fears that have been expressed that somehow or other—perhaps I am putting this too crudely and reading into the words or writing into the speeches of hon. Members what they did not mean—our Government were going to let down the Abyssinian people and in a weak moment give way to the aggressor, I wonder how many people have read and studied the document that was produced by the Committee of Five and the suggestions made then for a solution of the problem, which were put before the Governments of Italy and Abyssinia. We are surely not, at this time, going to consider what must be the ultimate scheme that is adopted. I do not think any of us would consider it a great victory and triumph for the League that we simply went back to the state of affairs existing a year ago, that we left Abyssinia exactly as it was, that we said she had a right to do exactly as she liked there and that her behaviour in all national and international affairs was correct as a member of the League of Nations. I believe that there is no one of us who thinks that. I believe more and more that we in this country and people in the other countries have to remember that the present is not the time merely for a discussion of the ultimate solution of the problem, but to press forward and find a way from the battlefield to the council chamber in the dispute that is in existence. The British Government have been trying, as we heard yesterday in that brilliant speech of the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, in every possible way to bring about a peaceful settlement, and I hope we shall all keep that view in mind.
390
The majority of the speeches made here have been in favour of that, but on one or two occasions I have wondered if there is any danger of people mistaking the machinery and the means of the League for the end. There are some people whose interest in the working of the League of Nations and in its machinery is so great, and their desire to see it tried full out is so keen, that I sometimes fear lest, in the minds of those people, there would be some disappointment if we were not forced to go to the full length of economic and financial sanctions, but found a peaceful settlement and Italy came back again to the Council table for discussion without the full machinery of sanctions having been set to work. I think that is a danger, and that we have to realise that what we really want to do is to bring about peace. The machinery of the League of Nations is one of the additional means which we have tried in these modern days for bringing about peace, so let us beware of any who may wish to see no other method of bringing about peace because of their anxiety to see the machinery of the League of Nations at work, to see the wheels go round.
In nearly every speech the objective of a peaceful settlement has been kept before us, but when I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) yesterday, I wondered if he was making the best use of the term "reconstruction," and whether his words did not seem framed rather to awaken mistrust between the nations. I asked myself, "Is the best cement for binding together the nations of the world in friendship a mixture of doubt and innuendo and statements the veracity of which could not be proved in public?" Whatever our feelings may be, party or political, whatever our ideas as to the working out of this scheme of sanctions, surely nothing should be done at this moment to direct our attention away from our great aim, which is peace. I have been glad to hear during the debate almost unanimous praise for the work of His Majesty's Government in these difficult days. I was interested to note from the last speaker the lines drawn fore and aft a particular event with one piece in the middle that was perfect. He almost reminded me of the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood),

391
in which there seemed to be spots and lines marking out areas distressed and otherwise. But there was very clearly that line drawn by the last speaker, showing a time when he believed all was well, and a time of doubt before and a time of doubt in the future.
As to the handling of this dispute, it has ben suggested that action was not taken in time. We have heard various suggestions made during this Debate as to what might have been done had, as it has been said, our Government woken up to the state of affairs before August or September. But those doubts vanished when we had that speech yesterday from the Minister for League Affairs, and we saw that at any rate in this dispute from the very first our Government were aware of what was happening and that every effort was made, both inside and outside the League, to find methods of conciliation. The dispute went, as we heard, to the League Council. It was the British Delegation that kept it there in the forefront. As we have read in the report of the Committee of Five, very definite arrangements were come to by France and Britain for helping forward some means of peaceful settlement, and those schemes were adopted by the Committee of Five and went into the report that was made to the two countries in the dispute. I think, therefore, that with regard to that part of the handling of this matter my hon. Friend who has just sat down may have drawn his lines a little incorrectly.
The minds of many hon. Members have perhaps gone back for a year or for two or three years, and the idea has been held that the policy of the Government had been drifting, that only now had there come a change, and that if the Government had said this and done that one year or two years ago, the situation would have been very different. Again, I can only speak as I see the matter and as I have had the honour and privilege of seeing it for the last three years. I remember well my first visit to the League of Nations Assembly in 1933. At that time my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Home Department was the first delegate of Britain. I have been told, and I have heard people say both inside and outside this House, that our policy has changed, that we were not
392
saying the same things then as we are to-day. My mind goes back to that first speech that I heard in the Assembly, delivered by our chief delegate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who was then our Foreign Secretary. What was in that speech? If any hon. Member looks at that speech to find out whether our policy was different then, he will find that the chief delegate of Britain then pressed the League of Nations Assembly that further and greater efforts should be made in the Disarmament Conference, that no longer should there be delay, and pointed out the dangers of delay.
Another year elapsed. Again in 1934 I was at the League of Nations Assembly, and again I listened to what was put forward before all the nations of the world as the British policy. The chief delegate for Britain then put forward the view of Great Britain, and there is one sentence in that speech which remains with me. He pointed out, after a difficulty about minorities had been voiced, what we in Britain could not allow to happen under the ægis of the League. One nation, he said, could not by unilateral action free itself from treaty obligations; and during these last three years I have seen and heard the same policy being enunciated before the nations of the world. I think nearly every speaker in this Debate has pointed out and appreciated the magnificent speech that was made on behalf of Britain by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I heard that speech, and I listened to the comments on it, and I know the effects of that speech. I would ask hon. Members, if there is any doubt now as to the meaning of that speech, to read it once more. I have read it and re-read it, and I have come to the conclusion that the power, the worth, the value of that speech was not merely the fact of what was said, because I believe that practically everything in that speech had been said before, and it was not merely the clarity, the arrangement, the way it was delivered—the value of that speech was that it was made in the right place and at the right time. I do not believe that any delegate to the League of Nations Assembly considered that it was an utterance of new British policy. Of that I am absolutely and utterly convinced.
I was there when the speech was made, and what was the great effect of it? The

393
moment of tension, of triad and testing had come. The Abyssinian quarrel was before the Council of the League of Nations. At that time it was being considered by the Committee of Five. Everybody was wondering whether the nations which had stood by the League in the past, who had not yet been tried to the uttermost, would stand firm. The moment of testing had come and there were doubts. It was that speech, which was a repetition of the policy which had continually been put forward, to my knowledge in the last three or four years, that laid doubts at rest. I shall never forget the words that were spoken to us, not by one delegate, but by many. They knew that the time of testing for the League had come, and the greatest compliment that was paid to us and the British nation was this: "Britain always stands by her word—not a new word, but the word she has given in the past."
The policy was not a new policy but one that had been put forward during the whole time, at any rate, of this Government being in office. We have heard complaints of the pace at which things had been going. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cirencester explained last night how the whole framework of the League had been made so that it would work slowly with the hope that public opinion and pressure would come to bear on any quarrel and so that only in the last extreme would measures such as sanctions have to be taken. I know from personal experience that the British delegation cannot go to Geneva as dictators. They go as parts of that body, not to dictate, but to work in the machinery which has been provided. The machinery works slowly. I sometimes think that in the setting up of the machinery of committees of the League of Nations the model taken must have been the mills of God. I only hope that the results will come equally near those of the model, and that it will grind exceeding small. I know from my experience as a rapporteur of the system of committees, sub-committees and sub-committees of sub-committees, and how, even when they report to the general committee and you think they have finished, they have often to have a drafting sub-committee. Machinery like that may seem to us ludicrous and not the right machinery with which to deal with a crisis such as this.
394
I would remind hon. Members that, although the machinery works slowly, it does contain a great idea and a great ideal. If we can with patience work that machinery and improve it, we shall still have a machinery, or parts of a machinery, which will bring to the world the one thing that is necessary, namely, some means of giving up war and settling disputes by consultation. Some hon. Members are uncertain in their support of the policy of the past but others are doubtful of the future. I have listened to nearly every speech in this Debate and have read and re-read them all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not made a pronouncement more robust. I wondered whether he wanted a pronouncement more in the style that would come from Rome. He objected that the Secretary of State had not begun or ended or put somewhere the words "The League of Nations must not fail." Surely the time for mere words is passed; we have now got by actions to see that it does not fail. The criticisms of hon. Members opposite have mostly dealt with their fears for the future. Were sanctions enough? How far were we going? Doubt has been expressed over and over again as to how far the Government meant to go, would Britain stand firm.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) yesterday. He spoke of sanctions, and he wanted sanctions and more sanctions, even at the cost, if necessary, of bringing suffering and starvation. Hon. Members opposite, and especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, gave us a sketch of what was happening now that arms and troops were passing from Italy to Abyssinia, and the right hon. Gentleman asked what we meant to do about it. He promised support for further energetic measures, but it was not very clear what he meant. The words he used were:
"… any further measures which, with vigour and energy, they may effectively take to bring this lamentable conflict to an end, will also receive our full endorsement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 58, Vol. 305.]
He said that he and those who are with him will give support to further measures. We were told during that speech that in

395
these difficult times the right hon. Gentleman did not want in any way to make things more difficult and there had to be restraint in language. I am sorry that in that restraint of language we did not get something rather more clear as to what he meant exactly.
Mr. K. GRIFFITH: Does the hon. Member think that the words she has quoted from my right hon. Friend are less strong than those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who spoke this afternoon, and said, "Go the whole way with the whole lot"? My right hon. Friend said that we could not act alone.
Miss HORSBRUGH: I agree, but I am not in any way comparing the speeches of the right hon. Member for Darwen and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I am not entering into any personal or party controversy over them. What I am trying to find out is the real meaning of hon. Members and we shall want to know the real feeling in the country.
Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) the specific question whether he would use force against Italy if economic sanctions were not effective, and he gave no reply.
Miss HORSBRUGH: Many of us heard and studied with interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to the necessity of armaments and said:
"The world has never found security or peace in the piling up of armaments. We must, of course, have adequate defences, otherwise we should simply be handing over the world to the militarists. If the peace-loving democratic Powers like Britain, France and the United States were to disarm and if the militarist Powers were to increase their armaments, the affairs of mankind would be handed over to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October. 1933; col. 56, Vol. 305.]
At the end of his speech, having expressed the approval he would give to what the Government had already done, came the words to which I have referred. We were left in uncertainty as to the further measures which he mentioned. I gather from the speeches of most hon. Members who have to some extent criticised the Government that their fear is that the Government's policy does not
396
go far enough and that they want it to go further, especially when the leader of a section of a great party talks of further measures. When the hon. Member for East Woolwich spoke of sanctions to the verge of suffering and starvation, every thinking person must realise that if we are to have a policy of sanctions and collective security it does not of necessity mean a policy of disarmament. In the past there has been an idea that if we were members of a collective system it should go a great way to having no armaments at all.
In listening to the speeches in this Debate and in reading them, one sees that the very people who are anxious that there should not be fresh armaments express their realisation that even inside the collective system a certain degree of armaments is an absolute necessity, and being part of a collective system, does not necessarily mean there will never be any use of force. Does anyone suppose that the hon. Member for East Woolwich would think if we brought any nation to the verge of suffering and starvation, it would not retaliate by force? Last night I heard a discussion when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) was speaking, as to whether we should speak of rearmament or increased armaments. It was merely a juggle with words. I hope that we shall get away from these minor disputes. It has been shown in the Debate that every Member of the House, with one exception—the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—realises that even inside a collective system there must be adequate armaments. Once or twice during the Debate, when the Government were criticised, the words "Too late" were used. We had a chorus of "Too late" from the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), and the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) also brought out these words. They might have to use them also if action is not taken in connection with armaments. We have been told over and over again by Opposition speakers that in a collective system armaments and force can be used. If so, surely we must have them in adequate amounts before it is too late.
We see to-day within the collective system nations with a high degree of

397
armaments. We see also nations outside that collective system heavily armed. At the present time we are passing through a crisis in which the League is practically united against one nation which has a great degree of armaments. I think also that we should visualise the occasion when inside the collective system in future we might be faced with the case where one nation with armaments has become the aggressor and is in alliance with a nation outside, alike with heavy armaments. The right hon. Member for Darwen said that a certain amount of armaments were necessary for our defence, but we could not leave all the armaments on the side of the militarist nations. I believe that it has been proved absolutely during the last few weeks that we must see to it that we do not run the danger of having the collective system very lightly armed against any aggressors either outside the League or inside the League with heavy armaments.
All I plead is that we should have adequate armaments and that we should not leave it too late. I do not believe that there can be any real dispute between any members of different parties on that subject. I was very much struck at Geneva by the number of people who told me, and those whom I have met since I came back, that if there were a war they would run to the first recruiting station and be ready to fight for the cause of the League of Nations. That is a different thing from fighting for one country alone, they said. I read in a newspaper a report of a speech of my hon. Friend the Senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), and I am glad of this opportunity of being able still to use that term because within a few short hours we shall be brought down to a drab state of equality. I read in that speech that he was among those who would be willing to offer their services to fight for this great system of collective security. We all know that he would go, and that would be another occasion on which I cannot follow. But I ask hon. Members and those who are so ready to go out when the moment comes, to reflect whether it may not then be a case of "Too late" if we do not see to it that there is the equipment for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, if we do not see in time that our regular forces are sufficiently strong to withstand the first brunt of an enemy's attack? If the
398
collective system required and our defence necessitated that different districts should be held and blockades supported and our forces were not strong enough, would not the efforts of the people who would go forth in support of it be wasted because we had not prepared in time? Without in any way infringing the rules of this House I would like to ask, "Would it be much help to the collective system if we have feet without arms?"
During the last few days we have all realised the gravity of the situation, we have all realised that the time of the testing the collective system is now. We have all been proud of the part that Britain has taken and the lead Britain has given. I know that some people will tell us that we ought to have waited, but I would ask, Has the time come when a great nation like Britain should not be the first to express her opinion? Are we to wait for a lead from any other country? We were told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen that among our sins of commission in the past, among the things that have, perhaps, brought us to the present situation, were the Ottawa Agreements. I put my mind back to that meeting of the Assembly in Geneva and I wonder where I could find the slightest connection between the Ottawa Agreements and what we were doing there. We saw there, and we were all proud to see it, the unity of the great British Commonwealth of Nations. We heard the speeches of the delegates of each Dominion coming forward with a particular contribution to the debate coming to join in the collective system in its time of trial and giving to the debate a particular and local contribution. If that is the result of the Ottawa Agreements I am glad those Agreements were signed. We saw something else, and let us not overlook it. We saw a unity among the nations of the world such as has never been displayed before. We saw 50 nations, and more, in unity supporting the cause we have at heart. Talk of the Ottawa Agreements having split up the world and having created a closed door, so putting the peoples of the world against us, seems to be the talk of people who do not see the situation as it is to-day and are living in a world of theory.
One more word on the subject of armaments. It has been agreed during the

399
last two days that what we want are adequate armaments and armaments in time. I have often heard it said that the time might come when this country might be invaded from the air. We have been told about bombs being dropped on defenceless women and children. I wish for a moment to speak, from a point of view which I have never before put in this House. From the time I had the honour to enter this House as a representative of the City of Dundee I have done my best always to put forward a view which was not alone the women's point of view but the point of view of both men and women, of the people of Great Britain, and particularly those I represent.
On no single occasion, either here or at Geneva, have I put forward what I believe was a view confined to women only; but I want to speak now particularly as a woman. There are very few subjects which we can divide up and treat from the man's point of view and the woman's point of view, but there are some. Men have voiced their horror of the bombing of defenceless women and children and women agree but I would remind hon. Members of what would also be the feeling of the women of the country if our preparations for meeting such an attack were not sufficient. What would the feeling of the women be if this country were invaded from the air, if we had the aeroplanes of a foreign nation overhead and our aeroplanes going up from this soil to defend us, and they were going up not to fight merely against fearful odds but against hopeless odds? What would be the feeling of the women of this country if it were found that there were insufficient supplies for the Army and the Navy; that men going out to defend them were killed because there was no ammunition; that their men were sent to a certain death because there was an insufficiency of supplies? I have addressed many peace demonstrations of women's societies up and down the country and also in Geneva, and I know their strong feeling for peace and their eagerness for peace, but I say that if in the days of peace we are not prepared to defend ourselves and to defend the collective system the women of this country will blame us and we shall deserve it.
To-day we are taking great decisions as to the policy of this country. As I stand here I think of the days to come,
400
when another generation will be in this House of Commons representing the people of Great Britain. They will turn up the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT and they will see what was the state of affairs to-day and how we spoke about it. They will read the warnings which have been given by those who are in the best position to know the state of our defences and the dangers we are up against, and if they read that those warnings were given and that we did not heed them, I believe we who at present represent Great Britain will go down to posterity not with honour but with dishonour.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. LAWSON: I am not unmindful of the gravity of the international situation, but I am extremely sorry that the House cannot give at least one day to the consideration of great social issues which are of at least equal importance with the present international situation. No one in this House will say that the Prime Minister lacks the breadth of understanding which is necessary to make an adequate speech, but as I listened to him yesterday when he was explaining why he could not give us a special day for a Vote of Censure I felt that he was particularly ineffective. I was not impressed by his statement in the way that I often am. While it is of great importance that the country should understand the present international situation I feel perturbed to think that after the many years during which we have suffered from the problem of unemployment we are not to have an opportunity, under proper conditions, of considering that grave question, one of the gravest the country has had to face for many generations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has dealt with one aspect of unemployment. Another aspect to which I wish to draw attention is the situation in those particular areas which once were called "depressed areas" but now are known as "special areas." I do not draw attention to them with a view to isolating them or dealing with them apart, but because they represent the very heart of the unemployment problem. When this House first met in 1931 the spokesmen of the Government definitely acknowledged the gravity of the unemployment situation in particular areas. There was

401
reason for that gravity. As far back as 1927 a member of the Royal House whom I shall not mention came North, with characteristic humanity to investigate for himself the situation there. At that time the country was extremely disturbed. So disturbed was it that when that highly-placed personage came North a great staff of pressmen from Fleet Street came with him, and the reports they sent to the newspapers were given almost the same standing as reports from the Abyssinian front at the present time. Everyone will remember those days. The sympathy of the people was touched and they wanted to know what they could do. The Government were so disturbed that they refused to have a second visit to the South Wales area. A report was given which was never published. As a result of the discussions and revelations at that time the Government set up the Transference Board. Does the House understand that at that time there were only 1,000,000 unemployed, and that to-day there are 2,000,000, and that three-fourths of that 2,000,000, namely 1,400,000, are in four of the areas out of the eight divisions in Great Britain?
The Government might well be disturbed at the position in 1931. They said then, "We have many problems to deal with and we cannot find the time to give to this question, but what we can do we will do." And they gave a small grant of £25,000 to the National Council of Social Service. I criticised and doubted the wisdom of that grant at the time. That was not a criticism of voluntary effort. I knew that organisations had been working in various parts of the country, voluntarily, silently and obscurely, and I knew the good work some of them had been doing. The mistake was that the Government did not allow those people to go on in their own obscure way in order that any experience that was built up could come from the bottom, but gave some finance to the National Council of Social Service, who knew nothing about the situation and smiled charitably at people from the top. I have seen this thing at work and I say that it is unworthy of this nation that the question should be treated in that way.
Who are the people to whom we offer a kind of charity and kind of voluntary effort? Some of them are young and
402
some middle-aged, and are men of ability who would rival any hon. Member of this House in their sense of independence. In many cases they are men who made and manned trenches and played their part in the critical hour of this nation's history. They are of a peculiar type of independence, so far as the mining industry is concerned. The social service organisations have failed to touch the basic facts in these areas. The men will not have that kind of thing. It was clear to us very soon that the Government have failed. Well meant as the effort was, and as many of the people were, for doing that work, it failed in that object.
The scheme quietened the country's conscience for about two years. Then came revelations. The "Times" newspaper, a great organ which generally favours the Government of the day, sent a representative to one or two of the areas, and in three articles the "Times" observer told the people of the country what we had been telling the House—we who were direct from the areas, and were only 50 against 500. We are an insignificant—perhaps the most insignificant—Opposition, in point of numbers, that there has been in our political history. With the "Times" representative it was another proposition altogether. The descriptions of the writer in the "Times" underlined what we had said. They were given a vividness by reason of the shock he sustained in the face of what he saw. Those articles found their way into all kinds of quarters where we were not likely to be heard. To the credit of the British people, of whatever class and walk of life they belonged, they were deeply concerned and touched by the information they received and the descriptions they read.
The Government had to do something about it, and so, in 1934, about April, they sent out investigators. Why should they have needed any further investigation? There were surveys by skilled men from various universities, and there were the "Times" articles placing on record what that writer had seen. There was abundant information in the possession of the Government. The Government knew that conditions were not getting any better. Anyhow, the investigators went out, all of them Government members and all skilled men at their jobs. They were found within the ranks of the

403
Government, not behind the Government, and they set on record, with calm, clear evidence, figure and fact, a state of things which disturbed this House and disturbed the country. The Government had to do something again, so in July, 1934, I believe it was, they appointed their Commissioner. He has been acting now for at least a year, and he has published one report. The report was of such a nature that the Minister of Labour himself, just before the House rose in July, felt called upon to defend the Government against that report, which was a scathing thing. The report said that everywhere the Commissioner turned to do anything he was stopped by those who were acting for the Government. There was a very quaint statement. I am very sorry that I have not the report by me at the moment, but there was a paragraph which might well be used by an artist of the fame of George Robey. The Government had failed; the Government's representatives had blocked the Commissioner's efforts at every turn. They are blocking them now. The Government Commissioner has done nothing to relieve the situation in any of the areas, not from want of will but because he cannot, from the terms under which he has to operate.
Let me tell the House a very simple fact. Are hon. Members aware, and are the Government aware, that the Commissioner or his representatives cannot do the very elementary thing of removing some of the old pit heaps, waste heaps from collieries, into great clay holes that are standing by the very side of those heaps? They have no power to do that. The House did at least think that the Commissioner could deal with the amenities. We were very critical of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement when the Commissioners were appointed, but I think it would be agreed by those who were here that the general impression was that the Commissioners, although they only had £2,000,000 to work with, would deal with amenities among the first things. They cannot do the most elementary things along those lines. So, from beginning to end, the Government have utterly neglected to touch the fringe of the problem of the depressed areas. They attempted to limit the areas. They said, "We will narrow the front so that we can operate more easily
404
and do something practical," and so, in the special areas—we described them as special areas on that occasion—they have left out one of the counties which are most gravely affected, the Lancashire area. In the areas which are left, nothing whatever has been done.
It is not that nothing might be done. The other day the local authorities, bringing pressure to bear upon Members on all sides of the House, made a most modest demand that the unemployed should be completely taken charge of financially by the Government. That was a very modest claim, because those areas have been burdened for years in a way that would be beyond belief to the people of this country. Take the simple instance of a deputation of which I was a member a week or two ago. There are other members from the north who were there at the time. Durham County Council submitted to the Ministry of Transport a proposal in which they assessed the works—not relief works—of a constructive nature which were necessary to the well-being of the county, to the extent of £8,500,000. The Ministry of Transport admitted that the works were practical and necessary constructive works. In fixing their five-year plan, the county council said, "We cannot be responsible for all this expenditure because we have too great a debt." They made selections from that programme, which they reduced to a value of £3,000,000—less than half. They then submitted their programme to the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry reduced the £3,000,000 to £1,300,000.
The House must understand the very grave effect that that had from the point of view of that locality and other localities. If the county council, under the arrangement obtaining at that time, had consented to carry out the programme of £1,300,000, it would have increased the county highway rate by 8d. We saw the Minister of Transport the other day and he agreed that there would be an increase of grant. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the county council will only be able to carry out constructive schemes to the extent of about one-fifth of what the Ministry of Transport states are the actual needs. Indeed, the Ministry said to the county council, "In this programme you are doing nothing for the

405
weak bridges," and the county council replied, "We cannot." That is typical of the kind of thing that is going on. They have gone from one stage of debt and despondency to another, until I marvel that they carry on their work at all.
But behind all this is the far graver question of the men and women and their families. For one who has seen this thing over the years, and has seen the decay of men and women, it is almost impossible to speak in measured terms. I see accounts sent to the Members of this House about how many calories it takes to keep a man, a woman or a child, but I never take any notice of them. It is not for lack of calories that men are ill; they are ill for lack of work. These men have gone from stage to stage of despondency, and how does this House treat them? The only effective thing that the Government have done has been to take millions of pounds from the people in these areas, and not only has their income been cut down, but the men themselves have been reduced to a standard of dependence upon members of their families that is very humiliating. I am sure that, if hon. Members had understood what they were doing, they would not have insisted on this being carried out.
Let me give an instance. Here is a case of a man 45 or 50 years of age, a high craftsman, the kind of man that I heard spoken of when the Territorials first went in. Somebody said, at the second battle of Ypres, "Oh Lord, it is the Territorials." "Yes," said somebody else, "but they are miners, and they can dig," and that was appreciated at that time. This man of 45 or 50 is in his prime, he has wisdom and experience both in regard to his craft and in regard to dealing with any particular dangers that might come along. Indeed, I should say it would pay a company to engage a man of that kind rather than younger men. He is strong, he has all his faculties and powers, he has his experience, and his family have looked up to him as the man who has kept the family going. Sometimes people speak of the miner as a man who would get out of his job as soon as possible, if he could, because it is so difficult and dangerous, but I say here, careless of contradiction, that he has a rare pride in his work. The day comes when his son is working, or perhaps he
406
has more than one son working, and, because he has sons in his home, who have been taught to look up to and depend upon him, he is robbed of any right to unemployment insurance benefit without the slightest opportunity of getting work. He goes round and round like a rat in a cage without the slightest opportunity of work, and he is conscious that he is dependent upon those who are younger than he, and who have always looked to him for strength and succour. There are cases where a pit has been idle for long periods, and, when the pit begins again and his son starts work and gets wages the father loses his allowance. No heed whatever is taken of the long period during which there has been no income, and the household resources have been sapped.
This question is the hard core of the general unemployment question, with which it is usually allied. One of my hon. Friends was informed this afternoon that there had been a reduction of 80,000 odd in the number of miners employed in the last four years. That is the case in every other big industry—steel, cotton, and all those great basic industries upon which the nation depends and which are of vital importance to it. It is a fact that the number of men that are being employed is decreasing, and that decrease will continue. It may be, of course, that that will not be the case in some industries in the Midlands and in the South, which produce commodities of a light nature, but they are not basic industries.
My main point is that the Government are going to the country with no programme, no statement, upon a great question of this kind. I do not think, and I never have thought, that this is a question with a one-sided solution; it is a question the solutions of which are many-sided. It is not a question that can be settled in a week, or a month, or even in a year or two. When the Prime Minister speaks of the increasingly improving position in this, that, and the other way, I see no more reason for believing that it will touch those areas in the future than I have seen in the past, four years. The Government are going to the country now without any programme, and they are doing worse than that. Take the question of the regulations to which attention has been drawn by my right hon. Friend. Everyone knows what a difficult question that

407
is. Everyone knows that about nine months ago the country was angered over those regulations in a way in which it has seldom been angered. But the Government, apparently, are going to the country without telling the people concerned what they are going to do, but simply asking for a period of five years in which to do what they like with those people. That is unfair to the people, and it is unworthy of any Government.
Most people know that I am almost dispassionate as far as the election is concerned, but it is disgraceful to go to the country to get, if they are returned, a further period of five years in which to take advantage of the men and youths in those particular areas, who number three-quarters of the whole unemployed, and fasten upon them regulations which will further lower their standard of life and income. My hon. Friend opposite thinks that I am wrong, but I should be very pleased indeed if I could go back and take part in this election in the ordinary way without feeling that the Government were deliberately tricking these men and taking advantage of them in their poverty.
"The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty,"
was never more exemplified than it has been during the past four years, and particularly by the manner in which this appeal to the country is to be organised. I do not care what Government is in office. If it were a Government of my own party I should challenge its ability to deal with this question through the Minister of Labour. It cannot be done. There are Members who think that the Abyssinian question is the one of most vital importance, but the question of most vital importance is that which affects the morale of your citizens, and there is nothing that so undermines the morale of the people as unemployment has done during the last few years. Nothing has so taken the heart out of them as the hopelessness with which they are faced. I wish it were possible to appeal to this Government, but the time is past. But I hope at any rate that the people outside, that wider tribunal, will challenge every Member of this House, irrespective of party, as to the conduct
408
of the Government in relation to unemployment and the way in which unemployed people have been treated during the past four years.
6.57 p.m.
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am sure everyone will agree that the speech to which we have just listened was one of great sincerity, and I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman, when he discusses the question of the depressed areas, that some of us feel just as deeply on the subject as he does. I had the honour, during the Great War, of commanding some 6,000 or 7,000 miners from Durham and Northumberland, and I can bear out every word that he has said with regard to their pride and their feeling of dignity in regard to their work. I am convinced that there is not a Member of this House, to whatever party he may belong, who is not determined to do everything he can to try to better the lot of these splendid citizens of ours.
If I might just throw out a word with regard to this subject, I would ask my hon. Friend, when he feels somewhat bitterly against His Majesty's Government, to consider for a moment in all fairness the change that has taken place in the situation of the people of this country since August, 1931. He indicated just now that the problem of the depressed areas was linked up with industry as a whole, and that, of course, is perfectly true. It is because I feel that we should not imagine that the plight of the depressed areas can be cured without raising the general prosperity of the country that I would urge my hon. Friend to remember that, since the Government adopted their economic policy, we have 1,000,000 more people at work, and have actually halved the number of unemployed in the manufacturing industries of the country, while our exports have increased, in spite of a world decrease in exports, until we are back at the first place among the exporting nations of the world. Can anybody conceive of anything which is going to give more immediate aid to the miners, who are the heart of the problem in the depressed areas, than getting ahead with that process here and now?
I want to say a word or two with regard to the subject of the Debate, for which the Opposition asked, with reference to the foreign crisis. I well under-

409
stand that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was very anxious to lead our thoughts in other directions, because if you come to examine the views of the Opposition on this subject it will be very evident to the House and to the country, I think, why they desire as little said about this subject at the present moment as possible. In dealing with this world crisis we have to be very level-headed in our actions, and we ought to refrain from any word which is going to harden the hearts of people with whom we hope to work on the Continent of Europe. It is very easy for pacifists to slay dictators in their speeches, but I doubt whether these same gentlemen will be quite so ready to take part in the action which may follow their policy.
We have had such a large part in leading the League of Nations towards mobilising opinion with regard to this crisis that it appears to me that it behoves us to be very calm and judicial in the way we weigh up differences of opinion. I particularly regret the violence of the language of one whose name used to ring through Europe, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), because when you are trying to get all the help and assistance in your collective action from one of the great nations of Europe which you can, it seems hardly the time when you should make utterances which are unbecoming to that calm which I should like to see and which make it difficult for that country to realise our friendship. With regard to the wisdom of the League of Nations and the perfection of its machinery, I think that we are not called on at the present moment to discuss that. There may be differences of opinion. I for one have always held the view that the greatest disservice you could do to the great ideal of collective action was to try to make the League of Nations gallop before it could trot, and I am sure that those who take a more extreme view than the Government are not doing any good service in suggesting that extreme measures should be taken. But for better or worse, we are in the League, and I for one without any hesitation whatever support such action as has been taken by the Government, and I doubt whether in honour we could have taken any other course.
410
I rejoice that it has been made so abundantly clear by the Prime Minister and spokesmen of the Foreign Office in the last few days that our position is clear, and that we stand most firmly by all the utterances which have been made; that our policy has not changed, and that we are prepared to carry out literally the statement of the Secretary of State at Geneva. I am one of those who does not believe that the Government could possibly have considered going at a greater pace unless there had been a spontaneous expression of opinion from the whole of the nations in the League that they were prepared to go to further steps. I think it has been made clear that they are not prepared for any such policy. Therefore I rejoice that the policy of the Government at the present moment in dealing with this problem is one of ostracism and not one of war. A nation, like an individual, can trade with anybody it chooses; it can withhold its financial and economic facilities, and that is not an act of hostility as far as the question of war is concerned. When we have these dramatic demands which we have seen occurring so frequently from irresponsible quarters, that we should cut the communications of a Power which is at war and starve its army, that not only would mean war but a most sanguinary war, bringing troublous times upon the world. I am absolutely convinced that the overwhelming majority of this country would blame any Government which landed us into a European war in such a cause. It must be our sole aim and object to confine the tragedy and not to extend it.
Let me say a word with regard to Italy and the long tale of outrages against the Italian colonies by the tribes which we are told are not under the control of the Emperor of Abyssinia. Some of us have for many years known of the raids, slave trading and depredations on the whole of that great border between the South-Western corner of Abyssinia and Kenya Colony, and we know of the appalling fate of so many British subjects along that territory. Some of us have also known that in the Kenya portions again and again there have been raids. I think that I am not exaggerating when I say that had the inhabitants of that country been any other than Abyssinians, who we felt were hardly responsible for their actions, we could again and again have

