I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement with regard to the Washington Conference?

The Members of the British Empire Delegation will be as follows:

The British Ambassador to the United States, acting as a Delegate in the absence of myself or any other Delegate.

As regards the Dominions and India, it was arranged at the recent Imperial Conference that His Majesty's Government should represent the whole Empire at Washington. In view, however, of the vital importance of the subjects to be considered at the Conference on Disarmament, it was felt to be very desir- able that the Dominions should be represented by their Prime Ministers themselves, or, if this proved impossible, by persons nominated by them. None of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions has found it possible to attend in person, and the following have been nominated to represent their respective Dominions on the British Empire Delegation:

Admiral-of-the-Fleet Earl Beatty will be the senior British Naval expert at the outset of the Conference, and will be succeeded in due course by Admiral Chatfield.

General the Earl of Cavan will be the principal Military expert, and Vice-Air-Marshal Higgins will represent the Air Ministry.

Sir Maurice Hankey will be the British Secretary of the British Empire Delegation.

May I ask you, Sir, if you can give the House any information about your intentions with regard to allowing visitors into the public galleries of the House?

Yes. After consulting the Home Secretary I have decided to re-open the galleries of the House on Monday next. This course will not affect certain other Emergency Regulations which come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Great Chamberlain, affecting the whole of the Palace of Westminster, and therefore do not come within my province. Notices will be placed in the "No" Lobby with regard to the ballot- ting arrangements for the Ladies' Gallery and for the Members' Gallery.

Does that arrangement also include the courtesy of showing visitors over the House, or is it intended merely to allow visitors to go to the galleries?

While the House is sitting, I shall restore the previous arrangements. I think that at times when the House is not sitting, control is vested in the Lord Great Chamberlain, but with regard to access to the Lobby, and when the House is in Session, the old Rules will, on and after Monday next, be restored.

informed the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for the following New Writs, namely:—

I beg to move, That is the course which we would invite the House to follow. It is not my purpose, it would be improper, to anticipate the discussion that will take place tomorrow, but it will be, I think, our duty to present four Bills to the House, all arising out of the present condition of unemployment, and all directed to alleviating the distress and removing the difficulties with which we are confronted. Some of these Bills, if not all of them, require money Resolutions. The most important of them, perhaps, and the first to be taken, will be founded on a Resolution originating in Committee of Ways and Means. What we would propose, therefore, is to set up the Committee of Ways and Means to-morrow, and to take the Resolution on that Bill, as well as to take the formal stage of the introduction of the other, or some of the other four Bills.

Subject to your approval and consent, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the House that the course which would be for the greatest convenience of all concerned is that, in moving the first Order on the Paper to-morrow, the Prime Minister should make a general statement as to the policy of the Government, and that his statement should then be open to general discussion. Any other course would lead to the disclosure of the Government's policy piece-meal, bit by bit, and leave the House without the opportunity of either reviewing the Government's proposals as a whole, or in relation to the problem as a whole. If I may use an illustration what we propose—subject to your approval, Mr. Speaker, and, I hope, with the concurrence of the House: of course it must be with the concurrence of the House, a concurrence which I hope to secure, because I feel confident that it is as much in the general interests of the House as it is in the interests of the Government to have a clear exposition of the Government's policy, and a general discussion upon the principles of it—is very similar to what occurs on the introduction of the Budget.

There are a series of financial proposals, and, by tradition, it is customary to take the general discussion upon the first one, and when that is passed, to confine the discussion thereafter to the merits of the particular proposition which has then been put from the Chair. I suggest, with your approval, Mr. Speaker, and if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite concur, that we should follow that course to-morrow, and take the Report of the Resolution which I hope will be passed to-morrow or on Thursday; that we should not sit this week upon Friday, but adjourn on Thursday until Monday, and that we should then proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill, the House having had an opportunity in the interval to see the Measures and to study them and to consider fully the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

How long will they take?

The hon. Member asks me how long the Bills will take. I anticipate, and I believe not without cause, that there is a general desire in all parts of the House not, indeed, to assume any responsibility for the Measures which the Government is proposing, but a general desire to deal with this subject expeditiously, in a non-party and, as far as possible, a non-controversial atmosphere.

indicated dissent .

I am very sorry if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has already decided without waiting to hear what will be said, that the discussion shall be both party and controversial in its character.

The question should be properly discussed.

But assuming a general good will, and a desire to find a settlement and carry those Measures that are necessary for the settlement of our present difficulties, I anticipate that the House may rise in a fortnight. I am not anticipating what will be the programme day by day. It is far too soon to do so at this stage, but as I have been asked what time I anticipate will be required for our business, then I should say, anticipating a general measure of good will as I do, that our business should not take more than a fortnight. I do not think that the other House will take a very long time over the discussion of these matters. The time required for our business depends largely on the discussion here, but it also depends partly on another place. With this explanation of the intentions of the Government and with the suggestion which I have made as to what will meet the convenience of the House in all respects, I beg to move the Resolution.

Before reading the Resolution, I should say that, as far as the Chair is concerned, it will be quite open to the House to take a general discussion on the policy founded by the Government on the first of the Resolutions which are to be proposed. I should point out that it will be necessary to set up the Committee to-night, as it cannot be set up on the same day as that on which the Resolution is brought forward.

I am obliged to you, Sir. We intend that the Committee should be set up to-day, in order that the business might be taken to-morrow.

Having heard the statement by the Leader of the House, can you, Sir, indicate what in your view should be the proper scope of the Debate upon the Resolution which will shortly be before the House?

The question now is whether the Government is to have the whole time of the House, as long as we sit in the present part of this Session. It would not be in order on this Motion to anticipate the discussion which is suggested for Wednesday and Thursday.

I have been requested by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and his Ministers to endeavour to get the Government to give a day during this short Session for a discussion on the state of affairs in Ulster, and, in particular, on the delay in handing over the various Governmental Departments to the new Parliament. I know that we can only get that day with the good will of the Government, but I would like to know whether the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman has just moved would, in its present form, prevent the Government from giving us that day if they are pleased to do so?

No. Certainly not.

Would it not be in order on the Motion now before the House to discuss anything we like, provided that we show that a discussion on that question would be prevented by passing this particular Resolution?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman would be entitled, undoubtedly, on this Resolution to complain that some subject in which he is interested may be left out, but he would not be entitled thereupon to deliver the speech which he would wish to deliver if the subject were under discussion.

I desire to ask the Leader of the House one or two questions on the Motion on the Paper and to offer some observations on the procedure which is being followed. The procedure itself is not, I think, in keeping with the expectations of the country and the anticipations of Members of this House who assembled to-day in the belief and hope that the Prime Minister would be able to-day to make at least a general statement as to the decisions of the Government with regard to the unemployment problem. I impute no personal blame and no kind of neglect to the Prime Minister. We all know that he has been carrying the burden of a great many matters of State, but I did think that by this time the Government would have had its policy in a more or less complete form so as to give us an outline of it to-day, in order that we might have time to consider it and discuss it either to-night or to-morrow. The Leader of the House has accurately reminded us that we were to be called together in the event of certain contingencies relating to Ireland. As many of us foretold, and as I think the House generally believed when we adjourned, we have been compelled, even in the absence of any matter relating to the Irish question, to resume our Parliamentary duties during the course of this autumn. Unfortunately, events have confirmed the belief which we then held and expressed, and the urgency of the question and the harrowing nature of the problem and the suffering endured on account of it entitle the Government to ask the House to approve of some such Motion as that which is on the Order Paper. We are all anxious to give the Government every measure of Parliamentary time in order to deal with this subject of unemployment, but I think that we were entitled to be informed to-day what generally are the intentions and proposals of the Government either of a legislative or an administrative kind. In short, the problem is so urgent that we ought not to be asked to wait over another day for some statement. But I would like to ask what is to be the procedure to-morrow. I understand that we are to have a general statement from the Prime Minister and that certain Bills are to follow. Does that mean that immediately we have heard that general statement the House is to be required to proceed to a general Debate on the subjects touched on in that statement, whether they be Unemployment, Ireland, the Washington Conference, or any other matter?

No.

The statement to-morrow and the Measures to be introduced to-morrow will deal only with the problem of unemployment.

I was asking only for information, and my purpose is served by that reply. I understand that tomorrow we shall be asked, after a general statement, to proceed to a general discussion, taking in detail the various aspects of the question as they might be covered by the several Bills relating to them put before the House.

There are two points which I submit for serious consideration to the Leader of the House. This Motion will give the whole of the time of the House to the Government, and the Government will be able to get through the work, if it likes, in the course of, say, two weeks. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will run away from any obligation placed on him, no matter how long the Sitting may last, but I should think it would be better for the Government to avoid creating in the minds of Members of the House the expectation that they will be able to rise in the course of a fortnight, and thereby imposing upon them the obligation to hurry through the various proposals to be put before the House. We cannot scamp this work. Twice two weeks, three times two weeks, if necessary, should be given rather than that Members should again be released from their duties and recalled by the pressure of the very crisis that is certain to develop in the country unless these questions are dealt with in the most mature way.

If carried, this Motion will enable the Government to compel Members to sit, as often as it may choose, after eleven o'clock at night. Seriously, I say to the Government that this is not business which ought to be hurried through under that kind of pressure. The Prime Minister may dissent. What I mean is, that there are physical and temperamental reasons for not being able to do this job well after eleven o'clock. If we are to devote long hours daily to the consideration of these questions, the House should be called upon to sit earlier in the day rather than to sit at a time when work of this kind cannot be done properly. And the point is, that this Motion will deprive the House of what is not merely a privilege, but of what may, on occasion, become a real necessity in the course of the next two or three weeks. We cannot altogether foresee events, but from experience we anticipate that various things may occur which would entitle the House to decide whether, by a Motion for the Adjournment, some special discussion should be entered into after the dinner hour, in the course of the next two or three weeks. At least in that regard, as well as in respect of the Eleven o'clock Rule, provision should be made not to tie the hands of the House in such a manner as to prevent it from arranging to carry a Motion for the Adjournment in order to discuss some special aspect of a question which might arise. While willing to give to the Government every reasonable measure of time for the mature consideration of these questions, and for their decision, we trust that no Motion will be carried in exactly the terms of the Motion on the Paper, because that Motion would compel us to work at a time when our work could not be well done, and it would prevent the House from entering into discussion of a definite subject which it might be desirable to consider on a Motion for the Adjournment.

