Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 179: debated on Wednesday 17 December 1924

House of Commons

Wednesday, December 17, 1924

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

Member Sworn

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Right honourable Harry Gosling, Borough of Stepney (Whitechapel and St. George's Division).

Private Business

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [ Lords ],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Banff Town Hall Order Confirmation Bill [ Lords ],

Considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Selection

Mr. Forestier-Walker, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Frederick Hall, Sir Robert Hutchison, Colonel Nicholson, Sir John Pennefather, Mr. David Reid, Major Wheler, Mr. Cecil Wilson, and Mr. Murrough Wilson nominated members of the Committee of Selection.— [ Colonel Gibbs. ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Ruhr (British Goods Customs Levies)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been sought with the French Government with regard to the money raised by the French Customs levies on British goods entering the Ruhr during the recent occupation; and whether it has been decided what is to become of this money obtained from British merchants?

:The question of the disposal of receipts obtained from the Ruhr occupation will be dealt with at the Conference of Finance Ministers to be held in Paris next month.

:Has nothing been done by the last three Governments on this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been periodically asking questions for two years now?

:I am afraid I have not looked up the hon. and gallant Gentleman's record.

:It has nothing to do with my record. It has to do with money taken from British merchants. Has anything been done by the last three Governments?

Great Britain and France

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he suggested to M. Herriot that he should discuss with M. Briand in Rome the formation of a pact between France and Great Britain against the dangers which might come from Bolshevism, Germany, and the Moslem world, and if he is aware that such action is likely to cause offence to our Moslem fellow-subjects?

:The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. I made no such suggestion to M. Herriot.

Montenegro

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any recent news has been received from Montenegro; and whether he is in a position to lay Papers before the House?

:The information recently received from Montenegro is scarcely of sufficient interest to lay before the House. There does not appear to be anything abnormal in conditions in that country.

Egypt and Sudan

Political Crimes

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons have been executed and how many imprisoned for political crimes in the Sudan or in Egypt, directly or indirectly, under orders of British officers, during the months of November and December (part)?

:No persons have been executed for political crimes either in Egypt or the Sudan during the period mentioned. In the Sudan three officers were convicted of mutiny, and were shot on the 5th of December. No arrests and imprisonments have been made by the Sudan Government except in the ordinary process of law. In Egypt three persons suspected of an intention to provoke political—why should I call it "political" —murder were arrested by the British military authorities, but were handed over immediately to the Egyptian authorities at the request of the Egyptian Government.

Ottoman Four per Cent. Loan, 1891

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that British holders of the Ottoman four per cent, loan of 1891, the prospectus of which stated that His Highness the Khedive of Egypt had undertaken to pay the annual sum of £280,622 18s. 4d. for the service of this loan and that this engagement would continue until the whole of the loan had been redeemed, are likely to lose their dividends because the Egyptian Government contend that their liability to make such payment came to an end when Egypt became an independent State; and whether His Majesty's; Government propose to take any steps in the matter?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I regret that I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ilford on the 11th instant.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advice of the British Financial Adviser to the Egyptian Government has been to the effect that the Egyptian Government should pay this money, or whether the Egyptian Government have not taken his advice at all?

Sudanese Troops (Mutiny)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the recent mutiny of the 11th Sudanese battalion was largely caused by propaganda instigated by the Communist International, that revolutionary leaflets emanating from this source were distributed among the soldiers, and that the International is under the control and direction of the Soviet Government, he will state what steps are being taken to prevent this anti-British propaganda, in breach of the undertakings repeatedly given by the Soviet Government?

:I am not yet fully informed of all the circumstances connected with the mutiny in the Sudan, but all the information in my possession leads me to think that it was due entirely to Egyptian provocation.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from Moscow propaganda of a revolutionary nature is being disseminated amongst coloured people throughout the country, and can he say what steps the Government propose to take to prevent it?

:That is not the question which my hon. and gallant Friend put on the Paper. He asked me about mutiny in a Sudanese battalion in the Sudan. That, I do not attribute to any propaganda from the Soviet, but to Egyptian provocation.

Questions

British-Norwegian Conference

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the Report of the British-Norwegian Conference on the question of territorial waters, coast fisheries, and trawling?

:The British experts have just returned from Christiania, and I am expecting their report, which will be strictly confidential, in a few days' time.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman seen in the Press a report that three British representatives proposed to respect the mouth of every Norwegian Fiord, whatever its breadth, and will he demand reciprocal treatment for this country with regard to the Moray Firth?

:I have not seen the report in the Press, and I will express no opinion on the negotiations till I have considered the report, which is not yet in my hands.

:Do we understand that this House will have no opportunity of discussing this report?

:The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to find an opportunity of discussing the action of the Government, but I cannot give him an opportunity of discussing the strictly confidential report, which will therefore not be laid before the House.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no action will be taken on this report until such time as the House has had an opportunity of discussing the proposals?

Opium Traffic

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is prepared to support the proposal in favour of the Second Conference at Geneva dealing with the opium problem; and, if so, will he use all his influence to this end in order that a definite step forward may be taken towards the suppression of the opium traffic?

:His Majesty's Government are anxious to do everything in their power to suppress the opium traffic, but there are serious practical difficulties of which account has to be taken. The situation created by certain proposals put forward at the Geneva Conference is now under consideration.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this country gives a lead in the matter?

:I think I had better say no more until the Government have had an opportunity of consulting with their representatives at Geneva. The whole subject is one of very considerable difficulty, as I know, having just come back from a meeting of the Council of the League, whose assistance was invoked in the matter.

Soviet Trade Organisations, London

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of persons employed in the various Soviet trade organisations in London; and what are the terms and conditions under which they are permitted to remain in this country?

:I have been asked to reply to this question. There are considerable numbers of British subjects employed in this connection; but I presume that the hon. Member is mainly concerned with the aliens so employed. Since the conclusion of the Russian Trade Agreement, 315 visas have, after full inquiry in all cases, been authorised for Soviet citizens to travel to this country for the purpose of joining the staffs of the various Soviet organisations in London. It is estimated that rather more than one-half of the persons concerned are now in the United Kingdom. With few exceptions, all these persons have been allowed to land, subject to a time condition, and if extensions are asked for they are granted —again after full inquiry—when the authorities are satisfied that the alien concerned is still employed in one or other of the various organisations.

:Are there any sealed bags or sealed luggage not open to inspection?

:I am afraid I cannot answer that point, but I can say that at the moment the Home Secretary is very carefully considering all the conditions arising.

Morocco

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any intention of drawing up a new agreement with regard to Morocco between France and Spain to which Great Britain is to be a party; and whether this was the subject of any discussion between him and the French Prime Minister?

:Since the Government declared their intention not to submit agreements and commitments to other nations, is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman's visits abroad must be regarded with some anxiety and, possibly, with suspicion?

:I cannot control the feelings of the hon. Gentleman, nor can I ask him to express unlimited confidence in me, but I hope he will not trouble himself too much.

China Indemnity Bill (Committee)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the reason for cancelling the invitations sent to Mr. Bertand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson asking them to serve on the Committee to be set up under the China Indemnity Bill?

:The reason is that, on reconsideration, it was found that the composition of the Committee— the numbers of which it is important to keep small—was not sufficiently representative, and, in particular, that it included no member with practical experience of educational organisation in China.

:Considering that these gentlemen were both very well qualified for the post which had been offered them, was this decision really only because of their association with the Labour party?

:I am not anxious to discuss the qualifications of these gentlemen unless the hon. Gentleman forces me to do so. I have given a sufficient reason, in my opinion, for altering the composition of the Committee.

:Have any other persons who were appointed to serve on the Committee been excluded in addition to the two persons mentioned in the question?

:I beg to give notice that I intend to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on this question.

Albanian Frontier (Armed Bands)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any information in regard to recent events in Albania and on the Jugo-Slav-Albanian frontier; whether he is aware that a mixed force of Russian and Bulgarian refugees, commanded by a Russian ex-general, armed, equipped, and paid by the Jugo-Slav Government, is operating on the frontier; and whether any representation has been made to the Jugo-Slav Government?

:I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made to the right hon. Member for the Northern Division of Norfolk in reply to a similar question yesterday.

Passports

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the extension of the passport to five years applies to passports which have already been issued and are now in the possession of British nationals?

:A passport issued before the 1st of December can be renewed for a period up to five years, provided that the total period does not exceed 10 years from the original date of issue.

:I am afraid that I do not carry the Regulations in my head, but I think not.

Mexico (Recognition)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is taking any steps in the matter of the recognition of Mexico?

Irish Free State and League of Nations

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British Government has given notice to the Secretariat of the League of Nations stating that matters affecting the Irish Free State are not in their opinion within the ambit of the League's authority; will he state the reasons which actuated His Majesty's Government in arriving at such a decision; whether any intimation of the Government's view has been circulated to the Governments which are members of the League; and what replies, if any, have been received?

:His Majesty's Government have made no such statement. They have, however, informed the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that in their opinion the terms of Article 18 of the Covenant are not applicable to the articles of agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on the 6th December, 1921. The ground for this action as stated in the letter addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Secretary-General was that since the Covenant came into force His Majesty's Government have consistently taken the view that neither it, nor any conventions concluded under the auspices of the League, are intended to govern the relations inter se of the various parts of the British Commonwealth. The letter from His Majesty's Government to the Secretary-General has been circulated to members of the League in the usual manner.

:Is it not a fact that this treaty was registered with the League of Nations on 11th July. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a treaty."] It is a treaty. In that case why should not the high-contracting parties to that treaty be entitled to appeal to the League if they so desire?

:I have given an answer already. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will study it.

Hulk, "Marlborough."

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the old wooden hulk, "Marlborough," when lost at sea recently, was still the property of the Admiralty; and, if not, will he state the name and address of the owners and the price paid by them to the Admiralty?

:The "Marlborough" was not the property of the Admiralty at the time she was lost at sea. She had been sold to Messrs. A. Butcher & Son, Limited, of Heybridge, Maldon, Essex. I do not propose to depart from the usual practice of not publishing the price at which a vessel is sold.