411
regarded the raids as a subject for correction, if not for war.
We ought to appreciate that fact, and in my belief had the Italian Government seen fit to go to the League of Nations and to present its memorandum, on the assumption that the evidence is true as far as it can be and is carefully documented—if that long story of difficulty and trial which the Italians have had to undergo along the borders of their colonies had been brought to the League and Italy had realised that the opinion of the world had changed, I believe that they would have had a sympathy from the whole world which does not apply now on account of the actions which Signor Mussolini has taken. Even at this date we ought to realise the particular position of our old ally, Italy, vis-a-vis Abyssinia, and I think that when, as I hope, some peaceful solution comes about, we cannot neglect the fact that we have for years past always ourselves agreed that Italy had some special interest in Abyssinia which is not the case with other countries. I only hope that we may see a change of attitude in the near future from that great man who leads Italy, and that he will appreciate the fact that the whole world is against him on his attitude. I hope that it may be possible that the whole approach to the League of Nations may be offered in a different spirit; I believe that he would find a remarkable amount of sympathy in other countries.
I would like to say a word or two with regard to the appalling danger of ill-considered words expressed in various ways. I most definitely assert that the official Opposition in this country and the Liberal party who sit behind me, by their enthusiasm for the causes which they espouse and their lack of caution in the words they have used, have to a certain extent imperilled the position of this country. I come first of all to the Trades Union Congress at Margate. I apologise for speaking of that body in this House, but I understand that they are the controlling influence on the gentlemen who occupy the Labour benches. The Trades Union Congress at Margate demanded any action in order to restrain Italy. Sir Walter Citrine, who I think moved the official resolution, said:
"There ought not to be the slightest doubt in the minds of the public of this
412
and other countries where British Labour stood on, this subject."
He went on to say:
"To put at the disposal of the League of Nations such a measure of military, naval and aerial force as might be necessary to make the sanctions really effective, was a very important point of the Labour policy."
It was a very important statement, one that was read widely throughout the world. I hope that now the men in the Navy, Army and Air Force will realise that their Socialist brethren at Margate, in that bracing air, wished to put them at the disposal of the League. "About to die for a cause in which you were not enlisted, we salute you"—that was the message from Margate. These same gentlemen, who are ready to put our armed forces at the disposal of the League, go further than that and make it clear that the forces of the Crown have got to draw their swords, not in defence of anything as vulgar as hearth and home and the women and children of this country, but in defence of Socialist policy. Sir Walter Citrine continued to say:
"Their demand must be for the use of all measures which were necessary to restrain the peace-breaker. They recognised that that might mean war. That was one of the things they had to face. They had to face the fact that there was no alternative except to take the risk of applying sanctions involving the possibility of war."
When Sir Walter Citrine and his gallant colleagues said that war was one of the things they had to face, did they mean that they had to face it? Did he mean that all those hundreds of thousands of card votes were going to join up and take their part? I made very careful inquiries from the various recruiting agents, and from that day to this there has been no evidence of these gentlemen coming up. It takes six months to make a soldier at the very least. I should have thought that if they had been sincere in this there would have been a great rush, at least to the Territorial Army, which is 50 per cent. below strength. But that was not the most interesting part of Sir Walter Citrine's speech. He said:
"If they draw back now, was was certain and it would be impossible to restrain Hitler from carrying out his projected attack upon Soviet Russia. Now was the time to defend Soviet Russia by defending Abyssinia."
That is a very surprising statement coining from such an important quarter,

413
and I think it explains why M. Laval has been so insistent in his demand for other forms of sanctions even wider than those which have been proposed at Geneva.
Now we come to the Socialist party proper who are obedient to the orders of Margate. They went even further west. They went to Brighton, and there they had a very vital discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who is much honoured in this House, felt constrained to resign his leadership solely because his colleagues demanded such sanctions as, in his opinion and that of others, would inevitably lead to war. I think all our sympathies must go out to the right hon. Gentleman because at least he has been logical and consistent. We have heard him in many Debates making precisely the same speeches as he makes to-day. He must have felt a certain amount of surprise when, in his retiring position on the back benches, he heard the newly elected leader who had replaced him because he was not prepared to dance the war dance, make his speech two days ago with hardly a reference to the mandate from the Trades Union Congress or from the Labour Party Conference at Brighton. It is not so long since hon. Members above the Gangway were describing the Government in the country as warmongers. They fought by-elections upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley was in the forefront, leading the party, and they declared their policy with very great emphasis. Now there has been a complete change round. The policy now is not, as it was then, Disarmament at any cost. It is a longer slogan than that. It is Disarm and fight. The Liberal party is not so very far behind hon. Members above the Gangway. They also have made their position somewhat clearer in the last day or two. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) drew a pathetic picture of ship after ship bringing supplies and reinforcements and ammunition to the Italian forces in Abyssinia, across the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal, down the Red Sea, past Aden, referring much to what might be described as spheres of British influence. He said:
414
"I do not believe that this country or the world could tolerate a situation of that character."
I asked him, I hope very politely, what he would do in those circumstances. He gave an answer which I think must make it clear that he is prepared to go very much further along the road to military sanctions. He said:
"Take the same lead at Geneva for enforcing further sanctions as the right hon. Gentleman has for enforcing economic sanctions. They have 200,000 men in East Africa, and the situation from a strategic point of view is not an agreeable one. I had not intended to go into these details but I have had to do so in order to answer the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member. I had not intended to go into these details because language of this sort ought really to be avoided in the Parliaments of Europe."
It would have been far better for the peace of the world and the co-operation of nations if there had not been this stream of invective suggesting precisely that same policy of blockade and closing the Suez Canal in the columns of one of our leading journals during the last few months.
Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. Baronet has omitted my introductory words. I was not referring to the situation at this moment. I said:
"How long that resistance will endure we cannot tell, but we must contemplate the fact that the war is going on, that thousands and thousands of Abyssinians are being killed and that more and more of the territory of Abyssinia is actually being occupied by Italian armies, and that there is a prospect that the aggressor will be triumphant and the League humiliated. That is an eventuality which is intoleraable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 52, Vol. 305.]
Then follow the words that were quoted. May I ask the hon. Baronet what he would do in those circumstances?
Sir H. CROFT: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he listens to my remarks, he will get some idea. I would beg him to remember that he is here contemplating that the war will be going on for some time and that, therefore, we must go for further sanctions. He deliberately indicated that he—and I expect he speaks for his party—is prepared to go the full length of sanctions even if they involve war—the blocking of the Suez Canal and the cutting of communications. I think it would have been much wiser for him when he was

415
asked what he would do, if he had said, "Call me in and perhaps I will decide if I am the future Prime Minister," but I do not know that that is very likely. What I would do is this. I would say, by every possible means, moral, economic and financial pressure, endeavour to persuade Italy to come back to the ideals of the League of Nations, but, if you attempt to starve her army or to cut her off from her base, that would be an act of madness which would turn Italian soldiers into super-heroes and, if you tried to cut off the British Empire from the East by blocking the Suez Canal, there is not a man in the country who would not fight to the last drop of his blood in such a position as that. I cannot believe that it would be really helping the peace of the world to risk the conflagration of a great war between first-class Powers, into which many other small Powers might be drawn.
Sir H. SAMUEL: I gather that in the circumstances that I envisage the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do nothing?
Sir H. CROFT: I would certainly do nothing rather than drive the people of this country into a first-class war. I think the Government have adopted a policy that is statesmanlike. There is not a man or woman voter in the country who in the last election ever imagined that you were going to risk the lives of your soldiers, sailors and airmen in a cause such as this. You never told the people that the League of Nations was to be an instrument for war. You have always said it was an idealistic institution where you hoped you would find the nations of the world coming together to find arbitration and agreement.
I should like to say a word in regard to the immensity of this danger. People talk light-heartedly about the Italians being in a difficult strategical position. I have made some little study of this question of the Mediterranean and North and East Africa. Supposing such a calamity as a war with Italy was to occur, though I have not the remotest doubt that we should ultimately triumph, it would only be at the cost of a terrible loss of life. You would be taking on one of the greatest Powers of the world, with a wonderful up-to-date air force and fleet and a very large number of
416
submarines. Of course you could cut off the Italian Army from their base, but at what cost, and what would be the result, and what would happen to the League of Nations? Inevitably Italy would leave the League, and all the nations dependent upon her, whose life is so largely intertwined with hers, would leave the League the day that military sanctions were employed.
When I read in the Press utterances of people declaring how the navies of the other countries of the League of Nations would range themselves behind ours I shudder to think of the ignorance that is displayed. We all know that the French could only intervene with their fleet if they were driven to it. If you are going to have military sanctions and France is in the picture, she would have to expose the whole of her frontier to a first-class army which can mobilise 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 men, and her rich cities could immediately be bombed. Is it likely that the French would put all their strength into naval co-operation? You would have to rely on the Greek fleet coming to your aid; or is it the Swiss Navy? When you talk about collective sanctions on the sea, it means that the British Navy would have to take the whole burden. That is why I beg and pray that we may not have these light-hearted pre-election speeches saying that this country ought to go to any lengths in order that the ideas of the League may triumph.
May I say one other word by way of question to the Government? I warmly approve their policy. The speech of the Secretary of State at Geneva and that of the Prime Minister have been a tremendous relief to me, and I rejoice that I can feel whole-heartedly that I am with them. But there was one statement made at Geneva which has been very much repeated ever since by many of the Bishops and others who always seem so ready to catch hold of any idea which might protect the world, without considering the consequences to the British Empire. I want to know—I will not press it if it is inconvenient—what exactly is meant when it is said that we are going to make the raw materials of the British Empire more accessible to the rest of the world. I have given up a great many years of my life to study of this question. I happen to be a producer of six or seven raw materials in

417
the Empire. What raw materials of the Empire are not accessible to Italy? I only ask this question because it seems to me that it is a mistake at this juncture that we should hold out hopes that we can greatly help the world in the days to come by doing something that we have always been doing in the past. Of course, if it means that there may be a country which is contemplating aggression and which, therefore, is not able to have those raw materials, which may be cut off from her, that is an argument that I could understand, but surely we do not want to encourage that kind of argument.
As a primary producer in the British Empire for years past I have been endeavouring to sell my products to every country in the world. It is not a question whether they are accessible. Throughout the primary producing countries of the world producers have been practically giving their supplies to anyone who would take them. If any Italians like to come to Kenya, where I have some small interests, they can have my property for a great deal less than I paid for it. No one has ever attempted to stop them coming into those British Colonies or possessions, but there is the theory that is going round that you could solve the population problem of Germany and Italy if only there were new African territories available. It shows an extraordinary lack of proportion, which is evident to those who know those countries, when these remarks are made. In Kenya, which has been very much advertised, which is a very popular Colony, there are only 10,000 white men, women and children, and to say that you can solve the population problem of these countries is really too ludicrous. One of the leaders of the Socialist party, the leader of the London County Council, Mr. Morrison, said:
"I would be prepared to say that no individual State shall have Crown Colonies at all. All of them should be handed over to the League and administered under mandate and controlled by the League."
Is that the policy of the Opposition?
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Mr. Morrison can explain it himself when he gets here.
Sir H. CROFT: I say that he made that statement in a speech and his remarks were cheered to the echo. This was at an official Socialist gathering.
Mr. GRIFFITHS: He will be here on 3rd December.
Sir H. CROFT: I think that the whole country in the meantime will be aware of the fact that every single Crown Colony in the British Empire is to be handed over. We are getting on, and we know where we are.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: I heard that speech, and I distinctly heard Mr. Herbert Morrison say that with regard to that particular matter he was speaking entirely for himself.
Sir H. CROFT: I really rejoice to think that this is a suggestion that does not represent the views of the Socialist party.
Mr. JONES: He did not pretend that it did.
Sir H. CROFT: This is getting more and more important. You repudiated your late leader the other day, and now you are repudiating your prospective leader.
Mr. JONES: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not wish to do Mr. Herbert Morrison an injustice. Mr. Morrison very carefully said in his speech that he knew that in what he was about to say he would be speaking his own mind, and he did not desire it to be understood to be committing anybody else.
Sir H. CROFT: I feel a tremendous relief, after one read that this statement was far and away the most loudly cheered in the whole of his speech, that the "Daily Herald" was wrong about that. Unfortunately, these ideas are bandied about, and they are not confined to the Opposition above the Gangway, because there was an eloquent passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), in which he said:
"Three quarters of the whole land area of the world is possessed by nine political units, and the other 50 nations are left with one quarter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 54, Vol. 305.]
Surely, that means that he is prepared to make an alteration of those territories, otherwise why did he make that remark? I am afraid that he is rather forgetful. After all, he can hardly describe all the territories in the British Empire any longer as being one unit.

419
He has worked very hard against me for the last two or three years. I am not going to mention the name of the territory, but no one can say that that is any longer a British possession in the sense that we could part with it. You have given it self-government and you have to eliminate that unit. Is not that another unit? I should like to know the conclusion—
Sir H. SAMUEL: Again, the hon. and gallant Member has left out the salient passage of the part of my speech which he is criticising. It is the second time he has done that, and I am afraid that it is becoming a habit with him. Had he quoted the parts which are definitely relevant it would have precluded him from making the observations which he has just made. I will only read a sentence or two:
"I do not propose to go into all the details of these arguments, but to state my own conclusion that these grievances"—
that is, of the dissatisfied Powers—
"cannot, in the present state of the world, be effectively remedied by any territorial adjustments or transfer of mandates. Although something might be done in those directions, they will not effectively meet the requirements of these great populations. A solution, if it comes at all, must necessarily be on economic lines, as the Foreign Secretary said some time ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; col. 55, Vol. 305.]
Sir H. CROFT: Then I am at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have given this arithmetical calculation of the amount of the territory of the world. If he was not referring to British territory, what did he mean?
Sir H. SAMUEL: It was in order to base an economic argument upon it.
Sir H. CROFT: Then the right hon. Gentleman will resist any attempt to dispose of the British Empire as Dane-geld, and will go further and see that no attempt is made to hand over existing mandates of the British Empire. The right hon. Gentleman is not so ready to deny that that was the implication of his speech. The fact remains that these dangerous suggestions are being bandied about throughout the country. I know that there are people writing to the newspapers every day suggesting that if you part with a bit of territory
420
here or there you will satisfy Signor Mussolini or Herr Hitler. Presumably if you were to hand over the Palestine mandate to Nazi Germany that would satisfy them. But it would not satisfy them. They would want something else in the very near future. It would be exactly the same if you handed over the mandate for Tanganyika to Italy. It would not satisfy them. The most that Italy could possibly settle, if she had all Colonial Africa of all races, would in my opinion be 100,000. You cannot solve Italy's problem along those lines. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is completely converted to my interpretation of his speech?
I commend and I rejoice in the policy of His Majesty's Government. I think that they have done wisely. They had an extraordinarily difficult task. Once having entered upon that task, they could not have wavered, and I believe that when they appeal to the country, as they are bound to do, in order to show the whole world that the British nation is behind the Government of this country, and if they make it abundantly clear that they stand for peace, and only security for peace, which is adequate armed forces of the Crown, they will have a wonderful response from the people of this country.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who has returned from Geneva upon the conduct of the affairs of this country. Every speech that has been delivered by our statesmen has added dignity and authority to the utterances of the British race. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the House are convinced that they will get an extraordinary response from the country. I believe that the country will say definitely and decisively that they repudiate the proposals which were put forward at Margate and at Brighton, and that they will support His Majesty's Government in pursuit of world peace by the policy which has been indicated in this Debate.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. DINGLE FOOT: It is obvious that the speech to which we have just listened suggests that coming events cast their shadows before. It is the sort of speech which can only be made when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is beginning his election campaign. I feel that that speech, which will no doubt be delivered

421
on a number of occasions in the next two or three weeks, may be better received on the hustings at Bournemouth than in this House, because at Bournemouth there will be nobody, as is the case with the OFFICIAL REPORT, to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he makes glaring mis-statements.
Sir H. CROFT: If the hon. Member can show that I made a single misquotation, I will withdraw it. I could not read the whole of the speech.
Mr. FOOT: Surely, it is a mistake when you drag a sentence out of its context so as to give an entirely different impression to what was originally intended.
Sir H. CROFT: The House can judge of that.
Mr. FOOT: I have no doubt that the House will be able to judge of that. At least such Members have heard the passage between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). In the course of his speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman turned upon us on these benches and asked us what we told the people of this country at the last General Election about the League of Nations, and whether we had ever told them that the League of Nations was to be regarded as an instrument of war. We never told them anything of the kind. What we did tell them, and have always told them in the Liberal Party, is that the Covenant of the League of Nations means what it says, and that we in this country have put our signature not to one clause or to two clauses, but to all the articles of the Covenant. It has been stated in this Debate that some of the articles of the Covenant have lost their validity since they were first signed in 1919, and the argument was developed at considerable length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery)—I am sorry that he is not in his place now—that in some way or other this country had gone back upon Article XVI of the Covenant. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The reasons for rejecting that Protocol"—
that was the 1924 Protocol—
"were reasons which in fact and in substance were a rejection of Article XVI.
At a later stage in his speech, he said:
422
"That was the policy of Locarno, and the policy of Locarno, if I may venture to say so to my right hon. Friend, was not merely an alternative to the Protocol but an alternative to Article XVI."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1935; cols. 183 and 185, Vol. 305.]
That was the most remarkable statement made during the course of this Debate. Surely it must have been familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, if you look at the terms of the Treaty of Locarno, that in one of the annexes of that Treaty, the British Government set out, the interpretation which they place upon Article XVI of the Covenant. I have no doubt that these words are familiar to a great many hon. Members, but I will read them as they are very short:
"Draft Collective Note to Germany regarding Article XVI of the Covenant of the League of Nations (initialed at Locarno, October 16, 1925).
The German delegation has requested certain explanations in regard to Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
We are not in a position to speak in the name of the League, but in view of the discussions which have already taken place in the Assembly and in the Commissions of the League of Nations, and after the explanations which have been exchanged between ourselves, we do not hesitate to inform you of the interpretation which, in so far as we are concerned, we place upon Article 16.
In accordance with that interpretation the obligations resulting from the said Article on the members of the League must be understood to mean that each State member of the League is bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account."
That is initialled by, among others, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). How can the argument possibly be advanced that the Treaty of Locarno was in some way a substitute for Article XVI when attached to that very Treaty is the re-affirmation, as I read it, by the British Government of their belief in the efficacy of that particular Article? We are now on the third day of the Debate, and in spite of what was said yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of League of Nations Affairs, we on these benches cannot help feeling that there was a very sharp distinction between British policy on and after the 11th

423
September and British policy before the 11th September. I know that the right hon. Gentleman denied that when he was answering something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). He gave a quotation from a speech that he made in this House on 1st July, when he told the House exactly what he had said to Signor Mussolini about the Abyssinian dispute. I am not going to read out the whole of the passage, which is a long one, but I agree that there is, at any rate, a broad hint given to Signor Mussolini in that passage.
The MINISTER for LEAGUE of NATIONS AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Come, come!
Mr. D. FOOT: I will read it. He said that this country would regard it very seriously if he were to proceed with his Abyssinian adventure. I am perfectly ready to concede that to the right hon. Gentleman, but even after 1st July and even after the right hon. Gentleman had given that intimation to Signor Mussolini, the Government did not speak with one voice on that question. I am prepared to believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself has always pursued a perfectly consistent policy, but let me remind the House of one other very familiar quotation, and that is the speech made by Lord Londonderry on 27th July, that is, at a later date. He said that the pursuit and the maintenance of peace were the collective duty and responsibility of the States who were members of the League.
"Geneva was a common council board to which the nations could resort in order to secure the settlement of their disputes not by force but by agreement. If war broke out the League of Nations had failed in its primary object, though it could still be valuable as a mediatory influence and as an influence to limit the extent of the disaster."
Like the right hon. Gentleman in the language he used in the House on 1st July, the Noble Lord was speaking in rather involved though perhaps diplomatic language, yet any ordinary person in reading that passage from the speech would imagine that all forms of sanctions were ruled out. The Noble Lord only went so far as to rule out actual military sanctions, but there is no suggestion that economic sanctions might possibly be em-
424
ployed. Once the war had broken out, in the view of Lord Londonderry, on 27th July, the function of the League was to exercise a mediatory influence and limit the extent of the disaster. Therefore, even after the intimation to Signor Mussolini the Government were not speaking with one voice. I do not believe that, outside the Treasury Bench, there was a single private Member of this House who, when the House rose at the beginning of August, really knew whether the Government intended to adopt a policy of sanctions, economic or otherwise. I should have thought, in view of the long correspondence that took place in the "Times" newspaper right through August and until the beginning of September, that a great many of the letters then written would not have been necessary and would not have been written if the Government had made it perfectly clear at an earlier stage that they would, if necessary, resort to a policy of sanctions.
In the coming General Election our attitude will be perfectly clear. If the Government continue with the policy that they adopted in the speech of last September then we are with them, and we shall give them in any future Parliament any support that we can so far as their foreign policy is concerned, but if there is a relapse into the sort of policy indicated in the Prime Minister's speech at Glasgow, we are against them and we shall oppose their foreign policy at every step. We are told of the mandate that they hope to get at the General Election. What sort of mandate can it possibly be? I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). There is one question which I think is at the back of all our minds, and which will be very much to the fore in every constituency in the General Election. It is the question that was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen: If the sanctions now being employed prove insufficient to restrain Italy, what then? What step is to be taken then? That seems to me to be the issue at the General Election, and that is a question which every candidate will have to answer for himself. There are only two alternatives. Either you must employ sterner sanctions which will be sufficient to prevent Italy continuing in the Abyssinian adventure, or else you will have

425
to admit that the League collective system has failed.
Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member refers to sterner sanctions. If sterner sanctions fail, what would the hon. Member do then?
Mr. FOOT: It is difficult to contemplate all the possibilities. I find it difficult to contemplate the possibility that Italy would be able to go forward if the other nations were prepared to stop her at all costs. Certainly it is a reasonable calculation that if the other nations were prepared together to adopt extreme measures, such as cutting off communications, it would make it impossible for Italy to go forward. I think that everybody is entitled to assume that. Surely the question for each candidate is going to be this: In the event of the proposed sanctions proving ineffective, are you in favour of going further or are you in favour of seeing the collapse of the collective system? It would have been very bad for the League, and we all said so in the Debates last July, if Signor Mussolini had been able to defy the League and no sanctions had ever been suggested to be imposed. But it would be very much worse for the League and the collective system if sanctions were imposed and Signor Mussolini or any other aggressor was able to go forward successfully in spite of those sanctions. That would mean inevitably the collapse of the whole League system. That is the question which each one of us will have to answer for himself at the Election. In the different parties some candidates will say "Yes," and some will say "No." Some will be in favour of taking stricter and sterner sanctions and others will be against that course.
It is obvious that there will be three distinct parties among the Government's own supporters after the Election. There is the party which will be led by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery.) It may not be very numerous, but it does represent a certain section of opinion in this country. Then there is the attitude which has just been exemplified by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth who said in effect that he was prepared to support the sanctions which had been taken up to now but that he was not prepared to go any further. Thirdly, there will be those who will support the attitude of the right
426
hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and will say they are prepared to go the whole way. Therefore, it seems inevitable that as a result of the Election instead of the Government having their hands strengthened, their hands must inevitably be weakened by the divided counsels that will prevail during the Election and after the Election among the supporters of the Government in this House.
Let me deal with one other topic, which has been raised by hon. Members above the Gangway. I do so because it is a subject in which I have taken a good deal of interest during the lifetime of this Parliament. I refer to the failure of the Government to produce their unemployment regulations before the General Election. It is something like nine months since the standstill arrangement was produced, under which the unemployed were to get a higher scale, whether the Board's scale or the transitional scale. It was at the beginning of February, if my recollection serves me aright, that that arrangement was made, but it is much longer than that since the Unemployment Act became law. That Act received the Royal Assent on 28th June, 1934, over 16 months ago, and yet the principal section in that Act is not yet in full operation. Therefore, we are entitled to ask how much longer the Board and the Minister of Labour need before they are able to produce their set of draft unemployment regulations. I raise this matter because this is the only opportunity that I shall have before the General Election and the reassembling of the new Parliament to say how urgent it is that the standstill arrangement should be brought to an end. It is an extremely unsatisfactory arrangement. It was put forward in a great hurry in order to meet a very difficult situation which the Ministry of Labour and the Board had not foreseen, and it has produced certain anomalies which are absolutely indefensible.
I will give one example. A man came to see me the other day and explained that he and his wife had until recently been receiving 26s. a week. That is the old transitional scale, which is higher than the Board's scale. About a week before he came to see me the man's son, who had been at an industrial school in Edinburgh, had come home. The son was 16 years of age. The man notified

427
the Board of the change of circumstances in that there was a new resident in his household. The Board examined the case and said that the son would not have been under transitional benefit, that there was no transitional scale for the new household, and that therefore the man, his wife and son would have to go back on to the Board's scale of assessment. Under the Board's scale the assessment was 26s. 6d. The man had been receiving 26s. to keep himself and his wife and he was to have 26s. 6d. to keep himself, his wife and son of 16 years of age. That is one of many examples that I could easily give, showing how illogical and absurd is the working of this standstill agreement.
After nine months the House had a right to expect that the Board, with all its resources, and the Minister of Labour have been able to produce some fresh regulations which might be put before the House before the General Election. There are many of us who represent industrial constituencies and know that the question of the means test not only has been a foremost political issue in our constituencies for the last three or four years, but that it is likely to be one of the foremost issues at the General Election. It is a very unfortunate thing that the people who are going to be affected by these regulations when they are made should not have the slightest idea of the character they are going to assume in the next Parliament. Surely, it would have been the honest and straightforward thing to produce the regulations before the General Election and to let the electors judge of them. Does anybody really believe that it is necessary for the Board and the Minister of Labour to take nine months in order to do what is, after all, a comparatively simple task? It is very difficult not to suspect that the reason why there has been so much delay, so much dilatoriness over producing the regulations, is that the Government are determined that the electors shall not see the draft regulations before they are required to go to the poll.
We are told that the Government are going to the country as a National Government and that this is to be a national appeal. Coming from my particular constituency I should like to ask what sort
428
of national appeal it is going to be. Next door to mine is the constituency of East Perth, where some six months ago there was a by-election resulting in the return of a Liberal National Member. The hon. Member for East Perth (Mr. Norie-Miller) has been an ideal supporter of the National Government. He has voted for them on every single occasion he has been here and has never troubled them by opening his mouth. No sort of Government Whip could have any conceivable complaint against the conduct and record of the hon. Member for East Perth. But what has happened? After six months of blameless life in this House on the part of the hon. Member the news has come to us that the Perth Conservative Association have met and actually adopted a candidate to oppose the hon. Member at the forthcoming General Election. It seems to me that that conduct is a little mean. The Conservatives have 450 seats and yet they covet one of the miserable 30 seats that are possessed by their Liberal National allies. There has been nothing like it since David's shabby treatment of Uriah the Hittite. I have said already that this is going to be a very strange General Election and there are going to be, we shall all agree, a good many crosscurrents during that election. I believe in this forthcoming election the electors would do well to concentrate not so much on labels as on principles and policy, because the labels were never more confusing than they are at present. No doubt there will be voters in Sparkbrook and in Warwick and Leamington who will go to the poll on the same day to vote for support to the same administration and I do not think anybody in this House can say that they will be voting for the same thing or the same policy. In the same way, there will be voters in Bournemouth and in Doncaster who will go to the poll to support the existing administration; yet again no one can possibly say that the voters in these two constituencies would be voting for the same things. I hope and believe that in the forthcoming General Election the electors will concentrate not merely on the labels put out, not on the coupon which may be sent out by the co-ordinating committee of the present Government, but concentrate on the great and vital issues now before the country.
8.2 p.m.
Captain CAZALET: I was interested to hear, in the remarks of the last speaker, of his great sympathy for the National Liberal who, he fears, will not be successful at the election. I can only hope that this sympathy means that those Liberals who sit behind me will at the next election support that cause for which they were last elected, namely, the National Government.
Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Not Protection.
Captain CAZALET: But I am afraid that is too much to hope for. I want to revert to the subject that has occupied the attention of the House for the last two days, and may I preface my remarks with a word or two in reference to two speeches. The first is the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for League of Nations Affairs. I am extremely grateful to him for the speech he delivered in this House last night. I am grateful as a political supporter, I am grateful as an Englishman and I am grateful as a sincere believer in the League of Nations. The second speech to which I wish to refer was the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Geneva in August last. It is impossible to exaggerate the influence that speech has had throughout the world. Its effect has been almost cosmic, if I may use the word. It seems to have synchronised with an outburst of public sentiment in this country. I am not quite sure which influenced the other most—whether it was that the sentiment in this country gave great additional force, to the speech, or whether the speech itself unchained a pent-up and almost unconscious national expression of opinion. At any rate, it meant, and it has been interpreted as meaning, that this country in the future intends to play an ever-increasing part at the League and in foreign affairs generally. There had been growing up a belief in the last few years that this country was rapidly becoming a second-rate Power, and that the disintegration of the Empire was about to take place. So much emphasis—I think unwisely—had been laid on the inadequacy and insufficiency of our defence services that people had begun to believe that we had none at all, and it was the greatest surprise, and a very healthy surprise, when 150 ships
430
of His Majesty's Navy appeared in the Mediterranean a few weeks ago.
As one who has always been a supporter of the League of Nations, naturally I am disappointed that they have not been able to stop the outbreak of the Italian-Abyssinian War, but I do not think one need despair. The task of stopping it has failed. The task still remains of bringing it to an end as soon as possible. There are two observations I would like to make in regard to that. Practically no nation to-day has any national or individual grievance against Italy. In spite of Italy, and taking into account the usual national hysteria and patriotic propaganda that we are accustomed to see on those occasions when one nation severs normal relations with another, it is a remarkable event that 50 different nations are unanimous in their condemnation of what Italy has done. Then, I think that those of us who are naturally depressed at the slow mechanism of the League—indeed there were some who imagined that on the day war was declared it was possible to put into operation full sanctions—those I say who are depressed at the slow and inadequate machinery which the League has shown would do well to remember that this is a totally new experiment in the application of international law. Events may well have shown that there are some deficiencies in the Covenant, and that some additional mechanism, or some alteration in that mechanism may be required in the future, but, after all, the pace of the League must be the pace of the slowest member.
Again, I think it well to remember that it is not the principle of collective sanctions which has failed. It is the League members who have failed to put them into practice. Does anyone doubt for a moment that if at any time up to the end of September last, England and France, supported by the other members of the League, had gone to Signor Mussolini and said, "We quite appreciate you may have a case and we are very anxious to study it. We will consider it sympathetically, but on the day you go to war you will find ranged against you the full force, economic and military, of 50 nations"—does anyone imagine that war would ever have broken out? Of course not. Even to-day if you could get those same nations to say to

