asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the imports of manufactured goods from Germany for the past six months; whether any export tax is imposed by the German Government; and, if not, who gets the benefit of the exchange between the German and British currency?

The imports into the United Kingdom during the period specified, of goods consigned from Germany and classed in the trade returns of this country as wholly or partly manufactured were valued at £2,432,202. So far as I know, the German Government does not levy any export tax. The question of the benefit from the depreciation of the exchange rate of the mark depends on the terms of purchase, for example, whether payment is stipulated for in sterling or in marks.

Is it not a fact that a very large proportion of this sum is in the form of a profit which is consequent on the exchange, and whether he is taking any step to intercept that profit for the benefit of the Treasury?

As I have stated in my reply, it depends entirely upon the terms of the contract. Whether in point of fact it arises from the depreciated mark or not, I cannot say. It is impossible, of course, to get the absolute details of the contracts which have been made.

Is there any reason why the consumers of this country should not get the benefit of the exchange in cheaper prices?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that the foreign Governments should pay something for the privilege of using the markets of this country?

Those are controversial topics which can be argued at the proper time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London County Council recently called for tenders for the pipes and castings in connection with the erection of the North Woolwich pumping station; whether tenders were submitted by firms in Nottingham, Dudley, Chesterfield, and Middlesbrough; whether in all cases the tenders were for the same amount, namely, £27,072 10s. ordinary section and £29,152 10s. special section; whether a ring exists among these firms; and, if so, what action, if any, does he propose to take?

My attention had not been previously drawn to the matters referred to in the question. If the hon. Member will supply me with particulars of the names of the firms he has in mind the matter will be brought to the notice of the Central Committee which is at present investigating the question of building materials.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware of the fact that many discharged soldiers are anxious to secure disused Army lorries for business purposes, but are unable to pay down the full price; and, seeing that it is computed that there are 80,000 such lorries rotting in the country, will he devise some hire-purchase scheme by which discharged soldiers can be given facilities for acquiring the lorries they need?

As my hon. Friend has no doubt observed from the official announcement which appeared in the public Press, the Disposal Board has now sold the whole of the surplus stock of mechanical transport vehicles which are the property of the Disposal Board. The preamble to the latter part of the question has no warrant in fact.

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the agreement made between the Bradford Corporation and the Bradford Board of Guardians in respect of the utilising of St. Luke's Hospital as a municipal general hospital; whether he is aware that this arrangement will enable the Bradford Corporation to treat the sick, irrespective of their economic circumstances, and avoid the stigma attached to Poor Law treatment; whether the Ministry of Health is prepared to encourage and assist the project; and, if so, will he inquire into the circumstances prevailing in his Department which are stated to be causing delay in putting the scheme into operation?

The scheme to which the hon. Member refers was approved by me last month.

Will the consent of the Ministry of Health be extended to other local authorities putting forward similar proposals, and does this step agree with the policy enunciated in February, 1919, in this House and elsewhere? Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to make a statement on the policy of the Department in respect to voluntary hospitals?

The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the increase in the number of telephones, respectively, in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom for 1919?

The increase during 1919 in the number of telephones in the United States of America, including the Bell system and independent companies not connected with the Bell system, was 664,422, or 5·5 per cent., and in the United Kingdom (Post Office system), 59,550, or 7·1 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Representation of the People Act so as to apply the principle of the alternative vote to single-member constituencies?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western on the 31st March.

After the deliberate killing by the House of this particular eccentricity, can the matter be reconsidered during the life of the present Parliament.

I have no doubt it can.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing short of this can possibly save the Liberal party?

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the promised Anti-Dumping Bill.

I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

If I repeat this question this day week will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me a little longer time. The Government have a great deal to do, and I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer before Whitsuntide.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet have vetoed the scheme for the merging of the Ministry of Munitions into a permanent Ministry of Supply; on what grounds this decision has been arrived at; and can it be taken as evidence of the determination of the Government ruthlessly to reduce unnecessary public Departments and to economise in public expenditure?

His Majesty's Government, after very careful consideration, have decided that the Ministry of Munitions should not continue beyond the period now provided for. The latter part of the question expresses the aim of the Government.

asked the Prime Minister when the Speaker's Conference on Devolution is expected to deliver its Report?

I regret that I am not in a position to give the exact date.

In view of the fact that there is a movement on foot to secure Home Rule for Scotland, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will expedite the decision?

