Sitting of 25 March 1936

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Matlock) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
South East Cornwall Water Board Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH CONTRIBUTION).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the British Government's contribution to the general expenses of the League of Nations for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and will he give comparable figures for the previous 12 months?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. DAY: Is the contribution of the British Government higher than it would have been had not so many other nations defaulted in their contributions?
  Mr. EDEN: That is another question.
  Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the figures include the present cost of sanctions?
  Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.
  Following is the statement:

  —

  Year ended December 31st, 1934.

  Year ended December 31st, 1935.

  Gold Frances.

  Gold Francs.

  Charged to the Vote for the League of Nations.

  2,258,429.95

  2,198,172.35

  Charged to the Ministry of Labour Vote (in respect of the International Labour Organisation).

  936,949.65

  982,764.60

  3,195,379.60

  3,180,936.95

  =£207,215

  =£212,118

  RUSSIA AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information of the arrangement between Russia and Czechoslovakia for the use by the former country of aerodromes in the territory of the latter for military purposes?
  Mr. EDEN: The Czechoslovak Government have given His Majesty's Representative at Prague a categorical assurance that no such arrangement exists.

  FRANCE (FRONTIER FORTIFICA TIONS).
  Sir P. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information with regard to the proposed revision of the treaty obligation prohibiting fortifications on the French side of the Swiss frontier; and whether this matter will be brought before the League of Nations?
  Mr. EDEN: I have no information with regard to any such proposed revision.

  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an account of the efforts which, since the breakdown of the Disarmament Conference, have been made to reach a general political settlement in Europe and, in particular, of any discussions in which His Majesty's

  1209
  Government have taken part regarding the negotiation of the Franco-Soviet Pact?
  Mr. EDEN: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. It is my intention to make available to hon. Members as soon as possible, in the form of a White Paper, a comprehensive collection of documents dealing with the matters to which he refers.

  OUTER MONGOLIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS).
  Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs approximately the number of Soviet troops, including airmen, in Outer Mongolia?
  Mr. EDEN: I regret that I have no information on this subject.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it understood that there are not any Soviet troops in Outer Mongolia?
  Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I have no information on that point.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not Outer Mongolia part of the Republic of China, and would it not be possible to find out from our Ambassador in China?
  Mr. EDEN: It is under Chinese suzerainty.
  Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) tell us which is the outer part of Mongolia?

  ITALY, AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with reference to the political agreement which has been reached between Italy, Austria, and Hungary?
  Mr. EDEN: I have received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome the text of Protocols which were signed at Rome between the Italian, Austrian and Hungarian Governments on 23rd March. The text of these documents has been published in to-day's Press.
  Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the agreement is to begin?
  Mr. THORNE: Are the agreements in question military agreements?
  Mr. EDEN: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, and what I have stated.

  GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the situation resulting from the unilateral repudiation by Germany of the Locarno Treaty and from the entry of German forces into the demilitarised zone?
  Mr. EDEN: I understand that a debate on this subject will take place very shortly, and perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    FUEL OIL.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what quantity of oil is on an average consumed annually by the Home Fleet; what quantity of oil is at present being stored in the United Kingdom; and what additional storage facilities exist which are at present not being fully used?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I regret that the information asked for is not for publication.

    SABOTAGE.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the many successful attempts to damage wilfully ships of the Royal Navy, he will consider taking the necessary steps to amend the Malicious Damage to Property Act, 1861, so as to increase the inadequate penalties under Section 46 of that Act, in order to deter further attempts of sabotage by prolonging the period of imprisonment, at present limited to seven years for such action?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am not aware of any ground for thinking that the persons responsible for such damage as has occurred have been in any way influenced by a feeling that the existing penalties may be lightly regarded, or that a person who is willing to risk a sentence of seven

    1211
    years' penal servitude would be deterred by an increase in the maximum penalty which may be imposed.
    Mr. DONNER: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that no further steps should be taken to deter people in view of the many successful attempts that have already taken place?
    Mr. LLOYD: I can assure my hon. Friend that there are severer penalties than seven years under other Acts.

  KENYA.

    TAXATION.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to relieving the financial position in Kenya Colony and obviating the need for the further raising of loans in this country to support the industries of the settlers, he will take steps to give effect to the speech of the Governor last September, in which he reiterated his view that Income Tax was the only solution for the taxation controversies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The question of the system of taxation in Kenya is one of the matters on which Sir Alan Pim will report: and until his report has been received and considered I cannot express any opinion.

    TIGONI AREA.
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. PALING)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any communication from the Governor of Kenya Colony on the removal of the inhabitants of the Tigoni area from their ancestral lands?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have now received the Governor's observations, and they are being considered.
    Mr. DONNER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence at all to show that these lands are ancestral?
    Mr. THOMAS: As I have said, the Governor has sent in a report which is under examination.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (PEROL SUPPLY).
    Captain DOWERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in view of the
    1212
    coroner's findings in the "City of Khartoum" air disaster, what steps, if any, he proposes to take to see that Imperial Airways provides sufficient margin of petrol to meet possible eventualities?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on the 11th instant.
    Captain DOWER: Did not the findings state quite clearly that there was no petrol in the machine at the time and that the margin of fuel allowed was insufficient and will my right hon. Friend take all possible precautions to see that the safeguards he has suggested shall be introduced in order to prevent any disaster of this kind in the future?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As I have said extra tankage capacity is to be given to air liners of this type at present operating in the Mediterranean which is expected to give them a sufficient margin of safety.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    RATIONS.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among many Air Force mechanics over the food supplied; and how the ration allowance of about 9d. per day is expended?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction. Commanding officers have instructions to report to the Air Ministry any representations made by airmen's messing committees (which exist at all stations) if they cannot be satisfactorily settled locally. The present daily cost of the ration is about 9¾d. It is periodically re-assessed. Some items such as meat and bread are supplied in kind, the balance of the cash value of the ration being available for purchases locally through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes at the discretion of the messing officer.
    Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Will the amount of the daily ration allowance, 9¾., be stated on the recruiting posters?
    Sir P. SASSOON: it is an allowance which has been in existence for a very long time.

    PAY.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the difference between the wages of Grade II tradesmen who have done eight months training at Uxbridge and 18 months service at, Henlow, and the wages of those similar employés who have had three years at Halton, about two to three years in a squadron, and then 12 months on their course?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The rates of pay depend on degree of trade skill and on length of service. The pay of a flight mechanic (Group II), if passing out of training as an aircraftman, 1st class, is 28s. a week, while that of a Grade I fitter, qualifying as such with three years' service as leading aircraftman, is 42s. a week, in addition, in each case, to free accommodation, rations and clothing or allowances in lieu, good conduct badge pay of 1s. 9d. a week after three years' service, and, at age 26, marriage allowance if married.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that leading aircraftmen who have passed a trade test receive only 38s. 6d. per week, and owing to the slowness of movement have small opportunity of being promoted for six or seven years or more; and whether, to retain and engage good men, it is possible, especially in these days of increased expenditure on the Air Force, to improve the chances of promotion among these employés?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The rate of pay quoted is the initial rate issuable to an airman on qualifying for the classification of leading aircraftman in a Group I trade, and it is increased to 42s. a week after three years. Free accommodation, rations and clothing, or allowances in lieu, are provided in addition, and the airman is eligible for good conduct badge pay of 1s. 9d. a week after three years' service, and, at age 26, marriage allowance, if married. The arrangements are designed to ensure that airmen receive advancement when their experience renders them suitable for greater responsibility. A much increased flow of promotion will, in fact, occur in the near future as a result of the present expansion of the Force.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is sufficient
    1214
    pay for these men after the number of years they have served, or that it will attract other men into the Service?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The promotion will be greatly accelerated.

    AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of officers and other ranks and the number of aeroplanes included in the complement and equipment of the aircraft, carriers in commission, being members or property of the Royal Air Force?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is 970 officers and airmen, and 138 aircraft.

    NEW TYPE MACHINES (TESTS).
    Mr. HULBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of new type machines tested at Martlesham Heath during the years ended 31st December, 1934, and 31st -December, 1935?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The numbers were 57 and 34 in 1934 and 1935 respectively. These cover service and civil types, and include major modifications which have necessitated type-performance trials.

    CATAPULT-LAUNCHING EQUIPMENT.
    Mr. HULBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of aircraft at present in use fitted with catapult-launching equipment?
    Sir P. SASSOON: All aircraft of types in use in the Fleet Air Arm are equipped to take catapult-launching equipment. It would not be in the public interest to disclose their number.

    CONTRACTS (NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. BURKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will keep in mind the difficulties and claims of the industrial areas in Northeast Lancashire when establishing new factories and allocating contracts under the schemes of his Department?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. The claims of North-East Lancashire, as of other industrial areas, are being borne in mind.

    TANKS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any

    1215
    foreign countries possess aeroplanes designed to carry tanks; and whether the Royal Air Force possesses such machines?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that the Soviet air force has lately carried out some experiments in the transportation of small tanks by aircraft. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  TRANSPORT.

    GREAT WEST ROAD.
    Mr. CROWDERasked the Minister of Transport when he expects the widening of the Great West Road to be completed; and what progress is now being made in that direction by the two county councils concerned?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I will inform my hon. Friend as soon as the Middlesex County Council, who are the responsible highway authority, have come to a decision.

    COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LICENCES.
    Mr. W. H. GREENasked the Minister of Transport the number of licences issued in each of the traffic divisions in respect of A, B, and C licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The figures required are given in the reports of the licensing authorities for the period ended 30th September, 1935.

    ROAD IMPROVEMENT (TIPTON).
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the delay which has taken place in connection with the Coneygre Road widening and bridge improvement scheme at Tipton, Staffordshire; and whether he is now in a position to give consent to the scheme so that the necessary loan sanction can be obtained from the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA.: I have made a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of this scheme.
    Mr. BANFIELD: But surely the Minister must be aware of the delay?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not asked the reason, which is that the consulting engineers had not sent in all the necessary information. As soon as it was received I made the grant.

    BRIDGE (DEPTFORD CREEK).
    Mr. W. H. GREENasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger and delay to transport caused by the wooden bridge over Deptford Creek now being completed by the Southern Railway Company; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the conditions of the Act of 1833 protecting free access for transport are carried out and thus prevent hardship and handicap to industry situate at the wharves of Deptford Creek?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in communication with the railway company.

    LIGHTING-UP TIME.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the existing law which permits a motorist to travel without lights for one hour after sunset during the period when daylight saving is operative makes adequate provision for safety on the roads?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The new comprehensive analysis which will be made of the causes of all accidents will give convincing information.

    TEMPORARY WATERLOO BRIDGE.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the hardship at present caused to the owners and drivers of taximeter-cabs by the fact that their vehicles are not permitted to cross the temporary Waterloo Bridge from south to north; and whether, seeing that cabs are public-service vehicles, he will consider extending to hired taximeter-cabs the same privilege as is enjoyed by omnibuses?
    Mr. LLOYD: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has again reviewed this question, but he regrets that in view of the traffic conditions at the bridge it is not practicable to extend to taxicabs the present arrangements under which an occasional service of omnibuses is allowed to cross the bridge from south to north.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that both these classes of vehicles are public carriers, why should the Commissioner differentiate between one class of public vehicle and mother, especially as great hardship is occasioned to those who own these taxi-cabs?
    Mr. LLOYD: There are considerable difficulties in allowing any traffic to come from south to north in view of the conditions at the bridge putting a great deal of inconvenience on passengers at Waterloo. It was desired to make some concession to them and it was thought that the best thing to do was to allow an occasional organised system of omnibuses as being public service vehicles which provide accommodation for the largest number.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Many people coining from a railway station use taxi-cabs.

    SPEED LIMIT (HEAVY VEHICLES).
    Captain STRICKLAND (for Vice-Admiral TAYLOR)asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider extending the permissible speed limit for heavy vehicles to 30 miles per hour between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 16th March, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Why does my right hon. Friend consider the passage of a passenger vehicle at 30 miles per hour as being less dangerous than a goods vehicle of equal weight?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not what I consider, but what Parliament considered.

    LONDON PASSENGER SERVICES (STOPPAGES).
    Captain STRICKLAND (for Vice-Admiral TAYLOR)asked the Minister of Transport the comparative number of stoppages due to strikes which were experienced before and after the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board; and whether any action has been taken by the Metropolitan Commissioner on the lines of that taken by the Commissioner for the East Midland area?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in communication with the board.

    ROAD FUND (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir REGINALD CLARRYasked the Minister of Transport the estimated expenditure out of the Road Fund during the current financial year on the works which are expected to cost £22,500,000 and have been approved for commencement during that period as the first instalment of the five-year road plan and the
    1218
    estimated expenditure in each succeeding financial year on this first instalment?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Road Fund's proportion of the total expenditure may be taken roughly at 70 per cent. The rate of expenditure of course depends on the progress made by highway authorities.

    RAILINGS (PARLIAMENT SQUARE).
    Mr. PARKERasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take the initiative in persuading the various authorities concerned to remove the ugly railings round Parliament Square and outside Westminster Abbey?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The hon. Member's suggestion as regards Parliament Square was carefully considered some years ago, and the conclusion was reached that it would increase traffic difficulties because people crossing the Square would tend to take short cuts across the grass, and to cross the roads at various points. There is the further objection that the grass would become worn and unsightly, especially when crowds assemble in the Square on the occasion of weddings or processions. While I personally agree with the hon. Member that the Parliament Square railings are ugly, it must be borne in mind that they were much admired when they were put up.
    Mr. PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commission whether anything can be done for the removal of the iron railings round the centre of the Square?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Those were what I alluded to. When they were designed articles appeared saying that they were masterpieces. We do not like them to-day, as we do not like a lot of the decorations in this House.

  AGRICULTURE.

    ALLOTMENTS (BENTLEY, DONCASIE).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has given his consent to the sale to a building contractor of the land on which is situated the Bentley Road allotments, Bentley, Doncaster, which have existed for over 20 years?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): My consent to the disposal of allotment land for other purposes is required under existing legislation only where the land has been purchased or appropriated by a local authority for allotments. I understand that the land to which the hon. Member refers is in private ownership and that it is intended by the trustees of the estate to develop it as a building site. I am also informed that the town council have a number of vacant allotments available for the present tenants of the Bentley Road allotments.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (PERMANENT SECRETARY).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that he has just appointed as successor to the present Permanent Secretary to his Department a Treasury official with experience only at the Treasury, he can give any reasons for this particular selection in preference to officials of proved competency and intimate experience in the problems of his Department?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The field of selection for the higher posts in the Civil Service is the Service itself as a whole, and there is not, and should not be, any sectional limitation. In connection with the pending retirement of the present Permanent Secretary to the Ministry, the steps usual in such cases have been taken to fill the consequential vacancy, and in making the new appointment, due consideration has been given to the qualifications of all who might be deemed to be qualified to fill that position, whether at present serving in the Department or elsewhere in the Service.
    Mr. MUFF: Is the official appointed as watchdog of the Minister of Agriculture?

    LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL (PRAYERS).
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the Lord President of the Council what Orders in Council have been passed sanctioning the omission from the services of the Church of England of the customary prayers for the Ministers of the State?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No Order in Council has been made for
    1220
    the purpose to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. BERNAYS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, these customary prayers were omitted from the service in Liverpool Cathedral on Sunday last because the Dean and Chapter disagreed with the policy of His Majesty's Government; and, apart from the extraordinarily muddled thinking evident in that action, does he not deprecate the employment of religious sanctions against this Government or any other Government by high dignitaries of the Established Church?
    Mr. BENSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these prayers have ever been answered?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Here, I am afraid, I can only speak as Lord President of the Council. I cannot interfere in what are strictly matters of ecclesiastical discipline.
    Mr. PETHERICK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation under which clergymen of the Church of England may become eligible for membership of this House, and thus make it possible—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. V. ADAMS: Is it not a heresy to imply that the wicked are past praying for?

    MILITARY CONVERSATIONS.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the consequences to the lives and financial resources of British citizens involved in the pledge to authorise the establishment or the continuance of conversations for joint action by the military general staffs of Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Italy in the event of unsatisfactory replies being given by the Government of Germany to the proposals made to it on 19th March, he will undertake that, before such conversations begin or their continuation is permitted, he will take steps to seek authority for such military conversations in precise terms by plebiscite from a majority of the persons qualified to vote at Parliamentary elections and at present upon the electoral rolls of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I am unable to give any such undertaking.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the deep-seated feeling of this country against military alliances, as opposed to a policy of reliance on the Covenant of the League of Nations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These anxieties will undoubtedly be given expression to in the Debate to-morrow. I understand that a Debate will take place to-morrow on Foreign Affairs and I hope, in the progress of the Debate, that those anxieties may be considerably allayed.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the people of this country are less entitled to have a say in an important matter of this kind than, say, the people of Australia or Switzerland, who are given the privilege of voting by referendum on these matters?
    Mr. McGOVERN: Will he also advise the leaders of the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress to have a plebiscite of their members on the question of sanctions?
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that has already been done?

    ARMISTICE DAY.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister whether he will take whatever steps may seem appropriate to ascertain, by consultation with party leaders or otherwise, whether any considerable body of opinion exists in favour of modifying the ceremonial hitherto carried out in connection with Armistice Day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are confident that the ceremonial at the Cenotaph service on Armistice Day is in harmony with the feelings of the majority of the nation. I do not think, therefore, that the consultation suggested by the hon. Member is necessary.

  DEFENCE.

    INDUSTRY (ORGANISATION).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in connection with the organisation of industry for defence purposes, he pro-
    1222
    poses to consult the general council of the Trades Union Congress?
    The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Debate on 9th March, while pointing out that the Defence programme will provide for a long period a great amount of additional work for the engineering and shipbuilding trades, the iron and steel trade and other industries, and outlining the industrial problems to which the programme will give rise as it comes into being, made it clear that nothing in the nature of a reorganisation of industry is contemplated. The employers' and work-people's organisations in the industries concerned will no doubt wish to discuss through their joint machinery, any problems in which they are mutually concerned and they may be relied upon to seek consultation with the Government, either directly or through their central organisations, when it appears to them to be desirable.

    STAFFS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, whether he will give instructions that, all things being equal, opportunities should be given to unemployed persons to fill vacant positions on the industrial and clerical staff to be engaged by his Department?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I think it will not be necessary for me to engage any industrial staff. As regards clerical staff, this will be recruited in the same way as the clerical staff of other Government Departments.
    Mr. DAY: Has any estimate been made of the number of staff that will be required immediately for this Department?
    Sir T. INSKIP: No, Sir.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been engaged?

    CONTRACTS (COSTING).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is aware that the ordnance factories carried on the Army Vote have a system of costing which is of great value to the establishments as well as of value to the War Office when contracts have to be made with private firms; and whether he

    1223
    intends to avail himself of this experience in making large-scale contracts in the future?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am aware of the system of costing in the ordnance factories and the method whereby the ordnance factories' costs are utilised to check trade prices. That experience is available to all Departments which are responsible for making contracts, as well as to myself.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the costs of the ordnance factories are much too high? [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I have seen them at work.

    AIRCRAFT.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the defence of the civil population from the results of possible bombing attacks from the air will be directly, or indirectly, part of the work of his Department?
    Sir T. INSKIP: It is part of my duty to ensure the co-ordination of all air defence measures. But passive or precautionary measures, which are I think what the hon. Member has in mind, are the responsibility of the Home Office. He may care to refer to paragraph 44 of Command Paper 5107, and to earlier paragraphs, as regards the functions of the Army and Air Force.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether tests as to the effect of bombs and torpedoes from the air will be carried out before expenditure is incurred upon new warships?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Experiments have been carried out continuously for some time past and will continue, but the Prime Minister proposes to appoint a subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to examine the results and the conclusions which can be drawn from them. The terms of reference will be:
    "To consider the experiments that have taken place or are proposed in connection with the defence against aircraft and the vulnerability from the air of capital ships."
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him whether both the Air Ministry and the Admiralty will be in charge of the experiments?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, Sir. If my right hon. and gallant Friend means whether each of them will be in charge of each single experiment, my answer may require some modification, but generally, the answer is "Yes."
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the sub-committee have within their purview the vulnerability of our dockyards from aerial attack?
    Sir T. INSKIP: No, Sir.

    CALCIUM CARBIDE.
    Mr. CHAPMANasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the importance of calcium carbide to our Defence Services and industries, especially in war-time, His Majesty's Government will take steps to ensure the establishment of an industry in the United Kingdom capable of producing the maximum quantity required?
    Sir T. INSKIP: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government have not lost sight of the importance of ensuring supplies of calcium carbide both in peace and war. They would welcome any scheme to promote the manufacture of this material in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. D. EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his co-ordinating influence to induce these firms to establish this industry in a distressed area where there is an ample supply of raw materials, including anthracite and limestone, an ample supply of power at reasonable cost and labour?
    Sir T. INSKIP: A very important question in this connection is, what sort of power is available for the purpose in question?

    MERCANTILE MARINE TONNAGE.
    Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give careful consideration to the question of maintaining sufficient tonnage of merchant shipping always available in this country to meet any defence emergency that may arise, and take any steps that may be necessary to prevent the sale of effective vessels for possible use as transports by foreign countries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Dr. Burgin): This question is kept under constant review by the Departments concerned. So

    1225
    far it has not been found necessary to prevent the sale of vessels to foreign countries.

    PETROL AND SPIRIT STORAGE.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of a possible national emergency, he is giving any special attention to the dangers likely to arise from the present methods of storing petrol in bulk;
    (2) whether, in view of a possible national emergency, he will consider making regulations forbidding the storage of white spirit and other inflammable spirit in tanks above ground?
    Mr. LLOYD: The question of the protection of stores of oil under the conditions of national emergency is receiving the Government's attention. I am not, however, at present in a position to make any statement on the measures which will be recommended.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE (GERMANY).
    Mr. RILEYasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of British exports to Germany for the years 1929, 1931, 1933, and 1935, respectively?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member will find the particulars for the years 1929 and 1931 on page 124 of the Trade and Navigation Accounts for January, 1932, and the figures for 1933 and 1935 on page 188 of the Accounts for January last.
    Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, under the provisions of the quota allowance, there is a disparity in the quantity of bookbinding and allied trades' machinery which Great Britain may export to France compared with the greater quantity of such exports allowed to Germany; whether he is aware that the quota restrictions mean a serious loss to a Manchester firm and its workmen; and whether he can investigate the matter with a view to an early removal of conditions which are causing great inconvenience and loss?
    Dr. BURGIN: Germany has in the past been the principal supplier of printing and similar machinery to France. The French quotas are based on past trade, and this principle was recognised
    1226
    in the Anglo-French Trade Agreement in order that the United Kingdom might he guaranteed its proper share. The United Kingdom already receives the full quota for such machinery to which she is entitled under the Agreement.
    Mr. CLYNES: Seeing that the disparity referred to in the question makes an enormous difference in favour of Germany, could not some further investigation be undertaken with a view to a more equitable arrangement?
    Dr. BURGIN: I should, of course, always be willing to investigate further any matter which the right hon. Gentleman brought to our attention, but at present my answer to the House must be that the United Kingdom already receives the full quota to which it is legally entitled. A revision of the agreement is, of course, another matter, and that I will discuss with the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

    SOUTH AFRICA.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the subject of closer co-operation with the Union Government in matters affecting the High Commission Territories in South Africa?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): It will be remembered that, in the course of discussions in May last between my predecessor and General Hertzog, it was agreed that endeavours should be made to establish closer cooperation between the Administrations of the High Commission Territories and the Union Government in matters affecting the Territories. In pursuance of this aim, the Union Government have recently offered to assist financially and in other ways with certain schemes for combating soil erosion and for developing water supplies which had been recommended by Sir Alan Pim, who recently reported on economic conditions in the Territories. The offer has been accepted by the High Commissioner, and I understand that the Union Government are placing a sum of £35,000 on their Estimates for the coming financial year for these purposes. This sum amounts to 50 per cent. of the total expenditure contemplated for next

    1227
    year on the particular items concerned. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are convinced that the cooperation which His Majesty's Government in the Union have thus offered will be productive of considerable benefit to the three Territories. A full statement of the proposals is being communicated to the local native authorities.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Is one of the territories Bechuanaland?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Yes, Sir.

    DISTURBANCES, KENSINGTON.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that for a considerable period on Sunday night last the free passage of His Majesty's subjects was interrupted by the Metropolitan police in an area adjacent to the Albert Hall; and whether he will state a reason for this inconvenience?
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the distribution last week of quantities of leaflets inciting persons to assemble in large numbers outside the Albert Hall on the occasion of a public meeting therein for the purpose of opposing the objects of the meeting; and if he will state what steps were taken to frustrate this attempted interference with free speech?
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the Metropolitan police in dispersing a meeting held in Thurloe Square in the evening of Sunday, 22nd March; whether he is aware that batons were used by the police; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted into the action of the police on this occasion?
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Home Secretary whether he can explain the reason for the dispersal by mounted police of a crowd at Thurloe Square on Sunday; and whether any preliminary warning was given to the persons involved?
    Mr. HULBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make in regard to the disturbances at a Fascist meeting at the Albert Hall on
    1228
    Sunday last; the cost of special police employed on this occasion; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent similar meetings being held which cause such disorganisation of traffic and general disorder?
    Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make on the disorders attending the Fascist meeting at the Royal Albert Hall on 22nd March; whether any extra expenditure was involved in special police protection for the Fascist demonstrators; and whether any prosecutions are to be taken in view of cases of violence employed by the Fascist stewards in ejecting members of the audience?
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary whether he has made any inquiries into the disturbances which took place on the night of 22nd March in the vicinity of the Albert Hall, and especially into the allegation that mounted police made an unprovoked assault with batons upon a peaceful meeting in Thurloe Square; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The reply to these questions is rather longer than usual, but I will limit it to essential matters. I have made inquiries, and the facts are as follow:
    With a view to preventing disorder in the streets (such as has previously occurred) in connection with the Fascist meeting last Sunday evening, the Commissioner of Police issued directions that no counter-procession or counter-meeting should be allowed at the same time within half a mile of the Albert Hall. Intimation of this direction was officially given to the London District Council of the Communist party and to Mr. John Strachey, from whose address a, circular had been issued calling for
    "an overwhelming demonstration to take place outside the Royal Albert Hall at 7 p.m., to be followed by a public meeting in Exhibition Road at 8.30 p.m."
    It was, of course, explained to these parties that there was no objection to meetings in the usual meeting place in. Hyde Park, but they none the less persisted in their original plans. Anti-Fascist processions from several quarters

    1229
    were escorted into the Park, where they held a meeting. Attempts, however, were also made to hold an anti-Fascist meeting in Exhibition Road, and later a crowd of two or three thousand collected in Thurloe Square (which faces the end of Exhibition Road) where Mr. Strachey and others addressed them. A body of about 20 mounted police and 60 foot police proceeded to the Square. Before the arrival of the police there was disorder at the bottom of Exhibition Road, and members of the crowd were stopping motor cars. A bottle was thrown at a police officer, but missed the officer and broke a shop window. In order to prevent the approach of the police to Thurloe Square, a number of persons round the meeting linked arms and appealed to the crowd to stand fast. The police were informed by a member of this body that they bad better not approach the crowd, or the police would get more than they anticipated. The officer in charge of the police replied that the assembly was in the prohibited area, and was, moreover, causing serious obstruction, and he appealed for the meeting to be closed and for the crowd to disperse. The crowd refused, and some of them threw stones and earth. The officer in charge ultimately instructed the mounted police to disperse the crowd; they advanced, and, in view of attempts made to unseat the riders, truncheons had to be drawn and in some cases used. The crowd was dispersed in about 10 minutes and order was thereafter restored.
    In connection with the police arrangements, vehicles passing along the Kensington Road were diverted round the back of the Albert Hall.
    As regards the meeting in the Albert Hall, I understand that the speakers were constantly interrupted, and a number of interrupters were removed by the stewards. About 30 police were stationed inside the Hall itself. In addition, about 100 police were posted at the doors leading from the Hall itself to the surrounding corridors, and they received from the stewards the persons who were ejected and escorted them out of the building.
    The number of police employed in connection with the Fascist meeting and the anti-Fascist counter-demonstration was
    1230
    about 2,500, and, in addition, about 400 were kept in reserve. It is estimated that the additional expenditure involved was about £300.
    Mr. MABANE: In view of the fact that the interest of the general public is far greater than that of either of these sections, does not the right hon. Gentleman think he would be justified in requiring that a place such as the Albert Hall should not be made available for meetings—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]should not be made available for meetings likely to cause a breach of the peace and serious interference with the general body of the public?
    Sir J. SIMON: The disposal of the Albert Hall is not, of course, in public hands, and I think we must face the responsibilities of living in a free country.
    Mr. FOOT: With reference to that part of the original answer which dealt with the meeting in Thurloe Square, has the right hon. Gentleman read the statements which have been supplied to him, of persons who were present at that meeting, and who say that it was an orderly meeting and that the action of the police was unprovoked; does he say that those statements are untrue; and, if not, does he not think that there is matter there which demands inquiry?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for having sent me certain statements collected by the Council for Civil Liberties. They did not include any statement from Mr. John Strachey. Of course I will pay due attention to those statements, but I have made very careful inquiries myself, and I have given the House the result of my own inquiries. As regards the character of the police action, I would ask leave to add that 24 persons were arrested; that not one of those 24 persons complained at the police station that they had received injury; that not a single one of them even asked to see the doctor; that at least two policemen received very severe kicks; that one is suffering from a most painful assault and is still unable to resume his duty; and that the assaulter, who was in Thurloe Square, was so violent that the police had to remove his boots, and he has since been convicted by the magistrate and fined.
    Mr. V. ADAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the management of the Albert Hall refuse the use of the hall to anti-Fascist bodies?
    Sir J. SIMON: I was not aware of it, but the hon. Member must realise that that is a matter quite outside the scope of the Home Office.
    Mr. ADAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the question of freedom of speech, therefore, does arise?
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the name of the officer in charge who ordered the squad of mounted police to charge? Further, in view of the fact that the impartiality of the police is in question, why was the Fascist procession allowed to proceed along Constitution Hill, past Buckingham Palace and along Birdcage Walk, contrary to all precedent?
    Sir J. SIMON: If the last part of the question is really suggesting that the police have been showing favouritism, I assure the hon. Member that there really is not the least ground for the suggestion. The route that was taken I do not know at all. These people were going to their meeting, and it was quite right that they should go to it, whether you or I agree with them or not. Equally, of course, the processions of those of another view are looked after with equal care and equal courtesy. I only know that the police—I hope the House thinks they were right—took the most skilful steps to secure that there should not be a collision between the two parties. As for the name of the officer, I will, of course—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"]—I do not know whether my excited friend behind me will allow me to finish my sentence. As regards the officer, I will, of course, make inquiries, but my present information is that he was a most responsible officer, and I take responsibility for what he did.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will afford as much protection to an anti-Fascist meeting as he would to a meeting of Fascists?
    Sir J. SIMON: Inasmuch as this is a free country, and we all value freedom, I should have thought it hardly necessary to put such a question, but, since the hon. Member thinks fit to put it, let me give him an assurance that as long, at any
    1232
    rate, as this Government is in power we shall not seek to draw any distinction at all between one party and another.
    Sir W. DAVISON: As Thurloe Square is in my constituency, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that no further demonstrations of any kind are held there? It is a quiet residential neighbourhood, quite unsuitable for demonstrations.
    Mr. FOOT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the Thurloe Square incident on the Adjournment.
    Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: May I ask a supplementary question in respect to my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the supplementary questions that have been put have covered the ground.

    AUTOMATIC GAMING MACHINES.
    Major OWENasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to resolutions passed by various courts of quarter sessions calling for legislation to deal with automatic gaming machines; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to this effect in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting?
    Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir, but my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

    LAW OFFICERS (EMOLUMENTS).
    Mr. V. ADAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state in two lump sums the total emoluments in fees and salaries, respectively, received from their offices by successive Attorney-Generals and Solicitor-Generals for England from the beginning of 1926 to the end of 1935?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Figures for the period of 10 calendar years ended 31st December, 1935, are not ' immediately available. The total emoluments in fees and salaries during the 10 financial years 1st April, 1925, to 31st March, 1935, were as follow: Attorneys-General, £188,067; Solicitors-General, £114,212.
    Mr. ADAMS: In view of the Debate to-day, may I ask whether the Government will consider adjusting this, the most fabulous of all anomalies?
    Mr. MORRISON: That is a matter that can be left to the Debate, but I might point out that the two Select Commitees which examined the matter recommended the present scales of salary.
    Mr. THORNE: Are they paid at trade union rates?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that they have to make tremendous sacrifices in order to accept the posts?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour the proportion of allowances paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board, according to the scale of the board, to the allowances paid according to the transitional payments scale, at the latest convenient date and in February, 1935?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): In February, 1935, the approximate proportions were 49 per cent of payments according to Unemployment Assistance regulations and 51 per cent. according to the transitional payments practice. In December, 1935, when the position had been affected by the increase of 1s. in the rate of unemployment benefit for dependent children, the corresponding proportions were 44 per cent. and 56 per cent.

    DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Durham county between the ages of 16 and 65; and the amount paid in standard benefits and transitional payments since 1931?
    Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: A statement showing the amounts paid in transitional payments and unemployment allowances in the county of Durham during the period between 12th November, 1931, and the end of the year 1935, was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 4th February, in reply to a, question put by the hon. Member on 19th December. I am having the other particulars
    1234
    extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    PROPOSED AIR PACT.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as was stated by Herr von Ribbentrop in his speech at the Council of the League of Nations, on 19th March, the offer of an air pact originated with Germany; and whether it was rejected on the ground that such a pact could only be agreed to in combination with Germany's adhesion to an eastern pact?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The proposal for the conclusion of an air pact for the five Western Powers was originally made in the Anglo-French Declaration of 3rd February, 1935. It did not originate with Germany. It was originally understood that such a pact should form part of the general settlement outlined in the February Declaration. During the summer of 1935, however, the French Government agreed that that understanding need not prevent the negotiation—as distinguished from the conclusion—of an air pact independently of the other matters, including the eastern pact, dealt with in the Declaration. Far from refusing to proceed with the negotiation of an air pact, His Majesty's Government on more than one occasion urged upon the German Government in the autumn of 1935 and again in January and February of this year the desirability of opening negotiations without further delay.
    Mr. SANDYS: Will the Government, in these circumstances, correct the false impression created in the mind of the German Government as to the parentage of the child?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: I hope that my answer to-day will have that effect.

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any peace negotiations are taking place between Italy and Abyssinia either directly or through the League of Nations?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: On 23rd March the Committee of Thirteen adopted a resolution taking note of the replies

    1235
    given by the Italian and Ethiopian Governments to the appeal addressed to them by the Committee on 3rd March. These replies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was informed on 16th March, expressed readiness, in principle, to take part in negotiations. The resolution further requested the Chairman of the Committee, assisted by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to get into touch with the two parties and to take such steps as might be called for in order that the Committee might be able, as soon as possible, to bring the two parties together and, within the framework of the League and in the spirit of the Covenant, to bring about the prompt cessation of hostilities and the final restoration of peace. I have no information respecting any direct negotiations between the two parties. The Ethiopian Government have denied that any such negotiations are in progress.
    Mr. RILEY: Has the hon. Gentleman any information in the nature of proposals which are suggested, and, if so, will he make a statement to the House at an early date?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir. I have no information at the present time.

    THAMES BARRAGE ASSOCIATION (SCHEME).
    Mr. MacLARENasked the Minister of Transport what are the grounds of his refusal to take steps to hold a public inquiry into the proposal placed before him by a deputation from the Thames Barrage Association on 17th October last?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no sufficient body of informed opinion before me in support of the scheme to justify me in putting the numerous interests concerned to the expense and trouble of an inquiry.

    FOREIGN VESSELS (BRITISH PORTS).
    Mr. MUFF (for Mr. WINDSOR)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large increase in the number of foreign ships trading between British ports, particularly in the seed potato and coal carrying trades; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have no information regarding the position in the two trades to which the hon. Member refers, but the official returns show that there has been in recent months an increase in the tonnage of vessels under foreign flags arriving at and departing from United Kingdom ports with cargo in the coasting trade. With regard to the second part of the question, I am not aware of any useful action which it is practicable for the Government to take.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any representation has been made on this matter by the British Chamber of Shipping?
    Dr. BURGIN: Not that I am aware of, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. MUFF (for Mr. WINDSOR)asked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of foreign vessels arriving and departing from British ports for the months of January and February, 1935, and 1936, respectively?
    Dr. BURGIN: The aggregate net tonnage of foreign vessels which arrived at or departed from ports in the United Kingdom in the foreign and coasting trades in January and February, 1936, amounted to 15,319,000, the corresponding figure for last year being 14,304,000 tons net.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PARACHUTE EXPERIMENTS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for War wt ether any foreign countries have carried out. manoeuvres in which attacks have been made by infantry descending from aeroplanes by parachute; and whether the War Office are considering trying out similar operations.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): Apart from the trials carried out by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the autumn manoeuvres of 1935, I know of no similar experiments. The possible use of parachutes by troops in this country is being investigated.

    FOOD SUPPLY (MARCARINE).
    Mr. SHINWELL (for Mr. LEACH)asked the Secretary of State for War

    1237
    whether the discussions of his Department with the other two Services on the question of substituting butter for margarine for the use of the forces have resulted in any decisions; and, if so, what. decisions have been reached?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: No decision has yet been reached.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning Business for Tomorrow?
Mr. BALDWIN: I think I have already made a statement in a supplementary reply. It is proposed that the Debate on Foreign Affairs should take place Tomorrow on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Debate be opened by a statement on behalf of the Government?
Mr. BALDWIN: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to open the Debate, and that it would probably meet the convenience of the House if he did so.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT.
Mr. MATHERS: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921."
The Act which I seek to amend made illegal the importation into this country of the plumage of certain rare and beautiful birds. It was passed 15 years ago, and it is now thought necessary that we should complete the process by making illegal the sale of prohibited plumage in this country. The simple Bill which I desire to bring in provides that the sale shall be illegal, and also provides penalties for such illegal sales. It is
1238
rather remarkable that after 15 years there should still be offered for sale in this country plumage which has been illegally, as we believe, imported into this country, and it is necessary that the Amendment which I desire to bring in should be put into operation. When the 1921 Act was passed, or shortly afterwards, it was stated by those who were able to speak for the trade that there was in this country at that time plumage which was then prohibited which would last for approximately nine months, or at the outside one year in supplying the trade. We do know that since the 1921 Act was passed there have been cases of illegal smuggling into this country of thousands of skins of birds with prohibited plumage in defiance of the Act. I am a loyal and, generally speaking, I hope a law-abiding citizen, and I want to see that any prohibition laid down by Parliament is properly observed. In many parts of the British Empire there is a prohibition against the export of this plumage, and it seems to me that those who value Empire unity will support the Bill in order to make illegal the importation into this country of plumage which should not be exported from different parts of the Empire. The United States of America have already taken the step which I am asking the House to approve and have prohibited the sale in America of this plumage. That is the legal aspect of the case.
But there are considerations much more weighty than that; the humane considerations. The plumage which is prohibited in this country is obtained by the slaughter of birds at the very time when they are in the full enjoyment of the joy of life, during the mating and reproductive period of their lives when they dress themselves most gaudily. During that period they are hunted and killed for the purposes of decoration. It does not seem to matter to those who make a profit out of this trade that they may he ending the life not only of the individual bird but of a family of birds, or of the species to which the birds belong. I think it is a terrible thing that we should so treat some of the most delicate and beautiful specimens of the handiwork of the Creator. It may be said, why is there an inducement to import into this country plumage which is prohibited We must lay the charge on those who wish to decorate themselves with this plumage.