431
Signor Mussolini that on a particular day, so many weeks or months hence, communication between Italy and the Colonies of East Africa would be cut off, does anyone imagine that he would or could prolong the war beyond that date? I am not saying that that is not a step that entails risk. Certainly it does, but I believe that that risk is infinitesimal compared to the risk of the failure and collapse of the whole collective system. In any case it is impossible to advise His Majesty's Government when or how they should take a step of this kind.
The position of M. Laval is one of extreme delicacy in France, both internally and from the point of view of French foreign policy. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who said that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Foreign Affairs had grovelled to M. Laval to persuade him to come as far as he has done. I should think that was a very false metaphor. I should think the action of my right hon. Friend was much more a friendly and strong pat on the back which impelled M. Laval forward several paces beyond what he would like to have taken. It is perhaps worth while saying that the time may come, however, when if sufficient nations at Geneva continue to wriggle out of their responsibilities it will be up to us to say we shall feel obliged to leave the League, because on the one hand we do not want to, and we will not take, unilateral action, and, on the other, we do not wish to be a party to a system which has become pure hypocrisy. However, that is a card I think we should not play until the very last moment.
The real difficulty that this Government, and indeed the League, will have to face is this: If in a few months' time Signor Mussolini has gained an initial advantage in this war he may very well turn round and say, "The war is over. I always told you it is only a Colonial expedition. It is not a war." He will then offer to the Abyssinians terms not very much, perhaps, beyond the Paris proposals. I wonder what will be the attitude of either the Government or the League in that case? Could we advise the Abyssinians to refuse such terms if we were not prepared to give them any more concrete and
432
definite support than we are giving them to-day? I venture that prophecy because I think it is one that produces peculiar and difficult problems both for this country and the League. It is impossible to emphasise too strongly, even though it bas been already said in this Debate, that this is not an Anglo-Italian conflict. It is just as much a matter of regret to us that Italians are being killed and dying of disease as it is that the natives of Abyssinia should be killed and die of disease. Our only grievance against Signor Mussolini is the manner in which he has conducted negotiations previous to the outbreak of war, the complete cynicism with which he has treated the League and the arrogance with which he has rejected every attempt even on behalf of those who wish most to help him and thereby made it impossible for them to do so.
As the Secretary of State has said, our interest in this whole problem is the interest of the League. We are acting on behalf of peace, the future peace of Europe, and never, I think, has this country been more disinterested in any action that it has taken in regard to foreign affairs. Yet I realise there is hardly a foreigner who believes it. If you read even fhe most temperate of magazines and publications in the United States you will find everywhere there is this underlying suspicious that it is British self-interest that is governing our policy to-day. Personally, I see no reason to believe that altruism is incompatible with self-interest. In fact, Christian ethics confirm and endorse me in that belief. We are constantly told that reward does come to the righteous, sometimes even in this world.
There is only one other subject on which I wish to say a word, and that is in regard to Germany. It is not wholly unconnected with the present problem. We have heard a great deal about German rearmament. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) told us something about it to-day. It has to be seen to be believed. The other day I was in Berlin, and I went some 20 miles outside that town. Literally for miles and miles you find new barracks, parade grounds, officers' quarters in course of being constructed—most of them only begun in the last six or seven months—miles of new aerodromes and of training

433
grounds; and Berlin is only one of more than 20 cities which are military centres, and where you can see the same. If you go to the sea coast you find immense areas reserved for aviation. In certain towns, apparently, every young man you meet is in uniform. The whole country is in a state of war. No officer, no official member of the Nazi party, may have any communication or accept any hospitality whatever from a foreigner except under the direst penalties.
I do not believe that this military machine is being directed, or necessarily will be directed against ourselves; in fact, the reverse is the case to-day. The order is friendship with England, but one cannot help asking to what use this great military machine is to be put, how long it will be possible to justify even to the German people this vast expenditure without using it, and if a crisis should arise will the present or any future Government in Germany be any more able to control the machine than were the Kaiser and a few other well-meaning statesmen in Germany in 1914. It is often argued that the League has become merely an anti-German organisation. We have, I think, to show that the League of Nations is just as ready and anxious to solve the problems of the vanquished as it is to maintain the status quo of the victors.
Take the case of Memel. It is not a new problem. I have not just discovered it, but if it had not been for the Abyssinian dispute Memel would have figured far more prominently in the public news during the last few weeks. Without doubt it will figure prominently in the course of next year. It is possible that after the recent election Lithuania will make terms with the Germans. The announcement of the Secretary of State in regard to this matter yesterday shows that they are willing to make an attempt, but personally I think it highly unlikely. The nationalist feeling in Kovno, the capital, and the Nazi feeling in Germany will prevent any permanent solution of what is a purely artificial regime. Let us confess it was a mistake under the Peace Treaty to transfer these 140,000 inhabitants, who had been for 500 years under German rule, to the sovereignty of a foreign State. It was a mistake on the part of the Allied Powers and the League in 1924 to capitulate to the Lithuanian
434
coup d'état and establish, what I have described as a purely artificial regime.
What can be done? Are we going to wait until Germany solves this problem for us? Personally I should like to see some form of international control for a period of years, followed by a reconsideration of the question and possibly by a plebiscite. I have good authority for understanding that the Germans would to-day accept some such settlement. It is I think worth remembering that a great number of these Memel Germans, in just the same way as their compatriots in Austria, are not by any means pro-Nazi. What they are however, is anti-Italian in the one case and anti-Lithuanian in the other. Any form of German rule is better than foreign domination. If they could get a breathing-space under international control it is possible that the German nation would acquiesce and accept some peaceful settlement, whereas if we do nothing, the time is bound to come when they will take action at a time which suits them and reincorporate this district within their territory. I did not meet a single informed person who did not view the present situation as impossible. If His Majesty's Government say that they would have great difficulty with the guaranteeing Powers, France and Italy, I reply, do let us learn from the Abyssinian problem and at any rate state our view of the case and make some effort to solve the problem before Germany solves it for us.
The question is often asked, what you would do for Germany or Italy or any other country which can make out a good case for an alteration of the Peace Treaties or for economic expansion? The Secretary of State gave the lead in his speech at Geneva, and I am sure, like everything else he said, that it meant a great deal more than a mere statement of the problem. I myself would make very considerable economic concessions to Germany in Europe and outside, provided she came back to the League and provided it was part and parcel of a disarmament scheme. No solution, however, can be found for this or any similar problem by giving way to blackmail. If the League is successful in the Italian-Abyssinian conflict, it will gain immense kudos and prestige. You will find that Japan will be only too glad and ready to come back, and it is conceivable that under certain conditions Germany

435
might reconsider her position towards the League. The United States certainly will not join but would be far more ready to co-operate with the League than they are to-day. In any case, if it does succeed we shall have created a united peace front which in itself will represent such strength and security that any nation will hesitate to challenge or disturb it. Whether the League succeeds or fails, surely it is worth while taking considerable risks before we abandon the attempt and return to the law of the jungle. If it fails there will perish in the hearts and minds of many millions of people a hope which has been born of great enthusiasm and many sacrifices. If it does fail, history will never be able to lay the blame on this country and still less on the shoulders of His Majesty's present representatives at Geneva. No one will ever be able to say that it was the fault of this country or of the representatives of His Majesty's Government.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. RAIKES: There are one or two observations which have fallen from Liberal speakers that, I think, ought to be dealt with. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith) suggested that there was a revolt on the Tory side against Government policy, and it was suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) that Government supporters were very much divided on the question of sanctions. Let me make it quite clear that so far as any of those with whom I have been connected in certain instances are concerned, we are absolutely and fully satisfied by the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in regard to military sanctions. The Conservative party are solid for the Government policy of supporting the League through economic sanctions. The senior Member for Dundee did not go so far as to say that there was a revolt but he indicated that if the National Government came back after the Election, there would possibly be three schools of thought among its supporters—first, those not prepared to support any sanctions, second, those willing to support economic sanctions, and third, those who, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), are prepared to go the whole way with the whole lot. I think there
436
are few in this House or outside who would be prepared to object to economic sanctions on the lines on which they are being run to-day and in regard to the third class those who are prepared to go the whole hog, it seemed to me when I heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping that he committed himself to nothing whatever.
In point of fact, even in regard to economic sanctions, which we are supporting, we are not going the whole way with the whole lot, because two or three nations have refused to co-operate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping gives the sort of graceful answer which he is prepared to give to his constituents but one knows that if some countries refuse to join in economic sanctions, those countries are incapable of going as far as military sanctions. In regard to this country as a whole I think there is little doubt that the Government and their supporters are very much averse from going one step beyond economic sanctions, and that for one vital reason. If economic sanctions fail, with the League of Nations constituted as it is, military sanctions must also fail unless they are carried out by means of a European war. If economic sanctions fail, they will fail because a number of countries are not prepared to co-operate in those sanctions. Suppose that to be the case it may be said that we shall have to take sterner measures. If you are going to call a spade by its proper name those sterner measures must mean warlike action. With half the great nations of the world outside the League and a number of those inside the League apparently supporting Italy, you may in such an eventuality find the friends of Italy and the friends of the League facing one another and you will have just the same position as you had in 1914.
At its best, the League of Nations to-day—and we welcome what it can do—is in fact the balance of power. It only contains four out of the seven great nations of the world and one of those four, Italy, is a party to the present dispute. We have to face the fact that we are not dealing with a League that can align all the other nations against an aggressor and strike one united blow against such an aggressor. We have a League which is divided, and that being so, it must move gradually and carefully.

437
The present Government have given a lead to the world. They have led the vast majority of the nations within the League to a position in which they are prepared to make sacrifices for collective security. If you went in for military sanctions, you would actually be destroying the idea of collective collaboration.
The idea of economic sanctions is that every nation within the League however small should bear its part of the burden by sacrificing something in the way of trade in order to take action against the nation which is being condemned by the League. All these nations should be able to play their part in the gradual growth of collective collaboration but if you get on to these other sanctions it is not going to be a question of common action by all the nations in the League. In the Mediterranean for instance, it is the British Fleet and the British Fleet alone which would be relied upon to act. Indeed you would be asking Great Britian once again to pull the chestnuts out of the fire while everybody else stood by and watched. That is why the League as constituted to-day if it fails in the application of economic sanctions cannot be successful in the application of military sanctions. If the League as it stands had been regarded as being strong enough to make war against an aggressor there would have been no need for any of the area pacts which have been growing up within the framework of the League. Those pacts have been growing up because people have realised that a League which is not complete cannot be used as an instrument of war, and therefore nations who have certain definite common interests have been obliged to draw more closely together for mutual protection.
No one knows what the future may bring. We know that the League as it exists may achieve a great deal on the economic side. Should it fail on the economic side that is not a reason for going to war, or for trying to make it an instrument of war—which would mean the end of the League and possibly of civilisation. If it fails we must either rebuild the League in a new way under new conditions or else go back to the old system, but it is not for us to-day to talk of failure. Our task to-day is to try, through the Government, to make these sanctions effective, to stand loyally
438
behind the Government in the action which they are taking on the present lines and to seek to use the League as an instrument of peace and not of war.
Reference has been made, I think, by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to the question of the depressed areas, and it has been suggested that the Government are neglecting those areas. That is not the case. Through the policy of rearmament employment must be brought to the distressed areas. It is not only members of the Labour Party who go to Jarrow and elsewhere to examine the local conditions. A good many of us have visited those areas and have seen the state of things existing there. I agree with much of what has been said about the depression among men who have been for years out of work and who see no prospect of getting work. But what has the Labour party to offer? Nothing. The Labour party believe, apparently, in risking the danger of war without tackling the problem of armaments. We are tackling the problem of armaments in order that we may have security, and in the next few years I look forward to seeing Tyneside blossom as it has not blossomed for years. The building of cruisers on the Tyne and elsewhere means not only work for engineers and shipwrights. It means that the steel-works which are now lying idle will be producing steel and that many of the pits which are now idle will be producing coal for those steel-works.
The rearmament policy of the Government although not advanced directly for the purpose of dealing with unemployment can do more in that direction in three years than all the talk of the Socialist party for the last 10 years. Hon. Members opposite may shake their heads but what has been our experience and what has been the result of all the talk about palliatives? They ask why do not the Government consult more closely with the Commissioners for the special areas? The fact remains that you cannot get men back to work unless you have jobs for them to do. There will be a job for men to do in the next few years in bringing the armaments of this country up to the level that we need in order to play our part in the councils of Europe, but we shall go forward, and we shall fight our election on the lines of peace and security.

439
The Labour party have tried very hard to get right away from the question of the international situation, because they know perfectly well that instead of standing for peace and security, they, or a good many of them, are prepared to stand for war without armaments. The election is largely going to be fought on that issue. The Labour party are cooing so gently now that the electors will want to know why their peace-loving and much loved Leader has been obliged to resign as a result of the war-like attitude of his rank and file in the past month or two. The electors will want to know why another leader of the Labour party has had to resign from the executive of the party because he had definitely stated that he would have nothing to do with war-like sanctions in regard to the present situation. It will be a fight on peace and war, and I am delighted that on this occasion the Government, having taken the courageous line which they did take at Geneva, can go forward standing for peace, fair play for the League, and sufficient armaments to back a great nation. On those lines we shall beat the Labour party hollow, and I am not sure that many hon. Members of that party who expect to come back will come back. In fact, I think the Labour party will barely fill four benches.
8.38 p.m.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I did not intend taking part in this Debate until the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) spoke. I have sat and listened to the Debate for several days—I have been out to take a snack now and again and then returned—and I have been wondering what is the point of view of the Tory party, not the National party. I call them in the country the "Grand National" party, and I have been wondering what is their point of view on foreign policy. You get the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister making certain statements, and they are Tories; you get the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) making statements almost as opposite to them as is the South Pole to the North Pole; and you get the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) getting up and speaking too. I
440
was amazed to find that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth this time did not agree with the right hon. Member for Epping, because for the past 12 months they have been like twins on the same bench, trying to overthrow their own Government, and the last speaker did all he could, along with them, on the Indian question, to attempt to overthrow the Government. They say at Bournemouth, "We are the only united party in the country," but when we discuss on the Floor of this House their foreign policy, there are hardly two men in the party who get up and say the same thing. Of course, it has been foreign affairs, Abyssinia, Italy, Egypt, but so far as the Labour party are concerned, the primary thing in the election will be the people at home.
I take up the challenge of the hon. Member for South-East Essex when he states, "We shall fight, this election on the Covenant of the League of Nations." We miners in the mining areas, when we sign a price list, do all we can to carry it out, but that is not the way of the Tory party in regard to the Covenant of the League. Some of them say, "We will go so far and no farther." The right hon. Member for Epping said he would go all the way, but we are not going to let this Government fight in the industrial constituencies on the idea of the League of Nations or what they call rearmament. We shall not call it rearmament in the country, but something more than that. When you look at the fact, as stated by our Leader here, that they have spent £1,900,000,000 since 1918 on armaments, and when you look at the armaments this year, which are something like £40,000,000 over and above what they were in 1918, or immediately after the end of the War, and then you say you are talking about re-arming, well, we in our constituencies are not going to let those two things be the principal things discussed. I invite the hon. Member for South-East Essex to come up to my division and talk that sort of stuff there. The miners there will want to know something else. The miners do not want extra employment by rearmament. We do not want to make armaments to blow out people's brains, but we want to be able to get employment whereby we can build a new society in this country.
When the hon. Member for South-East Essex talks about having been up to see

441
these areas, I can tell him that I have not been up to see them; I live in them. I do not pay a visit once every five years; I am there every week-end from this House, and I am with them during the week also. I know what it is like. I had a man who came into my front room the other day and said to me, "George, I have drawn one day's wage in a fortnight, and I have six youngsters." There was a man with a wife and six children, and he had had one day's wage to draw; and we are supposed not to be a distressed area. Ours is the El Dorado of the mining industry, in South Yorkshire, where, since this Government has taken office, we have 32,500 fewer miners in work. A question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to-day was answered by the Minister of Mines, who said that there are 84,500 fewer men in work since 1932. That is what we are going to put in front of the men in the mining industry.
Then take agriculture; and the hon. Member for South-East Essex represents an agricultural district. An answer given to-day was to the effect that in 1931 there were 716,600 agricultural workers, whereas to-day there are only 672,000. There are 44,500 fewer men in the agricultural industry to-day, with the "80 per cent. of our prosperity" mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 15th April. We are going to fight this election on unemployment and on the means test, and I challenge anyone to come into my division and fight me on either of those questions. I am living in a mining area and know what the conditions are. In the past five years it has hardly been possible to find a woman in the streets of my division with a smile on her face at the week-end. We have heard about the financial crisis of 1931, but the miners have a financial crisis every Friday night and every Saturday. We have been talking about Abyssinia for three days, but when hon. Members opposite get into the home trenches and make their speeches, let them give the people a chance to ask questions. They will ask questions about the very vital problems on the home front.
On 17th December last the Minister of Labour, who is now the Minister of Education, introduced a Bill. He brought in the Unemployment Assistance Board scales and said that they would
442
bring to the unemployed men on transitional payments—not the unemployed men on statutory benefit—£3,000,000 more money. Many of the Members who sat on those benches said they agreed and they were delighted. I remember that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) rubbed his hands and said, "All the people in my constituency will get an increase." We on these benches told the Minister of Labour that the scales would not mean an increase to the men on transitional payment but a reduction in the majority of districts. Hon. Members opposite laughed at us. The House broke up for the Christmas holidays, and when the Unemployment Assistance Board scales were put into operation on 7th January many Members on the other benches not only had holidays but worry days. From 7th January until they came back to the House on 28th January, they did not know what to do with themselves. When the House resumed hon. Members from all sides rose up and demanded that the scales should be withdrawn. It was estimated that in South Wales there was a reduction of £25,000 under the Unemployment Assistance Board scales as against transitional payments. On the first Sunday after 7th January down in those valleys, the Sunday Schools, for the first time in their history, closed and the Sunday School teachers, the pastors and the trading folk rose up in protest against the inhuman Unemployment Assistance Board scales.
Then the Minister said, "We will consider it; let us look into it, there may be a mistake." There was a mistake. There are more mistakes than there are beef-steaks so far as we are concerned in our districts. We had a discussion on the 12th February, and I remember an hon. Member opposite pleading with the Government to alter the scales. The Minister said, "I will bring in a little Bill and we will call it a Stand Still order." So far as we are concerned on these benches when the election comes, it will still be known as a Stand Still order. A "stand still" is not something taken off the Statute Book; it is something left there so that the people who put it there can take it off when it suits their convenience. The Minister of Labour made a statement to that effect in a roundabout way on Tuesday, when

443
the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked if the Unemployment Assistance Board had yet brought in their scales. The Minister of Labour said, "It is a very difficult job and takes some reckoning out. We do not quite understand the psychology of the electors and we have been thinking this matter out, but we shall not be able to do anything about it until the spring."
The Government are saying to the unemployed, "Open your mouths and shut your eyes, and see what the Government will send you if they are returned." I am not sorry that the Minister gave that answer, because it will suit us. We shall be able to go to the electors and say, "The Government have had nine months in which to try and reconstruct their scales and they dare not bring those scales before you." I do not know what they will do with the scales in another five years. I suppose it is not really five years now, for the Prime Minister told us yesterday that in future governments will run not more than four years, because they will be afraid to continue for the fifth year lest the electors should say, "Why did you not come to us before?" We are not afraid of the election. The hon. Member for South-East Essex has now left the Chamber. I wanted him to stay until I had finished, because he stood up there like an old cock in a stack yard crowing. He said, "We are going to do so and so in the country." There are, however, political sides as well as his, and we will not allow this great National Government to say that the only two vital questions are the League of Nations and rearmament. We are going to fight the Government on the other questions I have mentioned.
I hope that there will be a settlement of the miners' dispute before the Election, but even if there is a settlement on the question of the 2s. a day and on the national wage question, there are a lot of other things to be settled. We have been pressing for a new Mines Act and for a reconstruction of the Compensation Act. My colleagues for four years and I since I have been here during the last 16 months have been pressing for them by questions across the Floor. We are told to-day that the Government are to set up a committee to inquire into nystagmus. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has
444
been asking about the setting up of this committee ever since he came back to the House. The Government now that they are going to the country propose to set up the committee. Why could it not have been set up immediately after they came into power? Then there is the question of the safety of the men in the mines.
Last year 1,078 of my colleagues were killed in the mines, and we say that it is time something was done. I went back to my constituency lately and went into the mortuary there and saw six of my own men, out of my own division, lying there dead. I felt when I saw them, "This is something that need not be." The nation should say it is something that shall not be. I had hardly finished looking at them from my front door when, at the back door, there were 19 men who had been burnt to death. At the inquest the doctor said those 19 men had been enveloped in flame from the hair of their heads down to their feet. That is not happening in Abyssinia, that is not happening on the foreign flank. It is happening here—not at a place which I visit, like the right hon. Member for Epping, but in a place where I live and where the people are crying for bread.
I will put this point across and then close. It is a most remarkable thing that those who are employed nearest to the raw materials are the people who get the least wages and the least profit, and, as one of my colleagues said, they get a raw deal as well. People will find that that is so in the case of the miners, the agricultural workers and the fishermen. They are the worst-paid workers, and yet they are engaged in our main industries—coal, agriculture and fish. I can tell the right hon. Member for Epping that we are not going to allow this Election to be "stunted up" on the issue of the League of Nations. If you apply sanctions to Italy—and we are not against them—there must be sanctions applied somewhere else, so that our people can get a real life on earth, instead of being starved to death while carrying the burden of industry on their backs.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. PETHERICK: The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has given the House a rehearsal of what, no doubt, is his election speech, and I should

445
think that in the next few days he will be even more fluent than he has been to-day. Let us hope for his sake that by that time he will be entirely word perfect. He arrogates to his own party and himself the sole right to speak for the working man. He tries to claim that no Government and no party will do anything, or has ever done anything, for the working man except his own Socialist party. He adverted to the fact that there was an increased number of unemployed in his division since the last Election. I am very sorry to hear that. I am sorry to hear that there is an increase of unemployment in any division, but I hope that when he is making out his election address he will not forget to point out that when his Government was in power the number of the unemployed rose by about 1,500,000, and very nearly reached the figure of 3,000,000, and that since this Government has been in power the number has fallen steadily, over the last few years until, it is now nearly 1,000,000 better than it was when the Government came into power. Hon. Members opposite cannot get away with it quite as easily as they claim to do.
The hon. Member also said that there is increased employment in the agricultural industry. Those who sit for agricultural divisions know, unfortunately, that there is a small increase, but hon. Members opposite forget that in the last few years there has been an intensification of mechanisation in the agricultural industry. However, if agriculture were so very much worse off, as we are led to believe, is it likely that the farmers would have been able to afford to give increased wages to the farm labourers in many counties? I would commend that point to the notice of hon. Members opposite because sitting for industrial constituencies, as so many of them—nearly all of them—do, they do not know very much of what is going on in the countryside.
May I now go back to the main object of this Debate, which is the discussion of the international situation? There is no doubt that this country wants peace and is determined to maintain it. It is also, I believe, almost unanimous, though not quite, in its determination to uphold the Covenant of the League. We did not need the peace ballot to tell us that. People in railway trains or in the
446
streets, almost everybody one meets, says that they are determined to do everything possible to maintain peace, but the methods of achieving this end undoubtedly differ, and, as hon. Members have pointed out, the degrees of affection for and belief in the League of Nations differ too. I believe there are three different ways of looking at the League of Nations and its advantages. There are enthusiasts who claim that anything said which reflects in any way on the efficacy of the League of Nations is practically sacrilege; but enthusiasts without ability are often the most dangerous people. Then there are those who claim that we should go in for what used to be called "splendid isolation," that we should leave the League of Nations and trust only in our own strength and the strength of our Empire.
But the great body of opinion in this country does not believe in or trust either of those sections. They believe that the League of Nations is a very great ideal, and are determined to follow is at long as they possibly can, as long as it appears to them that there is a hope that it will succeed in the long run. Furthermore, they are determined that this country shall maintain its obligations under the Covenant. I think that has come out not only in the public Press but in the House of Commons during the last three days. They are determined to do the utmost they can, and wish the Government to do so, to maintain the peace. We have been told during this Debate that the Government are on very dangerous ground and have been shifting their point of view latterly. I do not agree. The Government have been accused of steering between the Scylla of Sparkbrook and the Charybdis of Caerphilly. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has, I think, since declared his full agreement with the Government's policy.
Another accusation levelled at the Government is that they did not act early enough or strongly enough. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister for League of Nations Affairs very clearly and concisely disposed of that charge yesterday. I ask hon. Members opposite who take up that point of view to remember this. We have endeavoured to set up through the League of Nations

447
the rule of international law, and therefore we cannot condemn a nation until it has been proved guilty before the international tribunal. During the last few weeks we have seen this rule of law beginning to operate. Far from being disappointed by the League, most of us, I think, were not only pleased but very surprised at the unanimity and to see how the 50 nations joined to declare that Italy was the aggressor.
We have tried in the course of these debates to discover what hon. Members of the Socialist party think of sanctions. We are told that they are in favour of sanctions. They have been asked how far they would go. May I ask them if they would go as far as military sanctions? I see that they are far too busy arranging their election campaign among themselves to answer that question, but it is a topic on which the country will require information. The country will like to know exactly where the Socialist party stands. The electors will be presented with various policies, including the Government policy which I uphold and the Socialist policy, and they will want to have the position made crystal clear. The policy of the Government has been made clear time after time in the course of the Debates, but the Socialist policy, and indeed the policy of the Liberal party, are still extremely obscure. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), who is not at this moment in the House, went so far as to say that every candidate in the election would have to answer the question how far he would go in regard to sanctions, and whether he wouid go as far as military sanctions or war. That is carrying the agreement to differ rather far. There are no opposition Liberals in the House at the moment, but that remark will be remembered and made known in various parts of the country.
In the international situation which now confronts us we hear attacks almost solely upon Italy, and we do not hear very much of what goes on in the interior of Abyssinia. Those who have taken the trouble to read the Italian case, and who have examined the reports from people who have been in Abyssinia, know that conditions there are extremely bad. I will not say that law and order are non-existent but it is known that they
448
are very faulty. Atrocities of all kinds go on and the authority of the Government is extremely doubtful. Apart from the case against Italy let us suppose that we had been considering the case against Abyssinia. There is an engaging pastime in Manchester known as speculating in futures. It is sometimes rather interesting to speculate in pasts. Suppose that two years ago we had had a debate upon the internal conditions of Abyssinia; what would have been the attitude of various opposition hon. Members? Should we have heard anything about the absolute rectitude of the Emperor and of the Abyssinian case? Probably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would have referred to Abyssinia as "this dreadful blot upon the community of Christian nations" and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) would have referred to the Abyssinians as "these imperialistic burglars." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), speaking for the Liberal party, would have blamed the Government for not taking steps to put a stop to the appalling conditions prevalent in Abyssinia. It is sometimes interesting to speculate on what might have happened. We have only heard the other case.
The reason I mention this is not for a moment that I believe Signor Mussolini has taken the right step. I believe that he has been profoundly wrong in his methods and that he would have had a, very strong case if he had presented the League of Nations with evidence of the case against the Abyssinian nation and had urged the League to put right the appalling state of affairs in that country. He might have gone so far as to say "I presented this evidence to you and asked you to take action, and if you are unable to do so perhaps I may be obliged to take action on my own." Far from having antagonised the whole world, as Italy has done in the last few weeks, she would have had the world largely on her side. What will be the outcome of this? Who knows? Let us all hope, as I certainly do, that the League of Nations will have a triumphant success. That is possible, and we all sincerely believe and hope that it will be so. A triumphant success will establish the League for a very long time and will mean that we shall have substituted international order for some-

449
thing resembling international anarchy. If the League is, on the other hand, an abyssmal failure, we shall be free in this country to leave the League of Nations if we like, feeling that we are left with no security and with nothing but obligations. What I fear is that the League may have only a partial success, a situation that might be very dangerous.
I would refer for a few moments to the question of raw materials. We are told that it is necessary for Italy to have raw materials. We know that, and, as has been pointed out before, it is possible for her to obtain them if she can find the exports which the raw material producers in the various countries need, even if they are in the British Empire. I believe that it is extremely dangerous to dwell too much on the redistribution of raw materials. I hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he made his pronouncement the other day with regard to the redistribution or the consideration of the redistribution of raw materials, did not mean in any case the handing over of political control to any foreign nation. I would not hand over, with or without their consent, one man, woman or child, whether black, yellow or brown to the mercies of anybody. If the outcome of this situation is not an unhappy one I believe that it will be due first of all to the fact that the League of Nations will be functioning properly and secondly to the fact that we sent the Fleet to the Mediterranean.
I know that the view in many foreign countries who are on our side in this matter is that if we are successful and stop the war, that will be mainly due to the League, but it will be due also to the strong action which we took, not only for our own protection, in placing the Fleet in a position in which, if it were called upon to fulfil its obligations, it would be able to do so. We are told that there is no necessity for an increase in armaments. May I remind hon. Members who take that view of what might have happened only a short time ago, if, instead of dealing with a Power which has only a strongish Navy and not overwhelmingly strong, we had been dealing with two or three Powers who were aggressors? While the League of Nations was setting its machinery in order our Fleet might very well have been sent to the bottom of the sea. There
450
is always a delay in getting political machinery into action, and if only for that reason, apart from many other reasons, it is necessary that our Fleet should be capable of defending this country in case of need.
For many generations we have been the friends of Italy. During the time of the Risorgimento this country gave every encouragement to the Italian nation and gave hospitality to many of the exiles. Since that time we have always been friends with that great country. I sincerely hope that we may return in due course to a spirit of amity. Signor Mussolini might do very much worse than remember the words of Cavour, speaking in the Italian Parliament in 1861, when he said:
"The man who lives quietly at home, and has neither debts nor enemies, appears to me to be a thousand times more independent than the richest landowner who has raised against himself the enmity of all his fellow-citizens, and cannot go out unless surrounded by Bersaglieri and soldiers."
If you substitute for the word "landowner" the word "ruler", I think that the Duce might do well to observe those remarks. We are a peace-loving nation. We love peace, not only for its own sake, but because we believe that only by peace can we maintain freedom. It is for these reasons that I so strongly support the action of the Government during the last few weeks. I believe that it has given an example to the civilised world. It has taken the lead at the League of Nations, but at the same time it has made it perfectly clear that its object is not to bully into submission, but to bring back the world, and particularly Italy, to the paths of peace.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The debate today has been a sort of switchback arrangement, and certain supporters of the Government have evidently felt annoyed that we have endeavoured to keep the debate on a purely domestic problem. Several speakers have endeavoured to put us in the wrong for daring to introduce unemployment into the debate at this period of the sittings of the House. During two days, however, the discussion has ranged entirely over the international situation, and I venture to suggest that that period should have been sufficient