When the House adjourned in August, the Government, having abandoned the original intention of proroguing, had in view what seemed then a not improbable contingency— difficulties in connection with the administration of Ireland. We are glad to know that that contingency has not arisen. The fact that we are asked now to proceed to business instead of ending the Session has no connection with the Irish problem. In parenthesis I may say that there is not one of us, wherever he may sit, who does not ardently desire that no such contingency may arise. That con- tingency not having occurred, the Government, quite rightly, have taken advantage of the Adjournment, proposed and carried for a different purpose, to present to the House emergency measures in regard to the grave and most perplexing question of unemployment. It is a thing that could neither be avoided nor postponed. We are all glad that, fortuitously though it may be, they will have an opportunity of presenting to the House proposals to deal with that grave situation. It should be clearly understood, as this Motion proposes, that it is for that purpose we are assembled, and that, subject to emergencies—there are unforeseen possibilities and it is not desirable by anticipation to indicate them—subject to emergencies which may make discussion on other matters unavoidable, this is a time when the labour of the House should be concentrated on this particular problem. That, I believe, will meet with practically universal assent. The procedure of a general discussion on the first Resolution follows the precedent of the Budget and other precedents. That is obviously for the general convenience of the House. I hope we may assume that, when the Bills are introduced, the Committee stage will take place on the Floor of the House?

Certainly.

That is obviously right. I assume also that the Motion which was carried shortly before we adjourned is still in force, and that the House on Fridays will sit at Eleven o'clock instead of Twelve?

Yes.

I wanted to make that point clear. I understand that we are not sitting this week on Friday. The Eleven o'clock sitting on Fridays might be made permanent; it would be a very great convenience to the House. I understand the decision on that matter is in force until the prorogation of the present Session. When and how do the Government propose to take the Second Reading of these Bills? The procedure, I understand, is this: Committee stage of Resolution to-morrow and Report on Thursday and introduction of the Bills. Will the Second Readings of the Bills be taken on Monday?

My right hon. Friend knows how technical is our pro- cedure. I am not quite clear whether every Bill requires a Resolution. I think not. Perhaps the most important and the key Measure is founded upon a Resolution and in that case the Resolution must precede the Bill. Another Measure will require a Resolution in Committee, but the Second Reading of the Bill must precede the Resolution. A third Measure requires no Resolution. We will take a general discussion upon the Resolution of what I describe as perhaps the most important of the Measures, and introduce the Bill, and we will proceed with the Second Readings on Monday, of course being guided in how far we can proceed on a particular day by the course of business and the desire of Members to discuss the matter.

Supposing that there is to be, as I hope, a general discussion on the first Resolution to-morrow, then on the Report stage, will it be in order to resume that general discussion? I will, if I may venture to do so, put that question to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the same procedure be followed on the Report stage as on the Committee stage?

I suggest it might be so, in order to give two whole days to the wider discussion. That would be my view.

And, I am sure, if I may respectfully say so, the view of the whole House.

May I ask a question? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) may have thought that because during his opening remarks, I demurred to any rushed legislation. I was condemning the Government Motion beforehand. The meaning of the exclamation, which was torn from me involuntarily, was that the matters with which these Bills are concerned are matters of vital importance, and we should not run away with the idea that they are going to be passed through by a sort of general consent and without adequate discussion or examination. They are Bills which must be fully considered, and I think it is the duty of every one of us to pull them to pieces, as much as possible, in order, that by means of criticism and of the justifications which criticism calls for their weak points shall be exposed. We have had Bill after Bill rushed through this House, on matters of great importance, such as agriculture and the safeguarding of industries. In the case of agriculture, some of this legislation had to be dropped altogether, and as regards safeguarding industries, the Act in reference to that has proved absolutely unworkable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Those were two Measures passed under the Guillotine, and my first question is: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of closing down proper discussion of these vital Bills, by the use of that iniquitous Measure? My second point is, that, in addition to these Bills, there are other matters of very great importance which should be discussed at the earliest possible moment, because—if for no other reason—they are going to affect employment and industry in this country, and that very adversely. If we are going to give the Government the whole of the time of this short, but vitally important, Session, are they going to give us an opportunity of discussing these subjects? First, is it their intention before we part for Christmas, to give the Lord President of the Council an opportunity of explaining the reasons for the finding of the League of Nations in regard to Upper Silesia? That is a matter which will adversely affect industry in this country, if the reports published in the Press are true. I see this has caused the mark to drop by about 200 to the £ and will probably lead to the resignation of a Government in Germany which even the French acknowledge to be the best they have yet had. It is our duty to call for some explanation from the Lord President of the Council, if the reports as to the finding of the League are true. Secondly, I wish to ask if there will be an opportunity of discussing the measures for the relief of famine in Russia? The policy of the Government in regard to that seems to have, been very largely reversed since the House adjourned. The Prime Minister, at that time, promised that we were going to do all we could to relieve the sufferings of innocent children in Russia, but during the adjournment we have not had any opportunity of discussing the matter, and we have had our representative giving vent to the most inhuman declarations of policy. This question of the starving people in Russia should be discussed again, because it affects us in England.

There are our own children starving here.

Why are children starving here? This is a matter which vitally affects us. The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) has raised another point in reference to which I wish to support him, if I may. He wishes to raise a question in connection with the Government of North Eastern Ireland; he has a perfect right to do so, and I hope he may succeed in raising it. Some of us wish to raise other Irish questions, including that of the Irish internees and, very possibly, the question of law and order in that very portion of Ireland— North Eastern Ulster—which is asking for further powers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] We do not agree with the Government that this is altogether an unexpected emergency. We prophesied it; we saw it coming, and we are not going to hold up our hands now and say, "This is a terrible and unlooked for catastrophe." We prophesied it again and again.

And you worked for it.

We are prepared to assist the Government in every way we can and it is by criticism that the best assistance can be given. Some of us feel that the best way of dealing with the situation would be to get rid of the present Government. As far as I am concerned during these few weeks, if I see an opportunity of doing so, I shall certainly take it.

A Motion of this character always involves a serious encroachment upon the rights of private Members. There are, of course, instances where that encroachment is necessary, and it may be, under proper conditions, that the House ought to grant the Government such facilities as those they now demand. May I say, however, in the strongest way, that in the present condition of public affairs at home and abroad, we ought not to grant the Government the whole time of the House unless we get an adequate assurance from them that Parliament will be allowed to discuss questions of vital moment to this country, and to our Empire as a whole? What a farce it would be if we, knowing how this country and the world is deeply disturbed, should agree, as Members of the British House of Commons, to resign all our right of free discussion into the hands of the Government without getting an assurance of facilities for discussing matters which it is our bounden duty to discuss. I want to ask the Government if they will give us a definite assurance that we shall have adequate opportunities during this Session for discussing Ireland. The position in Ireland is a most grave one. Everyone in this House and vast numbers outside are deeply anxious about the present and the future of Ireland, and many of us are distrustful of the past action of the Government and of their present action, even if they have not already, as some have, taken the definite decision to oppose them in their present policy. There are some matters in connection with Ireland which I urge the Government to say it is absolutely vital to discuss. There is the question of Ulster, which has been referred to, and then there is the question of the violation or disturbance of the so-called truce. We are entitled to bring before Parliament the dangerous position of affairs which now exists there, the indignities, the outrages, from which loyalists in Ireland are now suffering; we are entitled to ask the Government whether they are aware of the drilling, the arming, the importation of arms and preparing for war by Sinn Feiners during the so-called truce; and we are entitled to ask what is their policy with regard to the open and unabashed holding of illegal courts in Ireland, by which British citizens are brought before illegal tribunals and fined and imprisoned, without, so far, the British Government raising a finger to protect them.

There is still another matter with regard to Ireland on which I think we should be failing in our duty if we did not insist on having a discussion, and that is the general policy of the Government in regard to the Conference. Many of us are greatly alarmed. I am not going to discuss the Irish question at this moment, because I know I should be out of order, but I do desire for one moment to point out what the position of affairs is which makes discussion absolutely necessary. In the course of the recent correspondence which took place, correspondence of a very remarkable character, between the Prime Minister and De Valera, an offer was made by the Government—

The hon. Member is referring to an hon. Member of this House, and he should refer to him by his constituency.

I certainly accept your ruling, Sir.

Is a gentleman who has not taken the oath of allegiance, and who has not taken his seat, a Member of this House?

As far as reference to him by his constituency and not by his name is concerned, he is in the same position as other hon. Members of this House.

I agree with your ruling, Sir, but perhaps I may be entitled to say that, as far as my opinion of him is concerned, it does not alter whether I call him De Valera or Mr. De Valera. I should like to point out that Mr. De Valera— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

The hon. Member appears not to have fully understood what I said. I said that he should refer to a Member of this House by his constituency, and not by his name.

I have just learned —I was not aware of it— that he is the Member for East Clare. Well, the hon. Member for East Clare, not once or twice, definitely and irrevocably rejected the Government's offer.

On a point of Order. As this hon. Member who has been alluded to is an alien, he cannot possibly be a Member of this House.

How many aliens have we got in the House?

Is it a fact that Archer-Shee is a Spaniard?

The hon. Member in question has been duly elected to the House, and that is all that I am concerned with.

I think it will get over the difficulty if I refer to this gentleman in future as the correspondent of the Prime Minister. The correspondent of the Prime Minister informed the Prime Minister that he had definitely and irrevocably rejected the Government offer. The Prime Minister said the Government offer was final and could not be altered. Under those circumstances, I think we are entitled to inquire in this House what the Conference is doing and what it is for. The Government have said in their correspondence that their offer is the only offer they can make, and therefore we are entitled to know what is being done in the Conference, and what has passed. Supposing the Government tell us it is their intention to put forward a new offer, which has never been made public and which this House might entirely reject, I think we ought to know at the earliest possible time whether such an offer is likely to be put forward, and we should be entitled to comment upon it. Therefore I urge the Government to tell us now quite plainly whether they will give us adequate and full opportunity for discussing this vital question of Ireland. For my own part, unless the Government can give us a full assurance, I shall have no hesitation in voting against their proposals. If we voted for them without such an assurance, we should be neglecting our duty and handing over our rights entirely unprotected into the hands of the Government, and I trust there are sufficient independent Members of this House who are not prepared to take that course.