1239
We men can discourage our women friends, our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughters, from having any taste this way. The recent tendency to gaudy displays of feathers in the dresses of some of those who take part in films may possibly lead some unthinking women to try and copy the style. If an appeal to their better nature does not impress our women folk, perhaps when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will be possible for people knowing that such an Act exists, when they see our women folk with an osprey or some other feather of a prohibited plumage decorating them, to ask " Where did you get that hat? " We do not want to put them to that indignity. I think the case is so simple that every hon. Member will want to back the Bill.
There is nothing significant in the fact that I stand at this Box and ask leave to bring in the Bill. It is entirely a nonparty, or rather an all-party, Measure, and if I am given the opportunity, as I hope I shall be, to read out the names of those who are backing the Bill, it will be found that it is backed in all parts of the House. I appeal to the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill in order to protect these beautiful birds from extinction because we look upon these birds in the same way as Robert Burns looked upon the field mouse when his plough cut through its nest. They are
"Our poor earth-born companions, and fellow-mortals."
It is in that spirit that I ask leave to bring in the Bill.
Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Member aware that most women shoppers are informed by the shopkeeper that the plumage is not prohibited? Is it not the case that women need protection from misinformation?
Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I rise to oppose the Motion. Unfortunately I had not studied my Order Paper with such care as usual, and I was not aware that this proposal was going to be moved, otherwise I should have prepared myself with documentary evidence on the matter. But the Bill itself is a charge that our Customs officials are failing in the performance of their duties. When I was at the Board of Trade this matter was investigated. It is not true to say that
1240
there is great smuggling into this country of this prohibited plumage, because it is not getting in.
Mr. MATHERS: I can bring the hon. Member proof that thousands of skins with prohibited plumage have been brought into this country since the 1921 Act was passed.
Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member has such proof, he has failed in his duty in not drawing the attention of the authorities to the proof, so that the requisite prosecutions might have taken place.
Mr. MATHERS: The requisite prosecutions have taken place, and the skins have been confiscated.
Mr. WILLIAMS: If the prosecutions have taken place and the skins have been confiscated, the evil with which the hon. Member proposes to deal does not exist. Obviously, if it is an offence to bring them into the country, as it is, and if there is no proof of successful smuggling—
Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: How does one prove successful smuggling?
Mr. WILLIAMS: I listened with great patience to the hon. Gentleman, and I am entitled to state that which I learned when I was at the Board of Trade. I learned that certain societies collect a good deal of money from innocent people by telling them tales of horror which relate to the past and not to the present. That is an unfair exploitation of innocent people. The proposal that this Bill shall be introduced represents a charge that this illegal plumage is being sold in this country when it is known that it is new plumage obtained since the Act of 1921 was passed. I do not think there is the slightest justification for that allegation, nor do I think it fair to the British public that it should be told that these horrors which used to be, still exist. I protest as much as anybody against the horrors that were associated with the plucking of the plumage of birds when they were actually sitting on their eggs. It was a horrible practice supported by the fashions of this country. But because it existed in the past, that is no justification for charging innocent British people to-day with the commission of an offence which they have not committed. This Bill is prompted by societies which

1241
exist for the collection of subscriptions from people whose sympathy is excited by stories of past horrors which do not exist to-day. Time and time again this matter was raised in another place by a certain Noble Lord who is now dead, and every time it was raised there was brought up the story of the same old solitary ostrich which was about 50 years old, and which was used as the horrifying example. This kind of legislation is so much humbug.
Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask—
Mr. WILLIAMS: The Noble Lady may ask as many things as she likes, but I do not think there is much chance of their being dealt with under the Ten-Minute Rule. I do ask the House to hesitate, not before giving leave to introduce the Bill, but before passing it into law. I hope that if this Bill should be given a Second Reading, it will be referred to a Select Committee, so that those who make the charges to which I have referred will have an opportunity of producing evidence in justification.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mathers, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barr, Colonel Clifton Brown, Mr. Allan Chapman, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Groves, Mr. Graham Kerr, Mr. Lewis, and Miss Rathbone.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) Act (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,
"to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 6th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 81.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That Mr. Cassels, being a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills under Standing Order No. 47 (2).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MINISTERS' SALARIES.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. MACLAY: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the anomalies in the existing scale of ministerial salaries should be removed as soon as possible, that all Members of the Cabinet, with the exception of the Prime Minister, should receive the same salary irrespective of the office held, that the salary of the Prime Minister should be increased, and that all offices held by Ministers should be classified on the lines recommended in 1920 by a Select Committee of this House."
Mr. DENMAN: May I ask a question about the procedure this afternoon? There is on the Paper an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) and myself suggesting that the Leadership of the Opposition should become a salaried office. I want to ask you whether, if it appears in the Debate that there is a general desire that those words should be added, and if at a reasonable time the preceding Amendment is disposed of, you would in those circumstances call the Amendment to which I have referred?
Mr. SPEAKER: I doubt whether the Amendment will be reached, but, in any case, it appears to me to be out of order, because the Motion of which notice has been given calls attention to Ministers' salaries, and the Leader of the Opposition is not a Minister.
Mr. MACLAY: This country is now passing through anxious and difficult days. The attention of the Government and the House is fully occupied by foreign and home affairs, and although it cannot be claimed that this Motion is vital among all those other problems, I think that among hon. Members in this House and a large section of the public outside there is a feeling that the question of the anomalies of Ministers' salaries should be taken up now and not be allowed to drift further. The next few years are likely to be just as busy ones for the Government had for Parliament as the past two years have been, and it will be no easier for any future Government to take up this matter than for the present one. If it can be shown by the Debate to-day that there are unjustifiable inequalities in Ministers' salaries and that it is the feeling of all parties in this country that they should be righted, and if there is a feeling that there have been
1252
sufficient committees to take evidence on this matter, I suggest that it is to be hoped that the Government and hon. Members will take action without delay.
There have been two Select Committees of this House to deal with this matter, the one in 1920 and the other, set up by the Labour party, in 1930. Evidence was taken from many representative persons who were fitted to evidence on the question. There were, for instance, such persons as the late Lord Oxford—Mr. Asquith, as he was, in 1920—the present Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the present Lord President of the Council, the present Lord Chancellor and Sir Warren Fisher. The findings of the 1920 Committee were practically unanimous on all matters and the recommendations were generally along the lines of the Motion which I have put down, but no action whatsoever was taken. In response to a demand, another Select Committee was set up in 1930 and it reached the same conclusions, which may be generally summed up as being that the scale of salaries in some respects was anomalous, and in others was inadequate. The 1930 Committee recommended, however, that the time was inopportune for general revision, with one exception, which was that the Prime Minister's salary should be dealt with without delay. That happened five years ago and nothing has been done; even the Prime Minister's salary, which everyone agreed should be dealt with soon, has not been dealt with. I presume the reason is to be found in the economic conditions of the country in 1930 and 1931, and since that time and also there is the very natural reluctance of any Government to propose an increase in their own salaries. I would say, in the words of one of the leading daily papers of this morning, that the
"reluctance to face it, however honourable in motive, has become by this time the condonation of what is little short of a scandal."
I do not think that is too strong language. Before coming to the actual anomalies, I would like to make one or-two general remarks in case some hon. Members have not had time to read any of the evidence of the two Committees. It should be quite clearly understood that Ministers' salaries are not an addition to their £400 as Members of Parliament, but include them, which is not

1253
the case in some foreign countries. It should also be realised that since a great many of the salaries were fixed the incidence of taxation has increased enormously. Some time before the War it was 4d. in the £. Upon £5,000 that meant that a Minister's salary was about £4,800 year. To-day, owing to the incidence of present-day taxation, that salary is fully £1,000 less. Five thousand pounds less tax represents about £3,800. The Select Committee found that there were no other financial benefits accruing to Ministers from any source whatever through their holding office. The Committee also found that it was necessary for some Ministers of State to incur considerable expenditure on entertaining which was not legitimately chargeable to the Government hospitality fund. This expense was specially heavy on persons like the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and one or two other Ministers.
With regard to the general level of Cabinet Ministers' salaries in other countries, it is a little difficult to find exact figures, but as far as I can gather the general level of Ministers' salaries is slightly below ours in most Dominions and foreign countries. But there are practically no cases of anomalies like those that we have here. In every case Cabinet salaries are on a flat scale, the Prime Minister being paid on a higher scale. The United States of America is the exception, but even there they pay their ordinary Members of Parliament the equivalent of £1,000 a year. I am not going to take up any time with the historical origins of any of these salaries, some of which go back a 100 and some 150 years. No salaries have the slightest relationship, from the business point of view, to the responsibility of the Ministers concerned.
Let me direct attention to some of the anomalies which exist under the present arrangement. There can be no excuse, from any point of view, for the very large differences that exist. The majority of the Cabinet receive salaries of £5,000 a year, including the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health, but the following responsible Ministers, who also have seats in the Cabinet—I refer to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Education and
1254
the Secretary of State for Scotland—all receive £3,000 less as salary. Their salary is £2,000 a year. I do not think it can be denied that all these Ministers have posts which involve heavy work and great responsibility; and no one can say that the responsibility to-day of a Minister of Labour or of a Minister of Agriculture is any less than that of a Minister of Health. Why then the difference in salary?
Let me refer briefly in detail to one or two of the Ministers who are paid on the lower scale. Take the Secretary of State for Scotland. A few years ago this office was raised to the dignity of a Secretary ship of State, which gave a great deal of pleasure to the people of Scotland. It was thought at that time that the salary would naturally be increased with the increase of status. But nothing has been done. It is as well to point out that the present Scottish Office covers the Departments of Health, the Home Office, Education and Agriculture, all of which have separate Cabinet posts in England. In Scotland, however, they are all under the one Minister. As far as salary is concerned the Secretary of State for Scotland remains at the same level as the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. He receives even less than the Postmaster-General. Apart from the feeling in Scotland that the dignity and the status of the Office call for equality with the other great offices of State, I venture to suggest to the House that the responsibility and the vastly increased work make out a case by themselves for an increase of salary. One other point with regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland is the heavy extra responsibility incurred by the Minister having to scrutinise all the legislation of such Departments as Agriculture and the Home Office, so as to see that the interests of Scotland and England do not conflict and that the interests of Scotland are not neglected. That is a heavy responsibility.
With regard to the Ministers of Agriculture and Labour and Education, all of whom are paid a salary of £2,000, I would like to give one short quotation. It is from the present Prime Minister's evidence before the Select Committee of 1930, when he stated:
"Some of the offices that are still receiving the lower salaries are offices that I think are grossly underpaid. I mean that to-day

1255
there is no more important office in the Ministry than the Ministry of Labour. It is one of the key situations. The work to-day in the Ministry of Labour is enough to exhaust any man in four or five years, however strong he may be. He is worked right out at the end of that time. He gets £2,000 a year. It is ridiculous."
The same argument applies to the Ministers of Agriculture and Education. It is obviously unjust that these Cabinet posts should be on a lower scale by £3,000 than the posts of many other Cabinet Ministers. The case for equalizing is so obvious that there is no point in labouring it further. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are going to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan), but, if you are, I would like to make one reference to it. The hon. Member in his Amendment agrees, I think, that these anomalies should be removed, but he does not wish the aggregate expenditure to be increased. Naturally the effect of that must be that the salaries of the higher-paid posts would have to be dropped. All I can say is this: I am sure it is the feeling of almost everyone that the great offices of State in this country are not at present overpaid, and that if there is to be an equalising it will have to be in the main upwards.
It is difficult to give figures, and I am not sure whether it would be wise to do so. I do not know who is to reply for the Government. Roughly I estimate that the cost of the alterations along the lines of my Motion would be, less taxation, under £20,000 per annum, and I hope that after listening to the Debate the House will not favour the Amendment. Let me come to the general case for equality of salaries. The first point to make is that the doctrine of equal responsibility presents a strong case for equality of salaries. Some Ministers for a few years may be in greater prominence than others, or for a period of years some Ministers may be less prominent than others. But these things even themselves out. The evidence of all the Prime Ministers, with the exception of one, does indicate that there should be no discrimination between Cabinet salaries. When I read the evidence given before both Select Committees I found that there was one aspect which came very prominently before those Committees, and that was the difficulty of a Prime Minister in forming a Cabinet when salaries were so differ-
1256
ent. Let me give another short quotation, also from the present Prime Minister's evidence regarding this point. My right hon. Friend said:
"Most Prime Ministers hesitate to offer a £2,000 a year office to 4, man who has held a £5,000 a year office. To a man who has held a £5,000 a year office would hesitate before accepting a £2,000 a year office. He would feel that it was a step down. It is not a step down really, but he would feel that, as you can quite understand."
There is no doubt that it would ease the task of Prime Ministers, when forming a Cabinet, if they had not this difficult and delicate question of salaries to consider as well. I think a strong case is made out from practically every point of view that salaries in the Cabinet, apart from those of the Prime Minister and the Law Officers, should be equal. Although it is not in the Motion, the inference is that a Minister when he leaves the Cabinet would revert to his ordinary salary.
Both Select Committees suggested that salaries should be drawn up in a certain classification. The 1920 Committee recommended—and the recommendation was agreed to by the 1930 Committee—that offices with the exception of those of the Prime Minister and the Law Officers should be classified in five different classes. In Class I was to be the £5,000 salary, which all Members of the Cabinet were to receive. Class II was to be £3,000 a year, which senior Ministers outside the Cabinet were to receive. Class III was to be £2,000 a year, and the suggestion was that junior Ministers and senior Under-Secretaries should receive it. Class IV was £1,500 a year, for Under-Secretaries. Class V was £1,000 a year, to be paid to such persons as Lords Commissioners. These, of course, are only examples and they were suggested in the year 1920. Obviously a list which was made up then, years ago, does not apply to-day.
Because the classification received the agreement of both Select Committees I have included it in my Motion. If we had a new classification such as is suggested, I venture to suggest that it would put an end to the present haphazard and anomalous position of the whole range of Ministers and junior Ministers. It would end such inequalities outside the Cabinet as that of the Minister of Transport with

1257
£2,000 a year receiving less than the Postmaster-General and the same as the Parliamentary Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. It would end the anomaly of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland receiving £1,200 a year while other Under-Secretaries, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, receive higher salaries. It would also end the anomaly of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Mines, receiving less than the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. Finally, it would end the anomaly of Government Whips receiving £1,000 a year as Lords of the Treasury, while some of their seniors are receiving less as political Ministers of the Royal Household. These are only a few of the anomalies which I suggest would be eliminated by this classification. I venture to make one suggestion however which was not made by either of the Committees. It is that this classification would require to be reviewed automatically every few years, at specific dates, otherwise there will be the same reluctance on the part of Governments as has been displayed in the past, to alter the scales, and it is obvious that the importance of various offices must change over a period of years.
I now come to the question of the Prime Minister's salary. Both the 1920 Committee and the 1930 Committee specially recommended that the Prime Minister's salary should be dealt with immediately. The position of Prime Minister in this country carries special responsibility and special burdens. The case for a revision of the salary attaching to that office has been made out time and again in the last few years, and yet nothing has been done. The arguments were put concisely in the following passage from the recommendations of the 1930 Committee:
"This is a matter which should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. Not only is the Prime Minister's remuneration actually less than that of two of his own colleagues but the circumstances of his position render his salary of less value than that of any other Minister. The house in Downing Street which he is practically compelled to occupy is, admittedly, very inconvenient and costly to maintain. He has to provide out of his salary for entertainments which cannot be classified as official entertainments properly chargeable to the Government Hospitality Fund. His position, great as it is, is at best temporary, and it
1258
must not be forgotten that when he goes out of office he probably becomes Leader of the Opposition at a salary of £400 a. year, with no pension, and while his colleagues as ex-Ministers may legitimately supplement their income in various ways, he alone is debarred from so doing."
I believe the case contained in that recommendation is unchallengeable. I will give one more quotation, this time from the evidence of the late Lord Oxford—Mr. Asquith as he then was—in 1920:
"I confess I think the Prime Minister is underpaid. I was in office myself continuously for eleven years, almost nine as Prime Minister, and I do not suppose that my experience is in the least unique but I was a much poorer man when I left office than when I entered it. The office of Prime Minister cannot, I think, be discharged properly at the present salary unless a man has private means of his own."
For many reasons it is not in the public interest that an ex-Prime Minister of this great country should find himself poorer as a result of having held office. I think there is a feeling throughout the country and certainly among all who have given any study to this question, that the conclusion stated in the quotations which I have just given must be accepted. If this House in the course of the Debate to-day shows agreement with that conclusion, I trust that the Government will take some action at an early date in regard to the matter.
Lastly, there is the question of the Law Officers' remuneration. This is really a separate problem, and there are no clear recommendations upon it by either of the Committees I have mentioned. I, personally, do not feel competent to say much on the subject, but other hon. Members will probably be able to speak upon it with knowledge. I agree, however, with the findings of the Committee in so far as they consider that the official salaries of the Law Officers should not be more than the salaries attaching to Ministers of Cabinet rank. With regard to the fees which the English Law Officers receive and which come to a very large figure, the evidence is that if those fees were not allowed, it would be doubtful whether the Government would obtain the services of the best men. Then the House must remember that a fairly large proportion of the fees do not come out of the taxpayers' pockets. When cases are won by the ability and skill of the Law Officers the costs are paid by the un-

1259
successful litigants. As regards the case of the Lord Chancellor, it is right to point out that while his remuneration is £10,000 a year his official salary out of the Consolidated Fund is £6,000 a year which, under the terms of my Motion, would come down to £5,000 a year. The other £4,000 a year he receives as Speaker in another place and the effect of this proposal would be to reduce his total remuneration to £9,000 a year.
There is one small point, but one of some importance, with which I should like the Minister who replies to deal, and that is in connection with taxation. The taxation on Ministers' salaries is deducted at source, and, as far as I am aware, it is not competent for them to put in any claims in respect of the deductions in the same way as a Member of Parliament. In the case of junior Ministers in receipt of the lower salaries this system works very unfairly. I can find no reason for it, but I hope that whoever replies for the Government in this Debate will be able to say that, if it is found that there is no special reason for it and that it works unjustly, they will at least consider the question with a view to making an alteration.
In conclusion, I believe there is a general feeling, so far as there can be any general feeling on a subject of this kind, in the country and certainly in the House of Commons, that the time has come to rectify the existing anomalies in Ministers' salaries. There is no necessity for appointing any further committees of inquiry. The position is well known, and I hope that if this Debate shows that there is good reason for criticism of the present position, the Government will not hesitate to act. It has been suggested in some quarters that if there was a strong feeling in favour of a revision the Government might propose alterations which would not come into force until the next Government assumed office. I think that would be a wrong course. If the Government feel that a fair case has been made out for revision, if it appears to be the general wish that revision should take place, I think they ought to take it upon themselves to act at once and bring to an end these anomalies as soon as possible.
4.24 p.m.
Captain CAZALET: I beg to second the Motion.
1260
It is not a Motion which covers a wide field, and therefore I hope that I shall not be guilty of traversing the same ground as my hon. Friend who moved it, but I approach some of the points which he has raised from a rather different angle. In the first place, may I say that I am sorry to see only one Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench to-day when this subject is under discussion. Whether that is due to delicacy, to reticence, or to the fear of a general demand for reduction of salaries, I do not know, but this is one of the few opportunities which we get of letting Cabinet Ministers know what back-bench Members think of their value, as expressed in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. Perhaps something more than the mere question of salary is at stake. We have to consider the position, the dignity and. the independence of those who happen to govern this country. It is difficult, of course, to dissociate the various offices of State from their existing holders, but I would like to assure my hon. Friends above the Gangway that, in the remarks I am about to make, I am thinking of the future holders of those offices just as much as I am thinking of the present holders. Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, not for four or five years, probably not for 10 years, will they have a chance of receiving the benefits which I wish to see conferred on the holders of certain Government offices.
It is always a delicate matter for Ministers to come to this House to propose increases in their own salaries. I believe that if a Government ever does take a decision on those lines, the usual practice is to propose that the change should only take effect when a new Government comes into office. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when President of the Board of Trade received £2,000 a year, and that during his tenure of office he had the questionable pleasure of moving that his successor should get £5,000 a year. Some of the present salaries date from the seventeenth century and others from the eighteenth century. One was fixed in 1830 and another in 1856, and I think it has been clearly established that these salaries now have little relevance to the duties of the offices to which they are attached. I have studied the evidence of four Prime Ministers on this question. They are

1261
practically unanimous in support of the proposals which we are making to the House.
Before coming to actual figures, I wish to submit certain principles which I think ought to govern the salaries paid by the country to its Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers. First, I think it will be agreed that the salary should be sufficient to enable the holder while in office to be free from any financial or economic worry; that it should he commensurate with what he might earn elsewhere and that it should be compatible with the dignity of his position. In other words, by accepting office he should neither lose nor gain. Secondly, I think it will also be agreed that the salaries of all Cabinet Ministers should be the same. Personally, I would extend that principle to the salaries of Under-Secretaries as well. You cannot really say that one Department is more important than another. It is impossible to judge, from the fact that one Minister may make more speeches in the House of Commons than another, that therefore he should get a bigger salary. It is quite true that the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hold special positions and have special responsibilities: on the other hand, they do not have Committee work in the House upstairs, and if they are to get any additional salary for their extra responsibilities, I think it ought to be through extra allowances and not through any differentiation in their pay.
Let us suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister wished, as he might easily do, to ask the Minister of Health, after he had performed some function or had piloted some Housing Bill through the House, to take on some very important work at, say, the Ministry of Agriculture. He could not do so to-day without that Minister losing £3,000 of salary. In the same way, if the Prime Minister wished to ask the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to take on the Under-Secretaryship of Education, it might be that, although that Minister might be the sole representative of his office in this House, he could not do so without asking him, in taking on that job, to drop £800 a year. It is, I think, and it should be, the character of the individual that the Prime Minister considers when he is allocating offices, and he should be free to offer any office to any individual, if he thinks he is suitable
1262
for it, without having to consider the question of what salary he will get by taking that office.
The present system is not fair either to the Prime Minister, to the Minister in question, or to the office itself. It is quite wrong that certain Departments of State should be considered as second-class jobs merely because the salary attached to the Minister or the Under-Secretary is lower than that attached to others.
Sir ALFRED BEIT: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman make any differentiation between Cabinet Ministers with Departments and those without?
Captain CAZALET: I shall deal later with those Cabinet Ministers, who form a special group by themselves. Here again is a subject on which we are all agreed, namely, the salary of the Prime Minister. All four ex-Prime Ministers, Lord Oxford, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the present Prime Minister, and the present Lord President of the Council, have given extensive evidence upon their experience as holders of the office of Prime Minister, and I think that, without any difference of opinion whatever, they have expressed the view that it is impossible for any Member of this House to hold the position of Prime Minister without incurring very considerable financial responsibilities which the salary of the office does not cover.
As to the figures, if changes are to be made, I think the Government should know what kind of salaries Members of the House think are reasonable in the circumstances. We all agree that Cabinet Ministers should pay tax on their salaries. There are countries where Ministers' salaries are exempt from taxation, but I think that is a totally wrong principle. Personally, I would suggest that Cabinet Ministers should all be paid £4,000 a year as salary and that, in addition, they should get £1,000 for what are known as frais de representation, which, being interpreted, means expenses. It is a principle which already prevails in the case of Ambassadors abroad, and I think it is suitable to and has certain merit in the case of Cabinet Ministers. It means that each Cabinet Minister would receive £4,000 as salary, upon which he would pay full tax, and in addition he would receive £1,000, on which he would not

1263
pay tax. That, in my opinion, would be for certain amenities which he should enjoy. He should be able to entertain to a certain degree, and he should have the use of a motor car. I wish to discourage, and I believe that other hon. Members would agree, the practice—all too common in foreign countries, though I do not say it is very prevalent in this country—of Ministers getting what are known as the "perks" of office. The salary should be sufficient in itself, and that is why I commend to hon. Members' attention and study the idea of a salary in addition to an extra payment for expenses.
Finally, as my hon. Friend pointed out, an ordinary Member of Parliament can, without any great ingenuity, manage to convince the Inland Revenue that the £400 which he receives all goes in expenses which are entailed by his being a Member of Parliament. If any hon. Member has not yet learned how to do that, I am sure there are many other hon. Members who will tell him. In other words, Members of Parliament do get £400 free of tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—Well, they are allowed in their tax returns to put their £400. [HON. MEMBER: "No"] I have done it myself for 12 years without any question from the authorities, and if I am wrong, I am sorry to have brought it up. I think hon. Members, instead of contradicting me, had better ask me for a little personal guidance. In any case, hon. Members are allowed to set expenses up to £400 against their salary. I think everybody agrees with that. But that does not apply to Cabinet Ministers or Ministers, and I do not know why. I believe that if any Cabinet Minister or Minister actually took the case to a court of appeal of some kind, he would win, but no Minister has yet done that. Therefore, the £1,000 for expenses which I am advocating would be in compensation for those expenses which every other Member of Parliament is allowed to put against his salary, as expenses to his constituencies, travelling expenses, and so on, and I think it only just that they should have the same treatment as ordinary Members of Parliament.
Now we come to Under-Secretaries, and certainly I would pay all Under-Secretaries, Parliamentary, Financial, and ordinary Under-Secretaries, the
1264
same, all £2,000 a year, with £500 for what are called frais de Représentation. I believe that, although you might possibly get certain anomalies by doing this, those anomalies would not be anything like as great as those which exist under the present system. Then there are those about whom my hon. Friend asked, namely, a group of Ministers who are not Under-Secretaries and who are not in the Cabinet, or who may not be in the Cabinet. For instance, there is the Patronage Secretary.
Sir A. BEIT: I referred to Ministers who were in the Cabinet and who did not have Departments, such as the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister without Portfolio.
Captain CAZALET: The mere fact of holding Cabinet rank entitles you to a definite salary. It does not matter what office you occupy. That is a suggestion which is practically unanimously recommended in all the reports, that all Cabinet Ministers should receive the same, whether they hold office in a Department or not. As I was saying, there is this group headed by the Patronage Secretary. It is difficult for me to deal with his salary when he is sitting on the Front Bench, as he controls so much of our lives, both by day 'and by night. Then there are the Minister of Transport, the First Commissioner of Works, the Minister of Pensions, and the Postmaster-General. The position of these Ministers has changed very considerably since 1920. The Postmaster-General has now the whole of the British Broadcasting Corporation under his control. At any rate, he is responsible for the general direction of policy followed by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Minister of Transport has the whole of the electricity supply of the country under his control. I only hope that as time goes on he will be able to do more about it than he does now; it is something which has a bearing on the lives of almost every member of the community, and it is an enormous additional responsibility of his office. For these Ministers I would recommend a salary—somewhat above that of Under-Secretaries, certainly less than that of Cabinet Minsters—of £3,000, with £500 for expenses The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not paid by the House of Commons and, therefore, does not come under our purview to-day.

1265
In the case of Junior Lords of the Treasury, some of them are Household appointments and special cases, but I would say that there ought to be no salary paid to Ministers, if they occupy the positions of Ministers, less than £1,500 a year.
With regard to the Law Officers, the case of the Lord Chancellor has been mentioned, and I think it should be remembered that when an individual accepts the position of Lord Chancellor he undertakes not to go—or, rather, I think there is no instance of a Lord Chancellor going—back to work at the Bar. Various Law Officers of the Crown have gone back to practise at the Bar, but the Lord Chancellor applies a, self-denying ordinance that he will not go back to practise at the Bar, and also, after he has vacated the position of Lord Chancellor, I do not say he is obliged, but he is expected to take his part as a Law Lord in the House of Lords and the Privy Council. Therefore, he fulfils very special functions, and in the evidence given in the report there was no desire in any way to decrease his salary or his pension.
In regard to the Law Officers of the Crown, I am very glad my hon. Friend made clear something which I did not know until I read these reports and which I think a great many other hon. Members might not have known. I will give the instance of the evidence given by the present Lord Chancellor, that the average fee which he received for four years was £15,000, and that of that, £11,000 to £12,000 was not paid by the Crown, but was paid by litigants who brought cases against the Government and who, through the forensic ability of the Law Officers, lost their cases and had to pay costs. I think that makes a very considerable difference when we are considering this matter and when many of us are surprised at the very large fees and salaries which they receive.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: If the Crown had lost any of those cases, the Attorney-General would have got his fee all the same.
Captain CAZALET: I do not want to go into that except to say that the fee for the Law Officers of the Crown are fixed, sometimes at half, sometimes at one-fifth, of what the barristers who are
1266
appearing for the other side would get in the ordinary practice of their profession. They are fixed at a maximum of, I think, £150, whereas very often the fees for well-known barristers go up to £700 or £800. That, I think, answers that point.
Now we come to the question of the Prime Minister, and this is a matter again which one approaches with a certain amount of delicacy. We all know the almost incredible indifference and self-sacrificing attitude of the present. holder of the office towards questions of salary. Personally, I think the Prime Minister should never receive less pay than any other Member of his Cabinet, and if the Lord Chancellor receives £10,000 a year, I think the Prime Minister should receive it also. I do not much care how it is paid, but I think it is very important that the Prime Minister should always be the First Lord of the Treasury, and whether you pay him a salary as First Lord of the Treasury and another as Prime Minister, or whether you pay him. £8,000 as salary and £2,000 for expenses, are details about which I have no very strong feelings.
Then, of course, the question arises of the houses which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the First Lord of the Admiralty are more or less compelled to live in by the fact that they occupy those posts in the Government. A great deal of evidence was given in regard to the expenses of these houses. In almost every case the addition of a house was by no means a benefit to the holder of the office, but a considerable liability. It might have been well if the wives of ex-Prime Ministers had been called to give evidence, but it was evident that the overhead expenses of the house of the Admiralty and 10, Downing Street are considerable items for those who live in them. The Prime Minister must entertain, and he is put to considerable additional expense to which other Cabinet Ministers are not.
The question of the Prime Minister's salary leads one to the question whether Cabinet Ministers should receive pensions. Here, again, very little evidence was given. The position is very different from what it was in days gone by. There are a large number of individuals to-day who have held Cabinet rank, and there will probably be an increasing number in

1267
future, without any private means. It would be wrong and an intolerable position that a man who has occupied a position of the dignity of Cabinet Minister should, when he goes out of office, find himself with nothing whatever. A single man, no doubt, could fend for himself. A man with a family and responsibilities who has had an income of £3,000 to £5,000 a year, who is suddenly deprived of all sources of income, is in an unfortunate position. It is only an extreme sense of patriotism which prevents them from immediately rushing into print and telling all the secrets of the past four years and their personal views of their colleagues in the late Cabinet. If they do not do that they have in some cases to accept directorships. A Member of this House who has been a, Cabinet Minister, who loses office and accepts a directorship, may become a Cabinet Minister again. It is unfortunate if in the meantime he identifies himself too closely with any sectional interest in the City. But, it may be asked, what are they to do if they cannot either write or take directorships? If they were given a pension there would be less excuse for their commercialising their past experience, either in print or in the City.
My suggestion is that the pension should be based at the rate of £250 a year for every year of office in Cabinet rank. This should not take effect unless the Minister has served three years, and there should be a maximum of five years; otherwise, there might be a tendency and temptation to hang on a little longer in order to get a bigger pension.
Mr. DENMAN: With or without a means test?
Captain CAZALET: If a Minister felt that he ought to apply a means test to himself, there would be nothing against his returning his pension to the State. These pensions should be automatic unless, of course, they were voluntarily surrendered. It is intolerable that an ex-Cabinet Minister should have to go to the Prime Minister belonging, as he almost certainly would, to an opposing political party, and beg him for a pension. The evidence of Lord Balfour and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was very strong on this point. Pensions should be automatic and not
1268
dependent on the grace of the existing Prime Minister.
Mr. LOGAN: What would the hon. and gallant Gentleman do in the case of a coalition?
Captain CAZALET: I do not know what the hon. Member's suggestion is. I am trying to make my suggestions general and not particular to this Government. Intimately connected with the question of a pension for the Prime Minister is the question of the Leader of the Opposition. When a Prime Minister goes out of office he automatically becomes Leader of the Opposition. As such, he is in a different position from that of his colleagues on the Opposition Benches. He may, and probably will, become Prime Minister again. It is impossible for him to write to the papers, and entirely wrong that he should take directorships if he to become Prime Minister again. As Leader of His Majesty's Opposition he is part of the constitution of this Houses and I think that he is entitled to a salary of £2,000. That is the salary paid in Australia and Canada.
There are other cognate matters which I do not wish to raise to-day, but which are pertinent to our discussion. For instance, if we are to discuss the salaries of Ministers, some attention should be paid to the duties of Ministers, and there are certain alterations that should be made. In the case of fuel, for example, coal comes under the Ministry of Mines, oil and gas under the Board of Trade, and electricity under the Ministry of Transport. I do not wish to develop that point, but it is worth the consideration of responsible authorities when studying the question of Ministers, their duties and salaries. Very germane to our discussion is the question of the salary of Members of Parliament. I am one of the fortunate people, like most of my colleagues, who have private means, and I can speak, therefore, freely on this matter. Why is the salary fixed at £4001 There is nothing sacrosanct about that amount. In Australia it is £1,000, and in Canada £800.
There have been, and probably are today, Members of Parliament representing constituencies a long way from London, who have to maintain a family home there and live in London, and who have to deprive themselves of some of the prime

1269
necessities of life in order to keep up the dignity of their position in this House. I believe that to be a fact, and I feel that those on our benches can afford to and should say so. If it were possible to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament to £600, it would be the right and wise thing to do, and I would not in the least mind the opposition which would be roused in the country, because it would help to establish the principle I want to see established, that no man or woman should be deprived of the privilege of becoming a Member of Parliament because on the salary of £400 he or she cannot maintain the position.
If the Government intend to do something, all these things ought to be done together. It is a delicate matter to bring up, and I do not suppose that it will come before the House again for another decade. It is a difficult thing for any Government to propose increases in their own salaries. My view is that if they can get a consensus of opinion in all quarters of the House, it should be left to a committee of back bench Members, assisted by Treasury officials, to make definite proposals. The Government would have to accept those proposals, except that they could decrease but not increase the amounts proposed by the committee. That would get the Government out of the difficulty of proposing increases themselves, and they would be able to say that they had thrown the responsibility on the House and that the House had made the proposals. If they do that, I do not think that it need necessarily be left until the next Parliament before alterations are made. The wish to become a Minister in this country is an entirely laudable ambition of any politician. The field is open for all, and none should be denied the prizes because they have no private means. If we can do something in this matter, we shall, I think, have added some small measure of material comfort to those overworked and underpaid Members of the House who are Ministers. We shall have done something more. We shall have done something to maintain and preserve the integrity and independence of those who have the honour and privilege of being His Majesty's Ministers.
4.57 p.m.
Mr. LATHAN: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from "possible" to the end
1270
of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"but without incurring any addition to the present aggregate expenditure."
Although in the Amendment there is a measure of opposition to the proposal before the House, I hope that the Mover of the Motion will not consider it presumptuous on my part if I offer him a word of congratulation on the way in which he submitted the Motion and the temperate and persuasive way in which he argued in its support. I am sure the House feels a measure of indebtedness to him for helping them to understand what has been to many of us a somewhat involved and difficult problem. Similarly, the House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), but in a special way for the information he has given to help us in our Income Tax returns. I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member is in favour of the proposals contained in the report of the Select Committee of 1920, because, although it was impossible as he proceeded to lay before the House his proposals in respect of particular salaries, to assess accurately what would be the financial responsibility attaching to them, I think that I am justified in saying that ho would go far beyond what was contemplated by the Select Committee.
Captain CAZALET: I gave a figure,. but I am completely indifferent to what the figure is, because if it is right to increase the salaries of Ministers, this country can certainly afford to do it.
Mr. LATHAN: The ability of the country to afford additional expenditure is information of which we will take due note. With very much of what has been said by both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion I find no ground for obejction, and I believe I am speaking not only on my own behalf but on behalf of those associated with me on these benches. The present position is obviously unsatisfactory, and I think is capable of adjustment without any revolutionary action on the part of the Government or those who would be responsible for effecting the change. It is intolerable that hon. Members should be serving the country and this House and find themselves subject to financial as well as other penalties because of their doing so. I would remind

1271
the Mover and Seconder that that condition does not attach merely to Ministers. It is far more widespread, and it might surprise some hon. Members if we were able to inform them of the measure of sacrifice and loss sustained by some hon. Members in the discharge of their duty.
The main point of difference is whether in the present circumstances expenditure incidental to the proposal that is now before the House would be justified. We think it would not be justified, and it is because of that that the Amendment in my name has been put down. While we have indicated that we are quite prepared to consider any action involving the adjustment of the anomalies which exist to-day in so far as Ministerial salaries are concerned, we believe that can be done, and ought to be done, without incurring any addition to the present aggregate expenditure. The Motion is based upon the Select Committee's Report of 1920 and the speeches to which we have listened with pleasure show that that report and the subsequent report of 1930 have evidently been studied closely. It may account for the continued absence from the Library of the House of those documents and the difficulty I have had in obtaining information I required for the purpose of submitting such observations as I wish to make.
I have, however, managed to secure some information from another place. The Select Committee of 1920, composed of 15 members representative of all parties, had before them distinguished witnesses in the persons of Sir Warren Fisher and Mr. Asquith, but it is the report and recommendations of the Committee with which the House will be mainly concerned. They said that while the standard of pay was very different at that date from that which obtained at the date when the rates of Ministerial salaries were fixed, they still did not feel that that time—that was in 1920—was suitable to recommend a general increase, and thus a large addition to money allocated for the payment of Ministers. They confined themselves, therefore, to consideration of the relative positions, and I judged that that is the main object the Mover has in the Motion before us. There was agreement then, and I think there will be to-day, that the position so far the salary of the Prime Minister was concerned was entirely unsatisfactory.
1272
The recommendation of the special committee was that a salary of £8,000 per annum should attach to that position. To that we on these benches would offer no opposition. I recognise the truth of what has been said as to the special responsibilities and expenditure attaching to that position.
The Committee also proceeded to recommend that all other Members of the Cabinet should have salaries of equal amount irrespective of the offices they hold. I am not quite so sure that that proposal is unobjectionable. As I think it was suggested in connection with another aspect of the case by the Seconder of the Motion, we can see without difficulty the possibility of manoeuvring or adjustments if such an arrangement were brought into operation. The main consideration in connection with the proposals contained in the report was that Ministers were to be classified into five classes, with salaries ranging from £5,000, apart from the Prime Minister, down to £1,000. Hon. Members would probably find no difficulty in agreeing in particular cases that there would be justification for a sixth grade or lower salary. That must be made a matter of personal valuation or assessment. Speaking for those associated with me on these benches, there is no special objection to classification. It is the method of procedure adopted in regard to many thousands of responsible citizens in Government and other employment, but if one agrees to the principle itself, it is of the utmost importance that it should be understood that the classified individual and the position should be accurately related. My own disposition is to a system that would involve not a classification of tin individual or the Minister but the classification of the post, so that the occupant of that post, who presumably would not be appointed unless he were qualified for it, would receive the salary attaching to that post. My belief is—and it is based not only upon speculation in regard to the present problem but on experience of similar problems in employment outside—that that practice would be found more acceptable in the long run than if individuals were classified.
The situation to-day in respect of the posts to be provided for is very different from what it was in 1920. There is no longer a salary for the Chief Secretary

1273
for Ireland, but a number of other Ministries have been created in the meantime. Whatever saving might arise from that quarter would be swallowed up by responsibilities accepted in the meantime by the division of, say, the Dominions and the Colonies. There might be some doubt or difference as to the justification for that. Then there is the problem associated with Ministers without Portfolio. I do not think I am exaggerating the feeling there is in several quarters of the House when I say that a note of interrogation will arise in our minds in respect of Ministers such as the Minister for Thought. Just in what category he comes and how he would be classified is a matter of considerable speculation.
Such questions as that apart, no one can justify the anomalies. Certainly we on this side of the House would not seek to do so. It is a little difficult to understand how they have grown up, but research has shown that it is probably attributable to the varying dates on which the salaries were fixed. The salary of the First Lord of the Treasury was fixed in the latter part of the seventeenth century, and apparently is still regarded by the Government of the day as being proper in the present circumstances. There are other salaries dating back to the early part of the last century, and the fixation of the remainder was at various dates from 1851 to the early post-war years. No one desires to perpetuate these anomalies, and it is more than a little strange that successive Ministries and Parliaments have shown a reluctance to deal with them in a very emphatic way. The report of 1930 recommended that there should be a termination of the valuations to which we have indicated objection. I share the feelings already expressed. I resent, for instance, a scheme of valuation which attaches a salary of £5,000 a year to the Minister for War and allocates only £2,000 to the Minister for Education I believe a very large number of my fellow-citizens would take the view that the duties discharged by the one are of equal value and responsibility to those of the other. The Committee recommended that there should be a scaling down of the salaries of the Law Officers, including the Lord Chancellor, who gets double what is paid to other Ministers, and also a pension. I have no feeling personally against lawyers. I have worked with
1274
them for a number of years and I consider them very useful members of society, but, in common with most people, I could contemplate some, downward variation of the payments made to the Law Officers of the Crown, and believe that could be effected without any serious injustice being done either to them or to their successors.
In January, 1930, the Select Committee that was then set up was required to report upon the report of the Committee of 1920. The Committee of 1920 did not consider the time was then ripe for putting into operation their own scheme in so far as it involved any additional expenditure of public funds. The Committee of 1930 took precisely the same view so far as I am able to interpret what is contained in their report. But they recommended that the Prime Minister's salary should be increased immediately. They were not so courageous in regard to the Law Officers, but they said most definitely that any general revision involving increases was in their opinion unjustifiable at the time. That, in my submission, is the position to-day. The party for whom I speak would be quite prepared in happier circumstances to consider proposals involving additional expenditure upon those who serve the nation in this House, but such a proposal to be fully acceptable would not have to suffer the limitations of the proposal which is now before us. I and those associated with we would, in those circumstances, be prepared to contemplate a comprehensive review of the case not only of Ministers but of Members of Parliament, and particularly of the gentleman who serves the House and the country as Leader of His Majesty's Opposition. I hesitate to believe that Ministers of the Crown would consider that their case is more urgent than that of others who serve the country in this House.
To sum up, the position which I and those associated with me take up is this: At a time like this, when many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens find it necessary to observe the most rigid economy; when multitudes of citizens are living in circumstances in which they regard the meagre salaries of Members of Parliament, let alone those of the Ministers of the Crown, as wealth beyond their dreams; when they