It does not depend upon me. I am quite sure the Conference is proceeding as rapidly as it can. If there be a movement on foot to give Home Rule to Scotland, it has been on foot as long as I can remember.

asked the Prime Minister where the ex-German and Turkish warships now are and who are responsible for them pending a final decision as to their fate?

The Turkish warships interned at the Golden Horn are under Allied supervision. The first convoy of ex-German ships is at the Firth of Forth; the remainder of those to be surrendered are in German ports. Pending their being taken over by the countries to which they are allotted, Great Britain is responsible for German ships in British ports, and the German Government is responsible for those in German ports.

Is it not a fact that one or two ex-German cruisers have already been sent to French ports, and does that represent their final destination?

I was not aware of that. Perhaps my noble Friend will give notice, or will communicate with me.

May I ask what steps, if any, have been taken to prevent a recurrence of what happened at Scapa Flow, in the case of the ships now under British control?

I would rather my hon. Friend put that question to the Admiralty. I am sure proper steps are being taken.

asked the Prime Minister what are the present intentions of the Allies with regard to the trial of the ex-Kaiser and the War criminals?

There is nothing at present to add to what has already-been stated upon this matter.

asked the Attorney-General whether there is any intention to replace or discharge existing necessary employés in the Public Trustee Office with the object of appointing younger men at a reduced salary; and, if so, will care be taken to retain those of approved ability, irrespective of age, while carrying out their duties in an efficient manner?

I understand that there-is no intention to replace or discharge existing employés in the Public Trustee Office with the object of appointing younger men at reduced salaries. In the Public Trustee Office, as in other offices, some appointments were made during the War on a temporary footing. The claims and qualifications of any person so appointed will be considered for permanent appointment in common with those of discharged soldiers and persons from the Treasury Pool.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take steps to make the charges on Press telegrams balance the loss of over £200,000 per annum now incurred?

I have been asked to answer this question. Increased charges on Press telegrams came into force as recently as the 1st January last, and it is not proposed to increase them further at present.

Is the Estimate I have given correct: that over £200,000 a year is lost on these telegrams, and is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to subsidise millionaire proprietors of newspapers?

My hon. and gallant Friend should address that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

informed the House that he had received the following letters relating to the imprisonment of Members:—

rose—

On a point of Order. I want to move an Amendment before the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) moves the Amendment which stands in his name. He desires to leave out the words "twenty-six million" in order to insert another figure. I desire to leave out some words before we get to the words "twenty-six million". I want to leave out the words "at any one time" in order to insert the words "in all". As the Resolution stands it may sanction at various times an overdraft of £26,000,000, or whatever sum may be put in afterwards. My object is to put in words which will ensure that, whatever sum this House agrees upon, that sum cannot be exceeded. That would not in any way interfere with the hon. Member's Amendment. In view of the present financial state of the country we ought to be very careful before we give even my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgman)—in whom I have very great confidence—power to spend millions of money on these various experiments.

I understood that the right hon. Gentleman rose on a point of Order.

I understood that the Deputy-Chairman had accepted my Amendment.

It is true that the right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of Order and to explain his point, and as no other hon. or right hon. Member got up to move an Amendment in front of the right hon. Gentleman's-Amendment, he has a right to go on I take it there are no hon. Members who wish to make an Amendment in front of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment.

I am quite willing to waive the fact that you called upon me first in favour of my right hon. Friend.

I will give way to my right hon. Friend if he wishes to move an Amendment. If not, I beg to move to leave out the words "at any one time" and to insert instead thereof the words "in all".

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. It is worthy of notice that this Committee stage, which has already produced two interesting Amendments, one from the right hon. Baronet and one from the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), was attempted to be smuggled through at the end of our last sitting at a late hour, apparently as a small matter in which the House would not be interested. If I read the Amendment correctly, the £26,000,000 could be granted six times or more in a year. There seems to be no limit to the sum of money, except that no one firm, or no one undertaking, or no one export trade, must have more than £26,000,000 at the particular time. If that is the case, it is a very large sum to put at the disposal of the Government. The Committee ought to support the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

As one who remembers the thousands of millions that have been voted by the House of Commons during the last five or six years for destructive purposes, for destroying the trade not only of our own country but that of other countries as well, I consider it an anomaly that therepresentative of the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who is more interested in the revival of our oversea trade than any other community in the world, should be pressing a limitation of this proposal for the rehabilitation of our oversea trade. Surely the right hon. Baronet, if he were speaking on behalf of the City of London—

I am speaking on behalf of economy which is absolutely necessary.