4.0 P.M.

It may be for the convenience of the House that I should deal now with one or two questions which have been put to me in the course of the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) began by expressing his regret that there should be even 24 hours' delay before the proposals of the Government in regard to unemployment are laid before the House. He went on, for the rest of his speech, to claim— or he occupied the larger portion of the remainder of his brief remarks in claiming—ample time for their discussion. I do not think he will find that any time is lost by adopting the businesslike proceeding which we have suggested of considering the policy of the Government in relation to the whole problem of unemployment in the discussion to-morrow, nor do I wish, on the other hand, in any way unduly to curtail the liberty of the House in the discussion of the Measures which we shall lay before it. My belief is that the whole House, without distinction of party, will desire the Measures which are to be taken to come into force rapidly, will discuss those Measures with goodwill, and pass them, or deal with them, at any rate, as expeditiously as reasonably can be done. I certainly at this time have no intention of asking the House to sit very late hours. I hope and believe that that will not be necessary. I had no idea that it might be necessary to propose a Guillotine Motion for any of these Measures. I cannot believe that any section of the House will treat them in such a way as to require such a proposal from those responsible for the conduct of public business. But, after all, I must be guided in this, as in other matters, by the course of events, and I cannot tie my hands without knowing the circumstances with which we may be confronted. All I can say is that it had never entered into my head till this moment to suppose that it would either be necessary to have very late Sittings—I do not absolutely say that we shall finish always at 11 o'clock, though we shall try to do that as closely as we can—

You are suspending the 11 o'clock Rule by this Motion?

Certainly, the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule was not continued by the Motion which was in force before the House adjourned, and it is included in the Motion now before the House; but I do not contemplate at this stage the kind of late Sittings which are habitual when we are trying to close the business of a Session, and I do not think that they will be necessary. With regard to other subjects, I have said that, as far as the Government are concerned, we propose, in accordance with the statement that I have made, to lay before the House only business connected with the emergency which has necessitated its meeting, with this single qualification:

There is one of the proposals of the Labour Convention which, if the House be sitting, must come before it in order to comply with our obligations, and we shall therefore take the opinion of the House on the Genoa Convention. It is comparatively an old Convention, but the assent or dissent of this country must be notified before the new Session of Parliament will in all probability begin, and we therefore propose to take the opinion of the House some time this Session. With that exception, our intention is to lay before the House no business of our own other than that arising out of unemployment, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) correctly expressed the general wish of the House that, as far as possible, the time and labour of the House should be devoted to that one problem which has necessitated our meeting. At the same time, I would say at once, on behalf of the Government, that, if there be a general desire for a discussion upon the Irish situation, we shall, of course, be bound to provide a day for it. But in that matter I would invite the House to trust, I will not say to the Government, but to the traditions of the House. Meeting under the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it would, I think, be an impossible proposal to leave the Rule under which any Member who can secure the support of 39 others may move the Adjournment, and interrupt our business, and postpone our legislation on any day. The House, I think, will support me when I say that the Government under similar circumstances, when they had all the time of the House, have always shown reasonable consideration for the general sense of the House, and have themselves made an opportunity for the discussion of questions on which there was a general desire for discussion. That is the course which I propose to take. I am not prepared without consideration to commit myself to give time for all the questions which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) ran through.

There are only two more.

The hon. and gallant Member up to this time has been supposed to be an honoured supporter of the League of Nations. The Allied Powers, unable to agree upon a settlement of the Silesian question, decided to refer it to the League of Nations, and to be bound by their decision. It would be unfortunate, assuming that that decision be not agreeable to the hon. and gallant Member, that he should therefore make an attack upon the Government in consequence, and in respect of a decision which is not that of the Government, but of the League of Nations to which the Governments concerned referred the question. I am being almost led into a discussion of the merits of the question, and, even if it were in order, which it certainly is not, I am anxious to avoid anything of the kind.

Ireland is a conspicuous instance where, if, as I believe is the case, there be something like a general desire of the House for a discussion, the Government will, of course, make an occasion and give a day for it. We will do the same with respect to other questions of similar or of anything like similar importance in respect of which there is the same feeling.

Before such a discussion be allowed, will the other side to the negotiations now taking place be consulted?

What it may be possible for the Government to say in respect of the negotiations may depend upon the condition of those negotiations, and may be a matter for consultation with those with whom we are negotiating. But I cannot give to anyone outside this House— the House would resent it if, on behalf of the House, I presumed on my position in the House to do so—a right to exercise the veto over our proceedings or discussions. The character of what the Government may say, and the extent to which they may be able to follow hon. Members, may be limited by the condition of that particular subject at the time that the Debate takes place. On that I say nothing. All I say is that that is a question of such supreme importance and about which there is so much public interest and even public anxiety that, if the House desired, it would be clearly the duty of the Government to make an occasion for such a discussion. I believe that I have now answered all the questions put to me.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to repeat one of the questions which I put to him. I think that he has answered in the right spirit the question which I put with regard to sitting after 11 o'clock, and I do not press that point further. I would ask his further attention to the second question which I put as to Motions for Adjournment. I agree that at such a time as this it is not desirable to give any 39 Members of the House the opportunity frequently to interrupt the business, but, after all, there are large minorities in this House whose rights as minorities ought to be respected, and, unless they are respected, House of Commons work will become intolerable. I had in mind—I am not going into the merits of the question, or to say whether it is right or wrong—such events as the imprisonment of the Poplar Borough councillors.

It does not matter; they are only Englishmen.

I regret to observe that some Members appear to have come here under a sense of very great irritation, and seem inclined to decline to consider these matters at all. The imprisonment of 30 elected representatives in a populous industrial borough, the action of the police in certain instances of working-class demonstrations—these are matters which, arising suddenly, might require the attention of the House, but they are matters which we could not discuss in relation to certain Bills or Clauses which might be before the House, even although they were connected with certain aspects of unemployment. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to treat with greater favour the possibility of these questions being brought forward, and the necessity for a great deal of elasticity in the treatment of these questions on the part of the Government.

I think I was mistaken in saying a moment ago, in answer to an interruption, that the Motion as drawn prohibited the normal form of Motion for Adjournment on the Motion of a private Member, and by leave of the Chair. It does not, and therefore that right is at present reserved to the House. All I will say is that it will not require a Motion for the Adjournment moved in that way, and followed by a discussion coming on at 8.15, in order to secure from the Government an opportunity of discussing the condition of Ireland or the Irish question, if such be the general desire of the House. With regard to Motions of that kind generally, I earnestly beg hon. Members not to abuse that right. After all, we are met because of a particular emergency, and it is the desire of all those who have spoken that the Measures required by that emergency should be proceeded with at once and rapidly. If our procedure an these Bills be constantly interrupted by Motions on other matters, it will, of course, singularly delay progress with the legislative programme, which is the reason for our sitting at all. I think my right hon. Friend will find that the proposals of the Government will probably give him the opportunity of making any observations that he may wish to make as to the situation which arises in respect of Poplar.

Could not the Motion be so drawn that the Government take the whole of the time of the House while dealing with the Unemployment question? I quite favour no interruption of unemployment matters, even for private business. Afterwards, of course, let the ordinary rules prevail.

I had intended voting for the Motion in the name of the Government, because it is the ordinary Motion which has been always moved at the beginning of an Autumn Session. But I must say that I was under the impression, when we adjourned in August, that the reason for meeting this autumn, if the House did meet, would be the condition of Ireland, and that the question of unemployment which has come to a head since, or any other matter, would not pre^ vent the question of the Government's policy in regard to Ireland being raised. Speaking only for myself, I must say that I think the policy of the Government in regard to Ireland is of a most dangerous character. I do not think that it ought to be pursued until this House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman says that if there be a general consensus of opinion in the House that a day ought to be given to the consideration of the Irish question, he will then agree to it. I do not think that is enough.

I said that if there were, as I thought it had already been indicated there was, and I thought that meant, in Parliamentary language, a definite pledge. If it be not clear to my right hon. Friend, I will make it clear, and give that pledge.

There is one point we have omitted to consider in discussing the Motion of my right hon. Friend. I do not think that this Government, or any Government, has a right to call Parliament together for the discussion of any particular subject. While it may be quite true that unemployment requires to be discussed; while it may also be quite true that, because of cheers when there is a reference to Ireland, a day has been conceded for the discussion of that subject, those of us who belong to the rank and file have no guarantee at all that any other subject will be discussed. For instance, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the question of the Washington Conference. So far as many of us are concerned—and I hope the Leader of the House will not form an opinion from the fact that there are no accompanying cheers that there is not a genuine desire on the part of the House to discuss that subject—but, so far as many of us are concerned, the Conference at Washington and the representation of this Government at that Conference are absolutely the most essential subjects the House of Commons can discuss at the present moment. The important point is that, apart from communication through the ordinary channels, the Government are not going to give any time for any subject which is inconvenient to them. That is the general refuge of all Governments. I do not blame them, of course. It is the natural method of every Government to avoid discussion of subjects.

After all, this Parliament was not called to discuss unemployment. This is a continuation of the Parliament which adjourned eight weeks ago, and the Government have no Business to come down to the House of Commons and say to the House of Commons, "There is only one subject which we wish you to discuss, namely, the subject of unemployment." They can say that, because they have control of the time of the House, and, apart from the 8.15 Adjournment, which gives the House of Commons ¥ hours to discuss any subject, there is no opportunity at all open to the private Member, and I think it is really asking far too much, on the opening day of the renewal of the Session, to take the whole time of the House. Parenthetically, I am bound to say that, if the House of Commons had not been adjourned for eight weeks, the Government would have had its scheme for dealing with unemployment long ago before the House and country. It was because the House was not sitting and could not discuss the subject that the Government turn up to-day still unprepared, and now that they have brought us back quite unprepared till to-morrow, we are to be confined by their fiat to this subject. Thank God, the Government did not send us to the House of Commons. Our constituents sent us here, and they sent us here not to discuss an ad hoc subject, or any one subject, but the subjects which affect the interest of the country at the time the House of Commons is sitting. Therefore, I think it is perfectly ridiculous of the Government, and it means that you form a precedent. Every Government in the future will feel entitled, when any subject arises outside, to call Parliament together to deal with that subject, and no other subject. You are going to substitute for the broad, general usages of Parliament, the public discussion of all public questions, a discussion in water-tight compartments of individual questions, however important, that arise at any moment. I suggest that that is a wrong principle to introduce in the House, and I am sorry the Leader of the House has been the channel for conveying that new idea to the House of Commons.