:Is it a fact that this old ship had her back broken, and that it was common knowledge that that was so before she went to sea?

:Is it not a fact that the ship was in such a bad state of repair as to be unsafe to put to sea, and that four men lost their lives as a result of that? Is there not to be an inquiry, and someone brought to book in the matter?

:So far as the matter rests with the Admiralty, I can only say that those who were responsible for moving the ship were warned that a gale warning had been received, and were advised not to start. I think the other part of the question clearly comes under the Board of Trade rather than the Admiralty

:As the ship was not the property of the Admiralty, would it not be a question of her seaworthiness or unseaworthiness being registered by the inspector of the Board of Trade?

Royal Navy

Royal Dockyards (Ex-Apprentices)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will take steps to reinstate the ex-apprentices who were discharged from His Majesty's dockyards during the last Conservative administration?

:Before answering this question, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that tens of thousands of men were discharged under Liberal administration, from 1905 onwards?

:I regret that it is not possible to make special arrangements to re-engage the large number of ex-apprentices who were discharged prior to the last Conservative Administration. I may add, however, that ex-dockyard apprentices are generally given preference both for retention and re-entry in the Royal Yards.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of discharging these apprentices is entirely a new one, and has never been initiated by any other Government? Is he aware of the great demoralisation that has ensued to many of these young men, who were entitled to look forward to a career in the dockyard and have had to go to America?

:I referred to the large number of apprentices discharged before the last Conservative Administration. The discharges arose out of the great diminution of employes immediately after the Armistice.

:Will the hon. Gentleman consider this question, and see whether it is possible to reinstate some of these young men? It is much more difficult for them to get a job at a trade than it is for a man who has served his full apprenticeship.

Officers' Marriage Allowance

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached on the question of marriage allowance for officers in the Royal Navy; how long this matter has been under consideration by his Department; and whether he is aware of the urgency of this problem, particularly in view of the recent reductions in officers' pay?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement on the subject of marriage allowance?

:Although this subject has been continuously engaging my attention since I came to the Admiralty a month ago, I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is considering this question, as I understand the last Minister did?

:Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Navy expects greater consideration from our Government than from any other Government?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Navy is the only service in which this allowance is not given?

:Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have had "consideration" for two years?

Officers (Pensions)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the Committee of Inquiry into the question of the retired naval officers' pensions reported, by three to two, against the payment of such pensions during war service and that the late Government accepted the opinion of the three; and if he can state if the present Government will accept the Minority Report or appoint a new Committee of Inquiry?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

:Is the decision of the Admiralty absolutely final, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, or will he receive a deputation on the point?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the legal aspect of the claim was never examined by this Committee, and that in the opinion of a great many gentlemen learned in the law there is a good claim on legal grounds; and will he examine into the legality of the claim?

:Before my right hon. Friend replies may I ask whether he is aware that there is no attempt on the part of this House to ask for a legal inquiry, and that a lay Committee would be sufficient?

:I would like to see both those questions on the Paper before I answer.

His MAJESTY'S SHIP "COCKCHAFER" (WAN HSIEN)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now received the report from the officers concerned relating to the action of the officer iii charge of His Majesty's Ship "Cockchafer" who, on his own authority, threatened to bombard Wan Hsien unless the leading authorities of the town followed the funeral of Mr. Hawley, an American citizen, to the grave, and also demanded the execution without trial of two men said to have been the murderers of Mr. Hawley; and will he also state what period of time elapsed?

:A report on this incident has been received from the commanding officer of His Majesty's Ship "Cockchafer" through the Commander-in-Chief on the China Station. From this and from other reports it is clear that the pressure put by the commanding officer on the local authorities to take the action indicated was entirely justified, that a trial was held in accordance with Chinese law, and that there is no reason to doubt that the men who were sentenced to death under an article in the Chinese New Criminal Code were those primarily responsible for the murder of Mr. Hawley. A period of 48 hours elapsed between the murder and the execution.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of rewarding these officers for maintaining British prestige?

:Will the right hon. Gentleman publish that report so that Members of the House and the country generally may understand all the reasons which led a British officer to threaten a declaration of war and bombardment of the city? Would we take the same action against France or America or Russia?

:I am not prepared to publish the report. The incident occurred a long time ago and we know quite enough about it to make up our minds.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we do not know enough about it? Why should not this House have the whole of the information?

Cadets (Fees)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that his predecessor was examining into the question of the abolition of the fees for young men entering the Royal Navy as cadets; what is his intention with regard to this matter; and if he is aware that under the present system many promising lads, including sons of serving naval and military officers, are barred out on account of lack of means?

:I am aware that my predecessor was examining the question referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and I hope to be able to complete a detailed examination into this question in the next few weeks.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman look upon this proposal favourably?

Black and Baltic Seas

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many British warships, and of what types, are now stationed or cruising in the Baltic and the Black Seas; and what is the purpose of keeping British warships in these regions?

:No British warships of any type are stationed or cruising in either the Baltic or the Black Sea.

:Would it be possible for British warships to cruise in the Baltic Sea and pay a visit to our firm friends in Latvia, Esthonia and Lithuania?

War Staff (League of Nations)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the usual procedure in regard to detailing officers of the War Staff to advise British delegations when questions affecting the naval armaments, their strength, use, and distribution, come up at the League of Nations meetings; whether the War Staff were represented throughout the discussions which led to the Geneva Protocols in such a way as to ensure the considered judgment of the Admiralty to be developed, as was the case at the Washington Conference; and whether he will state the ranks of the War Staff officers present throughout the Washington Conference and throughout the discussion of the Geneva Protocols?

:Officers of the War Staff are not normally detailed; a special officer of flag rank with a small staff is permanently detailed in connection with League of Nations matters. The War Staff were represented during a period of the discussions which led to the Geneva Protocol, but not throughout nor in such a manner as in the case of the Washington Conference. At the Washing Conference the War Staff were represented by

Pre-War Pensioners

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, seeing that in the opinion of the Admiralty there is no authority for payment of arrears in the case of pre^War naval pensioners who died previous to 7th August, 1924, he will, in view of the promise given that the Increase of Pensions Act should be retrospective to July, 1923, obtain the authority necessary?

Government Departments

Women Clerical Officers (Admiralty)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that between 1920 and 1924 no promotions of writing assistants and typists to the clerical class took place in his Department, although an agreement had been arrived at on the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service under which promotions of suitable writing assistants and typists were to take place pari passu with the appointment of candidates from the limited competitions, and that other Departments, including the War Office, had not only made a number of promotions during those years, but that some have made a number of promotions recently; and whether he will look into the matter with a view to placing his women staff in a less disadvantageous position compared to similar staffs in other Departments than hitherto.

:Machinery has been instituted in the Admiralty for the consideration, periodically, of recommendations for the promotion to the clerical class of writing assistants, typists and shorthand typists serving in the Department; and as a result of the first review of these three grades four promotions were made in April, 1924. The question of making further promotions from the grades referred to will be considered early in the coming year.

:Will the hon. Gentleman consider the women when he deals with the matter?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is prepared to issue a statement showing the prospects of promotion in the case of women clerical officers employed in his Department?

:The women clerical officers employed in the Admiralty were appointed to that grade between May, 1921, and April, 1924, and are consequently junior to large numbers of male clerical officers of long service and proved ability. Promotion is by merit and not by seniority, and the women clerical officers will be considered for promotion with the men clerical officers, but for the reason above stated it is evident that a considerable time must elapse before any members of the class can, in the normal course, expect promotion.

Women Clerical Officers (Ministry of Labour)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that during 1923 no promotions to clerical officerships of writing assistants or typists took place in his Department, although under Whitley settlements these grades should have been considered for appointment to the clerical class pari passu with limited competition entrants; whether he is aware that, while other Departments have made a number of such promotions recently, the only offer made to writing assistants and typists in his Department has been of transfer to exchange vacancies in a grade paid less than clerical officers; whether he is aware that over 100 writing assistants in the claims and records office have proved themselves on clerical work; and whether he will authorise a full inquiry into the promotion position of these women and those at the Ministry headquarters?

:Opportunities have been afforded since the War to the temporary women clerks and typists in the Ministry of Labour to qualify for permanent clerical posts, and a consider-abel number secured clerical posts in this way. In addition, 8 promotions of writing assistants to clerical posts were made in 1921, 20 in 1922, and, though there were none in 1923, further promotions are now in immediate prospect. The clerical posts in exchanges to which the question refers, are being offered to writing assistants regarded as suitable for the work, but they are under no obligation to accept them. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry.

Unemployment

Middlesbrough and North-East Coast

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, whereas the number of unemployed is decreasing throughout the country, in Middlesbrough and certain other towns on the North-East Coast it is increasing; and will he recommend the Government to appoint a committee of inquiry to explore means whereby special assistance may be given in such exceptional cases?

:I am aware that within recent months the trend of the unemployment figures for the North-East Coast has not been as favourable as that for the country generally. The course of these figures, however, is governed by the nature of the main industries in the area, the facts with regard to which are fairly well known, and I do not think an inquiry by a committee would be of assistance. Local authorities in the area have the best knowledge of schemes for relief of unemployment which might be put in hand, and any such schemes submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee will be sympathetically considered.

:May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, coming with a fresh mind to this problem, will direct his consideration to giving special assistance to these most necessitous areas?

:Most certainly, and I happen to know the Middlesbrough district personally fairly well.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the increasingly grave industrial outlook on Teeside and in Cleveland; and whether he is prepared to recommend as a special case, with a view to finding employment for the thousands of men now receiving assistance through the Employment Exchanges, that assistance from State funds shall be given for the provision of increased trade facilities on the Tees by the creation of new docks between Eston and Redcar?

:I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the somewhat similar question which he asked yesterday.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the docks have already been begun in this area?

:I think my hon. Friend is misinformed. The Tees Conservancy tell me that they cannot do anything because technical difficulties have arisen.

Women and Domestic Service

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the openings which exist for women and girls to enter domestic service, he will take steps to ensure that the payment of unemployment benefit shall not be extended to cases which are eligible for domestic service?