As far as the hon. Baronet's constituents are concerned, it is certain that they will look askance at his opposition to the principle of this Motion. No one in the City of London, I am certain, is in favour of reducing the sum from £26,000,000 to the miserable sum of £300,000 a year. There is not, I imagine, a labour representative who will support the principle involved in the right hon. Baronet's Motion. Those who want to see the oversea trade of the country rehabilitated, and who want to see our industrial position restored to what it was before the war, will be in favour of in creasing the amount. If the right hon. Baronet could show that the sum now asked for is going to be spent in a way that will not secure the desired result everyone would agree with him, but, having seen the terrible condition of our trade all around the world, owing to our inability to carry on our trade during the last five years, I would not in any circumstances give a vote for limiting within reason the sum to be devoted to this particular purpose.

My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) has indicated—a result which comes from the flinging about of thousands of millions of pounds during the War—how difficult it is to bring ourselves back to the fact that we have arrived at a time when we must consider these things not from the point of view of appeals to national sentiment, but from the point of view of the business man. It is as a business man that I understand my right hon. Friend has moved this very proper Amendment. For that reason as a business man I propose to support him. On the general proposal it is quite impossible for export trade, with the wholly disorganised commercial entities now in existence in many parts of Europe, to be restored to normal business conditions. Therefore, if this is to be done, we must take some abnormal steps, and I think it good business to do so. I have not any fundamental objection to the proposal of the Government, but I want to approach it from the other point of view, as to whether it goes too far. I think that it does.

As far as I can gather from a hasty perusal of the Report of the Debate which took place on the 24th of March, the proposal was made in the first instance on the 8th of September, and more than six months afterwards, on the 24th of March, there had only be advanced under the authority granted by the Supplementary Estimate a sum of £13,334. There was a Supplementary Estimate in round figures for a sum of £300,000. Now the Government come before us on these figures and as their original proposal stands, subject to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, they are asking us, on a state of facts which has not altered in any material degree since the 24th of March, to give them authority at any one time to advance up to £26,000,000. I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to support a proposal to give a reasonable and moderate sum, or a proposal which on the broad outlook from the business point of view appears to be sound, but the sum of £26,000,000 is far too much. Let the Government take an amount which might reasonably be expected to carry them over the year, on any reasonable expectation founded on the experience which they have already had during the last six months, of what is likely to be required, and then come back later on with their further experience and ask for any further money that may be necessary to carry on. I understand that that is the object of my right hon. Friend, and it ought to be the object of everyone who considers these things from the business point of view, with the larger view which we must take in these matters. I hope that, if my right hon. Friend's Amendment is not accepted, another Amendment will be moved to modify materially the sum which is now being asked for.

I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) quite understood my Amendment. It is simply this—I am not at all sure that it is not also the intention of the Government—to make it quite clear that in no circumstances can the Government make advances of more than £26,000,000, unless they come first to the Committee and ask for more. With reference to the £26,000,000, I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that it is a great deal more than seems necessary. All I desire to do is to preserve to this House the right of saying how much money is to be spent, and not to give the Government a free hand. The latter course might have been right during the War, when we were fighting for our lives and did not want to be killed because of lack of sufficient ammunition or guns. If ever we are to get back our commercial supremacy we must get it back by our own unaided efforts and not by the help of subsidies taken out of people's pockets. I have never been in favour of subsidies; they are the worst form of Protection. I do not think the hon. Member wants more than £26,000,000, but his words are not clear. My words are clear. I am sure the representative of the Government will agree that it is far better, in a Resolution of this sort, to have everything so clear that it is capable of being understood even by foolish people like myself.

I should like to ask, on a point of Order, whether on this Amendment one can deal with the whole Question raised by this Resolution or whether it will be necessary to wait until my Amendment is moved. I put down my Amendment solely for the purpose of raising the whole Question.

I do not think the hon. Member can discuss the whole question on this Amendment. In so far as he refers to the leaving out of the words "any one time" and the inserting of the words "in all," or refers to what "in all" means, or what "any one time" means, he would be in order.

The intention of the Government is exactly that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). The intention is that "there should never be at any moment, outstanding, more than the £26,000,000. The words that are put in the Resolution are, I admit, somewhat ambiguous. They were put in in order that if a part of this money was repaid it could be re-issued again to the total amount of £26,000,000, and used over and over again until the end of the six years, which terminates the arrangement. I do not think it would quite do to put in the words "in all," for that would probably prevent the money being re-issued. If the hon. Baronet would leave out the word "one" I think it would meet his view.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "twenty-six million" and to insert instead thereof the words "two hundred and ninety-nine thousand".