On the question of procedure, may I suggest this to my right hon. Friend, as he agrees that the 8.15 Adjournment is not effective? Would he agree to take out the reference to the 11 o'clock Rule, and, if and when he desired the 11 o'clock Rule to be suspended, put down the Motion in the usual way every day? He says—and I think I agree with him—that, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, it will be perfectly prepared to give the Government all the support it can to deal with unemployment. We are told there are to be four Bills. We know what that means. It often means taking more than one stage of a. Bill on one day, and that you can enter upon it after 11 o'clock without challenge. You are giving, at the beginning of the Session, a power to the Government which they are not entitled to have until they see that the House of Commons is abusing its privilege. I suggest to the Leader of the House that when he wants the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule, he should put it down in the ordinary way, so that, if we like, we can vote on it from day to day. I got up to protest against the idea that the functions of the House should be limited to the ad hoc discussion of any particular subject, and to say that Members should be enabled to discuss public subjects in such a way as they think fit, and as opportunity offers.

I desire to ask the Leader of the House two questions. The first is, whether, before we part with the Financial Resolutions dealing with these four Unemployment Bills, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on the revenue position of the country? It does seem to me that the matter is so intimately bound up with the question of the present taxation and the present receipts of Inland Revenue, that we should have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement regarding the monetary position of this country at the present moment. The second question I would like to ask is, whether the Government have any further Supplementary Estimates to bring forward, because, if so, I do hope they will bring them forward at this period of the Session, and not keep them over till next March? Nothing is more unsatisfactory than the voting of Supplementary Estimates at the beginning of a new Session in respect of the old financial year, and I do urge upon the Government that, if there are any further Departmental Estimates, we should have them before Parliament is prorogued.

I am afraid I was one of those who was rather doubtful about supporting this Resolution, certainly after the first speech of my right hon. Friend, but the second speech was so conciliatory that I felt at once I could support the Government, because I am entirely in favour of giving them as much time as possible for dealing with the unemployment question. But I was very anxious about one or two other questions. I understand the right hon. Gentleman promised a day for Ireland, and he has assured us that if there is any other subject of importance, the Government will consider giving an opportunity for discussion. There is one question I think of vital importance to us, because, although we are a House of Commons dealing very largely with people in our own country, we are still an Imperial Government, and the position of affairs in India is a very grave matter, which, I think, this House ought to take into consideration. There is now going on the greatest rebellion which has taken place in India since 1857. There is very grave anxiety lest the policy of the Government has so far weakened the army in India that there is difficulty in dealing with this rebellion. I do not propose to discuss it now, but may I ask my right hon. Friend, if there is a real desire amongst a section of Members of this House to discuss the question of India, and the administration of the Secretary of State, he will consider the giving an opportunity for so doing. My hon. Friend behind asks me to include the position of Indians in the Kenya Colony. I am not at all sure he and I are not diametrically opposed on that question, but, on the whole, I think the political position of Indians in a British Crown Colony should be settled and decided by this House. After all, it is not a matter for decision by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but is a matter of very grave moment which should be decided by this House.

There is another branch of questions on which we ought to have a discussion or an undertaking from my right hon. Friend. There is the position of the negotiations which are taking place on Egypt. I understand this House will not meet again, probably, till the middle of February. Either we ought to have an opportunity of discussing the negotiations which are taking place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Egypt, or we ought to have a definite and clear undertaking from the Government that they will come to no decision binding Great Britain until next Session of Parliament. There is a smaller question, but a similar one, and that is the position of the Arabs in Palestine. There is an Arab delegation here to-day, and has been here some weeks, seeing the Colonial Secretary. I do not know whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the Balfour declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. I am not in a position to say, but having personally seen that deputation, I am in a position to say that there is very great anxiety and unrest, and the possibility of something more than unrest, in Palestine, unless a modification of the Balfour declaration takes place. Again, I ask the Government to give us an opportunity of discussing this, or an undertaking that the Mandate shall not be issued in its present form, or the Balfour declaration shall not be carried out in its present form, until Parliament reassembles in February. I do not want to force the right hon. Gentleman to a discussion of these cases where the Government is not in a position to commit the House of Commons and country, if he will give an undertaking that they will not so commit them until Parliament has had an opportunity of dealing with them in the next Session of Parliament. I submit that, so long as the House of Commons is an Imperial House, and has responsibility to this country for the government of those great dependent countries at present under our control, we cannot permit the Government, however friendly we are to them, to commit this House to declarations of policy while the House is not sitting, and we are to come back in February to find a fait accompli which we cannot deal with, discuss and alter.

I am afraid if the Leader of the House were to accede to all the requests addressed, and likely to be addressed, to him, the proper course would be to prorogue and to start a new Session to-morrow. That, obviously, would scarcely be an advantage. But there is one point which I certainly would like to address to my right hon. Friend, and that is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). If there are any Supplementary Estimates of any importance, I certainly think—and I believe the general sense of the House will support the hon. Member in his suggestion and I believe the House will be quite willing to find time for discussion—at any rate, to discuss really important matters of national finance. National finance is very intimately connected with unemployment. What happens as a rule? We all know that when the House meets in February, after the Address has been got through, we are plunged at once into Supplementary Estimates. The mood of the House is not at all attuned to the requisite examination of those most important matters. There is certain to be quite a lot of Supplementary Estimates— large in amount and many in number. I suggest to the Leader of the House that if there be Supplementary Estimates —I hope there are not—but if there be, here is an excellent opportunity, when the House has got into its stride, so to speak, to do some really useful work, rather than have it at the beginning of the Session, to have one day or a day and a half for Supplementary Estimates which otherwise will be swamped at the beginning of the new Session.

I have no desire whatever to delay matters, or to prolong discussion, but I am concerned about the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. As a understand it, the discussion on unemployment is going to be confined merely to relieving unemployment. I should like to know whether we are not to be allowed to discuss the causes and the effects of unemployment? The danger I see in confining the discussion within the suggested narrow limits is considerable, and I should like the opportunity of discussing the pernicious effects of the Versailles Treaty upon unemployment. I should like also to discuss the pernicious effect of the misnamed Safeguarding of Industries Act. Whether the goods should come into this country or not I am not going to discuss, but when they do come— dolls' eyes and the rest of it—we see the effect of the Act. I should like to know if these things are to be discussed, for they have a very important bearing upon unemployment? Again, there is the handing over of the Ruhr Valley to France which has hampered very seriously the coal trade of this country. Are all these things ruled out? If so, I very much regret it, and the narrow limits laid down for the discussion of this question. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not prevent us discussing these very important questions which are having a very serious effect upon employment in this country.

May I press the Leader of the House in reference to the subject already mentioned by my hon. Friend, as to whether we shall have really an adequate opportunity to discuss the effect of the so-called Safeguarding of Industries Act? The revenue has suffered, and the relation of the revenue to unemployment is very great. The industries of this country are suffering, and I am going to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a gross betrayal of the business community of this country in this Act. There is not a single business man who ever dreamt that the first consequence of that Act would be the publication of a list of over 6,000 articles affected by this so-called Safeguarding of Industries Act. There is not a business connected with the Act that is not damaged. There is no business that has been established under it that it has not affected. There is not a chemical producer in this country who is not affected. There is not a single pur- chaser of chemical goods that is not either getting inferior goods or is paying higher for vital and necessary goods. It is a direct attack upon trade. It promotes unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman is not quite in order in the line he is taking. His remarks will have more relevance to-morrow. They are not relevant to this Motion.

Perhaps I went too far in anticipating what, with your permission, I might be able to say. What I really wanted to ask the Leader of the House was whether—we are all able to agree that the whole time of the Session should be at the disposal of the Government, because, after all, we are summoned here to consider the question of unemployment—we are summoned here particularly to consider such proposals as the Government will make—we are, therefore, agreeable to their having the whole time—but will the right hon. Gentleman give some sort of assurance that the House will have the opportunity of discussing the grave trade position which has been caused primarily by the passing of the so-called Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has urged the Government to give time for a discussion on India, and, if I understood rightly, he suggested that there was a difficulty in dealing with the Moplah outrages because of the reduction which had been made in the Indian Army. I do not hesitate the reply to that suggestion, because for a while I was in charge of a portion of the Moplah country—not that in which the trouble now is, but in the neighbourhood—and the real reason, why there is any difficulty in putting down this rebellion is the geographical nature of the country, which is dense forest to the west and towards the sea. It is a narrow strip of densely-wooded country, so that a large army is of no possible use against this small number of insurgents, and that is the reason. It has nothing whatever to do with the reduction in the Indian Army. The suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite is as inaccurate as it is unfortunate. To make the suggestion that a rising that is sufficiently serious, no doubt, but entirely local, cannot be dealt with by the Army in India, and also the reference in the speech to the Mutiny, are really two suggestions so utterly opposed to the facts, and so unfortunate in their implications, that little as I meant to raise my voice on this occasion, I have got up to correct what I believe to be a sad misapprehension, and to point out that on this occasion, at least, though my right hon. Friend may have had the advantage of having had a cold-weather tour since I left India, I am, at least, in possession of far greater information than he can command regarding the country, its inhabitants, and its geographical conditions.

I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, and I rise now mainly because the Leader of the House has already shown a pliancy which I think is somewhat unfortunate. We are met here, as I understand, to discuss unemployment—primarily at all events. Something has been said about including finance in our discussions. Of course it is a matter for Mr. Speaker to decide whether this matter may be raised, but I should say that probably the inclusion of some discussion on finance would be in order on the question of unemployment, and, therefore, there is no need for any particular concession in this matter on the part of the Government. I take it also that the proposals of the Government, so far as they have been revealed, are sufficiently wide to admit a good deal being said as to the causes of unemployment. I understand the first remedial proposal is that the Government are going to do something with regard to stimulating trade by giving assistance to people engaged in overseas business. It seems to me that will be sufficiently wide to bring in a good deal of what might be said to be the causes of unemployment. What, however, I got up mainly for was to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will go no further with regard to bringing in other matters. He has already said that he gathered that the opinion of the House was in favour of a day being given to Ireland. Well, he may have correctly interpreted the views of the House in this matter; for my part I very much doubt whether a discussion on Ireland at this particular moment or even within the next two or three weeks, when meetings are going on in Downing Street, and without a great deal more information, and in view of the very delicate situation—I say I question very much whether a discussion here will do any good or facilitate what is going on. However, the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, has already committed himself to giving a day to Ireland. I hope he will go no further.