1275
have to observe such economy that the expenditure of a single penny has to be considered; when the least fortunate among them are under the harrow of a means test, which some hon. Gentlemen who will support this Motion would still maintain; when money for urgent social services is withheld; when educational development is restricted; when adequate pensions for the aged derelicts of industry are held to be too great a burden for our nation; when we are warned, also, to contemplate heavier taxation—at a time like this we take the view that, justifiable as is the proposal to adjust anomalies and remove unfairness to the extent suggested in the report and in the Motion, we cannot approve of additional aggregate expenditure out of public money for the purposes proposed.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. BANFIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
The mere fact that so many years have elapsed since a Select Committee first inquired into this matter, that so recently as 1930 a further inquiry was held, and that up to the moment no steps have been taken in this matter, shows pretty conclusively that it is a very delicate subject. I listened to the two excellent speeches of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion. They pointed out the anomalies which exist, they laid stress upon the duties of Ministers, they showed the hardships which occur in so many cases and the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) declared that if their proposal was right he, for his part, would not take into account the possible cost. Further, the speeches have clearly indicated that a proposal of this kind cannot very well be kept within the limits of the Motion, that if Ministers' salaries are to he reviewed and the question of Ministers' pensions is to be raised it is obvious that the position of hon. Members of this House who are not Ministers must also be brought in.
But we must pay some attention to public opinion and have regard to those whom we represent, and I am satisfied that a proposal to increase the aggregate amount paid to Ministers would not receive very much support in the country. The country would be inclined to say, "It
1276
may be true that there are anomalies, that salaries are not adjusted as satisfactorily as they might be, but there is no reason why Ministers of the Crown should not pool their salaries and arrange a more equitable distribution of the money." To do that would, in my opinion, go some way to meet the needs of the situation. But if we have a proposal such as was put forward by the Seconder of the Motion, embracing various scales and various increases, I feel that millions of people outside would raise very strong objections to salary increases being granted to Ministers. Not only would the objections come from members of the working classes, but also from members of that vast body of lower middle-class people who have extreme difficulty in carrying on at all in these times, who for the riot part have no social services and have no pension—not even the small pension of 10s. a week—to which to look forward to.
Mr. MACLAY: I tried to point out that the position is not likely to be easier during the next few years, that whatever Government brought forward any such alterations would meet with exactly the same criticism as the hon. Member suggests would arise now, and, that being so, does the hon. Member think that the present anomalies should be allowed to continue for an indefinite number of years?
Mr. BANFIELD: I gather that the point the hon. Member puts to me is, whether these anomalies should continue indefinitely, and the suggestion is that they cannot be removed without, providing a greater sum, in tie aggregate, for Ministers' salaries. I suggest, on the other hand, that it might; be possible to remove some of the anomalies by pooling the present salaries of Ministers. That is a practical suggestion. If there is really all this hardship to Ministers they have a possible and practical remedy in their own hands. I feel that hardly any Member of this House can approve of the enormous sum in salaries and fees which the Law Officers of the Crown draw from year to year, and it might be possible to bring those salaries and fees into the account.
I was very much surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham attempt to defend the present practice by

1277
declaring that unless we are prepared to offer the Law Officers these enormous fees, plus salaries, we shall be unable to get the right class of man. I regard that as a very bad argument. I am fairly certain in my own mind that there are many men occupying high positions in the law who would be very pleased indeed to serve as Law Officers of the Crown for many, many thousands a year less than we are paying at the present time. If hon. Members are looking for more money wherewith to pay Cabinet Ministers higher salaries there is something there which should receive their serious consideration.
A point that rather worries me is this. We have in this country old age pensioners, for instance, with only 10s. a week, who are finding it extremely difficult to live at all, and it has been said many times that even the £400 a, year paid to Members of Parliament—less Income Tax and less all their possible expenses—would seem wealth beyond their dreams to many people, and it would be extremely difficult to go to the ordinary man in the street and say, "My friend, we are very sorry for our Cabinet Ministers. They hardly have sufficient to live on, scarcely sufficient to keep up the dignity of their position. Won't you agree to make some contribution towards putting these Ministers of State in a position above want or above any economic trouble or worry."
It would be very wrong indeed if it should go out from this House that the salaries are the primary considerations which tempt men to serve as Cabinet Ministers. Perhaps I am taking an idealistic view of politicians and Cabinet Ministers, but I believe there are in this country to-day men who are quite prepared to serve their country, and that with them the salary is a secondary and not a primary consideration. A good deal has been said about the position of the Prime Minister. It seems to be generally agreed that the Prime Minister is not sufficiently well paid. The argument is that his position entails expenses for entertaining and that kind of thing, which make serious inroads not only upon his salary but also upon his private purse. If that be so, it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to remedy that state of affairs by making some allowance to the Prime Minister for expenses apart from his salary.
1278
Even if the House were to pass this Motion I am satisfied that it would be 10th to see it implemented in present circumstances. We are confronted kith a period of high taxation. The policy of the Government means that there will be no relief from taxation for some years to come. The policy of the Government does not tend to bring great relief to unemployed people or old age pensioners. However inopportune this matter may have been 10 years ago, it is more inopportune now, having regard to the condition of the majority of the people of this country.
We should be doing very wrong indeed if we did not move an Amendment to limit this expenditure. We recognise the moderation of the case that has been put, and perhaps, in some measure, the justification for the Motion, but I beg the House not to take a step which will inevitably lead to the odious comparison that this House is prepared to spend time, and perhaps the money of the country, in remedying an anomaly affecting a few individuals but, when it is a question of remedying the position of, may be, a million people by adding a little money to old age pensions or unemployment benefit, will say: "We are very sorry for you and for the position in which you find yourselves, but we are unable to do anything for you because the country cannot afford to do so." Many people would say that a lot of people are worse off than Cabinet Ministers. Do not let it be said that we are prepared to apply a remedy in one case while saying that we cannot do anything in the other. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
5.33 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: All speakers are in agreement so far that there are great anomalies in the rates of salaries of Cabinet Ministers and Ministers. I feel very strongly on this subject. It is a matter which ought to have been dealt with years ago. I can remember that before the War Cabinet Ministers and Ministers found considerable difficulty in making both ends meet, but the value of money is now considerably less than it was in 1913 and 1914, and the scale of taxation is almost doubled. This matter ought not to be shirked by successive Governments for

1279
reasons which were put to the House by the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion. It is difficult to justify an expenditure of more money on Cabinet Ministers or on Ministers generally, because other classes in the community are far worse off. I recognise that there are men in the country who are prepared to serve the country and with whom money is a secondary thought, but, in the interests of good government, the idea that a great country like this should be governed by men who give up their time to it and sacrifice thereby something which might have benefited them or their families in their old age is not satisfactory, and is the reason why I am speaking this afternoon.
I can speak with more freedom than, perhaps, any other Member of the House, certainly than the younger men who may fill offices in years to come. I can speak with greater freedom than Members of either Front Bench, because my Parliamentary life is behind me, and I am much more likely to be superannuated than to get a salary as a Minister. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) mentioned the difficulty of changing Ministers from one position to another when their salaries are not alike. It is not easy for a Prime Minister to go to a colleague who may be Secretary of State for War or one of the £5,000-a-year Ministers, and say: "I want your help in the Ministry of Labour," or "I want you to go to the Ministry of Agriculture. You will drop £3,000 a year." It is not only important to the Minister himself but to his family, and to the children whom he may be educating, and there is also the Super-tax which he will be called upon to pay out of his reduced salary. All those things may make it extremely difficult for a Prime Minister to call upon a colleague to take another post.
A clear case occurred in the last Parliament. The present Prime Minister, when he was Lord President of the Council, was the head of the largest party in the State. He obviously had great influence as to whom he could nominate for the great posts of the State. He had a house in Downing Street which cost a considerable sum of money to keep up, but he was paid £2,000 a year, while a Secretary of State had £5,000 a year. As the head of the largest party in the
1280
State he had to do a good deal of entertaining in addition to his other expenses. That state of affairs is absurd. All Ministers, whatever their office, should have equal status and should receive the same pay. You would thus get away from that difficulty of asking a Member of the Cabinet to transfer hip work from one Department to another.
In this country we are indeed fortunate, in that we have a lot of men and women who come into this House because they are interested in politics or are altruistic enough to want to be of service to the community. There is a certain number of what I may call professional politicians. It is difficult to define the term " professional politician," but most of us know a professional politician when we meet him. The great majority of people come into this House with the idea of service. But that does not mean that they have private means. They have to live, and if they have not private means they may have to search for directorships; or perhaps they get into Parliament in order that they may receive higher fees for lectures. All those things are undesirable. In order to get the most efficient administration of the country, adequate payment as a remuneration should be given to Ministers. It is unthinkable that after years spent in the public service a man who has been in the Government for many years should look forward to a future in straitened circumstances. I appeal to anybody who has been in the position of receiving a large salary like £5,000 a year. They cannot save against old age on a sum like that.
If a Member of this House has the important position of Secretary of State, he has certain responsibilities, entailing expenditure, on behalf of himself and his family. He has to maintain some sort of position. In view of the taxation which exists to-day I do not believe that it is possible for any man, even if he is a considerable period in office as Secretary of State, to lay aside sufficient money so that in old age he can be free from anxiety of all kinds. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham mentioned pensions for Ministers. In the Civil Service and the Army and Navy, men who have served the State receive a pension. It is just as necessary, if it is not mere necessary, that men who have devoted their lives to governing the country, and who probably might

1281
have made a great deal more outside the House of Commons, or outside the Government, should have similar consideration. It is essential that there should be some form of deferred payment in the way of pension, perhaps in the way suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, so much a year for each year of service.
It is difficult, in arguing a, case of this kind, not to come to personalities. Many of us had the honour of serving in the same House with the late Lord Oxford and Asquith. Lord Asquith's transcendent abilities would have earned him a large capital sum on which to retire, if he had either continued his work at the Bar or had gone into business. Nobody would deny that. Yet when Lord Asquith had given up his Prime Ministership, after something like nine years, he was so hard up that—I do not think it is indelicate to say—many of his friends helped him to tide over some of his difficulties. That is a scandal, that a man who has been Prime Minister of this country should not have enough to live on. That is why I am speaking so strongly this afternoon.
What is the alternative? Mention was made of reminiscences. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. His book was one of the most interesting books I have read for a long time, but I hate the idea of an ex-Minister of the Crown having to produce something rather highly coloured. If it is not highly coloured it will not sell. I say in front of his face—I would not have said it if he had not been here—that I do not like an ex-Prime Minister writing for the syndicated Press of America for gain. I should have liked him to have been able to put that on one side. No Prime Minister, not being so fortunately situated as the right hon. Gentleman, should be in a position of having to sell his experience, perhaps to the syndicated Press of a foreign country.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Ex-Presidents of the United States of America have done exactly the same.
Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I do not think that makes any difference at all. It is very unfortunate. I do not know whether Presidents of the United
1282
States of America have pensions or not. That is not my argument. The point is that I do not think any man ought to he put in the position of having to do it. I believe that the present Government could bring about this reform far better than hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know it might be said that it was wrong that Ministers should vote themselves increased salaries, or give themselves pensions, when, while others are only getting 10 shillings a week, they are getting as many hundreds. We know that arguments of that kind will be brought forward, but, if we believe it, to be right, and in the best interests of the country, we have to take that risk. And for goodness' sake do not let us have any more Royal Commissions, do not let us have Any more Select Committees. Everything is known about the matter. Let us try to get agreement between the parties, to get them to work together and agree upon a policy. Do not let us say, "Put it off"; do not let this be another academic question which will crop up, perhaps, on a private Member's Motion next year; let us do something; and I think that this is the time at which to do it.
5.47 p.m.
Mr. ERNEST EVANS: My excuse for intervening in this Debate is that I had the privilege of being a member of the Select Committee which in 1930 examined the question involved in the Motion. Our terms of reference were very limited; we were only asked to consider the report that had been made in 1920, and see whether any modifications were necessary as a result of what had intervened between 1920 and 1930. Our report, like those of other committees on which I have sat, has never produced any result, but this is a matter of some importance, and I think we might expect some results from the Government at the present time. There are some matters on which private Members of the House of Commons may properly expect to receive a lead from the Government, but there are other occasions upon which private Members may give a lead to the Government, and I think that this is an example. I hope the House will give expression to-day to an opinion to which the Government will give effect, because it is called the National Government, and this is its first year of office, and if a National Government in its first year of office cannot do

1283
this, I am afraid that no other Government will do it for many years to come.
To my mind this is a matter of policy, for our attitude towards a question like this really represents our attitude towards our Parliamentary system in this country. I think the question of the salaries of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Government is one which affects the dignity and efficiency of Parliamentary government. Among the greatest of the pecularities which exists at the present time is in regard to the salary of the Prime Minister. Every speaker in the Debate has agreed that it is really inconsistent with the dignity of the office of Prime Minister of this great country that a man should be in the position which Lord Asquith described as a position in which a man leaves office poorer than he was when he entered it. There are two possible ways of dealing with the matter. One is to maintain the salary at £5,000 a year and give an extra allowance for expenses. This question was considered by the Select Committee of 1930, and I think that I myself put a question to the present Prime Minister which has a bearing on the point. I asked him whether it was his opinion that it would be preferable to raise the salary from £5,000 to ¢x, rather than to add to the £5,000 a certain amount in respect of expenses. His answer was:
"Oh, much better. You know where you are, and I do not think you could estimate the expenses. I think it is much better that you should see exactly what the income is, and that it should be subject to taxation the same as everybody else's."
I rather think that that was also stated by other witnesses. The Committee heard not only the present Prime Minister, but also the Lord President of the Council who was then Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was an ex-Prime Minister. I do not think anyone will contest the proposition that it is really not consistent with the dignity of this great country that its Prime Minister should be in the position in which he is at the present time. I think we can brush aside the suggestion that this country may not be able to get a Prime Minister by reason of financial considerations. I do not suppose that anybody is likely to refuse the office of Prime
1284
Minister because the acceptance of it might put him to the necessity of applying to his bank manager for an overdraft. I do not think that financial considerations are likely to prevent this country from having the Prime Minister it deserves; I do not think they would prevent the country from having the Prime Minister it wants—and, of course, he may be a very different man from the other. I think the point is that, if you believe in the system of Parliamentary Government, the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, should at least be free from the fretful and vexatious irritations of financial embarrassment.
That has a bearing on another matter in which I personally take a great interest, and that is that, a man, when he ceases to be Prime Minister, should be provided for. Therefore, I personally would welcome the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition, who in normal circumstances is the ex-Prime Minister, should also have an allowance. I attach very great importance to that for two reasons. The, first is a practical one, namely, that the Leader of the Opposition has to devote a very great amount of time to the business of this House; and the second is that, if you gave a salary, or whatever you like to call it, to the Leader of the Opposition, you would be doing something to affirm what is really inherent in the Constitution of this country, namely, that he is the Leader of His Majesty's Opposition, and would be recognising thereby that the existence of an Opposition in this House is of as much importance to the good government of the country as the existence of the Government itself. That would be a valuable contribution to one of the most important principles of our constitutional Government.
In speaking of the other Ministers, apart from the Prime Minister, it may be that we are entering upon debatable ground, but it seems to me very extraordinary that there should be this differentiation between the salaries attached to different offices. I think, if I may say so without having in mind the present holders of the offices, it is rather ridiculous that a mart who occupies the position of Minister of Labour should have a much smaller salary than the Home Secretary, or that the President of the Board of Education should have the same salary as the First Com-

1285
missioner of Works. Those are only two illustrations of the ludicrous differentiation which exists at the present time between the salaries attaching to different offices. My suggestion, and I believe it is incorporated in the Motion, would be that the differentiation should be based on the principle of giving one salary to members of the Cabinet and another salary to Departmental chiefs. I do not know on what principle the Prime Minister makes up his Government, but it is quite a pleasant occupation to sit on the Opposition Benches and observe the conduct of various Members of the Government; and it is also a profitable occupation, because it gives one a great insight into the character of the Prime Minister and the influences which must control the policy of the pary which furnishes the Government at any particular time. I do not think anyone can be in this House for long without wondering why certain people have been put in certain Departments, or even in any Department, and why certain others have not been given office at all; but I feel that a Prime Minister, in forming his Government, must be embarrassed by the fact that there are certain offices the holders of which he thinks he must include in his Cabinet.
There are certain Members of the House from time to time who may be excellent departmental chiefs, and whom the Prime Minister would like to put in a particular department on account of their qualifications. But, while a man has these departmental qualifications, which would cause the Prime Minister to allot him to a particular office, he might not wish to include him in the Cabinet. On the other hand, there might he other men to whom close attention to the infinite detail attaching to a big office would be very irksome, but whose experience, character and knowledge might enable them to exert a powerful influence in the councils of the nation; but such a man cannot be put into the Cabinet unless he is also put into one of these offices. Therefore, while supporting the suggestion that Cabinet Ministers' salaries should he on one level scale, I think the number of Cabinet Ministers should be reduced.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): If we get into a discussion on the question of the construction of the
1286
Cabinet generally, we shall get a very long way from the question raised by the Motion.
Mr. EVANS: With great respect, I thought that that was the most fruitful topic of discussion, but of course I must obey your Ruling. I only introduced it for the purpose of pointing out that it has a bearing on the question of uniformity of salaries, in the sense that, while we are advocating uniformity of salaries for Cabinet Ministers, we are also anxious to assist and strengthen the arm of the Prime Minister by enabling him to choose for membership of the Cabinet those who possess qualities of knowledge and experience which may be of great value in matters of general policy, even though they may not be very well qualified for departmental duties. I am not very much enamoured of the idea of pensions for ex-Cabinet Ministers. If anything of that nature is required, the one thing to avoid is that it should be on the basis that existed before, when it was open to an ex-Cabinet Minister to apply for a pension but when he applied he had to show that he was in need of it. If it should be necessary at all to make provision for ex-Cabinet Ministers, it should be on a very small scale and should be open to everyone without a. means test.
I approach this problem from the point of view of its bearing on our system of Parliamentary government. The institutions of a nation are the institutions of its people, and we in this country have adopted the system of Parliamentary government as the institution which we believe best represents the spirit and the will of the British people. The success or failure of an instrument of that character must depend upon the faith that the people of the country have in it. If we wish to discard our Parliamentary system of government let us do it, but let us do it calmly and with due appreciation of the possibility that when we are discarding the instrument we may also be destroying the institution. But, if we still believe in Parliamentary government, let us be honest, let us be honourable and let us be generous to the servants of that institution. After all, Ministers of the Crown are our servants. One of the surest tests of our faith in our Parliamentary system of government is the treatment that we extend to our servants.

1287
The British are not an ungenerous people. They have shown their generosity in many directions on many occasions. This Motion does not make a very great demand upon the generosity of the people, but it enables us to put our pride into practice, and the British people, in addition to being generous, are a proud people. I feel that the House of Commons to-day would be doing credit to itself if, either by accepting this Motion or in any other way, it took the opportunity of pressing the Government to take action which declared its belief in our system of Parliamentary government, which is the envy of many other countries and which I believe is one of our greatest assets.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not completely in agreement with any of the views that have been put before us. In the first place, I do not accept the view that Cabinet Ministers and others are underpaid and are not fully recompensed for their services. There are differences of payment, but those anomalies run throughout the whole economic system. They are not confined to Parliamentary government or to Cabinet Ministers. Throughout the whole system of society there crop up anomalies which one finds it very difficult to defend. It may be said that the Prime Minister receives £5,000 a year while a person who writes or figures on the stage or the screen receives an income far in excess of that. One could quote barristers who receive large incomes while Members of the Government, who render greater service, may receive less, but viewed from my standard, with my perhaps limited knowledge, limited upbringing and limited outlook, I gasp at the rate at which they are remunerated.
When people talk about £5,000 a year being inadequate it makes me gasp. A salary of £5,000 a year is a tremendous sum, a sum which in my wildest dreams I could not conceive. [An HON. MEMBER: "Less Income Tax!"] Make all the deductions you like. Halve it. Make it £2,500. That is £50 a week. I cannot imagine a sum of such staggering dimensions. I am told about expenses. There used to be a legend in the House that Members of Parliament incurred great expenditure. They had to keep up the
1288
dignity of the House of Commons, and dress and entertain. I am told that the Prime Minister has to entertain at 10, Downing Street. Whom does he entertain? What is the kind of entertainment? I have searched through this 1920 report but I am yet to be impressed about entertaining. Why does he need to do it? As far as I can see, there is no more necessity for the Prime Minister doing all this entertaining than there was for the former Member of Parliament to keep up the so-called traditions. The Labour Government raised salaries and I remember, when I was a supporter of the Labour party, strenuously opposing an increase of salary from £2,000 to £5,000. I cannot follow this idea that Cabinet Ministers are underpaid. Throughout, the length and breadth of the country you have men rendering great service to the community on local authorities without a penny piece of payment.
If we are going into the question of salaries, we have not to start from the angle that the Cabinet Minister is the only man rendering service to the community. We have to examine the subject from the point of view of everyone who is upholding our democratic institutions, and examine the remuneration of the humble city councillors. I think Cabinet Ministers are overpaid. I was not keen to raise this subject. There are important things that we Mould concentrate upon, but this is not one of them, and I was prepared to allow sleeping dogs to lie, but if the question is to be raised I think Ministers are overpaid. If they have legitimate expenses let them at the end of each quarter submit a return of their expenditure to the proper Department. Every State servant has to do it. The permanent chief of the Ministry of Labour makes a return and is paid his expenses. Why should not Cabinet Ministers do the same? I would reduce every one of their salaries considerably.
We have been told time and again that we are passing through difficult times. I often wish they had a means test when I see the Lord President of the Council and his son both in the Cabinet because I do not see how either of them can be hard-up. I think they are very well off indeed. I know this will arouse annoyance, but it is going to be said. We are told that higher salaries might attract better men. In the picking

1289
of Cabinet Ministers if you doubled or trebled salaries you would not often change the occupancy. The Gentleman who occupies the Dominions Office only holds it because his father held office before him. In the ordinary run of political events, if it had not been for that he would have occupied a very minor back-bench position. Everyone knows it. There is nothing outstanding. I should be the last to penalise a man because of his father. I can conceive of a man who had a distinguished father and was also distinguished himself, but I can see nothing in this case.
Both the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) and, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) made persuasive speeches. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham reached an eloquence which I have never heard him attain before, and I only wish it had been in a better cause. He stated that the salary of Members of Parliament was not sufficient and should be £600 a year, but, speaking for myself and. not for my colleagues, do not take the view that Members of Parliament are underpaid. I receive £400 a year as a Member of Parliament, and I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members in this House who does not receive any added income. In addition to the expense of living in town, I have to keep a home in Glasgow, where I represent a division which contains a terrible amount of poverty. I have a volume of correspondence equal to that of any of my colleagues, and greater perhaps than that of most hon. Members. I live decently and well, and never grumble about my income. I get all the necessaries of life, and I do not envy anybody who is more highly paid. My one great desire is to see the people whom I represent bettered, and before demanding any increase of my salary, at least I ought to demand some kind of increase for the toiling people whom I represent. I do not think that a Member of Parliament, if he exercises ordinary care and observes the ordinary decencies of life, is in any way underpaid.
I was not altogether happy when I used to sit with colleagues in the Labour party because there were Members who also held other positions, thus receiving more than they had previously. I am not keen on making membership of Parliament any more attractive than it is.
1290
As far as hon. Members in the group to which I belong are concerned, no matter what Committee may be set up, we shall oppose any increase in salaries. Hon. Members who sit on this side used to agree with us. The "Forward" which was edited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) carried on a campaign for years to reduce the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. But I am aware that that editor afterwards became a Cabinet Minister himself and somewhat altered his opinion, but that does not really matter. We were in agreement, and I still intend to abide by that position. The House of Commons, instead of discussing a Motion of this kind concerning Ministers' salaries, which I think are ample, and in many cases, possibly excessive, would have done itself greater credit if it had discussed other people with a greater claim. We shall support the Amendment, and if it is defeated, oppose the Motion.
6.20 p.m.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I intervene at this stage for a few minutes because I do not profess to be able to state the Government attitude on the question, except that the matter which has been the subject of consideration by two Select Committees is one upon which the Government are anxious to know the opinion of the House of Commons. The result of the discussion in the House to-day will be made a matter for serious and perhaps active consideration by the Government. It has emerged from the discussion that there is a great deal of unanimity on many points. It is true that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has delivered a speech in which he has raised practically a single voice against the arguments which have been used by other hon. Members. He will forgive me if I do not follow him into all the things he raised in his very interesting speech, because this is a question of getting the sense of the House.
The Motion is of interest to the Government. The first point which emerges upon which there is agreement, is the question of the Prime Minister's salary. That has been referred to by two previous Select Committees, and my hon. Friends who introduced this Motion and

1291
who treated the subject with such moderation seemed to follow the same line. The hon. Member for Gorbals takes the view that the Prime Minister's office at £5,000 a year is overpaid. Surely the fact is that, taking life as it is and not perhaps as it ought to be, it is a lamentable thing that the four last holders of that office, as one of them expressed it, left office after years of devoted service to the State each the poorer than when they entered it.
The House would no doubt agree that politics of any sort and concerns of State should never be made, as long as the Parliamentary system is in force, a money-making career. The man who goes into politics turns his back upon a great number of the monetary prizes which are held open to other vocations. At the same time, though that is true and right, I do not think that it could be the wish of this country or of the House that these great duties should be performed solely by reason of a subvention paid to the State out of a man's private pocket. For that reason there seems to be in the House general agreement that the office, being what it is and the calls upon it being what they are, is a matter worthy of Government consideration.
Hon. Members have noted the great anomalies and inequalities which exist in the salaries of Ministers. That is due, as the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) mentioned, to' the fact that these salaries were fixed at different times when the offices were of different importance from what they are to-day. The general view seems to be, if I interpret it correctly, that the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1920 is probably a good line to follow, that when a Minister is a Cabinet Minister he should get the same salary no matter what particular office he holds. It is worth while to point out to the House the fact, of which no doubt hon. Members are well aware, that a great deal of the work of modern government is carried on by means of Cabinet Committees. Therefore, although the Minister may be attached for Departmental purposes to a certain office he has, if he is in the Cabinet, to acquaint himself with a vast variety of topics which lie outside the pale of that Department
1292
altogether. Consequently Members of the Cabinet have to work very hard upon matters quite distinct from their own Departments. As they share the responsibility, there seems to be a good case for some equalisation in the emoluments given to them by the State.
I was greatly impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) said about the Secretary of State for Scotland. He discharges in that office the functions for his own country which are discharged by four other first-class Ministers in England. A vast variety of administration passes through his hands. Here perhaps I am a little at variance with the hon. Member for Gorbals. Apart from his contribution to the Debate, there appears to be a general agreement that the salaries at present paid to Ministers are not excessive. I exclude him from that general agreement. I ask the House to notice one great fact which has considerably altered the value of the salaries since the time they were originally fixed. When a Cabinet Minister in Victorian times received a salary of £5,000 a year, he got away with the greater part of it, because at the time Income Tax was a very small affair; but the immense increase in the incidence of direct taxation has made very striking changes in the actual emoluments received by Ministers. Take a Minister, say, with £5,000 a year who is married and has one child, and suppose he has nothing but his £5,000 a year. The total emoluments he receives, after deduction of Income Tax, are £3,676. That means that by these fiscal changes the salaries of Ministers have in the last 100 years in actual fact undergone a progressive decrease. Therefore, I think that it will be agreed that the emoluments received are not excessive.
The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield seeks to confine the action of the House in this matter to a mere pooling of the salaries at present paid. It would seek to fetter the Government in any action they might take by the proviso that the aggregate sum paid in salaries should not be increased. I do not believe that that is in accordance with the wish of the majority of Members who have spoken today, but I can see great difficulties in principle. Why should you take the total sum paid out to-day as the final word of wisdom on what the total of Minister'

1293
salaries should be? The State is by no means a static organisation, its activities develop and multiply in a most surprising fashion, and consequently, to say, "This would always have to do for the future" or, "We pay to-day in salaries to our servants so much, and we are never going to pay any more, no matter what the position is," would be a position that it would be impossible to defend.
The point raised by hon. Members, as to the impropriety of raising Ministerial salaries when there are, alas, so many of our fellow subjects who have not enough, struck a sympathetic chord in the hearts of hon. Members, but I suggest. that that is not relevant to the subject-matter of this issue. This is not a question of voting money for a particular purpose. The real question at issue is that the House are asking themselves, "Are we paying our servants enough?" The State employs a great number of servants, and I think that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield does not suggest that because there is poverty in some places in this country, we should not pay the civil servants, the industrious employés of the State, adequate remuneration. Surely that would be a position which would be contrary to every principle of Government. The Government in its industrial activities has to employ people and has always tried, and I hope will still try, to be in the front rank of employers in regard to wages and conditions. It is a poor suggestion to say that because there is poverty in some cases we should not pay adequate remuneration.
This is a private Member's Motion and the House is grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter. We discuss matters which sometimes raise questions of policy affecting the world at large on private Members' Motions, and on those occasions the Government spokesman has to give an indication of the Government's view. This is a question which is properly raised by a private Member, and I can only say that the discussion will be taken into most serious consideration by the Government and may form the basis of action if they so decide.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: The House is indebted to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the way in which they
1294
have presented it to the House. They gave us some quite illuminating information in support of their case, but I, and I think other hon. Members, feel a little regret that the hon. Member gave notice of his Motion in such narrow terms. There are obviously other anomalies, in connection with our arrangements in this House, which equally call for attention. For instance, there is the difference between the pay of Minister and Minister in the Cabinet, and you also have the anomaly that in some cases a Minister in charge of a Department actually receives less than his Permanent Secretary. So far as our internal arrangements are concerned—I, of course, make no reflection whatever on the occupants of the office—I feel sure that there is no hon. Member who will logically defend the extraordinary difference in the matter of pay meted out to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. One gets £2,500 and the other £1,000. It seems to me a wholly illogical differentiation. Both these occupants serve the House with acceptance to all hon. Members, but there is this anomaly which exists in the case of these two highly respected hon. Members.
There are further anomalies—I will not speak of them in detail—in respect of the very onerous responsibilities which are discharged by some hon. Members of this House for which they get no recognition and no assistance. That is why I regret that the hon. Member has confined his attention to the anomalies which arise in connection with the salaries of Ministers, the Prime Minister in particular, and has not covered a wider field in order to deal with other anomalies which exist. If the Government are going to examine this question, and I rather gather that they will, I hope they will cast their eyes a little further afield than the confines of the Motion and remove some of the glaring and obvious anomalies which cry aloud for attention. Let me deal with another anomaly which occurs in regard to entertainment. I cannot accept entirely what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says. The lord mayors of cities and many mayors of other towns —
Mr. BUCHANAN: I used the term "Lord Provosts," and by law the Lord

1295
Provosts of Glasgow and of Edinburgh are given no allowance.
Mr. JONES: I had forgotten that Scotland is rather more economical than England. But in England lord mayors of cities, and very frequently, indeed almost invariably, the mayors of boroughs, get an allowance of £500 or £1,000, sometimes more, to enable them to discharge the function of entertaining which falls upon them in the discharge of their duties. There is an anomaly here. Some Ministers, qua Ministers, never have the responsibility of entertaining; other Ministers, qua Ministers, have a great deal of entertaining to discharge. For instance, the task of entertaining discharged by the President of the Board of Education and the Foreign Secretary simply cannot be compared. The Foreign Secretary, having to meet foreign representatives as he did last week, obviously has to show some hospitality, and, therefore, it seems to me that there is a case for this element of entertaining, but I submit—and here I think the hon. Member for Gorbals will agree—if he is to undertake entertaining at all it ought not to be part of his salary; it ought not to fall upon him personally, but should be an expense incurred through some form of government hospitality, a hospitality which the nation should bear and not the Minister concerned. I am in entire agreement with the Financial Secretary that it is a bad thing that payment for this hospitality should be provided by way of a subvention from the person's private pocket. Wherever it is desirable I think it should be an entirely separate item from the Minister's salary, an item which should fall directly upon public funds.
Captain CAZALET: Does the hon. Member refer to the Government hospitality fund, because there is such a fund, which is used by Ministers for entertaining; or does he refer to private hospitality, which it may be desirable to extend?
Mr. JONES: It is rather difficult to determine at what point Government hospitality begins and private hospitality ends, but I am sure that some modus vivendi can be established whereby the Government hospitality fund should bear a certain part of the burden, leaving the other part of the burden to the Minister
1296
to bear, within certain well-defined rules. In regard to the case of the Prime Minister, I have heard from individual Prime Ministers the inevitable expenses which fall upon them because of their occupancy of No. 10, Downing Street, that I feel very sympathetic to them. What I am going to say now may send many persons who have a high regard for ancient monuments into a paroxysm of anger, but for my part I should get rid of No. 10, Downing Street as a residence for the Prime Minister. It is a hopelessly unsuitable place and a much more modern and acceptable place should be available as an official residence, leaving No. 10 to be used for conferences. There is indeed an anomaly in regard to residences. There is Admiralty House, which I am told is an exceedingly expensive place to maintain, and which entails a personal expenditure on the incumbent of that office apart from any other expenses he may incur on behalf of the Government. The same applies to the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The whole question of residences ought to be considered as a separate item from the personal salary of the Minister concerned.
I think I should agree that the Prime Minister's case is somewhat different from that of the rest of the Cabinet, but if you except the item of entertainment and the question of residence, I do not think that there is a case at this particular moment for reconsidering Cabinet Minister's salaries. I express that view with some reluctance, because I have never had experience of Cabinet office, and those who have may throw more light upon the problem. But we must not forget this fact, and it is the dominating consideration for me. This House and the last House insisted for the general mass of the poor of this country that they should not get support except on the basis of a means test. How can a House which persists in maintaining that provision honestly go and increase Cabinet salaries in this way at this juncture? I do not think it is a desirable thing to do; I do not think it is quite a dafensible thing to do. I am all in favour of equalising the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. A Cabinet Minister may apparently occupy what seems to be a light job and a less onerous post than another, but such is the work of the modern Cabinet that Cabinet committees are set up on all sorts of subjects and Cabinet Ministers have to be conscripted for this and the other committee.