:Standing instructions already provide that unemployment benefit shall not be paid to women who refuse suitable offers of domestic work. If my hon. Friend has any individual cases in mind and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the most definite promises have been given by his predecessor that girls would not be forced into domestic service if they were already skilled workers and there was a reasonable opportunity of their getting skilled work?

:Perhaps the hon. Member will bring to my mind any of these cases and I will look into them.

Sheffield

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed men in Sheffield who are over 45 years of age are severely handicapped in their search for employment, because preference is given to men under that age, on the ground that insurance companies charge lower premiums for insurance against industrial risks in the case of younger men; and whether he proposes to arrange alternative insurance arrangements for the older men?

:I have been asked to reply. I am assured that insurance companies do not generally make any discrimination on the ground of age, and the manager of the Employment Exchange at Sheffield reports that inquiries made locally have failed to elicit any evidence in support of the allegation. It appears that a very large proportion of the workmen in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit at Sheffield are between 20 and 30 years of age and that in the skilled trades the older men are in a favourable position owing to the shortage of younger men with the necessary training. If, however, the honourable Member can furnish particulars of any cases where discrimination is alleged, further inquiry will be made.

:Does the answer include risks covered by mutual associations of employers carrying their own risks?

:No. Mutual associations do not come under the control of the Government at all.

Contributions (Refundment Claims)

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to acknowledgment form U.I. 560, issued by his Department, which states that claims for refundment of unemployment contributions cannot receive decision, nor can any inquiries be answered, within three months of the date on the form; whether he can state the reason for such a procedure; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that claims for repayment shall receive more prompt attention?

:Each applicant for compensation under Section 9 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of last session, to which the hon. Member refers, is given a receipt for his claim, which contains a statement of the kind mentioned. This is necessary because dealing with the compensation claims in question is an abnormal piece of work arising quite out of the ordinary course. A very large number of claims have been and are being sent in within a short space of time, and in fact nearly 500,000 have been received. To extemporize a staff which could deal with them all at once would be impossible, and also, even if possible, would not be justified from the point of view of public economy. The only proper course is to try and work them off as quickly as is consistent with good administration. This is the reason why, as the hon. Member possible knows, the late Minister of Labour, when explaining the clause in Standing Committee, indicated that a period of three or four months' delay might be necessary. I can assure the hon. Member that no effort has been or will be spared to expedite payment. Additional staff has been engaged and 80,000 claims have already been paid.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that once a claim has been submitted, if the person making the claim becomes unemployed, he is denied benefit while the claim is being considered; and will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

:In view of the approach of the Christmas season will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that steps will be taken to accelerate this work and adjust, at any rate, some of these claims?

:Every effort is being made to deal with them as quickly as possible, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that if an attempt were made to take on staff to enable them to be dealt with at extraordinary speed, it would only mean that the work would be done uneconomically from the public point of view, the staff would be again dismissed quickly and, on the whole, it would be an unsatisfactory proceeding. We are getting through with them as quickly as possible, subject to the work being done decently from the point of view of public economy.

Juveniles (School Leaving Period)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the problem of juvenile employment is aggravated by the fact that children now leave school only at the end of terms, and thus a number of children have to seek employment at the same moment; and whether he will diecuss the matter with the Board of Education with a view to finding a remedy?

:I am aware that the fact that children leave the elementary school at the end of the term in which they become 14 may make it more difficult for some of them immediately to obtain employment. On the other hand, the release of children from school at an earlier age would increase the total number of children seeking employment, and, on the whole, I do not think I should be justified in suggesting to my right hon. Friend that the statutory provisions in this respect should be reconsidered.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of releasing them at a slightly later age?

:We have merely been trying to go into the question from all points of view. It is the balance of the advantages with the disadvantages which will decide the matter.

Dismissals (Sherburn, Durham)

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Sherburn miners, County of Durham, have been dismissed through refusing to break the county wage conditions, and have been refused unemployment insurance benefit; and, seeing that this is contrary to the spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act passed this year, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

:If the hon. Member is referring to a stoppage which took place in the first half of last August, the position is that the claims for unemployment benefit were considered, and, after full examination of all the circumstances, were disallowed by the Umpire. I have no power to intervene. If the hon. Member is referring to some other stoppage, and will give me full particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Rota Committees (Names)

asked the Minister of Labour if he is now able to state whether an applicant for unemployment benefit will be entitled to be informed, if he or she so desires, of the names of the members of the committee judging the claim to benefit?

:As I promised during the Debate last Thursday, I have carefully considered this question. It is not the existing practice to supply to an applicant for extended benefit the names of the members of the rota committee which deals with his claim and I do not think the practice should be altered.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us of some of the reasons why an applicant is not to get this consideration which even a criminal gets in a Court of Justice?

:I think the chief reason is that as members of the rota committee are sitting in a quasi-judicial position—I think it is just as well to be perfectly frank—they should not be exposed to canvassing. The claim made by the claimant can be quite well put before them so that the whole merits of the case may be properly considered.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Act states that when rejection of a claim is going to be given there must be present a trade union representative? If that be so, how is a person to know whether one is a trade union representative or not unless he has the name before him?

:If the hon. Member will put down that question, I will consider it.

:What does the right hon. Gentleman mean in his reply by extended benefit? Does he mean uncovenanted benefit or does he mean unemployment benefit?

:Uncovenanted benefit in the strict original sense no longer exists as compared with standard benefit, and extended benefit now takes its place.

Rejected Applications (Liverpool)

asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women were refused benefit in the area covered by the Liverpool Employment Exchanges during the last three months; and how many of the rejected applicants were over 60 years of age?

:During the three months ended 8th December, the numbers of applications for extended benefits refused by the local committees in the Liverpool area were 6,190 from men and 2,105 from women. No statistics are available showing the ages of claimants whose applications were rejected.

:In view of the fact that in a large number of these rejected cases the applicants are over 60 years of age, will the Minister allow a little wider latitude to the committee, having regard to the proximity of the festive season?

:I am not aware that the ages are such as the hon. Member suggests, because under the present system we have no means of finding out the exact ages and classifying them.

:If the right hon. Gentleman will come and stay with me for a few days, I will show him cases of men over 60.

Questions

Cost of Living

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will grant an official inquiry into and ascertainment of the increase since 1914 in the cost of living in middle-class households?

:The difficulties which would be encountered in making an inquiry of this kind on such a scale as to yield satisfactory statistics would be very great. In view of the great diversity in the incomes and manner of living of middle-class households, I doubt whether the results would have a practical value commensurate with the expense that would be involved. In any case it would now be almost impossible to ascertain comparable figures for 1914.

Trade Unions (Membership)

asked the Minister of Labour the total membership of trade unions at the latest date for returns; what decrease has taken place since 1920; and, in view of the legislation in 1913 sanctioning political levies, what is the total membership of those unions which are affiiliated to a political party?

:The total membership of all tirade unions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as shown by the statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labour, was approximately 5,405,000 at the end of 1923 (the latest date for which figures are available), compared with 8,336,000 at the end of 1920. Detailed figures are given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for October, 1924, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member. I have no official statistics with regard to the affiliation of trade unions to a political party.

Sharing-Out Clubs

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the introduction of a Bill to protect members of slate, loan, and similar sharing-out clubs by compelling their registration, with certain compulsory rules, preventing the constantly recurring defalcations which occur near Christmas and the heavy losses to those who had been depending on the amounts which had been the results of thrift during the year?

:As stated by one of my predecessors in reply to a similar question on 7th March, 1922, legislation on the lines suggested would probably be quite ineffective to secure the object in view. The obvious remedy is that persons should invest their savings judiciously.

:Is it a fact, however, that many societies have to be registered at present, and where they are registered their rules go before the Registrar-General? Is there any reason why a similar course should not be adopted in regard to these clubs?

:There is such a great diversity among these sharing-out clubs, which include fowl clubs, turkey clubs, goose clubs and so forth, that it would be difficult to frame effective legislation.

Leaseholds

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill dealing with leasehold enfranchisement during the next Session of Parliament?

61 and 62.

asked the Minister of Health (1) if his attention has been drawn to the practice of speculation in freehold interests in urban property, in which the procedure generally begins with the speculator purchasing the freehold interests and then putting pressure upon the leaseholder, either to spend large sums upon repairs, decorations, etc., or alternatively purchase the freehold at an enhanced price; and, in view of the feeling of insecurity and hardship which this form of exploitation is causing, will he consider the institution of immediate steps to counteract the practice;

(2) whether the Government will consider the early introduction during this Parliament of legislation for compulsory arbitration in the purchase of freehold by occupying leaseholders?

:His Majesty's Government have not yet had an opportunity of examining the complicated problems to which these questions give rise, and they are, therefore, unable to promise to introduce legislation.

River Thames (Reclamation Proposal)

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would consider a scheme for the narrowing of the River Thames with the double object of reclaiming much valuable land and, at the same time, finding reproductive work for thousands of the unemployed without the necessity of placing additional burdens on the taxpayer?

:If my hon. Friend will furnish me with some details of the scheme he has in view, I shall be happy to look into it.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many eminent engineers consider this scheme perfectly feasible?

:I have no knowledge as to the feasibility or otherwise of the scheme. It is obvious that what you add to the land you must take off the water.

Women Franchise

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation with the object of giving the vote to women on the same terms as those on which it is at present given to men?

:This subject is receiving consideration, but it is not possible to make a statement at present.

Hereditary Peerages

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to do away with hereditary peerages?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continuance of these peerages is a violation of the principle of democratic government?

Housing

Lodgers

asked the Minister of Health how many tenants of the houses now being built under the Act of 1923 are permitted to take lodgers if they wish to do so; and whether the present Government intend to prohibit such lodgers being domiciled in houses built under either of the recent Acts?

:The conditions under which the taking of lodgers may be permitted in houses provided under the Housing Acts by local authorities are within the discretion of the local authorities themselves, and it is not proposed to interfere with this discretion. No statistics are available as to the extent to which such permission has been granted.

Slums

asked the Minister of Health whether there exists an official definition of slums; whether in that case the local authorities possess an official record of the slums in their districts; and whether such a notification is made public to enable the owners of such slum property to realise their responsibilities?