I think there ought to be two days.

At all events, that is not my point. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) asked for opportunity to be given for discussion on Egypt, India, Palestine, and all over the world from China to Peru.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman in regard to India, Egypt, and Palestine, that either a day might be given or that we should have an undertaking from the Government that it would not commit itself before we meet again in February.

I was only looking across at my hon. Friend at the moment, and was using what he says merely by way of illustration. Two hon. Members opposite talked about the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and reference has been made to other matters—all for inclusion in Debate and all absolutely foreign, as it seems to me, to the object that has drawn us together. That object, to my mind, is sufficiently serious to warrant us giving our whole attention to it during the next two or three weeks. For my part I am glad that the unemployment problem has got to this stage. My mind goes back 15 years when unemployment was around our doors, and the average Member of Parliament regarded it as a bit of a nuisance, and those concerned as the victims of their own misdeeds or shortcomings. We have got beyond that. We have got a Government which is considering the unemployment problem from a new view-point, which is considering the unemployed man as not a victim of his own shortcomings, and which has affirmed something that it is the business of the Government to attempt to rectify. That is what has brought us together. I hope that, as far as possible, we shall stick to that, and I have no hesitation in saying we will do our duty by our constituents in so far as we do stick to it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question before he goes—if he is going. I hear with very considerable satisfaction that the Government intend to submit the Genoa Conference findings to this House, that is in accordance with the Conference in Versailles to which the Government have subscribed. Have the Government decided upon that as a principle, or have they only decided simply to submit those particular conventions drawn up in Genoa? Further, will a full opportunity be given not only for the submission of the Government view of this matter, but also for the view of those who represented labour and employers of labour at the Genoa Conference?

I am glad the Government have decided to give the Unemployment question the importance which it merits. There are, however, one or two other questions which I think ought to have the attention of the Government as well, and one of those questions is the increasing alacrity with which the police in the country make a point of sending reporters to gatherings of unemployed workmen, and at the least sign or utterance that seems to them to smack of what they call sedition, the arrest takes place of the individual speaker, who very often has to lie in prison because bail is refused until the trial takes place, and even then when the sentence is pronounced, the time he has been in prison is not taken into account. I wish to suggest that during a period such as we are now going through a little more latitude might be given to these demonstrations and the speakers who attend them.

It is quite evident that the Government and those who issue the instructions for the prosecution of these individuals have not experienced the miseries of unemployment, and do not know the conditions existing in a household where probably every one of working age is walking the streets seeking employment. If the Government knew the effects arising when there is no money coming into a house, and if they realised the fact that these people believe that the Government is doing little or nothing to ease the situation, then they would understand that men in that frame of mind are inclined to say things which in more comfortable circumstances they would not think of saying. As we have in Glasgow at the present time a number of persons awaiting trial for addressing meetings of unemployed, and for saying things which are described in the charges as seditious language, and as these men have been refused bail pending their trial, I suggest to the Government that, not only in Glasgow, but in other parts of the country where such demonstrations are being held, that more sympathetic treatment should be shown to those taking part in them. We had an instance last Thursday in London where you had unemployed men, many of them scarcely able to drag themselves along the street, being ridden down and bludgeoned merely because they came to demonstrate to the Government the necessity for doing something to ease their situation. This took place merely because some men in the crowd indulged in what might be called horseplay. For these reasons I suggest that more sympathetic treatment should be shown towards these demonstrations.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes) that if the Government devoted all the time they are going to keep this House in Session, or even all the time between now and Christmas, to considering the causes and remedies for unemployment, they would not be sitting too long or doing too much. Some hon. Members seem to think the unemployment question is one which has suddenly sprung up, but I would like to point out that even at the commencement of this year, in January last, I sent a telegram appealing to the Prime Minister to summon Parliament in that month in order to discuss the unemployment situation, and although the Press took notice of my telegram, the Prime Minister did not. From my former experience of Government measures dealing with this subject, I do not look forward with any hope that we are going to have any heroic measures which will deal with this problem.

I cannot think that a system depending as it does upon a large unemployed army of men in order to bring down the wages of the workers can do anything heroic to solve the unemployed problem, which, to my mind, is bound up with a system which the Government have supported by the very Acts of Parliament which they have been driving through the House of Commons during the last two-and-a-half years. It is a system which they have been building up and strengthening, and they have actually produced the very circumstances which have driven 2,000,000 of our people on the streets looking for work in vain and more than 1,000,000 people who are working not more than two or three days a week. I hope when these people do come out upon the streets, protesting, as they have a right to protest, that they who fought for their country are of more importance than the grouse moors or the game preserves in Scotland, they will be treated more sympathetically. You did not send your recruiting agents to the grouse moors of Scotland during the War, but you sent them to our large industrial towns—

That subject is scarcely in order in a discussion upon this Resolution.

I apologise for transgressing your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was carried away by my feelings in regard to what I have seen happening at these demonstrations of working men, and I am appealing for more sympathetic treatment and the issuing of more sympathetic instructions. I appeal to the Secretary for Scotland and the Home Secretary to allow more latitude, and give more consideration to the circumstances in which these men are living, and if that is done I am convinced that the patience, which is almost marvellous, which has been shown by those taking part in these unemployed demonstrations when passing through a city like London or Glasgow, with wealth and abundance only kept from them by a plate glass window, in not smashing the windows and not doing anything that one can describe as riotous, will be continued. I think the patience of these men has been admirable, because they are starving. In these circumstances the Government might show more consideration and allow more latitude to these demonstrations. If they do I am convinced that there will be no unruly scenes if the police keep themselves to themselves.

I should not have risen to take part in this Debate if I had not been so shocked by the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes), for a more undemocratic speech I have rarely listened to in this House. Coming from an old Member whom I have always looked up to it was more than a shock, it was a disaster. The right hon. Gentleman urged that Parliament should confine its attention to whatever the Government desired to do. For my own part I think there never was a time when even this Government wanted more looking after than it does at the present moment, and to limit the activities of Parliament to merely registering the decrees of the Prime Minister is to make Parliament the laughing stock of the whole civilised world. The object of Parliament is to sit as often as possible and as long as possible, and to criticise the Executive from every point of view.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) that it is our duty to see that questions for which we are responsible are discussed in this House, and to see that they are not burked, in the interests of bureaucratic efficiency. It is absolutely essential, if we are to fulfil our function, that we should have an opportunity of discussing the responsibilities which ultimately devolve upon this House. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned India. On this subject my views are diametrically opposed to his, but, nevertheless, I think it is quite right that we should have a say as to what goes on there. Egypt is another example, and no less than four of my colleagues have just come back from that country, and they have seen things as they exist there. I want to know if they are to have an opportunity of telling us what they have seen going on in those districts.

5.0 P.M.

There is also the vital question of finance. The whole situation depends upon finance. If we are going to have a lot of pettifogging Bills dealing with unemployment, I am sure none of them will go to the root of the matter, because that would be too uncomfortable for the supporters of the Government. From what I have heard about those Measures in advance from the Government's Press agents, I have no desire to expedite their passage into law. Nevertheless, the whole thing turns upon finance, and the Government is getting deeper into debt daily. They are coquetting, vide the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the German idea of inflating the currency and depreciating the pound. They are going to endeavour to inflate the currency in the hope that it will increase credit and improve trade, and incidentally bring down the wages of the worker without them knowing that they are being brought down. This question of finance ought to be dealt with by Parliament. There are, I should say, half a dozen Supplementary Estimates that should be brought before the House now. They will be postponed until after the money has been spent and we shall be told next year that they must be passed under the Guillotine, or at 2 o'clock in the morning, because the money has to be spent and has to be authorised before a particular date in March. Let us have the Supplementary Estimates now. Do not try to balk discussion in this House in the idea that thereby the Government will escape criticism. I can assure the Government that they will get more criticism outside, where they will be unable to answer their opponents, than they will get in this House where, at any rate, they can attempt to give an answer. This question of finance seems to me to be of the utmost importance. To-morrow we are to have one day's discussion on unemployment. How are we going to deal with the finance question in that time? It will obviously be mixed up with all the other questions. We know quite well that the Government have passed a Safeguarding of Industries Bill and that they have tried a slice of Protection in order to see if it will improve trade, and they have found that it has made trade worse. The next thing they will try is a bounty on our export trade such as France used to have in connection with her sugar industry, and that, I venture to assert, instead of improving trade will only make it worse. We ought to have a discussion on sound finance in this country in order to teach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House the elements of political economy. I am quite certain that if we had such a discussion as that, and if we showed the Government how really to stop unemployment by getting at the root of the evil, we would be overwhelmingly voted down by this House because of the methods with which we proposed to deal with the subject.

There is just one thing which we should deal with now, because I do not see that the Government are leaving us any opportunity of discussing it hereafter. If this Motion is passed, there can be no discussion about the gigantic crime which we are committing in Russia to-day. No words I can say in this House could possibly equal what Dr. Nansen has said outside as to the crimes being committed there. Thirty million men, women and children are dying of starvation, and this Government, which is the heir to all British traditions, dares to go to the public and say, "We will not let the Russian Soviet Government have one penny piece of credit unless it acknowledges the debts due to the French bondholders for money borrowed by the Czar before the War, and repudiated by the Duma." These debts have to be recognised because this Government is tied to the chariot wheels of France and French financiers. All that is wanted by Russia in order to save millions of lives is a credit of £5,000,000. It is not a gift, but a credit. Such a credit would not only save the lives of the children who are dying of starvation almost before our very eyes. It would not only save them, but it would add to employment in this country, for we should then have an opportunity of making the goods that Russia wants, the boots, clothes, and agricultural machinery. We should send those goods to Russia, where they would be exchanged by the peasants of Central and North Russia for the grain they have got there. Perhaps hon. Members who are attempting to correct me will learn a little of the geography of Russia. North and Central Russia have the grain; they have buried it because they will not part with it in exchange for bad paper money. Who can blame them? What they want, as is well known to anyone who inquires into the question, are British goods to exchange for the buried grain, and then that grain could be sent to the starving people in the South-East of Russia.