1297
In these days, when we insist—I use the word "insist" without any diffidence, for we have challenged it and the House has insisted—that this money shall be spent only after the most meticulous and exhaustive examination, how can we go to the country and defend the proposition that we should increase salaries for those who have themselves conceived that machinery? Therefore, while we are in favour of the general proposal for a readjustment of salaries within the ambit of the present aggregate expenditure, plus special consideration for the Prime Minister, and plus some special form of provision for entertainment and inevitable expenditure of that sort, we are not convinced that there is an urgent case for the application of the Motion proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
I trust there will be no objection to my making a further observation. There are many who dislike speaking about their own salaries, but I do not see why Members of Parliament should be afraid to speak of their salaries. After all, we have a task to discharge and many of us, in carrying out our job of being Members of Parliament, undertake great risks. I do not speak for myself, since I am fortunate enough to have a very safe seat, but there are men who come into this House and who do not know what will be their chances of being in the next Parliament. They make a complete break with their profession, and they do not know what will happen to them politically at the end of four years. The risk is a very big one, and the older the man, the nearer to 45 or 50, the bigger the risk, for then he cannot return to his job and pick up the threads where he left them three or four years previously. Consequently, it seems to me that the case for the consideration of the remuneration of Members of Parliament is as insistent as that of the remuneration of Cabinet Ministers. If my memory does not play me false, I think I once heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for. West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) speak very eloquently any sympathetically on this matter. It is a matter which the House ought not to be ashamed to consider afresh in the most sympathetic terms.
There is one other side of this question which has so far not been mentioned in the Debate. I have never been a
1298
delegate on behalf of the Government at an international conference, but friends of mine have been, and I know of their experience. They have found that the scale of allowance given to our delegates when they go abroad, and have to return hospitality as they have to accept it during that time, is one which is hopelessly at variance with needs. Let us, if we wish, be mean to each other and to ourselves inside the boundaries of our own country—
Mr. BUCHANAN: What you want is that they should have a blow-out.
Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman must not talk such nonsense.
Mr. BUCHANAN: That is what you are asking for.
Mr. JONES: No, I am not. If hon. Gentlemen have to go abroad, they must meet other delegates, and very frequently the only opportunity of meeting them is around a table. That is something which cannot be avoided. Our delegates cannot always accept hospitality from other people and not give any in return, and if they return it they must obviously do so on the same scale. If they are not able to do so, their country is, so to speak, held up in an adverse light as compared with other countries. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals will acquit me of any desire to see men spending public money wildly or fruitlessly, but I want to see our representatives abroad able to maintain their position with dignity and without there being any possibility of adverse reflections upon the dignity of the country which they represent.
In conclusion, we feel obliged to support our Amendment in the Division Lobby to-night, because we feel that the circumstances of the time, while justifying the adjustment in the sense which we indicate, do not justify us in going the whole length of the Motion moved by the hon. Member.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he discerned on certain matters a degree of unanimity among speakers in this Debate. I would like to emphasise another matter on which I believe there is a great degree of agreement in the House. Speaking for the

1299
Government, my hon. Friend said that on entering a political career a man finally turns his back on great and glittering monetary prizes. I think that is true, except in one case—that of the Law Officers and any Member of the Government who eventually becomes Lord Chancellor. Indeed, I feel it is only a man such as the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) who, in the matter of the remuneration of the Law Officers, would have the skill, the courage, or the charm so successfully to excuse the status quo. The recent promotion of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) to be the ruler of the King's Navy, Army and Air Force has exposed the greatest anomaly of all. The right hon. Member is to receive as much as the Prime Minister and yet at the same time he has to sustain the loss of about three-quarters of his former emoluments.
It has always seemed to me to be a fantastic thing that the Law Officers of England should receive the one about four times and the other twice as much as the Prime Minister, without even holding office in the Cabinet, and both, in theory at least, occupying merely minor offices in the Government. In order that the House may realise the precise enormity of this anomaly, may I respectfully recall to their memory some information given to me to-day by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at Question time? He said that the total emoluments in fees and salaries during the 10 financial years ended 31st March, 1935, were as follows: Attorneys-General, £188,067; Solicitors-General, £114,212. Let the House observe that those figures represent the remuneration received by the two Law Officers for a period of 10 years, including two or three years of acute industrial depression. The House is aware that the Attorney-General, now that his cut has been restored, receives £7,000 per annum, in addition to fees, and that the Solicitor-General again gets £6,000 per annum, also in addition to fees.
Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The full scale to which he has referred was reduced at the time of the cuts in 1931, and each Law Officer received
1300
£2,500. When the other cuts were restored, the cuts of the Law Officers were restored only to the extent that the Attorney-General receives £5,000 a year and the Solicitor-General £4,000 a year. That is in addition to fees.
Mr. ADAMS: Any member of the Bar would be very happy indeed to be in receipt of sums of between £16,000 and £20,000 per annum.
Captain CAZALET: May I point out that up to the time the present Lord Chancellor occupied the position of Attorney-General, the average life of a Law Officer in this country was one year and eight months. Thai has to be taken into consideration.
Mr. ADAMS: Yes, a short life and a very profitable one. An hon. Member had contended that a proportion of the fees which go to the Law Oficers come out of the costs paid by those litigating against the Crown when they lose their case, but a very small proportion comes from that source, because in many cases the Crown is not allowed to recover costs. Surely, the more sensible and equitable thing to do, when the costs are recovered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Crown, would be to return them to the Exchequer. I think I have illustrated the magnitude of this particular enormity. If it be suggested that Law Officers forgo greater remuneration at the Bar by accepting office under the Crown, I must frankly state that that is an argument which has never impressed me. In the first place, it is by no means invariably true, and surely the holding of an office under the Crown should be some compensation for any hypothetical loss. It seems to me nothing short of a slur upon the honour of the members of my own profession to suggest that they are solely concentrating upon lining their own pockets. Moreover, do not other Ministers who had great commercial connections before entering the Government sacrifice them when entering the Cabinet or some subsidiary office? There is also the virtual certainty of a Law Officer eventually occupying some important position on the Bench.
My learned Friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are not present at the moment, but if by accident they read my remarks, they must not re-

1301
gard that which I have been saying as in any way a personal attack. Their ability and integrity fully entitle them to receive as much as any of their predecessors. I hope they will forgive me when I say that the lop-sided good fortune which attends their offices seems to me nothing short of a public scandal. Nor have I ever been able to understand why the Lord Chancellor should not merely be certain of a pension of no less than £5,000, but during his tenure of office should receive double that which the Prime Minister receives. I think those are possibly the worst of the existing numerous anomalies.
There is one other example I would like to give the House before sitting down. Nobody in this House would dispute the proposition that the office of Minister of Labour is a most important one, carrying with it Cabinet rank and consequently involving special responsibility for Government policy. Hon. Members will recall the sad tale of that Ministry, and they will agree that it has become an historic death trap. It is only the possession of peculiar qualities and of a stubborn tenacity of life that has enabled former Ministers of Labour to emerge still breathing from that lethal chamber. But, no less than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health, both of whom receive £5,000 a year, the Minister of Labour is to-day directly charged with the welfare of tens of millions of his fellow-citizens. He is the butt of every criticism, the victim of a thousand unpopularities. He has to spend most of his time squaring his shoulders, hardening his heart and keeping a stiff upper lip, while a relatively miserable £2,000 is his reward for voluntarily walking the political plank. I think that £5,000 is handsome, if not excessive, remuneration for any Minister, except perhaps the Prime Minister. There is one Member who, under our present dispensation, is most unfairly treated. I refer to the Leader of the Opposition. If the First Commissioner of Works is allowed to receive £2,000 a year, and the Secretary of State for War, who has now in some sense become subordinate to the Defence Minister, is in receipt of £5,000 a year, is it not reasonable to expect that one who is burdened with so many heavy responsibilities and multitudinous duties might receive public recognition to the extent of £2,000 a year?
Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue that subject, because I ruled it out of order early in this Debate.
Mr. ADAMS: I am extremely sorry, and I submit to your Ruling. I had not heard, or I had overlooked what you had said. I hope the House will accept my apology for referring to what you have ruled to be irrelevant. I am not in favour of excessive remuneration for any Minister. Although I recognise that to-day it is impossible to resist the plea for the payment of Members of Parliament, I am even ideally opposed to that principle. To sit and to work in this, the first assembly in the world, where nothing but the best is good enough, should be in theory enough reward for any citizen. A fortiori, the duty and privilege of formulating and directing policy with which Ministers of the Crown are invested, and in particular the Ministers in the Cabinet, should go far towards being in itself a full, perfect, and sufficient reward.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. BELLENGER: My qualifications for intervening in this Debate are not very substantial. I have not been a Minister, and if the prognostications of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) are correct, there is little likelihood of me being so for at least 10 years. I want to deal with the principles of this Motion. It is, that if we are to have Cabinet Ministers, what is an adequate salary to pay them? We on these benches are constantly insisting that the bottom-dog should be adequately paid for his job, and there is no reason that I can see why Cabinet Ministers should not also be adequately paid. Some hon. Members may say that they are being paid too much. I have no doubt that there are people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) who think that even he is paid too much. It is purely a question of imagination. When the hon. Member says he is aghast at £5,000 a year it is simply a question of his imagination, just as it is when one of his constituents, or one of mine, says, "You are getting too much when we give you £400." Personally, I do not think we are getting too much.
When we come to this question of Ministers' salaries we are in honour

1303
hound also to consider the question of private Members' salaries. I know that is not in this Motion, and I do not want to trespass outside it, but the Seconder of the Motion has suggested to the Government that if they consider this question a committee of back-bench Members should be set up to consider a wider aspect than Cabinet Ministers' salaries or the equalisation of those salaries. I have heard the principle of equalisation discussed before, and in different circumstances. I have heard it enunciated from many Labour platforms, and it is interesting to note the way the Mover of the Motion is going when he suggests that Cabinet Ministers' salaries should be equalised. The labourer is worthy of his hire, whether he is the lowest worker in the land, a Cabinet Minister or a Member of Parliament. Who will deny that Cabinet Ministers and Members of this House have very onerous duties? I am a new Member, but I am expected to stay up all hours of the day and night, to carry out my Parliamentary duties. If we are rendering a service to the State we ought to be adequately recompensed for those duties. I hope that the suggestion made by the Seconder will not be lost sight of. It would be a good procedure to set up a committee of back bench Members, guided by the proper officials, to decide what are proper salaries for Ministers and for private Members.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. H. MITCHELL: I find myself in agreement with many things that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said. We are indebted to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for bringing up this subject. With the onerous and increasing duties of Members of the Cabinet it cannot be said that they are highly paid in comparison with the remuneration in other fields. In selecting Ministers to carry out the various work that has to be done in the government of the country, men should not be required to accept salaries so very much below those paid in industry. There is a limit to the amount of sacrifice that should be imposed on these people holding high office, and anybody who reads the evidence of the two Committees on this subject must admit that the Prime Minister in particular has been greatly under-remunerated during
1304
past years. I find myself not altogether in agreement with the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) regarding the position of the Law Officers of the Crown. Everyone will agree that the remuneration that they receive is certainly high, but against that you have to remember that a man who rises to the top of the Bar has spent many years in which he has probably made little or nothing, and only for a comparatively short time is he in a position to earn these high fees. In accepting the post of Law Officer they make in the majority of cases a financial sacrifice, and they are being remunerated in representing the Crown at a lower rate than their opponents who are handling the cases on the other side. There is a good deal to be said in favour of their being remunerated at a high rate. While it is true that other Ministers may make sacrifices on taking cilice and giving up directorships and so on, there are few who are able to earn in directors fees or salaries anything like the few successful leaders of the Bar are earning.
I would favour consideration being given by the Government to the question of pensions. I do not see why a man who has served his country for many years in high office should afterwards, perhaps through having no opportunity to earn money for himself in other directions, find himself in the latter years of his life in somewhat difficult and straitened circumstances. There was a time when those holding office in the Government were mostly people with large private means. That time has passed away. The majority of people now are living under altogether different circumstances. I have looked at the salaries paid before the War to the various Ministers. In almost every case where the office remains the same the remuneration is identical with that which was being paid in 1913. I do not need to remind the House of the immense differences that have taken place since then in the cost of living, not to mention the great increase of taxation which Ministers have to bear. Most consideration has been given this afternoon to the position of the Prime Minister and the principal Cabinet Ministers. I think the attention of the Government should be drawn to the remuneration of the junior Ministers. They are probably worse paid in comparison to the amount of work and

1305
responsibility imposed on them even than Cabinet Ministers in some cases. Some junior Ministers are getting £1,200 a year. They lose their Parliamentary salary, and they probably lose also certain Income Tax rebates which they cannot obtain under their salaries as Ministers and which they might obtain under their Parliamentary salaries.
I welcome the setting up of a committee of back bench Members to draw up definite proposals on the whole problem. I can understand that the Government are naturally diffident about bringing in legislation of this kind, and particularly after the appeals that have been made similar to that of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We all realise that it is not an easy thing for the Government to make proposals which will mean that its own Members may be more highly remunerated, but I think that some of the arguments that have been advanced go beyond that point. Because certain people in this country are not as highly paid as we would like them to be, I do not think it is an adequate reason for the Government not remunerating sufficiently those who give the best part of their lives to carrying on the work of government, which, after all, has to be done by somebody. I feel that if this change is to be effected, it must be done by a measure of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. It would be impossible to carry out large alterations in the scales of payment of Ministers without a measure of agreement among all parties. It is a matter which merits consideration and consultation between the parties.
I hope the Government will face the need of getting something done. I believe, further, that a great responsibility in this matter is placed upon the private Members of the House. In most cases, the Government is expected to give a lead. In this case the lead must come from the back benches. Therefore, I welcome the amount of agreement which has been shown in this Debate. Not only ought we to urge the Government to act in this matter and to carry out the recommendations of these two committees, but, in addition, if proposals are made, we ought to justify those proposals and explain them to our constituents. If we do so, I believe we shall find the great
1306
mass of the people of all parties behind such proposals.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. PRITT: I wish to give what little help I can to the House in connection with the position of the Law Officers. Before doing so, I desire to associate myself fully with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and other hon. Members, on the gross inequality which exists between the earnings and salaries of the class from which Members of the Government are predominantly drawn, and the earnings of the mass of the people. I believe that gross inequality to be at the root of every social evil and to be indefensible and cruel, and, on principle, I would vote against any large salaries for any persons in order to mark my sense of that injustice. That does not prevent me giving what assistance I can to the House on this question of the Law Officers on the assumption that, not only is the labourer worthy of his hire but that some labourers, for some mysterious reason, are worthy of a hire which is 150 or 200 times greater than the hire of many other people who are just as good citizens.
The only reason why I intervene in the Debate is that I may be able to give some enlightenment to hon. Members, from the knowledge which I have gained as a member of the Bar, on the position of the Law Officers. To everybody it will seem that, judged by any scale, they are highly remunerated. It has, of course, to be remembered that anyone who is appointed a Law Officer at once goes right out of private practice and that he cannot resume his private practice until his term of office is finished, if he has riot become a judge in the meantime. That may be one reason for the very high remuneration of Law Officers, but it should be regarded with some caution. Except for the people why incur unpopularity with that section of the community which has the giving out of well-paid briefs—by, for instance, Socialist politics—the experience, ordinarily, of Law Officers is that they return to private practice with greatly increased prestige by reason of the fact that they have been Law Officers. That added prestige far outweighs the consequences of the temporary break in their private practice, caused by having accepted and held Law Officer ships. I do not think therefore the House need feel any particular sympathy

1307
with the Law Officer for having to give up his private practice.
Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that those who were the Law Officers in the last Labour Government, have been received back into private practice?
Mr. PRITT: If we are to go into personalities, it is a fact that one of them received no briefs of any description for four months after leaving office. I do not want to go into personalities, but since the hon. Member has raised the question I may say that it is also a fact that, while you may be received back into practice, you may not get many briefs because of your politics. I discovered that a few years ago when I was conducting a very well-paid case for a client who had withdrawn it from an ex-Law Officer of a Socialist Government, because he would not allow any money to go near any Socialist. Of course, like most people who hold those views, he was stupid and did not know what he was doing. The difficulty is to know on what scale the payment of Law Officers ought to be based. In practice there are many instances of people becoming more highly paid as a result of having been Law Officers. There are also many instances of people making large immediate pecuniary sacrifices by becoming Law Offices.
I respectfully agree with what was said by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). I do not believe that any member of the Bar would refuse a Law Officership on the ground that his income was being diminished thereby. Apart from the prestige, there is a greatly increased prospect of receiving some of the higher judicial appointments. That is to put the case at the lowest but, regarding the matter from the more honourable point of view, I do not think any member of the Bar would refuse to act as a Law Officer in the service of a party with whose principles he thoroughly agreed. Indeed I think the only instance of anybody refusing a Law Officership, was that of the late Lord James of Hereford. But on what basis is a Law Officer to be paid? As a general rule, while the scale of fees paid in private practice has gone up and down, not only with rises and falls of prosperity but
1308
even with fads and fashions, the fees of Law Officers have been, on the whole, a good deal lower than the fees in private practice. In recent years, however, the fees of Law Officers have tended to rise. There is a common view that the actual salary paid to a Law Officer is by way of compensation for the lower scale of fees, but I believe the historical reason is quite a simple one, namely, that in the nineties of the last century it was found necessary to retain the Law Officers, who had hitherto been allowed to engage in private practice, solely for the service of the Crown. They had to be paid something in the nature of compensation accordingly.
I am not able to give the House much help or enlightenment as to exactly what is the fair thing to do in respect of Law Officers' fees. If the Motion is adopted, Ministers' salaries, in gene rat, are being put on a fairly level sc ale or series of scales. I would suggest that the Law Officers ought to be paid salaries like other Ministers, and no fees. The question of how large those salaries should be is a matter for consideration. There is a great distinction between the position of the Law Officers and that of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is an eminent officer who gives up a high position at the Bar, generally speaking, although he may already be holding judicial office. Normally, however, he goes to the Woolsack from a high position at the Bar and he gives up for ever his prospects of earning at the Bar. He cannot go back, whereas the Law Officer, as soon as his term of office is finished, if he does not go on to the Bench, can go back to the Bar in the circumstances already described. I do not desire to travel over any other part of the ground already covered in this Debate.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Several hon. Members have said that the country's dignity is directly bound up with the question of the adequate remuneration of those who hold high offices of State. I desire to support that point of view, and that is Ian gel why I oppose the Amendment. I agree that to iron out some of the inequalities which exist would be a very good work. It is an impossible position that certain Cabinet Ministers, holding highly responsible positions, should be paid lower salaries

1309
than other Cabinet Ministers who are doing no more responsible work. I also think that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Mitchell), that the salaries of junior Ministers should be increased is worth consideration.
Comparisons have been made between the salaries paid to Ministers in this country and the salaries of Ministers in other countries and also the salaries obtainable in other walks of life. There is one comparison, however, which brings out the fact that the Amendment would not go far enough if we wish to maintain the dignity of the central government in this country. Many local authorities pay their principal officials higher salaries than are paid to Cabinet Ministers and Under-Secretaries. There is one county clerk in Scotland who gets a higher salary than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and a, far higher salary than the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. One does not grudge those salaries to the county clerks, who are hard-working people, but clearly, it is wrong that their standard should be higher than that of the people who are at the centre and who have to carry much greater responsibilities.
No doubt there is a great deal in the point that the "under-dog" requires more consideration. At the same time, I think the Opposition have stressed that point too much. The sum involved is
comparatively small. It is not as if they suggested that we should hand this sum out to the poorer people. No one will be a penny the better if we refuse to give these suggested increases. But I think, as was said in the "Times" this morning, that it is little short of a scandal that a great rich country should not pay adequate salaries to those who are doing its principal business. I think it is vital that the Prime Minister should receive an adequate pension. I am not sure that I like the suggestion that it should be increased according to the number of years of office. I think it would be better to say that when a Prime Minister has held office for a certain period he should become entitled to a certain fixed pension, and that that pension should be of such a kind as to place him beyond the necessity of doing any journalistic or other work for a living. I am not sure that in the case of other Ministers the necessity is so great, but it is clearly undesirable that an ex-Prime Minister should have to do work of that sort in order to obtain a living. I hope the Government, as a result of this Debate, will not hesitate but will take action quickly to end a state of affairs which is no credit to a great country.
Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 101.

Division No. 119.]

AYES.

[7.30 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Christie, J. A.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Clarry, R. G.

Gibson, C. G.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Apsley, Lord

Cross, R. H.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Hanbury, Sir C.

Assheton, R.

De Chair, S. S.

Hannah, I. C.

Atholl, Duchess of

Denville, Alfred

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Balniel, Lord

Dodd, J. S.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Donner, P. W.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Drewe, C.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Beaumont. Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Holdsworth, H.

Beit, Sir A. L.

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Holmes, J. S.

Bernays, R. H..

Duggan, H. J.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Eastwood, J. F.

Hopkinson, A.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Boulton, W. W.

Ellis, Sir G.

Hunter, T.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

Elmley, Viscount

Jackson, Sir H.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

James, Wing-Commander A. W.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Erskine Hill, A. G.

Joel, D. J. B.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Bull, B. B.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Carver, Major W. H.

Findlay, Sir E.

Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

Cary, R. A.

Fleming, E. L.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Channon, H.

Foot, D. M.

Lees-Jones, J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Penny, Sir G.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Loftus, P. C.

Pownall, Sir A. Assheton

Spens, W. P.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Procter, Major H. A.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Ramsden, Sir E.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral sir M. F.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Sutcliffe, H.

Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Train. Sir J.

Magnay, T.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Turton, R. H.

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Rowlands, G.

Wakefield, w. W.

Maxwell, S. A.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

White, H. Graham

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Scott, Lord William

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Selley, H. R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Munro, P. M.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Owen, Major G.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

TELLERS POR THE AYES.—

Mr. Maclay and Captain Cazalet.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Ritson, J.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Groves, T. E.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Rowson, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Salter, Or. A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Sanders, W. S.

Banfield, J. W.

Hopkin, D.

Sexton, T. M.

Benson, G.

Jagger, J.

Shinwell, E.

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Silverman, S. S.

Bromfield, W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Brooke, W.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Buchanan, G.

Kirby, B. V.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Burke, W. A.

Leach, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cape, T.

Leonard, W.

Stephen, C.

Cassells, T.

Leslie, J. R.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Charleton, H. C.

Logan, D. G.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Cluse, W. S.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Cocks, F. S.

McGovern, J.

Thorne, W.

Daggar, G.

Maclean, N.

Thurtle, E.

Dalton, H.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Viant, S. P.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Marklew, E.

Walkden, A. G.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Mathers, G.

Walker, J.

Day, H.

Maxton, J.

Watkins, F. C.

Dobble, W.

Milner, Major J.

Watson, W. McL.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Montague, F.

Westwood, J.

Ede, J. C.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

Whiteley, W.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Naylor, T. E.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gallacher, W.

Paling, W.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Gardner, B. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Potts, J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Pritt, D. N.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Quibell, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Mr. Lathan and Mr. Tinker.

Grenfell, D. R.

Rlley, B.

Main Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 56.

Division No. 120.]

AYES.

[7.40 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

Bird, Sir R. B.

Cross, R. H.

Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

Boulton, W. W.

Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

De Chair, S. S.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Denville, Alfred

Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Dodd, J. S.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

Donner, P. W.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Bull, B. B.

Drewe, C.

Assheton, R.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

Atholl, Duchess of

Carver, Major W. H.

Duckworth W. R. (Moss Side)

Balniel, Lord

Cary, R. A.

Duggan, H. J.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Channon, H.

Eastwood, J. F.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Christie, J. A.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

Clarry, R. G.

Ellis, Sir G.

Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

Cobb, Sir C. S.

Elmley, Viscount

Belt, Sir A. L.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Bernays, R. H.

Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Lees-Jones, J.

Salmon, Sir I.

Findlay, Sir E.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

Fleming, E. L.

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Foot, D. M.

Loftus, P. C.

Scott, Lord William

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Seely, Sir H. M.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Selley, H. R.

Gibson, C. G.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Maxwell, S. A.

Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.

Gunston, Capt. D. W.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Spens, W. P.

Hanbury, Sir C.

Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Hannah, I. C.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Harbord, A.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Munro, P.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Train, Sir J.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Owen, Major G.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Holdsworth, H.

Penny, Sir G.

Turton, R. H.

Holmes, J. S.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wakefield, W. W.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

Hopkinson, A.

Pownall, Sir A, Assheton

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Procter, Major H. A.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Hunter, T.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

White, H. Graham

Jackson, Sir H.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. H.

James, Wing-commander A. W.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)

Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Rowlands, G.

Mr. Maclay and Captain Cazalet.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Kelly, W. T.

Stephen, c.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

Leonard, W.

Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

Adamson, W. M.

Leslie, J. R.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Charleton, H. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thorne, W.

Daggar, G.

Marklew, E.

Thurtle, E.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Mathers, G.

Tinker, J. J.

Ede, J. C.

Maxton, J.

Viant, S. P.

Gardner, B. W.

Potts, J.

Walker, J.

Garro-Jones, G. M.

Pritt, D. N.

Watkins, F. C.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Quibell, J. D.

Westwood, J.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Rlley, B.

Whiteley, W.

Groves, T. E.

Ritson, J.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Rowson, G.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Sanders, W. S.

Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Sexton, T. M.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Hopkin, D.

Shinwell, E.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Jagger, J.

Silverman, S. S.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Sorensen, R, W.

Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the anomalies in the existing scale of ministerial salaries should be removed as soon as possible, that all Members of the Cabinet, with the exception of the Prime Minister, should receive the same salary irrespective of the office held, that the salary of the Prime Minister should be increased, and that all offices held by Ministers should be classified on the lines recommended in 1920 by a Select Committee of this House."

WAR AND NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. MAINWARING: I beg to move,
"That, in the event of an outbreak of war, this House is of opinion that His
1314
Majesty's Government should be immediately invested with whatever powers may be necessary to ensure that the national need shall not be exploited by private interests and profitmongers."
It will be generally agreed that to-day the danger of war is a very real and present one. I doubt whether the responsible authorities in any country rest with easy heads and consciences in these days, because everyone is fearful of what to-morrow might bring. The question to which I draw attention is, therefore, a deeply urgent one. I do not waist it to be assumed that participation by this country in any outbreak of war would receive my support or that of the party to which I belong. Our support of any war would be governed by the factors behind it, the parties participating and

1315
the interests involved. We do recognise, however, that such a situation would constitute a national emergency irrespective of the particular countries and interests that might be involved and that brought it about. Nor need it be assumed that my object in putting forward this Motion and the views of the party to which I belong apply only to wartime profiteering. It would be wrong to assume that our objection is to wartime profiteering only. It should be well known to everybody that as a party we stand for the complete elimination of the principle of profit. We object to it violently, and there is nothing we desire more than to see an end to such a system. Indeed, we would trace the causes of war to the operation of that very principle. We, therefore, take the stand that we would remove profit-making root and branch.
It must be admitted that we have for very many years unceasingly stood for the creation of some authority within the country that would effectively deal with unreasonable profit-making. It may be that this House is unprepared to deal with the wider issue in that way, but I am not without hope that the House may be inclined to deal with profiteering in a condition of national emergency and danger. Even in their own interests hon. Members on all sides may be prepared to join us in preventing profit-making in conditions in which the national interests as a whole are at stake. The term "profiteering" has by common usage come to be applied, not to the principle of a slight rake off or the making of a profit, but to the realisation of excessive profits, not as the result of ordinary business management, or by some skilful management of a higher order, or by improved technique, but from the very conditions in which the mass of the people are being unjustifiably exploited. War conditions offer enormous possibilities in that direction. Indeed, one might say that it offers unending opportunities to the financial and business sharks who inhabit this country in such large numbers. Owners of money, of credits, of material and of businesses of a thousand and one kinds can, and do, in such circumstances hold the nation to ransom. No one would care to deny that fact, because, whatever we may choose to think of our country, and however much we may seek on
1316
occasion to idealise the people, harsh facts are difficult to deny, and the experience of the last War ought to indicate that among the people of this country are some whom none of us would care to honour in the slightest degree.
In contemplating these possibilities, I would like to see the Government clothe themselves with the authority necessary, not to limit profit-making in these circumstances, but to prevent any profit-making whatever, so that the very element of profit should be removed utterly in a condition of mational emergency. Were this country and other countries to adopt that as a measure of national defence, it would constitute the greatest safeguard against war. The vast majority of the interests that would be involved in war in this country would never contemplate a war were they not able to draw one farthing of profit out of it. What could be wrong in a proposition of that character? The owners of finance, of credit, of material and of businesses own the country, and it is their interests that are at stake. Are we then to agree that they must be paid to defend their own interests? I do not know whether we Welsh people are weaker than others, but we are rather inclined to sing, "Land of our fathers." It may have been the land of the fathers, but it is far from being the land of the sons.
To-day the country is literally owned by the interests I have mentioned, and it is absurd, when their very possessions are endangered, that at that very moment they should be allowed to hold the country up to ransom in defence of their property. If it be right to conscript the lives of those who have no such stake and no interests to defend, it should be equally right to use the possessions of these people without allowing them either loss or profit and only to guarantee a safeguard of the interests that they consider to be endangered. Those who join the armed forces carrot be safeguarded from loss in one form or another. If a life is lost, the loss has to be borne by the family, but the property owners whose possessions may be used in defence of the nation are safeguarded and guaranteed their return. One of the features of a war situation is the constantly rising and soaring prices of the necessities of life to the common people. That is so for several reasons. One of the most prominent of them is the opportunity pre-

1317
sented to business men throughout the country, owing to the general condition of scarcity that immediately sets in, of raising prices. When a war situation is created, the pursuance of that war and a continuation of that situation becomes to these men a business proposition and they are concerned to see to what extent prices can be raised and to what extent they can rake off a profit to themselves.
At the present time there are wide ranges of businesses in which widespread plans are already prepared, and they can be applied at any moment if war breaks out. It can be asserted with every confidence that through the whole range of business and industry plans are already prepared for profiteering in the event of such a situation arising. It is their business to do it, and if I were a business man possibly I should do the same thing. That does not in any way justify the Government or this House ignoring the possibility of taking effective steps to prevent such a situation being exploited. Apart from opportunities of profiteering in connection with the necessities of life to the common people there are other factors. There is the provision of the materials for His Majesty's armed forces, and what a history the last War presents us in that respect. I wonder whether the Government would dare to publish a bare statement of facts concerning the tremendous extent to which the national emergency was exploited, and the untold fortunes that were accumulated simply from providing the essential means to carry on the War on the part of the millions of men who were called into the armed forces.
The public outcry on both these counts was not heeded while the War was on. The Government, it is true, were compelled to take certain steps, such as food control and the limitation of prices to some extent. All of it was much too inadequate and exceedingly limited. Indeed it would be admitted at once that no effective steps were taken during the War, with the result that although the Excess Profits Duty which was imposed did take a small rake-off, tremendous sums were realised. The Excess Profits Duty between 1915 and 1932 realised over £1,100,000,000, and after the Government took off that amount one can rest quite satisfied that they retained very much larger sums than that. It is indicated by
1318
the very fact that another estimation has been made that the possessions of people in this country during the War actually increased by £5,000,000,000. The amount of value involved in that is best indicated by the fact that that is a sum which exceeds the total national income of the country for one year. In a period lasting some four years the profiteers in this country accumulated an additional personal wealth of a sum equal to the total national revenue for one year. Indeed it exceeds it by a considerable sum, and does not fall very far short of two years of material production of wealth.
Apart from that, the method of financing the War constituted a further imposition on the people of the country. I will not attempt to detail those methods, but there are sufficient publications, even Government publications, to indicate to what a ghastly farce the financing of that War amounted. This is the spectacle we have. Those who gave their husbands and sons, hastening with grey-heads and breaking hearts to their graves, and those who gave their money rejoicing in their material gain. For one reason and another the operations of the business people in raising prices of the essential means of life to the common people and the exploitation of the Government in the urgency of their need and the financial methods employed all succeeded in hurling us into a vicious circle of soaring prices on the one hand, and on the other hand the vain effort of the general mass of the working classes and the salaried people of this country to endeavour to keep step with rising prices by increasing their wages and salaries, and with wages and salaries always lagging behind.
It is not the workers of the country-who exploit a situation of that kind. The exploitation to which we are referring comes from a section which hon. Members and right hon. Members on that side of the House represent. It is the patriotism of the Government and its supporters that is being challenged. I remember as a miner in 1914 the gesture we gave to the Government when we said through the mouth of our then President, Mr. Robert Smillie, "Let the Government take steps to prevent rising prices, and we guarantee that we will not ask for an increase in wages." That was the spirit of the working classes. In

1319
vain did the Government look to their own supporters to take a similar honourable view of the emergency. During the last War the Government woke up too late, even if it can be said that they woke up at all. In 1949, after the War was successfully or unsuccessfully over, there came the Profiteering Act. At that time the main dangers and opportunities had passed, but even then the situation was regarded as a very serious one.
Even in the advancing months of 1919 when stupendous fortunes had been realised, the President of the Board of Trade then, in introducing the Profiteering Bill, had the effrontery to say that the introduction of that Bill at that moment was itself evidence of a growing social consciousness. It was necessary for the Government which had been in charge of the War for four years to wait until 1919 before they realised that. That consciousness is here to-day before the next war starts, and they need not wait for evidence of growing social consciousness before preparing their plans so that they can be put into operation at the first shot. It is not enough to deal with the situation of a war as it was dealt with on that occasion. In 1919, so widespread were the opportunities taken advantage of by business men, that at one period there were 500 prosecutions per week against men who profiteered. That was when the worst dangers and the wider opportunities had been passed by. Even those 500 only dealt with the small fry, the petty little retailers up and down the country. The big fish had already departed with the spoils.
That experience is more than sufficient justification for this Motion coming forward to-day. The sorrow of a lost son or husband is borne by one generation, but untold generations will continue to pay the financial debts. The patriotic fortune-hunters will go on for ever, so far as we can see, continuing to draw interest on accumulated profiteering. This House to-day has an opportunity of expressing its opinions and desires. It is not enough, as is suggested by the Amendment on the Paper, that we would welcome action from the Government. This is a private Members' day. It is an opportunity on which the average Member of this House ought to say what
1320
he thinks. There is no one in this House who is so entirely hard-faced as to defend a similar state of affairs as we experienced during the last War. This is an occasion when we should tell the Government what needs to be done. I do not think it is right for anybody to give the Government the backdoor method of getting out of the responsibilities which devolve upon them.
There is plenty of evidence of the need for this action being taken, and I am certain there are Members in all parts of the House who will subscribe to the opinion which I have expressed. They may not agree entirely with my own view with regard to profits or general social philosophy, but no man in this House or outside would dare publicly to defend a repetition of the circumstances and the widespread system of profiteering and of exploiting the nation which occurred in the years of the late War. Therefore, I seriously ask the House to carry the Motion on the Order Paper.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. DAGGAR: In rising to second the Motion so ably moved, may I say at the commencement that the need for the consideration of this Motion is a serious reflection on what is generally termed civilisation? That we should be engaged in discussing the need for preventing men from profiteering at the expense of their fellows is deporable. It is almost enough to destroy one's faith in humanity. It must have been on a similar occasion to this that an American writer described man not as a fallen angel but as a promoted reptile. But ray faith in humanity is repaid in the knowledge that it s a minority of men who take advantage of the conditions created by war. There may be an element of danger in this discussion. Personally, I think so. It may create the impression that Members of this House have succumbed to the deadening effect of belie in the inevitability of war. To that belief I do not subscribe. On the other hand, the passing of this Motion would perhaps discourage those persons who would otherwise benefit financially from the existence of war, and for that reason I support it.
The Motion is designed to prevent profiteering in the event of war. As the word is comparatively modern, I desire

1321
for a moment to discuss its meaning. When the Profiteering Bill of 1919 was introduced into this House, the President of the Board of Trade, Sir Auckland Geddes, summarised the provisions of the Bill and gave his opinion of what profiteering really meant. He said that to profiteer was to make unreasonably large profits, all the circumstances of the case being considered, by the sale to one's fellow-citizens of an article which is one, or one of a kind, of common use by or for the majority of the population. Some of those terms are vague. I should prefer the words "elimination of profits" to the word "profiteering." The words "unreasonably large profits" remind me of a difficulty over defining the words "not too bad" A publican wanted his premises renovated and engaged a workman to make the necessary alterations. The man was offered a glass of beer and was afterwards asked by the publican what he thought of it. "It is not too load," he said. The publican inquired, "What do you mean by that?" "Well," said the man, "if it had been any better you would not have given it to me, and if it had been any worse I should not have been able to drink it" I would suggest, instead of profiteering, the phrase" the making of inordinate or excessive profits out of the State's or the consumers' distress or difficulty, especially by contractors and traders in war time."
I regret that the Motion does not provide for the entire elimination of profit-making during war time, because I am convinced that one of the causes of war would be removed were we to eliminate profit-making from the production of the weapons of war. This is not a question of theory, nor do I want to make allegations against the integrity of all men. It is not a subject about which it is impossible or futile to make predictions because we know that owners of capital are prepared to exploit any situation. Experience justifies that observation, and I shall produce the evidence necessary to substantiate it. He would be a strange Member of this House who sought to convince any other Member of the correctness of his attitude towards any question discussed in the House, whether that Member occupied a seat below the Gangway or above the Gangway, but there are people outside the House who pay some attention to
1322
our discussions, and it is in their interests that I propose to give evidence in support of my previous statement.
When the Profiteering Bill was introduced in 1919 an hon. Member observed, "The time to check the profiteer is now," and I repeat that by saying that now is the time to make provision against profiteering in the event of war breaking out. It is interesting to read that Debate, because it shows to what lengths some people will go in order to exploit the nation in time of distress, and we can only imagine what would have been the results had Parliament not restrained them during 1919. The Sankey Commission, which was set up in 1919, reported that the total profits and royalties in the coal mining industry, exclusive of the profits of coke ovens and by-product works, amounted in the five years 1914–18 to £160,000,000, which was £25,000,000 more than the total pre-War capital of the mining industry in Great Britain, £135,000,000. On 24th May, 1917, Mr. Bonar Law stated in this House that he was a shareholder in 14 ships, all of them paying well, and that, taking the average of those ships, the rate of dividend he had received for the past year was 47 per cent., after paying Excess Profits Tax. He went on to say:
"I do not say that that is typical of the whole shipping community … but for every £100 I put in I received £47 last year after Excess Profits had been paid." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1917; col. 2576, Vol. 93.]
It may be, as Mr. Bonar Law said, that that was not typical of the whole of the shipping community, but Sir Leo Chiozza Money states in his book "The Triumph of Nationalisation" that down to the time in 1917 when the Ministry of Shipping took over the entire mercantile marine and made it serve national purposes the shipowners had made a profit of about £350,000,000—that is in the 31 months since the beginning of the War. In 1920 a Select Committee of the House of Commons issued a report which dealt with the suggested taxation of war-time increase in wealth, and it was stated that in 1919 the Board of Inland Revenue had submitted a memorandum to the Committee. In it attention was drawn to an estimate of the increases in wealth which would, at the termination of the War, be subject to a tax were the general capital levy to be imposed. The estimate to which I refer appeared in the "Economic

1323
Journal" of 7th September, 1918, and was made by no less an authority than Dr. J. C. Stamp. He gave the figure of £5,250,000,000 as his estimate of the increase in wealth due to the War. It is true that the Board of Inland Revenue submitted another memorandum in January, 1920, in which it was stated that Dr. Stamp's figure was too high and put the amount at £4,000,000,000, a difference of £1,250,000,000, but even their revised figure showed the degree of profiteering that took place during the War. Those who received that increase in their income ought, in my opinion, to have been forced to pay their share of the War. If that increase had been subjected to a special form of taxation it would have been unnecessary for the people of this country to pay £1,000,000 per day in interest upon a debt largely incurred during the last War.
According to a statement made by the present Postmaster-General, when he was Minister of Pensions, at a meeting of the British Empire Service League on 25th July, 1933, this country and the Dominions have paid in compensation for deaths and disablement caused by the War no less than £1,100,000,000, and he said we were still paying at the rate of £1,000,000 per week. It should be remembered that it was not only the owners of large undertakings who exploited war conditions, because during six months in 1919 there were no fewer than 5,908 prosecutions against retail traders, of whom 229 were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, and no one knows the degree to which profiteering would have arisen had not the Government taken certain measures to abolish it. For instance, we were informed by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that as a result of forming the Ministry of Munitions they were able to reduce the cost of shells from 22s. 6d. to 12s. each, which saved this country no less than £35,000,000. He also pointed out similarly with regard to the Lewis gun, which was reduced in price from £165 to £35, saving £14,000,000. By various methods they were able to save £440,000,000 for this country. All that shows how difficult it is to mix profit with patriotism, and it shows also the need for this Motion. In the light of those facts, it is no exaggeration to state, as one writer has stated,
1324
that capital with a certain 10 per cent. profit will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent. positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws and for 300 per cent. there is not a crime at which it will scruple or a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.
I anticipate similar objections being raised to-day to those which were raised when the Bill was introduced. It was stated that the Bill would create an additional bureaucracy, and that it was an interference with trade and competition. One hon. Member made the brilliant observation that the Government were heading towards the worst characteristics of Soviet rule. Very few people would be influenced to-day by such primitive platitudes. The President of the Board of Trade stated in this House that even a congenital idiot could make profits in wartime. I am sure he will be pleased to know that in a more general sense our great dramatist, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, agrees with him; realising the modesty of the President of the Board of Trade, I am sure he would rather I put it that way than that I said that he agreed with Bernard Shaw. Shaw, in one of his latest plays, says:
"The meanest creature call become rich if he devotes his life to it, and the people with wider and more generous interests become or remain poor with equal certainty. Plutocracy is the very devil socially, because it creates a sort of Gresham's law by which the baser human currency drives out the nobler coinage"
I agree with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. That we should permit these people to make such profits warrants a stronger condemnation and a much more drastic description. To allow profiteering in such circumstances is reprehensible and morally wrong, and cannot be right politically, socially or economically. I contend that the Motion is in the right direction and, if carried, will be a step towards the ultimate prohibition of the private manufacture of arms for profit, and the complete abolition of private trade in the means of destruction and human slaughter.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

1325
"this House would welcome proposals by His Majesty's Government to take whatever powers may be necessary to ensure that the need for organising the economic resources of the nation to provide adequately for defence in time of peace or in time of war shall not be exploited by private interests"
Whatever the House may think of the manner in which the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) has presented his case, I am sure the House will agree that he has ventilated a topic of extreme importance at the present time. In the Debate on Defence not so long ago, the Prime Minister in the course of his speech made a comment with which most hon. Members will agree. He said:
"I am anxious to say something on what to my mind is far the most important part of these proposals, and that is the subject of supply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1936; col. 1841, Vol. 309.]
The hon. Member for East Rhondda by his Motion to-day has enabled the House to review in perhaps as complete a manner as possible this important question of supply. The question of supply is much more important in modern war than it has ever been in the past. Not so very long ago, warfare was something in the nature of a private industry but, as the functions of the State became crystallised, it was necessary for the State to nationalise this industry of war. Even at the beginning of the last War we were apt in this country to think of war as an occasion on which we sent our armed forces to deal with the war, to win it, and in due course to return home, while we paid them for what they had done. As the War progressed, we began to realise that war had become something quite different, that it could not be properly conducted unless the whole nation were regarded as in the War and that it was an occasion on which the nation must spend its united efforts. I doubt whether we have fully comprehended the force of that truth even yet. I think it has been more fully comprehended in Germany. I observe that General Ludendorff, who took such a leading part in the last War, has recently published a book with the unusual title, "Total War." He says that in the modern sphere, the fighting forces and the people constitute one mighty unit. Because war has assumed that character, it is very important that we should con-
1326
sider the problems put before us to-day in the Motion of the hon. Member for East Rhondda.
When I read that Motion I was surprised at its mildness. It appeared to cut right across the protestations so often made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they desire to eliminate entirely the private manufacture of armaments. I was interested to hear at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member that he did not intend that to be the case. I should like to indicate at the outset the difference between his position and that taken up in my Amendment. It was clear that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) had not read the Motion which he seconded or, if he had read it, he had not comprehended it. The principle difference between the Motion and my Amendment is that the Amendment omits the phrase, "in the event of an outbreak of war." The hon. Member for Abertillery said that the time to proceed with these matters was now, but the Motion does not do it. I sincerely trust that he will therefore throw over the Motion and will support my Amendment. The implication in my Amendment is that this matter has not escaped the attention of the Government and that proposals may be expected on this important matter. A final point of difference between my Amendment and the Motion is that, in deference to the point of view of the junior Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert), it omits that awful word "profitmongers"
Let us deal with that phrase, "in the event of the outbreak of war." If we are to neglect to make provision in this important matter until war has actually broken out, we shall take our action too late. As was stated by the hon. Member for Abertillery quite rightly, if this matter deserves attention it deserves attention now, and not in the event of the outbreak of war. What was the experience of the last War? Dr. Addison, in the course of the Debate on 8th November, 1934, told the House something of the experience during the War and of the chaos into which we fell. It was clear from what he said that had provision been made before that War broke out, we should have been able to avoid some of the difficulties which arose. The preamble to the Motion speaks of a possibility of a war. It is unfortunate that we have to use that phrase. The hon.