:I would refer the hon. Member to the definition in Section 4 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. All local authorities are required to make periodical inspection of their districts, to keep appropriate records showing the conditions of the houses, and, so far as may be necessary, to take these records into consideration at each of their ordinary meetings, thereby giving them publicity. I may also refer my hon. Friend to Section 17 of the Housing Act, 1909, which enables local authorities in certain circumstances to make closing orders and to the provisions of the Housing Acts, especially Section 28 of the Act of 1919 and Section 10 of the Act of 1923, under which local authorities are empowered to require repairs of dwelling houses, or to carry out such repairs themselves and recover the cost in the event of failure of the landlord to comply with notices served upon him by the local authority. In the last year for which statistics are available the reports of medical officers of health show that 1,115,394 houses were inspected and repairs secured in 542,834 cases as a result of the intervention of the local authorities.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a local authority get a closing order, they have no power to make the landlords pull down the bad houses?

:Are any steps being taken to keep in decent order those houses which have been condemned and are not being closed, because there is nowhere else for the people to go to?

:If the hon. Member will refer to my reply, I think he will see that that is dealt with.

:Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to have placed on record the names of all owners of slum property, so that they may be known?

Building Labour

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the experiment in Australia, where the unskilled unemployed have been taken off the streets this year and, after a three months' training in technical schools, have passed a test of laying over 1,000 bricks on straight work in an eight hours' day; whether he is aware, that this year classes for plasterers have been started, and can he say with what success; and whether he will consider adopting similar methods in this country?

:I am aware of the experiment to which the hon. Member refers. Schemes of special training are being considered in connection with the arrangements made by the building industry for increasing the supply of skilled labour in the industry.

Rural Areas

66 and 67.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether it has been reported to him that the rents of council houses erected or under erection in rural areas are often beyond the means of agricultural workers earning 27s. or 30s. weekly: and what measures he has in view to adapt the housing provisions more closely to the urgent need for better and more houses in many villages;

(2) whether he is aware of the slow progress being made under the housing subsidy schemes in many rural areas; and whether he will take counsel with rural district councils and other authoritative persons in order to remove the difficulties in the way of a more speedy provision of houses at rents which agricultural workers can pay?

:I am aware of the difficulties which have been experienced in rural areas in providing houses for agricultural workers at rents which they can afford, and there was a full discussion on the subject during the passage of the 1924 Housing Act. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that provision was made in this Act for an additional subsidy for houses built in agricultural areas. As my right hon. Friend informed the House yesterday, his intention is to allow the Act a full and fair trial, and he will give particular attention to this part of it.

:Is an opportunity being taken to consult with those who under- stand rural conditions and the immediate difficulties that face them?

:My right hon. Friend will be glad to have any suggestion from the hon. Member or from anybody else.

:Will the hon. Gentleman consult the rural district councils or their association?

:I will be glad to consider that if my hon. Friend will communicate with me on the point.

:May I ask if the only provision for houses for this type of people are the houses contemplated under the Wheatley Act of this year?

Poplar

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that one of his inspectors held an inquiry in Poplar, on the 18th July, 1924, into a scheme prepared by the London County Council for the clearance of the Bakers Alley, Birchfield Street, and Bromley Place areas, under Part I of the Housing Act, 1890; whether any decision has been given to the London County Council; and, if so, when?

:Yes, Sir. The Order confirming the scheme was made on the 10th December,. and copies were sent to the London County Council on the 12th December.

Apprentices

asked the Minister of Health if the negotiations with trade unions concerned with the building industry as to the admission of an increased number of apprentices are now complete, and if such apprentices are now admitted?

asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to increase the number of apprentices in the building trades, so as to give the additional labour required to carry out the full housing programme contemplated by the Housing Act, 1924?

:The answer to the question of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Briant), I think I may say, is contained in the Report which has been recently issued with reference to the building industry. I have nothing to add to the recommendations they have made.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the answer in short? Surely in two sentences he can answer my two questions?

:I think the hon. Gentleman will find all particulars in the Report to which I have referred.

:On a point of Order. Are we to understand in future any Minister who desires to get out of answering a question can refer us to any Report?

:May I have an answer to the last part of the question—whether such apprentices are now admitted? Surely the hon. Gentleman can say yes or no.

:I cannot go beyond what I have said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] The answer I gave was that the suggestions as to apprenticeship are contained in the Report of the Building Industry. I cannot say at the present moment how many additional apprentices have been admitted.

Questions

Tuberculosis (Village Settlements)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the necessity of the further extension of the scheme of village settlements in the neighbourhood of large cities and towns for tubercular persons and their families; and whether he will take the necessary steps for the further extension of this scheme?

:The provision of additional accommodation at the existing village settlements for tuberculous persons and their families is already in progress, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to consider further extensions until more experience is available as to the value of this particular method of dealing with the problem.

Scarlet Fever

asked the Minister of Health if the discovery of the casual organism of scarlet fever, of the consequent test of susceptibility to the disease, and of the efficacy of the toxin in preventing and of the anti-toxin in treating the disease, as announced to the American Medical Association in Chicago in June last, has been accepted by his Department as proved; if not, what steps are to be taken to put it to a searching test; and, if the discovery is now accepted as genuine, what steps are to be taken to make the utmost use of it in this country?

:The researches on scarlet fever referred to in the question have been studied in my Department, and their possible bearing on prevention and treatment is fully recognised. My right hon. Friend is advised that further knowledge is necessary before any confident opinion can be expressed either as to the practical value of the test or as to the specific character of the toxin and anti-toxin in question, and these matters are now under investigation by my medical staff.

Maternity Mortality

asked the Minister of Health the number of mothers who lost their lives from causes due to pregnancy and child-bearing in England and Wales in 1923; the ratio of such deaths to total births during the year; the reduction in this ratio during the past 30 years; and the comparable reduction in the death-rate of women of child-bearing age from all causes?

:As the answer is somewhat long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

In 1923 there were 2,892 deaths of women classed to pregnancy and child-bearing, or a ratio of 3·81 per thousand births. The average annual numbers of deaths so classed in the years 1891–1895 (the nearest available figure to that asked for in the question) represented a rate of 5·49 per thousand births. That figure is, however, based upon the more restricted classification then in use; and the comparable deaths for 1923 represent a rate of 3·6, showing a decrease of mortality during the period in question by 34 per cent. During the same period the death-rate from all causes of females aged 15 to 45 years has declined by 45 per cent.

asked the Minister of Health what further steps he proposes to take with a view to reducing the exceptional maternal mortality in rural and in textile and coal-mining areas, respectively; and whether, in the event of its not being regarded as the duty of the medical officer of health to investigate all maternal deaths due to childbirth and all cases of puerperal fever, whether fatal or not, he will take steps to make good these omissions?

:I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Circular on the subject of maternal mortality which was issued by my right hon. Friend's predecessor on the 30th June last, of which I will send him a copy. Attention was drawn in the Circular to the need for investigating all maternal deaths due to childbirth and all cases of puerperal fever, and the local authorities were urged to take action with a view to reducing the risk involved in childbirth. It is proposed to await the results of the issue of this Circular before considering further action.

:Is the hon. Member aware that it is much easier to become a first-class critic than even a passable performer?

Casual Wards (Defective Conditions)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the recent survey of non-Metropolitan casual wards states that the following defects were found in Bucks, Berks and Oxon, namely: wards un-heated, Bucks one, Oxon one; wards in bad condition generally, Bucks one, Oxon two, Berks one; no night clothes provided for men, Bucks one, Oxon two; and no night clothes provided for women, Oxon two; and whether he will give the names of the unions to which these wards belong, and see that the defects are remedied?

:I am sending my hon. Friend the names of the unions referred to, and a copy of an answer given last Monday in reply to a similar question.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the recent Survey of Casual Ward Reports that in some wards the inmates sleep on the floor in rugs and in others have plank beds; will he call the attention of boards of guardians to Article 14 of the Casual Paupers General Order of 18th December, 1832; and, in cases where proper sleeping accommodation and suitable bedclothing have not been supplied, will he refuse his approval under this Order until these defects are remedied?

:My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to. Particular attention is being given by my officers to cases in which the sleeping accommodation and bedclothing were reported to be defective.

Pauper Asylum Patients (Property)

asked the Minister of Health if he will make inquiry as to what becomes of the belongings of pauper patients when, on their admission into an asylum, their property is taken in charge by the union; whether he is aware that in some instances clothing left behind by one inmate is offered to another on discharge; and, in view of the objections inseparable from such a practice, will he take steps to bring about its discontinuance and to secure that in every case the full monetary value of the property is restored by the union to the owner where, through lapse of time, such property has unfortunately become deteriorated?

:I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Regulation dealing with this subject. My right hon. Friend is not at present aware of any grounds on which further action on his part is required, but if the hon. Member will send on the details of any particular case which he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider the matter.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in certain cases pauper inmates of asylums who have recovered and been discharged come out to find their small shop or dwelling sold up and their means of living so reduced as to bring them to the brink of destitution; and will he see that proper safeguards are devised to protect the interests of this class of the community when so jeopardised?

:If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of cases to which he refers, they shall be enquired into.

:Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in other cases coming under the Poor Law, as well as the insane people, the people's effects are sold up, and they are left with nothing but destitution and poverty, and have to go back to the workhouse?

:No, but if my hon. Friend will send any particulars, we will have them looked into.

Contracts (Local Authorities)

asked the Minister of Health whether the Government proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the questions arising out of the judgments of Mr. Justice Bailhache and the Court of Appeal relating to contracts in which certain members of local councils are concerned?

:It is possible that this case may be taken to the House of Lords, and it is, therefore, not expedient to make any statement on the matter at the present time.

Gunnersbury Park

asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the great importance of the preservation of open spaces in the rapidly growing districts of greater London, he will consider whether any and, if so, what steps can be taken to acquire and preserve Gunnersbury Park for the benefit of the public?