This matter also is really relevant to to-morrow's Debate, and is not one for argument on the present Motion.

With due respect, may I ask if it is not the case that this is a Motion which will stifle all discussion on any subjects other than those put forward by the Government in connection with unemployment?

The hon. Member will be entitled to put forward his alternative to the Government proposals when they are brought forward, and to show that in his opinion these Government proposals are inadequate.

Then I will leave the starving Russian peasantry to the conscience of the Government. But let me assure them that we on this side will be no party whatever to the crime that is being committed in Russia. We would see that credit is given to the Soviet Government whether it recognised these debts or not. We would see that it was given, and that security was obtained for it in the Customs of Russia. That is the policy which we lay down. If the Government will not accept it, then we put the responsibility for all that is going on in Russia on their shoulders.

I hope the Resolution before the House will not preclude a discussion on the financial position of the country. To my mind one of the most serious questions for this House to consider is whether trade and industry at the present moment can afford to bear the enormous burden of taxation which is imposed upon it. It is a question whether it would not be better—objectionable though it be, to go in for a moderate amount of inflation than to have the present enormous taxation on the industries of the country which the best judges are extremely doubtful if it can continue to bear. If that be the case, nothing could be more important than that this House should have power even at the risk of adopting the disagreeable course of not continuing to reduce, but rather, perhaps, to a small extent, of increasing the debt—to discuss whether that would not tend to lighten the burden on industry at the present moment and do more to create employment and relieve the present position than almost any scheme the Government can bring forward. While we may hope much from the Government proposal I submit to the House we ought not to allow this Session to pass without looking fairly and squarely in the face the question whether it would be better to borrow to some limited extent at the present moment rather than to seek to make both ends meet and in so doing impose upon industry a taxation which the best men in the country are seriously of opinion may prevent the proper recovery of our various commercial, manufacturing and industrial schemes. It is an extremely difficult question I know, but it is one we ought to discuss, namely, whether the best policy is to inflate or deflate. At any rate it is well worth the serious attention of this House and therefore this short Session of Parliament ought not to be allowed to pass away without full consideration of the pros and cons of the situation as I have put them. I trust that the Resolution of the Government will not preclude such a discussion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business shall not he interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may he entered upon at any hour, although opposed, and shall have precedence at every Sitting, and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to he laid before the House of Commons, which shall he taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House, without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m. but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m."

I have sat here long enough to know better, I suppose, but I have heard this matter of Unemployment discussed from various points of view. I happen to be Member for one of those great districts that have suffered from chronic unemployment for the last 30 years. One would imagine, when hearing the discussion taking place to-day, that the Great War was the cause of this unemployment, and that we had suddenly discovered that a large number of people cannot find employment because of circumstances arising out of that War. I am old enough to remember the time 30 years ago when we had unemployment demonstrations in London, when we had unemployed riots in Trafalgar Square, and when ex-Members of the Government were sent to prison because they dared to agitate on behalf of the unemployed. There was no war in those days, as we understand war now, and yet the problem of unemployment was always before us. The unemployment problem is simply, after all, a demonstration of the fact that the people are poor because they are robbed, and that they are robbed because they do not know how they are robbed. We of the Labour party have had to face this great question and the situation which has arisen in connection with it, and our trade unions have done their best to deal with it in various ways. To-day we have reached a crisis, and the Government are coming forward with pills for earthquakes. They are suggesting again that we shall tax the poor to keep the poor, and they are condescending to take us into conference and to discuss with us in districts such as I represent with a view to sharing the responsibility which has to be faced. West Ham to-day has 25,000 men and women out of employment in a total population of 308,000 people. Our rates are 27s. in the £, and we are asked by the Government to enter into partnership with them in the matter of trying to solve the problem from a local standpoint. But we have absolutely reached the end of our tether. The poorest districts in London and in the country generally are now in such a situation that they have to face the possibility of bankruptcy in dealing with their local problems. Up to the present moment the only suggestion we have received is that we shall go into partnership with the Government almost to the extent of 50 per cent, of the responsibility for dealing with this particular problem.

In West Ham during the past month we have been paying out at the rate of £17,000 a week in outdoor relief. How long do you expect we shall be able to stand it? How far can we accept that responsibility? The result is that the local authorities all over the East End of London, and also outside in the outer ring of London, are now beginning to discuss the advisability of refusing any longer to administer the law, because they are face to face with a great financial difficulty, and almost the possibility of bankruptcy. I would like to know from the Leader of the House if he can tell us whether the discussion of matters of this kind will be allowed on the Motion to-morrow—the question of Unemployment, and what proposals the Government have to make to meet the position of bodies that find themselves almost on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of trying to deal with this problem. We are doing our best. We are trying to find work for the people who are out of employment, by carrying on local works as far as we are able to do so. We are also giving relief up to the fullest possible limit of our opportunity. I would like to know whether this matter will not be a subject for discussion to-morrow in dealing with the problem of Unemployment? We have plenty of work that we could put in hand, but we have not they opportunty of finding the means.

Then we are told, by a circular letter issued by the Ministry of Health, that if we do find work for the unemployed in our district, if we do put men to work on road repairs and on the carrying out of essential public works, we must only pay 75 per cent, of the standard rate in that district for the particular work that has to be done. That is putting a premium on the reduction of wages. Already we have had to agree, and we have agreed, to substantial reductions in wages in almost every trade and calling; but now the Government itself makes itself responsible for further reductions in wages, and tells us that before we can get the necessary financial assistance from the Government we must reduce our wage bill to 75 per cent, of the standard rate in that particular district. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, if these points can be discussed to-morrow, and if we are going to get from the Government any intimation as to the policy they are going to pursue so far as local authorities are concerned. They tell us to borrow money, but the bankers are telling us to-day that they are going to stop our overdrafts. How are we going to borrow money if we are in that position? We have been doing our best to stave off revolution—that is what it really means in some districts. The men have been threatening. My own wife, who is a member of a board of guardians, has not been able to sleep for weeks because people keep coming to the door placing their cases before her and asking her to do her best to relieve them. The workhouse is full of people; all our institutions are overcrowded. We have to give outdoor relief, and we are giving it as far as we can. We are not the only borough that is in that position; we are only a sample of what is going on all over the country. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to give us an intimation of any steps that the Government are going to take to meet the position of the local authorities and not to make us responsible for the unemployment in our own districts. We cannot do more than we have already done, and if any further burdens are going to be placed upon us, the only thing left for us to do will be to refuse to administer the law and let the Government take their own responsibility.

I do not want to anticipate to-morrow's discussion, but, as another Member representing an industrial constituency, I must enter a protest that, at 5 o'clock on the first day the House is called together, the Government should seek to move the Adjournment. The Leader of the House appealed to us to treat the matter in a businesslike way, and suggested that this method would facilitate the object which we all have at heart; but I submit to him with all respect that surely, after eight weeks of adjournment, the Government have had time to prepare their schemes and outline their proposals to-day. In fact I believe that the generally accepted suggestion was that the Prime Minister would lay before the House to-day the schemes which the Government had in view. I think it is unfortunate, after this problem has been so extremely acute in the country as it has been ever since Parliament rose, and after the representations which have been made to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman that the House should be called together much earlier than this, in order to deal with a matter which was pressing in a way of which, as it appeared, the Government were not fully seised, and in order that the House might make representations to the Government on this question. If, as seems possible, the Government have not even now got their plans pre- pared, would there have been any disadvantage in using this Chamber so that the representatives of industrial constituencies and others might have laid before the Government and their advisers the difficulties which they were up against? I am afraid that the psychological effect on the country will be bad. It may be said that 24 hours is neither here nor there in considering well-thought-out schemes. That is true so far as we are concerned, but 24 hours to people who have been starving for weeks and months on end means a good deal. It looks as though the Government were not really serious in the matter, and I wish to enter my protest, as an ordinary Member, that there should have been this delay, and that the Government should not have been prepared to unfold its schemes in a general way, even though Notice of Motion might have had to be given for the introduction of particular Bills. I hope the Government will realise, in a way in which apparently they have not realised up to the present, the seriousness of the position in large industrial areas. One feels that if they had realised how vital it was to the well-being of our large industrial communities, and the intolerable extent to which the burden was pressing on local authorities, they would have called the House together to deal with this problem on national lines, because it has got beyond what the local authorities can bear. I do hope that tomorrow fuller schemes of a more far-reaching character may be brought before us than have been outlined up to the present. I wish to protest at the Government asking the House to adjourn at this hour, when the country is waiting anxiously for its schemes for the relief of a degree of distress and destitution which is unparalleled in our history.

I agree with both the speakers who have immediately preceded me in what they have said with reference to the Business of this House. Many hon. Members will rarely have seen such a crowded House as we have seen this afternoon, and we are supposed to be met for the purpose of discussing one of the most distressing and difficult subjects that the House could have to consider; and yet to-morrow and the following days, according to the rulings and suggestions which Mr. Speaker made before he left the Chair, we shall be largely devoting our energies to a par- ticular Measure or Measures that may be presented by the Government. We have before us some six hours of Parliamentary time—practically a full day—for discussing the general situation with reference to this and other matters that would be out of order in discussing just the Bills that may be presented in the days following, and yet the House is practically empty and apparently it will be difficult. The situation of the country and the Empire is so good, one would imagine, that Members do not feel disposed even to use these five or six hours of Parliamentary time for the purpose of understanding at least something of some of the problems with which the Empire is faced to-day.

I have risen for the purpose of enlightening the House, if I can, upon one or two phrases used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), with reference to the famine in Russia. I venture to say—and my hon. and gallant Friend should remember this—that there is just as much sympathy with the Russian people in other quarters of the House as in the part where he sits. I do not play second to the hon. and gallant Member in my sympathy for the Russian people, and I am sure that the Government will do everything they possibly can within the range of possibility, when the financial situation of the country is taken into account, to render every assistance that they legitimately can render without injury to their own people. I must, however, cross swords with the hon. and gallant Member on one or two points. I do not wish the Government to be led away a second time by the eloquence of my hon. Friends above the Gangway with reference to the importance or otherwise of the part that the Russian situation may or may not have to play in the problem that we are now met to discuss. It is but a few months since, on my return to this country from Russia, I heard it reiterated by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy), that all our difficulties as regards unemployment were due to the fact that we would not make an agreement for trade with Russia. The agreement has been made. There is no trade with Russia. You cannot trade with a bankrupt. If you like to put your people to work to supply all the needs of Russia without the possibility of ever getting any payment, either in kind or in coin, you can do it; but opening trade with Russia will not help you a fraction if you expect to get any return, because it is not there. It has gone. It has been stolen and destroyed.