1327
Member who moved the Motion said that it was a phrase which we must use, but if there is a possibility of war, surely the time to make preparation for contingencies that might arise in the unfortunate event of the outbreak of war is in time of peace, when we are not likely to take decisions hurriedly or in error.
Secondly, my Amendment implies that the Government already have this matter in hand, and I think there can be no doubt that that is true. On many recent occasions the Prime Minister has declared, in debate and in replies to questions, that any exploitation of the national need is repugnant to him, and, indeed, to the Government; and those of us in this House who know the Prime Minister so well will I am sure agree that nothing is likely to be so repugnant to his nature as the exploitation of a national need for private gain. I sincerely hope that this feeling, which I am sure exists strongly in the breast of the Prime Minister, will be translated into strong action. We have also had the recent White Paper on Defence, which refers to this very matter. The reference is not, perhaps, in terms so complete as we should wish, but nevertheless the latter part of the White Paper on Defence is the first concrete evidence we have had of the Government's intention to deal with this very important matter.
The subject of our Debate to-night has another very important significance at the present time. The country, as the Mover of the Motion said, has the strongest feeling on this matter. I am certain that the country is prepared whole-heartedly to support the Government's proposals for defence if it can be satisfied that in the widest sense a national duty is being undertaken, but if there is any suspicion that improper private gain is being made out of the provision for national defence, I fear that the country will be likely to turn against the proposals of the Government. I would also like to suggest that this matter has an important bearing on the cognate topic of recruiting. Nothing is so likely to stimulate the feeling that we wish to stimulate, that a career in any of the Services is a career worthy of any man, as a firm belief that on no account will any provision made for defence result in private gain. I believe that the
1328
patriotic instinct is uppermost in this matter. The hon. Member for East Rhondda appears to feel that he has a complete monopoly of virtue. I have often observed in. Debates that hon. Members opposite arrogate to themselves all the finest instinets that may blossom in the hearts of men—
Mr. MAINWARING: Is not that correct?
Mr. MABANE: Judging from the small number of the party opposite that the country has sent to this House, I think the country has judged that view not to be correct.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Including Dumbartonshire last week?
Mr. MABANE: Including Dumbartonshire last week—I am taking it by and large. It is very illuminating to observe that Members of the party opposite are apparently consistent in asserting their right to arrogate to themselves a monopoly of virtue, to regard, say, patriotism as a qualtiy that is in inverse ratio to income; bur I am sure that the great majority of Members of this House would not give any credence to such a doctrine, and certainly the country would not do so either.
Mr. MAINWARING: Naturally, what the hon. Member now says is correct, because the majority of the Members of the House do not belong to this party.
Mr. MABANE: I gather that the hon. Member persists in his extraordinary doctrine that patriotism varies inversely with income.
Mr. MAINWARING: Exactly.
Mr. MABANE: That is an important admission to have gained from him. I do not take that view at all. There are some "bad hats" in every section of society, but I believe that in every section of society the main instinct in this matter is patriotic in the best sense of the word, and I am certain that those engaged in industry to-day, whether as employers or as employés, will willingly submit to any proposals that may be made in order to secure that there is no exploitation of this or any other programme of defence; and I would add that, in case there should be any such exploitation, we ought to take powers to deal with it.

1329
If the hon. Member would get away from the class bias that is in his mind, he would find that not only the Members of this House but the people of the country are in general agreement with him on the matter of principle. Indeed, I doubt very much whether there will be any difference in the House to-night on the matter of principle. The hon. Member for Abertillery said that he anticipated that the same objections would be made as were made in 1919, but I think he is going to be disappointed—or rather, I hope it will not be a disappointment to him, because, while I do not want to say anything disrespectful of the House of 1919, probably some of us who are now here and were then occupied in France had very bitter feelings about some of the things that were going on then.
But, while we shall reach with seine ease that agreement in principle, the matter becomes more difficult when we consider in detail how it should be done, and I think the value of this Debate lies in the fact that these difficulties can be explored, and that some of us who humbly sit on the back benches may offer, from our experience and observation, some suggestions which we would ask the Government to consider. In the first place, looking to the past, we have the experience of the War period. I have searched the Statute Book for the period of the War, and I can find no evidence of any very effective or drastic means being then taken to control industry. The only provision that I can find which dealt with this problem is one Section of the Defence of the Realm Act, passed in November, 1914, which empowered the Admiralty or the Army Council virtually to take over any industrial plant if it so desired. That was simple, but, in my view, not by any means complete. Notwithstanding that attempt to provide for the taking over of industry at that time, we know that very great profits were then made, and we also recognise that few things had a more harmful effect upon the morale of the troops than the knowledge of what was happening at home. The experience was common to all countries. I observe, again quoting from the recent book of General Ludendorff, that he says:
"The inequality of reward as between the civilian and the soldier in wartime is a powerful fomenter of discontent."
1330
The morale of our troops in France was magnificent, but some of us found it rather trying to have to sit in the trenches arid read of some of the things that were going on at home. There were undoubtedly profiteers. I am not here to defend them; no one could have been more bitter about them at the time than I was; but, as I look back now more soberly, I am compelled to the conclusion that a great part of the large profits then made were made involuntarily—that they were a direct consequence of the inflationary process that was going on. I suggest to the Mover of the Motion that, however anxious a manufacturer might have been not to make profits, the mere sweep of the inflationary process forced profits upon him, and I think that that ought to be a valuable guide to us as to what we should do in the future. The hon. Member himself said that it should be a part of the duty of the Government in future to prevent this rapid rise in prices, and I agree that he is right, but I think he must recognise that that rapid rise in. prices, that inflationary process, was a powerful factor in creating those conditions to which he himself rightly objects. Therefore, I appeal to him and to the House to be guided in this matter by reason and not by prejudice. The problem, as it appears to me, divides itself into three parts. There is, first, the matter of profits that arise directly—the profits of those who contract directly with the Government, or of their subcontractors. Then there are the profits made by the whole of the trading community, who are not, directly or indirectly, contracting with the Government at all; and, thirdly, there is that aspect on which I have just touched, namely, what I may term the monetary or financial aspect of the problem.
When we deal with the first, the matter of profits arising from contracting for the Government, we must recognise that it is incorrect to treat the provision of war material as a thing apart. It is not. As soon as we come to approach the problem—I observe that the Mover recognised the truth of this in an earlier speech—we know that the problem of definition is almost insuperable. He said so himself. What is war material? It is an old question in the House to which he himself rightly said the answer is extremely difficult. In an earlier Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member

1331
for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said: if we were to be really logical in our definition and adopt the proposal made from the other side that the private manufacture of armaments should be prohibited, we should find that there was very little left for Socialism. The whole of industry would he socialised, so wide would be the scope of any definition which would be logical. But, while that is true, I think, on the other hand, that, if we impatiently tried to limit our definition too closely and brought within it only those firms which are most obviously engaged in the manufacture of war material, we should be in danger of falling into inequitable practices, because we should perhaps tend to confine our control to a number of very limited industries engaged obviously in the production of war material—
Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: There is not a word in the Motion about war material.
Mr. MABANE: No, but I am speaking at the present time. And we should let go cost free quite a number of industries which might be making profits and which ought to make some contribution. Therefore we must not be too logical. We shall probably find, if we want to tackle the job, that we have to apply different methods in different cases and apply the often illogical but quite right methods of the British people.
Let me endeavor to suggest a few methods. First of all when we have to deal with the matter of direct contractors. We have heard something about that in the White Paper. It has suggested the matter in which the contractors are to be controlled. It says that the Government are determined that the needs of the nation shall not serve to pile up extravagant profits for those who are called upon to meet them. I feel that we ought to have some more light on that phrase. I should like to know exactly what an extravagant profit is. It is very difficult to get a definition. When we turn over the page, we find that the Government propose methods whereby the costs and the prices of those who contract shall be controlled. But there is a great difference between a profit on cost and a profit on capital. What may appear to be quite a moderate profit on cost will, at the end of the year, come out an enormous gross
1332
amount as a profit on capital. It is important to bear in mind, too, that the attention of the country will be concentrated, not on the percentage profit on the cost but on the final aggregate figure and, if by any mischance some firms that have contracted produce substantially increased profits, the country will concentrate on those figures. It will not be concerned so much with the bare percentage. It will say, "This man has made £250,000 for himself." There is one other phrase that I should like to know something about in the White Paper. We read, on the one hand, that it is important to retain the good will of industry, for in peace time firms cannot be compelled to undertake contracts on terms which they consider unreasonable. That phrase would-rave read more happily if it read, "on terms which may be fairly considered unreasonable," because there might be a vast difference between terms which a contracting firm considered unreasonable and which perhaps individual Members of the House sitting in a judicial capacity might themselves consider unreasonable. There are some details of organisation later on the page and the House will be very glad if the Financial Secretary could elaborate in some way the organisation that is proposed.
While I am glad to read those proposals in the White Paper, I am by no means satisfied that they are really enough, either in the present situation, when we are engaging in exceptional expenditure on defence, or in time of war, because, as well as the benefit that will accrue to private contractors directly contracting for the Government, I am satisfied that there will be a great benefit spread over the whole range of industry. The expenditure of large sums of money now, or larger sums in time of war, will be pumping the lifeblood through the arteries of industry more rapidly and will increase the price. I think it proper that we should make some provision that those firms which so benefit should make some contribution, and I firmly believe that they would be willing to make a contribution. Let us recognise that, if we are spending money as we now propose, and as we certainly should have to spend it in the case of an outbreak of war, what we spend will have to be paid for either

1333
then or in the future. I sincerely hope that we shall pay at the time and shall not pass on to a future generation a legacy such as was passed on after the last War. We ought to do our best to pay as we go. Industry would not be unwilling to consider some special tax—call it a national defence tax—on excess profits that arose.
I know that, as soon as you begin talking about excess profits, difficulties arise. There is the difficulty of the base against which you are to calculate them, but it appears to me that a base could be found, a better one than we used in the last War, when the immediately preceding years were taken. It might be possible to allow firms to take their best two years in the last 10 years and make that average the base against which to make the calculation. Notwithstanding the difficulties of agriculture and the difficulties of new businesses, industry would not be averse from paying a tax of that kind, because the expenditure has to be met, and, if I were in business, and bad to choose between an increase in the Income Tax and a special tax of this character, I should prefer a special tax of this character. It may be entirely opposed to the views of the Mover of the Motion of those who are engaged in business, but I am certain that the House would find that those engaged in business were perfectly willing to consider this sort of tax, particularly as industry to-day is both manned and managed to a far greater and ever increasing extent by people whom themselves were in the last War and do not want the experience to be repeated.
That leads me directly to my third point, that of the finance of the military problem. If we make some effort to pay as we go, either now or during the course of a war, we shall be doing the best possible thing to safeguard against inflation. I am always horrified when I read in the Press suggestions that we are going to borrow money for this special purpose—that there is to be a defence loan. I am certain that the Government will be making a grave mistake if they engage in anything in the nature of a defence loan. By paying as we go we should be adopting the best possible safeguard against inflation. It was not the rapaciousness of individuals but the mere
1334
operation of monetary inflation which was responsible for the major part of the high profits in the last War. Let it be the purpose of the Government, by the deliberate management of our monetary system, to do their best to maintain a stable price level. I believe that our monetary system has been arranged with consummate skill since 1931, for never before in modern history has the price level remained so steady. If we could insist that the Government did their best to secure a stable price level, one of the principal causes of excess profits would disappear.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member will agree that we have maintained that stable price level because we have gone off the Gold Standard.
Mr. MABANE: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening to, or reading some of my speeches in this House, he would know that I persistently urged that particular point of view.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The previous National Government was elected to save the Gold Standard but failed to do so.
Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member is usually incorrect in his facts. If he will recollect correctly, he will realise that we had gone off the Gold Standard before the Government for 1931 was elected to office. [Interruption.] I do not want to enter into a discussion of the Gold Standard, as I am certain that I should be out of order, and so perhaps the hon. Member will leave that to some future occasion, and allow me to concentrate my attention upon the matter now before the House. It appears to me that there are really two problems, the first of which is to secure the State against any exploitation as a result of the exceptional expenditure foreshadowed in the White Paper on Defence, and that demands immediate attention. The House, I am sure, is glad that certain proposals have been made in the White Paper, but the House would be better pleased still, and I am sure that the country would be if the Government could elaborate a little more the proposals that they are willing to make to secure that the present exceptional expenditure on Defence is not exploited for private purposes. The second problem is to devise means for meeting the much wider problem that would arise

1335
in the event of an outbreak of war. Now is the time to do it, and because I believe that this is the time to do it, I put down the Amendment on the Paper.
I am certain that these problems can be solved within the bounds of our present economic system. This is a proposition with which hon. Members opposite may find themselves in disagreement. I am certain that it can be done better by taking out the elements of compulsion. We can tackle this problem by the cooperation of the whole of industry, not by compulsion. If you adopt this method you are likely to succeed. I gather that the hon. Member who moved the Motion advocates compulsion. I am satisfied that if, first of all, this Government, or any Government, were to adopt officially the attitude that he adopts to those engaged in industry, that they are some kind of unpatriotic criminals, and endeavour to impose upon them measures of compulsion, then, not merely would he not succeed in the object which he has at heart, but he would involve the nation in the gravest possible disaster. Therefore I appeal to the House not to support the Motion in its original terms, but, on the other hand, to vote for the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
8.59 p.m.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I beg to second the Amendment.
If there had been no Amendment on the Paper, I should not have been unwilling to vote for the Resolution which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), but I am glad to support the Amendment because I think that, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has explained, its terms are preferable to those of the Motion. I think that my hon. Friend is already aware that, while I am in agreement with the main part of his observations, I cannot accompany him into one or two of the conclusions which he drew towards the end of his remarks. I do not share the view that the comparatively moderate expenditure upon armaments which is about to be undertaken by the Government is likely to produce such a general expansion of profits over the whole field of industry as my hon. Friend appears to contem-
1336
plate. Within the last, few years the country has experienced a gradual but steady industrial revival, which manifested itself, first of all, in the lighter industries and the distributive trades, and has lately begun to extent itself to the heavy industries, quite apart from any prospect of increased Government expenditure. It is no doubt possible that the renewal of monetary circulation and the increased purchasing power which would result from some further expenditure on the part of the Government might have the effect of accelerating this industrial revival. But I think that it would be quite impossible to calculate what fraction of the earnings of any industry ought to be attributed indirectly to the action of the Government. I believe that anything in the nature of a national defence tax, such as my hon. Friend suggested, would prove in practice to be a most vexatious and inequitable imposition which would produce the greatest amount of friction and discontent, and would not be likely to bring in any substantial return to the Revenue. If anything in the nature of an excess profits duty should ever become necessary, it would mean that the policy of the Government had failed. I am altogether against the idea that we might first allow the profiteer to materialise, while at the same time we should, as it were, prepare an ambush out of which at some convenient moment we should pounce upon him and deprive him of his nefarious gains by a heavy tax. We want to prevent the profiteer from coming into existence at all. As for the profits which are likely to be made by the contractors or sub-contractors of the Government, I am fairly well satisfied for the moment with the statement which is contained in paragraph 59 of the White Paper of the Government, although in respect of one or two facts the statement might have been male more specific. It is declared that,
"Control to prevent excessive profits will be effectively exercised by inspection of books, adequate technical postings, audits on behalf of the Stale and arbitration in cases of dispute."
I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to explain in his reply what is meant by "adequate technical costings." It is possible that an industry might be operating, say, on a turnover

1337
of £100,000 a year, and making a profit of 10 per cent. on its turnover, that is to say, a net profit of £10,000. If the turnover, as a result of the increase of Government orders, is increased to £1,000,000, a profit of 10 per cent. on that would be £100,000. The firm might reduce the percentage of profit by one-half, from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent., and still be earning £50,000, which would be five times as much as before. I do not think that the public would be satisfied with that, and would rightly demand that the question of what constitutes reasonable profit shall be determined not in relation to turnover but in relation to overhead costs and capital charges.
Before I leave this subject there is one further point I should like to make. Those who have studied the history of the late War will remember that in its initial stages a great deal of difficulty was experienced by the Government on account of the private ownership of certain mechanical inventions whose possessors were reluctant to share their trade secrets with others, or to abandon their rights as patentees. I think it would be in the national interest, and, if necessary, I would be prepared to support legislation to that effect, that the Government should acquire the ownership of all mechanical processes which might he used in the production of any kind of machinery necessary to supply our defensive requirements.
May I now turn, for the remaining part of my remarks to a different aspect of this subject Hon. Members opposite and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) have devoted the greater part of their speeches to the possibility of excess profits on the part of industrialists. I should like to ask the House to consider what I believe to be the more important question, the excess profits which might be made not by industrialists but by financiers. I have never regarded the manufacturing class as the principal war profiteers. I think that the only manufacturers who profited permanently from the War were those individuals who were fortunate enough, or if you like selfish enough, to go out of business altogether in 1919; who sold out all their interests, realised their gains, and put their money into fixed securities. These individuals, you may say, permanently profited from the War, but I do not think that the manufacturing class as a whole
1338
profited in the long run, because the abnormal gains which they derived from the inflation which took place were equalled, and in many cases exceeded, by the abnormal losses which they suffered from the deflationary policy which was carried out when the War was over. I have always thought that the classes of the community which were permanently enriched as a result of the War were not those who received money from the spending Departments but those who lent money to the Treasury.
During the War we increased our international debt by approximately £6,500,000,000. It is quite impossible to estimate with any accuracy what fraction of that sum was raised by real borrowings from the savings of the people, but I think it is estimated by most economists at something in the neighborhood of £2,000,000,000, which would represent a fairly large proportion of the entire national income for the whole of the War period. Another £1,500,000,000 was raised by the enlargement of the Floating Debt, that is by direct advances from the Bank of England or the issue of Treasury Bills. That leaves us with a balance of somewhere in the neighborhood of £3,000,000,000, which was not raised by taxation, which was not raised by borrowings from the savings of the people, and which had somehow or other to be created ex nihilo. How was this money raised? The banks were persuaded to allow exceptionally large advances against collateral security to those of their clients who were willing to use the money to purchase War Loan. That is to say, the clients of the banks were allowed temporarily a large overdraft. An equal amount of new credit money was placed to the credit of the Government, who immediately spent it on munitions, while at the same time the Government issued an equivalent amount of War stock which became the property of the investor, who could subsequently either pay off his overdraft or sell his War Loan to some other person who had accumulated funds for the purposes of investment.
Let me give an example of what I mean. It may be remembered that in 1916 the Bank of England issued a circular to the public offering to lend money at three per cent. to anybody who would use that money for the purchase of Four per cent. War Loan, which was then being issued by the Government. Suppose I

1339
am an investor who takes advantage of this to acquire £1,000 of War Loan. I deposit perhaps £1,500 of railway debentures as my collateral security. Against that I receive an overdraft of £1,000. £1,000 of new money is placed to the credit of the Government, who immediately spend it, and I receive £1,000 of War Loan. Apart from my original gain of one per cent. interest my position to begin with is exactly even. My new asset of £1,000 War Loan is precisely equal to my new liability of £1,000 overdraft to the bank. Now suppose I save money at the rate of £200 a year and use that money to reduce my overdraft. After five years, that is by 1921, I shall have extinguished my overdraft and shall have become the free owner of £1,000 War Loan. I hope that I am making myself clear. I have given the example of a small investor for the sake of simplicity, but the greater part of the War Loan was, of course, taken up by large financial corporations who could afford to carry a large overdraft in their banking account. That is to say several thousand millions of War Loan was issued to investors who did not pay for it by money which they possessed, but by overdrafts which they undertook subsequently to make good. That meant, of course, an immense amount of inflation.
War-time inflation was not caused by the printing of Treasury Notes. They only represented the additional quantity of small cash for the hand-to-hand transactions of the people, which became necessary in consequence of this vastly greater inflation of new credit money. What happened was that the £3,000,000,000 of new credit money was created out of nothing. The Government pretended to borrow this money from people who did not possess it. Later on, after the War, this pretence of borrowing was converted into a posthumous reality by the annihilation of £3,000,000,000 of new investment capital which had accumulated in the ordinary way and which was absorbed by this huge artificial debt which had been manufactured during the course of the War. That meant that after the War money rates remained exceedingly high and industry was unable to obtain the new capital it so urgently needed for its re-equipment after four years of War wastage. I do not intend to discuss
1340
whether the policy of post-War deflation was right, for that would take us too far from our subject. I wish to confine myself to this observation only—that during the War the public was allowed' and even encouraged to lend money to the Government at very high rates of interest—4 per cent. in 1916, 5 per cent. in 1917 and before the end of the War, 54½ per cent. After the War, those holders of War Loans were not only able to enjoy those exorbitant rates of interest for a very long period of time, but, as a result of deflation and the consequent fall in prices, they found that the real value of their incomes was nearly doubled.
While the attention and indignation of the public were concentrated against the manufacturers or Government contractors who very often lost afterwards more than they had gained, the holders of War Loan, who gained on every side, were very largely ignored. At the end of the War, there were some statesmen, including, I think, Mr. Bonar Law, who wished to correct that state of affairs by means of a capital levy. But a measure of that kind, applied during a period of deflation, would probably have done more harm than good, and would certainly have ruined large numbers of people who had made no profit out of the War. It is of no use first to allow the evils of an inflated debt at exorbitant rates of interest to be incurred, and afterwards to try to correct those evils by a clumsy and ineffectual attempt to redistribute the wealth of the nation. What we ought to do is to prevent the evils of an inflated debt at high rates of interest from ever being incurred.
For that reason I am very glad that the Government spokesman in this Debate, instead of being the new Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, who has to deal with Government contractors, is my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whose Department is responsible for our financial affairs. The House will, of course, remember that the moment my hon. Friend took office last November, the credit of the country immediately rose to such an unexampled height that we were able to borrow money at an unprecedently low rate of interest. £200,000,000 were borrowed at 2 per cent. for a, fair period of time, and £100,000,000 at only 1 per cent. interest for a rather shorter period. I think that will constitute a very valuable reserve

1341
which might possibly be used, if it should be necessary, for the financing of our rearmament programme. No doubt, as my hon. Friend said, we would all prefer that it should be paid for out of revenue, but next year we are, I believe, to build two battleships, and there are many of us who hope that the proposals for the building of new cruisers and destroyers will be rather greater than those which are contemplated in the White Paper. If we do not find it convenient to meet the whole of this amount out of revenue, it will be very important, if it has to be met out of short-term borrowing, that it should be possible to do that borrowing at the smallest possible cost to the public. Of course, that is true to an infinitely greater extent if the calamity of another war should ever come upon us. I believe that the necessity of keeping down rates of interest is of far greater importance even than the necessity of keeping down the profits of manufacturers who are working on contracts for the Government.
I will conclude by saying that during the last four years the Treasury has acquired a degree of influence over the money market which it never possessed before. It is now able to influence to a great extent the prevailing rates of interest on money which is borrowed. I think it has achieved that power mainly by establishing a control over domestic issues and by the imposition of the Treasury ban on foreign loans. The control which this gives to the Treasury has enabled all the accumulation of credit to be kept in our own country, to be used for our own purposes and to keep rates of interest very low. There is nothing which alarms me so much as to hear men who are eminent in finance and business circles, or even in political circles, contemplate the removal of this Treasury ban and the renewal of the free export of British capital. If this ban on foreign lending is removed, money will inevitably go to seek employment where it will earn the highest yield. That will mean that interest rates in our own country will rise, which would undermine the whole of our industrial policy, and would make it impossible for us to finance either our present expenditure on armaments or expenditure which might become necessary in the event of war, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, in order that the burden—to which my hon. Friend referred
1342
—on future generations may be as low as possible.
My main reason for intervening in this Debate and seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to ask the House to assent to, or at least to consider, this proposition that this new influence over the monetary system of our country is one which ought not to be abandoned by the Treasury, but that the Treasury ought to retain in its own hands a power which ought to be preserved and extended.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I am sure that hon. Members who have listened to the Debate will be glad that my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) was fortunate in the ballot, and will be grateful to him for having selected a subject such as the one which we are discussing this evening. I am sure hon. Members on all sides of the House were pleased to hear the speeches that have been delivered so far both from this side and from the other side. It seems to me that the margin of difference between the Amendment and the Motion is very narrow, and I think it would take almost a microscope to find out exactly what is that difference. It would appear that the Amendment is anxious to get the Government to do something, whereas the Motion itself is anxious that the Members of the House by a vote should impress upon the Government the necessity of doing something at once. That seems to me to be the slight difference between the Amendment and the Motion.
Mr. MABANE: The whole difference is that whereas the Motion desires action to be taken only when war breaks out, the Amendment desires the matter to be considered now.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry, but I did not hear that explanation. Although the House is very empty to-night, we are discussing the most vital matter we have had for quite a long time. It can be truthfully said that the subject we are now discussing was the subject that produced a crisis, and a crisis produced the National Government. And when I interrupted the Mover of the Amendment, I think he will admit that I would have been correct if I altered the word "elected" to "formed". The National Government was formed to save the Gold Standard. It did not save the Gold

1343
Standard and what has happened since in the price level, either nationally or internationally, has really been in defiance of the National Government. With regard to what the Seconder of the Amendment said about cheap money, I think that it would be accepted by most economists that the reason we have cheap money is because people cannot invest it at a profit. The fact that you have cheap money is in itself the greatest indictment against this economic order. It is because people cannot invest money as they did for many years in other spheres of investments internationally that you have a surplus on the market, and consequently the Government are able to obtain money cheaply.
One knows that the Government were really driven to face the issue that is contained in this Debate. In this respect I substantially agree with what the last speaker had to say. I am afraid that he cannot deny the statement that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) when he said that £4,000,000,000 was accepted as profit made and that that was largely made by manufacturers. At that time it would be practically impossible for the rentier to have a substantial return on his war investments, so that the manufacturers made up to about £4,000,000,000 by the year 1919. However, I will not join issue with him when he stresses the importance of dealing with the financiers. To me it is the vital issue; it is the issue that led to the crisis, not only in this country, but throughout the world in 1931. I do not want to use figures to what may be described as a few pounds, but in a general way. I think that most hon. Members would agree that the average rise in commodity prices, if one struck an average between the immediate pre-war and the immediate post-war years, would be round about 120 per cent. That would represent the commodity price level throughout the War.
It is said in influential circles—and I am prepared to accept the figures cited by the last speaker—that the War cost about £7,000,000,000. The persons who invested that money invested it at an average of about 5 per cent. I am leaving compound interest, excessive interest that was charged on re-borrowing and so on, entirely alone. We know through the Budget in post-war years
1344
that it has cost the Exchequer well over £300,000,000 a year. That may include some pensions and things of that kind. Prior to the conversion scheme it was costing £1,000,000 a day. The Government were ultimately faced with this problem. It was in fact the main issue in the crisis. It has now been brought down to about £224,000,000. That is how the Government may have spare money for armaments. They also, of course, repudiated the American debt. That £365,000,000 in interest was paid until 1931. That enormous sum was paid to the rentier for lending money during the War, but that sum did not represent real values, for, meanwhile, we had had a process of deflation taking place. That average level of commodity prices had come down from 120 to 44 per cent., so that that £300,000,000 represented in real values practically £900,000,000 a year.
Mr. MABANE: Surly the hon. Gentleman has made a grave error? The fall in prices was not from 120 to 40 but from 120 above 1914 to 40 above 1914.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The cost of living got up to 180 per cent. above 1914 and came down to 40 per cent. above 1914, which meant that in real value persons were getting twice and three times the value of their investments. I am leaving questions of compound interest and the manipulation of the banks, in which they were never able to set up assets against their borrowings and in which they created paper credit, alone. That enormous weight the nation had to carry up against its productivity year after year in the post-war years, and that is the substantial reason for the volume of unemployment in this country. That is the substantial reason for the depressed areas. That is the substantial reason for the crisis economically throughout the world. It was not carried by this country only but by other countries as well. It was difficult for any nation to escape this problem. Capitalists in recent years found that they were unable to obtain credit from the banks fur industrial purposes because the banks were able to obtain substantially more in interest on war stock than they could hope to obtain if they permitted their capital to be invested for industrial purposes, particularly in view of the enormous fall in the wage level, in relation to the increasing productivity of the country.

1345
They were not prepared to advance money for capital purposes when there was already a surplus of commodities which could riot be purchased, owing to the reduced purchasing capacity of the workers.
The Government ought to face the proposition in another way. It has often been said that if human life has to be conscripted in order to save the nation, then the wealth of the nation ought also to be conscripted for that purpose. I do not attempt to stress that case merely on ethical grounds. If a nation has to save itself in such circumstances, then it is essential that it should, in it own economic interest, say that while war has to be prosecuted the wealth of the nation should be used to prosecute that war. If another war breaks out, which God forbid, civilisation is as much in danger from the economic consequences as from the bombing of civil populations. I stress this point in the hope that it will be appreciated that, on the long view, and considering the interests of the great majority of people, war does not pay economically.
One understands that there is a type of mind which believes in the capitalistic philosophy, which believes in speculation and which does not pause to think of the ethical or economic results. But a multiplicity of individuals each acting for his own ends in this way may mean in the end calamity for the lot. The fact is seldom realised, even by the capitalists themselves, that when a war is over the people are faced with the problem of paying the price. We have the reprehensible state of things in this country that men who fought in the last War and were damaged and who recovered sufficiently to get back into industry for a time, have ultimately found themselves deprived of employment like thousands of miners in South Wales. I do not know whether hon. Members have taken notice of the figures given by the Secretary for Mines recently showing that in 1920 there were 271,000 miners employed in South Wales, and last year there were only 133,000. Those unemployed miners and their families are paying the price of the last War.
Unless the Government are prepared to face these realities and to lay it down that, should war break out, wealth will be conscripted at once, that problem may
1346
be aggravated a thousandfold in the future. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will appreciate the economic arguments that we are advancing. I do not deal with the emotional side of the question at all. I think that is appreciated by most hon. Members. To me, however, it is great paradox to find Members on the other side who lost relatives in the last War and who are able to appreciate that aspect of the problem and yet are not prepared to face the economic realities. They talk glibly about speculation on the production of air armaments, about watching exchange prices, and already they are waiting with open hands to take anything in that line that is coming now and to exploit what is not yet a critical emergency but the uncertainty in international affairs. Having accepted the philosophy that profit is right in any circumstances they do not take other considerations into account at all.
When speaking of wealth being conscripted, we refer not only to the profits of manufacturers from contracts, but to the borrowing of money as well. The credit of the nation ought to be at the disposal of the Government. The finances of the nation ought to be taken under complete control and in case of war used as one instrument for the prosecution of war. Money ought not to be more sacred than men. Men, munitions and money—those three agents ought to be conscripted in the event of any future war in order that the prosperity of the country may not unduly suffer.
9.44 p.m.
Mr. HANNAH: There is no substantial difference between hon. Members in various parts of the House concerning the main subject of the Debate. We all emphatically repudiate the idea that money should be made out of war. Yet I cannot help feeling that this Motion, as it appears on the Paper, is deplorable. Taking these ordinary English words, in their ordinary English meaning, I ask hon. Members to imagine their being adopted by this House and read as a Resolution of this House by certain foreign governments. It practically implies that we expect this country to get involved in war if unfortunately hostilities should break out in Europe. The Motion is exceedingly unfortunate in its wording, and so I feel a particular grati-

1347
tude to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) for having moved an Amendment to which the same objection does not apply. I do not accuse hon. Members opposite of in any way whatever being more warlike than supporters of the Government, but on many occasions they are not very careful about the language they employ. What exactly do they mean when they accuse the Government of pusillanimity, cowardice, and weakness in having done nothing to check Japan in setting up the State of Manchouquo, or Italy in going into Abyssinia? What could we have done except go to war? Is that what they want? I cannot help feeling that it is deplorable that nearly every speech that has been made on the other side of the House has contemplated this country getting engaged in war.
Last week end I was in my own constituency, and I was extraordinarily impressed by the fact that everybody whom I met in the street, everybody who came to speak to me, everybody with whom I was in any way brought into contact, rubbed it in, "We don't want to make an alliance with any European country. We don't want war." If that was merely the opinion of Bilston, it would be extremely important to myself and to the Black Country, but I am absolutely confident that in saying, "We will have nothing to do with the squabbles of the European nations," Bilston was speaking, not only for the Black Country and the Midlands and England, but for the entire British Empire and so, with the most tremendous enthusiasm, I pass on that message from Bilston to this House.
9.48 p.m.
Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I am sure the whole House is very grateful to the hon. Member for his enthusiastic delivery of the message of Bilston, but is he quite entitled to say that the party on this side stands for war?
Mr. HANNAH: If I ever said anything of the kind, I want to take it back most emphatically. I would have said nothing of the kind, and I most emphatically repudiate it.
Mr. GRENFELL: I am glad, then that we are at peace with the hon. Member once again, but I was under the impression that he criticised this party, and especially the Motion, in which we are
1348
calling attention to the possibilities of war. The hon. Member has been in this House long enough to know that we are very concerned indeed with the possibilities of war, and that it is the chief preoccupation of all serious-minded persons in this House, outside, and all over the world at the present time. Of course, we are not anxious to have war, and we certainly did not insert in this Motion any provocation to war. I do not know why the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) should have dissociated himself from the preamble to the Motion. We on this side do not want to incite to war nor to give the impression that we are resigned to the certain possibility of war in Europe, but you must have a preamble to every Bill, and you should have a preamble to every case that you make out, and in order that hon. Members like the hon. Member for Huddersfield may understand why we moved this Motion, we have framed a preamble which I think explains itself to the majority of Members in this House.
The Motion is intended, not so much as propaganda, as to be both a warning to our own country and a declaration of policy. Hon. Members in this House must say whether they agree with us in this policy or not. My hon. Friends have cited examples of the evils which we wish to avert by the adoption of this policy. There are four hon. Members in the House who recognise the difficulty of differing publicly from the Motion and who have put down an Amendment, but after hearing the hon. Members who have spoken for it, I am convinced that it is not an Amendment; it is a distraction. The hon. Members who have spoken have found themselves on very difficult and strange ground. They approach very tentatively, they come forward and they go back, and they are plainly confused, but they must not be allowed to confuse the House on this very plain issue. It is true that we are proposing something less than Socialism. That is plain to everybody who understands what Socialism means, and we do not mind being told that by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, because he was once, I believe, a very good Socialist [Interruption.] I am sorry to have been misinformed. But we should not be condemned on that ground by hon. Members who voted against the Motion on Socialism a few days ago in this House.

1349
We are proposing consciously—and we invite the co-operation of this House—a deterrent to war and to wax propaganda. We believe, and I think we share the opinion with a large number of hon. Members opposite, that in every country of the world we have a good deal of support. The United States Legislature has been concerned very seriously with a Bill to give effect to the idea that no private protfieering should result from a national effort in war. The French Parliament too has passed, I think, a law dealing with this matter. The hon. Member is quite wrong when he criticises us for not embarking upon legislation, for not seeking to adopt war-time legislation in times of peace.
Mr. MABANE: May I take it then that the hon. Member is satisfied that a national need should be exploited by private interests in times of peace?
Mr. GRENFELL: No, but I am quite satisfied that the Amendment states truly what hon. Members opposite desire, and if he desires to abolish profiteering in times of peace, let him come over here. He has lost his way in coming to this House, and he ought to have come to this side if he is truly a Socialist, because a person who objects to profiteering as a part of ordinary commercial and industrial activity is a Socialist. He cannot be anything else. If a person objects to profiteering, he is a Socialist because he believes in giving in return only as much exactly as he receives, full measure in return for what he gives.
Mr. D. EVANS: Does the hon. Member make no difference between profiting and profiteering?
Mr. GRENFELL: I invite any hon. Member of this House to draw the distinction between the two. We are proposing a deterrent to war and to war propaganda and war provocation, and we offer this Motion for the serious consideration of the House, because we are aware of the very grave danger from the presence among us of the incentive to profiteering or profiting, whichever the hon. Member would prefer, out of the miseries and trials of the people. The glittering prizes are won, not by those who fight, but by those who buy and sell during the abnormal conditions of war. The lessons of the last War have largely been for-
1350
gotten, but the debts remain as a monument of the financial follies which the nation then tolerated. As the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) said, we borrowed in thousands of millions and promised to repay in hard cash with interest the fictitious loan so raised. The Motion does not indicate the detailed methods by which that was done nor the categories of profiteers to which reference may be made in a debate of this kind. I think we should call attention to the profiteering by the banks which were among the worst profiteers. They made enormous profits by their system of finance, and they covered up those profits and balanced them against the fall in the price of securities. They did not disclose the full measure of profits they made, but on the return of the value of the securities the appreciation in bank capital was revealed. Enormous profits have been shown even at the present time by the return of Consols to a standard more approaching that of before the War.
Profiteering was also carried on in the most essential services of food and clothing supplies and other civilian necessities, and prices went up all round in consequence. Hon. Members know a great deal of what occurred in the case of coal, steel and shipbuilding. Coal rose in price from 1913 to 1920 by five times, and the receipts of the industry were multiplied five times, even though production was very much reduced. The price of steel and shipping freights were also multiplied five times. I have a record of the three main industries in the part of the country to which I belong. We have in South Wales the coal, the steel and the tinplate industries, and I find that the combined income of these three was multiplied almost four times from 1913 to 1920. It is true that they have fallen once again. In 1920 the combined proceeds of the three industries was £125,000,000. To-day the market has fallen and the production is £52,250,000. There have been inflation and deflation, an opening out and a closing up of credits and prices, and in every transaction, in both the inflationary and deflationary periods, the banks and financiers benefited. This profiteering is not disclosed in the bank returns and records of transactions, and is thus largely hidden from the eyes of the public.