:The West Middlesex Joint Town Planning Committee has recommended that the park, with the exception of certain building frontages, should be reserved as a regional open space and that a committee, representing the local authorities, the Middlesex County Council, the London County Council and the City of London Corporation should be set up to consider this and other proposals. If this course is pursued, my right hon. Friend will gladly give any assistance he can.

:Thanking the hon. Member for his answer, may I ask whether he will go so far as financial assistance, seeing that this great open space, which is now available for acquisition, is in a large industrial and extremely poor area which cannot raise the money itself?

Maternity Homes

asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities to whom powers have been given enabling them to supervise all maternity homes within their area; and whether such powers will now be extended to all local authorities?

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received requests from local authorities asking for powers of supervision over all maternity homes within their area; and if he will state to the House his intentions in the matter?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. These powers have been given to eight local authorities. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation on this subject as soon as other claims render it possible to do so.

Blind Persons (Visiting Teachers)

asked the Minister of Health whether any instructions have been issued with reference to the employment of sighted persons as visiting teachers of the blind in preference to blind teachers; and whether it is on the advice of his Department that a number of competent blind teachers have recently been discharged and their places taken by untrained visitors?

:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I understand that there have been certain changes recently in the arrangements for the visiting of blind persons in London, and that the Metropolitan Association for the Blind, acting as agents for the London County Council, have appointed sighted visitors in place of some of the former blind visitors, and have also appointed additional sighted visitors. This action is in accordance with the views of the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind and has been approved by my Department. I am assured that proper provision has been made for the blind visitors who have been displaced.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the blind teachers have been visitors for a great many years, and that no compensation has been given to them? Is he further aware that competent blind teachers have been displaced, and their places taken by visitors who have had no training, and many of whom cannot teach or even understand Braille? Is he further aware that the association concerned have definitely stated that they have taken this action on the advice of his Department?

:In answer to the first question I am assured—I made the inquiry this morning—all those blind teachers whose engagements have ceased have been granted a pension. Secondly, as regards the engagement of sighted persons, I understand one of the reasons for this is the great benefit ensured to blind people by sighted people visiting their homes in order to see their condition, and whether any improvement is necessary.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the change that has taken place, instead of a teacher going to the home, it is a visitor, who is more concerned whether the home is clean, and about particulars of that sort?

China Indemnity Bill (Committee)

:I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the cancellation of the invitations sent to Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. Lowes Dickinson asking them to serve on the Committee to consider the China Indemnity Bill."

:I cannot regard this question as an urgent one under Standing Order No. 10, because the Committee cannot be appointed until after the Bill is passed. At present the Bill stands for Second Reading on Tuesday, the 10th February, and that would seem the proper occasion for the House to discuss the matter. Any other action would be anticipation.

Orders of the Day

Irish Free State Land Purchase (Loan Guarantee) Bill

Read the Third time, and passed.

King's Speech

Debate on the Address

[FIFTH DAY.]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[ Mr. Ellis. ]

Question again proposed.

Fiscal Policy

:I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words hand a blank cheque to an unknown man, although I do not know whether I go so far as to say that the right hon. Gentleman is a representative of the toiling millions whose lives and homes are at stake in this issue.

My questions I propose to make brief. The first is this: There are two issues that are most troubling the public at the present moment. Many manufacturers are complaining of the competition with Germany. Some trades, silk, lace, cotton, wool are complaining of competition from France. The second issue, one of those exercising the minds of this House and the public outside, is the policy of reparation annuities under the Dawes scheme, and the payment of the debt due to us from France and Italy. The first question, therefore, I want to put to the Prime Minister is tins: How does he harmonise a policy which aims at excluding or restricting the import of goods from France and Germany with a policy which aims at securing the payment of reparations from Germany and the payment of debt from France? The second question I want to ask the Prime Minister, who in some respects is considerably in advance of his own party in some things—he is the sworn foe of trusts and profiteering—is: how does he harmonise the policy which will introduce a tariff into this country with his well-known antagonism to trusts?

The third question which I wish to ask concerns the machinery of this Bill. We have had some little experience in the past of Bills of this kind, and we know from the exuberant utterances of a newly-appointed Under-Secretary that a Bill is in draft; therefore, there will not be any difficulty on the part of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answering the questions I propose to put. There is to be an inquiry. An inquiry by whom? Is it to be an inquiry by suppliants for the favours of this House? Is it to be an inquiry by bureaucrats serving a Protectionist Minister? Is it to be an inquiry on which the public, whom it is proposed to mulct, shall be duly represented? [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Mulct! Tax! [An HON. MEMBER: "Filched from!"] What evidence is to be offered before that inquiry? Is it merely to be the evidence of those who want taxes put on on their behalf? Is there to be evidence by those who object to taxes being put on the price of their commodities? Is the inquiry to be a public one? Are the statements to be made on oath? Further—and this is a very important point, as we know from the experience—is the evidence of those manufacturers, who are seeking favours from this House, to be subject to cross-examination?

Again, who is to lay the taxes on the people when they are decided upon? Is it to be by this House? Is it to be exempted business, a sort of midnight tariff, or is to be ordered by the Board of Trade—the Executive—in the way that ship-money was levied in the days of old? These are important questions, the answers to which must be well known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and questions which I should respectfully like him to address himself to when he answers in this Debate. Further, what is the purpose of this Safeguarding Bill? Is it to prevent dumping? We ourselves, as an exporting nation, are the greatest dumpers in the world. I make so bold as to say—and I challenge contradiction from either side—that there is no case on record of a British industry being ruined by foreign dumping. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

:I shall be glad to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman evidence on that point.

:I will allow the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hartlepools to settle his account with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

:I would ask hon. Members not to interrupt. We cannot conduct a Debate with so many interjections.

:I have quoted from the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to make a general acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman for much inspiration and teaching on this topic. With his permission, I will draw freely from these sources in the course of my observations. What industries has the Prime Minister in mind as suitable recipients for these favours? What about motor cars? Does he intend to give an opportunity for the re-imposition of duties on motor cars} Motor cars, indeed, were the stock example, the working model in the Election of 1923. They were supposed to show us exactly what Protection could do by way of promoting the prosperity of a British industry. We were told that the removal of the duties—and they were removed in a brilliant Radical Budget by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—we were told that the removal would not help the consumer, and would bring disaster to the industry. Neither of these predictions have been proved to be true. The consumer is paying a lower price for his car and we are still waiting to see the disaster which has to overtake the industry. In point of fact, the industry, on the evidence of the Protectionists themselves, is in an extremely prosperous condition. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but I will give some evidence on this point of that what I have stated somewhat emphatically. Let me read this:

"Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton report bright prospects in the motor industry. Output has increased, and there is a rush of overseas orders."

:Since the removal of the duties. That quotation is from a well-known Protectionist quarter, the "Daily Express." [An HON. MEMBER: "What date is that?"] September. [HON. MEMBERS: "And this is December!"] But amongst the benefits from the return of the right hon. Gentleman was to be a revival of industry! I want to ask the Prime Minister another question. Is it the intention of these tariffs to safeguard employment? Is that what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman? If so, does he propose to distribute the tariffs amongst those queer trades which include fabric gloves, glass mantles, pots and pans, etc.? If the: interests of employment are to be considered, what about shipbuilding and the iron and steel trades? Theft unemployment is 31 per cent, and 23 per cent, of the whole. For my part I see ho connection between Protection and employment. I want to ask one further question. What do you say when you are going to put tariffs here and tariffs there to the demand of the greater industries. What about agriculture? You are going to tax the domestic appliances and materials the farmer uses in his industry, tax the little Ford car that he employs in the course of his duties—he thinks it extremely unfair—yet you give to his industry—an efficient industry, an essential industry—no protection at all!

4.0. P. M.

Hon. Members opposite, many of whom represent agricultural districts, will not deny that there is a keen sense of injustice in the mind of the farmer in such a proceeding. So much is that so, that only two years ago the Farmers' Union asked for a pledge from candidates to Parliament that they would not support the Safeguarding of Industries Act unless it was immediately applied to agriculture. Many Members of the House, and some members of the Government gave that pledge. What are they going to say to the agricultural interest when they are proposing a Measure which will be tariffs for towns, leaving the country to take care of itself in the face of world competition? Lastly, I would like to ask this question. Do hon. Members opposite really believe in this tinkering policy? The President of the Board of Trade, for example, does he think that he has got a remedy for high prices? I know that the Minister of Health and the Colonial Secretary have got a remedy for high prices. Tariffs would reduce prices. We have heard the argument repeatedly in this House. The arch-priest of this doctrine, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, said in a message to the Under-Secretary of State for Air just before the War, "I believe that tariff reform will cheapen everything." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then why not have the honesty to apply it instead of setting up a futile camouflage of a Commission to inquire into prices. Why do not you follow your principles and introduce tariff reform if you believe that it would cheapen everything. Again, let me ask the Prime Minister this question. Does he believe that this scheme will go any way towards curing unemployment, or would he say now, as he said once before, know what a strange atmosphere there was in the House last year when it was proposed to remove the McKenna Duties. We get, as Members of Parliament, many letters from enthusiasts who are promoting many causes which they believe to be in the public interest. Last year our mail bags were full of letters and the Lobbies were full of people, not to push the public interest, but their own private interests. In a very happy phrase, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this House was chaste because unsolicited. If once you put the fate of every industry in turn into the hands of Members of this House, that state of affairs cannot persist. Every dirty little monopolist—does the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember the phrase—every little trade society, not formed to improve matters, not formed to improve conditions, not formed to find new customers or to lower prices but formed to milk the public, will come forward with the watchwords, "Scratch my back," and the countersign, "I will scratch yours."