I move this Amendment in order to raise a more general Debate. I object very much to the way in which this proposal is being made. A White Paper was issued the other day purporting to explain exactly what this was intended to do. I do not know whether hon. Members have-seen it. It covers only about half a sheet of paper, and is very much on the same lines as a White Paper, issued recently, purporting to give information about the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which practically copied, word for word in facsimile, the memorandum at the head of the Bill itself. There is absolutely no information in this White Paper. It simply gives the total sum, it talks a little about insurance-against risks, but it does not tell us for whom this money is wanted or what articles it is supposed to cover. After reading the White Paper one would be no wiser than at the beginning. Apart from that, no information has been given in any Government speeches. On two occasions before Easter this resolution was brought in very late at night. On the first occasion a representative of the Treasury was present, but he gave only about a quarter of a column to this very important Resolution. In fact, he gave so little information that the House insisted upon the postponement of the Resolution. On the second occasion, three days later, my hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade made rather a longer speech than that of the representative of the Treasury, but practically he gave us no information whatever. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the short speech he made told us that in all probability this expenditure of money would lead to a charge upon the State. I hope hon. Members do not think that we are merely advancing money which will be repaid in full at some future date. It is quite clear from what the Financial Secretary said on the first occasion that that probably will not be so. These are his words:

"It is only fair to remember that, owing to unforeseen circumstances through the prolongation of disturbed conditions in these countries, it may be possible that there will be an ultimate charge on the Exchequer. That is a subject that may be argued and discussed when the Bill is before the House."

The representative of the Board of Trade also made it quite clear that there would be a considerable period of time before even the good debts were paid, because he said:

"This scheme was devised for lending money to sellers in those countries to enable them to wait for three years before they got payment from the countries to which they were exporters."

Therefore it is quite clear that not only will there very likely be an ultimate loss, but that for many years at least we shall not see the money repaid by the people to whom it is advanced.

We have not been told by the Government who these traders are to be. We have not the slightest idea as to the type of person to whom this money is to be advanced, whether they are to be substantial men or people who have been failures at home and want to dispose of goods which they have failed to sell in this country owing to lack of business ability.

I did mention that all these transactions were to be done through a bank.

After all, the Government really must take responsibility in these cases. We are being asked to spend public money. It is the Treasury which is responsible and not some bank.

The hon. Gentleman was trying to make out that there was no safeguard against lending this money to quite irresponsible people, who wanted to get rid of goods they could not sell anywhere else. That could never be the case, because no advance can be made to them without getting the bank first of all to recommend it.

When a bank is lending other people's money, it probably will not be quite so careful as it would be in lending its own money. We do not in the least know what they are going to export. We have been told about one or two items. I think the Government mentioned that they were going to export locomotives. I should have thought that it would have been much more useful to have made use of the locomotives in this country than to export them at the present time. We were told the other day by the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade, that £299,000 had already been sanctioned by the Government. His words were these:

"Sanction has so far been given for advances of £299,000 odd, of which the amount actually taken is £13,000; and the amount which has lapsed and in respect of which there is no longer any liability is £168,000 odd. In addition to this, provisional sanction has been given for over £1,250,000, and it is not yet known if the applicants can secure the necessary guarantees."

What sanction has the Government for giving leave to advance this money? I asked that the other day, and the hon. Gentleman said that I must look at the Estimates. I looked at the original Estimates and there was nothing there. I then looked at the Supplementary Estimates, and on page 80 I found among the unclassified services a sum of only £100,000. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government ought not to have gone beyond £100,000 in sanctioning advances. After all, surely the Government ought to-get the leave of this House before sanctioning advances to any taxpayers, whoever they may be. The Government, however, has already given leave, and I suppose there is nothing more to be done. They have already promised, and they will advance this money, and to the extent of that sum, therefore, we are more or less in their hands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not so long ago, said that he was watching the way in which the Departments were spending public money He said:

"I cannot help thinking, after listening to the speeches of hon. Members, that if they saw the work in progress they would be both astonished and pleased to see how much knowledge and zeal is applied to the consideration of these matters, and how much care is given to them. They would then, I believe, have a more comfortable feeling about financial control."