1351
This form of profiteering caused a great concern during the War. For a period during 1916–17 there was unrest and a Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of it. Something was said during the Debate about cheap money. Money is obviously dear when there are more borrowers than lenders. In time of war, when everybody sees the prospect of profiteering, everybody is willing to borrow money. Profiteering accounts for dear money, but after a war, when there were too few borrowers, the price of money naturally goes down. The reason why money is cheap to-day is that we borrowed thousands and millions of pounds, as has been described so well by my hon. Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring), and we have now a debt of £8,000,000,000. The country's obligations in a number of various enterprises are higher than they were before the War, and there are not sufficient borrowers for those who have money to lend. We have for the moment cheap money, and that is a sign that the vessel of State has been overloaded and that the whole business of national and private enterprise has been overburdened by the huge debt they have to carry.
There was a great controversy with regard to the conscription of wealth and life during the War. That is an issue the country will have to face. In face of threats of revolt the people of this country in 1916 were persuaded to accept a measure of conscription. There was, however, no conscription of wealth, and the huge burden of debt that has been piled on us is due to that fact. This Motion frankly faces the fact that profiteering and war run together. All down the pages of history we find hard words written of those who have exploited their country's need, who have robbed the soldier of his boots, of his shirt, and of his weapons of defence, and of those who have even supplied the enemy with arms for love of gold. The war profiteer has been commemorated in the parables of all nations. He has been denounced and condemned unless he has climbed too high to be safely attacked. Members on those benches during the War sat in rows of hard-faced men, as they were described by impartial observers who came to see this House. There
1352
they sat entrenched in both Houses of Parliament betraying the real interests of their country and looking for opportunities to enrich themselves, and they have become too high up to be safely attacked. Even though the profiteer is denounced as he deserves to be denounced, he turns up to play his dishonourable part whenever the smell of powder is in the air and Mars and Mammon control the stage together.
Our experience in 1914–18 ought to have convinced us that we cannot run the risk of a similar experience again. The world is not the same world as it was then. You cannot do the things with people to-day that you could do with people then. This policy of anti-profiteering in war-time for which we stand has received some support from the Prime Minister himself. In the White Paper there are suggestions of some limiting form of control, but we want to know how far the Government are prepared to go. The replies given by the Prime Minister to questions do not go far enough and do not commit the Government to anything. The hon. Member for Huddersfield pretends to give us support. The Amendment is only a verbal departure from our Motion, but the hon. Member suggested that a tax on profits should be imposed. He cannot get it both ways. If there be no profiteering, how is he going to get a tax on the war profits? How is there to be any excess profits if there is to be no profiteering? Does he approve of a tax or of the abolition of profiteering?
Mr. MABANE: I distinguish between two things. There are those who are contracting directly, and I suggested that the measures proposed by the Government deal with them. Then I want to go beyond them so that some contribution should be made by the general body of industry that was not directly concerned in contracts.
Mr. GRENFELL: The ion. Gentleman is solely concerned with profiteering in war, but if he wants to abolish profiteering he must deal with all of production because everything is war production in war time. He cannot allow any kind of transaction to escape.
Mr. MABANE: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling the House how he would do it? In my speech I endeavoured to point out how it could be done. The hon. Gentleman has not made one suggestion.
Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member apparently wants me to describe the kind of board which will be set up, but that is not my job. It is the job of the Government. There must be machinery set up, and I would produce my machinery to-morrow. There must be conditions to which people have to conform. It is up to the Government to accept the principle. The Government is responsible for maintaining the front not only against enemies outside, but for protecting the home fronts, the vital fronts. The real strength of the nation is the strength and unity of the front at home. This nation is more peace-minded than it ever was before. It cannot be induced to go to war again for a like cause. It will not go to war unless there are strong guarantees that many of the abuses from which the country suffered between 1914 and 1918 will never be repeated. We learned much in those years. Shall we again fall into the old errors? Will any Government be able to borrow money in Europe in the next war? Can we in this country borrow money to fight for two or three years at the rate of expenditure experienced in the last War? We must fall upon the method of paying as we go. There will be no borrowing in the next war. This country may be able to borrow, but it will not be able to permit individuals in any walk of life to gather riches from the sacrifices of their fellow-countrymen. We hope war may never come to our generation. On this side of the House we shall strengthen every contribution of the Government to establish the peace of the world through collective security. If we are faced with the prospect of war we warn the Government now, as representing the working people of this country—
Marquess of TITCHFIELD: No.
Mr. GRENFELL: The Noble Lord is only deceiving himself.
Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I am not denying the hon. Member a claim to represent the miner, but I represent the working man as a Noble Lord just as well as the miner's representative represents the workers.
Mr. GRENFELL: I am sure nobody tries to represent the worker better than the Noble Lord does, but I claim to represent the miners better than the
1354
Noble Lord, just as he is able to represent Noble Lords better than I am. I mean no offence at all. Profiteering is an insidious form of activity which weakens the strength of the country. It acts like a cancer in the hearts and minds of the people. In this House and outside there are examples of men who undeservedly got rich during the last War. Let us ask the Government to ensure that that kind of thing does not happen again. There is no national strength or security unless every man pulls his weight, and there is a common sacrifice.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. W. S. MORRISON: There has been a wide debate on this very interesting and vital subject. I shall endeavour to recall the House to what is the subject-matter of the Motion, namely, what is well known as profiteering. There may be quarrels about the definition of the word, but it conveys a pretty accurate expression to every hon. Member, and we need not bother about subtleties of interpretation. I find it very difficult to quarrel with the Motion or with the Amendment to the Motion. As it is a Private Member's Motion I do not propose to suggest that hon. Members should vote for one or the other. There is complete unanimity on the part of Members on the other side in agreeing with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) that profiteering in wartime is against the instinct of the people and ought to be stopped. The main difference between the Amendment and the Motion is that the hon. Member for Huddersfield seeks to extend the operation of this anti-profiteering machinery from war conditions to such conditions as we may have in peace-time, when we are engaged in repairing the deficiencies in our armaments. From that point of view it appears to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is of a more far-reaching description than the Motion.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring), who introduced this Motion, will forgive me if I do not enter into a contest on the question of Socialist theory. I prefer his Motion to the arguments which he used in support of it, and as to the Motion itself, it is very difficult for anyone to quarrel seriously with it. The speech which the hon. Member delivered in support of it made use of that device which is fre-

1355
quently used by hon. Members opposite, of conveniently dividing mankind into sheep and goats. That is a device which makes it very easy to discuss topics in a convincing manner. If the hon. Member will abandon with me that contest to-night I hope he will find we are not so very far apart. I propose to abandon that contest because I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to answer this Debate on the assumption that the war which the Motion envisages will coincide with the triumph of Socialism in this country. In other words, if we have to think of a war at all it will not coincide with Socialism.
We have to think of the present system. There are two entirely different problems. The one is what the State has to do in time of war and the other what is to be done in time of peace. I do not quarrel with hon. Members for drawing attention to the possibility of war. Much as every party in this House detests the idea, of such a catastrophe again overtaking the world, it is the duty of every Government, no matter what its complexion may be—it would be the duty of hon. Members opposite if they were in our place—to have in view measures which it can take to mitigate the rigours of that dreadful possibility, and I myself do not in the least associate the fact that hon. Members opposite have moved this Motion with any acceptance by them, or by us, of the theory that war is inevitable and must come.
The Motion deals with profiteering in time of war. Profiteering is only a part of the problem which faces every Government in that dreadful emergency, and if a war did take place—which God forbid—we should find it necessary to mobilise all the resources of the country so as to ensure that there was the adequate production of all that was required for the war. Not only would the Government have to do its best to secure the adequate production of war material, but it would have to intervene to prevent the needs of the civilian population and the requirements in the way of food and transport being dislocated by the sudden demands of war. It is obvious that this duty could not be discharged without the assumption by the Government of the day of wide powers of control, and the House will agree that the time to devise such measures is not when the war has broken
1356
out but when we have time to look about us coolly and calmly.
Profiteering is one of the things to be looked at. It is clearly a monstrous thing that any section of the community, as the Motion puts it, should seek to exploit the situation of she nation to its own sectional advantage. Profiteering is an evil in the body politic which is both material and spiritual. It is a material evil in time of war because if the situation is exploited in such a way that too much of the nation's resources is going in this particular direction, it means that the effort of the nation is not as economical and as formidable as it would be if those resources were not being wasted. It is also what I have ventured to term a spiritual evil in the body politic, because a great deal of the nation's strength in the hour of danger depends upon the solidarity of its people. No nation can contemplate profiteering without seeing how it tends to divide people. It fills those who are called upon for heavy sacrifices of life, of wealth, of industry or of leisure, with feelings which tend to destroy that solidarity which is essential if we are to have the nation functioning properly.
Of course, this Motion is largely prompted, as the Debate has shown, by stories of the accumulation of vast and unjust profits during the last War, and the fear is, as I understand it, that the last War happened so long ago that we have forgotten the lessons of control in the economic sphere which it taught us, and that if another war should supervene we should be found in the same position as we were in 1914. I can assure the House that nothing of the kind is the case. In 1914 this country had no experience of the problems that are involved in war on the modern scale. We had a small force and cur equipment of arsenals and factories for supplies for that force were on a correspondingly small scale. No one had any idea of the vast expansion of production that would become necessary; and, naturally, when control was established in this and that direction it was control of a fragmentary, piece-meal, hesitating aid often experimental character. Very often, too, that control, starting as it did with a complete absence of experience, was applied too late, and when the evil which it was sought to mitigate had already attained such proportions as to be out of hand.

1357
I can assure the House that in this respect we have had our lesson and have profited by it. Immediately the War was over it was recognised that this dearly-bought experience should not be suffered to perish through the mere passing away of those who had been concerned in administration during that War. The problems involved, particularly in the key industries, in regard to profiteering, have been actively under consideration by various Departments of the State for years.
Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: What do they propose to do? Tell us what they are going to do.
Mr. MORRISON: The Government's plan covers the whole field, including this important matter of profiteering and the control necessary to enable the Government to use the industry and the commerce of this nation for this purpose. Such plans have been worked out, but I do not represent them as that sort of mysterious, cold schedule which we are often told exists and in which everything is worked out to the last minute. Plans of this kind must never be static. I assure the House that these plans are constantly under review and brought up to date.
Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Let us hear them.
Mr. MORRISON: Hon. Members ask me for information as to the plans themselves. I am sure that the House will not expect me at this hour—
Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman7 He made reference to plans touching the manufacture of war material. Are the Government going to take control of credit?
Mr. MORRISON: I can assure the hon. Member that the plans are no mere matters of one problem; they envisage all the problems, including financial ones as well, although hon. Members must not be surprised if they do not find in them their own pet nostrums. From the magnitude of the problem it follows that the plan touches many operations and that many experts must give their particular contribution to the solution of the problem. The position is this: If
1358
ever the dreadful emergency arose, the Government would come to the House of Commons and ask for power to put into operation a system of control to ensure that the most economical use was made of the nation's resources in order that the evil against which this Motion is directed might not arise.
So much for the war that is envisaged; but let us remember that we are still at peace. I hope that we shall long remain so. It is in this time that the second part of this Amendment would arise, in regard to steps being taken to repair the deficiencies in our defences. That is peace-time activity, and is quite different from the kind of governmental control which becomes necessary in time of war. It is activity undertaken in the hope that it will help peace to endure until the world reaches a calmer time. In that spirit we should approach the second problem comprehended in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. It is a very different problem from the problem of war. For one thing, the quantities of production involved are immensely smaller than the demands of war upon the nation. The programme in the White Paper about which hon. Members make criticisms from time to time is a very small affair, raising none of the problems of war time. The production for this programme is being undertaken by an industry which has not been conducted for war purposes, but is still in the main engaged in manufactures for peace. We hope that it will remain so, but the programme is one which is to be superimposed on an industry, busily engaged in the operations of peace, to make it an industry engaged in the business of war.
The Government's policy in this matter is that the programme for repairing our defences should not interfere with the peace-time activities of our industry, as far as that can be avoided. That makes the problem of preventing excess profits a very different one from what it is in times of war. In times of peace, the normal safeguard relied upon by the Government is competitive tender, but to-day, when this programme is being superimposed upon an already busy industry, we find that competitive tender cannot invariably be relied upon to check abnormal profits. It is, however, by no means a factor that has entirely dis-

1359
appeared; in many cases competitive tender is still open to us as a check upon excess profits. But the Government have always recognised the fact that competitive tender can no longer serve as the only safeguard to prevent undue profits. The system which exists to-day for that purpose is no immediately extemporised thing; it has been worked by the Treasury and the Defence Departments since last May. It is a system by which the Defence Departments concerned have a special form of contract procedure involving access to the contractors' books, and our technical officers can not only check the actual profits made, but, where necessary, can give technical advice which will enable costs to be reduced. Hon. Members who may cherish the delusion that manufacturers can keep duplicate books for the purposes of the Government's inspection should at least not cherish the equal delusion that the officials of the Government are so easily deceived as they might imagine.
The question arises, what is a reasonable profit, and what is not? That problem cannot be solved in any cut-and-dried, rule-of-thumb manner. I am informed that one of the mistakes made in the Ministry of Munitions was to work out a sort of profit-on-turnover basis, so that, if an industry were making a profit of, say, 5 per cent., it was assumed that it might perfectly fairly be allowed to go on making a profit of 5 per cent. Any such short-cut leads to the most indefensible results, because it is a commonplace that, when you have a vastly increased production of goods, you expect the percentage profit on the turnover to be very much less, while the industry is still adequately remunerated. In other words, these economies of large-scale production should be as far as possible secured to the nation. There are, however, difficulties. It is not possible to lay down a definite rule, but I may say that there is a very strong advisory committee assisting the Air Force in the matter of contracts and profit-adjusting, under the chairmanship of Sir Hardman Lever, and the success of that committee will probably lead to the adoption of a similar procedure, using the best technical advice that we can, to assist us in the case of the other Services. But that is a mere suggestion.
1360
It is necessary for the Government to secure a willing industry to work with them. We do not take the view of human nature that hon. Members opposite take. We believe that industry will play the game with us, and when I say industry I mean all concerned in industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the game that they will play?"] The game that one expects a British subject to play when it is a question of national emergency. We believe that we shall get a willing industry to assist the nation. That does not mean that we should merely rely on assurances given to us. If we were forced to fight a war, undoubtedly control of a very pronounced character would be necessary in the public interest in order to prevent not only profiteering but the breakdown of supplies. In those circumstances, of course, the Government would have to come to the House to ask for powers. In the meantime the Government of the day, if that dreadful day dawns, will be in possession of a scheme worked out which will enable them to exercise the duties of the Government in those dreadful circumstances. But, with regard to peace, we do not think it necessary to take any of those wide powers in order to make certain that the armament programme is carried out without undue cost.
The present method of costings will be a sufficient help to us and a sufficient safeguard of the public. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) indicated that perhaps the financial requirements of this programme of improved defence might have unfortunate repercussions upon the money market and upset the policy of free money which has been such a marked contributor to the nation's recovery. That is not so. As far as we can see at present, there is no reason to suppose that the demands of this programme will in any way interfere with the continuance of abundant cheap credit. I am prepared to accept either the Motion or the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolved,
"That, in the event of an outbreak of war, this House is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should be immediately invested with whatever powers may be necessary to ensure that the national need shall not be exploited by private interests and profit mongers."

DISTURBANCES, KENSINGTON.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson]
10.35 p.m.
Mr. DINGLE FOOT: In the time that remains, I want to raise a subject which was referred to at some length at Question Time to-day. A number of questions were on the Order Paper with regard to the action of the Metropolitan Police in dispersing a meeting that was held on Thurloe Square last Sunday evening. The Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a long reply as to the reasons which led to that action. The House knows that on Sunday evening there was a Fascist demonstration in the Albert Hall, and that a number of persons intended to hold counter demonstrations, and we have been informed today by the Home Secretary that the Commissioner of Police had issued a direction that no counter-meeting should be held within a radius of half-a-mile of the Albert Hall. I am not in any way criticising that particular direction, but I would point out that the place where this meeting, with which I am now concerned, was held is about half-a-mile as the crow flies from the Albert Hall, and considerably more, if one had to go the normal way along the street.
I do not suggest in the case of this particular meeting that there was the slightest danger of a clash taking place between those who were demonstrating on behalf of the Fascist cause in the Albert Hall and those who wished to demonstrate against it outside. This meeting began about 8 o'clock and was allowed to continue for about 50 minutes. At 8.50 or thereabouts a number of police arrived on the scene—20 of them, as we were told to-day, mounted, and the others on foot—and proceed forcibly to disperse this meeting, using truncheons and staves for the purpose. I want to make my position clear to the House. I do not dispute for a moment that, if people hold a public meeting on the highway and if they cause an obstruction in so doing, the police are entitled to request them to move on, and, if they fail to comply, the police are then entitled—nobody disputes that, I think—to use such force as may be necessary to compel them to move. My information is—and the Home Secre-
1362
tary perhaps will be able to correct me if I am wrong—that no such request was made to those who were in charge of the meeting. I cannot, of course, say what was said to individuals on the outskirts of the crowd, but there were speakers who were addressing the meeting from a lorry, and I am told that no request or message was sent to them that they should disperse their meeting, or that they should move on to a different place.
Surely, it would have been better if, before taking action of this kind, which, I think, everyone will agree, was strong action, the police should at least have made some sort of request of that nature to the people who were responsible for the crowd being there. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary knows, there have been quoted a large number of statements from persons who were present at the meeting, and who witnessed what occurred, or at any rate some part of what occurred. Last night I handed to the right hon. Gentleman a number of statements which were taken from eyewitnesses. I have since received a number of further statements, which I will hand to him if he wishes to see them after this Debate, and also to-day a number of hon. Members in this House have received letters from persons who were present on the occasion, and who have written to them quite independently in order to protest against the action of the police.
It is correct to say that all the people who have made statements in one form or another are unanimous upon three points. First, they say that the meeting was orderly. I do not deny that at a meeting of that character there must have been a certain amount of noise, but it is clear that the speakers, who were without any mechanical aid, were perfectly audible at a considerable distance from the platform, and the meeting could not have been of a disorderly character. There is also no dispute that the police did charge into this crowd using their staves and batons, and, thirdly, that they used their batons in a manner which was certainly not justified by the circumstances. I do not want to weary the House with long quotations, but in order to show the sort of statement that is being made I will read one or two sentences from some of the statements which

1363
have been supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. In his statement Mr. Harding says:
"I became aware of a great excitement in Albert Place, and at about 8.50 mounted police came along Albert Place, charged the meeting with batons, striking right and left."
Another quotation reads:
"At ten minutes to nine mounted police came in force and charged the meeting with batons injuring several people and scattering everyone."
Another:
"It appeared to me that the manoeuvres were made as provocative as possible and in breaking up the meeting the police, especially the mounted police, used their staves and truncheons indiscriminately."
A further quotation reads:
"A few minutes later, at 8.50 p.m., without any warning that we were able to hear, about 15 or more mounted police charged straight into the crowd striking right and left with their batons."
Another one says:
"Shouts from the outside of the crowd grew in volume and mounted police cut right through the middle of the crowd at considerable pace, hitting people right and left with their batons."
Those are specimens from a large number of statements which have been taken from people who were actually present at the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman at Question Time gave an account of what had taken place which is presumably an account supplied him by the police authorities. The answer will be fresh within the recollection of hon. Members, and it is clear that there is here a conflict of evidence. I am not attempting to disparage the information which has been passed on to the right hon. Gentleman, but at any rate here you have a large number of persons, about 30 or 40, who were present and they are making very grave allegations about the conduct of the police. If it were only a matter of two or three disgruntled persons I agree that it might safely be ignored, but here we have a large number of persons who are unanimous upon the essential points. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that all these people are saying what they know to be untrue. I do not think anybody in this House would suggest that there is no basis of truth in any of these statements that have been made.
1364
Now, if only half of the facts in these statements are true, I submit to the House that there is ample justification for holding an inquiry into what took place last Sunday night. I am trying not to put the case too high and not to pre-judge this issue in any way. I certainly have not attempted to make a general attack upon the police as a force, and I would like to say that we all appreciate the difficulties which they encounter on such occasions as last Sunday night. There may be, and I hope there is, a perfectly good answer to all these charges that have been made, but at any rate they are serious charges and they are supported by a very large number of eyewitnesses. Surely in justice to the public and in justice to the police themselves a full and impartial inquiry ought to he held.
May I say one word about my own position in this matter? I have no particular sympathy with the people who were engaging in this demonstration. As it happens, they invited me some days before to take part in this anti-Fascist demonstration. I refused to do so, because I took the view that it was unnecessary to hold counter-demonstrations on the same evening and because I also took the view that it was not worth while to give the Blackshirt movement an advertisement which it could not obtain in any other way. That is my personal view, and I have not altered it in any way. I am not concerned in the least with the politics or the views of those who organised this demonstration in Thurlowe Square. We are only concerned here with the conduct of the police, and I submit to the House and the Home Secretary that at any rate there is here a matter for inquiry.
10.47 p.m.
Captain HOPE: I hope I may be allowed to intervene for a few moments, not as a member of the Government, but as an eye witness of the scenes on Sunday night and as an unwilling participant in those scenes. On Sunday evening I went in my motor-car to dine with my mother, who lives at the corner of Alfred Place and Thurloe Square. I arrived at ten minutes to eight, and left my car unattended outside the front door. About 20 minutes later, I heard sounds of song and a certain amount of shouting outside. The song, as I afterwards ascertained, was the "Internationale" I

1365
went outside, partly out of curiosity and partly to see whether anything was likely to happen to my car. On arriving outside, I found the crowd, which I estimated at betwen 500 and 600, assembling at the corner of Alfred Place and Thurloe Square. Shortly afterwards a motor-car came up, and to my surprise a gentleman got on to the fly-board and proceeded to address the crowd. My surprise was still greater when I saw that the gentleman concerned was Mr. John Strachey, who I last met as a political opponent in the 1931 election. On the last occasion I had actually seen him he was moaning at the loss of his deposit. I listened to him for a certain time and also stood by my car.
At that time the crowd seemed quite peaceful and was listening to the oratory of Mr. Strachey. I heard some of his remarks, which were not particularly important, except that he accused the police of favouring the Fascists rather than his own organisation, and there was a good deal about downtrodden workers and so on, which one rather expected. After a time, when I was standing by my car, several people very kindly said to me, "Don't worry about your car, it will be all right." So I went back inside the house. After five or 10 minutes I saw 20 or 30 members of the crowd come to my car and push it backwards about 25 yards, down Alfred Place, and put it across the road as a barrier, at which I naturally ran out of the house and tried to rescue my car. I reasoned with them, I hope persuasively, and finally was allowed to turn my car round and drive it in the direction of Kensington Station. When I got to my car the people round it were by no means friendly and had unscrewed the cap of the petrol tank. One man I heard say, "Give us a match and I will set the — thing alight." Another man said, "Give us a knife and we will slash the car."
From that moment I did not look upon the meeting as a particularly friendly one, or as one particularly anxious to preserve the peace. Having seen my car put in a place of safety I came back to the house, by which time the crowd had grown very much and was much more aggressive. I was unable to enter my father's house because the crowd were all round the door and I could not get in. Finally, I got in by climbing the area railings and entering by the area door.
1366
The crowd were much more impassioned than when I had left. Their numbers had been added to considerably, and they were stirred up either by Mr. Strachey's oratory or the stimulation of the numbers who had joined them, and they were by that time in an ugly mood. Some 50 to 100 people had climbed the railings in Thurloe Square and were in the gardens for safety or for anything else. I watched the proceedings carefully, because I wanted to see what was going on. The yelling and the shouting had become much worse. The crowd were forming a cordon across Alfred Place and were threatening the police to "come on." After about five minutes mounted and foot police came up Alfred Place and dispersed the crowd.
I do not agree with what my hon. Friend said, that the police charged the crowd, hitting people right and left. They did not charge up the street. They came at a slow pace and waved their truncheons in the air. I do not pretend to have seen everything, but personally I saw only two people struck. One was a man who flashed a flashlight directly into a horse's face, and the policeman struck the flashlight out of his hand; and the other was a man who aimed a blow at a foot policeman and the policeman gave him an upper cut. I saw nobody struck to the ground. As far as I could see there were few casualties of any sort.
When I went to rescue my car I said to the people, "Why do you want to put a barrier across the road?" and they said, "Because the police will be after us, and will move us off "They knew then that they should not have met at that place, and they were perfectly prepared to be moved on by the police. They had from 50 minutes to an hour in which to hold their meeting, and the police were justified in moving them on when they did so. The crowd was growing ugly and was growing bigger, and was undoubtedly causing great disturbance in the neighbourhood. When the police did move them on, they scattered down the Brompton Road or down towards the Fulham Road. I gave the police inspector a report of what I had actually seen. I do not consider that the police used undue violence and I do not believe that anyone was seriously hurt. Owing to the great crowd, in a comparatively narrow street, certain people were slightly crushed against the railings, but

1367
I never saw anyone being carried away injured, anyone lying on the ground, or any person with a bleeding head. I do not consider that the police in any way exceeded their duty. I only intervene because I am probably the only Member of the House who saw what happened, and I have merely stated the facts as I saw them. I believe the police were justified in moving on the crowd, and that the crowd expected to be moved on, and they moved on quickly and dispersed in a peaceful manner.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. PRITT: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and I also am particularly anxious not in any way to prejudge the situation but merely to appeal to the Home Secretary for an inquiry of the widest possible character, an inquiry which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the police need not fear if their version is right. The natural observation that one cannot order inquiries here, there and everywhere, even if the police do feel that they have nothing to fear, should, in this case, I think, be met by the volume of evidence already available against the police. I do not say a word about its quality. As I say, I do not want to prejudge anything but I have 28 statements in my hand, I have received eight or ten at my chambers, and I expect when I return there I shall find another dozen or so. Similar statements are being sent to other hon. Members and are pouring into the newspaper offices. They come from people who are my constituents and people who are not. They come from people who are politicians and people who are not. They come from people who write excitedly and people who write soberly; from professional people, middle-class people and working-class people. In essence, they all make the same allegations.
I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. and gallant Member who had the advantage of seeing a great deal of what occurred. I do not for a moment suggest that he told the House anything he did not see, but when half a dozen people at the edge of a crowd say one thing it does not mean that the whole of the crowd think that way. I suggest that the proper course for the police, if they wanted to clear away the crowd, was to see the people on the lorry, in charge of
1368
it, and say to them, "Will you please help to disperse this meeting by taking yourself and your lorry away."
Captain HOPE: It would have been quite impossible for the police to get through the crowd to the lorry which was jammed up at Thurloe Place.
Mr. PRITT: My experience of the police leads me to believe that they are sufficiently capable of doing that which is part of their duty, namely, to make their way through a crowd. If 20 mounted police could get through a crowd, one plain clothes policeman could get through more easily. But I do not want to prejudge the case. The hon. Member saw no people with bleeding heads. I have 10 or 15 statements of other people who saw people with bleeding heads. I know the hon. Member is telling the truth, and I assume that 25 per cent. of the others are telling the truth, and, of course, both statements are quite consistent. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Mr. PRITT: I hope I am not saying anything unduly controversial if I make this additional ground of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I know that from the industrial districts in the North and in the South-West, and from London and many areas, and from many classes of people, there is growing up in this country a growing distrust, a growing fear, and a growing hatred of many police forces—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—I was interested to observe earlier in the afternoon that one thing that seemed to excite hon. Members opposite was the desire of hon. Members on this side to know the name of a police officer against whom many allegations, whether true or false, have been made, as if hon. Members opposite feared that if his name were known, something dreadful would come out. It is a very tragic fact that the hatred of the police in this country is growing in many districts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if these police are wrong, it is his elementary duty to hold an inquiry. If they are right, it will save many broken heads if the public

1369
can be convinced that some of their hatred of the police is wrong. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to prejudge anything, and I hold myself from prejudging anything, but I ask for an inquiry.
11.2 p.m.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) for providing me with the material which he had in his hand, I think, last night, and I need hardly say that I have studied it carefully, in order that it might help me to reach the conclusion which I will state to the House. He has made one or two observations about the statements, and I must make one or two more. I quite accept that he puts these statements forward with every belief in their genuineness, and I accept them as genuine in the sense that I have no reason to challenge what may be the view of those who have reported what is here stated. But when I read the statements, I am bound to say that they do not impress me, now that I know what I do know about the facts, as much as they seem to have impressed my hon. Friend; and I will tell him why.
I find, as indeed has just been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), that they all make the same allegation, which I think was the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The allegation in substance is this, that this was a completely peaceable meeting, that it was a perfectly orderly crowd, that everything was perfectly quiet and orderly, and so on, again and again. Well, whatever may be the truth—and truth is many-sided—that is manifestly not an accurate account of the facts. We have heard my hon. Friend here explaining that as a matter of fact his own car was appropriated by a portion of this crowd in order to help to make a barrier in Alfred Place. Well, just listen to the way in which that is described by one of the hon. Member's witnesses. This is what he says:
"The meeting was perfectly orderly and attentive, and a cordon of people formed across Alfred Place to keep order."
A number of people who had no right to be there were forming a cordon across Alfred Place to keep order. They were forming it with my hon. Friend's motor car. They were forming it to prevent
1370
the police from approaching the meeting. It is obvious to anyone who has studied the reports that to describe this as a quiet Sunday evening crowd is merely to make statements that are contrary to the facts.
I take a second example. I told the House at Question Time of a serious case that has come before the magistrate—
Mr. PRITT: I did not mention that case because I thought it was the subject of appeal. I could have said a good deal about it.
Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether I ought to congratulate myself on my hon. and learned Friend's reticence or not. I thank my stars for my good fortune. I am only going to make this observation, for let us preserve our judicial pose. What I read in the statement of one of these witnesses is this:
"The second incident was the arrest of this young man"—
and my hon. Friend offers this as some testimony of the bad behaviour of the police and the virtue of the crowd—
"who had attempted to help a friend who was being wrongfully arrested."
Now I know how it should be described quite impartially. If the police have got somebody in their custody and they are engaged in taking the person in custody to the station, and if somebody else comes and tries to deliver that person from custody, the right way to describe it is to say, "This young man was attempting to help a friend who was being wrong fully arrested." Subject to what may be ascertained on appeal, that is a case in which a policeman was unfortunately kicked in the most horrible manner.
Mr. FOOT: This passage refers to a much later incident at 10.45.
Sir J. SIMON: Then there must have been at least two cases in this crowd in which peaceful and orderly persons were attempting to rescue friends who were being wrongfully arrested. I can only say that, having tested the details with some care, my own view is that it refers to the same case. It is perfectly plain to anybody who studies the material which I have had that there was, in fact, a very dangerous situation and a vast accumulation of people, many of whom were certainly not behaving well. It is quite obvious that there were a very large number of people in this place who

1371
were not behaving well and quietly and who were composing part of a dangerous crowd.
My hon. Friends opposite spoke as though they were the only recipients of letters. Do they suppose that nobody has written to Scotland Yard or the Home Office on this subject? I have letters from people who say that the accusations that the police were behaving improperly were, as far as they could see, wholly without foundation, and they give detailed chapter and verse for incident after incident to show what happened.
Mr. COCKS: Why not have an inquiry then?
Sir J. SIMON: Let me call a witness whom, I have no doubt, my hon. Friend who interrupted me will accept as one of great accuracy and veracity. I have a copy of the "Daily Worker" published on Monday and containing some stop press information as to what was going on according to the veracious and responsible journalists who work for that newspaper. Let me just read the stop press notes in the "Daily Worker":
"8.5 p.m. The temper of the crowd is rising, indicated by the fact that one car believed to contain a blackshirt was nearly turned until it was found that the man was wearing a dark blue shirt."
Then it gives an account of the mounted police attempting to drive back a crowd of 300, which I take to be a misprint for 3,000. It says that the police going down Exhibition Road met with much difficulty owing to the fact that the horses had to walk in and out of traffic. Then it goes on:
"8.15 Three mounted police made a charge outside South Kensington Station and made an arrest. The crowd went for them."
That is my witness—the "Daily Worker." When I recollect that one of the signatories to Mr. John Strachey's circular inviting people to come to this meeting was my hon. Friend opposite, I think he will realise that the account of the "Daily Worker" was pretty accurate.
Mr. GALLACHER: I would like to put a correct construction on what is meant by the document and by the ac-
1372
count in the "Daily Worker." The right hon. Gentleman is putting an entirely false construction upon it.
Sir J. SIMON: I shall certainly not speak until 11.30 p.m., and so the hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity he desires.
There is another feature common to the whole of these statements. There is not a single one of them from beginning to end which does not treat this vast meeting in Thurloe Square as though it was a meeting which had been called there and was being held and addressed by those responsible in the ordinary way, without any notice that it was, in fact, quite contrary to the lawful orders given by the police. There is not a witness here who appears even to have appreciated how different the facts were. The true facts were that Mr. Strachey, who seems to have been the principal spokesman, had received in good time a perfectly plain and courteous letter from the police authorities informing him that the Commissioner had given instructions that no meeting should be held that evening within a certain distance of the Albert Hall. [Interruption.] Is there any objection to that?
Mr. PRITT: Only that this meeting was more than half a mile from the Albert Hall.
Sir J. SIMON: No, it was not. They knew perfectly well that if they thought the instructions of the Commissioner were unlawful, they had an opportunity of getting the best advice. They would have been entitled to challenge anything which they thought to be unlawful. But they did not communicate with the police or with the Home Office, and then when the time came, they did their utmost to collect this enormous crowd, at 7 p.m. outside the Albert Hall and at 8.30 in Exhibition Road. I wonder whether my hon. Friend who has presented this matter has ascertained from Mr. Strachey why he thought it desirable to assemble in thousands in that manner. I have a theory, which I will advance with all due regard to the necessity of preserving a judicial and impartial attitude. My belief is that the people who did this, did it, not because there are riot many places where they could hold meetings and demonstrate to their heart's content and

1373
not because there are not many places where they have held meetings without the slightest attempt at interference, but because they knew there was to be a Fascist demonstration in the Albert Hall. If, in such a case, you collect as many opponents of that creed as you can outside the Albert Hall before the meeting begins and as the people are going in and if, again, you collect them, an hour and a half later, in Exhibition Road when the meeting is beginning to break up, what do you think you are going to produce? Conviction, truth—or riot? No sensible citizen can have any doubt that if, against the lawful orders of the police, you go into a prohibited area and hold this kind of meeting in order that you may demonstrate against opinions which many of us abhor, you are taking a. very dangerous course, and I am not in the least surprised to hear from my hon. Friend that, although he was invited to take part in this meeting, for very good reasons he refused to do so.
So far from agreeing that in this matter the police deserve to be rebuked, so far from sharing the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there exists a widespread hatred of the police, I think I am better justified in claiming that, broadly speaking, the people of this country have a very considerable respect for the police and considerable sympathy with their difficulties, and are very slow to believe that men whom they know from their contact with them from time to time suddenly turned into cruel devils—because certain persons say that this was an entirely peaceful gathering, that nobody ever did anything in the least likely to provoke a breach of the peace—and yet suddenly there burst in upon them these minions of the law.
If there was any solid reason for believing anything of the kind it would not be necessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask for an inquiry. I should be the very first to insist upon one. As things are, how does the matter really stand? The Commissioner of Police is always prepared, and it is his duty to do so, to examine any complaint which is made and supported by evidence against any policeman. Also, the law courts are open. This is not a country where, as in sonic countries, you cannot challenge what a policeman does. Any member of the public may take proceedings in either the civil or criminal courts against a
1374
policeman if he is prepared to prove by evidence that the policeman has committed an assault or exceeded his duty, but there is not a person in the whole of this array, so far as I know, who is prepared to do it. Let them do it if they have a case. If, on the other hand, they are doubtful, let them communicate with the Commissioner, and they may be sure that investigation will be made. For my part, having investigated this matter, without the slightest desire to be other than impartial, I can see no justification at all for saying that in these circumstances there should be what is called an inquiry of the widest possible character. I think the conclusion which will be drawn by most hon. Members present is that this was a perfectly gratuitous difficulty which was presented to the Metropolitan Police, and it was deliberately designed to present this difficulty without rhyme or reason, that the people who did it knew that they were breaking the law in doing it, and that those who are really responsible are those who gathered this crowd together. An hon. Member says that notice should have been given to invite the speakers to desist from the meeting or draw off the crowd. I have already pointed out that the crowd was barricading the entrance to Thurloe Square. It is quite clear that the crowd was attempting to keep the police from getting into the place. I have seen the principal officers concerned since I answered the questions in the House and they tell me that, when the mounted police first approached, a man who appeared to be in authority came forward and saw them. He was asked to give up the meeting and withdraw. They saw this man return, I do not say to the platform; but certainly he returned. They heard the crowd shouting, "No, no." The police then waited 10 minutes before any action was taken.
I hope I have explained to the House how this matter appears to stand. I am sorry I cannot accept this request, but I see no ground for it at all. I will now keep the promise that I made to my hon. Friend, who desires to explain that I have not correctly read what I thought I saw printed in the "Daily Worker."
11.22 p.m.
Mr. GALLACHER: The first thing to which to draw attention is the statement that I participated in calling and organising a demonstration of about 100,000

1375
strong, and that there was no trouble of any kind. I took part in organising a demonstration on the occasion of the previous meeting held by the Fascists at the Albert Hall. It was timed to meet outside the Albert Hall one hour before the meeting started, and then to proceed to a suitable place and call a demonstration of an anti-Fascist character. We gathered outside the Albert Hall. There were thousands of us. We demonstrated there against the Fascists for reasons which I can give. We marched away, from there. We held a demonstration, and there was no trouble of any kind. The Home Secretary must be aware of that. He has deliberately tried to mislead this House and to play up to their prejudices by saying that the calling of this demonstration was for the purpose of making trouble. None of the demonstrators went there with any weapon of any kind, or with any intention of doing anything other than demonstrating. When the police took a man, a certain individual who tried to help was arrested, but that does not mean that he obstructed the police in the sense that he tried to take the prisoner out of their hands.
Sir J. SIMON: What did he do?
Mr. GALLACHER: One friend of mine, a young man, was arrested. I am not sure whether this is the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman or not, but that is actually a case which is before the magistrate. When the young man was arrested, he said to the police, "That young man has done nothing, and you have no right to arrest him. He has been along with me all the time." He tried to help him, and he also got arrested. He is a Parliamentary candidate and a very responsible young fellow, and he tells me and tells the House that he never made any attempt of any kind to interfere with the police in the sense of trying to take the prisoner out of their hands. I am certain that there is no charge against him of trying to do so.
Sir J. SIMON: Let me say this at once; I do not wish to make, even by accident, a mistaken statement. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that the case to which I have referred, in the statement I have read, is a case of that character, and he knows it, I shall of course accept
1376
it as information; but there were cases of attempts to rescue people from the police, without any doubt whatever.
Mr. GALLACHER: I have said that I am not sure whether the case the right hon. Gentleman has read is the case that has come before my personal notice, but it is the case of a well-known member of the Labour party who tried to help his friend, but not in the sense of interfering with the police. When the "Daily Herald" writes abort the crowd going for the police when the police made an attack, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that that means that the crowd, with bare hands and no weapons, and unorganised in the sense of not being under any particular command, made a physical attack on the police? No; it means that the crowd were shouting against the action of the police. I have been in thousands of demonstrations, and this argument has been used that the crowd went for the police, but all it meant was that they were shouting.
With regard to the calling of the demonstration, you had last night in this House the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) dealing in the most impassioned manner with the bestial attack on Jews in Germany, but when you have the most vicious and deliberate incitement to the same bestiality in this country, and are making a demonstration to prevent it from growing, all the forces of the police are used to protect that bestial demonstration. People talk about freedom of speech and public meeting. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has an acute legal mind, take note of this? This organisation against which we are entitled to demonstrate, in its public meeting, so called, dispensed with that usual safeguard of public meetings, a chairman, and put in his place organised gangs specially prepared for violently suppressing any kind of opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman or the Government were to propose that to remove Mr. Speaker and replace him with a gang of hooligans who would suppress every attempt at opposition, would the people of this country have a right to demonstrate against that? If the people have that right, have we. not a right to demonstrate, not to break the law, not to take any violent action, but to demonstrate with all ou organised might against the growth of such a menace to

1377
the right of public meeting as that? That is why we called the demonstration. It was not to make a riot. There would have been no trouble if the mounted police had not charged into the crowd. There was no justification for that. The cordon formed in Alfred Place was to protect the rear of the crowd.
Sir J. SIMON: From what?
Mr. GALLACHER: From any attack. We have had much experience and an effort must be made to protect the rear of the crowd. I have been speaking at a meeting when suddenly a terrific attack
1378
has been made on the rear of the crowd. I have seen men and women lying around me. I saw a woman lying on the ground with a boot mark on her face on a muddy day. I myself was soaked with blood and was arrested soaked with blood and then got a term of imprisonment for assaulting the police. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiry into the matter. We shall be satisfied if it goes in favour of the police.
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.
  GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.
  GERMANY AND LOCARNO TREATY.
REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL OFFICE).
  REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL OFFICE).
  REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL OFFICE).
TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES (LONDON AND MIDLANDS).
  RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES (LONDON AND MIDLANDS).
  CANALS (TRAFFIC DIVERSION).
  CANALS (TRAFFIC DIVERSION).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CAMPS (ACCOMMODATION).
  CAMPS (ACCOMMODATION).
  MECHANICS (PROMOTIONS).
  MECHANICS (PROMOTIONS).
  FLYING ACCIDENTS.
  FLYING ACCIDENTS.
  DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION.
  DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ARMY RESERVISTS.
  ARMY RESERVISTS.
  JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES.
  JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES.
  SOUTHWARK (BENEFIT CLAIM, E. H. SHOEBRIDGE).
  SOUTHWARK (BENEFIT CLAIM, E. H. SHOEBRIDGE).
KENYA.
  GOLD-MINING COMPANIES.
  GOLD-MINING COMPANIES.
  FINANCES.
  FINANCES.
  SOMALILAND (DEATH SENTENCE APPEALS).
  SOMALILAND (DEATH SENTENCE APPEALS).
  UGANDA AND TANGANYIKA (WATER).
  UGANDA AND TANGANYIKA (WATER).
  RUSSIA (SUBMARINES).
  RUSSIA (SUBMARINES).
  ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER NAMING).
  ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER NAMING).
  SCOTLAND (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE EXEMPTION).
  SCOTLAND (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE EXEMPTION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Wednesday next.