I will now pass from the subject of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to the second part of the Amendment, which deals with Imperial Preference. Here it is natural that we should find—and I am very glad that it should be so—that there is a large measure of agreement on all sides of the House. Yes, we are dealing with a subject that is wider than party. It will not be claimed by hon. Members opposite that they have a warmer feeling than we for our own kith and kin overseas. We have just come through a period when all parts of the Empire made great sacrifices, and, in passing, I would say that I trust no one in this Debate will attempt to exploit those sacrifices for a party advantage. Apart from the repulsive vulgarity of the argument—and I have heard it used—those who use it aim a fatal blow at the unity of this country and of the Empire, if danger faces us in the future. It is noticeable that, of the Resolutions passed by the Imperial Conference, there are no more than eight or nine that are the subject of dispute at all. On the others, that aim at greater Imperial unity and strength, we are agreed. We are agreed that the Dominions should have a very important and valuable preference in our financial markets by their securities being placed upon the list of Trustee Securities. We are agreed that there should be the widest and most constant measure of consultation, and in this matter I believe, and I am sure that this belief is shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the development of flying will play a very important part. We are agreed, or we assent in this country, to bearing for the defence of the Empire a very heavy share of the burden. We pay here per head of the population ten times as much as the Canadians and four times or more than four times as much as the Australians. We bear that burden willingly.

There is another scheme, only just sketched out in the newspapers, and I understand it will be the subject of some explanation by the Prime Minister to-day. On it I will not venture to express any definite opinion, but it is proposed, I understand, that some form of bounty should be offered in the place of Preference to encourage Imperial trade. No doubt the Prime Minister will explain the details to us. The Exchequer is to find some money for this purpose. In that purpose the poacher, turned gamekeeper, has very quickly become poacher in a small degree again. There are some questions I should like to ask about the scheme. Will it apply to all exports from the Dominions, or only to those exports which they send to us? Will the Dominion trader, who sends goods to Europe and enables the European countries to buy from us, benefit by the scheme, or only the man who trades direct with this country? Will the scheme apply to Ireland, which Dominion sends us a very considerable portion of our food? Then, what safeguards will be instituted to protect the taxpayer of this country and to prevent the benefit of the bounty being seized by shippers or others? For example, is it proposed in this scheme to fix prices, and, if so, what guarantee can the taxpayer in this country have that he is receiving the benefit for which he has paid? If it is proposed to fix prices, is the maximum price to apply to the home-produced article as well as to the imported article? There I leave the scheme, because I do not know what it is. I am probably beating the air in these few questions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are probably much better informed than I am in this matter. But I would ask this: Is the President of the Board of Agriculture to tell the home farmer that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is finding a bounty for the benefit of the Dominion producer while he himself can neither find protection nor subsidy for those who produce food in this country?

I have spoken of matters which are not so much in dispute. In fact, many of them are the subject of agreement between us. But the problem to which this Amendment is addressed — the passage in the King's Speech, which refers to further preference—is a different problem. The question is, whether the Empire can be further strengthened and extended by means of tariffs, and, for a minute or two, I will devote myself to the consideration of that, to us, very familiar topic. First, let me take the sentimental argument. The sentimental argument is this: The Dominions give us a preference. They do much for us. What will we do for them? That is an argument, so stated, which must make a strong appeal upon sentimental grounds. Let us examine this argument just for one moment. It is said sometimes that Australia, for example, makes us a gift—the President of the Board of Trade made some reference to this subject in his speech earlier in the year—of £5,000,000 annually. That argument was frequently used in the Election contest in presenting the case to the country. What exactly is meant by this gift of £5,000,000? What do hon. Members who speak in those terms mean by it? Do they mean that because our exporters to the Dominions enjoy a preferential rate over the foreigner they are able to profit thereby to the tune of the difference between the two rates? Is that the argument? If that be the argument, it involves, to us, the natural inference that the consumer pays the tax. If, on the other hand, it is meant that on exporting goods to Australia we are charged in duties £5,000,000 less than the foreigner, then I think we must turn to ask what exactly we pay to enter the market. £9,000,000 a year are the duties levied upon British goods entering the Dominions, whereas Dominion goods entering this country are toll and tax free, with very trifling exceptions. Suppose we reverse the case for a moment. Assume that tomorrow we were to say, "We have many million sheep in this country and wool is produced in this country." Suppose we were to say "We propose to tax Australian wool" and suppose, at the same time we were told that the Australian market will be open free without tariffs to the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom. Would anyone then come forward and say, "Look how much we are doing for the Dominions, and how little they are doing for us." So much for the sentimental argument.

Now for the practical objections. The first objection of remitting any duty is that it is a loss of revenue. It is a small objection so long as the rebate is a small rebate on a few articles, but it is a fact that, if you remit a duty, the taxpayer has to be taxed in order to make up the difference and to balance the Budget. A far more serious objection is that any rebate of a duty creates a vested interest in that duty. We know how hard it was last year to shake off vested interests which were merely domestic. We remember Mr. Morris and his circular and the agitation and the stir that were made over that duty. While it may he an easy thing to deal with vested interests in this country, it is a very tender and dangerous thing to create and disappoint vested interests overseas. We had an example in the last Budget. In 1919 we promised a preference of one-third on all existing duties on Dominion products. In 1924 the Chancellor of the Exchequer kept that promise. He still offered a preference of one-third on those duties, but he reduced the duties, and the effect of reducing the duties was to create a great stir and provoke many cries of hardship. I will not give any quotations from overseas sources, but the Home Secretary went so far as to say that the fact that the duties had been reduced was a blow at the Empire.

The particular case which I thought most striking was the case of sugar. First there was a duty of 25s. on sugar. A preference of one-sixth gave a benefit of 4s. to the Dominion exporters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the duty to 11s.—I suppose he and we would all wish to see the duty abolished altogether—and with the reduction to 11s. the preference was worth 2s. Then it was proposed that instead of reducing the preference to 2s. he should stabilise it at 4s. What did that mean? It meant that we could never get rid of the Sugar Duty, that the duty was to remain at 4s. to the end of time, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country had lost his freedom. He had the choice either of disappointing a great possession or of riveting a permanent Sugar Duty on the necks of the people of this country. It meant that the women of this country would have to be told there was a tax on every cup of tea, and on every spoonful of jam, because it was necessary to retain the favour of West Indian planters. How can hon. Gentlemen describe a scheme of that kind as a scheme for uniting and building up the Empire?

There is one further point in reference to these preferences. The policy, in my judgment, is not an honest policy. We understand by preference something quite different from what overseas statesmen mean by it. We know what they mean when they talk about preference, or a preference that is of any value. They mean a preference on beef, or on mutton, or on meat, or on wool. When hon. Gentlemen here use the word "preference," so far as their programme is concerned, they mean trifling remissions of duty which are of no practical interest and no practical value to the overseas exporters. When hon. Gentlemen opposite represent these small concessions as a step along the other road, then I say they are taking a very wrong course. When the President of the Board of Trade, discussing taxes upon basic food products, says, "We have not gone the whole way yet," does he mean that, or not? It is very important, in fact, it is vital, in dealing with this matter as between self-governing nation constituting a commonwealth that you should speak plainly and act with most perfect integrity of intention. The right hon. Gentleman when he said, "We have not finished with the matter" meant either that he intended to tax the staple foods of this country or not. If he intends ultimately, or if his policy is intended ultimately, to put a tax on the food of the people, he should say so. If it is not intended to lead to the taxation of food, then he should tell the Dominions so with frankness. Otherwise, he is perpetrating a cruel fraud on them, a fraud which must lead to disillusion, and might even lead to disruption.

It seems to me that whether these are big or little things, whether this policy is the 'beginning or the end, there is a chasm in intention between us on this side and the hon. Gentlemen opposite. We think that in their policy they are misreading the need of the world. We think people are crying for peace, goodwill and trade, and that they are offering them armaments and aliens' acts, tariffs and restrictions. We think, further, that Ministers on the Front Bench—some of them—little dictators on Bismarckian lines, Mussolinettis—are misreading the destiny of the British race. What has the British Common-wealth given to the progress of civilisation? This is the mother of Parliaments. From here spreads the knowledge and the love and the practice of democratic liberties in all parts of the world. We have always shown equal justice to all races, one measure for ourselves and for the stranger within our gates. We have never exploited the Empire as "a selfish preserve "—a very happy phrase, for which I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The British flag has been the flag of all nations; and what have we gained? Wherever men love liberty, they look to this country as its fount. Wherever our people go they are welcomed, they are honoured and their word is esteemed. We have never exploited our Colonies, and we have got the greatest Empire in the world. We have done what we have done. I venture to suggest, because we have not forgotten what hon. Gentlemen opposite would bid us forget, that the mission of our race is not to ourselves only, but to all mankind.

:In seconding this Amendment which has been so forcefully and so eloquently moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, I would deal first with the question of fiscal Preference in relation to Imperial development and co-operation. Let me say at once that I approach this problem as a firm and convinced believer, not in fiscal Preference, but in a full and straightforward use of the phrase, in Imperial Preference. I see in the strength and unity of the Empire, and in a closer understanding between all branches of the English-speaking race, hopes for the preservation of international peace and for the advancement of civilisation not inferior to, and not unrelated to, those which we place in the League of Nations. I would develop and extend this principle of Imperial Preference into every sphere —into finance, transport and communications, and so on. Here I would ask the Prime Minister if shipping is to be included in the subsidies to which some allusions have appeared in the Press, as was suggested at the time of the Liberal Government in 1907?

I would extend preferences into every sphere except that which the Government is proposing under the resolutions of the Imperial Economic Conference, a sphere in which we should debase the currency of Imperial intercourse, in which it would involve a fundamental alteration in the fiscal system of one of the great units comprising the British Empire, would increase the cost of living and the cost of production in these islands, and drag the Empire down into the arena of our party strife. Not because I differ from the aims which are expressed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, but because I believe the methods proposed for their achievement are destined to frustrate the very aims they are designed to serve, I oppose the policy of imposing duties on imports into this country in order to grant preferences to our Dominions. We have been solemnly warned by hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Dominions are at the parting of the ways. They are subject to great economic influences, which, in the phrase, I think, of the President of the Board of Trade, are "threatening the unity of the British Empire." The Prime Minister himself has said: being compelled, with inconceivable reluctance and abhorrence, to abandon their present allegiance, were being compelled to link their destinies with those of other nations, is it conceivable that this process could be arrested, that these irresistible economic forces could be stayed, by taxes upon dried fruits, honey, lime juice and tinned salmon? Did ever the leaders of a great party, did ever the statesmen of a great empire, at what they believed to be the crisis of their country's fate, propose means so disproportionate to their ends?