I have not at all a comfortable feeling about financial control at the present time. I believe that there is very little financial control over the various Departments by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not believe that you can ever have control unless you have in every Department a Treasury official who cannot be dismissed except with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I should very much like to ask my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether any more money has been spent than that which he mentioned in answer to a question the other day. How much money has been actually spent? If he can tell us, we shall be able to see the extra money to which this House apparently has given no sanction. This Amendment will give my hon. Friend an opportunity of telling us really rather more about this question than he told us the other day. I have no wish to divide, if he can satisfy the House that this enormous sum of £26,000,000 is really necessary and is going to be properly spent.

I think that the speech of the mover of the Amendment, if I may say so, was a singularly short-sighted one. He seems to have made a certain number of researches, but if he had inspected the "Board of Trade Gazette" week by week he would have seen the circumstances under which these advances are made. They show the security for which the Government calls from the foreign country. It is a very stringent security indeed. There is the guarantee of a foreign bank of very considerable repute and on the top of that there is a deposit of the currency of the country of 15 per cent. in excess of the sterling equivalent of the amount advanced. Therefore, the risk which we are asked to take really is not a very considerable risk. I ought to say that, because this has been presented to the Committee as if the Committee were asked to sanction a gift of £26,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. The proposal is nothing of the kind. The proposal is that up to £26,000,000 there should be a revolving credit, and that revolving credit is being safeguarded in the most strict way possible in these various countries. The speech of the proposer of this Amendment would lead one to think that this country was simply being driven back into paying its way by taking in its own washing. It is impossible to get the trade of Europe going without doing something of this kind, and it is untrue to suggest that this is backing a lack of initiative on the part of traders in this country. The traders have to go out and make their contracts in those countries, they have to send out their circulars, and they have to satisfy the purchasers in those countries, in the keenest competition with America and other countries, that the goods which they are sending are of a quality and price which are fair. It is only then that the Government steps in.

I am absolutely opposed to the Amendment, and I think, when you look at what has to be done, when you look at the condition of the whole of Central Europe, £26,000,000 is really not a large credit. One wants to be sure that the money is going to be expended on the most essential articles to get those countries going. All the States in Central Europe are reduced to a condition in which they can only be got going again in one of two ways. Of course, you can give them unlimited credit through the British Treasury, but the only result is that they come back time after time and say: "We really cannot get going, and you must extend the credit a little longer." That is imposible. When you get beyond that, one of two things must happen. You either get into a pure system of bargaining, and have to exchange the commodities which we send for the commodities which they have or which they can make at a comparatively short notice, or you can supply them with raw material and get them to manufacture, as has been done on a small scale, the proceeds being shared between the vendors in this country as suppliers of the raw material, and the manufacturers in those countries. Whichever of those two courses you take, it is absolutely essential to get the transport system in those countries going. You have to make those countries see that the false economic barriers between them must be broken down. I want to be sure that is being done in the spending of this £26,000,000. Take Poland, for instance. There is a superfluity of raw wool in this country. If you get the raw material manufactured on the Continent of Europe, it is going to make the woollen goods in this country cheaper for the constituents of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) to buy.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks as though I were opposing this Vote. I have merely moved the Amendment, in order to get some information.

I am glad to hear it, because from the Amendment on the Paper I gathered that it was the intention of the hon. Member to limit this to £299,000.

That is the exact sum that they have already spent.

I quite accept what my hon. Friend says, though I do not think he expressed it in such a way as to convey that he was altogether in favour of the proposal. I was taking the case of Poland. You want to get your wool manufactured on commission in Poland. The whole key of the Polish situation is the financing of the railway to Danzig. Until you have that railway working the position is impossible. You have in other parts of Europe commodities which can be brought to this country practically for barter and exchange. The thing that is holding it up is the lack of rolling stock, and any rolling stock which you send to these small countries is not going to be used to real advantage unless it can be sent over the borders of those countries to bring commodities from the places where they are and thus have a general movement. I am quite sure, with the jealousies which exist at the present moment between those small countries and with the economic barriers which they have set up, that the last thing in the world which they would be prepared to do without some form of control would be to allow their railway arteries to be used as real railway arteries.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what commodities we can get out of these Central European countries?