451
for the House and the country to have obtained enough knowledge of the situation. We are on the eve of an election, and we consider it absolutely necessary that the House should not rise without having discussed this problem, since nothing has been said about it by the Government since we adjourned at the beginning of August. It would be not only a tragedy, but a crime upon the people who have suffered, if the House adjourned without some demand for the righting of the wrongs they are undergoing were not made here. That is our excuse for daring to bring in this subject. Although various supporters of the Government have given a few words at the commencement of their speeches to the situation that exists here in our own country, they have switched back at once on to the international situation. I find, however, throughout the country where I have gone, that, while the people ask those of us who are in the House, and others who, they believe, have some knowledge of the situation, whether we believe that there is likely to be a war—not a war in Abyssinia, but whether we believe that we are likely to be brought into war—when we have answered them they immediately switch back on to the domestic problem and want to know what is being done about it.
In the Debate this afternoon, as far as we have been able to keep it on the unemployment question, those who have spoken from these benches have put the case very clearly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) charged the Government with the manner in which they were raising the allowances to dependent children, and he accused the Government of offering the unemployed an election bribe. Whether I shall join him in accusing them depends upon what I hear later on. I want, however, to bring to the recollection of the House a similar bribe offered on a larger scale. Hon. Members will recall that, immediately the Armistice was signed, the country was plunged into another election, which resulted in the Coalition Government that met in February, 1919, and remained the Government until 1922. The retiring Government were faced with the problem of the large number of soldiers who, under the order issued with regard to those over 41, were being demobilised, and with the fact that there was no em-
452
ployment for those men to obtain when they returned to the places from which they had been recruited. They were unemployed, and others also were being thrown out of employment because of the closing down of war material production. The retiring Coalition Government issued an order to pay to the demobilised soldiers who had not found employment unemployment benefit, with allowances for their wives and children, and several million pounds were taken out of the Unemployment Fund to meet that expenditure.
I am certain that the present Home Secretary will recall that fact. It is not to be denied. The actual cost is to be found in the returns that were issued as a White Paper several years ago, and in the reports of the Ministry of Labour. The amount then paid was above the statutory amount ordinarily paid to those who were unemployed before the War. Here we have a recurrence of that. The Minister of Labour shakes his head, but I say that we have a recurrence of that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who is now the Secretary for Mines, with several of his colleagues on the opposite benches, and backed by Members on these benches and below the Gangway, tried to get the Government, during the passage of the Unemployment Bill, to accept an increase of the children's allowances by that extra shilling, and the Government refused. Now the Government come along, after having dilly-dallied from July, when the report was presented, and say they are going to give this extra shilling.
Mr. PETHERICK: In 1924–29 the hon. Member's own Government refused similar Amendments.
Mr. MACLEAN: Yes, and if we go back further still we shall find that they refused any allowance at all to any dependants. You can go back any distance that my hon. Friend cares to go. The whole point is that what was done by a previous Government is not necessarily a reason why this particular Government should do the same thing in suspicious circumstances. Had either of the two Labour Governments come forward with a proposal of this kind on the eve of going to the country, the hon. Member would have been one of the first to denounce it and to say they were endeavouring to bribe people to vote for them.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: But children have not votes.
Mr. MACLEAN: No, but the children do not get the money; it is the parents who get the money. The hon. and learned Member should be learned enough to know that. Discussion has ranged round depressed areas to-day. I represent part of an area which for some reason that has never been stated is not classified as a distressed area. The city of Glasgow is not included as a distressed area, and yet it contains within its boundaries more than one-third of the unemployed in Scotland. Figures given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette published on the 20th inst. showed that the total number of unemployed on the register at 23rd September, 1935, was 303,967, and that Glasgow had a total unemployed population of 102,020. Therefore, it will be seen that I am accurate in saying that more than one-third of the unemployed in Scotland are to be found in this one city, and in spite of that the Commissioner declined to include Glasgow as a distressed area.
There is another point. I have been approached by several firms in Glasgow to see if anything can be done in connection with a peculiar situation that has arisen. These firms are contractors, and have been doing a particular type of work for a long number of years. A certain contract comes along and is still waiting to be placed. Although the firms in Glasgow have been fortunate in the past in having the orders placed with them, on this occasion they are being told that it will be no use to quote as it is being asked that the order should be placed in a distressed area on the Tees or the Tyne. That is an absurd proceeding. It means that you are soon going to make Glasgow the most distressed area in the country. I want to ask what the Government are prepared to do on that score. If by their method of segregating certain districts and naming them in a special manner orders are to be diverted from other areas, they are going to widen the whole field of special areas and will be compelled to set up further investigators.
In the report of the investigations into industrial conditions in certain depressed areas, the investigator for Scotland, who examined the conditions in Glasgow, said:
"The justification for including Glasgow and other large towns in the investigation
454
is that their burden is increased by the extent to which they attract labour from other districts in spite of the depression of their own industrial units."
I want to know what reason or line of argument was used to convince the Government that Glasgow was not to be considered as being within that category, and consequently was to be ruled out from receipt of any grants or special advantages attached to sums of money voted by the Government to be spent in these areas classified as distressed. The Government, in producing this volume, considered it necessary to print several appendices to the report by the various commissioners. A peculiar feature is that appendix B, which deals with conditions in Glasgow and the investigation made there, is not included. When the volume was first published I raised this matter with the late Prime Minister, who replied that there was no need to publish it. I asked that it should be placed in the Library, and that was refused. The only reply I got which made it possible for me to see that appendix was one that said that if I cared to go over to the Scottish Office I would be permitted to examine this appendix, which dealt with conditions in Glasgow. Members of this House have the right to examine the appendices not printed in a report. There may be an excuse when the appendices are too long to print, and it might then be agreed that a typewritten copy should be placed in the Library. I decline, as long as I am a, Member of the House, to go from one Government office to another to examine something which it is my right to examine inside the House of Commons. I am standing for the rights of every Member of the House in making that statement. If it is too expensive, I want to know why a copy cannot be placed in the Library.
Glasgow's problem is not affected merely by its unemployment. The Ministry of Labour Gazette gives us also the figures of Poor Law relief. There are 4,512 in receipt of indoor relief, 153,534 in receipt of outdoor relief and 102,000 adults unemployed, a total of 259,000. The population of Glasgow is slightly over 1,000,000, so that almost a quarter of the population is either unemployed or in receipt of Poor Law relief, yet the Government in its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, have advised the Commissioners

455
to put Glasgow down as not being classified as a distressed area. I think they might give another thought to the matter. Going before the country, as they are doing, they had no right to ride off with the idea that they could go immediately from the House to the Election on a three days' Debate on the international situation, however grave that may be. There is not a Member who represents an industrial or semi-industrial constituency who will not have more questions to put to him on industrial and domestic matters than upon foreign affairs. On the last occasion on which I spoke on unemployment I warned the Government that, although they were using the time of the House to discuss affairs in India, they would not be tried in the country over that India Bill, however important they thought it, but that the country would want to know what they were doing with regard to unemployment and what schemes they had to alleviate distress. It is to-day as clamant a necessity as it was when we adjourned in August for the Government to put forward schemes likely to prove effective in alleviating the necessities of the poor.
If grants of money are given for public work, the second largest city in the country, which has the largest number of unemployed, is not to receive any. It is not a distressed area. London, the parasite city, which attracts people from all over the world, the city with its bright lights, the city which is looked upon as a pleasure ground to everyone who wishes to have a holiday, can get grants for bridges, roads or almost everything it asks for. In a case of a city like Glasgow, and others that are distressed, there are so many inquiries and investigations, so many committees sitting to examine matters, that when we ask for money to carry out any public works we spend almost as much in fares as we ultimately receive from the Government to carry out the work. The Government will be asked what plans they have to remedy unemployment. They will not be asked anything about Abyssinia, or Italy, or the Suez Canal, or the Red Sea, or the number of warships that are there or going there. They will be asked what they are going to do to provide people in their own homes with sufficient food, clothing and recreation to bring
456
back to them the manhood and womanhood that they have almost lost. Their reply to that question will determine whether they come back or not. Those who answer that they will come back determined to do what they can to bring happiness into those homes, will receive the vote of confidence which will send them back here.
9.43 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The hon. Gentleman has now delivered the final challenge from the Front Bench opposite against this Government after four years of this Parliament's work, and it is natural that he should more particularly deal, on the eve of the Election, with the matters which he felt were of the closest importance to the great area for which he was speaking. I can assure him that what he has said will be very carefully considered. Much of what he has asked was the subject of an earlier challenge and discussion. He will forgive me if I do not myself deal with it for the moment because, truth to say, no one could possibly hope, in what may prove to be the end of the Debate, to deal with the enormous variety of topics with which the House has been concerned in the speeches delivered to-day. I heard the hon. Gentleman say, when he began, that there had been some complaint because speeches had been made on subjects other than international affairs. I heard no complaint. I certainly make no complaint. I think it is perfectly natural that the discussion should have ranged over a wide field. I merely observe that no one could hope to reply to everything in a reasonably short speech. I recall the famous observation of Dr. Johnson when he said, "Depend upon it, Sir, that when a man knows he is going to be executed in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully." Dr. Johnson may have been right, but when the House of Commons knows it is going to be executed in three weeks the very last thing it does is to concentrate on topics for debate.
I am going to make one reference, and one reference only, to the subject of international affairs, because I feel, and I think the great majority of the House feel, that after the speeches that were made by my right hon. Friend the

457
Foreign Secretary and by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, together with the declaration made by the Prime Minister himself, the whole case has been stated to the House and to the country, and there is not the slightest need for anybody from this bench to add anything at all. There is, however, one observation which I am going to make at the request of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, because it deals with a matter which has appeared since these speeches were made, and it is very desirable in this last hour of the life of this House of Commons that as far as may be we should correct misunderstandings or misstatements, especially if they may have reactions outside this Island.
In a certain quarter this morning there were some very amazing statements published which alleged that His Majesty's Government had abandoned overnight their policy of whole-hearted co-operation with the League, and that we were already negotiating behind the back of the League with France and with Italy a settlement of this Italo-Abyssinian dispute, which the League would then be asked to accept, and to which Ethiopia or Abyssinia—I do not know which may be the more correct expression—would be compelled to agree. That is to say, there appeared this morning, after the statements which were made in the House of Commons, the plain suggestion in certain quarters that there is some intrigue afoot between London, Rome and Paris to present the League with what is called a fait accompli which would be detrimental to the interests of one of the parties and inconsistent with the principles of the League itself.
I speak with the authority of the whole Government when I say that there is no truth in this wild exaggeration at all. From the very beginning of the dispute, as I know very well, from December of last year, the policy of His Majesty's Government has been directed, among other things towards promoting, if they could, a settlement which would not only lie within the Covenant, but which would be acceptable to the two disputing parties. I trust that it is a perfectly right thing for us to try to do as the friends of peace endeavouring to promote international good will. The Franco-British suggestions, for example, which were made in Paris last August, were
458
based upon that principle, and so was the plan which was submitted at Geneva to both parties by the Council Committee of Five. And to that policy His Majesty's Government adhere. We are neither going behind the back of the League, nor have we ever for once moment contemplated doing so, and equally, as I think the House and the country thoroughly understand, we have no intention of wavering in giving effect, as a member of a collective system, to our obligations under the Covenant. Who does not hope that there may be a speedy and satisfactory conclusion? The conclusion must be one within the framework of the League and accepted by the three parties involved—Italy, Abyssinia and the League itself.
I pass to some other matters, making a short selection out of what will he admitted to be a very long list of topics raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who opened the Debate to-day, delivered a very fierce and lively attack upon us under many heads, with one or two of which perhaps I may venture briefly to deal. The first one he mentioned will arise when we come to the proposal of the Draft Order which is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and which is consequent upon the Report of the Statutory Committee under Part I of the Unemployment Act. But I will make one observation upon that. According to the right hon. Gentleman that proposal is nothing but an "obvious electoral bribe." If I understood him rightly, he drew a curious inference that it is also "treachery to the unemployed"; "exploiting the unemployed" and "a shameful political ramp," and all, apparently, because the Draft Order was deposited upon the Table of the House on the day on which Parliament reassembled. May I point out that in this matter—and nobody knows it beter than the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who follows these things very closely—that the Act of Parliament provides that whatever be the terms of the Report of the Statutory Committee—it may be a most unfavourable time to the Government and the worst possible electoral asset—whatever the report of the Statutory Committee may be, it must be presented to the House within a certain period of time after the Minister has received it. The

459
Act of Parliament goes on to say that if the House is not sitting after two months have elapsed then it must be laid upon the Table immediately the House reassembles. Why the right hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on these things, should imagine that a simple compliance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament is properly to be described as an electoral bribe and a shameful political ramp, I really do not know.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that one point deserves an answer.
Sir J. SIMON: I am not going to deal with that point now, as it can arise on the next Order. I can quite understand a certain feeling of annoyance because, after all, the explanation why it is possible for this independent Statutory Committee now to make this proposal is because of the great change which has occurred in the fortunes and stability of the Unemployment Fund. We all recall—and how useful it is on the eve of another General Election to repeat the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield uttered a few days before the beginning of the present Parliament. He said, speaking in September, 1931:
"The crisis was real, not an invention. During the last few weeks we have been, given society as it is, trembling on the very verge of national ruin."
Well, in those circumstances it is very likely that the Unemployment Fund will not be found to be a very attractive source of additional benefit. It is not very surprising that a former Minister of Labour, Miss Bondfield, as some will recall, went so far as to say that it was "dishonest to go on borrowing from the Unemployment Fund." When the Unemployment Fund was not solvent and was borrowing at the rate, I think, of about £1,000,000 a week, anything like a proposal that could be made to-day would indeed have been an obvious electoral bribe and a fraud on the unemployed. What has happened is that the Fund has been made solvent, and now we are in an entirely different position. I am entitled to claim, and I do claim, that it is the policy which has been pursued in the last four years that has made that possible. To-day, according to this perfectly independent statutory body, it is possible to do what it would have been quite impossible to do if the country had
460
continued under the guidance and policy of four years ago.
I take another point and I take it the more deliberately because the right hon. Gentleman said that I failed to deal with it before. It deals with that mysterious subject the gold standard. Let me make the statement plain enough for anybody to understand. Not for the first time have the right hon. Gentleman and his friends been using this argument and they are preparing, I dare say, to use it in the country. "There was a time," they say, "when we were warned of the danger the country would run if we were faced with the disaster of being forced off the gold standard. It was a warning and a threat which was made the occasion for arousing feeling against us. Yet, hey presto! the time came in the lifetime of a succeeding Government, when we slipped off the gold standard. And nobody was any the worse and some are prepared to say it was actually to the public advantage. Here is a proof of another electoral ramp." That is the argument. And this is the answer. If a country is forced off the gold standard at a time when its budgets are unbalanced and its financial prospects are bad and at a time when a responsible Treasury official has reported that they can, if we go on like that we shall put in jeopardy the stability of the whole British financial system, then you lose the very last anchor that may prevent the country from sinking. But when a different set of circumstances arise and the matter is so handled, whether with the assistance of hon. Members opposite or without their assistance, that you get confidence restored and you get the credit of Britain raised, then the mere promise of Britain stands as a thing of real value that cannot be shaken. If in those circumstances the financial policy is one that involves going off the gold standard, the results are very different. I would ask hon. Members opposite at least to understand that difference it will be for them to determine when they address audiences in the country during the next three weeks, whether they will make it as plain to their audiences as I trust I have made it plain to them now.
We had, and quite rightly, some reference by the right hon. Gentleman to the position still existing in the

461
special areas. I pause to make this observation about that subject. He said in a speech in the House some time ago, and it was very fair and frank of him to say it, that this subject of the depressed areas was not a new one but that it was one which had greatly pressed upon the attention and anxieties of successive Governments for many years, including, I think he said, two Governments in which he held office. It was a perfectly fair observation, and I think the right hon. Gentleman did himself credit by making that declaration. But there is this distinction. As a matter of fact, the plight of the special or distressed areas, serious as it is, stands out all the more prominently to-day because of the general improvement in the position during the last four years. When the whole earth is covered with a flood nobody realises that there is some spot, if you could only reduce the waters, which might be a Mount Ararat, and that there are other places which are much more depressed. A very important reason why more and more attention is rightly being directed to those areas is because the broad results of the policy which the country has been following are such that the country as a whole has experienced so great an improvement.
It is not the first time that that point has emerged. I would remind the House of these interesting figures or facts. If one took the position of unemployment when the Labour Government came in in June, 1929, there were then areas in which the percentage of unemployment was much higher than the average, for example, in places like Durham, Cumberland, Northumberland, Lanarkshire and Glamorganshire. But the significant thing is that before two years were over the general average all over the country in regard to unemployment had risen in 1931 so much that in no single case did it fail to rise higher even than the previous figure two years before in the depressed areas. But when the tide of unemployment recedes, then you find out that there are areas which are the last to feel the benefit which they see others enjoying from returning prosperity. Therefore, it is perfectly natural that much may be made of the contrast, but it is unfair if the Government is to be treated, because of that, as if it were not both anxious and determined about it.
462
Take the heavy industries, which chiefly account for the concentrated unemployment in these areas—coal, steel and shipbuilding. In the case of coal everybody, of course, would agree that the restoration of the coal position to the pre-war level, the level before 1914, would solve or practically solve the problem of the depressed areas. But let us speak quite frankly and fairly about it. Nobody really expects that that will be the solution. One must face the fact that some portion of the industry has passed beyond recall owing to new fuels, new coalfields abroad, more economical use of coal and so on. These things manifestly make it unlikely that the whole of the pre-war quantum of production will again readily be required. Some part of the unemployment problem, so far as coal is concerned, created by these new conditions in the coal industry, must therefore be met by other means, but that does not reduce the importance of putting on a proper and profitable basis the coal trade which remains, and seeing how it may recover and how its prosperity may be promoted. If we take a, fair view—while I join in deploring that more has not been accomplished, especially for the sake of the distressed men and women who are concerned—it is unfair not to allow for what has been done.
Much has been done for the coal industry by trade agreements. That was a piece of Government policy. The trade agreements with Scandinavian countries have more particularly benefited the north-eastern and Scottish areas. The increase in our export markets is not as great as many people would like and as we would like to make it, but there has been a very substantial increase, and it is definitely connected with positive action on the part of the Government for this purpose. Of course, as the House realises, the present difficulty about coal exports to Italy is not due to the policy of sanctions at all. The situation is that firms which have been doing regular business with Italy find themselves unable to continue it, frankly because the extension of credit which they give to their Italian customers is exhausted. It would be wrong to let the men who feel terribly anxious about this matter think that it was connected with sanctions, and I know some of my hon. Friends opposite

463
well enough to know that they will be perfectly frank about that. But it is as well that it should be said here before we break up.
Again, I think that we are entitled to claim real credit for the actual establishment and putting into effect of the great Billingham scheme. That again is directly due to Government policy, to the Hydrocarbon Oil Act of 1933, and it indicates a direction in which help may be furnished which I should have thought would appeal to every section of the House. But I am far from saying that that shuts out the plain fact that other things remain to be done. The Prime Minister at Question Time urged that at the moment when a conference was going on with the Minister of Mines it would be better for him not to make any statement on the subject of coal at all. Of course I cannot anticipate any statement or the terms of the manifesto which in a very few days will be placed before the electors. But I will make this statement now. It will be found that Government policy for the future includes a programme of treatment and of action which we hope will make a real contribution towards improving the very grave and difficult situation of the coalfields.
With regard to iron and steel our first problem was to tackle what was then a hopeless state of disorganisation. That is a very painful operation which raises all sorts of obstacles and objectors, and it can only be done by a united Administration with the firm support of the majority of the House of Commons. That has been done, and as a result some out-of-date works have had to be closed down. But we have got in the steel industry of this country now what may fairly be called a planned system which is already showing results. The cartel agreement has given a prospect of a further expansion of the steel industry in the future, by which the special areas will certainly be specially benefited. All this painful operation is now beginning to produce the benefits which foresight hoped to secure. Month by month in that great trade undoubtedly the position is improving. The production of steel is increasing, and that means more employment, which not only has a direct bearing but also an indirect bearing on the problem of the special areas. It has a direct bearing, but even more it has an
464
indirect bearing because outside the depressed areas works are taking on more men, and there is an increasing opportunity for training and transference.
Then there is the shipbuilding industry, so vitally connected with the Tyne, the Tees, the Clyde and other great and famous centres of shipbuilding. I am sure that other hon. Members besides myself saw in the "Times" to-day or yesterday a very remarkable expert statement, which shows how the subsidy for tramp shipping is now beginning to have a real effect. In the last few weeks more orders have been placed than for a very long time past, and the position of the industry is unquestionably healthier than it was. While I am not going at this hour of the night to discuss the important question of the necessity for increased provision for defence, as to which we have made no concealment of our views from the country, I am entitled to say that as the programme is carried out, with the strictest regard to our duties as a member of the League, this programme will have this effect: It is employment in the distressed areas that will chiefly gain from it.
I have dealt with these three main industries, and, of Course, there will be much discussion all over the country as to what we are going to do. The Ministry of Labour tried the plan of training and transfer long ago, but at first it produced very limited results. It produced very limited results because, although you might have poor fellows who were very keen to be helped, none the less you could not undertake it unless you knew how to place them. Four years ago the real difficulty was to place the men who were trained, and nothing is more significant of the change that has come than that now we can accelerate this plan of training and transfer. Why? Because as the months go by the opportunities for giving these men employment which they are so eager to get are multiplied in various parts of the country. The other part of the problem is bringing factories to the men. It is no use at all for anybody, critic or supporter, to talk about that form of solution unless the foundation for it is laid, and the foundation for it is the creation of the general conditions under which alone enterprise is justified and is likely to be undertaken.

465
As long as the trade of the country is in a depressed state and there is no prospect to justify new enterprise you cannot expect to attract to these areas those who are prepared to undertake new enterprise. We have created the basis on which that effort can be developed further. I was interested in a report of the North-Eastern Development Council, and their suggestion for a trading estate. That, too, is a consideration which is not being overlooked. I have not for a moment sought to paint the picture in any rosy colours. No man at election time, or any other time, can fail to share in the general feeling of distress that more has not been possible, but I am entitled to claim that in the last four years this Government really has tackled this problem and has assailed it from many angles with the greatest courage. I know nothing in the record of hon. Members opposite or in their policy which gives me the slightest reason for believing that they are able more rapidly to bring about the improvement we all want to see.
There is one other point I should like to mention. It is inevitable that just before Parliament breaks up and an Election takes place things are said with an eye on the Election. I do not deny it. I am only concerned to make the point, that in judging the policy of the depressed areas in relation to employment and unemployment you must consider in how many ways they have really made use of the foundations which the Government have made and the country under their leadership has made, upon which alone you can hope to erect a more prosperous state of things.
Let me illustrate it by taking the case of the housing situation. I rather expected the right hon. Member for Wakefield, who had a long career at the Ministry of Health, to say something about it, but he did not. It is the policy of the Government which has stimulated the trade improvement clearly illustrated in the housing situation. Nobody can possibly maintain, and no one in the country would believe it if they did, that the building of houses in this country was running satisfactorily before 1931. I give all credit to the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman but I am sure that he was not satisfied with the result. It was the change in general policy which really has led to the great success which every-
466
body can see has been attained. The situation was this: Local authorities were not doing their real job by attacking the worst evil, the slums, and private enterprise was not making its contribution by competing against municipal production, which was subsidised. In that situation you had these remarkable facts. The total housing output from all sources in the year ended September, 1931, was 195,000 houses, that is in the last year of the previous Government; 63,000 houses were local authority houses and 132,000 were due to private enterprise. As regards slum houses, miserable hovels, the thing was practically stagnant, there was but a mere trickle of reform going on. The policy was changed; and what was the result? We said, "Let local authorities do what they alone can do and tackle the major evil of the slums." We said, "Now that money is cheap and costs are low do not let us discourage private enterprise by subsidies, but leave private enterprise to come in and build houses to meet the yearly requirements."
The whole question is whether this change of policy produced good results, for it is the results that matter. I ask the House to observe these figures, which may be safely used for all purposes in the next three weeks. We have actually rehoused 280,000 slum tenants. These have actually been removed to decent houses out of the hovels in which they were living. Further, houses are in course of being built to accommodate 180,000 slum tenants. In about three years 460,000 slum tenants have been or are being rehoused and we have very reason to believe, if this policy is continued, that we can carry through the five-year programme for wiping out the abomination of the slum.
I say again that is not due to any magician's wand which this or that Minister has succeeded in waving, but to the fact that the foundation has been laid by sound financial policy and prudent administration on which, alone, a social reform of this sort can be achieved. Whereas altogether some 200,000 people were rehoused from slums in the last 60 years—and that applies to all Governments and all parties—in the last two or three years 460,000 slum tenants, as I say, have been or are being rehoused. In the face of facts like that, which cannot

467
be disputed, it is reasonable to ask hon. Members in explaining their views to the country and the electors when they come to form their judgment and express it to consider whether it is a fair view of the matter to say that we have merely enjoyed an inevitable share in the gradually returning prosperity of the world. There is not a word of truth in it. There is, I am glad to say, a certain improvement though a slow improvement going on in the prosperity of the world as a whole. No figures or at any rate no fair figures can be produced which would show its extent but the rate at which this country is regaining prosperity and improving far outstrips that of other countries.
Mr. McGOVERN: On the question of housing, can the Home Secretary tell us how many of the 1,000,000 houses that have been provided have been built for sale?
Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry I cannot give that figure, but if the hon. Member wishes for it I dare say the Department will be able to supply it. I would merely say that it cannot be disputed that this enormous increase in houses has greatly increased—prodigiously increased—the facilities for finding housing for wage-earners. I was about to make the observation that there is no test that can be suggested, the test of industrial production, the test of increase in exports or the test of reduction in unemployment, which does not show in fact that this country in the last three or four years has been improving at a rate which outstrips any return towards prosperity abroad. It seems extraordinary in those circumstances that we should be invited to change the policy which has succeeded in producing those results. We have come to the end of four years together and I remind myself of an observation made long ago by the greatest, I suppose, of Parliamentarians in the past. We have reached the point when, as Mr. Gladstone said:
"A challenge has been thrown down and must now go forward to the issue."
I am not going to prophesy, but I am speaking in all good temper when I say that I trust that if this case be fairly presented, the people of this country will see that there is justification for asking
468
for a renewal of the confidence which we have enjoyed for the last four years.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACTS.
  10.27 p.m.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move,
  "That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit in respect of Dependent Children) Order, 1935, laid before Parliament on the twenty-second day of October in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved."
  I have been charged with the pleasant task of moving this Motion. I was thinking just now, when looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), that he does not often envy a Minister of Labour his task, but I am sure he would like to be in my place for the next hour or so. I do not mean that I am going to occupy an hour, but I am anticipating that one or two hon. Members may follow me, and if any points are raised with which I have not dealt, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with them. I have noticed one or two comments upon the production of this Resolution and the Order to which it will give effect if the House gives its assent. I have heard it described to-day by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), in vivid and heated rhetoric, as an election bribe. It is astonishing what a small dose of cold fact will do to a mass of heated rhetoric. The fact is that in pursuance of my statutory duties I was bound, when Parliament reassembled, to produce this report and an Order based on it, but for the purposes of the future I had better put it on record in terms. The Act says:
  "Within the period of two months after the receipt by the Minister of any report

  469
  under this section or, if Parliament is not sitting, at the expiration of that period, then as soon after the expiration thereof as Parliament sits, the Minister shall lay the report before Parliament, and in a case where the report contains recommendations for the amendment of this Act or of any previous order made under this section, shall after consultation with the Treasury lay before Parliament—"
  Then follow two provisions requiring, first, the laying of a draft of an order, and secondly, if there be disagreement with the recommendations of the Committee, a statement of the reasons which the Minister has for disagreeing. I am sure there are Members in this House who will not take that point at all, because they know the statutory law, but they will take the other point, and they will say, "You received the Report on the 10th July; why could you not make it effective before the House rose for the Summer Recess?" I will deal with that point a little later, because there is an explanation, a very vital one, which they themselves, if I happened to agree in this Resolution with the one particular recommendation of the Committee contained in a proviso, would have tried to make a major issue in the electoral contest that is before us. If hon. Members agree, as they do, that that was a grave and profound issue, what charge can possibly lie against any Minister who says that a short three weeks was not time enough before Parliament rose to consider all the implications of that issue, to which they themselves, if the effect had been otherwise, would have attached tremendous importance. The issue is quite simple. The Statutory Committee, which is charged with looking after the destinies of the Insurance Fund under Part I of the Act of 1934, made me a report. It is not my duty to-night to deal with the report except for one recommendation in it.
  The report considered the condition of the fund. It is a very pleasing duty for me to inform the House that the fund is solvent, that there is a certain reserve, and, more than that, that the Committee, surveying the whole trend of events have, after making a forecast for a period of eight years in succession, come to the conclusion that, allowing for a certain figure of standard reserve, there is a disposable surplus of nearly £1,500,000. They recommend one thing after considering a number of things, namely, that the dependant's insurance benefit
  470
  to children under Part 1 of the Act shall be raised from 2s. to 3s. There is a difference between now and two years ago. It is one thing to put a figure in an Act. It is an entirely different thing to have the money in the till. The money, owing to wise policy, is in the till, and the recommendation follows. I may be asked how many families will be affected. It will affect on the average 240,000 households weekly, and an average weekly number of children to the extent of 500,000. That is the proposition which I lay before the House in asking it to agree with this recommendation of the Committee.
  There was, however, a proviso, and it is that proviso and its contents that caused what my hon. Friends would call the delay. It is the reason why the order was not made in July. As I have said, when Parliament did meet, I had to lay this Order, whatever the contents, whether favourable electorally to the Government or not, on the first day that Parliament assembled. In the course of a long argument, which I will not detain the House to describe, the Committee laid down a proviso that there should be an over-all limit to the amount of benefit payable, which they suggested should be 41s. The House will observe two things. The first is that that limit is unique in the insurance system. It has never been imposed in the whole history of unemployment insurance, and I do not need to say more than that to emphasise the gravity of the issues raised in a proviso of that kind.
  The other point, which is perhaps just as important from the point of view of a consideration of policy, was that not only should there be this over all limit, but that there should be an actual figure expressed, namely 41s. The effect of this would be twofold. At the moment there are a small number of households with very large families which get more than 41s. a week. Some draw as much as 46s. so that if the proviso were accepted by the Government, if I had not put in a statement disagreeing with the proviso, it would have meant an actual cut to a small number of large families of anything up to 5s. In the second place, if the "stop" was at 41s. there would not be the full allowance to the larger families. The 41s. level was struck at a family consisting of five children or more.