My hon. and gallant Friend said that there was plenty of grain in Russia, only it was hidden or buried, and that if you were only to offer to send them implements, and this, that, and the other, they would unbury this grain. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) agrees; but from whom are they burying it? Why should they bury their means for keeping their people alive in Russia? I will state the position as I know it to be with reference to that phrase, because it illuminates an extremely dark tragedy in the history of the Russian people. In 1918, when the Bolsheviks swept over the country, they took the greater part of the peasants' produce to maintain their armies and their commissars, and for purposes that were not always honest or fair. In 1919, I well remember travelling over nearly 7,000 miles of the country from East to West, and one saw the land going out of cultivation, and the peasant only tilling just as much as would keep his family, because the commissars had taken every item except just what would keep him and his family alive, and sometimes had not even left that. Even in 1919, when the Kolt-chak Government was in power, there was still a state of hopeless terror, because, unless some guarantee was given to the peasant that the produce of his labour would not be stolen from him, it was clear to anyone who understood the situation that the peasant would not till his land, and that Russia would starve. Koltchak issued a manifesto promising the peasants that if they tilled their soil they should be allowed to keep their corn and their cattle and sell them at a fair price; but even then, because that manifesto was issued by a Russian, the peasants were doubtful. They said that Lenin and Trotsky had promised them that, and had then come and stolen everything, so they would not agree to till their land unless some outside authority would give them a guarantee, in addition to that given by their own temporary government, that what they made by their labour should be their own; and, as a matter of fact, the British and French representatives in Russia added their declaration to that of Admiral Koltchak, that if only the peasants would till their soil and produce grain and cattle, the produce should be guaranteed to be their own and should be purchased from them at a fair price. During 1919, on the promise of the Commissioners of the French and British Governments, the peasants began to till their soil again. Then the agitation in this and other countries, that we were no longer to help the Russian people to establish something like a decent, honest Government, succeeded and the guarantees that had been given to the Russian peasants were withdrawn. Then came this septic political flood of Bolshevism again, just when the peasants' harvest was at maturity. They stole everything, and took it back into the industrial centres, leaving the peasants hopelessly insolvent and poverty-stricken again. My correspondence is continuous from Russia. I know pretty well from day to day the circumstances in those parts of the country that are open to communication. The 1919 harvest was gone. The peasant says, "No more. We will trust no one." A deputation of peasants went to Moscow from the Volga and from Siberia itself, and got a pledge from the Soviet Powers that if the peasant would only till his land in 1920 the commissars sent out to make the requisitions would not take more than three-fifths of the peasants' produce. That was made an edict from Moscow. You would think that a comical situation for a Government to declare that to be its policy, but such was the edict, and the necessities of the Soviet Government perhaps justified it. The people in the towns were producing nothing. The only way they could be kept alive was to steal the peasants' corn and cattle.

The edict was promulgated and complaints immediately came to me and others who had sympathised with them stating that it was only in the case of wealthy peasants, who had the means of bribing the commissars, that they could retain enough to keep body and soul together. This is how the burying of the corn comes about. The commissar goes to a host of these villages along the railway. The peasants in the villages nearest the forest lands hear that the other peasants along the railway have been robbed of everything. Gradually the commissar gets off the railway and goes back to the hinterland. He steals all the property of the peasants that he can lay his hands on, and in the fighting the Red Army lost nearly 8,000 men in trying to get the food from the peasants without payment. In the meantime the report spread that the Soviet Power was not recognising their promise that the commissars should only take three-fifths of the produce, and they buried it and hid it in trees. They tell me that a good part of the grain in these hinterlands can be found in hollow, dry trees in the forest. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that in a great portion of this corn-producing part of the country there is the possibility of life; but the peasant is fearful to bring his corn to the markets in the industrial centres, or into the lees favoured districts where the commissar has stolen everything that the peasant has produced during the last two or three years. I think even here if an edict went out that the whole of the corn of the peasants had to be handed over under certain penalties, and it was found some peasants had not handed it over, there would be serious consequences to the peasants if they were found out hoarding their corn. At the moment there is an immense amount of corn hoarded, buried in the ground, buried in hollow trees, hid away anywhere from the rogues who call themselves the Government of Russia. Make no error about that. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said if only you could get British goods sent over to Russia you would have all these buried granaries open to you at once. I am just telling you how it is that these secret granaries come to exist. The poor peasant has toiled in the fields for three years hoping against hope that his crop will be his own, and Heaven knows, the Russian peasant works sufficiently hard that his crop ought to be his own. Having had it stolen for three years he refuses to produce more, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who himself is a bit of a Bolshevik and therefore may be presumed to have some influence with the Bolshevik Government—

To whom are you referring?

To the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, to whom I am attempting to reply. You can pay £5,000,000 this year and £50,000,000 next year. You can pay any number of millions, and you will have this constant famine problem in Russia as long as this present Government lasts. If instead of spending money you could send my hon. and gallant Friend—it would not be any use sending me, but if you could get half a dozen real sympathisers with the Soviet Government and send them there and persuade the Soviet Government to make a contract with the European Governments that in the future the peasant should not lose by forcible requisition more than 50 per cent, of the produce of his labour, you would solve this difficulty at once. I tell you that frankly, having been through the country and knowing the situation. At present the law is that he loses three-fifths, but in practice he has lost all that they could lay hands on. If you could get an agreement that of the results of the peasant's labour half of it shall be his, allowing one-half to go to the State and to the Army and to run the general services of the country, I am certain from my knowledge of Russia and peasant life that if someone could give a guarantee that there would be some outside authority which would prevent the commissar stealing the whole of his corn and cattle, you would not have this difficulty of a famine in Russia at all.

In spite of what may be said to the contrary our unemployment problem at home is not a Government-produced problem, and if hon. Members above the Gangway were in power they would have just the same difficulties to contend with. Lenin and Trotsky are much bolder than many of you, and they have got it. Let us face the problem frankly. Governments may accentuate it and make it more difficult, but to say the Government produces the condition of unemployment is absurd. The system under which we live produces that of its own accord, and it must be the same, whether it is a Labour or any other Government, until the system is radically altered. But in Russia you have a famine absolutely produced by the Government in a country capable, I should imagine, if decently managed, of practically keeping and sustaining Europe, and yet that country is starving because no man's property and the result of no man's labour is his own. It is produced absolutely by the most vicious idea of government that I should imagine the world has seen up to date. Fancy putting it forward that if we will only send harrows, rollers, and ploughs to Russia the whole of our unemployment at home would be solved. Take no notice of it. We were told that if only we made a trading agreement with Russia unemployment would disappear. It has become worse and worse, because a spendthrift Government has ruined the whole capital and energy of the State, and it cannot trade with anyone. Therefore it is useless to pretend that Soviet Russia can give you the slightest assistance in this difficult problem. Do not, for Heaven's sake, let them persuade you to recognise this Government officially and diplomatically. To a certain extent they persuaded you into that before. I hope no further steps will be made in that direction. To use the poverty of the peasant—poverty produced by the Government itself—for the purpose of bolstering up any agitation or attack upon our Government at home who, whatever may be said to the contrary, cannot be responsible for our own difficulties, is not decently playing the game between one side of the House and the other.

I want, with the permission of the House, to direct attention to things nearer to the doors of our own people rather than to affairs in foreign lands. We are about to consider some sort of legislation, which the Government have not yet revealed, to deal with the unemployment question. I understand from the observations that I have been privileged to hear that it will be necessary for four Government bills to pass in order to carry out the schemes which the Government up to the present time have not divulged. If it is not too late I want to suggest that something might be drafted and included in one of the Bills to deal with a very serious question which is affecting many men who to-day are walking the streets. Under the law of the land, I understand that if a man happens to own the deeds of his own cottage, however humble, he cannot receive relief if, owing to unemployment, he has no income. Although the man may be in extreme poverty, the law says that if he owns his own house no relief can be given to him. I believe that on this question I have the sympathy of many Members of the Government.

Working men in the past have been urged to be thrifty and they have tried out of their meagre income to do their best. They have become the owner of their own houses, which is far better than being under the authority of an outside landlord. They have strained every nerve possible, they have screwed every penny imaginable in order to become the owner of their own house, and now they find that, because they are the owners of their own house, they cannot receive relief, although in many cases not merely had they to borrow the money, but they have to repay it with interest. I plead with the Government, that in their schemes for dealing with the problem of unemployment, something should be done to protect these men who, at the moment, find their position extremely difficult, and who during their past life have endeavoured, not merely to make an honest livelihood, but to make the best of everything that has come across their path. I am sure that hon. Members will have sympathy with an object of that kind. If a man is compelled to pay 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, on money borrowed to purchase his house, hon. Members and Members of the Government must see the difficulty in which he is placed now. In many cases these men are unemployed, the unemployment dole has ceased to be of any benefit to them, but they have to meet their liabilities, just as the Government has to meet its liability, and when they appeal to the Poor Law authorities for relief they say, under the law of the land: "You are in possession of some property, therefore it is useless coming before us. We sympathise with you but we cannot do anything for you." Here is a case where the Government could usefully apply its ability towards encouraging these people, who have endeavoured in the past to be thrifty and who have fallen, as it were, by the wayside.

What is your suggestion?