Certainly. From Rumania we can get maize at once, probably corn in a very few months, flax, and a very considerable quantity of oil. I understand that the Rumanian Government are prepared to sanction the export of a certain amount of those commodities. Unless some control is going to be exercised, I do not believe that this £26,000,000 will be spent to the best advantage. There are two possible ways in which the Board of Trade could make these advances more effective. It could either limit the articles for which advances are to be made to real essential articles of reconstruction, or it could make it a condition, in the case of rolling stock at any rate, that it is to be used for the general purposes of Europe and not for purely isolated cases. There is a much wider alternative, and I should like to know if the Government have considered it, and that is whether, during this period of transition, as far as rolling stock is concerned, it would not be better to sell these commodities direct to the Economic Council of the League of Nations so that they could be used during the period of reconstruction in Europe for the whole of Europe and then earmarked afterwards for the various countries when those countries got established. I have only risen to raise the general question. I am perfectly certain that the Government ought to give this credit, and that it is not only reasonable but absolutely necessary. I do not think that the sum asked for is in any way excessive. I am not in the least surprised that only £299,000 or £300,000 has been used in the actual period to which my hon. Friend referred as it always takes a considerable time to get schemes of this kind going. Secondly, as I understand, the Government advances are only made against shipping documents from this counry, so that the trader has got to go out, make his contract, place his orders in this country where the goods have to be manufactured, and it is only when those goods are actually exported to the foreign country that the advance comes to be made. Therefore it is really no test to say that only £300,000 has been spent. I think that 26,000,000 as revolving credit is a perfectly reasonable sum. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will let us know if he has considered what steps can be taken to confine this 26,000,000 to the really essential articles, and to make sure that they are going to be used for the reconstruction of Central Europe as a whole, and not for isolated countries.

I rise to support the proposal made by the Government, and I do so as representing not only an industrial constituency, but a constituency which is the very centre of the principal export trade of this country. If we are to have that equipose of the exchanges which is vitally essential for the well being, not only of our own country, but of the countries of our Allies who have supported us in the stress and strain of War, then it is necessary that our Government should at any rate bring forward certain financial proposals that shall make it possible for us to trade with our Allies who have been hardly stressed during war-time, and also to open out once again the great industries which exist in the county Palatine of Lancashire. Something has been said about the necessity of opening out certain industrial work on behalf of the labour in some of our Allied countries, but I suggest that we have labour in our own country which desires to be utilised in the production of those things which are essential for other countries, and which I think we can make use of to the full without sundry certain raw materials as an hon. Member suggested, namely, wool to other countries. There are cotton, wool, leather, and the great machinery trades, four of the greatest industrial trades and industries upon which vitally hangs the industrial prosperity and well-being of this country, particularly of the working classes, and also the well-being of our Allies. What, may I ask, is being done by the workers themselves in respect of these matters? There is more money being put into the cotton trade by the working classes than in any industry in any other country in the world. Again the employing classes are now formulating plans to the amount of £20,000,000 to ensure supplies to such industry, and what then is this 26,000,000 which the Government propose to utilise for guaranteeing payment for the products of industry and labour when they are produced, which some hon. Member seemed to think was too much when we recollect that one section of a great industrial community is prepared to find the money I have mentioned. As well as the employing classes, the labouring classes are putting up the same amount in that industry and are joining hands with the employers to produce and send forth the goods which are wanted. But if the cotton goods are to be made and cotton yarn to be exported, we have got to be sure that when they get to Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, and many other European States, that they will be paid for. As also woollen goods and machinery.

What about Bulgaria?

I prefer to pursue the subject in my own way, and I think I know a little more about this than the hon. and gallant Gentleman does. The credit which is being brought forward by the Government is distinctly for the type of trade to which I am referring, and it is both for the small countries and our Allies, such as France, who are prepared to take our goods if we can arrange for a solid method of prompt payment. If the great cotton trade which is one of the greatest export trades in the country is to be in a position to fight cheap labour in late enemy countries as well also in Eastern countries, and which is being utilised on the Continent then we must have our credit assured in the Balkans and elsewhere as well as in the Eastern markets. I therefore suggest that this sum of 26 millions is by no means sufficient to do the work. Something has been said about wool, but we are to-day in the position that while we can get wool we cannot sell unless credit is properly protected, and that remark applies also to leather goods and to the machinery trade which is, I need scarcely remind the House, a tremendous trade. In respect to suggestions which have been made I can assure the House, speaking as a plain ordinary business man, that in the conduct of our business we do not require assistance from either pro-Consuls or the Consular service, and if they give us freedom then with our practical business training and with the goodwill of our labour (the best in the world) we can enter into competition with even the great American business experts. We certainly do feel that it is absolutely essential that this financial credit should be established. If that is done, there will be a near and a surer day coming which will make it possible for the great splendid heroisms of the war days to be applied in the more prosaic days of peace, and which will lead to greater usefulness and a larger output which will be for the benefit of all sections of the community. It is for those reasons that I submit this credit is desirable.