  471
  I have figures here showing how the scale will work out in the case of families of more than five, without the proviso. This will be the new rate as compared with the old: man and wife and one dependent child, old rate 28s., new 29s. Man and wife and two dependent children, old rate 30s., new rate 32s. Man and wife and three dependent children, old rate 32s., new rate 35s. Man and wife and four dependent children, old rate 34s., new 38s. Man and wife and five dependent children, old rate 36s., new 41s. Man and wife and six dependent children, old rate 38s., new 44s. Man and wife and seven dependent children, old rate 40s., new rate 50s. Man and wife and nine dependent children, old rate 44s., new rate 53s. Man and wife and 10 dependent children, old rate 46s., new rate 56s. [Laughter.] Hon. Members cheer ironically and may be inclined to ask how many families will be affected. It is estimated that the families under the scheme above the five-children level number some 10,000, and that above eight there are some 1,000 families.
  I must add two other things. The Committee, in their report, do not urge the principle of the over-all limit on financial grounds. The 10,000 families with over five children and the 1,000 with eight children will make no substantial difference to the financial arrangements. The Committee urge it on very grave grounds of public policy. I would add that the Government have disagreed with the proviso without in any way deciding for or against the general issue which the Committee raised. We have come to the conclusion that that issue should be left open for further consideration, and we have therefore decided, as is set out in the statement which accompanies the Draft Order, not to accept the Committee's recommendation that there should be a limit of 41s. on the amount of benefit paid in any individual case.
  If the Motion on the Paper is carried I propose to give effect to it at the earliest date at which it is administratively possible, and therefore it will take effect from 31st October, and the first payments will be made on the 7th and 8th November. I can only say one more thing. It was the very grim duty of the first National Government, as one of its first actions, to impose cuts upon the pay of the unemployed. It is my very
  472
  pleasant duty, in moving the last motion in this Parliament, to move this Resolution which increases dependants' benefit for households under Part I of the Act.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. LAWSON: At the outset of his remarks the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that he had a pleasant task to perform. I can assure him that I know too much about the work that he has to do in his Department to begrudge him a pleasant duty. I shall not use hard words about this matter. I am pleased that something is coming to the unemployed, but when I hear of the coincidence of this procedure on almost the last day of Parliament with the date on which it is to be granted, simple as I am I think that that coincidence amounts almost to a miracle. The right hon. Gentleman tried to explain why he did not give a decision before the House rose in July. I did not see any ground in his reasons, and I thought it was extremely mean. It is true that he received the report on 5th July, but will the Minister of Labour say that he did not know the contents of the report before the 5th July? I do not think he will. Before these reports are made there are comings and goings. Anyone who knows anything about departments is aware that the right hon. Gentleman would be almost in a position to make up his mind when the report was signed. I do not begrudge the Government this election opportunity, since it brings something to the people concerned, but I do not think that the Minister will expect either ourselves or the people outside to believe that there is not a very direct connection between the period when it is decided to pay and the election. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Act of 1934 was responsible for bringing the fund into a solvent condition. That is not correct, of course.
  Mr. BROWN Mr. BROWN indicated dissent.
  Mr. LAWSON: No, it is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind that one of the factors in bringing the fund into a solvent condition is the people who will not benefit by this provision, who are excluded because of the operation of Part II of the Act and the previous Order on the subject of the means test. It was not due to the 1934 Act at all. In 1931 the workers' contribution was increased. From 5th October, 1931, to 30th September, 1935,

  473
  the increased contribution of the workers to the fund amounted to £24,500,000, which the workers had found out of their wages. I asked to-day at Question Time what was the amount saved by the 10 per cent. reduction from the 5th October onwards, and was told that it amounted to £15,000,000. That is, altogether, £39,500,000 which has been paid by the workers in extra contributions and in reduced benefits over the past four years. Now the worker himself, after paying nearly £40,000,000, is going to be given £1,250,000 back. I am pleased that he is going to get a little of what he has himself paid. The right hon. Gentleman told us how many families are going to get the benefit of this award, but he did not give us the number of individual beneficiaries. As far as I can gather from the Ministry of Labour Gazette—
  Mr. BROWN: It affects 210,000 households. That is the weekly average.
  Mr. LAWSON: But there are something like 1,000,000 people who are outside the fund altogether. What is going to be their position? In their case, instead of an opportune shilling at a particular moment, there is not even to be a statement as to what their condition is going to be in the future under these regulations. While, therefore, we on this side welcome any little amount that comes to the unemployed, we wish to make it quite clear that that amount simply represents payments that the worker has made himself, and it totally ignores the greater part of the unemployed whose condition is far more lamentable, namely, the long-term unemployed. While we welcome what is being done, I think we are entitled to underline the fact that, while the Government have been ready at this moment to come to some decision on this matter, they have failed to come to any decision on matters affecting the large number of unemployed who need most attention.
  10.48 p.m.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The Minister of Labour has been subjected to so much criticism recently on the ground of procrastination and delay that neither his friends nor his opponents in this House will grudge him his pleasant task this evening of recommending to the House the acceptance of the proposals made by the Statutory Committee. My hon.
  474
  Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) could not resist the temptation to suggest that this is something in the nature of an electioneering expedient, but my right hon. Friend has had as much experience of electioneering as any Member of the House, if not more, and he would know full well that, if the intention of this proposal had been an electioneering expedient, it would have been so crude and blatant that it would have defeated its own end. It would have had the same effect as the revision of the Tea Duty just prior to the Election of 1929.
  I am very glad that it has been possible to make this recommendation to the House. I am very glad that the Statutory Commission appear to have adopted the principle that the first charge upon any surplus in the Fund should be devoted to remedying the indefensible anomaly of the children's allowances. That has been an utterly indefensible position since the scales of the Unemployment Assistance Board were fixed in a great many cases considerably in excess of the existing scale. I am very glad for another reason, for this Motion if accepted by the House can never be rescinded, because public opinion in this country would not stand for that. When we were discussing the provisions of the Bill which ultimately became the Unemployment Act, there was no item which was the subject of keener debate, or of more agreement, than the question of the children's scale, and if the House of Commons had been given an opportunity of expressing an unfettered opinion then we need not have been discussing this Motion to-night, because effect would have been given to it at the time. My right hon. Friend said it is not his duty to-night to discuss the report on which this recommendation is based, and I agree with him. I should like however to express a tribute to the committee for the nature of the report they have submitted. It is a very valuable contribution to public knowledge on this all-important subject. In some respects it is somewhat a somber report, because it appears from it that there is less resiliency in the Unemployment Fund than one would have been led to expect from a study of the unemployment position, and also it indicates the great difficulties there will be—and this perhaps is the most valuable thing in it

  475
  —as to where we may look for the development of more unemployment in the future. It is an important report, and one I hope that will be read by every Member of the House.
  I should like to make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I have always felt, and I am sure other Members have had the same feeling, that it is rather lamentable that we have to spend such a long time in so many acrimonious discussions in regard to this very vital matter of rates of benefit. The suggestion I would make is that when the House reassembles after the poll he should endeavour to explore the possibility of finding means of ascertaining points of agreement in this matter, to limit the area of disagreement and widen the area of agreement and to see whether we cannot reach a settlement by agreement which will be within the capacity of the nation to pay and also acceptable to those in need.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: In my political life there has been a tremendous change in public opinion on this matter. I remember when the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I entered this House some 13 years ago—I was even more callow than I am now—we were almost in our early days in a scene because the children's allowances then were only 1s. Public authorities to some extent supplemented that amount. Those were the figures when we first entered the House of Commons and it says much for the diverse interests and for the agitations of one kind and another that to-day at least public opinion in the great mass of the common people has succeeded in having the rates increased to this amount. I cannot altogether compliment the Committee on the language in this report. I wish those who write these reports would remember that simple people like me have to read them. My education is of a very meagre kind—not that of attending the London School of Economics. I beg those who write these reports to make them simpler and more easily understood.
  The common fallacy persists that the unemployed have had their cuts restored. I read in a newspaper to-day that more than the cuts have been given by the increased children's allowance. By
  476
  far the greatest attack on the unemployed was not the 10 per cent. cut but the cutting down of the period of standard benefit from a year and four months to six months and the application alongside that of the means test. Teachers, doctors, Members of Parliament and everyone else have had their cuts restored in toto. The unemployed are the only section of the community whose cuts it is not even proposed to restore.
  We got this document on 10th July. What grave issues of public policy kept you from making up your mind there and then as to the three shillings? The Minister cut the ground from beneath his own feet. He said the Government had decided neither to reject nor to accept the recommendation. Why should they wait for six months to decide nothing? Why should we wait six months for them to make up their mind? That is what has been done in regard to this matter. The position is that they have decided nothing. I could understand some considerable time being taken if the Government were going to say, "We are turning the Committee down" or "We are accepting the Committee's recommendations." The Minister said that they were not doing either of these things but leaving the whole question in abeyance. What is to hinder him from coming to a decision on the question of the 3s. I have listened to all the discussions about Abyssinia and the League of Nations. You are only giving countries about 10 days to make decisions of vital consequence on the question of sanctions. Questions affecting peace can be decided in a few weeks, almost days, but we are told by the Minister that on the question of 2s. as against 3s. it must take six months. Is there anybody who, in fairness and decency, can say that on sanctions and grave issues the Government must act, and act swiftly, and yet on a question of giving 3s. per child, on a question almost of life and death to a parent, they must consider the matter for six months?
  Mr. MOLSON: If it had been done before, the decision would have been taken in less than three weeks.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister, long before he received the report, was exercising his mind on the question of

  477
  the 3s. His predecessor said at that Box that he was not against the 3s.; in fact he said that he was in favour of it, and that the only question was one of finance. The financial consideration has been solved, and yet they took three weeks to make up their minds to do nothing. To-day they rush in with this proposal on the eve of an election. I see a distinguished Scottish lawyer sitting opposite. If he had the case to argue in the Scottish courts he knows that there would not be a judge who would not take the view that, if the Government had wanted to do this, they could have made up their minds 18 months ago. The time has come when something ought to be said in regard to the cost. It was said by an hon. Gentleman behind—and I must correct him because in these cases he is so manifestly fair—that the time had come when the first charge on the fund should be for children's allowances. That is not the first charge on the fund. The first charge is the redemption of the debt.
  Mr. G. WHITE: The words I used were "a first charge on any surplus."
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The first charge is the debt, and the time has arrived when the debt on the fund of £100,000,000—it is slightly decreased now—should be lifted. I understand that one of the planks of the Government in the Election is a £250,000,000 loan for national defence. Would anybody dream of placing that charge on any one section of the community? No. It is national defence. This £100,000,000 debt was incurred in unemployment relief, a national charge, not a charge against the fund, but a charge against the whole nation. The whole thing should be wiped out and put as a national charge in the same way as any other national debt.
  One thing is very urgent and that is the question of the relationship of this scheme to the Unemployment Assistance Board. It is going to raise a shocking position. In Glasgow the position will be severe. I welcome the Minister's decision not to put on the maximum for the family. If this country is going to emerge into the question of birth control it ought to do so freely, with all the issues put clearly before it, and not by some side door. I am concerned about the position in my own city, and the
  478
  same conditions apply elsewhere. In Glasgow there is a 40s. maximum for the family. That is what went on under the old means test. To-day the new Board are governed by that maximum to some extent under the standstill order. You are going to have a family where the husband may be just out of work, and next door in the same tenement close in the same street, paying the same rent, there may be a family where the husband has been eight months out of work, and yet that family is going to receive 1s. a week less for each child than the other family, which will receive 3s. per child. The thing is not defensible. I know that some Board scales are a little higher, but that is what happens in Glasgow.
  This allowance is not given to the man but it is a sum of money to the child of the unemployed person. Whatever differences there may be between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side we ought to agree to lift the children outside the battle. What defence is there for giving the child of a man who has been a year or more out of work 1s. a week less than the child of a man who has only been a week out of work. It is not a question of arithmetic but the human consideration of the child. The increased allowance to 3s. is introduced to give the child a better chance. Why differentiate against the child of the man who has been 12 months or two or three years out of work, the child, say, of the Durham collier or of the Glasgow shipworker, with their years of unemployment?
  I say that this House should insist, in the dying hour of Parliament almost, that at least those on transitional benefit should have the 3s. The Order makes an improvement for some people and to that extent I welcome it. I do not know what the fates have in store for us, but I trust that the electors throughout the country will see that the unemployed are decently and humanely treated. Are we not to have a reply from the Under-Secretary or anyone?
  Mr. E. BROWN Mr. E. BROWN rose—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: We were told the Under-Secretary was to reply. It is most unfair.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I assure the hon. Member there was no discourtesy intended, but—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely we may be told something about the standard benefit, and that the children are to get the 1s. We have had eight hours on Abyssinia. Surely we can have five minutes on the children.
  Mr. LOGAN: I thought we were to have some reply before the Debate closed.
  Mr. LAWSON: I do not think it would take the hon. and gallant Gentleman many minutes.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead)The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead) rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Order deals only with the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the question which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised, dealing with transitional benefit, is definitely out of order.
  11.12 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I do not think there are many points to which to reply. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) raised questions which have been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) presumed that my right hon. Friend had complete foreknowledge of what was going to be in the report. I can only say that when a report is received on a certain date, no presumption should be made that the Minister knew what was in the report before it was issued. If the hon. Member went into the matter he would find that his presumption was not well founded. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street thought we had brought this proposal forward in the form of a bribe, but he cannot have it both ways—that we were producing a good thing as a bribe and that the good thing was in fact a bad thing. It is not a bribe. It is simply the result of sound finance, which is directly attributable to the sound general policy of the Government during the last four years. The hon. Member also asked what would happen to the people who were not getting it. That is always an argument which is used. We generally find the argument, "Why did you not do it earlier?" and in the second place the argument, "You are doing it to benefit certain people but there are others who will not get it." If we were to proceed on those lines, of never doing any-
  480
  thing unless we do it early, and never doing anything if anybody will be a little better off than someone else, we should never get very far with any measures of social reform. I sympathise a little with the hon. Member for Gorbals in his difficulty about the reports, but I do not think he is such a simple fellow, when he reads official reports, as he tries to make out he is. I am reminded of a phrase of Cobbett's with regard to machinery, that he never looked at a machine without being tempted to understand it. When it comes to official reports that temptation is almost invariably removed.
  No one has objected to the regulation. When we consider the setting in which this recommendation is placed, the circumstances which surround it—it is the result of the recommendation of an independent body—and that it is the result of sound finance and a solvent financial position, we can safely recommend the order to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit in respect of Dependent Children) Order, 1935, laid before Parliament on the twenty-second day of October in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, be approved."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

COAL INDUSTRY (WAGES).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]
11.18 p.m.
Mr. T. SMITH: I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that a very delicate situation has arisen in the mining industry, and this is the last time before the election that Parliament will have a chance of hearing the miners' point of view on what has taken place. I understand that to-day there have been conversations between the Government and the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation, and I hope that in the interests of all concerned the Secretary of Mines will be able to say something before the House adjourns. These conversations have, I believe, ceased for

481
to-day, but I understand that the spokesmen of the Miners' Federation have made certain suggestions to the Government. One is that they are prepared to submit their case for improved wages to any national tribunal the Government are prepared to set up. What is more, I understand they are prepared to accept the decision of that national tribunal. There are, of course, one or two other points which I would like to put, but as the time is short and as the Secretary for Mines has now arrived, I want to put this plain and simple question to him. Can he inform the House of the position with regard to the conversations that have taken place between the Executive Committee and himself and can he indicate what further action, if any, the Government propose to take?
11.21 p.m.
The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I apologise to the hon. Member for not having been here earlier. The best thing I can do is to give the House the substance of an announcement that I made as the result of prolonged discussions during the course of to-day, discussions which have been active throughout the week. I met the executive of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain last Monday and since then I have had three meetings with representatives of the coal-owners. To-night I met again the executive of the Mineworkers' Federation. Indeed it was not until about an hour ago that the meeting concluded.
The underlying cause of the present unrest is that the proceeds secured by the sale of coal are not sufficient to enable better wages to be paid to the miners, and it has recently become obvious that the extent to which the powers given to the coal industry by the Coal Mines Act, 1930, have been used was unlikely to secure any material improvement of the position. At Question Time to-day I said the Government had repeatedly pressed on the industry the view that only by reorganisation on the selling side could a reasonable price be obtained and the industry be put on a proper financial basis, thus allowing better wages to be paid. That is a point on which the Mineworkers' Federation laid great stress in their interviews with me, and I think anybody who has followed the public Press in
482
recent weeks and months will know that that has been advanced consistently. It has also been evident for some time past that feeling among the coalowners had steadily been moving in the same direction. In that case it looked as if there was some hope that we might be able to do something in that direction.
Following upon my last meeting with the Mine Workers' Federation on Monday, I asked the Central Council of the Colliery Owners, representative of all districts in the country, whether they would give me, for the Government, an undertaking that selling organisations in all districts, with central co-ordination, which is a necessary corollary, I think, in the opinion of all who have studied the question, would be definitely established within a specified period. I understand that this request, which I made, fully authorised by the Government, coincided with the views of a substantial majority of the district representatives who were present at to-day's meeting of the Central Council and it is to be discussed immediately in all the districts. As a result of our talk, I was able to tell the Mine Workers' Federation that I expected after a further meeting of the Central Council of the Colliery Owners next Thursday to be in a position to say that the Government had received a specific undertaking that the selling organisation asked for would be established as soon as possible.
That is the position as it stands to-day. These difficulties which have arisen are naturally the concern of the Government, and I hope that time will show that we have been able to secure the assent of the colliery owners of this country to something of that kind—central selling with central co-ordination. That is the contribution which the Government make in the hope of settling the trouble. I think the House and the country will recognise that this, which has been tentatively put forward and is to be discussed in the next week by the proper authorities, which are the district associations, cannot be definite to-night, but I think everyone will recognise that, if it can be achieved, it will be not only a very great advance in the reorganising of the selling of coal in this country—incidentally, a very large undertaking for anyone to set their hands to—but that it is or it would be a permanent

483
contribution to the well-being of the industry. It is not a palliative but it would be a permanent contribution if it could be brought about. I cannot say here and now that it will be, but it was discussed by the Central Council this morning, and they have taken it back to their districts. We must see what the result of that will be, but it would be, if it could be achieved, a large, permanent contribution.
My final word on this subject—I am glad to have had the opportunity of saying this much—is to make an appeal to the miners to consider long and thoughtfully what this advance would mean, could it be secured, and to reflect what would be the inevitable result, in this difficult time, of an industrial conflict. In the long run it could bring nothing but harm and misfortune to everyone in the State and to no one more than those who could least stand it. I would like as I said this evening to the executive of the mine workers to make the appeal to the House, that they will assist as best they can to see that the advance I have referred to is achieved.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. GEORGE HALL: Might I say in the two or three minutes which are left, that the Secretary for Mines has not attempted to deal with the point of view which was submitted to him by the Mineworkers' Federation. This matter is of vital importance to them, of very much greater importance to them than to the mine owners themselves. I would ask
484
the hon. Gentleman whether the mineworkers themselves offered that this matter should go to arbitration. That offer was made on Monday and has not been accepted—not at all.
11.29 p.m.
Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not want to say anything which will aggravate the position. What was suggested on Monday was that they would be prepared to have their dispute put to a conference if the owners agreed. That was the proviso. The owners did not agree, and therefore that fell to the ground as a proposition. It should be made clear that in my statement I merely gave the view of the Government. I was not discussing what had been said on the part either of the owners or of the miners. I do not think the time is ripe for that. I was trying to put before the House the contribution which the Government felt themselves able to make. I hope that this suggestion will receive very serious consideration—[Interruption.]
Mr. PALING: How long will it be before we can get anything? Another 12 months?
Mr. MAXTON: You give the unemployed 10s. more, but nothing to the miners.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.

  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).
  INDIA (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).
  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).
  COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURE).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  YORKSHIRE.
  YORKSHIRE.
  NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  EXPENDITURE (STATISTICS).
  EXPENDITURE (STATISTICS).
  JUVENILES.
  JUVENILES.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  REMUNERATION.
  REMUNERATION.
  WOMEN ARCHITECTS.
  WOMEN ARCHITECTS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  MINERS' WAGES.
  MINERS' WAGES.
  ABERDARE VALLEY.
  ABERDARE VALLEY.
  PIT-HEAD PRICES.
  PIT-HEAD PRICES.
  COAL MINES ACT (MINIMUM PRICES).
  COAL MINES ACT (MINIMUM PRICES).
  ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS).
  ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES (ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SHIPS' COMPLEMENTS).
  ROYAL NAVY (SHIPS' COMPLEMENTS).
  FORESTRY COMMISSION.
  FORESTRY COMMISSION.
EDUCATION.
  ST. EDWARD'S SCHOOL, NOTTINGHAM.
  ST. EDWARD'S SCHOOL, NOTTINGHAM.
  STATISTICS (CHILDREN LEAVING SCHOOL).
  STATISTICS (CHILDREN LEAVING SCHOOL).
  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  IRISH FREE STATE.
  IRISH FREE STATE.
  BRITISH ARMY (GARRISON BARBER, BELFAST).
  BRITISH ARMY (GARRISON BARBER, BELFAST).
SCOTLAND.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).
  BEN NEVIS (OBSERVATORY).
  BEN NEVIS (OBSERVATORY).
  LITHUANIA (MEMEL).
  LITHUANIA (MEMEL).
CHINA.
  GERMAN EMBASSY.
  GERMAN EMBASSY.
  TIENTSIN-PUKOW RAILWAY.
  TIENTSIN-PUKOW RAILWAY.
  MANCHURIA.
  MANCHURIA.
  SHANGHAI.
  SHANGHAI.
  HIS MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR.
  HIS MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR.
  SPAIN (CAPTAIN KANE'S IMPRISONMENT).
  SPAIN (CAPTAIN KANE'S IMPRISONMENT).
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  ITALY (SANCTIONS).
  ITALY (SANCTIONS).
  ARMS EXPORTS.
  ARMS EXPORTS.
  INDEBTED STATES.
  INDEBTED STATES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RUMANIA.
  RUMANIA.
  SCANDINAVIA (BACON EXPORTS).
  SCANDINAVIA (BACON EXPORTS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (MECHANICAL STOKERS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (MECHANICAL STOKERS).
HOUSING.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  CONDEMNED HOUSES.
  CONDEMNED HOUSES.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
TRANSPORT.
  FATAL ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  FATAL ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  SELBY (TOLL BRIDGE).
  SELBY (TOLL BRIDGE).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (NUMBER PLATES).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (NUMBER PLATES).
  BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
  BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
  SYDNEY RULE.
  SYDNEY RULE.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (FIVE YEAR PLAN).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (FIVE YEAR PLAN).
  FIRTH OF CLYDE RAILWAY.
  FIRTH OF CLYDE RAILWAY.
AGRICULTURE.
  RABBITS.
  RABBITS.
  MEAT IMPORTS.
  MEAT IMPORTS.
  MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
  MILK REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  CANADIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  CANADIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Petre—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR ANCE (INCREASE OF BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN) ORDER, 1935.
Report from the Special Orders Committee:
That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House.
That they have considered a Report dated the 4th July, 1935, of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee; and a statement by the Minister of Labour made in accordance with Section 59 (4) (b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935.
That in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle. They comply with the terms of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, under which the Order is submitted for approval, except that the Committee observe that the Order does not contain any statement as to the date on which the Order will take effect. The Committee have some doubt as to whether the insertion in the Order of a date, which is not submitted to Parliament in the Draft Order, is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
That the Order is not founded on precedent.
That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, I beg to move, with reference to the Draft Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit in respect of Dependent Children) Order, that the Draft Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee be approved. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that one of the measures taken in
1188
1934 to put the scheme of unemployment insurance on a sound actuarial basis was the establishment of an independent Committee, known as the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, to give advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with the discharge of his functions under the Acts and in particular to advise him as to the state of the scheme's finances. One of the duties of the Statutory Committee is to make a Report to the Minister when they find that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is, and is likely to continue to be, more than reasonably sufficient to discharge its liabilities and upon making such a Report to recommend such changes in the scheme of unemployment insurance as will restore the Fund to a condition of equilibrium.
The Act also provides that if within the period of two months after the receipt by the Minister of any Report on the financial condition of the Fund or, if Parliament is not sitting at the expiration of that period, then as soon after the expiration thereof as Parliament sits, the Minister must lay the Report before Parliament together with the Draft of an Order carrying out the Statutory Committee's recommendations or with such amendments as will have substantially the same effect on the financial position of the Unemployment Fund. The Draft Order requires the approval of your Lordships' House by Resolution. These provisions explain the presentation of the Draft Order to your Lordships' House at this juncture. In their Report made on the 4th of July the Statutory Committee find that the Unemployment Fund is, and is likely to continue to be, more than reasonably sufficient to meet its liabilities. In these circumstances the change which the Committee recommend is that the rate of benefit in respect of dependent children should be raised from 2s. a week to 3s., subject to the proviso that the total benefit to any claimant should not exceed a certain limit for which 41s. a week is suggested. The Committee estimate that this change will increase the expenditure of the Fund by approximately £1,250,000 a year.
The Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, has decided to adopt the Committee's recommendation regarding the increase to 3s. a week in the rate of benefit in respect of dependent children;

1189
but for reasons which are stated in the statement by the Minister which accompanies the Draft Order, he does not propose to adopt the proviso suggested by the Committee. As is there indicated the question of principle involved in this part of the Committee's recommendation is one which requires fuller examination and discussion than is possible in the circumstances in which your Lordships meet on the present occasion.
The Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, in their Report upon the Draft Order, have alluded to the fact that the Order does not contain any statement as to the date on which the Order will take effect and have indicated doubt whether the omission of that date from the Draft Order is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Upon this I must invite your Lordships' attention to the words of subsection (5) of Section 59 of the Act. Acting upon the best advice upon tee matter that it was possible for him to obtain, the Minister has adopted the view that the subsection clearly differentiates between the terms of the Draft Order, which needs the approval of your Lordships' House, and the addition to the Draft Order of the date, which is to appear, not in the Draft Order as submitted to your Lordships, but in the Order itself when it is made after the Draft Order has been approved. Thus your Lordships will recognise that the Act of Parliament does not require that a date should appear in the Draft Order—and, indeed, the insertion of a date might prove embarrassing. I am, however, in a position to inform your Lordships that the Minister intends to bring the Order into operation at the earliest possible moment and that he proposes to insert the date "31st October next." The effect of this will be that the first payments of unemployment benefit, including the children's allowance at the increased rate, will fall to be made in practically all cases upon the 7th and 8th November.
It may occur to your Lordships that, as the Statutory Committee presented their Report on July 4, it might have been possible to present the Draft Order to your Lordships before Parliament rose early in August. Such a course was not adopted because the questions raised by the Statutory Committee in their Report required more time for their proper consideration than was available before the
1190
end of the Session. As I have indicated, the Act allows two months for such consideration and provides further that, if at the expiration of two months Parliament is not sitting, then the Minister must lay the Report, together with a Draft Order, before Parliament as soon as Parliament sits again. The Draft Order is now before your Lordships' House in accordance with this provision of the Act. This is a measure with the purpose and effect of which we must all be in sympathy, and it is, I venture to suggest, a matter for congratulation that the steps taken by the Government in 1934 to place the Unemployment Insurance Fund upon a sound financial basis should have had as an incidental consequence this welcome improvement in the provisions of the unemployment insurance scheme in respect of dependent children. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I need hardly say that we on this side of the House welcome this long overdue extra shilling to the children of the unemployed; but we regret deeply the apparent acquiescence of so many people in this country in the continuance of the unemployment which makes this extra shilling necessary. I think the country should bear in mind with much greater resentment the continuation of an unemployment figure of nearly 2,000,000. I hope very much that that fact will be borne in mind in the immediate future, because, until we have dealt with the need for this sort of regulation, the country cannot be satisfied with what is being done. I am not going to claim that this is a bribe to the electors in the forthcoming General Election, though I am bound to say that it must have that appearance in the minds of many people. I am not going to say that, because I understand the administration difficulties, and the difficulties of working out a scheme without endangering the stability of the Fund.
I cannot, however, help thinking that it is a great pity that the Government, in making this proposal, did not take into account the fact that the Statutory Committee, on page 19, made in so many words the suggestion that the higher rate

1191
of children's allowance might be introduced at about the beginning of August, 1935. Now I do not see why, having made that calculation—and the Statutory Committee was in possession of and seised of all the facts—the Government might not have adopted the beginning of August and, though the first actual payment was not made until the 7th of November, have made a back payment to these families who have suffered for so many years. The total cost of this is only £100,000 a month. The calculation of the Statutory Committee was made along the lines that they could afford to pay that money from the beginning of August. That would have been a very small Christmas gift to families whose need is very great: the payment of the accumulataed shillings to these miserable and unhappy children over a period of eight or nine weeks. I still venture to hope, and I appeal to the Minister in charge of this Order, that the Minister may see his way, even though he fixes the date as the 31st October, to make the date of commencement of the payment the earlier date and contribute a small sum as an accumulated back payment towards these people.
With regard to the recommendations of the Statutory Committee that there should be a maximum of forty-one shillings above which the extra shilling should not take effect, I am very glad—and we on these Benches are extremely glad—that the Government have decided not to adopt that recommendation. But there is a species of danger in the statement made by the Government that they have not adopted that upper limit, not because it is palpably unjust in itself, but because they have not had time to consider its implications. I should like an assurance from the Minister that after the Election there will not be a reversion to this miserable forty-one shillings upper limit, by which the larger families, the families with six, seven and eight children, will be deprived of this poor extra shilling.
Finally, let me say that the reasons suggested for this upper limit will be found at the top of page 18 of the Statutory Committee's Report. This is one of the most disgraceful sentences that has appeared in a public document for many years, and I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to the first four lines on the top of page 18, because I hope that we who sit on these
1192
Benches will never forget the meaning of those four lines. Let me read them out:
"The wages of many unskilled labourers for a full week are now in the neighbourhood of forty shillings; that is to say, very much less than these possible rates of unemployment benefit."
What right has the richest country of the world publicly to admit, in a public document, that thousands of our labourers, putting in hours of work which have been denounced by the Ministry of Labour in the recent Annual Report as going up to 90 and 100 hours a week, take home forty shillings as a wage upon which to keep them and their large families? I hope that that fact will be broadcast throughout the Election, as a measure of the disgrace which falls upon a country which, with the enormous wealth available, with the millions of pounds that are poured out whenever there is a new public issue in the City, permits and continues a 40s. wage to labourers who have families to keep.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord opposite, may I point out to him that if any alteration were suggested as to revising the upper limit to which he has referred after the Election, it will be necessary to come to the House again for a new Order, and so he need have no fear of anything happening without having every opportunity of discussing it on the floor of this House. As regards the question of date, I am advised that it is not possible to make it retrospective before the day the Order is made, but I would remind him that he referred to page 19 of the Report and its reference to August 1, and by deduction he will see that it would mean a saving of £300,000 in the three months he referred to. That will go into the surplus and as surplus over and above the reserve it may be utilised in some other way.
He will notice that on page 16 emphasis is placed on the fact that the Trades Union Congress General Council, in addition to the amendments of detail named in the Report, proposed increases of 2s. a week in the rates of benefit to adult men and women generally and an increase of 3s. a week in the benefit for dependent children, whereas the National Confederation of Employers' Organisations a few paragraphs further down suggest reduction of contributions as