At the height of the fiscal controversy, about 20 years ago, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain turned upon one of his more timid followers who tried to water down his doctrines with the scathing rebuke,

The second consideration is that there is no comparison between the operation of granting fiscal preference in the Dominions, which merely involves lowering existing tariff walls, and to that extent lowering prices to the consumer at home, and increasing their trade across the seas, and the operation of granting fiscal preferences in this country. This congested little island supporting by its great export trade, built up upon a system of free imports, not merely the densest population of any territory of a similar size in the world, but bearing upon its shoulders the principal part of the burden of Imperial defence. For us these fiscal preferences, except so far as small and declining preferences could be granted upon duties levied for purposes of revenue, these duties involve a complete departure from our existing fiscal system, and once you cross that logical and clearly demarcated line of fiscal preference within our existing fiscal system, you enter upon a country in which it is impossible to construct any logical line of defence until you are driven back to the economic position towards which these duties now under discussion are intended to impel you, a position which involves the taxation, not only of staple articles of food, but also of raw materials.

It may be said that these preferences, trivial, petty, and even whimsical as they may appear, are just what the Dominions want. I hope that argument will not be attempted in the course of this Debate, because it really cannot be used except disingenuously by anybody who has studied attentively and with an open mind the proceedings' of the Imperial Conference of 1923. At that Conference the Prime Minister of Australia made it clear in his opening speech what the Dominions would require if fiscal Preference was to be elevated to the status of a recognised Imperial system. He said:

Other speeches were made on similar lines by other Dominion Prime Ministers. At the next meeting of the Conference—no doubt after consultations between the chairman of the Conference and the Dominion representatives—at the next meeting the President of the Board of Trade who was chairman of the Conference announced the policy of the Government. Speaking on behalf of Canada after the policy of the Government had been announced, Mr. Graham said: the thin end of the wedge which was to be driven into the very foundation of our system of free imports. There is another reason on the ground of Imperial harmony and unity why these Resolutions could not possibly be allowed to stand as they are. For the reasons I have given, and for many others which time forbids me to enter upon, I think fiscal Preference is always objectionable, and these Resolutions are doubly objectionable, because they involve Preferences as between one Dominion and another, and between one province of one Dominion and another province, and as between the different interests in the same province or Dominion. What I mean is that one article may be selected in order that on province or one Dominion should not be left out, not because we think it is necessary to a complete and logical scheme, but because someone said that that particular province must have a Preference of some sort given to it. To sum up this part of my argument I would say that I believe these Preferences are not only useless, trumpery and disproportionate to the needs they were designed to serve, and calculated to be harmful to the interests of this country, but that they were understood by the Dominion representatives themselves and intended by the Chairman of the Conference, who is the President of the Board of Trade, to pave the way for a radical alteration in our fiscal system, an alteration which I believe would not only be fraught with peril to the welfare of the people whom we represent but would be fatal to the unity, harmony and prosperity of the Empire.

I now turn to the consideration of the Government's unemployment policy, as disclosed in the second part of the Gracious Speech from the Throne, from which it would appear that, apart from pious aspirations which we all share for greater economic and political stability in the world, and more goodwill amongst all parties engaged in industry, and apart also from the promise to various old schemes "which have already been initiated" presumably by the previous Government and Governments before them, the Government's policy towards unemployment consists as to one part of fiscal Preferences to the Dominions and the Colonies, and as to the other and sole remaining part of the safeguarding of industries. Opinions may and do differ as to whether these policies in themselves are calculated to do good or harm to the interests of the country, but I have no hesitation in asserting, even taking a favourable view of these policies which I do not share that the Prime Minister himself is unable to feel any confidence or even to repose any real hopes, that these specifics will enable him to grapple with the evils of unemployment which immediately confront his Government. As to the policy of Imperial Preference in relation to unemployment, this is what the Minister of Health said in this House less than a year ago:

At the 1923 Election fiscal Preference and the Safeguarding of Industries Act were definitely linked with the general tariff, and included in the general economic policy upon which the Prime Minister asked the country to pronounce, and which the country finally, and decisively, rejected. Was there a single address, was there a single speech made from any platform in the 1923 Election which failed to contain some reference to these questions of fiscal Preference and the Safeguarding of Industries Act? Therefore, I say that the verdict of the country in the 1923 Election embraced both. But at the last Election how different was the situation. A few days ago the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, declared in this House that the result of the last Election was the people's verdict upon the Campbell case. What conceivable relation does that bear to the question of fiscal Preference or the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

There are, of course, wide differences of opinion as to what was decided at the last Election, but I think I shall carry the assent of hon. Members in all quarters of the House if I say that the affair of the Zinovieff letter, the Campbell case, and the Russian Treaties, carried with them the impression that the Government was under the control or under the influence of foreign revolutionary agencies, and that that was the principal issue at the Election. After that there came housing, unemployment, old age pensions and insurance, and a long way after came an occasional mention of the fiscal issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I will go further. I know that in many constituencies that I visited I was shown the election addresses of Conservative candidates, and in nearly all of those addresses that I saw the candidates said they were opposed to any fresh taxation upon food. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I went to another constituency where the Liberal candidate told me that, when he indicated his belief that the Conservative party, if returned to power, would enact fiscal Preference on the lines of the Imperial Conference Resolutions, involving fresh taxation on food, he was called by an expression which may be translated into Parliamentary language as meaning a retailer of terminological inexactitudes.

Therefore, I assert that the country definitely rejected both these proposals at the 1923 Election, when they were linked with the general tariff; but that, at the last Election, the country was lulled into a sense of security by the Prime Minister's assurances that no fresh taxation would be placed upon food, and that Protection would not be introduced by a back door; and the verdict which the country gave was in no degree related to the question of safeguarding industries or fiscal Preference. I would say this, that of the electors, more than 8,000,000, who supported hon. Members on this side of the House at the last Election, not 5 per cent, were in favour of these measures, but of the electors, fewer than 8,000,000, who supported hon. Members on the other side of the House, there was a large proportion, not alone in Yorkshire and in Lancashire, who were Free Traders by conviction. Therefore, I say that, if the right hon. Gentleman introduces these Measures and tries to force them through Parliament by a majority obtained on totally different and unrelated issues, it will be a constitutional offence.

Heavy, indeed, as I fully recognise, are the responsibilities which rest upon the Prime Minister and his Government, and perplexing, and even baffling, are the problems with which he is confronted. Yet, as the Mover of the Address finely said, great things are expected by the country of him and his majority. We do not wish to trip him up. We would, rather, gladly lend a hand. We applaud the Liberal sentiments and high ideals which he has expressed, and when he, axe in hand, advances upon that jungle of vested interests which, as he perceives, blocks all the avenues to the solution of great problems alike in the slums of our great cities and in the wide expanses of our country side, though hon. Members opposite may falter, we on these benches will hasten to give him our ardent and even impatient co-operation. But while willing and anxious to help, if the Government depart from the Liberal and Free Trade principles by which they won their majority at the last Election, we shall not be afraid to strike.

:The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) can hardly expect that he gave me a great deal of pleasure by his threat of direct action at the end of his speech, but I am grateful to him and to the Mover for the speeches, full of interest, that they have made, and I hope I shall be able to say something that, in its turn, may be of interest to them. But I should like to express if I may, at the beginning of my speech, the delight that I feel, after so many years, at still finding my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) in the forefront of this old battlefield. Many of us have missed with great regret the faces of those who sat on those benches for many years in the past and it was a great consolation to us, when we heard the results coming out on that historic night, to find that Leith had been true to him. I cannot imagine this House, I cannot imagine this perennial Debate, without him. The words came into my mind, when I saw him rise this afternoon—and I offer them to him as a greeting from the whole House— deserted by the right hon. Gentleman next to him (Mr. Lloyd George). Just as the words "private enterprise" always bring out all that is best in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and in the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Saklatvala), so does the word "Protection" always react on my hon. and gallant Friend, who, at the mere sound of it, comes tripping over the plain, with a child's bun bound to the head of his spear, looking at the path as he comes along to detect the cloven hoof of Protection. He has found it even in the King's Speech, on which I congratulate him.

I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded referred to one very important part of the Amendment, because I had intended in any case to say a few words about it by way of preface. That is the question of unemployment and what is being done in regard to it. I would only say, in passing, with regard to some passages in the last speech to which we have listened, that I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quite realised one responsibility which must rest on a leader in a democratic age. He has to work with the tools that the people of this country will allow him to work with, and we are doing the best we can in the circumstances. But it was quite true when he said, and there is no getting over this, that, as has been maintained from this bench and I think from that on for the last four or five years, even had we been able to carry our proposals last year you cannot get the trade conditions that in my view are essential for really good trade until you get an improvement in the general conditions of Europe. You must have real peace in Europe.