The speech to which we have just listened is one of which I hope my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will take note as an illustration of some of the dangers of proposals of this kind, because the hon. Gentleman is very anxious not only to get his 26,000,000 but possibly 260,000,000 or 2,600,000,000 more in order to help the cotton trade or other industries in their efforts to have a monopoly of the world's business. If every hon. Member representing an industrial constituency makes a similar claim, what is to be the position? That is not the Government proposal at all, and as the hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) pointed out, this proposal is not to subsidise the cotton industry or any other industry, but to enable certain specified areas of Europe which are now utterly incapable of getting themselves going commercially to do so once again. That is the proposal, as I understand it, and on those lines there is a very great deal to be said for it. You cannot trade with them on the assumption that you will not give them any credit unless they pay in cash or in six months or in a year. The thing is to put them on their legs again, from the larger view of the development of an area in Europe which is at present helpless and hopeless. I would remind hon. Gentlemen who have spoken of the great danger there is as to the use to which any credits of this kind may be put. We, unfortunately, know that credits which have already been granted for commercial usage have been promptly handed to military forces who are starting little wars of their own.

indicated dissent.

I am quite sure that any sums which are being utilised in that way were very carefully safeguarded. I am only indicating the dangers which at present exist, and what has been done, and I know what I am speaking about. I have some knowledge of the matter, and I say that is going on in these countries and requires the very greatest care to prevent its perpetuation. I am sure that the Committee as a whole is indebted to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) for the Amendment he has moved. But I think he will agree with me, on the assumption that one has some amount of agreement with the proposal, that the amount which he proposes is rather too small., If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment I propose to move another which I think would put the discussion upon a real practical basis. I would propose to substitute ten or twelve millions instead of twenty-six millions, and then, as the thing develops, the Government can come back to the House again and get further necessary sums if the work achieved justifies such a course.

I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and thus make way for the right hon. Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman mind telling the House how the figure of 26 millions is arrived at?—

It is better to dispose of this Amendment first.

I beg to move to leave out the words "twenty-six" and to insert thereof the word "ten."

The Committee is in a rather unfortunate position, because we cannot have the terms of the Bill before us while discussing this Resolution. I think there is some justification for the complaint that a reasoned and complete statement was not made to the Committee in the first instance. I propose that the sum should be limited to £10,000,000, and when we have the Bill before us we will see as far as we can that the measure is adjusted to the purposes upon which I think the majority of Committee desire the principle to be applied. What need is there to subsidise the export trade of this country at the present moment? Instead of canvassing for orders, all merchants who export anything which the world really wants have to brush away the buyers from their doors. On the basis upon which, as I understand it, this proposal is made, that it is essential that these distressed communities should be assisted upon their commercial feet, and on that basis alone do I give any measure of support to this proposal, reserving, of course, all my rights when the Bill comes before us to move any Amendments which I may think necessary in order to limit the scope of the operations of the measure. I hope the Government will meet what I think is a very reasonable proposal. You have not advanced more than £30,000 at the present moment, and by this time next year you cannot anywhere near exhaust the sum I propose to grant, but even if you do you can bring up a Supplementary Estimate, and next year, with the whole of the experience be-hind you, you can come down here with a businesslike proposal in a businesslike way.

I think, in the first place, my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is to be congratulated on having raised this question, because it is evident that, however much you may sympathise with and approve of the general policy involved in the Resolution—and I am one of those who do approve of it—yet it is quite clear that it is very important that every financial transaction in which this House is engaged should be very carefully watched. I rather hope in spite of that that my right hon. Friend opposite will not persist even in his Amendment. I think it is quite right to limit the amount of money to be spent on this to what ultimately proves to be necessary, but it is very difficult, it seems to me, to foresee how much is required in the course of the next year, and it might well be that it will be desirable to lay out even as large a sum as the Government are asking for. Moreover, all that this Resolution does it to put an external limit beyond which you cannot go in the Bill, and if when we come to discuss the Bill we find it really is incredible that they can want as much as £26,000,000, I apprehend that it will be quite possible for the House in Committee on that Bill to limit the amount that may be spent. It cannot increase it beyond the sum in this Resolution, but it can always bring it down, and I should be very sorry to do anything at this stage, and until we have had the thing thoroughly thrashed out, to hamper this policy in any way. I am so profoundly convinced that it is of the first interest—to put it only on that ground, though I would put it higher myself—to the prosperity of this country that we should restore the stricken countries in Europe to something like a normal condition that I should be prepared for very drastic and extensive proposals of the Government if they saw their way clear to bring them forward.