1193
having the first claim on any surplus; the cuts in benefit made in 1931 having been restored while the contributions still remain at the higher figure and should therefore be reduced. So it is quite impossible to anticipate at this stage what the Statutory Committee might recommend to the Minister as to the utilisation of any surplus over and above the reserves which they may feel bound to hold in the Fund. He will see therefore that the £300,000 saved will still go into the surplus and it will be open to the Committee to make recommendations, not necessarily for the benefit of dependent children but for the benefit of other contributors, or in the reduction of contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Standing Order to which I am asking your Lordships to assent is occasioned by the recent passage of the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act, 1934, under which appeals cannot come to this House without special leave. The machinery set up by the Standing Order which I am now asking your Lordships to pass is recommended by the Appeal Committee, and it should result in a further saving of expense to litigants, without interfering with the operation of the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. II applicable to appeals in this House be rescinded, and that the following Standing Order be made in lieu thereof: Ordered, That in all appeals in which the leave of the House is required under the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act, 1934, a petition for leave to appeal be lodged in the Parliament Office within one month from the date of the last order of judgment appealed from, and that such petition be referred to the Appeal Committee to consider whether such leave should be granted.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE ITALO-ABYSSINIAN DISPUTE.
Debate again resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Lord Marley,
1194
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers with reference to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I think you will all agree with me that the debate that we have so far had on this subject has been one of the most interesting debates that have ever taken place in this House. The speeches have been remarkable in many ways, but particularly for the great variety of points of view that they have presented. I think I may say that almost everything that could possibly be relevant to the subject has been discussed, except, perhaps, the Motion on the Paper, which I do not think anybody has in fact said anything about; and yet I am myself a warm supporter of the Motion on the Paper. I think it is very important that Papers with reference to the Italo-Abyssinian dispute should be presented as soon as possible. I know that it is very difficult to do anything under the existing conditions. At the same time I feel very strongly that not only Parliament but the whole country is entitled to the fullest possible information on this subject.
I am one of those who regret the days when it was customary for Governments to present a Blue-book on this kind of topic, in winch the whole of the correspondence on the subject was set out, so that any one who wanted to know really what had happened, and what was said and done, could find out in one volume. I confess that I prefer that a good deal to the rather skimpy White Papers which are DOW the fashion. Whatever is done, I hope the Government will seriously consider this proposal to present Papers, and will do whatever they can in the matter. It is all the more important because, as we have been informed, a General Election is impending, and un doubtedly this question will be one of the questions to be very much discussed in the Election.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to interpose a very short expression of regret that it has been found necessary to have that Election at this time. I read with great interest the Prime Minister's explanation, which was no doubt very cogent, and yet I cannot help feeling, somehow or other, that the suddenness with which it was resolved upon, the abruptness with which the dates were

1195
fixed, and so on, have produced an unfortunate impression in the country. I regret it all the more because I cannot help feeling at this moment, in spite of the Prime Minister's view that we have reached a lull—which I confess seems a sanguine view of the position—that it is of vital importance that the whole Cabinet, and particularly those Ministers specially concerned with foreign affairs, should be able to devote their whole time, attention, and energy to this question. It would be a grave pity if, for instance, it became necessary to withdraw some of our representatives from Geneva, in order to enable them to make electioneering speeches, or still more if it became necessary to postpone any action at Geneva because it was incompatible with the engagements of Ministers at home.
For these reasons I do regret it, but broadly speaking, and apart from that matter, I am one of those who are decidedly, and indeed with great conviction, supporters of the present policy of the Government in this matter. I, of course, do not pretend to say that there is nothing which might not be fairly criticised in what they have done, but I think that since the present Foreign Minister and the present Prime Minister took office, it is true to say that on the whole, and broadly speaking, and allowing for the enormous difficulties, which were partly inseparable from the task committed to them, and partly perhaps the result of previous action that had been taken, they have done well and have deserved well of their country.
I do not want to add any bitterness to the discussion, but I must say that I was a little surprised to read the Foreign Secretary's statement that in his view no change whatever had taken place in the policy of this country since the beginning of the year, in this matter. I do not want to go into recriminations about the past, though I share very much the views of my noble friend Lord Rennell—though he was so very kind and courteous to the present Government. I shall have a word to say about that later on. But, broadly speaking, I cannot doubt that there has been a great change and, after all, if there has not been a great change how can anyone account for the reception, not only in this country but all over the world, of Sir Samuel Hoare's celebrated speech in the Assembly at Geneva? It was greeted
1196
everywhere as a new departure, as a new statement, as showing that Britain was again taking her rightful place in the leadership of the world. If there was no change it seems to me very difficult to account for that enthusiasm. It is all very well to explain with the utmost Cabinet loyalty that everything was perfectly right before. Yet I think this is a case in which we may fairly say that the world at large forms its judgment without appeal, as the well-known Latin tag has it.
That, however, is by the way, because the present policy of the Government, whatever may be said about the past, is to support the League of Nations. It has been repeated in the strongest language by the present Prime Minister with a variety of metaphors by him and his colleagues—the"sheet anchor," the "corner-stone" and what not of the foreign policy of the Government is the League, and that is their convinced and resolute determination. I was delighted to read in the report of the debate in another place a very strong re-affirmation of that view, by the Prime Minister to some extent but even more strikingly and vigorously by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs, who used language which was exceedingly comforting and consoling to myself. Your Lordships, I am sure, will not suspect me of desiring to give you a lecture on the League of Nations, even if I were capable of doing so. That would be an extraordinary impertinence on my part, and I hope I should not be guilty of it. But I do want to remind your Lordships, when you say your policy is based on the League, of what, broadly speaking, is the scheme of the League.
It has really two broad principles: first, international co-operation should be posited in every possible way, and, secondly, there should be certain machinery for the prevention of war. No doubt the two are the same in one sense. The whole object of the institution of the League was the preservation of peace. There is no doubt about that. Everyone knows it. The framers of the scheme undoubtedly proceeded on those two broad lines—international co-operation and the prevention of war. And they did it rightly, because it is perfectly certain that you can have no effective and fruitful international co-operation unless you can

1197
find some means to get rid of the scourge of war and the constant weight of the fear of it on all international relations. When you come to the machinery for the prevention of war I think it may be described in very few words. There are provisions for the peaceful settlement of every dispute, either by direct negotiation between the parties—that of course must be left to the parties—or by some form of arbitration, or by some judicial settlement by the Court at The Hague, or else by discussion and mediation by the Council of the League of Nations.
Those are the conceptions of what you ought to do to try to get a peaceful settlement of the dispute, and any dispute that is "likely to lead to a rupture," to employ the actual words used—likely, that is, to produce war—is to be submitted to one or other of those methods of peaceful settlement. It is only after everything of that kind has been tried that any possibility of war is recognised or admitted by the Covenant as legitimate. Of course it was based, as all my noble friends know, on what happened in 1914. There had then been a dispute between what was Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and our Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, had done his very utmost to induce the parties to bring their dispute before some kind of conference—I do not think there was any question of referring it to arbitration—to bring it to some kind of international conference, a prototype of the Council of the League of Nations, and to get that discussed so that they should not be rushed into war while passions were still hot. And not only shall that be done—so the Covenant provides—but until it has been discussed and the Council has reached some decision, and three months have elapsed, nobody is to move in the direction of resorting to war. All those provisions have been most carefully made.
I was really amazed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, speak of the unveiled hostility of the British delegation to Italy. I have sometimes felt it my duty to make criticisms of His Majesty's Government, but I think I never said anything; so utterly baseless as that. It really was the most outrageous thing to say. If any possible criticism may be directed against my noble friends it would not be that that I
1198
should say. I should say that if they had done anything amiss they had shown too great a patience, too great a desire to meet the Italian view. And, after all, quite apart from the actual proposals that were put forward more than once, not by my noble friends but by the various bodies at Geneva, there was from the very outset pressure from Abyssinia to have the whole dispute referred to arbitration or to the Council of the League and a pledge by Abyssinia that, whatever the arbitrator said, whatever the Council said, they would accept it. In face of that, which is on record, who can say that there was any unfairness to Italy? Not only was that rejected, but the Italian Government indignantly denied that any one had the slightest right to interfere or to intervene in the dispute between them and Abyssinia. My noble friend Lord Hardinge went on to say that there had been no attempt to meet the Italian case.
LORD HARDINGE OF PENSHURST: No attempt at conciliation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No attempt at conciliation—even worse. I should have thought there was really no kind of justification for such a charge as that. For my part I have no criticism to make on the great patience and energy which the Government and others threw into the effort to present plan after plan and proposal after proposal to the Italian Government until war broke out. I am afraid that they were quite unsuccessful, and that it is indeed conceivable they did harm rather than good. But I do not criticise the Government on that ground, because I think they were bound to do everything they could until war broke out. Whether it is desirable to go on with that course now seems to me extremely doubtful.
I think it is time now for the Italian Government to say quite definitely what are the minimum terms on which they would abstain from their enterprise. When we know that, it will no doubt be proper for the League to consider that and see what, if anything, can be done. But until that is done I am afraid that the kind of hysterical appeals which are made, not by this Government but by certain other Governments, to the Italian Government, produce only the impression that we are very anxious for peace, very anxious. to get out of this disagreeable

1199
affair—I forget the phrase the Prime Minister used yesterday—and that there is no necessity for the Italians at present to be the least alarmed or the least uneasy as to what will happen. They are therefore the least inclined to come to any kind of reasonable settlement in the matter. I may be wrong. The Government are in charge of the negotiations, and they have means of knowledge which I have not. I merely venture to ask them to consider, as no doubt they have considered, that aspect of the case. That is as far as the mediation side of the procedure of the League is concerned.
Now as to direct prevention. It is common to talk of sanctions, and I am afraid the word has become so embedded in this kind of discussion that it is impossible to get rid of it; but I regret it, because sanctions, to the English mind, imply something in the nature of punishment. That is really not the conception of the Covenant of the League of Nations if you read it carefully. It is not punishment at all. My noble friend Lord Cavan, in the very charming and delightful speech which he made on Tuesday, said he rose in mitigation of judgment or punishment of Italy. If he will forgive my saying so, I really do not think that is at issue at all. The whole question is prevention, and I very much wish that, instead of talking of sanctions, we talked of preventive action. The whole point is prevention. As far as Article 16 is concerned, that is the only thing it aims at—prevention of the continuance of war. There is no provision, no suggestion, of any punishment of the aggressor as far as Article 16 is concerned. Article 10 is another matter. Once a war ceases, the obligation to exert sanctions under the Article ceases also. It is to prevent the recourse to war. That is the whole purpose of Article 16, and there is not, therefore, any question of punishment at all.
The first object of the League is to prevent the outbreak of war. No doubt that is a very important, perhaps the most important, function of the League. I am quite ready to concede that at some time or another, not now, but in the future, it will be well to examine whether the machinery for preventing an outbreak could not be made a little clearer than it is at present. Undoubtedly, that is the first business
1200
of the League—to prevent an outbreak. As soon as it became clear, as it did become clear, I think, a year ago—at any rate, on the information which Lord Rennell was good enough to give to the House, and which no doubt was not special private information of his own, but was common knowledge to any of those who cared to enquire—that there were obvious preparations for some big military movement in Eritrea as early as September of last year, from that moment it became the duty of the League, as soon as the attention of the Council was called to it, to take every possible measure to prevent an outbreak of war.
I quite admit the extreme difficulties of acting at that stage, but I must say, as I am bound to make some criticism, that I think it doubtful whether, to put it mildly, everything was done that could have been done to prevent an outbreak of war in the earlier months of this dispute. Personally, I have heard as yet no explanation of why Abyssinia was discouraged from proceeding with her desire to bring the matter formally before the League as early as last January, on the plea that she had better settle what was then the Walwal incident by negotiation under another treaty. When she again returned to the charge, I believe in March, she was again, I understand, persuaded not to press her desire. I think that was a mistake. I think it was perfectly plain there were important influences in Italy which desired a military expedition at that time. I do not think that is really open to doubt, and though that may not have been so plain at that time as it appears to me to be now, yet there was enough, I think, to justify the gravest doubts as to what were the real intentions of that Government. That being so, and indeed on every ground, I believe an inquiry before the Council of the League might have produced very important results. I confess I regret that that inquiry was not carried out.
But we have passed long beyond that and now we have got to, a stage that the war has actually broken out, and unquestionably the duty of the League is now to prevent its continuance, to stop the war. That is unquestionable; and this is where my noble friend Lord Ponsonby criticised the whole conception of the Covenant of the League most strongly.

1201
He will correct me if. I misstate him, but I think I am right in saying he thought the whole duty of the League to try and stop the war was entirely misconceived, at any rate as far as Article 16 is concerned. It is, of course, as I have tried to say to your Lordships, part of the duty of the League to promote settlement by agreement or mediation, and I think everything that could be done in that direction was done. But we have seen that, in point of fact, where one party is determined on, war, mediation and conciliation are not enough. We saw it in the case of Japan and China most clearly. Everything there was done that could conceivably be thought of to try and get a peaceful settlement and it wholly failed.
Therefore, the question is whether you are not to go further, or whether, having done all that, you are to sit quiet and say: "Well, Abyssinia is going to be overrun by Italy; we cannot do anything more." He justified, if I understood him rightly, his view of what ought to be done upon the assumption that when the Covenant was formed the idea was that there would be overwhelming strength on its side. I agree with him that the conception of overwhelming strength does underlie it. I do not think you will find it expressed, but it does underlie the idea of Article 16. I think this is the real test of any proposed action: is it such action as will have so many chances of success that an ordinary reasonable man may properly undertake it? That is not a question of unanimity. You will not find anything of that kind in Article 16. Article 16 says that upon the recourse to war in breach of the Covenant it becomes the duty of each Member of the League to take all the action it can—there are examples stated—to stop the war. But I think it is true to say that it only imposes an obligation to do that when action of that kind has a reasonable chance of success.
You could not, for instance, insist on Luxemburg by herself advancing to the restraint of Russia, to take a very extreme and absurd instance. It means something winch is practical and reasonable, and I think you must certainly, in construing diplomatic documents, have that always in consideration, but as long as you get sufficient strength on your side, whether it be economic or of any
1202
other kind, to do it, you are bound to do it. You are bound to do it individually, and it is not true to say you are bound to wait until every single country is on your side. That is not the conception of Article 16. You must have overwhelming strength, but not necessarily unanimity. I think anyone who reads the Article will agree with me there. It is in my judgment a "several" obligation, if I may put it in technical language, to carry out joint action, but the action must be general, and it must be effective. For that reason I most heartily approve of the Government's anxiety in this matter to move with France, because, at any rate as far as naval matters are concerned, if it comes to military sanctions, and indeed as far as economic matters are concerned, the association of France with any action for stopping the war seems to be practically essential.
Therefore I quite agree with every step the Government have taken to induce France to take her full share of the obligations which rest upon her, as they do upon other Members of the League, in restraining and in preventing the continuance of this war. I think that is right. As a mere matter of worldly wisdom, I doubt whether the Government are right in perpetually saying that under no circumstances would they take isolated action. It is quite true they could not do so, but it is not a matter that, personally, I should think it was practically useful to the temperament of a Dictator to be perpetually asserting. But our duty—and that is what I want very much to press on the House—is to do everything we can to stop the war. That is our duty, and we have got to discharge it unless we are not only going to be false to our signature of the Treaty in which the Covenant is contained but also to abandon all effort to organise peace. That is the contention which I mainly desire to press upon your Lordships. How that is to be done and what particular step ought to be taken is a matter which must be left to the responsibility of the Government of the day. We may suggest, but it is for the Government to decide, and it is for them to decide what is; essential to stop the war and to take whatever steps they think will be effective for that purpose. I do venture to press that very strongly upon the Government.

1203
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby—he will forgive me for devoting so much of my attention to what he said, but it is really a compliment to him to do so, such a compliment as I am able to pay him—said that in making this kind of proposal in the Covenant, those who drafted it were dreaming. I think he used that expression. I do not know if he actually called them dreamers, but that was the substance of what he said. They may have been. I do not speak, naturally, of myself (I am accustomed to being called a dreamer) but who were the people who framed the Covenant? They were the President of the United States and his most trusted adviser, the ex-Prime Minister of France, the actual Prime Minister of Italy, the Foreign Minister and, I think, Prime Minister of Belgium, and a number of other people of that calibre. I must not leave out my own colleague General Smuts. They considered it very deeply and very carefully. They went through the Covenant half a dozen times at least. In the end, they decided that this was the best plan. They had many plans before them, but they decided this was the best, partly on suggestions of President Wilson, but I think we may say more on suggestions of the Committee of the British delegation, and partly on suggestions made by other members of the Committee. They may have been dreamers; they may have been impregnated with a violent excitement of victory. I do not think they were. I think they were most passionately anxious to prevent a renewal of war, and I believe that passionate anxiety was the thing that informed and penetrated the whole of their debates.
What after all is my noble friend's alternative? He is not one of the people who think that this or that bit of the League of Nations can be recast. His proposal, if I understood him rightly, is quite different. He aims at settling international differences, producing a condition of international content, abolishing all international discontent. I wonder whether he has considered in detail—I am not going to do so—all the questions which would have to be settled, and what possible settlement could be imagined or devised which is going to give complete satisfaction to the parties to these very difficult disputes. I will not mention more than one. But take an obvious one, the settlement
1204
of the Polish Corridor. Whatever conceivable settlement you could suggest is one which will have very strong objections raised to it by one country or another. And so it is with many of the other questions. I must say, if he will allow me to do so, that for somebody who despises dreamers that seems to me a somewhat nebulous conception of the possibility of universal peace. I go further and say that if you proceeded in that kind of way, which after all is only the old diplomacy dressed up—because, after all, the purpose of the old diplomacy was to settle outstanding difficulties between the countries—you will go the course that you went before the war. You will have violent differences of opinion. Some of them will be settled no doubt, some will not be settled. They will remain, creating bitterness and leading to preparations for war, armaments, alliances, the whole apparatus that we saw before 1914. I cannot doubt that if you go back to that system, a system which has prevailed for many centuries, it will and must result, as it has constantly resulted, in terrible and desolating wars from time to time.
My noble friend was good enough to quote some phrase of mine in which I stated, or he thinks I stated, that any war must be a war everywhere—a war anywhere must be a war everywhere. He did not say exactly where it was used. He seemed to think I was contemplating the scheme under the Covenant. He is entirely mistaken. I was contemplating the scheme apart from the Covenant, my view being that the very thing which made the last war a world war, the very same influences and causes, would make any future war a world war. And I may remind him that my observation was not by any means original; it is one which was made, I think, in a particularly vigorous form by a, friend of his, the Russian Ambassador. But it is certainly my conception that the only real way of safety is not by attempts to find out every difficulty and difference between countries and to settle them (which I am satisfied will never be a possibility) but to try to induce the nations to say: "Of course there are difficulties and of course there are differences of opinion, but the one thing we must not do is to try to settle them by force of arms." That is the line

1205
on which advance has been made in every other circumstance, as I think.
I speak with the greatest deference in the presence of the Lord Chancellor, but I think he will agree with me that very early in the English law it was established that you had no right to redress your own grievances by force of arms, even if you were entirely in the right and the other person was entirely in the wrong. That is the principle which should be established. It is the principle which has been established in a number of cases, and has gradually extended the area of peace over great portions of the world's surface, and in my judgment that is the way in which we must proceed. I am afraid I must say one more word about my noble friend, and that is about his policeman.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I killed him yesterday.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, that is the one. Really I think that of all the instances that could be given that was not quite a fair analogy of what is proposed. The police act for two purposes. One is in order to secure a criminal and have him punished. But they exist also to prevent crime, and it is only in the second aspect that you can in any way compare action under the Covenant to police action: it is to prevent crime, not to punish crime. Therefore to say that the League is to be compared to a policeman going after a burglar who has stolen a spoon is to say that which is not the case.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have longed to interrupt the noble Viscount several times, but this time I must. Does he not think that the imposition of sanctions is punishing the Italian people?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Certainly not. That is just the point. It may in fact inflict hardship on them.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Is that not punishment?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No. Punishment is to inflict a penalty for a crime. This is to use such force as will prevent the commission of a crime. That is the whole distinction.
LORD MARLEY: The crime is being committed.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Let me give an illustration. A hundred and fifty years ago this City was in the hands of the George Gordon mob, a mob inspired by a half-lunatic religious enthusiast, and consisting in fact of every kind of person who saw an opportunity of loot and violence. For three days this City was in the hands of that mob. They burned and destroyed, they killed and injured anybody that they chose. There was no police, and for a time, as everybody knows, nothing was done. The magistrates lost their heads. Then the King, as a matter of fact taking the law into his own hands in the proper sense, said: "This is a thing which must be stopped." He called out the troops, and in a very short time the whole of the riot was put an end to and the burning ceased. I do not, remember the details but no doubt there must have been a certain amount of injury inflicted, probably on persons who were quite innocent, because you cannot avoid that when you are acting in that kind of way; but I think that without doubt and without question everybody in subsequent ages has applauded the action of the King and has said that that indeed is the thing that you must do in order to preserve order against a serious invasion of it such as took place then. That is the principle of the Covenant, and not the principle of the burglar being pursued by a policeman. It is the policeman using force in such strength as to make it impossible to have war.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships too long, but I have nearly finished. To my mind the question which I have been very imperfectly trying to expose to your Lordships is the real question which is raised in this dispute. It is not any question of rights or wrongs as between Italy and Abyssinia. It is not only the question of our honourable obligation in pursuance of our signature of the Treaty. That is a very important consideration no doubt, but that is not the only thing and in my humble judgment it is not the most important thing. The important thing is whether or not we can succeed in devising some means or another of organising peace on such terms that a breach of the peace will become, as I hope, impossible, at any rate extremely difficult and unlikely.

1207
I read with the greatest pleasure the speech of the Minister for League of Nations Affairs delivered yesterday. He said, and I am sure he said it with absolute truth, that if the League fails, while he would not say that at some time or another we should not be able to establish a fresh organisation of peace, that might be so—indeed I should personally go further than that and say that it must be so—yet for a generation we should feel the effects of it if the League failed now. If the League fails now you will have no protection until your new scheme, if it ever eventuates, has come to light. You will be thrown back on the system which existed before 1914. There is nothing else open to you. My noble friend's proposals, if he will allow me to say so—and I hope I have not been in anyway disrespectful to him—are really quite insufficient to give any hope or any possibility of permanent or even continued peace. We should be thrown back on the frightful perils of modern war. I am not going to enlarge upon them now. We all know them; we have had them discussed—the air perils and all the rest of them.
Here is this plan for organising peace and preventing war. It may be imperfect; indeed it is certainly imperfect and of course it must be imperfect, but I believe it is practicable. I believe, with Mr. Eden, that it can succeed. At any rate it has been accepted and endorsed by seven different British Governments since the War; it has been accepted and endorsed by more than fifty other States. There is no other plan which has been suggested which seems to me to have even a distant chance of success. I hope and trust that the Government in this matter will show no weakening. I was rejoiced to read the strong language which Mr. Eden used yesterday, that there was no change in the Government's policy, that there was no idea of abandoning their sanctions or anything of that kind. Whatever becomes necessary and whatever is essential to make this scheme of peace a success, I hope the Government will have the courage and the energy to pursue it, and I am quite satisfied that if they do they will receive the enthusiastic support of the people of this country.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, like my noble friend Viscount Cecil, I have derived much
1208
comfort from some of the statements made by His Majesty's Ministers, and in fact I am almost inclined to regret that through the exigencies of Parliament some of those statements were not made at an earlier stage, because they have certainly dispelled many illusions and many stories that have been propagated during the last few months. Having carefully studied the statements made both in this House and in the other, I think the Government have most successfully rebutted any charge that they have shown any lack of early observation of the tendencies in Italy or that they have not been careful in warning that country of the state of opinion in this country as to their action in Abyssinia. It is rather more difficult to make out from those statements whether or not the collective action of the League has been quite as active as the action of the British Government itself.
There is one point to which I should like to refer which I do not think was mentioned by either of my noble friends on the Government Bench when discussing the action we had taken during the last, year. There was a reference in the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to some proposals made by Italy or some arrangement made between the French and Italian Governments in January of this year. Those proposals of an economic character I understand were communicated to the British Government and they were asked to exchange views with the Government of Italy on that point. As far as I understand from the observations of the Secretary of State no reply was given. Other circumstances occurred and this friendly suggestion from Italy apparently did not receive any answer. The Secretary of State said, I think, that no answer was asked for, but I would like to know from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, if he speaks, how it was that these arrangements never bore fruit because at that time they were obviously of a very friendly character.
I listened with very great interest to my noble friend Viscount Cecil's criticisms of Lord Ponsonby. The observations I intend to make this evening will be very brief because I am in agreement with a great deal that has been said in this House, and I am bound to say that in contrast to the noble

1209
Viscount I find myself, with a good deal of surprise, in agreement with many of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I have often noticed that when public men relinquish official posts they generally make better speeches than they made before. In examining the position I think it is simplified by the fact that after what has happened there can be very little dispute, or perhaps no dispute, about the fact that under the Covenant of the League of Nations Italy is the transgressor and has been so pronounced by fifty nations. But then we are only at the beginning of our difficulties, because we have the difficult task of considering the practical action to be taken. Our aims are, no doubt, to bring the war to an end, to avoid war, and to maintain the authority of the League as an instrument of peace. But some unofficial critics have put this duty on a very high plane. They have said that you merely have to see that a breach of Article 16 has been committed and your duty is then quite plain under that Article.
I certainly agree with those who say that as regards the sanctity of an obligation it does not matter whether it has been entered into with five Powers or ten Powers, or fifty Powers. It is equally binding. But the action which should be taken as a result of breach of an agreement surely does differ very much according to whether the League of Nations is composed of all the. Powers of the world or only of a certain number of them. Perhaps that is rather too obvious to be discussed. It is quite plain that if you have, say, seventy Powers, and thirty-five of them are in favour of economic sanctions and thirty-five Against, it would be useless to put those economic sanctions into force because it would merely mean a transfer of trade from one set of nationals to another. Therefore I think you get the position that there is no absolute obligation, no question of honour which leas to be implicitly followed, but there is a fair weighing up of ways and means. I think this was felt by the League itself when it proceeded to take action, because under Article 16 on the outbreak of war, when an 'act of war has been committed, all States Members of the League have at once to sever all trade or financial relations with the aggressor. There is no question of wait-
1210
ing. I may have misunderstood my noble friend Viscount Cecil but I understood him to say that Article 16 really applied to action for the prevention of the outbreak of war.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, said something different.
EARL PEEL: I thought that was what the noble Viscount said. The 'absolute nature of the obligation would be very difficult, to follow, and I think this was felt by the League itself because it did not immediately sever all relations with Italy, but met to consider what sanctions should be applied and in what manner and when they should be applied.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If I may be allowed to interrupt I would like to call attention to the decision of the Second Assembly—my noble friend is no doubt familiar with it—in which it was pointed out that the obligation under Article 16 was agreed by everybody, but that it might be applied in various ways according to the circumstances of the case.
EARL PEEL: If I may say so, that is exactly the point I was making. I was dealing with the absolute obligation and the fact that that obligation must differ according to the circumstances of the case, and that methods by which that particular obligation is to be enforced must differ. The point I desire to make is that expediency comes in and that it is not a question of absolute bondage to a particular authority. Further, in considering this question attention has been very naturally concentrated upon Italy's relations with Abyssinia, and there is a danger, therefore, that we may take rather too narrow a view of the particular position between Italy and Abyssinia. Italy, of course, is a very great country which has played manifold parts, which has many relations with other Powers, and we cannot forget that after the Versailles Conference Italy cherished a feeling of grievance that she had not received what she considered her fair share in the development of countries outside Europe. These things, I submit, cannot be excluded from our judgment when we are dealing with the problem of Abyssinia. And again, you have this other case: that France has no doubt found great difficulty, so far as an out-

1211
sider can judge, in maintaining the impartiality of a judge in view of her relations with Italy and also her attitude to Germany. I certainly am not surprised that there may have been some dubiety and some hesitation displayed by her in her action.
Moreover, Italy as one of the units of the European society is a great contributor to that society. It would be a very great misfortune if she were driven by too insistent action into ruin, desperation or bankruptcy. The marvel is again, to those looking at it from an outside point of view, that with her slender resources and her not very strong financial position she should have embarked on so large and so costly an adventure. Surely great care ought to be taken that Italy is not driven out of the League and added to the number of those Powers that stand outside. Another consideration is that Italy is not a prisoner who pleads guilty. All the reports coming from Italy to which one has access are that she is more and more concentrated behind her Leader; that her young men are aflame with enthusiasm, and that, so far from flinching under the ban of some fifty Powers, she claims to defend herself against an aggressor. This may be said, of course, and has been said, to be the mere arrogance of violaters of treaties, but it is a fact that must be reckoned with and that shows how complex and difficult the general situation is.
I come, then, to the question of what are called, of course, the economic and military sanctions. I do not think I can quite follow the argument of my noble friend when he said that these sanctions could not be treated as punishment. They may not be treated by some people as a punishment, but in effect they are the severest penalties that can be inflicted on a country. If you are going, say, to stop the external trade of this country, I cannot imagine any more terrible penalty being imposed upon the whole life of the country; and if you draw distinctions between deterrents, penalties and punishments, there is not very much distinction in the minds of those who suffer from them. Sanctions, economic and military, imply the imposition of force, and are, anyhow, quite opposed to the conception of the League. I know my friend says, and of course rightly, that it is part of the general conception of the League: that is to say,
1212
as arbitrator, as peacemaker. I did not quite gather from the speech of the noble Viscount exactly to what length he was urging the Government to go. He was, I thought, a little general in his statements.
To those who are urging further development of sanctions I am inclined to ask: "Are you going to the extent of war?" That question, it seems to me, ought to be asked frankly and fairly from those who say that the Government, or the Government and the League together, should press Italy further and further. That is an issue, a very plain issue it seems to me, that has to be faced. Now you may say that the League is already putting into force, and going to put into force, these economic sanctions. Can you draw a real distinction between economic sanctions and military sanctions? Strictly speaking, I suppose you cannot. Their character is that of the application of force. Both of them, I think, are contrary to the conception of the League as an instrument of negotiation, of suasion and of peacemaking—though I admit, of course, that they are contained in Article 16. I do not make any suggestion that this Covenant was drawn up by dreamers, but I do say that it was drawn up by men—of the highest eminence, no doubt—who contemplated a situation quite different from that which obtains to-day. The noble Viscount says he disagrees with that. I should like to know later what his reason is for saying so.
The League is not to trade with Italy; it is to declare a general boycott of all Italian trade. One of the tests which the noble Viscount set was whether action would be effective. I have no doubt that, before deciding on putting on these sanctions, the League has considered—as it must consider—whether, in spite of the action of those countries which say they are not going to follow the advice of the League but are going to trade with Italy, more especially those countries which are contiguous with and adjacent to Italy, the trade boycott will be effective or whether it will not. I was myself a little anxious lest this cutting-off of trade with Italy would involve something in the nature of a blockade, which certainly has a very close resemblance to an act of war, and I was much relieved to hear from the

1213
Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the Government did not contemplate a blockade and therefore that there is some other method—I am not quite sure what it is—of enforcing this boycott. But that declaration that there is no blockade and that a blockade is not to be considered was, at least to me, highly satisfactory.
During the last few days some statements have been made by the Government which, again, I think are very reassuring. One was made by the Prime Minister himself, in which he said that we shall act collectively, not one inch before and not one inch behind. The army is to march, therefore, on an even front. There was also that very remarkable statement, which must affect people's judgments—anyhow on the expediency of sanctions—and which was quoted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs but which has not yet, I think, been quoted in this House. It is, nevertheless, of the greatest importance.
"Against economic sanctions"
said Signor Mussolini—
"we shall set our discipline, our frugality and spirit of sacrifice. To military sanctions we shall reply with military sanctions. To acts of war we shall reply with acts of war."
That has been most plainly said, and I do not see, after reading that statement, that anybody can doubt that acts of war—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): That was quoted in this House.
EARL PEEL: Well, I will quote it again, if I may. I am sorry to repeat a quotation, but I think that those points together are of the very greatest importance. I am much obliged to my noble friend for correcting that, I think, venial error. Further than that, we were informed that there have been no discussions with France or suggestions of military sanctions—no suggestions. I venture to hope, and I say so most respectfully to the Government, that if we have not raised them in the past we shall not raise them in the future, because, of course, military sanctions definitely mean, not military sanctions, but war. Now may I say very shortly indeed the reasons why I, at any rate, am strongly against these so-called military sanctions? I think they would be too great a strain
1214
upon the League, and we cannot expect the League after twelve or fourteen years to have gained that firmness and strength and general position in the world which one hopes it may achieve as the years go on. The economic sanction has laid a great strain upon Members of the League. It is quite clear that many of them will riot act upon this economic sanction. Many of them are availing themselves of Clause 16, and are asking for compensation, I understand, if they support the League. I would suggest that those who do not support the League, and who gain trade in consequence, should be the contributors towards those others who are the sufferers.
The next point—and the great men who organised the League no doubt considered this most fully—is that the League itself is not in any way organised for war or the carrying on of war. You can hardly imagine any body less capable of carrying on a war. That must necessarily arise from the arrangements of the League. I am not one of those who deprecate the action of the League so far. I think that considering the organisation and methods of carrying on business, they have acted so far with very remarkable rapidity, but the ground on which I do most strongly deprecate this military action is this: Everything in the world may be said to be settled either by persuasion or by force. I do regard the League of Nations as standing strongly for persuasion and conciliation, and I do not think you can mix those two things, persuasion and force, together. I believe that when the League is found to be organising for or promoting war it steps outside its proper functions, because whatever war it may be—you may call it a righteous war or a war to end war, or a war to coerce the transgressor—it is still war in all the character of war, and it stamps upon its authors and creators a character which is wholly different from the character of conciliation and peacefulness. I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that we as a country took that position ten years ago, when we rejected the Protocol of Geneva.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Nothing to do with it.
EARL PEEL: We rejected it on that ground, that it would emphasize the.