The hon. Member asks for my suggestion. If I was aware of the contents of the Government's four Bills, it would be possible for me to make some suggestion. I am only directing attention to the matter now, because the Government are to introduce four Bills to deal with unemployment. Surely it would be very easy for the Government to come to an agreement upon this question, and it would be easy for the Parliamentary draughtsman to draft a Clause to deal with the position of these people. Such a small thing as that is not beyond the wit of the Parliamentary draughtsman, and I hope that it is not beyond the sympathy of the House. I want to draw attention also to the attitude of the Ministry of Health. I understand that a circular has been sent out by the Ministry of Health to the various local authorities definitely informing them that people who come before them for Poor Law relief must sign a document, the terms of which provide that when the days of prosperity come they must repay every penny which is granted to them through the Poor Law. If that circular is the decision of the Cabinet, I feel justified in saying that this House ought to have considered it before the circular was sent out. To ask these people to sign a document to that effect is certainly humiliating, and it is ridiculous. They are not merely forced to sign it under circumstances of economic difficulty for which they are not responsible, but they are forced to sign it in order, to get bread for their children. No man who has a spark of manhood in his nature can go home day by day, as men are doing, and hear the children crying for bread without attempting to satisfy their wants. These men who do sign that document know perfectly well, in many cases, that it is absolutely impossible for them to pay the money back should a time of employment come again; but they are compelled to sign it. This House ought to have come to a decision upon that question, and I suggest that if the Cabinet has not considered this question they should immediately give instructions to the Ministry of Health that the circular shall be cancelled until they have come to a decision upon it, and until this House, at any rate, has had an opportunity of ratifying the decision of the Cabinet.

Another action of the Ministry of Health is one of the most mean and despicable actions that any Government Department could have adopted. One recognises that we are living in days of economy, but it is no use going to the working people and asking them to economise, because their lives have been lives of continual economy. When it comes to this, that under the plea of economy the Ministry of Health issues a Circular to the effect that, so far as the future is concerned, they are not prepared to grant 50 per cent, of the expense of local authorities for supplying milk to expectant mothers in necessitous cases, it is hitting below the belt. What would it amount to in 12 months? I remember reading a speech made by the present Prime Minister in November, 1918. He said that in examining the recruiting statistics which had been placed before him during the War, he was astounded to find that so many of our people were living under such conditions. The standard in which our people found themselves was lower than the standard in Germany, in France or in any of the other belligerent countries, and he admitted that it was due to the conditions under which our people lived, ill-housed and ill-fed. He laid the blame on these things. There can be no real economy effected by endeavouring to stunt the life of the child by refusing milk to poor mothers in a certain condition and to the born babes who are not in a position to help themselves. It is extremely mean and despicable for the Government to say that the child should be robbed of its milk under the plea of economy. I have not the exact statistics before me, but I should think that the cost to the Government would not amount to more than £50,000 a year. Many medical officers say that money spent in that direction has been repaid to the nation many times over. The greatness of any nation is not measured by the armies and the navies that it possesses, but by the happiness and contentment that is to be found within the homes of the people.

I trust that the Leader of the House will bear these remarks in mind with a view to seeing that the 50 per cent, allowance to local authorities in respect of expense incurred in providing milk for expectant mothers shall be maintained, and that the assistance that local authorities are prepared to give in this direction shall have the fullest support of His Majesty's Government as hitherto. It may be argued by the Government that we are passing through a difficult period, and that the stress of finance is so great that we cannot meet these obligations. If we were discussing finance it would be possible to give, some reasons and to show some avenues where and how the Government could find the necessary money. In looking through one of the Government's own reports recently, I found that there are certain mien who have served their country in this House and in the other House, and who have sat upon the Woolsack for three years and have been paid £10,000 a year during that time, and who are now granted by a grateful Government £5,000 a year pension for life, because, I suppose, they have not been able to put sufficient by for a rainy day. When people see these things, and they could be multiplied, it is no wonder that there is unrest in the minds of the people. The people are not going to stand silently by and see their children go hungry, and on a plea of economy the Government rob their defenceless children of milk in order to pay pensions to people who have been too well paid in the past. If the Prime Minister is anxious to carry out the principles enunciated in the speech which he delivered in the Central Hall on the 16th November, 1918, he will have to advise his Cabinet to adopt a different policy. We cannot have an A1 nation unless we are prepared to realise the fundamental principle that the child of the nation is the asset of the nation and must be protected and guarded in order that in the years to come it may become a worthy citizen. I hope the Government will take steps to cancel the Circular, that they will reinstate the 50 per cent, grant to the local authorities for milk, and that they will do something to protect the unfortunate men who find themselves in financial difficulty owing to unemployment and who cannot pay the interest due upon the house that they have purchased. I hope that some help will be given to these people in their difficult position.

6.0 P.M.

I desire to associate myself with the protest made by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) with respect to the inadequate time given for the discussion of important subjects. I am a representative of a local authority, and it is in the position of a Member of Parliament and a local councillor that I desire to state exactly the position in the district with which I am connected. We do not want to come here to make party capital in a moment of national crisis. We are here, if possible, I hope to recognise that blunders have been made in the last three years, and to try, if possible, by a wise act of collective statesmanship to remedy the disasters of the last three years, and to see if we can bring back the peoples of the world to a state something like their former contentment. I represent in my particular district a council which depends on the Government for the life of its neighbourhood, a council which has been acknowledged over and over again to have rendered signal services during the War period, and whose workmen have been commended over and over again on the floor of this House, and they are now in such a position that, with unemployment increasing every week, what the local council are endeavouring to do in the way of relief is negatived every week by the automatic discharge of 300 men from Woolwich Arsenal.

In these circumstances one can understand the bitterness of the hon. Member for Silvertown when he speaks of the continued struggle which the local authorities are having. They are having such a struggle as sooner or later will be reflected in a spirit of bitterness between the central Government and the local authorities up and down the country. In the history of this country there have been conflicts between the central Government and the local authorities, and driven as they are being driven, the time may come when the local authorities will turn and make the work of legislation and finance utterly impossible, because they cannot continue, in justice to the ratepayers, to call upon them to bear the burdens that they are being asked to bear at present. In a district in the Division which I represent in Parliament, already they are levying a rate of 29s. 8d. in the £, and they will soon have an overdraft of £200,000 due to the bank. These are facts which should be under the consideration of the Government in dealing with the problem which they are about to lay before us.

The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) reminds me of the gentleman of whom it was said that what he knew about one thing might fill a library, but certainly what he did not know about it would fill the libraries of the whole world. The fact that a gentleman has rendered distinguished service on the verge of Russia by no means entitles him to pose as an expert on the conditions in Russia two years after he has left it. In the Dart-ford Division of Kent, which I represent, there is a factory whose surgical appliances and medical supplies are well known in every corner of the world. I refer to Burroughs and Wellcome. There half the staff have been discharged and others are on short time. I have been in Russia. I went with the correspondents' train and the Society of Friends from Moscow down to the famine region. I visited the receiving stations for the children as they came in from the villages. I went into the villages. I saw in that splendid suburb of Samara, formerly the residence of the wealthiest people of Samara upon the hills, a house with every corner of the rooms filled with the children of peasants who had been brought in from districts as far away as 300 and 400 miles, and among them there was not a single undergarment. The whole of the medical supplies for that institution would be covered by a small piece of paper. There was no milk and no sugar. The doctors and the nurses were as hungry as the children.

The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent suggests that the fault lies with the Soviet Government. I know from direct observation that the words of the Prime Minister in the Debate on Russia have a great deal of truth. I know that they are abandoning communism. I know that in every district of Russia there is a welcome for those who are prepared to come in in certain conditions, but I do know also that no man in this House or outside it can say with any accuracy that the present horrible state of affairs in Russia is due to the deliberate work or to the inefficiency of the Soviet Government. We talked with them. We went to Ministers of Health up and down the region, and we went among the people. We went 11 miles outside Samara. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent talks about Koltchak defending the peasants. The peasants themselves told us that the people who destroyed his lines of communication and destroyed them were the peasants themselves. The men who have created the famine on the Volga district were the armies of Koltchak. On the road out of the villages we passed the gun emplacements of Koltchak's army. These armies requisitioned what the peasants had.

One of the most tragic conversations which I ever had in my life took place on the banks of the Volga with a colony of German settlers, the descendants of those who came there in the time of Katherine the Great, and who have struggled and starved there generation after generation ever since. We were told of famine years before the War, and how they lived there and died neglected. They told us that a colony in Siberia was willing to receive them, and they were waiting for transit facilities to go to Siberia, but they could not go because there was no transit to bring them. When you blockaded Germany in 1915 you blockaded Russia far more effectively than you did Germany, because Germany had the technical and mechanical knowledge to improvise for herself, but Russia was dependent for all of its machinery and other things upon Germany, and everyone who has followed, not supporters of the Bolsheviks, but a paper which I think will be accepted by every Member of this House as one of the most justly famous newspapers in the world, the "Manchester Guardian," knows that from 1915 up till now you can trace the effects of the blockade of Germany upon Russia both prior to the revolution and since.

We know that many men of technical ability have left Russia, and we know that the blockades during the whole period of the War tended to the disintegration of the whole transport system of Russia, that the grain is in Russia and cannot be moved from place to place because of the lack of transport. The food is available in certain regions if the traffic were available, but they can only run one train a day, because they have not enough fuel. The train we went on was a menace to every mile of life from Moscow to Samara. With its wood fuel it was a menace to the whole of the forests of the countryside There is admittedly plenty of food over the Polish frontier and up to Moscow. The population look as well fed as the average country labourer in Britain right up to the banks of the Volga. When you come into the famine area you encounter conditions which cannot be described. It needs to be pointed out that you can immediately open the famine area. Your engineering machines are decaying, and your factories are decaying every day that they are idle. You can put them to work if you grant these credits, and if you grant these credits, but not before, you can then reasonably call upon people, who would be given the opportunity to produce by being given the tools to produce, after a short period of time, with far more certainty than you would be able to do now.

The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent spoke of the peasants being robbed by the Commissars. If he is so keen on Russia he might read the history of pre-war Russia. He might read of the exactions by the Commissars of the Czar under another name. He might know that the peasants have never been so well off as they have been prior to this, but, as they say, "we have had two successive years of famine preceded by wholesale requisitioning by Koltchak," and any agricultural expert would know—I am not an agricultural expert, but I know sufficient to know—that with primitive methods of agriculture and with the hand-tilling of vast spaces you get an evaporation out of the soil that is fatal to cultivation if you have prolonged drought. I obtained my information not from Bolsheviks. I discussed the position with men of every point of view in Russia, including men who were bitterly opposed to the Communist Government, but they all said: "If you destroy the Communist Government now there is no faith in the country to restart another Government." Russia will resolve itself into a series of civil wars and God knows what the condition will be. Give them a chance and—

It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business , Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day .

Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Six o'clock.