RAW MATERIALS AND FISCAL POLICY.
LORD ARNOLDhad given Notice that he would call attention to the problem of Dominion and Colonial raw materials and also to the need, in view of the effects of the Ottawa Conference Agreements, for a return to freer trade in the fiscal arrangements of the British Empire, particularly having regard to the claims for economic expansion of Germany, Japan and Italy; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I am submitting to your Lordships' consideration this afternoon deals with several questions of public policy, but they are all closely connected, and I think it would be difficult to discuss one of them without discussing them all. In the first place my Motion calls attention to the problem of Dominion and Colonial raw materials. This is a matter of which much has been heard lately; in fact ever since it was brought into great public prominence by a very notable speech made by Sir Samuel Hoare last September at the meeting of the League of Nations at Geneva. Subsequently Sir Samuel Hoare came to explain how it was that he made this declaration about raw materials. I will quote your Lordships his precise words. He said:
"I tried to look behind the range of our immediate political difficulties and to consider how we could remove the cause of bitterness and strife. Looking into the future, I selected the question of the control and distribution of Colonial raw materials as one of these causes, and I suggested that it would be well to anticipate possible controversy by examining it without unnecessary delay."
In my Motion I refer not only to Colonial raw materials but also to Dominion raw materials, because obviously both should be taken into account when considering the resources of the British Empire.
It is those resources which provoke a certain amount of jealousy in the peoples of some foreign countries. It would appear probable that Sir Samuel Hoare, who in his speeches has more than once exhibited a capacity for clear thinking which, if I may say so without offence, is somewhat unusual in a member of the Conservative Party, has come to the conclusion that something must be done to meet the legitimate grievances of the three Powers in the world which to-day are dissatisfied. They are, of course, Germany, Japan and Italy. These powerful and growing nations, with not much territory in proportion to their populations, look abroad and see the British Empire owning one-quarter of the world's surface with about one-quarter of the world's population. They see that the British Empire possesses about one-quarter of the world's wheat, about one-half of the world's wool, more than half of the world's rubber, about one-quarter of the world's coal, nearly one-third of the world's copper, and no less than about 94 per cent. of the world's nickel, and so on. It is not difficult to understand that foreigners look with jealous eyes upon this vast holding of the world's wealth.
It has been estimated that there are twenty-five minerals and commodities which are essential for modern life. They include coal, cotton, wool, oil, rubber, iron and steel ores, aluminium, zinc, nickel, silver, tin and so on. It has also been estimated that out of those twenty-five essentials the British Empire has adequate supplies of no fewer than eighteen, some supplies of two and none at all of the remaining five. Germany has adequate supplies of only four, some supplies of two, and no supplies at all of nineteen. Japan has adequate supplies of three, some supplies of five, and no supplies of seventeen. Italy has adequate supplies of four, and no supplies of the remaining twenty-one. In these circumstances it is not surprising that there is unrest in Germany, Japan and Italy.
It is vitally important for us to understand their point of view and to visualise the world to-day as they visualise it. It may well be that on equitable recognition and treatment of the just claims of these dissatisfied nations and of all nations the very future of civilisation depends. In Great Britain we pride ourselves that we are peace-loving people. We say that we do not want any more territory, and some people seem calmly to assume that other nations should accept the present division of the territory of the world. It is quite true that Great Britain is probably the most peace-loving country in the world. That is because we have all we want. What have we got I As I have already stated, and as your Lordships know, this small island with a population of about 45,000,000 people owns an area covering about one-quarter of the world's surface, with about one-quarter of the world's population, and, as your Lordships will realise from the figures I have just given, possesses distinctly more than one-quarter of the wealth of the world.
Let me consider next the position of the three dissatisfied Powers and see where they stand. I will take them in order and begin with Germany. The population of Germany now is about 67,000,000. Germany has an industrial capacity equal to that of any other nation and greater than that of most. The population of Germany is not at present growing so rapidly as that of Japan and Italy, but Germany's territory has been reduced. Germany lost the War and she had taken from her every Colony which she possessed, Alsace-Lorraine, the great port of Danzig, part of Silesia, part of Schleswig. Not only so, but the German people—and this applies also to Italy and other countries—cannot emigrate as in pre-War days. Germany also finds increased difficulty in selling goods abroad because markets overseas are more and more protected and restricted.
Next consider Japan. Japan has a population now of about 70,000,000, and that population has increased by somewhere about 10,000,000 in the last ten years. The growth of population is at the rate of about 1,000,000 a year and that seems likely to continue. This big population has to be fed and clothed with
236
an improving standard of living. Practically the whole of the land in Japan which can be cultivated is cultivated to the greatest possible extent. Japan is such a mountainous country that only about 20 per cent. of the area is habitable. That means that the real density of population is 916 to the square kilometre in Japan, compared to 180 to the square kilometre in Great Britain, which is regarded generally as an overcrowded country. Obviously then, Japan is compelled to depend more and more on imports from abroad, certainly for clothing and the general purposes of life. These must be mainly financed by the export of manufactured goods. As I have already said, Japan, like Germany, cannot alleviate her problem to any extent by emigration, and Japan also finds herself faced abroad with an ever-increasing network of tariffs, quotas and trade restrictions.
Finally I come to Italy. Italy now has a population of 44,000,000, which is growing rapidly. These 44,000,000 Italians are confined in a territory half the size of France, but in fact the cultivable land of Italy is only one-fifth as large as the cultivable land of France. That is the problem of Italy so far as land is concerned. And Italy is faced with the same problems as Germany and Japan—emigration now merely a trickle, difficulties facing her export trade in all directions, as she has to surmount a growing ring of tariffs and quotas. So, my Lords, the central problem, the central difficulty of the three dissatisfied nations is the same. They want freer access to markets abroad for the sale of their manufactured goods, so that they can have and finance bigger imports, because these are essential for large and growing populations.
Before I pass on, I would say that Japan's exports are, despite the statements I have been making, still increasing. That is partly due to the great advantage which Japan has in the depreciation of her currency, an advantage which will not continue indefinitely, at any rate to anything like the present extent. But a further point of primary importance is that Japan, with her rapidly growing population and bigger industrial output and efficiency, must have bigger exports in order to improve the standard of life of the people.

237
Great nations of proved capacity and value are entitled to expect, as a reward for their labours, an improved standard of life. Japan, Germany and Italy cannot possibly have that improved standard of life to the degree which they are entitled to expect except by bigger exports and bigger overseas trade. We here in Great Britain could not enjoy anything like the high standard of life which we do—nothing approaching it—without a great export trade. It may be taken that Japan and Germany will never be satisfied until they have vastly greater exports than their present ones, and that in one way or another they will achieve those exports. It is far better that we should face the situation and further the legitimate aspirations of these three dissatisfied nations. It seems to me that it was the recognition of these difficulties which caused Sir Samuel Hoare to make the speech he did, stating that the time had come when attention should be given to the problem of Dominion and Colonial raw materials and of the world's raw materials generally.
But the question arises whether the problem of raw materials, vitally important though it is, is at the root of the trouble. Looking into the matter at the present time it is only fair to say that the three dissatisfied nations, or any other nations, have no difficulty in obtaining what they want of the British Empire's raw materials, if they can pay for them. It has been frequently pointed out in the last two months that British Empire producers, or any other producers, are only too anxious to sell all they can. There is no withholding of supplies. That is not the urgent problem at the present moment. I say again: Germany, Japan and Italy could get all the raw materials they want from our Dominions and Colonies, or from anywhere else in the world, if they could pay for them; that means, if they could have bigger exports. They want bigger exports in order to provide the exchange with which to buy goods abroad.
Sir Samuel Hoare said:
"The view of His Majesty's Government is that the problem of the discontented Powers is economic rather than political and territorial."
There is a good deal of truth in that. The Economist last October said much the same thing in an article:
"Markets are more important than resources to the dissatisfied Powers."
As I have shown, the problem is that with tariffs and so forth it is increasingly difficult for the three dissatisfied nations to sell sufficient goods abroad. The Times, in a telegram from Tokyo last month, said that the Japanese Foreign Office spokesman referred appreciatively to the fact that the Western statesmen are beginning seriously to discuss a more equitable distribution of the world's resources. He admitted that Japan had found no difficulty in obtaining raw materials, but complained that access to certain markets was obstructed. Then let me give your Lordships one more quotation: it is from the Report for 1933–34 on Economic Conditions in Japan, of Sir George Sansom, the Commercial Counsellor of the British Embassy in Tokyo:
"Obstacles in various forms have been placed in the way of imports from Japan in a number of countries throughout the world, and although Japanese exporters continue to make strong efforts to surmount those obstacles by such means as are open to them, and the Japanese Government endeavours to assist those efforts by official action, it does not seem likely that exporters can do much more than maintain their present position."
Let me say at this juncture that I do not propose to-day to discuss schemes which have been put forward for changing Colonial Mandates or internationalising Colonial Mandates or territories, or, again, for bringing Colonial raw materials in some way under the control of the League of Nations. These schemes, or some of them, may have much to commend them, though whether overseas territories are as advantageous to great nations as is commonly supposed may be a matter for argument. However, the world being what it is, all great nations want the prestige which overseas possessions give, and that aspect of the claims of Germany, Japan and Italy merits attention. It is important. If I were to discuss these matters, it would obviously be in order on my Motion, but I cannot deal with everything in one speech, and perhaps some other noble Lord or Lords will deal with this aspect of these problems.
The proposal which I am putting forward to-day for the alleviation of the present situation may seem less ambitious

239
than the schemes of which I have just been speaking. Nevertheless, I believe it would do much to alleviate the present situation. Moreover, I would say, before I put it to your Lordships, that it is a proposal which seems to be fully in accord with the admirable sentiments recently expressed both by Sir Samuel Hoare and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Samuel Hoare said not very long ago, shortly before he left office, that there should be a lowering of the barriers for international trade. I think he said it was one of the most fundamental problems of this time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke not very long ago about not relaxing our efforts to promote the flow of goods and services throughout the world, the blocking of which has so long retarded world recovery. I wish, my Lords, to urge that the system of Preferences within the British Empire should be done away with and that the British Empire should go back to throwing the door of its markets open, on equal terms with its own nationals, to all the countries of the world. That is the fiscal policy upon which the British Empire was built up, a policy which did not excite ill-feeling or jealousy amongst other nations.
I do not think I can do better than quote to your Lordships a passage from a speech by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. Needless to say this was a speech made before what I may call his tariff days. In this speech—it was made in the nineties—Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said:
"We English, in our Colonial policy, as fast as we acquire new territory and develop it develop it as trustees of civilisation for the commerce of the world. We offer, in all these markets over which our flag floats, the same opportunities, the same open field to foreigners that we offer to our own subjects, and upon the same terms. In that policy we stand alone, because all other nations, as fast as they acquire new territory—acting, I fear, most mistakenly in their own interests, and above all in the interests of the countries they administer—all other nations seek at once to secure the monopoly for their own products by preferential and artificial methods."
I will not myself attempt to improve upon that great pronouncement. Your Lordships will observe that what I am, to-day, urging does not mean the abolition of a policy of Protection either on the part of our Dominions and Colonies, or even Great Britain, although personally I should like that to happen. That is not the proposal now. The proposition is
240
that there should be no Preferences of any kind in the British Empire, and that all countries should be able to trade with any part of the British Empire on the same terms as its own nationals. Such a policy would do a great deal to remove from the minds of Germany, Japan and Italy a sense of exclusion and grievance.
I must at this stage refer to the change made from Free Trade to Protection by Great Britain in 1931, because the closing to some extent of the greatest free market in the world naturally greatly aggravated the difficulties of Germany, Japan and Italy in their export trade. No doubt it may be said that as other countries have tariffs there should be no ground for grievance when we in Great Britain also impose tariffs, but that does not alter the fact that the adoption of Protection by Great Britain was a serious matter for world trade, to say nothing of our own trade. I will not pursue the latter theme, although to me it is a tempting one.
I now turn to the British Empire as a whole and the Ottawa Agreements. These Agreements, as your Lordships know, greatly increased the system of Preference for British goods entering our Dominions and Colonies; but they did more than that. I have just been stressing the fact that the general tariff that we put on in 1931 was an obstacle to the exports of Germany, Japan and Italy, but in addition those countries were faced, as part of the Ottawa policy, with a further difficulty in the entry of their goods into Great Britain, because the Ottawa policy established a Preference in Great Britain for many Empire products, to the disadvantage of non-Empire countries. As your Lordships know, before Ottawa there were Preferences given to British goods entering the Dominions. Ottawa increased those Preferences, or many of them, largely by raising the duties against the foreigner. But Ottawa also gave Preferences in the Colonies, and in addition, almost for the first time, Preferences to the Dominions and Colonies in the markets of Great Britain itself. I say almost for the first time because there were Preferences on commodities like tea and sugar, but not manufactured goods nor on butter, cheese, fruit, and so on.
What did all this mean? Quite clearly it meant that the Ottawa policy

241
and Great Britain's protective policy imposed a double hardship from the point of view of Germany, Japan and Italy. In addition to the general tariff those countries were faced with increased Preference rates against them in Great Britain as well as increased Preference-rates against them in the British Dominions and Colonies. So it all came to this, that the policy of erecting tariff walls round the British Empire against foreign goods was being greatly extended. I think it is difficult to over-estimate the effect of all these happenings upon the dissatisfied countries, Germany, Japan and Italy. These nations have small territories and large and growing populations. On the other hand the British Empire has vast territories but, so far as our overseas Dominions are concerned, a very small white population. The population of Great Britain is now about 45,000,000 and the white population of the Dominions and Colonies is only about 25,000,000. Therefore the total white population of the whole of the British Empire is only about 70,000,000, and the white population is growing with extreme slowness. So far as Great Britain is concerned our growth in population is very near the peak point, and inevitably before long there will be a decline. In fact, if the tendencies in births and deaths of the last decade are continued the population of Great Britain will fall to below 30,000,000 in fifty years. I do not say that that is going to happen, but it may happen.
Then look at the white population of the Empire abroad. The growth there is most disappointing. The total population of Canada now is somewhere about 11,000,000, and the population has grown by about 1,500,000 in ten years. The population of Australia is now about 6,750,000, and it has grown by somewhere about one million in ten years. With such small populations in such vast territories it is quite impossible for the Dominions adequately to develop the land which they hold. As The Times has put it:
"The emptiness of the Dominions is a problem of the first importance."
Indeed, when the population figures which I have given are taken in conjunction with the fact that Germany, Japan and Italy have large and growing populations, it seems impossible for the
242
present partition of the world's territory to continue indefinitely. I would like to read a quotation from the Spectator of January 10 of this year:
"There is a clear enough connection between Japan's activities in China and the closing of markets, especially in the British Empire, to Japanese goods; indeed, Japan's decisive step in Manchuria was only taken after the policy of commercial expansion had been made impossible."
I also give your Lordships two brief quotations from the Oriental Economist:
"That England blundered badly in implementing the Ottawa Agreements at the expense of Japan, there can be no shadow of doubt. There was no justification for the action of introducing anti-Japanese quotas ill the Crown Colonies."
Again:
"England departed from her traditional policy in encouraging the Crown Colonies to restrict Japanese sales in their markets to the advantage of English cotton manufactures, and Mr. H. Vere-Redman, author of Japan in Crisis, just published by Allen and Unwin, expresses the view that this action was responsible for driving the Japanese industrialists or some of them into alliance with the extreme militarists."
I would also like to give a quotation from a very high religious official in Japan, who said that Great Britain was not entitled in the world as it is to-day to adopt her present exclusionist policy. It cannot be too strongly stressed that this acute dissatisfaction of Japan, Germany and Italy has come into being since the Ottawa policy; and indeed it is difficult to see how the British Empire, with its vast territory and its small white population can long retain its present position. It seems certain that that can only be done by some reversal of the fiscal policy of the last few years, that is, this policy of attempting to hedge in behind preferential trade walls one-quarter of the world's surface.
Moreover, I can demonstrate to your Lordships that this Ottawa policy has not been a success for the British Empire itself. A return to freer trade is indeed in the interests of the Empire. I know it will be said by supporters of the Ottawa policy that since Ottawa the trade between Great Britain and the Dominions and Colonies has increased. Of course it has increased. So far as I know, it has never been denied by anybody that by these artificial preferential arrangements you could, at any rate for a time, divert trade and increase trade in certain

243
directions. It would be astonishing if that were not so, having regard to the high Preferences given. But this increased Imperial trade is not a net addition to the trade of the country or of the Empire; it is all achieved at the cost of foreign trade. It does not add to the total trade of Great Britain or of the Empire, it merely means that there is more Imperial trade and less foreign trade than there otherwise would have been; and that is one of the grievances. These three dissatisfied Powers see trade in which they might have had a share diverted from them by this policy. And if we were in their position we should feel exactly as they do.
I do not propose to inflict a large number of figures regarding trade results since Ottawa upon your Lordships, although, as I have indicated, certain figures can be adduced to show that there have been increases in many directions. Yet it is noteworthy that in certain respects that has not happened to any extent, in one or two cases not at all. In fact, since the Ottawa Agreements the exports of Great Britain to South Africa have gone down and the effect on Great Britain's exports to Canada has been disappointing, as has the effect on Great Britain's exports to India. It is essential to recognise that the Ottawa Agreements were come to in 1932, that is, when trade was at a low point everywhere. Since then the trade of nearly all countries, with all countries, has shown some increase. That should be borne in mind when figures about the results of Ottawa are brought forward.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I repeat that the Ottawa policy has not been a success, and in particular that it has made for discord rather than for harmony in the Empire itself. It has always been urged by the opponents of Preference that any attempt to bind the Empire together by a system of preferential tariffs and differential rates was bound to fail, and to be harmful. It is blindness to facts not to recognise that, because of the widely varying character of the products and trade of the different countries making up the Empire, it is impossible to devise a reasonably symmetrical and equitable scheme as between the different countries of the Empire. It soon became evident after the Ottawa Agreements that the result was to make for discord rather
244
than harmony in the Empire, and I will quote two or three examples to illustrate that. Some time ago, because Australia was deemed to be treating Lancashire cotton goods unfairly, there was actually a boycott in Lancashire of Australian butter. It is difficult to conceive from the point of view of Imperial unity of anything more unfortunate, to use no stronger word than that. Then again, the relations between Lancashire and India have been severely strained owing to tariffs, and this state of things was accentuated because of Lancashire's disappointment in her expectations of what Ottawa was going to do for her.
Coming to our own country, let me read two quotations from the National Union of Manufacturers' Report. They say:
"It is quite intolerable that articles for which the United Kingdom has long been famous should be subjected to a substantial protective duty on importation into a British Dominion, and that competitive articles manufactured in the said Dominions should have free entry into the United Kingdom."
At a meeting of protest the National Union of Manufacturers protested against the maintenance by the Dominions of unfairly high duties on British exports as inconsistent with an equitable interpretation of the Ottawa Agreements. Then I come to the Federation of British Industries. They have said that:
"Since the Agreements wore concluded in 1932 the trade figures show that other Empire countries have obtained greater benefits than has Great Britain."
One further quotation I give—that from Mr. P. J. Harmon, M. P., who, I think, is a considerable figure in the tariff world. He has said:
"The Government will have to decide in the interests of the United Kingdom production that we cannot afford to give free entry to Empire secondary produce."
And so the sorry business goes on, making for discord rather than for harmony in the Empire!
Many of your Lordships will remember the acute difficulties which arose in Ceylon in implementing the Ottawa Agreements, leading to a really serious crisis. Actually, the Secretary of State here at home had to intimidate the State Council in Ceylon, who had refused to pass certain provisions in the Ottawa Agreements. They were informed on the 6th February, 1933, that if they did not

245
do what they were told to do and implement the Ottawa Agreements, His Majesty's Government in Great Britain would reconsider the Preferences accorded to Ceylon in this country. It is difficult to imagine anything worse than happenings of that kind. And let us always remember that there is no quarrel like a family quarrel. Another source of trouble has been that the Ottawa Agreements, by putting duties on foreign fruit, cheese, butter and other foodstuffs coming into Great Britain, have made food in this country cost more than it otherwise would have done. That, again, is not the way to bind the Empire more closely together.
Turning to the Dominions, the most important condemnation of the Ottawa Agreements comes from Canada. Not only was the Bennett Government, which strongly supported Ottawa, defeated at the succeeding General Election last year, but the, Conservative Party was reduced to pitiable proportions, mainly because of its responsibility for, and its support of, the Ottawa policy. Mr. Mackenzie King was returned by an overwhelming majority on a policy of reversal of the Ottawa Agreements. All this was largely due to the Canadian agriculturists, the largest section of the Canadian people. They are sick and tired of this policy of High Protection for all manufactured articles; but unless you have Protection, and High Protection, the Ottawa policy cannot be carried out. It is abundantly evident that these Ottawa Agreements cannot continue in their present form. One of Mr. Mackenzie King's first acts after being returned to power was to negotiate a very important reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, and the statements made both by Mr. King and by Mr. Roosevelt about this Agreement show that they hoped to give a lead to the world by this reversal of the policy of economic nationalism. This Agreement between Canada and the United States is in effect a violation of the Ottawa Agreements, so that there are further problems arising hereafter out of this ill-fated Ottawa policy, and it is clear that this policy will in any case have to be modified when the Agreements come to an end next year.
Finally, I refer to a very important factor when considering a change in the fiscal arrangements of the British
246
Empire. The Dominions have complete control of their own fiscal policy, and that is now true to a large extent, or will be, of India. The Dominions at any rate are as independent of us in their fiscal policy as any foreign country. It is also true that owing to the adoption by Great Britain of Protection, and by her partnership in the Ottawa Agreements, we in Great Britain are in a worse position to press for a policy of freer trade than we were a few years ago. Nevertheless, my submission is that we should do our best, and that as far as possible we should not only urge that the Ottawa policy should be reversed, but we should take steps to reverse it. So far as the Colonies are concerned, we can next year inaugurate a change in the present policy, which is a great offence, particularly, to Japan. Moreover, at the next Imperial Conference Great Britain, in urging that the Ottawa policy should be reversed, would have the help of the Canadian Government, that is, of the largest oversea Dominion. Thus the way is opening out for a policy of freer trade.
In urging the adoption of that policy I again remind your Lordships that it is the policy upon which the Empire was built up, and it is only in my view on a policy based on those principles that the British Empire can continue to hold such a vast proportion of the world's territory and resources. It is my firm belief that the adoption of this policy by Great Britain and the British Empire would be a real contribution towards alleviating a serious, not to say menacing, situation. I beg to move.
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, the noble Lord in moving his Motion has referred very freely to the memorable speech made by the late Foreign Secretary at Geneva in September last. Sir Samuel Hoare did not disguise or minimise the difficulty of the problem. He said that the fact that some countries do possess advantages in regard to raw materials not unnaturally gives rise to fears of exclusive monopolies, and the wise course is to investigate this cause of discontent, and if it is substantial to endeavour to remove it. He announced the willingness of His Majesty's Government to take their share in any collective attempt to provide a guarantee that the distribution of raw materials will not be unfairly impeded. Having taken the initiative in proposing such an international inquiry, it is clearly desirable

247
that this country should consider what is the share it is willing to take in the collective attempt, and what guarantee should be provided.
Your Lordships are doubtless aware that the subject of study for a Conference to meet in 1936–37 (in which I am privileged to assist) is the "peaceful solution of certain international problems," and includes the subject of the present Motion—namely, the distribution of raw materials, markets, population and migration. No doubt the views expressed by your Lordships to-day will be carefully noted by the British Co-ordinating Committee. The Conference, your Lordships will re-collect, is one of a series convened by the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, which is a Standing Committee of the League of Nations, for the study of collective security, and annual meetings have been held since 1928 in the various capitals of Europe and attended by important international groups of seventeen different nations. It is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has expounded the doctrine of Free Trade in your Lordships' House. In view of the obstacles with which international trade is confronted at the present time, I do not share his views as far as the policy of Great Britain and of the Dominions in their own home markets is concerned, but I do strongly support his appeal for reversion to the traditional policy of the Open Door in the non-self-governing Colonies and Protectorates, at any rate in Africa, since wider principles are involved than any question of trade profits.
The policy of quotas, special duties, differential tariffs, and reciprocal preferences in those markets deprives us of what was once our boast and the unanswerable justification of our world-wide Colonial Empire—namely, that while we assumed the obligations of trusteeship towards the native peoples, we asked for no exclusive privilege for ourselves, and we admitted the foreigner on equal terms to those enjoyed by our own nationals. By the imposition of differential duties and tariffs we not only give colour to the charge that we thereby create, in the words of Sir Samuel Hoare, "exclusive monopolies at the expense of those countries which do not possess Colonial Empires," but we also deprive the native peoples, whose purchasing power has already been reduced very greatly by the
248
fall in the prices obtainable for primary products, of the opportunity of purchasing the cheap goods which alone they can afford to buy. The result is to paralyse native production.
It may be that it will be found that there is little or no substance in the complaint of deprivation of raw materials and foodstuffs, for they can be bought by any nation from produce brokers at the world prices which both Colonial and non-Colonial Powers alike have to pay without distinction. There is not, and never has been, any local obstacle to the purchase and export of produce of all kinds in the Colonies themselves. The complaint, therefore, appears to lie in the alleged difficulty of selling in the local markets owing to currency difficulties. This, said a correspondent representing the Empire Industries Association, in Monday's Financial Times, is an entire myth; and he gave figures showing that the value of foreign imports into British Dependencies and Colonies compared very favourably with those from the United Kingdom between the years 1931 and 1934. The bulk of our own imports of raw materials is, of course, paid for by us in foreign exchange. Germany, however, has dissipated her credits in the foreign exchange markets by unprecedented expenditure on armaments amounting, directly and indirectly, as Mr. Churchill said in another place recently, to £800,000,000 sterling last year and £1,500,000,000 sterling in the last three years. I hear, too, on high authority that she spent last year not less than 2,000,000,000 marks, which is about £163,000,000 sterling, on popular entertainments. If these figures are in any way approximately correct, it is small wonder that there is little left for ordinary commerce. Italy and Japan have similarly been engaged in very heavy war expenditure.
Your Lordships will recollect that it was the considered opinion of the Allied and Associated Powers at Versailles that Germany's economic development in no way depended on the possession of Colonies, and they pointed out that in 1913 only 3 per cent. of her total imports of the principal raw materials and foodstuffs were derived from her Colonies, while the small number of German colonists in them went to prove that they afforded no outlet for emigration. This appeal for new lands for the settlement

249
of surplus population is less effective in view of the artificial means resorted to by both Germany and Italy for increasing the population in order to add to their man-power. But however that may be, the non-self-governing Colonies and Dependencies which alone are controlled by Great Britain lie almost entirely in the Tropics, and they are all already populated by dense populations which are rapidly increasing. Though here and there there may perhaps be room for a few hundreds or even thousands, there is no room for bulk immigration, even assuming that tropical climates permit of white colonisation. If then there is no real substance in these claims, why, it may be asked, should we go out of our way to meet them? I recur again to the wise words used by Sir Samuel Hoare. The fact remains, he said, that some countries do view the situation with anxiety. It may be that it is exaggerated, but none the less it is causing anxiety which it would be foolish to ignore. And personally I should be the last to deny that the control of Dependencies does confer advantages, though chiefly in other ways than the possession of raw materials. The problem before us, therefore, as I see it, is how can we share these advantages without compromising our pledges to the inhabitants, white and black.
As a signatory of what are known as the Congo Treaties—namely, the Berlin Act of 1885, the Brussels Act of 1890, and the Convention of St. Germain of 1919—Great Britain is precluded from imposing quotas in such of her African territories as fall within the "Conventional Basin" of the Congo, including practically all her East African Colonies and Protectorates, but in British West Africa and Somaliland practically prohibitive quotas have been imposed against certain Japanese imports. Reference was made quite recently in another place to the German law of last June authorising a levy for the purpose of subsidising exports. It may, therefore, be necessary any day if this policy is pursued to impose quotas against bounty-fed goods from Germany. Her present contention is that she cannot obtain the raw materials and foodstuffs she requires, because she cannot sell her goods in the local markets, and so obtain the local currency. She may well argue that her only alternative is to reduce the cost of her goods by bounties, and if she
250
is met by prohibitive tariffs in favour of British imports, new causes of friction will be created.
On the other hand it seems to me reasonable to demand that the vendor of imported goods should in the interest of the local producers purchase a reasonable amount of the produce of the country in which he sells. If the local producer cannot sell his produce, he has no money wherewith to buy, and it does him no good if British merchants, for instance, import cheap Japanese goods and, with the credits thus obtained, Japan buys machinery in Belgium. I have heard quite recently that her purchases of machinery in Belgium have doubled. It has been said that the import of cheap goods from Russia into West Africa was checked by a stipulation on these lines, but I have not been able to obtain any very precise information on that point and the noble Earl who replies for the Government will perhaps correct me if I am wrong. It would seem probable that the application of a proviso of this nature, which since it would be of universal application would not contravene the principle of equal opportunity, might in the case of Japanese goods imported into Nigeria have been just as effective as quotas. Japan does not require to purchase the main staples of export from West Africa on account of transport costs and other reasons.
In order effectively to remove any suspicions of monopoly, and to share as far as possible the economic advantages of control of Colonies the policy adopted should, I suggest, be that understood by the equal commercial opportunity conditions imposed by the African Mandates with a somewhat wider meaning than has been attached to the Free Trade policy of the Congo Treaties, so as to include for instance international tenders for large public works, or for loans under conditions fully safeguarding the sovereign rights and administrative functions of the Colonial Power concerned. To provide the guarantee for the due execution of the pledge, the Permanent Mandates Commission might be charged with the investigation of any alleged infringement—a task for which I think it has shown itself fully competent. The African Mandates purport to effect a double purpose. While the majority of the clauses are concerned with the

251
interests and welfare of the natives, there are two Articles which are specially designed to protect the interests of the non-Mandatory and other Powers. The first is the Equal Commercial Opportunity Clause to which I have referred, and the second prohibits the creation of naval bases and the raising of troops other than those required for the police and defence of the territory. I should desire to see the second no less than the first included in the proposed undertaking which the Colonial Powers would make.
I will not attempt to discuss other aspects of this question such as the claim of the non-Colonial Powers to a voice in any international scheme for restriction of output of certain raw materials such as rubber, tin and tea and other products which are produced largely on European estates or in European-controlled mines. They will no doubt be investigated fully by the proposed Commission of Inquiry. The Motion before your Lordships is concerned primarily with the question of fiscal arrangements in regard to the subject of raw materials and the claims for economic expansion of Germany, Japan and Italy, but I hope I shall not exceed the latitude which your Lordships are wont to permit if I add a few sentences which appear to me to be relevant to the question, though they perhaps go rather beyond the strict interpretation of the Motion. Sir Samuel Hoare in his memorable speech, to which I have referred, said that in the view of His Majesty's Government the problem of the claims of these Powers was primarily economic rather than political and territorial. In a brochure, however, by Professor Dr. Freiherr von Freytagh-Loringhoven, who is a member of The Hague Court, and therefore may be credited with an authoritative voice, he states that the questions of raw materials, foodstuffs, markets and even of accommodation for surplus population, though important, are really secondary, and the decisive question is that of equality of status, including the possession of Colonies, which he regards as a question of German right and German honour.
The Allied and Associated Powers expressly denied the premises upon which the claim of right is based, while as regards the surrender of Mandates or Colonies, British honour, in view of specific pledges given,
252
is as deeply involved as German honour, the more so since Herr Hitler in a recent speech derided the principle of tutelage of backward races with a view to enable them to stand alone, which is the basis of Article 22 of the Covenant and the Mandates founded upon it. But your Lordships will not have failed to observe that in the proposals put forward in the German memorandum what is called "Colonial equality of rights" is expressly reserved. If these proposals should ever eventually form the basis of negotiation, I earnestly hope that the Colonial question will be included and not left over to become the basis of a new crisis.
I have ventured to suggest the form which the British share in a collective effort for appeasement might take—and I would go further in order to implement the promise of equality. I would suggest that the Colonial Powers should undertake to include in their Colonial staffs a given proportion of Germans, especially but not exclusively in the scientific and technical departments such as health, agriculture, forestry, veterinary, research and engineering, and thus afford to German youth the opportunity of careers overseas now denied to them. Such a gesture would go far to remove the colonial grievance dwelt on by Professor von Freytagh-Loringhoven. Great Britain might select a few German Rhodes scholars or other suitable English-speaking young scientists. If other Colonial Powers preferred that their share of the collective effort to remove the causes of discontent and anxiety should take some other form, they could make their own proposals. We should at least have done our best to meet the demand for unfettered access to Colonial markets and to satisfy the amour propre of a great nation.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I desire to say a very few words at least in partial support of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, and also by the noble Lord who spoke last. I find myself in agreement with much that has been said, but I propose to confine my remarks to the case of Germany. It is not my intention to make any effort to disguise the fact that I am one of those who consider it is high time that some arrangement should be made whereby Germany should have some of her Colonial territory restored to her. This,

253
of course, is not an appropriate moment to enter into details as to how such arrangement should be carried into effect, and still less to ask His Majesty's Government to give any undertaking; but surely some arrangement such as the compensation by Germany of settlers subsequently to 1918 who had no desire to remain under another flag would not be unreasonable.
I agree whole-heartedly with a great personage who said the other day that the time had surely come to let bygones be bygones and to extend the hand of friendship to Germany. We have no quarrel with Germany. We have no quarrel with any nation. We harbour no hatred for Germany. Why should we? Where such hatred exists it is bred of fear. Why should we take any part in the apparent European desire at the present time for the encirclement of Germany? I find it quite impossible to comprehend the mentality of people who imagine for a single moment that you can take a great nation and, as it were, stamp on it and bottle it up indefinitely. Any effort to do so is foredoomed to failure and will in the end—and that end is not very remote—only cause the very explosion which every human must wish to avoid. You cannot expect a great and powerful nation such as Germany to submit indefinitely to the indignities to which she has for so long been subjected. You have already had an example in Germany-leaving the League of Nations. The turning point came when five years was changed to eight as the term at the end of which Germany was to be given something in the nature of equality. Upon that she walked out of the League of Nations, and who could expect a great nation which had been subjected, as I have said, to every form of indignity for a long period to do otherwise? She considered that she had a right to equality and in her proper pride was not prepared to receive it as a favour and in homeopathic doses at that.
There is no doubt in ray mind that Germany would have been given the equality she actually desires long before if it had rested with England, but for some reason which I have never been able to understand we appear to have taken our instructions in these matters from abroad. The general treatment of Germany in these matters does not appear to me to bear the stamp "British" Why cannot
254
we say to the other European powers: "If you want to go on nagging at Germany do it alone?" There can be no offence in that. It may come naturally to them, but it is most certainly not British. Has the world so changed that we can no longer treat an ex-enemy in the way we always have in the past? Of course, I know there are difficulties. There has been a tremendous amount of anti-Nazi propaganda going on in this country, some of it of a very doubtful character, and all of it bearing the appearance of importation. There has been, for instance, the grossest exaggeration in such matters as the Nazi treatment of the Jews. After reading what appears in the Press in this country the very last thing when you go to Munich or Berlin that you would expect to see is a Jew. In fact, the place is full of them. They are in restaurants and shops and places of entertainment. In fact, they are everywhere, and no one interferes with them so long as they behave themselves and adhere to the regulations laid down for Jews.
So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no interference with any creed so long as it is confined to worship and not used for political purposes and propaganda against the régime. It is perfectly true that the Jews are not allowed certain privileges in the matter of citizenship, but surely that is a domestic matter and no affair of ours. No doubt we in this country have not so far experienced the same difficulties and troubles of various sorts as have been caused by the Jews in Germany—or at least, not to the same extent. Surely, however, if the Germans are satisfied that there is a certain sect of people who for some reason or another constitute a national danger, they must be allowed to deal with that danger as they think fit. In any case, Germany's internal arrangements in this matter or in any other cannot be any affair of ours.
I only say all this because these are matters which seem to prejudice people against giving Germany what many people in this country consider to be her rights. Whatever may be said about certain details of his administration, it is at least certain that Herr Hitler saved Germany from going "Red," and for this if for nothing else he deserves the deepest gratitude, not only of Germany and not only of Europe, but of the whole of the

255
civilised world. In three years Herr Hitler has raised the German people from the lowest depths of absolute, black despair and restored to them their pride and self-respect. Can anyone doubt Herr Hitler's absolute sincerity, or his desire, as expressed over and over again, to live in peace with his neighbours? The very last thing the German people want is war, and everybody should do his best to help to avert war. For my part I should like to see this country take some step in the direction I have indicated, on its own account and independently of any other country: I mean, with reference to the restoration of Colonial territory. I do not like the idea of international conferences. A conference of that sort is too much like an auction; at such a conference Germany would quite certainly have to ask for more and take less than she deserves. Why can we not do something generous and big, and do it on our own account, and so create the sort of understanding which should exist between two great nations? In view of the possible contribution at a later stage in this debate from the Episcopal Benches, I should like in conclusion to ask one question: Is it the considered opinion of the Church in this country that the treatment of Germany since the War has any relation whatever to the true teachings of Christianity?
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I propose to base the few remarks I have to make to-night on the claims of Japan, as I am particularly interested in the problems of the Far East, where I spent five years not long ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has already been telling us, Japan is one of these growing countries whose territory is strictly limited and whose opportunities for expansion in agriculture are therefore very small. So it is essential, if she is to keep her growing population employed, that she should extend and develop her industries. Japan also is peculiarly dependent on sources outside her own control for raw materials, which comprised over 60 per cent. of her imports for the year 1934, according to the latest statistics that I have been able to obtain. She has not produced in her own territories nearly enough iron ore, coking coal, lead, zinc or aluminium. She has practically no oil; she has absolutely no cotton, no wool and no tin. For all these therefore, she is dependent on
256
imports from elsewhere. Again, in order to be able to pay for those imports and keep her population fully employed, she has to extend her export trade.
It may be said, and it is perfectly true, that in the last two years the trade and exports of Japan have been growing, but all the same she is beginning to find difficulty in her exports, that they are being shut out and that special steps are being taken against them in over thirty countries. Economic expansion is therefore an absolute necessity for the growth and development of Japan as a nation and for her civilisation. I have heard it said on high authority that there have been three different attitudes taken by Japan towards this country. There was the earliest phase, when we were allied together, of admiration and of friendship. The friendship continued, but it was crossed by misgiving. The present phase is one of suspicion that we, above all nations, are opposed to the spread of her civilisation. I feel that is incorrect, and that there are many in this country besides myself who are anxious to understand her requirements and meet her just needs for expansion. Her suspicions are to some extent justified by the change in our fiscal policy. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has already quoted what Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said in that respect, emphasising the need for the spirit of trusteeship and of the open field, which was the traditional policy. The Motion of the noble Lord does not call for absolute Free Trade but for freer trade, although perhaps in his speech he has gone rather beyond the terms of this Motion. That is the spirit which we should adopt.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, suggested last week that the causes of all these difficulties were not economic but moral, and he went on to say:
"What you want are God-guided personalities, which make God-guided nationalities, to make a new world, and all the other ideas of economic adjustments are too small really to touch the centre of the evil."
May I very humbly commend that statement to the serious consideration of your Lordships? I should like with great respect to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in view of what he said last night, that that does not mean—at any rate, as I interpret it—that our present difficulties are due to our being

257
less moral or more immoral than our fathers and our grandfathers, but that they are due to such causes as fear, hate, greed, jealousy, revenge, and personal and national selfishness and self-sufficiency. Those are moral causes; and our difficulties are due far more to stupidity than to any particular proposal or to any particular economic policy or economic difficulty.
I would suggest further that, in regard to this question which we are discussing this afternoon, we should consider ourselves as stewards, entrusted by the Father of the family of nations to administer the resources of the territories concerned for the benefit of every member of that family according to the needs of each and according to His principles and His will. I think we must approach that problem in that spirit, in the willingness to consider sympathetically the needs of these nations and to understand what is behind their demands, and in the determination to seek for the means whereby it can best be solved. That will require some real co-operation and a readiness to sacrifice some of our own advantages, some of the advantages of our own individual nation, for the benefit of the whole; but I believe that in the welfare and prosperity of the whole we should be amply compensated.
I should be grateful to the noble Earl if, in his reply, he would tell us what investigations, if any, have been made preliminary to the inquiry suggested by Sir Samuel Hoare at Geneva in that speech which has been referred to by several of the noble Lords who have spoken to-night—inquiry into the question of raw materials from Colonial areas. Although the calm and dispassionate consideration which he laid down as necessary for such an inquiry may be impossible at the moment, it does not seem to me too soon that such preliminary investigations should be begun. It may well be necessary that such investigations should take place in several countries and by various bodies, rather on the lines of some preparatory inquiries and committees for the Pan-Pacific Conference—on the lines of those inquiries referred to by Lord Lugard earlier in the evening. At a recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used these words:
258
"If we want to win peace, it can only be through the winning of fuller understanding on the part of us all of the things that are foremost in the thought of each."
This question of economic security and economic expansion is certainly foremost in the thought of Japan, and probably in the thought of Germany and Italy as well. I believe that by facing it in the spirit I have ventured to suggest we will remove a potential cause of war and lay the foundation of a just and lasting peace.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, Lord Arnold has stated a strong case, but he has not exaggerated it in any degree. Indeed I think he has under-stated the urgency of it. I think that the significance of Sir Samuel Hoare's utterance at Geneva in September of last year has not been fully grasped by the public. We forget what a surprise it furnished to the world that he should raise such a subject at such a moment. None of us would have foretold that the Colonial question would then be raised, and anyone not in the highest authority who had raised it would have aroused strong resentment by doing so. Sir Samuel has forced the question into the front rank, and since he did so he has repeated his case in a broadcast to America. It has led to a flood of debate on the subject, and consequently to quite a revolution in public thought. We have The Times saying that
"a new survey of the Colonial field offers the right and reasonable substitute for unreasoning demands."
Who could have imagined The Times saying such a thing two years or even one year ago?
Why did Sir Samuel Hoare spring this surprise on the world? It can hardly have been his mere sense of the degree of injustice, which Lord Arnold has described. Some more urgent cause, it seems to me, must be sought for this surprising fact. There was every ground for avoiding the topic. It is an extremely thorny subject, and he is a good Party man and would have avoided it if possible. Had it been raised from the Benches of the Labour Party I am sure the denunciation would have been keen. Such a question also rouses claims which otherwise might have remained dormant. It might be said that he raised it in addressing Italy in order to give Signor Mussolini some inducement to avoid going to war, but Italy afterwards went to war,