1215
coercive character of the League to the detriment of its conciliatory character. I only wish to say two things in conclusion. One is that I congratulate the Government upon being so much cooler in their observations than some of their supporters. The Government, no doubt, have been accused of taking too vigorous action at Geneva, and it has seemed to many of us that other Powers were really sheltering themselves under British skirts and allowing this country, perhaps, to suffer the odium of conducting the case against Italy. I am glad that this view has been dissipated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who told us that, although it was not known publicly, other Powers had been taking equally vigorous action. I regret that this was not fully known at an earlier stage.
Then, again, I think the situation has been made far more difficult by some of those who have indulged in furious fulminations against Italy. Those fulminations have not assisted His Majesty's Government in the task which they have had to face in dealing with this situation, because we have to deal not only in a collective capacity but also in a judicial capacity with these quarrels, and I think our observations and criticisms ought to have a judicial rather than a combative cast. It is a great mistake to imitate Judge Jefferys, who is said to have abused the prisoners he was trying, and I have never heard that this made the prisoners think they were having a fair trial. It would be far easier to persuade Italy of our disinterestedness if we could be more moderate in our language against her. Nor do I think that the Italian case has been sufficiently put before the people of this country. We know the case of Abyssinia, but I do not think we have heard in the newspapers sufficiently of the case of Italy against Abyssinia.
I do not think myself that even though war was not prevented we must necessarily form the judgment that the League has failed. The League will have done all that it can do, and it will have used its utmost efforts within the scope and range of its duties. I believe myself that those powerful States now outside the League are far more likely to be attracted to it if the League does not depart from its character of persuasion, and does not have recourse to force. It must be some
1216
time at least before the League can establish throughout the world a character not only for disinterestedness but for conciliation, which I believe in the end will be far better for the peace of the world than an attempt to enforce military sanctions.
I should have said—there are those who are far more familiar with the situation than I am—that there is so much combustible material lying about Europe that it would be extremely dangerous to start a war. I have not much faith in the power of the League to stop war once it has been started, and a general conflagration in Europe would bring to an end entirely the Italian difficulties, but the League would be hopelessly broken in the process. We must make every effort to see that Italy is not driven like a pariah outside the comity of nations. I think one must believe that this ban of so many nations on the action of Italy must itself in time have a great effect upon the character of the Italian action, and even if not Italy must realise that if they have broken the Covenant in this way and defied the action of the fifty Powers composing the League, they can hardly effect final or satisfactory recognition of any arrangements they might have to make in Abyssinia. Hard and difficult as this road is it seems to me better than the use of military sanctions and the certainty of a general war.
There were two things said by the Secretary of State to which I will refer. One of them I do not entirely understand, and that was about the question of giving Italy greater access to raw materials. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor would find himself able to give any explanation of that point, because as far as access to raw materials is concerned everybody is at liberty to buy, and the only trouble during the last two or three years has been that raw materials have been so cheap that they have hardly paid those who produced them. Prices are no doubt rising now, but one would like to have a little clearer conception, if the Government see their way to give it, of that scheme of the Foreign Secretary. The other observation of the Foreign Secretary to which I allude is this. He said
"In the meanwhile not a day or week shall pass without the Members of the League showing their readiness to find an

1217
honourable settlement to this unhappy controversy."
May I say that to that proposal of the Foreign Secretary I most fully and most heartily subscribe.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with the very greatest possible diffidence in view of the distinguished position of those who have preceded me, and I do so without any special knowledge whatever. I have no access to any information except that which is available to all of us in the public Press of this and other countries. Those of your Lordships who have great knowledge of these matters should merely consider me as an ordinary member of the British public, imbued, like yourselves, with very deep anxiety with regard to the state of affairs in the world to-day. We have heard this afternoon, perhaps more so than during the two preceding days of this debate, reference to military sanctions. Military sanctions, to me at any rate, simply mean one thing—war. My, mind absolutely recoils in horror from the mere thought and suggestion that there can be war between Great Britain and a country like Italy—a country in regard to which we were told by the gallant Field-Marshal (Lord Cavan) the other day such wonderful things about her Army. It is simply unthinkable to me that there can be any question of war between Italy and this country.
Like many of your Lordships I have been fortunate in the last few years in having repeatedly visited Italy, going through the length and breadth of that country and coming in contact with all sorts of people, even Ministers of the Italian Government. I have also been able to go about to many of the countries of Europe, and all this year I have been increasingly anxious with regard to the sort of conversation one hears and the general trend of comment in foreign countries about our own country. Our own attitude does not seem to be in the least understood by a good many people abroad. I would like to say at this juncture that I do not rise to make any unfriendly criticism of the action of our Government. I am perfectly certain that they have done their level best and probably the only thing that could be done at the time, and under the very difficult and absolutely unprecedented circumstances that prevailed. But, at the same time, one could not visit any country of the
1218
Continent this year without hearing questions of the sort that I am going to indicate.
The first one is: Was it true that this country did not inform Signor Mussolini in January what its attitude would be to a breach of the Covenant of the League? That situation has been very largely cleared up, I hope, by this debate and the debates in another place. At the same time, I do net know that it has even yet been absolutely stated, quite clearly and succinctly, by His Majesty's Government that they did inform Signor Mussolini that, if matters went as they have gone since, the British Government would make this a test of the Covenant of the League of Nations—because I think I am right in saying that that is really the situation that we have arrived at to-day. In fact, so far as I understood what the noble Marquess told us the other afternoon, it -was more or less clear that this is regarded by the Government as a test of the Covenant, by which it stands or falls. We were told the other afternoon that the British Government did make it quite clear on several occasions to Signor Mussolini that British public opinion and the Government would view such action as was contemplated, or was possible, with the gravest anxiety and alarm, but I do not know whether it was stated that it would be treated as a test case under the Covenant. That may have been implied: I do not know.
Another question asked all round the Continent to-day, to which it would be helpful if a clear answer could be given is: Why does Britain make a test case of this Abyssinian controversy, and why did she not also take similar and very strong action in the case of Manchukuo and in the case of the Chaco dispute, and possibly in the case of Corfu? I do not say that those cases were entirely analogous. I had the opportunity of listening to Mr. Anthony Eden in another place yesterday, and it was quite clear from what he said that the case of Manchukuo is not on all fours with this case of Italy and Abyssinia. But if a perfectly clear answer could be given to this point I believe it would do good in making our position better understood abroad. Another question asked abroad which T have heard from many people is this: Why could not Britain be more sympathetic in her attitude to Italy? I know that Italy has

1219
transgressed. She has been declared to be the aggressor and has transgressed against the Covenant. But we have been told by Government spokesmen that Italy is not on her trial or anything of that sort, and if it is at all possible even in days to come for the Government to take a sympathetic attitude if advances of a peaceful character are made, I only hope and pray that they will be responded to. Only to-day we have seen in the newspapers an announcement that Italian troops are being recalled from the frontier of Libya and Egypt. If that is a gesture of peace, I hope and pray with all my heart that it will be responded to.
Another thing that is said on the Continent is that Britain is always to the fore in proposing sanctions and extreme action at Geneva in the case of Italy. I think that is probably a very unfair comment. I am perfectly certain that what action we take there is right and proper. At the same time the opinion is held that we have been foremost in it. Only yesterday I listened with care and attention to the great speech made by Mr. Anthony Eden in another place, and he certainly distinctly said that we have been foremost in such action as had been taken at Geneva—in fact, it was our duty to do so because of our position in the world. But in this matter, surely, the Government view is that we all have responsibilities? There must be no unilateral action. All nations must bear their share of the burden. That is, I think, what most people will understand from the great speech of our Prime Minister, and, if that is true, then the responsibility was equally upon France as upon ourselves to take such action as has been taken. That leads me to the League of Nations.
At the present moment, as has been mentioned by everyone who has spoken in this debate, three of the greatest nations stand outside. So long as we had a real League of Nations, then I cannot help feeling we should be quite safe and the world would be quite safe if action, however drastic, was taken by the League of Nations; but if you only have an incomplete body such as we have now, with three of the most important Powers standing outside, it does seem to me you have got a position which is going to be intolerably difficult—in fact, I do not see that we have a real League of
1220
Nations at all. A policy of sanctions has been embarked on. Sanctions, to me, seem to be merely a sort of international policy of pinpricks. It seems to me impossible for sanctions to be effective—unless you have a blockade, and it is impossible to have a blockade without a war. Do we want to goad Italy into a position like that? This was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who preceded me.
At the beginning of this unhappy dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, I know from my own personal knowledge of many people in Italy, there was a considerable division of opinion, as was indeed only to be anticipated, amongst Italians themselves with regard to the merits of the case and the action proposed. That opinion may not have been articulate. We would not expect it to be in view of the organisation of the government in that country, but at the same time it was there. I am told now on the very best authority, and I know it to be true from my own personal observation, that Italy to-day stands absolutely united behind her Leader, and that whatever action was decided upon by the Italian Government, and by Signor Mussolini, would be followed unswervingly by the entire nation. I do not like to feel that Italy may possibly be goaded by a policy of sanctions. I cannot see how these sanctions are going to be effective. You have got most important nations standing outside and, short of a blockade, I cannot see how they are going to come into play. There is one other point about sanctions. Italy is one of the few countries with which at the present moment this country has a favourable balance of trade. It seems to me that the boycott of Italian trade, so far as this country is concerned, is going to be a much more serious thing, and will mean a loss of markets which it may be impossible to get back. Also, it seems to me, that for all time it may be we shall earn the undying enmity of a very great people.
Another point is this. Only a few days ago, it was announced that the Government had decided to enforce conditions of neutrality as far as Italian shipping is concerned. When the learned Lord Chancellor comes to reply to this debate I personally should be deeply grateful if it were possible for him to say just a

1221
word with regard to the policy of neutrality which is going to be enforced. I understand it to mean that Italian shipping may only stay in our ports for 24 hours, that Italian ships can only take a small amount of fuel on board, and so on. If you enforce a policy of neutrality with regard to Italian shipping, is there not a danger of a corollary to that? If you enforce neutrality in the way I have mentioned, is there not a danger that Italy may say: "All right, we also will enforce a policy of neutrality. We will insist on the right of visit and search." After all, the League of Nations have decided in favour of the import of arms to Abyssinia. Arms and poison gas, and heaven knows what, are probably now at this very moment on the way to Abyssinia. Would it be unreasonable of Italy to say: "All right, we must insist on the right of visit and search of these ships, and if we find them carrying arms, we shall claim the right to stop them"? It does seem to me there is a possibility of great difficulty and international complications arising.
I do not want to take up the time of your Lordships or trespass on it too long, but there are two other things I want to say before I sit down. First of all we listened to a remarkable speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, this afternoon. I was hoping that the noble Viscount would tell us exactly how far he really does want the Government to go in the application of sanctions. I understand that the noble Viscount is going to address a great meeting at the Albert Hall shortly. We have had utterances from many other people about sanctions. I believe that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, also made a public statement with regard to sanctions a short time ago. I hope that everybody who talks about sanctions will tell us directly whether they are in favour of this country, if necessary, going to war, broadening the area of war, bringing the war out of Africa into Europe if need be, in order to stop the war in Abyssinia. I feel that the country is entitled to a quite clear declaration on this particular point. It is of the first importance. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, began his notable speech as Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House, by telling us that he thought the attitude of the Socialist
1222
Party on this point was quite plain. Perhaps it is quite plain to a humble individual like myself. We are shortly going into an Election, and we shall hear a greet deal about the attitude of the Socialist Party as far as sanctions are concerned. They kicked out Mr. Lansbury, their Leader, because he refused to agree to a policy of sanctions.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is not a fair statement. He was not kicked out; he resigned.
EARL HOWE: I accept that. He resigned. Very good. We have also had it from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that he also resigned because he could not bring himself to agree to a policy of military sanctions with regard to Italy. Therefore I think we can conclude that the majority of his Party are in favour of military sanctions, and also, if need be, in favour of war between this country and Italy in order to enforce sanctions. That is a most important point. Finally, I would like just to say this. It seems to me we are in some danger of getting into a position very similar to that which Signor Mussolini has occupied all these months—namely, that we may only be able to go on by having a war, or retire with discredit. That seems to have been Signor Mussolini's dilemma all this year. In view of the Italian preparations and the great force he had sent abroad, I personally did not see how it was possible for Italy to stay her hand. At the same time, I hope and pray that, whatever happens, His Majesty's Government will realise that the people of this country are passionately devoted to peace. We all beg and pray His Majesty's Government not to land us in any position, not to adopt any course of action or policy which may have the result of making it necessary to employ military sanctions against that country. I am quite certain that is a course of action that this country would never forgive.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have spoken so much on this grave matter that I had not intended to take part in this debate, but in view of certain criticisms which have been either made or implied, either here or elsewhere, I have been compelled to reconsider my intention and to inflict a few observations upon the matter on your Lordships.

1223
Moreover, it might be thought that on a question of such grave anxiety it was natural that some voice should speak from that part of the House which I have the honour to represent. A word about this criticism. It has been implied that, with others with whom I have acted, I have been animated by some hostility to Italy. I know well that certain words which I have used have been quoted and commented upon in home, and I am anxious to dispel that entire misrepresentation. So far as my own feelings about Italy are concerned, they were most fully and eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on whose position as Leader of the Opposition I would take leave to congratulate him. Certainly I have always cherished just those feelings about Italy which he so eloquently expressed. Moreover, I do not think I have ever spoken on this matter without acknowledging, with the Secretary of State, that it is necessary, would have been necessary in any case, to pay regard to Italy's need of expansion and even to the grievances which Italy urged against Abyssinia.
I think there has been a great deal of justice in the complaints that have been made that Abyssinia has been very slow, it might even be said culpably slow, in fulfilling the obligations on the strength of which she was admitted to the League of Nations. I must admit that some of these remarks that have been made about Abyssinia seem to me to show less than generosity to the Emperor for all the efforts he has made, in spite of tremendous difficulties, to bring a more civilised order into his country, and I think it is only fair to remember that, after all, only a hundred years have passed since this country, after centuries of civilised rule, still retained the status of slavery in its Dominions. I must add that, inasmuch as Abyssinia, from the first referred any possible dispute with Italy to the League in accordance with its own pledges in this matter, the Emperor showed himself riot less capable of civilised conduct than his opponent. But our contention is that, admit as much as you like all the difficulties created possibly by the treatment of Italy by Abyssinia, admitting to the full these and those submitted to the League, it was not for Italy to take it into its own hand to judge its own cause and at once to mass a
1224
great military force against the country about which it felt these grievances.
Article 12 of the League made it obligatory on Italy to refer the matter to the League and to refrain for at least three months from embarking upon any act of war. It is true that I have said, and have no reason to regret having said, that we viewed the action of Italy in launching a great military machine against the Abyssinians with indignation, but that word is not a whit more strong than the words that were used by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge himself, in his very reasoned plea for consideration to Italy. These were his words:
"I regard her aggressive attack on Abyssinia as a most unjustifiable proceeding and one that cannot be sufficiently condemned."
I have never said more than that, and I leave it there. If there be in this present time chances of some suggestions from Italy as to a possible basis of conciliation certainly they should be treated with every desire to be fair and considerate, and welcomed, provided that they be not such terms as, if they were granted, would even seem to justify Italy's act of aggression. In other words it is impossible to emphasise too much the fact that the dispute is not in any sense one between this country and Italy but one between Italy and the League of Nations.
Then I come to the criticism that with others I have expressed militant views. The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, I think, spoke of the militant views of some of the most eminent and right reverend members of the Episcopate.
LORD HARDENGE OF PENSHURST: I was not referring to your Grace.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I wondered whether the noble Lord included me in those complimentary terms, but at any rate there was no doubt as to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and its application to the unfortunate person who is now addressing you. I am sorry that neither I nor, I think, any of my brethren were present when Lord Ponsonby made his indictment. We were engaged in duties elsewhere. Let me only say about it that I have never pressed for military sanctions. I should abhor the necessity of any war sanctions, as they are called,

1225
as cordially as any noble Lord who has spoken, but the question of military sanctions to my mind has not yet arisen. I do not see how it can arise. The basis of the action of the Government, as I understand it, throughout has been that we shall only be responsible for collective action, and in this matter we have every reason to know that collective action will not be secured for anything that could be called military sanctions. Of course everything depends upon the possible act of the aggressor Power who may choose to regard some episode in this economic pressure as a casus belli, or who might perhaps be obliged not to repudiate some act on the part of some of his forces which might be regarded by others as a casus belli But I think that is extremely unlikely. In any event, even if it became necessary in any sort of way to apply military force, it would only be clone in conjunction with those who have shared with us the burden of collective action and, therefore, there is no question of the possibility of any such thing as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, contemplated of a war between this country and Italy.
No, my Lords, I have only argued on this matter on the ground of principle, that in principle there is a great distinction between war as an instrument of policy and the use of physical force in order to uphold the rule of law within or among States against the rule of force. I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby professed his intention to nail once for all to the counter the false coin (I think his words were) that there must be force behind the arm of the law. I am not going into that matter. I should have liked, if it had not been for what was said by my noble friend Viscount Cecil, to have dealt a little with Lord Ponsonby's policeman, because I think it could have been shown that the analogy is very misleading. The point is not that we desire in any sort of way to apply punishment to Italy or to any Power that has broken the Covenant, but that we desire to protect that community of law, that observance of a common rule of law on which ultimately any community, whether within the State or among States, must depend. I have never been able to be persuaded that any Christian principle involves the refusal to restrain the law breaker either within the State or among States, for
1226
that would mean the dissolution of that common order and security which I believe to be divinely ordained to be the basis of our common social life.
Of course—and I have always said so—force is no final remedy for anything. The ultimate causes of war, if you analyse them, are spiritual: fear, jealousy, ambition—movements of the spirit of that kind, and they can ultimately only be counteracted by stronger spiritual force. The ultimate security lies in the minds, convictions, consciences of individual citizens in every part of the world. Lord Ponsonby seemed, at any rate, to echo the familiar taunt that in these matters Christianity has failed, to which the only reply to be given is the familiar one that it is not Christianity but the Christians who have failed: and Christians have failed because they have riot put their loyalty to a supernational Kingdom above the loyalty which they felt they must in all circumstances render to their own country. They have not restrained the natural instincts, ambitions and excitements of their own countries by remembrance of that higher allegiance to a higher Kingdom to which they are pledged. I have no wish—this is not the time nor the occasion—to enlarge upon such a theme, but simply to prove my own sincerity I may remark here that I am now engaged in endeavouring to approach all the Christian communions in Europe with a view to making an appeal to their own members to place that loyalty foremost in their minds, actions and disposition.
But, my Lords, to return to the point, for the present I think it is certain that things being as they are and as they can be contemplated as in all probability likely to be, it is not only needless but it is even mischievous to talk about war. So far from being militant our whole contention is that it is the cause of world peace that is involved in upholding and supporting the Covenant of the League. But though I would repudiate, and passionately repudiate, any clamour for war, I must equally deprecate any clamour for mere peace. I do not want at this stage to embark upon any kind of academic discussion, but. I think that this is a question which does ultimately depend upon principle, and I think it is of the greatest importance to insist in point of principle that peace in itself, as

1227
I have so often said, is not an ideal. Peace is merely a state which results from the achievement of ideals. Foremost amongst those ideals must be justice, the honour of observing treaty obligations, and some common rule of law. If these things do not exist you cannot have peace, whatever you may choose to call it. Such a peace based upon acquiesence in the violation of justice or of the rule of law is an illusory peace, and the pursuit of mere peace for its own sake defeats its own end, for the peace obtained by such acquiesence is certainly one which could never stand and which would be quite inconsistent with the basis upon which any settled peace can be built.
Can it be doubted that if the League in this matter had merely said: "Because the action of Italy in defiance of the League is an awkward event, because it may bring with it difficult consequences, we are simply to let the aggressor go free," that would certainly have meant that the League would have proved its impotence to fulfil the functions for which it was created, and that it was impotent to defend the only thing resembling a community of nations which we have yet been able to establish? I make my own the words used in another place by the Secretary of State, that Europe would then be faced with a period of almost unrelieved danger and gloom. The only alternative would be those rival alliances with which we were painfully familiar before the War and which have proved to be not a safeguard but a menace to peace. Moreover, the path of any future aggressor would have been made much easier and any future threat of the disturbance of peace would have become a much more imminent danger than it would otherwise have been. On the other hand, if the League in any real measure succeeds in applying the restraints which it has devised and thereby shortening this wretched war, then I think certainly a great step will have been taken in showing that collective security can be a reality in Europe.
Complaints have been made, I know—but I am no judge of these things—about the slowness of the procedure of the League. To me these recent happenings have brought much more promise than disappointment. I think it is most remarkable that on the first occasion when those who have been responsible
1228
for signing the Covenant of the League have been compelled to consider the consequences of upholding it they have not shrunk. We may or may not think that they might have done more: others think that they ought to have done less; but at any rate they have not shirked their responsibilities, and they have shown that it is possible even for a League admittedly imperfect, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has pointed out, to act in such a way as must certainly give any future Power of military ambitions good cause to pause before it proceeds further. And if the League as it now is is able to do that, how much more effective would the action be of any League on a larger and fuller scale that may hereafter be created.
With this—and this is all that I desire to say now—there will come, I think, two other most welcome consequences. In the first place, it will be possible for the League in a better atmosphere to fulfil another of its functions, not only to prevent war but to remove or at least to mitigate the causes of unrest which are the most fruitful causes of war. Two of these have been mentioned. I have mentioned them repeatedly and I notice that the Secretary of State has specifically referred to them throughout. The one is the need of some more equal distribution of the natural resources of the earth; the second is the removal of those barriers which are preventing the natural movement of trade among the nations. If the League, buttressed by any measure of success at this time of supreme testing, can address itself to some international action to remove these potent causes of unrest, it will have done much to increase the basis of peace.
In the second place, I cannot refrain from adding, it will then be possible for the League to resume that endeavour to secure a general reduction of armaments throughout the world to which it is pledged by Article 8 as really as under any other part of the Covenant. And it will be able to do so with a far better prospect of success than it has had hitherto, because if at the present testing time the League achieves any measure of success, there will be behind the proposal a sense of confidence in collective security such as has hitherto not been possible. Certainly, we cannot acquiesce in the possibility of

1229
the competitive race of armaments beginning again. If it once begins, where will the end of it be? Imagination staggers at the answer to that question. These, my Lords, are some of the reasons why I am impelled to give my cordial support to the action which the League of Nations now taking and to the action of the Government in cooperating with it, and I have every reason to know that in speaking thus I have behind me a great multitude of the Christian citizens of this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I desire to offer a few concluding observations on behalf of the Party which sits on these Benches. The most reverend Primate, if he will allow me to say so, caused great rejoicing in my heart when, in his concluding observations, he drew attention to an omission from every speech from the other side of the House—I know the most reverend Primate's position is only geographical in this House—an omission which I have noticed in other speeches. We have had references by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and others to the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Geneva, which created such a stir and interest throughout the whole world, but the broadcast speech of the Secretary of State to the United States was equally remarkable. One of the most remarkable passages in that speech was the one stressed by the most reverend Primate in his concluding sentences, in which the Secretary of State drew attention to the need of removing trade barriers, of removing obstacles to intercourse and exchange of goods between nations. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was able to make that observation to the American public, but although I have read with great attention his speeches to the. British public I have seen no mention of it in those speeches.
Mention has been made in this debate of certain differences in the Labour Party on the great question which we are discussing. I hope an noble Earl, Lord Howe, did not mind my interrupting his very interesting speech when he spoke about the position of my right honourable friend Mr. Lansbury. Mr. Lansbury was not kicked out of the Labour Party. He resigned and was begged to reconsider his resignation as leader. Of course
1230
he remains a member of the Party. I believe I am speaking for all my colleagues when I say that we should welcome nothing more than that he should lead us again. I speak also for my colleagues on these Benches when I say that exactly the same observation' applies to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. At Brighton, where the Labour Party's debate also lasted for three days, the voting was twenty to one in favour of the official policy of the Party, and it is to that policy that I desire to address myself. If there have been certain dissensions in our Party, I submit that this debate in your Lordships' House has revealed far more clearly than the debate in another place, for reasons which I will come to in a moment, the profound differences that divide the Conservative Party.
The speeches of the noble Earl and other noble Lords, such as Lord Hardinge—who, if he does not speak for the Conservative Party, speaks for the governing classes who dominate the Conservative Party—differed profoundly from the speeches delivered by the noble Marquess who leads your Lordships' House and members of the Cabinet in another place. Even the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who always speaks with moderation, showed the same implied criticism of the policy of His Majesty's Government up to about a week ago. I will come to the question of how far that policy has changed before conclude my few remarks. The fact of the matter is that real Conservatives in this country, in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, are pro-Fascist. They believe in the Fascist system. They are opposed to democracy, and they are therefore pro-Italian. Those who move about the country as I do find it everywhere. The most reverend Primate speaks, of course, as he says, for great numbers of Christian citizens. The speeches which really represent the Conservative view were those delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who spoke earlier, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge. These differences are far more fundamental than any temporary differences there may be in the Labour Party on these matters. Why have we heard these differences expressed in your Lordships' House, and not in another place? We heard the beginning of it in the revolt led by Mr. Amery. The reason is that we are very close to a General Election. That Election was referred to

1231
by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—I thought quite gratuitously—in his otherwise very interesting speech.
There is another matter also which has not been referred to in this debate. We really have, of course, much to answer for in this unfortunate dispute. If I may venture on legal phraseology in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who will conclude this debate, I would say that we have been accessories before the fact. In December, 1925, a secret agreement—or an agreement supposed to be secret—was entered into, at a time when of course we had the same Prime Minister as today and the same senior officials in the Foreign Office, between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the King of Italy. In effect the economic interests of the west of Abyssinia were granted to Italy as a virtual monopoly. It was proposed that our interests in Lake Tana be safeguarded. That agreement was supposed to be kept secret and privy, but the French got wind of it and became alarmed and insisted on its being discussed. The Notes were sent to the Negus and he immediately-appealed to the League of Nations. I do not know what afterwards happened, but I believe the matter dropped. The Italians have referred to that agreement, and of course they have been justified in referring to it. Be it noted, my Lords, that this was two years or eighteen months after the admission of Abyssinia as a Member of the League of Nations. That is far worse, I think, than the Treaty of 1906 and has far less excuse and far less justification.
My noble friend who leads the Opposition, in his speech on Tuesday, spoke for all of us in saying that we have no hostility against the Italian people. He also spoke for all of us in saying that we have no desire to interfere with the domestic affairs of Italy. That is perfectly true. But, my Lords, we have a right to complain of, to object to, and, in its consequences, to resist the foreign policy of the Fascist States of Europe. We have a right as a people, if we are sincere—certainly the Labour Party have the right and the duty—to resist the deliberate glorification of war, the teaching of this hateful new pagan religion of extreme nationalism, lifting the State above all human rights, the instilling into
1232
the minds of the young the belief in violence and force as a mean of attaining national ends. This hateful doctrine is being practised and preached in the Fascist countries of Europe, and the Fascist foreign policy must be admittedly a danger to the peace of the world.
In this debate the domestic policy of the Ethiopian Government has been dragged in. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has reminded your Lordships' House this afternoon, the nature of the government in Ethiopia is quite irrelevant to the issue. We are not asked to support Ethiopia and her Emperor in this matter. As noble Lords have pointed out who have spoken for the Government from the other side, we are on the side of the League of Nations or we are against the League of Nations. It is not a question of hostility to Italy or to Abyssinia; we are against the policy which has led to the present horrible situation in East Africa, to which I referred a moment ago. But that does not mean to say that, because we do not like the Government in Italy, for that reason we wish to overthrow Fascism. For many years I have had to resist—and I used to resist in this matter the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from the other side of the other Chamber—the proposal to intervene in Russia because of hatred for the form of government in Russia. If I am to be logical in this matter—and my Party is logical—we do not ask the League to intervene between two Members in a dispute because of the form of government of either of them. We are, however, bound to resist the foreign policy which Italy has adopted and will continue to resist it if it is continued in the future. That is one of the reasons why, as a Party, we are supporting collective action by the League and not one Member of it against another. In other words, we are pro-League and not pro-Abyssinia.
The noble Earl who spoke yesterday for the Government, Lord Stanhope, made, if he will allow me to say so, an extraordinarily valuable addition to our information when he dealt with the criticism that was also made by the noble Earl who spoke to-day from the other side of the House, Earl Howe: the suggestion he made that we did not warn the Italian Government earlier of the consequences of their present act. I