I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the economic dangers that threaten Europe at the present time. You may use the most extreme and apparently exaggerated language, and you will still be short of the truth. At least, that is my view, and therefore I should look with great apprehension—indeed, I could not do it—to supporting any Amendment which limited the proposals which the Government thought necessary to bring forward. I most fully agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) said, that it is well worth the Government's consideration whether they should not take the opportunity of using this grant in order to induce a more reasonable behaviour on the part of some of the smaller States in Central Europe. That is a thing which I personally, if the Government saw their way to giving themselves that kind of power, either directly or through the League of Nations, should welcome. I am sure it is fantastic for us to try and help financially some of these countries which are simply throwing their money into the sea with warlike preparations on account of reasons which have not the slightest foundation in good sense or good policy, and I should be very glad to see considerable restraint put upon the exaggerated views of these powers. I do not agree with the policy which the Leader of the House has more than once apparently committed himself to, that we have no interest in whether peace is made or is not made in Central Europe, and that we can stand by and allow these countries still further to drive themselves into ruin. Therefore I should be glad to see some conditions of that kind put on this grant. I also agree that it would be very desirable—and I hope the Government will consider whether it is possible to do something of the kind—to insist on the breaking down of tariff and other similar barriers which these new States have erected between themselves. What they are doing is insane. They are cutting their own throats as hard as ever they can. They were already very nearly cut by the operations of the War, and if somebody could snatch the knife out of their hands, by this means or any other, I am sure it would be a most desirable thing to do. I also agree that anything that can be done to improve transit is of importance, but I do not quite see how you can use the grant to do that.

I am thinking of the general restoration of European trade and the general re-establishment of normal peace conditions. It is not a question of artificially increasing the exports of any of these firms. There is one other matter which I think will have to be considered. I do not know whether it is part of the policy—I hope it is—to furnish these credits for the purpose of renewing trade with such countries as Austria; but if it is, the Government will have to consider the effect of the reparation terms of the Treaty. There is no doubt that we shall discuss this question on Wednesday, and I shall not do more than mention it now, but at the present time you have so arranged your financial terms that until the Reparation Commission takes some action everything you put into Austria or Hungary simply goes into the Reparation Fund and becomes useless for any purpose of restoring normal economic conditions. That is a matter which I hope the Government will consider very carefully in connection with this grant. I venture to hope that the House will approve of the general policy of this proposal and vote for the Resolution as it stands, leaving any further limitations and conditions to be imposed by the Bill, and I trust, if my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) does not think me impertinent in doing so, that he will consider whether he cannot withdraw his Amendment in that sense. I quite agree that very little money has yet been granted, but you have hardly began to restore peace yet. You have not ratified the treaties which affect Central Europe at all. With the exception of Poland, they are all still in the condition substantially in which they were left at the time of the conclusion of the Armistice. Once you begin to get things going, I hope they will go fairly rapidly. If they do not, we are face to face with economic disaster, for unless you can get things to move rapidly the condition is hopeless, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will not at this stage think it necessary to cut down the sum proposed by the Government. I trust the House will accept the Resolution, which I am sure is in the interests of this country, of Europe, and of the world at large.

I think the Committee as a whole are clearly in favour of the principle of this Resolution, but, speaking for myself and for some others, we should like a little more information as to the exact modus operandi when this money is granted. We have not got the Bill before us, and I do not know whether it is in order for the Bill to be brought in—

It cannot be introduced until we have got this Motion.

Then that makes it all the more necessary that we should know what we are voting for now. To whom are these credits to be given? The Resolution does not say and does not limit in any way the persons or firms or Governments to whom they are to be given. Do I understand they are only to be given to British firms, or are they to be given to foreign firms as well, or are the credits to be given to foreign Governments? Would it not be well to put into the Resolution some words to show to whom the credits are to be given?

The Bill will do that. It is perfectly clear that credits will only be granted to British firms.

That removes a doubt. If the credit is to be given to a British firm, I presume in most cases it will be given to a British seller of goods in this country, in this way, that the solvency of the foreign purchaser will be guaranteed, or that, at any rate, it will be made certain that the British seller of goods will get his money from the British Government if not from the foreign purchaser. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) is right, I do not see the necessity for this guarantee at all, for he claimed they are going to give the most stringent guarantees for the payment of the money.