259
and since then Sir Samuel has returned to the case. It seems to me that he must have seen, as many must have seen, in the Colonial situation elements of great danger, and an apparent necessity not to defer these discussions any longer. I do not know whether the Colonial situation may be one of the grounds for the rearmament policy which has been adopted by the Government, but some explanation is needed. Presumably it lies in new facts which are before us. Colonial ambitions are rising, and they are undoubtedly, if not dealt with, a danger to peace. Germany has begun to make her demands for the return of her Colonies more definite. Italy has proved, by going to war, the urgency that is felt in Italy; and I agree with the last speaker that the Japanese case may be one of the greatest possible urgency. Japan has been very hard-hit by the policy of recent years, and those who have been to that country lately tell us of the menacing propaganda which is to be heard there. It is not now mainly a Chinese policy, but increasingly an anti-British propaganda, which we regret to learn of.
Have those in the highest authority seen in the Colonial question a very great obstacle to peace unless it is dealt with, and is that why the question has been raised? The partial monopoly that our own Empire possesses no longer looks as tolerable in the eyes of the dispossessed as it did a few years ago, when we could boast, as Mr. Chamberlain boasted, that the door was open. It is now greatly resented as an exclusive institution, and that makes it a very precarious foundation for peace. Moreover, the League of Nations is in many quarters suspected as in some degree and organ of the satiated Powers. The urgency of the question raised by my noble friend is reinforced by the Rhineland crisis. The Locarno States propose a Conference to deal with security, the limitation of armaments, and the economic difficulty, and especially with the German proposal, which uses the words "Colonial equality of rights." In connection with that Conference I would like to ask the noble Earl who will reply whether inquiries are being set on foot into the details of the questions which presumably will come before the Conference before many months are past.
The noble Lord, Lord Lugard, has shown how in some respects the grievance
260
which the unsatiated Powers feel is exaggerated, but I think he will agree with me that we should not in any way belittle the grievance which exists. The economic grievance is of course exaggerated, especially in regard to the possibility of finding lands for settling new populations, but the noble Lord would agree that it is dangerous to let the question drift as if no grievance existed. My noble friend Lord Arnold has shown how real a certain grievance is, and we all know how keenly it is felt. The Ottawa policy has vastly enforced the case of the dissatisfied Powers. They cannot buy because they cannot sell; they cannot sell because of tariffs. It is a striking fact that Germany in 1930 could import into this country 89 per cent. of her imports free, and now it sounds almost incredible that only 4½ per cent. of Germany's goods can come into this country free of duty.
Lord Arnold gave some figures of the partial monopoly of certain essential products which we possess. He did not mention one or two other very striking ones. I do not think he mentioned jute, of which we have 99 per cent. of the world's supply. He did mention nickel, but he did not mention that we had 64 per cent. of the gold and 40 per cent. of the lead and the tin of the world. What is important in that connection is the fact, not universally known, that there have been in regard to some of these products export taxes which violently differentiate against the freedom of purchase by foreign countries. There has been in the case of tin a duty which diverted tin from Nigeria and Malaya to this country by Governmental action.
With such a situation and such a preponderance of possession by our own Empire—and of course very much the same applies to the French Empire, which has never been able to boast of a Free Trade policy—if it is not treated on the basis of the Open Door it is impossible to imagine the continuance of the situation that exists to-day in twenty or thirty years' time. It will either be solved by the wisdom of statesmen or solved by regrettable means. The Empire trade policy of Lord Beaver-brook would make war quite certain within not too distant a date.
Lord Arnold might have added several points to the statement of the grievance

261
of the dissatisfied Powers, on which he did not exaggerate at all. He might have dwelt on the exclusive advantage of investment which belongs to the governing State, an illustration of which has occurred quite lately in the case of the Kenya gold fields. Between July, 1934, and February, 1936, the Kenya gold mining companies issued in the City of London no less capital than £4,800,000. These advantages belong to States holding Colonies in sovereign possession in a way which does not apply to Colonies held under Mandate such as Tanganyika. Other advantages that my noble friend did not mention were the advantages of the governing State in regard to contracts, in regard to concessions, in regard to posts in the Civil Service which, though not amounting to more than, I think, about 20,000 in the Colonial Empire and India, are, after all, a very natural object of jealousy on the part of the dissatisfied Powers.
He mentioned the question of prestige. Sir Samuel Hoare wisely, no doubt, limited his subject to the economic side, but we all know what a powerful motive prestige can be. Even before the War, in more favourable days, it exerted a powerful influence in Germany, and the desire for Colonies on grounds of prestige was undoubtedly one of the causes of unrest which led to the War. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lothian is right when he says that a solution of the economic difficulties would be almost adequate. Let us hope that that is so, but we must not close our minds against solutions that may carry us beyond the economic sphere, because we may find that the economic solution is not entirely adequate. Many proposals for dealing with the case will come up at the forthcoming Conference, and they will include some which are not purely economic. The return of the German Colonies has already been mentioned. My noble friend who introduced the Motion has suggested that we should return to freer trade, and we should give an undertaking to abide by it. But will not something more than that be required? Part of the case of the dissatisfied Powers is that though at times, and until lately, they have had access to our markets, they have not had security for the continuance of that situation. Some means to assure to them continuity of freedom will be required.
262
The best means of security for that purpose exists in the Mandate system. I was very glad to hear the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, made in that connection. The mandation of tropical Colonies now sovereign possessions would be the very greatest step Still greater changes may be needed. One advantage of the Conference will be that the dissatisfied Powers will be compelled to state their case, and that will inevitably lead to the dispelling of many exaggerations. The chief proposal that must be in our minds is that of the extension of the Mandate system to tropical Colonies now in our possession. That would secure the Open Door, which is the main genuine need of the dissatisfied Powers. It would give them also participation in the development of those territories which they now fail to reach in regard to contracts, concessions, and investments. It seems to me that the acceptance of a wide extension of the Mandate system to British Colonies in Africa need never be regarded as a derogation of dignity to ourselves. We have always boasted that we are trustees of those lands, both for the natives and for the rest of the world. In any case we must be ready to revise many ideas that we have long held, and not even our most cherished traditions must prevent a solution of what is a very dangerous question.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to noble Lords talking of a freer exchange of goods and raw materials between the Empire and the rest of the world. If I have not misunderstood the noble Lord's main thesis it is that a return to a system whereby the products of the Empire could be more freely exchanged with those of the other nations is to be desired, and indeed would considerably assist the Empire as well as the rest of the world to release the dam which stops the easy flow of international trade. If such a state of affairs could be achieved, our Dominions and Colonies would profit greatly by the vastness of their productive capacity of raw materials, and the Mother Country would reach an unexampled prosperity through the increased trade and commerce resulting from large-scale production and an unrivalled experience of industrial problems. Alas, I think this is only a Utopian dream.

263
The post-War era has been significant by reason of the efforts made by almost every nation to become self-sufficient and to escape the benefits which the scientific development of large-scale production and specialisation has made possible. Governments appear—and indeed industry too—to take narrow, short-sighted views of their interests. Restrictions, regulations, high tariffs, subsidies—all these are used to bolster up industries and enterprises irrespective of the interests of the consumer or of their ultimate effect on the economy of the country. Stress is laid, and rightly so, on the importance of reducing unemployment, maintaining key industries and increasing home food supplies. The weakness revealed by the Great War has compelled all nations to survey their own sources of all these products and commodities, the supply of which during the critical period of a war might be endangered unless sufficient were produced at home. In other words, whether it be in the growing of raw materials or the manufacture of goods, each nation is impelled by a war fear towards an economic nationalism which almost closes the door to international trade. This fear, which demands the conservation of gold supply, is one of the main causes of exchange restriction and of a financial contraction which strengthens the vicious circle in which international trade attempts to move.
In a few brief sentences I have tried to sketch the principal difficulties which beset the flow of trade between one country and another. I contend that the special position of the Empire in relation to world trade makes the need for an examination of the restrictions and their modification an urgent necessity. The prosperity of Great Britain cannot be fully realised except by an increase of its export trade in manufactures. Our Dominions and Colonies will again look to an encouraging future only when their products such as wool, coffee, wheat and corn find a ready sale in the world markets. It has been aptly said that the irony of the present world situation lies in the fact that in a world of overflowing plenty millions of people are literally starving for want of those very commodities of which large surpluses are being destroyed. It is against this background
264
that we have to consider the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold.
Whilst the Ottawa Conference helped to define the principles of inter-Empire trade, it did not in my opinion deal with the question in a radical manner. Empire trade must not be considered in isolation. It has to be connected with world trade as a whole, by which I mean that no proper solution, let us say, of New Zealand's dairy output as a whole, can be found unless markets outside the British Empire are discovered. The competition between our home dairy products and those of our Dominions and Colonies prevents the proper development of our own industry, nevertheless there is no one so bold as to say that the best interests of our farmers would be served by placing such restrictions on the importation of Colonial dairy produce as to give a premium to an expanding dairy industry in this country. And I may add that I am a dairy farmer myself! I would venture the suggestion that a more fruitful policy would be to examine by what means Colonial produce could be marketed in those countries in Central Europe and in Asia where the purchasing power of the people is exceedingly low, and where even now whole groups and communities live below the subsistence level. I believe that a survey of the needs of those countries from the point of view of the utilisation of Dominion produce would not be as hopeless as would appear at first sight.
Another point which appears not to have been sufficiently stressed in the noble Lord's observations is the factor of the balance in the economy of this country as between industry and agriculture. Prior to the War the system then operating enabled this balance to be automatically achieved. We lived then in what appeared to be a perfect state of laissez-faire. We now move and work in quite other conditions when national and strategic considerations compel a new direction, both in the development of industry and in quantitative and qualitative production in agriculture. To encourage the latter we have to place quantitative restrictions, through tariffs and quotas, on the agricultural imports from countries hitherto accustomed to export freely. In return we formerly were able in most cases to pay for those imports in manufactured goods. Hence it has been found

265
necessary to make special agreements with countries like Denmark whereby a certain reciprocal trade has been maintained.
After all, it could be easily demonstrated that the political problem of Central Europe and Asia was principally a hunger problem. Is not the time opportune for Great Britain and the Empire to act courageously, as it has recently acted in the sphere of international politics, by initiating steps to ameliorate the economic conditions of those nations on which the future peace and stability of Europe must depend? It has been rightly argued, I think, that it ought to be possible to relieve international tension through the more intelligent use of the United Kingdom's immense resources as a trading nation. The problem should not be tackled narrowly, purely from the standpoint of British commercial interests, but broadly on the assumption that in the long run the most vital British interest is to secure by any means in our power a peacefully developing international situation. I venture to suggest that our foreign trade must be fostered and expanded. To achieve this purpose, a necessary machinery must be set up by industry to survey and discover the needs of those far markets for our goods, such as South America and China, and in fact the greater part of Asia and Africa as well as our own Dominions. These investigations having been made, it will then be necessary to arrange for the essential finance, either through loans for public works and industrial expansion in those countries, or through long-term credits to increase their purchasing power. I believe that this method of approach to the problem of international trade will accelerate its flow, and if the industrial and financial interests in this country will take the initiative we will reap the rewards.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, used a phrase in the course of his speech to which I would like to refer. He said that it would be necessary for us to revise many ideas that we had long held. It seems to me that is what we have been very busily doing since the War. Some have been revised advantageously, and in other cases the advantage has not been so noticeable. But in discussing this question to-day surely we have omitted two points which in the past
266
would certainly not have been omitted. We have been talking about the fate of great stretches of country inhabited by races who look to us for their improvement and development and who hitherto have not looked in vain. We rightly have been looked upon and have considered ourselves as the trustees for these races and nations who are in a lower stage of development than we are ourselves, and surely it is impossible for us to divest ourselves of that responsibility. That is one side of the question.
The other side—and I am surprised that it should have been ignored by noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite—is the interests of working men here. Although undoubtedly our trade with the Colonies has increased, and nobody can deny it, since the Ottawa Agreements were reached, that increase has only been at the expense of general world trade. But what guarantee is there that our world trade would not have diminished to the extent that it undoubtedly has diminished if we had not entered upon the Agreements at Ottawa? It seems to me that we now run a grave risk of depriving the working men in this country of the advantages which they undoubtedly have enjoyed from those arrangements without any guarantee whatever that we can find them corresponding work in another direction. I seems to me that those are two very serious points which have to be taken into consideration. Any one who has lived, as many of your Lordships have done, in our Colonies, cannot have failed to recognise how proud the great majority of the natives are at being under the British flag, and I must say I should shudder to think what the fate would be of an Englishman who had been one of the Governors, or one of the many admirable fellow-countrymen of ours who carry the great burden of Colonial governorship through the length and breadth of Africa, if he went back to the country he had governed after it had been handed over against the will of the natives to some other nation.
What guarantee is there, again, that this new idea—this is one of the new ideas of the noble Lord opposite—would relieve the situation which undoubtedly is serious so far as Germany, Italy and Japan are concerned? My noble friend Lord Lugard, who speaks with unrivalled authority on this matter, referred to the

267
fact that before the War the number of colonists which the German territories in Africa were able to accommodate was infinitesimal. I think he also referred to the fact that the reason why these countries are unable to obtain raw material is not that there is any lack of raw material—indeed raw material is, I believe, cheaper in general than it has ever been in the world—but that they cannot pay for it, and they cannot pay for it because they have chosen of their own free will to devote to rearmament the immense resources which otherwise might have been available for buying this raw material.
An expression, I think from a translation, used by the noble Lord opposite was "Colonial equality of rights." What is that? Has any nation a right to Colonies I We have not heard of it in the past, and, indeed, why should these so-called rights be gratified at our expense? Yesterday the noble Lord opposite suggested that it was right that we should occupy the position of the policeman of Europe. To my mind that involves responsibilities on us which we must think about very carefully before we are prepared to accept them. To-day we are being invited to divide up the Empire in order to satisfy "Colonial equality of rights." Many investigations would undoubtedly be fruitful into the question that was raised by my noble friend Lord Lugard, but I think we should not talk glibly, as I think noble Lords have done, about distribution of areas of the Empire for which we have a grave responsibility, and a responsibility which we are discharging in a way that is not merely satisfactory to the natives but ought to be a source of pride to everyone of us who has visited those countries and who knows how very beneficial the rule of our country has been. To divest ourselves of those regions requires a far stronger argument than any which has been brought forward to-day.
I come back to the position of the working man of this country. We are only now emerging, and emerging with the greatest possible difficulty, from a position where our most appalling problem was to provide employment. Is it to be suggested that in order to supply, I will not say the needs but the claims of other nations, we are to do that at the expense of the British working man who gradually is emerging from that position which
268
resulted from the War? I venture to suggest that our primary consideration must be ourselves, and the British Empire, and first of all this country, and that before we are called upon to make further sacrifices we ought to be much more sure than anything that has been said can enable us to be that that sacrifice is justified and that, indeed, it is going to remedy the disease to which it is to be applied.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord who initiated this debate and one or two other noble Lords for having given me certain information about the line of argument they were going to adopt. The debate has ranged over a very wide field. I am afraid it will be impossible for me to cover it all, but I shall attempt to cover as much as possible. In the beginning of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, referred to a speech made by the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare—and it was reverted to by a number of other speakers—in which Sir Samuel Hoare gave an assurance that we should be prepared to discuss the question of raw materials generally, their availability and so on. That is an assurance which the Government are prepared to honour, but I would like to go further than that and to say that it is definitely the policy of the present Government to do what they can to lower the barriers which are hindering world trade at the present moment, and to do anything within reason to try to increase the flow of international trade throughout the world.
We fully realise the benefits that would arise from anything that could be achieved in that direction. But the policy of His Majesty's Government must take into account the realities of the situation. The Government must take into account the fact that the conditions in which the theory of Free Trade can be converted into practice do not exist at the present moment. It is unthinkable that we should now adopt a policy of Free Trade unilaterally or even take any steps which would to any considerable extent lower the protective duties which we have had to adopt as a result of the policy of other countries. Every other important commercial country throughout the world is highly pro

269
tectionist at the present time, and indeed it was this fact and a certain number of other facts which drove the Government to adopt the policy which we are now pursuing. The economic position at that time was deteriorating so quickly that I feel sure there is hardly one of your Lordships who would not agree that some steps had to be taken to protect British trade. The Ottawa Conference Agreements were really complementary to the system of protective tariffs which was then adopted. I should like, however, to take the opportunity of disabusing your Lordships of a misconception which seems to be prevalent and to point out that these duties do not represent an intensification of Protection, but are rather a modification in the direction of freer trade over a very wide area. I would like to revert to that particular question later.
What in effect the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, asked the House to do is this. He asked your Lordships to endorse the view that the claims of Germany, Japan and Italy for economic expansion could be met, and should be met, at any rate in part, by a return to freer trade, which would result from the abrogation of the Ottawa Agreements. I think I am justified in saying that he has made three separate assumptions—firstly, that abrogation of the Ottawa Agreements would result in freer trade; secondly, that Germany, Japan and Italy would be in some way satisfied by the establishment of freer trade; and lastly, that the United Kingdom and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations could afford to give up the trading advantages derived from the Ottawa Agreements.
I personally do not agree that the abrogation of the Ottawa. Agreements would result in freer trade. May I first of all take our Colonies and territories in Africa, which were specially mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lugard? In the great majority the position is controlled by certain agreements by which we are bound. Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Zanzibar and Nyasaland are all affected by those treaties. Those territories comprise far the greater portion of our Colonial Empire in Africa. In all those territories Germany and Italy enjoy exactly the same economic opportunities as the British Commonwealth of Nations. There is no discrimination whatsoever against them
270
by means of tariffs or quotas. The noble Lord, Lord Lugard, said that it might be necessary for us in time to impose quotas on bounty-fed goods imported into those Colonies from Germany. I am afraid I am not in a position to discuss that question to-day, but I want to point out that the treaty position which obtains to-day would not permit us taking that action.
At the present time there is no discrimination against Germany or Italy so far as tariffs or quotas are concerned. Japan has the same privileges that Germany, Italy and members of the British Commonwealth of Nations have in the five East African territories, though I agree that in her case the treaty position does allow the Governments of Nigeria and the Gold Coast to discriminate against her. But the point I want to emphasise is that modification of the. Ottawa Agreements is not really going to make any difference, in so far as tropical Africa is concerned, in the direction of bringing about freer world trade. There really are, to all intents and purposes, no restrictions of any kind on trade in Africa.
I must say a word with regard to Japan, as her position has been specially referred to by a number of noble Lords. The Government's policy has been explained on many occasions. It aims, firstly, at the maintenance of a fair balance of trade between Japan and the Colonies; and secondly, at the preservation of certain vital industries in this country, notably the Lancashire cotton industry; and incidentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, pointed out, at safeguarding the standard of living of the workers engaged in those industries here at home. But I want to emphasise that the decision to discriminate against. Japan was not taken until it became perfectly clear that settlement by negotiation was out of the question.
The noble Lord, Lord Lugard, made some kind of suggestion with regard to an agreement in respect of the balance of trade. I want to repeat that every effort was made to settle this matter by means of negotiation. It was only when that failed that it became clearly necessary for the Government to take some action. I venture to say that, in the circumstances that then existed, the Government had to take some action to check the process that was then going on. I

271
feel compelled to deal with this particular question at some length, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me, because, as I said, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, I think, have referred to this matter, in spite of the fact that it really has nothing to do with the Ottawa Agreements.
The position was this. Japan flooded our Colonial markets with cheap manufactured goods, with a suddenness and a thoroughness which naturally gave rise to great alarm among those people who were most chiefly concerned. We were faced with an unprecedented situation; I do not think a situation of that kind had ever occurred before. At the same time, she was buying practically nothing from our Colonies in return. I will quote one example as being typical of the process which was going on. The average quantity of grey, unbleached and white-bleached cotton piece goods exported by Japan to Malaya in the years 1927 to 1931 was 4,000,000 square yards per annum. In 1932 this shot up to 22,000,000 yards, in 1933 to 26,000,000 yards, and in 1934 to nearly 29,000,000 yards. This was typical of what was going on all over the Colonial Empire. Your Lordships can imagine the depressing effect that this had upon the Lancashire cotton trade.
I agree that in an ideal state of complete free trade an adverse balance of trade with one country should be automatically rectified by a favourable balance with another. The experience of the United Kingdom in the years prior to 1931 proved, however, quite conclusively that this was not so in present conditions. It is now quite definitely necessary for a country to maintain some sort of balance in its trading relations with individual foreign countries. Otherwise it will almost certainly become a dumping ground for surplus and cheap goods. It was in these circumstances that the quota system in respect of certain specified classes of goods was established in the Colonial Empire, but even so no quotas have been imposed upon Japanese goods other than cotton and artificial silk, and no discriminatory duties on any other classes of Japanese goods except
272
in Nigeria and the Gold Coast—that is, within the whole Colonial Empire. The principle upon which the quota is based is to allow Japan to export a quantity of cloth equal to the average quantity exported by Japan to the dependencies for the years 1927–31. After the explanation I have given, I think your Lordships will agree that it was perfectly clear that action had to be taken, and that the action which we did take was not unreasonable.
I should like for a moment to revert to the question of the Ottawa Agreements, as affecting particularly the Dominions and India. Your Lordships do not need me to remind you that the question of the economic policy of the Dominions is, of course, a matter for the Dominion Governments. This, of course, is obvious, but I am in a position to say that abrogation of the Ottawa Agreements would affect the right to preferential tariffs of Empire goods in those countries. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, I noticed, during the course of his speech stated that the Empire was built up on a system of Free Trade. I am afraid I disagree with him as far as that is concerned.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but that was not what I said. I quoted the statement of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. It was part of a system of no preferences—I thought I had made that quite clear—not a system of Free Trade.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am sorry that I misunderstood the noble Lord, and I therefore will not pursue that particular point. Personally, I can see no reason why, if the Ottawa Agreements are abrogated, those Empire countries that would lose their Preferences would be likely to reduce their general tariffs to non-Empire countries. In spite of what the noble Lord has said, I cannot see why action of this kind should lead us any farther in the direction of international Free Trade. The view of His Majesty's Government definitely is, as I have stated, that the Ottawa Agreements were not a step away from Free Trade but a distinct step towards it over a very large field—freer trade within the Empire. That, as your Lordships have reason to know, covers a very considerable field indeed.

273
It is interesting to note in this connection that a well-known newspaper in Canada greeted the Agreements on the grounds that "the crumbling of the tariff wall in Canada has begun."
What were just one or two of the effects of the Ottawa Agreements? So far as Canada was concerned, 40 per cent. of our trade with that country benefited immediately by the removal or lowering of Customs Duties. Duties were entirely removed from $8,000,000 worth of goods a year, and duties were reduced on $37,000,000 worth of goods a year. Incidentally, I think I am perfectly justified in saying that it is not true, as the noble Lord said, that the present Government in Canada was returned on a pledge to reverse the policy of the Ottawa Agreements in Canada. That, I feel certain, is an inaccuracy, to say the least of it. So far as Canada, Australia and New Zealand were concerned, machinery was provided for reviewing protective duties. In India most of the new Preferences accorded to the United Kingdom were made effective by reducing duties on United Kingdom goods. In the United Kingdom free entry was guaranteed for the great bulk of goods from oversea Dominions, and thus I venture to say that a big step was taken in promoting freer inter-Imperial trade and increasing the volume of that trade.
But, my Lords, as I fully expected, the noble Lord has argued that the Ottawa Agreements did in fact add barriers to international trade by increasing duties on foreign goods. It is true that certain of the duties on foreign goods were increased, but only over a very limited field. This was inevitable in order to make Preferences to Empire countries effective and to protect certain classes of Empire production. I should like to point out that the Ottawa Agreements fixed, not the rates of duty to be imposed by the Dominions on foreign goods, but the margins of Preference on Empire goods. Every effort was made to bring about the reduction of duties on Empire goods, and I think I can therefore claim that, except in a limited number of cases, Ottawa did nothing to erect barriers against the trade of outside countries, while at the same time it made inter-Imperial trade considerably freer than it was before. In addition to this, I want to point out that, since Ottawa, the United Kingdom has made trade agreements with a number of
274
foreign countries under which very great benefits have been obtained for the trade of this country. Bilateral negotiations have succeeded where multilateral negotiations would have shown no possibility whatsoever of success. Definitely, then, Ottawa was a step in the direction of freer inter-Imperial trade, as I have said, over a very big field.
It was hoped by the Government that a further step in that direction would be taken at the World Economic Conference in 1933. Unfortunately, our hopes were not fulfilled on that occasion, but His Majesty's Government are still anxious that this next step should be taken as soon as there is a reasonable prospect of success. It seems to me some what doubtful whether at the present time there is a reasonable prospect of success in dealing with this particular matter. I think perhaps it is pertinent that I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that one of the points in the document which was yesterday presented by Herr von Ribbentrop to the Foreign Secretary, was to the effect that Germany desired to make an important contribution to peace, but that an economic conference will be in vain until nations have been given the feeling of unconditional and lasting security.
I would remind your Lordships of what the Foreign Secretary said in another place last Friday, in the course of his statement already referred to to-day. He made mention of a proposal that a World Conference should be held to consider, amongst other questions, the economic relations between the different nations, but clearly that cannot be brought about with any prospect of success unless other Powers are ready and willing to come in and discuss these questions. It is perfectly clear that His Majesty's Government are themselves only too willing to co-operate with other nations to see what is possible to bring about a more satisfactory economic state of affairs throughout the world, but I do maintain that it is not possible for them in the present circumstances to take any unilateral action in regard to the matter which will have any useful result. I think that I was asked during the course of the debate what further steps were being taken to implement Sir Samuel Hoare's statement, which has already been referred to, with regard to raw materials, and I think my reference to

275
what was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place is really the answer to that question—that the Government are prepared to examine this matter in conjunction with other nations when there is any reasonable prospect of a successful result emanating.
I now pass to the noble Lord's second assumption—namely, that Germany, Italy and Japan will be satisfied by a return to freer trade. I myself am afraid this is a very optimistic view of the situation. I do not think the "hungry countries" could be satisfied in this way. What they want is not equal opportunities but, to all intents and purposes, exclusive opportunities over certain defined areas. Germany and Italy in particular are countries where the idea of Free Trade throughout the world has not, I imagine, been given a single moment's thought during recent years. They are essentially highly protected countries. This is clearly the essence of the situation in which they find themselves at the present time. The strength and position of the Government are what count, and very little else does. Of the restrictions which have been placed upon the trade of Germany and Italy it is fair to say that the majority are the result of their own deliberate policy. It really has nothing to do with the Ottawa Agreements, nor, indeed, with anything else which this country has done or can do in the future.
Recently the whole of their foreign trade has been very largely subordinated, as has already been pointed out, to the single object of building up strength in armaments, and achieving a state of economic self-sufficiency. Clearly there is very little money left for anything else, as has been pointed out. Clearly the main difficulties facing these countries is the difficulty of obtaining foreign currency in sufficient quantities to cover their requirements in raw materials. Germany and Japan, and Italy when sanctions cease, can all have, as is generally acknowledged, all the raw materials they want from our Colonies on the same terms as ourselves—namely, that they should be prepared to pay for them. The difficulty which Germany and Italy experience in buying foreign primary products does not arise through any action of ours, but through the policy of their own Governments, as I have attempted
276
to explain. The fundamental necessity is to solve the difficulties of exchange and currencies throughout the world, and that really cannot be done either by the abrogation of the Ottawa Agreements, or by any action that we ourselves, by ourselves, can take at the present moment. It is really a much larger problem than that.
I pass to the third assumption which the noble Lord made, and that was that the British Commonwealth of Nations could not only afford to give up, but would benefit by giving up, trading advantages resulting from the Ottawa Agreements. Quite frankly, it is unthinkable that we should withdraw those Agreements at the present moment and in the present situation. His Majesty's Government contend that the maintenance of these Agreements is essential to the maintenance of the position of Empire countries in the state of comparative prosperity which they have achieved during the last year or two. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, during the course of his speech suggested that we would benefit, or the world generally would benefit, ultimately, if we were prepared—at least that is the impression his argument left with me—to hand over a certain amount of our trade with the Dominions to other countries. Frankly, I confess I find it difficult to follow an argument of that kind. I should like to remind the House of the deplorable condition of our trade in 1931, before the Ottawa Agreements were brought into operation. Our exports were decreasing by leaps and bounds. I do not want to quote many figures, but the fact is perfectly well known. In 1920 our exports reached a total of £1,557,000,000. That figure fell in 1925 to £927,000,000, in 1930 to £657,000,000, and in 1932 to £416,000,000. These are terrible figures, and it is suggested by the noble Lord that in spite of that we should revert to the policy that very largely obtained at that time. At the same time, the adverse balance of trade was increasing very seriously indeed. It increased in 1930 to £386,000,000, and in 1931 to £406,000,000.
At that time the whole world's economic position was artificial. As my noble friend Lord Scarsdale has pointed out, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, hidden and otherwise, were being applied throughout the world and interfering with the natural and normal flow of international trade. Whilst that was going on our position was

277
deteriorating continuously and rapidly and some steps had to be taken to stop that process. It was quite obvious that so long as so many of the world's markets were closed to our goods we could not afford to leave our door wide open. We had to take steps to protect our own home markets, and secure a reasonable amount of it for our home producers and, at the same time, expand our trade within the Empire.
The advantages derived by the United Kingdom from the Ottawa Agreements really speak for themselves. The value of United Kingdom exports to the over-seas Dominions and India rose from £100,000,000 in 1932 to £128,000,000 in 1935, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, has pointed out, there is absolutely nothing to show that if we had not benefited by that rise in our trade, we should have been likely to benefit in some other way in so far as our trade with foreign countries is concerned. Indeed, the whole trend of events has been to show that that was unlikely. In the same period the proportion of our exports which went to the oversea Dominions and India rose from 27.6 per cent. to 30.2 per cent. The value of United Kingdom imports from the oversea Dominions and India rose from £169,000,000 in 1931 to £207,000,000 in 1935, and the proportion of our imports from those countries rose in the same period from 19.6 per cent. to 27.4 per cent. The improvement in inter-Imperial trade finds reflection in the steady recovery in our overseas and foreign trade as a whole. Since 1932 our exports have increased steadily year by year, the total increase in value from 1932 to 1935 being about £65,000,000—that is, about 15 per cent. of the total. Our adverse balance of trade has declined from £406,000,000 in 1931 to £275,000,000 in 1935. It is really perfectly clear, I should have thought, to anyone from these figures that the advantages that have been derived from these Agreements are mutual advantages, and that the economic position of the overseas Dominions has improved accordingly.
So far as the Colonies are concerned, I want to say that they, too, have derived enormous advantages from the Ottawa Agreements. If it had not been for the preferences granted as the result of Ottawa, many of our Colonies would have been practically ruined. I would like
278
your Lordships to think for a moment of what the position of the sugar Colonies would have been, for instance, but for Imperial Preference. They would literally, most of them, have been absolutely ruined, and in others the economic position would have been infinitely worse than it is at the present moment. Preference has meant everything to a large number of our Colonies, and I would only ask any of your Lordships who doubt my contention to go and talk to people who come from the Colonies, or are interested in the Colonies, and ask them whether that is not so. Palestine is constantly complaining of the disadvantages which she suffers, as the result of being a mandated territory, through not being able to discriminate and not being in a position to be granted Preferences by this country and by other parts of the Empire. I venture to say that, without the right to discriminate, the Colonies would quite admittedly be in a hopeless position.
I just want to say a word or two about certain other matters which have been referred to in the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lugard, made a suggestion in the course of his speech that a certain number of Germans might be included in the staffs of our Colonies. Anything that the noble Lord says will certainly command attention, but I do not think he would expect me to make any comment on his suggestion at the present moment; nor do I think that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the Cross Benches, will expect me, at this juncture, to discuss the various problems to which he referred, and some of which, I must admit, were not very germane to the subject we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, made reference to the Colonies, and to the possibility of handing back to Germany certain of her former Colonies. He raised certain very delicate questions, and I think he, too, will not expect me to comment on what he said. I am not in a position to add anything to what has been said on that subject in another place. I have attempted to deal with some of the aspects of this very large question. I hope I have said enough at any rate to convince your Lordships, if that is at all necessary, that His Majesty's Government have pursued a sound and effective policy in these matters.

279
I am left with the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has been trying to prove the soundness of a theory without any real thought of the actual realities of the situation. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it, and nobody can deny that the Ottawa Agreements have been of immediate benefit to the countries concerned. I can see no possible reason why we should forego these benefits. These agreements do not, in my view, stand in the way of freer world trade. I repeat that we are ready to discuss ways and means to that end when other countries show any disposition to do so. We are prepared, at the same time, to discuss the question of the availability of raw materials, but at the present time I can see no sign that any number of countries are desirous of doing so. In the circumstances obtaining at the time, His Majesty's Government adopted a policy dictated by considerations of reason, material benefit and—I am not in the slightest degree ashamed to say—of sentiment as well. This policy has been eminently successful in our view, and if there is no fundamental change in the attitude of other countries towards this problem, I for one hope to see it maintained and extended in the future.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble Earl for his very full reply. He has covered a great deal of ground and has dealt with many of the aspects of this problem very comprehensively. I cannot honestly say that I think he has shaken the thesis which I put forward, more particularly as in certain vital respects he seems rather to have misunderstood what that thesis was. He said that I proceeded on three assumptions. The first one was that my policy would make for freer trade within the Empire. That, as a matter of fact, was not one of my assumptions, although in a sense I think that if it had been I could maintain it. My argument was that by the abolition of Preferences a condition would be established of freer trade in the fiscal arrangements of the Empire for the benefit of the world as a whole. It really is rather playing with words to say that the Ottawa Agreements make for freer trade within the Empire, because before Ottawa and before 1931, apart from Protection with certain Preferences which were given to our goods in the Dominions, there was absolute Free
280
Trade in the Empire. If I may say so, with all respect to the noble Earl, to use words like that is part of the general tendency in these days to indulge in what I call make-believe. Take one point. The Ottawa Agreements have not, I believe, in a single instance helped our manufacturers by the lowering of protective tariffs in the Dominions, which were an obstacle to our own manufacturers in their exports to those Dominions.
The noble Earl—and I would like to couple with him the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven—appeared to be under the impression, first, that a great recovery had taken place in this country, as compared with other countries, and, secondly, that that is due to Ottawa. I have to tell the noble Earl in reply to the figures which he gave—and I mentioned this in my speech—that as a matter of fact since 1931 and 1932, which was the low point in the greatest trade depression in history, the trade of practically every country has shown an increase, and therefore the figures he gave have really no relevance to the general world position. In the world recovery table given by the League of Nations, and referred to by Mr. Lloyd George in his broadcast during the General Election, Great Britain is placed tenth on the list. There are nine nations which have done better, yet which have not had the advantage of Ottawa and of these other preferential arrangements which the noble Earl commends. That is my reply also to the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven. He says, "Let us think of the working man." I am thinking of the working man, and my general contention is that this policy is not helping the working man. It has certainly made his food dearer than it otherwise would have been, and it has not really helped. Take exports. Several other countries have done much better than we have in their export trade.
LORD STONEHAVEN: Are they Free Trade countries?
LORD ARNOLD: That is not the point. The point is that we were told that because of Ottawa we got great advantages. Nearly every country which has gone off the gold standard and has had the advantage of a depreciated currency has advanced greatly in its export trade. I do not remember the latest figures, but I remember a certain reply

281
given in the House of Commons in the earlier part of last year. It showed that in 1934, whereas exports of merchandise from the United Kingdom had increased by 7.7 per cent. compared with the previous year, the exports of the United States had increased by 32.6 per cent., of the Argentine Republic by 31.5 per cent., and of Sweden by 30 per cent. I say that if you go into the figures and compare our position with that of other countries, there is really nothing to be proud of, in spite of the fact that a good many members of the present Government stated at the General Election that this is the only country which has improved its position since 1931 and that this was due to Protection and to Ottawa. I think I have said quite sufficient to destroy that illusion.
The noble Earl gave certain figures about Canada and spoke about the days before this policy was inaugurated. Very well. In 1929, before this policy was inaugurated, we exported to Canada goods to the value of $194,000,000 and in 1932 the amount was $106,000,000 and in 1934, despite the two years of Ottawa, it was $105,000,000—actually lower than in 1932. If I were to continue with these matters I should take more time than I think it right to do at this hour, but I hope I have said sufficient to show that there is really a very full reply to the contention that the noble Earl has put forward. And I would say this in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven. He wants us to think of the working man. In 1913, long before Ottawa, unemployment in this country was down to 2 per cent., and that was in the old days to which I am wishing to return. That was a good time for the working man so far as unemployment was concerned. The noble Earl in the second place suggested that I had assumed that Germany, Japan and Italy would be satisfied if the abolition of Preferences were brought about. I did not say that. I was most careful of my words. I said that it would help to alleviate the situation.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I said "in some ways satisfied."
LORD ARNOLD: Well, if that is so, that qualifies it. I am not saying that this is the be-all and end-all of our trade policy, but if the policy I indicated were carried out and the exports of those countries thereby considerably increased,
282
I think it would help to remove from them the inferiority complex from which they suffer at the present time. A large overseas trade quite apart from the advantage that it would have in enabling them to finance imports and raise their standard of life, would help considerably, psychologically and in other ways, to improve their position. The noble Earl asked whether I actually propose that we should give up these exclusive trading advantages which we have through trying to hedge round a quarter of the world's surface with preferential tariffs. That is exactly what I do propose. I say that the present policy is too greedy, that it cannot last. It might be very nice from some points of view for some people if it could last, but it is too greedy, and if we go on being too greedy we shall have to pay the penalty one day, and it may be a very serious penalty indeed. That is precisely what I have put before the House, and nothing that the noble Earl has said has shaken my conviction in the least.
One word about Canada. I think I am speaking correctly when I say that the Canadian Elections were fought largely on the Ottawa Agreements. That has been stated categorically in paper after paper, and the result was regarded in Canada as a condemnation of the Ottawa Agreements. I do not think there is any dispute about it. I wish in conclusion to thank the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, apart from the noble Earl. Until he rose and Lord Stonehaven rose, there really was nothing very controversial in the discussion. I had a note from the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, saying that he was detained and unable to come to-day. I regret that very much, because on these occasions he always puts his case, with which I personally do not agree, with ability and vigour. However, towards the end these more controversial points have been brought into the discussion, and through your Lordships' kindness I have had the opportunity of making some reply. I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is purely a consolidation Bill and will be referred to the Committee on Consolidation Bills if your Lordships give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  POTATOES AND MILK.
  POTATOES AND MILK.

EPSOM AND WALTON DOWNS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
GRAVESEND AND MILTON WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

ROYAL NATIONAL PENSION FUND FOR NURSES BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1899 AND 1933.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Acts, namely:

V. Chelmsford,

L. Carnock.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

SCOTTISH RASPBERRY MARKETING SCHEME, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Scheme as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that they have received and considered a Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland made in accordance with the terms of Section 1 (9) (a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931; that in their opinion the provisions of the Scheme raise questions of policy and principle which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933; that the provisions of the Scheme are founded on precedent; that in their opinion the Scheme can be passed without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the
286
Resolution to approve the said Scheme:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LIVERPOOL ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BASLOW AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order; that they have received and considered a Report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR ANCE (REDUCTION IN WEEKLY RATES OF CONTRIBUTIONS) ORDER, 1936.
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 the Report, dated the 7th February, 1936, of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee made in accordance with Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle; that they comply with the terms of Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent inasmuch as an Order has already been submitted for the approval of Parliament under Section 59 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935; 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:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.