1233
have not seen this statement in any other speeches, and I therefore thank the noble Earl particularly for this piece of information which he gave to your Lordships. At the very important meeting at Stresa in April, according to the noble Earl, the Abyssinian question was discussed, but it was discussed by officials and not by Ministers. That was the information very kindly given to your Lordships by the noble Earl speaking for the Foreign Office. Who was present at that meeting at Stresa as representing His Majesty's Government? Mr. MacDonald, then Prime Minister, and the Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, then Foreign Minister. We now have the admission, which we have long understood was the case from unofficial sources, from the noble Earl himself. At this meeting, a splendid opportunity of really bringing the matter into the open and discussing it frankly and freely with the head of the Italian Government, it was not mentioned at all; only the Foreign Office officials discussed it. In fact, generally, reading with great care the statements on this matter, I think there is some justification for the complaint made on the Continent, and, as suggested to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Howe: that we did not make it clear enough and plain enough either to the Italian Government or, still more important, perhaps, the Italian public, what would be the consequences of their act and that we intended to stand by the Covenant of the League. The kind of representations that were made, no doubt with great skill and diplomatic force, by our Ambassador in Rome and others, could not have been of the nature that they should have been, or we should not have these complaints made from Italy at the present time.
As have referred to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, may I make one very brief comment on his gratuitous remarks about the coming Election? He prophesied the defeat of the Party for which I speak. Might I venture on one word of advice to an older and more experienced man than myself? If I may, it is this: it is better to boast when you are taking your armour off than when you are putting it on. Let us return to this matter when he and I—who will certainly come back—reassemble next month!
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): I was only thinking that the noble Lord's Leader seemed so very unwilling to go into the struggle at all and put any armour on for the contest.
Loan STRABOLGI: My noble friend who leads the Opposition is a man of peace, but on the platform he is very pugnacious, as his opponents will find and as they have found in the past. In a fight there is no better man to be with, as I know from past struggles in the other Chamber.
Now the Italian Government has also made another complaint, and to show my impartiality I want to say that I have some sympathy with that complaint. The Italian Government have complained that they are being treated differently in this case from Japan in the Sino-Japanese dispute. That has been answered in a fashion by Mr. Eden, in another place, and I heard his remarks last night. Frankly, I was astonished at the excuse put forward. Apparently we are treating this matter differently because, in the dispute between China and Japan, the Chinese did not withdraw their Ambassador from Tokyo and because there was no formal declaration of war, and therefore the cases are different. I submit, my Lords, that the truth is this: that we and other Powers concerned—not the French; the French were admirable on that occasion, as everyone who knows the inner history of what went on is aware—who should have been forward in the defence of justice, failed in our duty on that occasion. At the time it was deplored in your Lordships' House; it was deplored in another place by members of my Party; and we see the consequences. The Italians now cite that case; it was a direct encouragement in the present dispute. If we fail again now, this will be a further encouragement to aggressors. We had a responsibility in that case as a Member of the League of Nations. Hitherto, as far as I know, we have maintained our responsibility in the present case, and I hope we shall continue to do so.
One further comment on a remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, which was also referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and by other noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships. Why is it necessary to say that

1235
in this case the wrongdoer is not to be penalised? Why is it necessary to say that? The exact words of the noble Earl which I put down at the time, were "There is no desire to penalise Italy as a wrongdoer." Why not? The noble Viscount, who speaks with such unequalled authority on this matter and on all questions of the interpretation of the Covenant, as everyone recognises, says the object of the League is not punitive.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I was dealing exclusively with Article 16 at that moment. There are other Articles which might have to be considered from a different point of view, but of Article 16 I think it is right to say it is not punitive.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, but the noble Earl did not qualify his remarks. He made a blunt declaration that there was no desire to penalise Italy. I agree with the most reverend Primate that if we can get a quick settlement we should be prepared to forgive a great deal and to make concessions ourselves; but I do hope that, however much there may be no wish to punish the wrongdoer, we are not going to be invited to support a settlement by means of bribing the criminal. If we are going to begin to pay bribes, to pay Danegeld to Powers who think they have a grievance, where will it end? These are wrongdoers. They are transgressors against the Law of Nations. Whatever view one may have about the punishment of wrongdoers these are wrongdoers, and if a wrongdoer succeeds in his crime and is immune from penalty that naturally is an encouragement to other wrongdoers. We had that situation until recently in the, United States of America. There the law in certain States was weak and wrongdoers were able to continue their careers without fear of punishment. They were able to influence the Judges, and the people of the United States, the decent citizens, were faced with anarchy. One of the great tasks which have been at any rate partially accomplished by President Roosevelt has been the restoration of law in the United States.
Now, may I also put this consideration to your Lordships? While the most reverend Primate was addressing your
1236
Lordships there came over the news agency tape machine certain suggested terms of settlement which I gather came from Rome. One was that the Italians should police the whole of Abyssinia. On the first day of this debate we had a very remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in which he paid a great tribute to the military prowess of the Abyssinians as soldiers. He said that there were one million of these fierce warriors. I am sorry he is not now in his place, because I should have liked to say to him that I could well imagine that one million of these fierce warriors, armed with modern weapons and led by himself, would probably conquer half Africa. This is really a terrible menace. Imagine a million of these savage and fierce warriors, with all the instruments for mass massacre, enrolled under the Fascist banner. The noble Viscount referred to the declaration of the Foreign Minister with regard to the access of all nations to raw materials. With the control of raw materials may go control of the human raw material—the cannon fodder. General Smuts has referred to this danger in a recent speech, and I hope I may make this suggestion. I hope that when a final settlement comes about a serious attempt will be made by the Government to have the peoples of Africa demilitarised, and thus avoid the terrible menace arising from having these fierce and savage coloured armies brought under the influence of European officers, and so being a menace to their neighbours and even to European countries.
However, this debate as it has continued must have been reassuring to Lord Mottistone and to others who have been apprehensive that their Italian friends would suffer, because I fear that the Government have once more changed their policy. Viscount Cecil welcomes their change of policy. I also welcomed it at Brighton. At that time we believed that with the change of Prime Minister and Foreign Secrtary there was also a change of heart. There may have been at the time, but something has happened since then, and I am afraid there has been another change. I do not think that those who fear that we are about to do something drastic towards Italy need be too alarmed, judging from what has come under my observation here and in

1237
another place. There is one very interesting fact at the present time of which I would take leave to remind your Lordships, and that is that, unless I am completely misreading Article 16, we are already breaking the Covenant. These sanctions are not to come into force until October 31, if then, but under Article 16, which I have been re-reading, and to which Lord Peel also referred, we are compelled, if we keep our word—we States Members of the League—immediately to break off all commercial and financial relations with the aggressor.
I remember the discussions in the Assembly referred to by the noble Viscount. It was my first visit to Geneva. I remember that occasion, but these words were not altered, and the words are extremely plain. It says that Members of the League "hereby undertake immediately"—not on October 31—"to subject it"—that is, the aggressor—
"to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the Covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the Covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not."
That we are not doing. We are told that under no circumstances shall there be military sanctions. Never! Perish the thought! Then we are left with the economic sanctions. We accept that. Let us make a success of the economic sanctions.
How are we going to make them a success? I notice that the exports of Italy are to be boycotted, except bullion. That is not under Article 16. Italian imports are allowed except on certain key points. That is not within Article 16. Might I ask a technical question of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor? When and if it is proposed to apply these economic sanctions how is it going to be done? Will it be by Order in Council, or under the Emergency Powers Acts, or by Acts of Parliament? I ask that because if it is to be done by Acts of Parliament then, as far as this country is concerned, nothing can happen until the middle of December—till after the Election which so interests the noble Earl opposite. If it is to be by Order in Council, or other method, might I ask the noble and learned Viscount what is to be done
1238
about penalties for evasion? I think this is important, because obviously there will be a great deal of money made, at the beginning at any rate, out of a bootleg trade—smuggling and illicit trade—and obviously there must be serious penalties. This is the first time that this method has been tried. It is novel, it is admittedly complicated and difficult, and everything should be done to make it successful. Nothing effective was done under the Covenant in the case of the Sino-Japanese dispute. There all the, States Members of the League, could have acted very promptly and resolutely. The very worst policy is to attempt economic sanctions and then allow them to be ineffective and a failure. That will do terrible harm to the League.
That brings me to a question which I do not wish to shirk at all—military sanctions. I suggest that there has been already a very grave departure from the policy hitherto pursued by successive Governments in this country, in our declaration that, whatever the rest of the League proposes to do, under no circumstances in this dispute will we resort to anything that may be described as a military sanction. I suggest that that is a precedent. It may be justified. There may be very good reasons for that declaration, but it is a departure from previous practice. Now this is the difficulty in which those who think with me and my Party find ourselves. We have been prepared to support that degree of defensive force for this country which was necessary for a system of collective security; not for so-called national defence, not for splendid armed isolation, but to play our part as Members of a League of Nations which would be prepared to restrain an aggressor. That has been the accepted position of my Party for many years. Indeed, it is almost the position, as I read it, of the Prime Minister in his defence of his so-called rearmament programme in another place last night. We require arms as part of a system of collective security. But, if I interpret aright the policy of His Majesty's Government now, the collective system of security through military aid is finished—it is at an end. All that is left is the economic and financial sanctions, moral sanctions, the boycott. It is a very serious matter that we shall have to consider with the very greatest care.

1239
Before leaving this question of armaments I must refer to a most remarkable statement made by the Minister for League of Nations Affairs in another place last night—a most mischievous statement which I thought marred an otherwise brilliant speech. Mr. Eden said that we had disarmed to the edge of risk, and that this fact encouraged the present dispute. That is a most mischievous statement to make and, I venture to say, quite untrue. We had a debate on the famous, or infamous, White Paper earlier this year. Then the most reverend Primate made a great plea for filling up our deficiencies in view of what he understood was the weak and inefficient state of our forces, and I ventured to suggest that the most reverend Primate had been misinformed as to the facts. That of course is the case. There has been a continuous and false and mischievous propaganda representing our defensive forces as in a weak and rotten condition. Noble Lords in this House have played their part, I regret to say, in this agitation, and it is that which has done us harm in the present case; it is that which may have encouraged Italian ambition, the belief that one of the great pillars of the League was virtually disarmed, according to the spokesmen of the Big Navy party. But to pretend that our arms are so weak and that that has been an encouragement to Italy is, I venture to say, completely false.
The strategic position in the Mediterranean, as anyone can see for himself—and I am very glad to see the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Beatty, in his place—is immensely strong at the present time as compared to the reactions of the aggressor Power who might, as has been suggested, hit back. I am not talking now about the defence of the seven seas, I am talking about defence of the Middle Sea, and there is no naval officer to whom I have talked who will admit that our naval forces are in the weak and rotten condition in which they are represented to be in certain circles. And, if they were, somebody ought to be court-martialled and hung, because we have since the Armistice spent immense sums on armaments. The most reverend Primate—he will forgive my referring to him again because of the tremendous weight and influence attached to his words—has been
1240
misled. What could he not do with the money, if he spent it on housing, that we have voted in Parliament for armaments since the end of the Great War? Nearly £2,000,000,000—actually £1,900,000,000—has been spent on armaments since the end of the War. We have re-fitted ships like the "Royal Sovereign" at a cost of £1,000,000. Upon a battleship which originally cost £4,000,000 we spent £1,000,000 in modernising and re-fitting her. It is really libellous, and entirely misleading in any case, to pretend that the British Navy is rotten and inefficient, as Lord Lloyd and other noble Lords have done from time to time in your Lordships' House. It is that which may have caused some of the mischief.
And now to talk about rearmament is really a misnomer. We have during all these years—and in spite of what the Lord Chancellor has said about our having to pay our soldiers and sailors more—spent more on our armed forces than any other State in the world with one exception, the United States of America; and if we are not getting value for our money, well, somebody ought to answer for it. I have reason to know from naval sources that in countries bordering on the Mediterranean this continual belittling of the Royal Navy has done us harm, and it ought to be stopped.
I said just now that I was afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, would presently have to register another change in Government policy. I am afraid we shall find that that is the case. The retreat has begun. Things were going, I thought, extraordinarily well. I believe that the achievements of Geneva were really remarkable under all the circumstances. The mobilising of world opinion was wonderful. I found it in travelling on the Continent of Europe, just as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, did. When we were in that Conference at Brighton, to which reference has been made—a Conference of which I shall always be proud—we hoped that at long last the National Government had undergone a change of heart, but on the road to Damascus they have seen a fierce white light. For too many years now Europe has been rattling back along the road of reaction, class warfare and militarism. Democracy is assailed in all countries, and successfully assailed in half the countries of Europe. We hoped as the result of this unfortunate

1241
dispute that the common will of the peoples of the world would be successfully asserted through the League of Nations, and that at long last the liberty-loving peoples, the common peoples, would be given some encouragement. We hoped, also, that the instigators of hatred and cruelty would be checked and humiliated.
I make no apology or concealment. We hoped that the Fascist system, in foreign affairs particularly, as I say—the glorification of wars and those who hope to profit by militarism and wars—would suffer as a result of League action. To that end we were prepared to sink our differences and to play our part as Englishmen in what we thought was a great and worthy adventure. I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, comes to reply he will assure us that our hopes were justified. In other words, are we really at the beginning of a brighter chapter in the history of this troubled Continent of Europe, a period of peaceful co-operation between peoples, of disarmament, as the most reverend Primate said, both physical and mental, of helping each other? Are we entering on a period when the really wonderful scientific achievements of our age can be made use of for the betterment of humanity? It may be the beginning of a golden age for Europe. On the other hand, have the forces of reaction prevailed, and have the National Government in particular really begun their retreat? Is the League of Nations still to be further weakened, an armaments race to be initiated and the scramble for markets and for raw materials to be continued, with the inevitable result of another and still more terrible war, destroying all our achievements in the things that matter, and ushering in a new Dark Age of barbarism, cruelty, and oppression? I suggest, my Lords, that is the choice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, after the somewhat discursive speech to which we have been listening for the last three-quarters of an hour, I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time for longer than is absolutely necessary. The noble Lord who has just sat down began his observations by seeking to find differences in the Conservative Party. I prefer, in my concluding observations, to try and point out to
1242
your Lordships the large measure of agreement upon fundamental questions which I think this debate has shown. In the first place it is remarkable that throughout this debate there has been no person on any one of your Lordships' Benches who has thought in any way to qualify or challenge the decision of the League of Nations that Italy's action in attacking Abyssinia was a breach of the Covenant and rendered her an aggressor within the meaning of that instrument. In the second place, everybody agrees that that fact does compel the Members of the League, if they observe the Covenant, to enter upon their duties under Article 16.
It is true that the noble Lord who has just sat down said we are all breaking our obligations under Article 16 because we have not already severed all relations with Italy, but I am sure your Lordships will remember that in 1921 the provisions. of Article 16 were considered and certain amendments were proposed, and the Assembly resolved, without any formal alteration of the Article, that the Members of the League would act in accordance with the Resolutions. The Resolutions included a provision that unilateral action by the defaulting State cannot create a state of war:
"It merely entitles the other Members of the League to resort to acts of war or to declare themselves in a state of war with the Covenant-breaking State; hut it is in accordance with the spirit of the Covenant that the League of Nations should attempt, at least at the outset, to avoid war, and to restore peace by economic pressure."
Then it goes on to say:
"The Council shall recommend the date on which the enforcement of economic pressure, under Article 16, is to be begun, and shall give notice of that date to all Members of the League…
"It is not passible to decide beforehand, and in detail, the various measures of an economic, commercial and financial nature to be taken in each case where economic pressure is to be applied.
"When the case arises, the Council shall recommend to the Members of the League a plan for joint action."
LORD MARLEY: Would the noble Viscount read Resolution No. 14 as well?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:
"In cases of prolonged application of economic pressure, measures of increasing stringency may be taken. The cutting-off the food supplies of the civil population of the defaulting State shall be regarded as

1243
an extremely drastic measure which shall only be applied if the other measures available are clearly inadequate."
What that has to do with what I have just read I am completely at a loss to imagine.
LORD MARLEY: It reinforces the argument.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it was sufficient without that.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Viscount is very quick to take offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the third place, with the exception of the noble Lord who has just spoken, I think every one of your Lordships' House who has taken part in the debate concurred in the profound dislike and regret which was expressed at our finding ourselves in any way at variance with our very old friends the Italian people.
Finally, I think everybody in this House, again with the exception of the last speaker, was united in a profound desire to maintain peace in the world. We differed to some extent as to how best to achieve that end, but of the sincerity of the desire expressed in all quarters I do not think there can be any possible doubt. If I may just deal very shortly with the observations from all sides of the House, first of all from the Socialist Party, there was the speech of the noble Lord to whom I offer at once my congratulations and my condolences on the office to which he has been elected. That was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, defining the official attitude of his Party, and I confess I listened to that speech with some little amusement. I have often heard in times of stress an attitude taken up by an Opposition that, although they may not entirely sympathise with everything which the Government of the day are doing, still in an emergency, when we are face to face with difficulties with foreign Powers, it is their duty to range themselves behind the Government of the day and show their patriotism by giving it unswerving support. But the noble Lord, Lord Snell, regarded the fact that he was supporting the Government in the action they were taking, not as a matter to be proud of or as a patriotic duty, but as a matter for which he had to apologise and try to explain away.
1244
He was very sorry to find himself supporting the National Government. His Party had done their very best to see whether they could not find some way of dissociating themselves from the action that the Government were taking, and it was only because, as Internationalists, they felt bound to support the League of Nations, that they had been reluctantly compelled to admit they could find no fault with what we were doing. In other words, patriotism was a vice rather than a virtue! At any rate that line of argument seems to me to reinforce the fact that we have been taking a line with which it is difficult to find fault, because it is not a case in which the Opposition comes to our support because international difficulties have arisen. It is a case in which they have been driven to accept our action as correct in spite of their burning desire to find it wrong if they possibly could.
It is quite true the noble Lord went on to complain in vague and general language of delays in the action of the Government. I think the best answer to him is to be found in the speech of his noble friend, who is still a member of his Party, Lord Ponsonby, who pointed out things which showed that there had been no delay either on the part of the Government or of the League. He said' that there was no fault to be found with either on that score. Lord Ponsonby took a very different attitude from that of the noble Lord. He always in this House puts his argument pleasantly and forcibly and attractively, but I venture to think that when you analyse the attitude which the noble Lord took up it is a cynical philosophy of despair. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, said that those who believed only in the no use of force were animated by a lofty ideal. Lord Ponsonby, to do him justice, disclaimed any lofty ideal. He said there was no question of religion, no question of morality in the attitude he adopted; it was more a matter of expediency. But even as a matter of expediency it seems to me that his whole argument broke down.
He told us at one moment that he believed in the League of Nations and then he went on to urge that we ought to disregard the obligation we had undertaken under the League. He told us he

1245
regarded force as necessarily futile and ineffective and never able to achieve anything. He went on to say that in his view the whole British Empire had been built up by the use of force, and that the Italian Empire before the War was largely built up in the same way. He told us that all the nations of the world were actuated by self-interest, and yet he professed to believe that in the moral opinion of the world there was to be found a solution for all our difficulties. It seems to me that that counsel was not only a counsel of despair but it involved ultimately a return to the law of the jungle.
Then came the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. He asked me a question which I should like to answer at once. He asked me how it was proposed to enforce any of the sanctions imposed by virtue of the decisions of the League of Nations. The answer is that they would be imposed, if necessary, by Order in Council, and the Order in Council would no doubt prescribe the penalties for any breach of the provisions of the Order. Apart from that, the noble Lord suggested that we were, I think his words were, accessories before the fact to anything Italy had done, because of an agreement in 1925 or 1926. I am at a loss to understand to what he could be referring, because the only agreement in 1925 or 1926 which was entered into with Italy was an agreement this country made with Italy and which afterwards, as the noble Lord said, was communicated to the League of Nations, under which Italy disclaimed the taking of any economic interest in the developrnent of the water power resources of the Nile and we on our side disclaimed any interest in any economic action, by means of a railway between the Colonies, which Italy might be able to arrange with Abyssinia. How that can be compared with an attempt to invade Abyssinia or her territories simply passes my comprehension, and it seems to me that it is an abuse of language to suggest that an arrangement between two great Powers that they will severally respect the prior chance of one or the other to obtain economic Advantages in one part of the world or another is to be regarded as being an accessory before the fact to the armed conquest of a territory involved. The noble Lord knows exactly what is done in the case of economic and com-
1246
mercial arrangements between great firms all over the world. These are constantly being made, and I have never yet heard that they had to resort to force in order to enforce their bargains.
The noble Lord complained, I gathered, because we had not gone to war with Japan in 1931 and because we had not threatened to go to war with Italy in 1935. He professed himself to be amply satisfied with the state of our defences. I can only say that those better qualified than the noble Lord to form an opinion do not share his view, and that if we were in any danger of embarking upon the policy which he seems to advocate it seems to me we should have to increase our defences not one- or two-fold but ten- or twenty-fold in order to meet the obligations which his policy would entail. Perhaps the Liberal Party will excuse me not answering them as they are not here to listen.
Then there was a speech from the Cross Benches, from my noble friend Lord Cecil. It was, as we should all expect, a very helpful speech from the Government point of view. I do not want to quarrel with it. He began by saying that he detected a change of policy in the Government within the last four or five months. I can only say that I have been in the Government during the time when the change of policy is alleged to have occurred and that neither I nor, so far as I know, any of my colleagues have been conscious of any change or have ever detected its occurrence. He asked us whether we could not produce Papers in accordance with the actual terms of the Motion. That point has been considered and has been dealt with, as I think my noble friend probably knows, in another place. We should very much like to publish a White Paper, and we shall certainly have to do so sooner or later. As far as we are concerned we should rather do it sooner than later, but, after very careful consideration and discussing it, we have definitely come to the conclusion that to approach the various Powers interested for their consent to the publication of anything which would be at all complete would not be wise in the present juncture and under existing conditions. I can only assure my noble friend that we share his view that there must be publication, and that we shall be glad to undertake

1247
that publication as soon as we think it is in the interests of the dispute and of the settlement which we all desire.
I pass to one or two questions from the Conservative Benches. My noble friend Lord Peel, in a careful analysis, asked me what about the proposal on January 29 of this year for a discussion with Italy about economic development. That point was dealt with in another place. The answer is this. The proposal was, as he accurately said, one for discussion of economic development. Obviously such a proposal must involve consultation with the adjacent British Colonies, and as soon as the proposal was received we set up a special Commission to deal with it and to investigate the commercial interests involved. We communicated with the East African Colonies in order to ascertain their views. Before it was possible to go any further with the project than that, the whole situation had so changed and deteriorated that it would have become ridiculous to embark upon discussion on the basis of economic development when it was only too obvious it was a great deal more than economic development that Italy was contemplating. I think it is fair to the Italians to say there never has been from them any complaint or suggestion that we have been in any way remiss in that regard.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Howe, told us what he had heard on the Continent about this country. Not for the first time, it seems to me, Continental opinion was singularly ill-informed. They professed to believe that we were only engaged upon this discussion in order to make a test case to see if the League was any good. I do not suppose anybody in your Lordships' House, and I doubt whether anybody in this country, imagines such an idea ever entered the mind of the Government or of that great body of public opinion which is, I believe, supporting the Government. We were asked why we are not more sympathetic to Italy. We are very sympathetic to Italy, we are most anxious to remain on the best possible terms with Italy, but we cannot allow that fact to prevent our implementing our obligations as loyal Members of the League to which we gave our adherence.
Finally it is said that we took the lead in Geneva and were always to the fore at Geneva when this matter was under dis-
1248
cussion. It is true that we took a leading part; it is quite untrue to suggest that we are the only ones to put forward proposals. Indeed, as has been pointed out, some of the proposals which have been attributed to us in the Italian Press did not emanate from Great Britain at all, but came in one case from France and in another case from another foreign country. I cannot help thinking that a great deal of what has been said in criticism of our attitude with regard to Italy is based on a misunderstanding as to what our complaint against Italy is, just as I think that a great deal of what has been said, about our not being bound by the Covenant of the League any longer to fulfil our obligations, because so many of those who were originally hoped for as Members have ultimately either dropped out or never joined, is based on a misconception of our attitude in this matter.
Let me first deal with our attitude with regard to Italy. Italy's case, we are told, and have known for some time, is first of all that she has a need for expansion, with a growing population and an overcrowded area, and that she must find elbow-room somewhere. As was stated in the telegrams which were read by the noble Earl, Lord Cavan, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, she said that Abyssinia was a very bad neighbour, was not carrying out her obligations to suppress the slave trade, and was a perpetual menace to the Italian Colonies. We have not pronounced judgment on either of these allegations. We do not deny them. We have not been able to investigate them. What we complain of in respect of Italy is not that her national policy demands expansion nor that her national policy demands protection against Abyssinia. What we complain of is that having that national policy, she has, in defiance of her pledged word, used war as an instrument of her national policy, and that is a thing which she has promised not to do. In breach of her Covenant under the League of Nations, she has not respected the integrity and independence of a sister State which she is pledged to respect. She has therefore brought into operation the provisions of the Covenant of the League, which we ourselves are most reluctant to see made applicable.
Then as to the gap, as it is called, in the signatures to the League, we admit

1249
that the original conception of the framers of the League has not been realised; we admit that the absence from the League of some great States in the world must weaken its influence and authority and must render it much more difficult to carry out; the obligations. But we are not in this case doing what we are doing merely because we have signed an agreement and are bound to honour our word. Our obligation, as I at least see it, lies much deeper than that. It goes back to the conception which underlay the formation of the League after the Great War. I have always believed that when that War came to an end, the one lesson above all others which was burnt into the very soul of our people was a realisation of the savagery, the horror, the uselessness of war, and a determination that if by any means they could avoid the repetition of that horror in the world, they would see to it that it never came again.
As a result of that burning ideal the nations after the War saw quite plainly that to go back to the old pre-War system of the balance of power, of treaties and counter-treaties, would ultimately and inevitably lead to another conflagration worse even than that through which the world had just passed, and the one means which they then thought practicable of avoiding that dreadful event was to set up a new conception, to set up what we are accustomed to-day to speak of as the system of collective security. Instead of having nations arrayed one against the other, bound by alliances to support one another against their sisters and friends, the conception was a League of all the nations, which should agree, one and all, to maintain peace one with another, and to regard an attack against any one of them as an attack against the whole.
It is that conception which Italy, by her action, has threatened to overthrow. It is that conception which England stands to support and to maintain. It is the belief of the Government that in the League and in that Covenant of the League of Nations lies at least the best chance that the world has yet seen of getting away from the risk of war throughout the world and the destruction of civilisation which war involves, and the Government are determined, so far as in them lies, to do their utmost to
1250
carry out their obligations in the League of Nations, in combination with their sister States, going, it is true, no further, but on the other hand not hanging back, to maintain and to see, through whatever means can be collectively devised, that that Covenant does not fail and that ideal is not destroyed. My Lords, I believe that in that policy we have behind us the overwhelming support of the great mass of the people of this country; and since there has been a reference to Elections and Party cries, let me say that I believe that in three weeks time you will see that that faith is justified.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to delay the House more than a few minutes before coming to a decision as to whether we shall take a D vision on this Motion. What we on this side have to decide is whether we have sufficient information to satisfy us that we can afford to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I want for two or three minutes to review what has resulted from the debate of the last three days, and then to say whether I consider the information given is adequate. I think that the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack (who, if I may say so, is rather quick to take offence and rather quick to see criticism when it is not always given) speaking for the Government, has shown that the Government have been perfectly right in protecting the interests of Great Britain in North Africa. Those interests are of course Imperial interests; they are interests in connection with our Colonial Empire and the Government have got to watch over those interests; and in a capitalist régime nobody will blame them. If they are clever enough to secure the support of the League of Nations for this work, they deserve every praise from their own supporters.
It is curious that their support of the League of Nations is rather sudden. In the debate which we have had, a number of your Lordships have pointed out that while they had no enthusiasm for the League in the Japanese-Manchurian dispute, no enthusiasm for the League in the Chaco dispute, none in the Corfu dispute, suddenly we find immense enthusiasm sweeping the supporters of the Government when it comes to a case in which our own interests are involved. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby

1251
pointed out, self-interest must be the motive of any Government, otherwise they would not be fit to be running the country. In passing, let me say that although my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said he was speaking along lines differing from those taken by his friends on these Benches, that is not entirely the case. Some of us support the line he took just as we believe the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, in his very statesmanlike speech, represents a point of view very well worthy of hearing in your Lordships' House.
But, of course, the reason for this attitude is the fact that the great ideal of the League has never been realised. Article 16 was conceived not by dreamers but by practical people and had the League developed as it was intended that article would never have been needed to be used, otherwise it would have been drawn in a different manner. Within eighteen months, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pointed out, it had to be entirely redrawn by the Resolution adopted by the Assembly on October 24, 1921, which the noble and learned Viscount quoted. As soon as the League was not universal it was clear that with States outside the League if we were compelled to implement sanctions the procedure would not be workable. The reason is that you cannot get nations to join together in military action. In the Great War it took four years before we could work with the French under common leadership, and then there was constant friction and trouble. So it was that the Government gradually realised that this was not a practical means and, as it would appear, decided to come to terms with Italy and France and to adopt a policy of rearmament in this country. With that we profoundly disagree, and we believe that in a General Election the people of the country will not support the rearmament proposals of the Government consequent on their discovery that Article 16 of the Covenant of the League is not, in fact, a workable proposition.
It is true that the Labour Party supported the League in 1919 when we knew it was a League to maintain the status quo, a League of Nations who had gained as the result of the War against those nations who had lost, and that factor has been made abundantly clear in
1252
recent years. At the very beginning the United States of America refused to come in because they were not prepared to accept force under Article 16 to maintain this untenable position. Within a few years Japan came out because she was a country that wanted expansion and the League was against her. Germany came out because she was a country that wanted expansion and the League was against her. Italy will come out because she is a country that wants expansion and the League will be against her. It is true that Russia was not originally in the League and referred to the League in not too complimentary terms as "the thieves' kitchen at Geneva," but she subsequently found it advisable to become a Member of the League, not for the motive suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, but because she wanted to use any instrument which might tend to prevent the outbreak of war. To Russia more than to any other country peace is vital to-day and therefore Russia is a valuable Member of the League.
We believe that as a result of this debate it will be realised that the ideal of the League, if it is to be preserved, demands a revision of certain Articles of the Covenant. We believe that the world is not ready for this plan of universal sanctions. We believe in the proposition of the Government that there should be a re-division of the raw materials in the world—and let me say that I hope to that will be added re-division of the markets of the world—and that the securing of a real planning of the raw materials and the markets of the world can only be done through the association in the League of a number of Socialist States. We have got to substitute for a capitalist and Imperialist policy the policy of Socialist planning of markets and materials. We believe that it is only by that means that we can use a reconstituted League of Nations to secure world peace. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MALTA: SIR HARRY LUKE.
  MALTA: SIR HARRY LUKE.
  MALTA: THE CASE OF MR. JOSEPH SCOREY.
  MALTA: THE CASE OF MR. JOSEPH SCOREY.
  MALTA: THE BOOKS OF MR. JOSEPH ORLANDO SMITH.
  MALTA: THE BOOKS OF MR. JOSEPH ORLANDO SMITH.
  MALTA: LANGUAGE QUESTION: AGRICULTURE.
  MALTA: LANGUAGE QUESTION: AGRICULTURE.
  MALTA: JUDGES AND NEWSPAPERS.
  MALTA: JUDGES AND NEWSPAPERS.
  BRITISH SOMALILAND: THE HABR YUNIS.
  BRITISH SOMALILAND: THE HABR YUNIS.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.