5.0 P.M.

There are two things to-day, as I view the horizon, perhaps slowly getting better, to which we must all devote our best attention. There is, commercially, the want of confidence that has been so striking throughout the last few years. I am in hopes that the execution of the Dawes plan may help us to stabilise conditions throughout the centre of Europe, and that we may see a return of that confidence earlier than would have seemed possible 12 months ago. I am not certain, but I hope it is so. But, above and beyond that, you have something in Europe that is still more difficult to grapple with, and that is a fear, Vague and impalpable, yet ever present, of what the future may have to bring in Europe and in the world. The people of Europe have but just emerged from the Valley of the Shadow of Death, and the chill of that dread passage is still in their very bones. Until Europe can feel security—political security—I fear we shall not see that restoration of complete economic confidence which is so absolutely necessary. Therefore it is that any Government in this country must devote, and continue to devote with infinite patience, the whole of its strength to helping Europe in those two separate respects, to regain its economic confidence and to banish that fear of the future, by enabling to grow up that political confidence to which we have not yet attained. But apart from these considerations, I am turning for a moment to what we are trying to put forward. I will merely say that the main structure of the relief system of unemployment is unaltered. It is what has been carried out now by four Governments and for three successive winters. Each year sees some addition to it, but in the main it must continue to be the application, with as much sympathy and skill as is possible, of the palliatives that have helped to carry us through hitherto. The measures that have been taken during these years are measures for the stimulation of trade and measures of direct financial assistance. I do not propose to weary the House by going into details which are far better explored on a regular unemployment Debate, of which doubtless we shall have one before we have long met in February. Under the head of stimulation of trade you have these two Measures, the Trade Facilities Act and the employment of Export Credits. I may say that the Government have just decided that, in proper conditions and in the aid of acceleration of industry, shipbuilding shall once more have the right of access to the Trade Facilities Committee. The great advantage of work done, I think, under the Trade Facilities Committee is that there, at all events, you know that whatever work is done will be carried out with a minimum of waste—waste which is unfortunately inseparable from schemes of public relief, however well they may be administered. Where you get work carried out by means of that Act, it is, as I say, economical work, generally work that can be done by skilled men, and therefore of exceptional value at this time. With regard to works involving direct financial assistance, of course, the greatest of the schemes that have been carried through by successive Governments have been the schemes in connection with the roads of this country. The road schemes have gone on being, I think, improved and certainly increased, year by year, and so far as they go, they are of great value regarding unemployment and undoubtedly of great value to the country at large. The grants to local authorities and public utility societies, again for accelerating work, are being continued. They have played a valuable part during the last three years. The various measures which were undertaken by the late Government are being continued. The schemes of land drainage, afforestation and kindred works are being continued through the present financial year, and will be considered with a view to their continuance in the next financial year with sympathy and consideration. One hopeful outlook at present, I think, is the growth of the sugar beet industry in this country, and there we propose to follow on the proposals of the late Government, and I am sure all Members must watch with satisfaction the gradual growth in the building of factories for that purpose in different parts of the United Kingdom.

There is one other subject on which I can only say a word. Many who are in this House will remember a speech made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on electrical development. I am having the schemes which were submitted to the last Government very carefully examined with a view to acting upon them if it can be proved that such action would be for the benefit of the country. More than that I cannot say at the moment. I hope it may be possible in the course of the present Parliamentary Session, when it resumes work, to report progress in that matter.

Now, perhaps, as so much has been said about the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it might he of interest if I were to tell the House in a few words what has been the result of the one part of that Act which is still in force, Part I, which dealt with a few select industries which were classified by the late Coalition Government as industries of national importance. The manufacture of optical glass, which had been done previous to the War to only a very small extent, has given considerable satisfaction to those who rejoice to see the growth of an industry in this country requiring so much technical skill. In the most difficult fields of that industry it has been singularly successful. Glasses for telescopes, process camera lenses, and various articles of that kind are now being made in this country of a quality second to none that is made in this world, and marked progress has been made in scientific glassware and in the manufacture of scientific instruments and in some articles, such as the cheap slide-rules and calculating cylinders, which are made in the mass. Those are now being produced in this country and being sold and giving satisfaction. Gauges and measuring instruments of precision, engineers' tools which used to come exclusively from the United States, although they are not yet produced in quantities or in grades, are getting a good hold now in this country. The wireless valve and the X-ray tube we now are able to manufacture as well as anyone else. That is a very good record for a few years' work in industries that may have been said to have no root in this country when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was first passed. They are industries of great value because they are, most of them if not all of them, articles of prime necessity in time of war. But above all—and this is always a source of great satisfaction to me—they are industries which do require the greatest amount of personal skill, and therefore of the greatest value to our people. It has always seemed to me that the more we are able to educate our own people the more we want to have openings like this, like the fine chemical industry, which is another industry which is included in the Schedule of the Act, in which the more educated and the more highly developed of our people may go for their training, and to earn their livelihood for the benefit of their country and themselves.

Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which was allowed to lapse this summer, was in force, in my view, too short a time for us to form any sound judgment as to the value of that Act as it was drawn. The difficulties in forming a conclusion arise from one or two sources. In several of the eases of goods that were brought under the second part of that Act, the statistics were very complicated by the importation into this country of enormous quantities for stock, and these quantities had to be absorbed largely during the running of the Act itself. And secondly when the duties were taken off, in some of the articles included in the Act, there were no separate lists connected with the amount of importation. So really we have not the information on which to form a reliable judgment. There are just one or two facts that may be for the most part related or for which there may be reasons. In regard to gas mantles. When the duty came off there was a very largely increased importation and, at the same time, no change in price, but all the articles which were included and which lost their safeguard by the dropping of the Act are, of course, equally eligible with other industries to try their luck under the Act which we shall introduce next summer. The fact that they have enjoyed this shelter is no guarantee that they will get it again. They will be on the same footing as every other industry in making their claim. But on that I will have a word to say in a moment.

With regard to the safeguarding itself, I take exception to what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith has said, about our having no mandate for the safeguarding of industry. We have no mandate for Protection and we have never asked for it. I have said already, and I do not think I need repeat it, that I have no intention of using safeguarding as a wedge by which to introduce Protection, but for safeguarding we have a perfectly clear mandate. I mentioned it very frequently in my address and in my speeches, and whatever may have been the hon. Member's experience, I am convinced from my own knowledge that it formed a part of the Election addresses, or at least the Election speeches, of the great majority of the Conservative party. I am sorry I cannot answer all the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, but as the father, or shall I say the grandfather, of that Act is sitting next to him, who kindly asked me to take charge of the Bill in this House, they might, perhaps, have some interesting conversation together. But when the Bill is introduced, all these questions will be most properly asked and will, I hope, be answered with equal propriety.

I think, however, it might be for the convenience of Members and for the industries of the country if I lay down two or three principles. Any industry which might desire to be safeguarded under the Safeguarding of Industries Act must be one of substantial importance, and it must be efficient. It must be subject to exceptional competition arising from such things as depreciated exchanges, bounties or subsidies, and lower wages in foreign countries or longer hours. I am not at all sure that it would not be fair to take into account the differences in taxation as between this country and others. Any duty, in my view, levied under the Safeguarding of Industries Act should be a general and not a particular one. The discriminating duty against a particular country has its drawbacks in working. If you put on a general duty there is no breach of the most-favourednation clause in Treaties, and you do away at once with the cumbrous and vexatious machinery of certificates of origin. It would certainly be our intention in any duty we imposed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act that a Preference on those duties should be given to the Dominions. Proof would have to٭ be given, as it was under the last Act, to a Committee, but so far as the protection of any industry goes in this Parliament the only avenue open to them is the avenue through the new Safeguarding of Industries Act. I should like to pass on from that to say a few words on the Preference question.

:There is one point that is not very clear. The right hon. Gentleman said the duty would be a general one. Does he mean that, if the Committee found that in one particular country there was unfair competition because of lower wages and worse conditions, a general duty would apply to goods that came from other countries where the wages were higher and the hours the same?

:Yes. A general duty against all countries. I said there was one subject to which we attached a good deal of importance which was discussed and agreed to at the last Imperial Conference. That was the constitution of an Imperial Economic Committee. It was, hon. Members will recollect, a Committee of a purely advisory character to deal, on lines analogous to those followed by the Imperial Shipping Committee, which has done such valuable work under the chairmanship of Sir Halford Mackinder, with the general question of promoting Imperial trade apart from what may be called matters of Imperial policy, such as tariffs, and it was turned down at first by the late Government on the ground that the assent of all the Dominions had not been given to its constitution. But I am very glad to tell the House, in case they have forgotten it, that the late Government consulted with the Dominions afterwards and were able to secure unanimous support to the principle at any rate of the desirability of setting up such a Committee to work provisionally and with a specific reference. I congratulate them very much on having achieved that, and it is our intention to follow it up. The specific reference to this Committee, to which the Dominions have already been invited to nominate members, is this:

I come now to consider the Resolutions which were passed by the last Economic Conference and which were defeated in the last House of Commons by a very small vote. It is our intention to bring before the House all those Resolutions which involved reductions of duty, and on them no question of any kind, so far as I am aware, can arise. It is quite true they were defeated by a small majority in the last House of Commons. It is equally certain that they will be carried by a large majority in this House of Commons, and it may be that some of those who voted against them in the summer may be found to be supporters of them in the forthcoming year. I think it is most likely, although of course we have not had time yet to go into all these matters, that they will be included, subject to such modifications as may have resulted from a lowering of the dried fruit duties and any other changes which may have been made, which I have not in my mind, in my right hon. Friend's forthcoming Budget.

I come now to the more contentious question of the taxes on what are called foods. The House will have in recollection the pledges on the taxation of food which I gave during the Election, notably at Gravesend. I have no desire to explain or to qualify in any way what I said then, and I am quite aware that the remarks I made in that speech were taken by many candidates and many electors literally and apart from the context of the speech. The context of the speech might have modified them, but I recognise what the plain man understood by what I said, and so I am going to adopt the plain man's interpretation and I am going to stand literally by my words. What was said in the speeches to which I have listened this afternoon is quite true, that you can never get a complete system of Preference as it has been understood in this country until such a time as the country consents to have taxes on food, by which I mean taxes on the food of normal, general and daily consumption. Such taxation, as I have admitted freely on the platform and elsewhere, is not to-day practical politics in this country, and the question is what we can do to bring about what I fancy we all desire, and that is increasing trade with our Dominions and making arrangements by which we may import Dominion produce into this country rather than the produce of foreign countries. I do not think there are half-a-dozen Members of the House who would take exception to that or would not be glad to see it, not only on sentimental but on strictly business grounds, because we all recognise that, whatever may happen in exchange or imports from other countries in the world, the tendency of the exchange is to get imports from the Dominions and for the Dominions to buy more and more from us, and, apart from that, anything that can ease the situation for this country by diverting the exchange from New York cannot fail to help us in our general trade and in the payment of our debts. So, broadly speaking, what I shall propose—I regret I am only able to give the barest outline to-day—the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) will admit it is rather early in the Session to be able to deal in detail with such a very complicated matter—what I am proposing to do, broadly speaking, is that the full money equivalent of the advantages which would have been conferred on the Empire in respect of all of those duties which are not retained should be devoted to the scheme for developing the trade of the Empire, and in the first case developing schemes of marketing.

I come back now to the terms of reference, which I gave earlier, to the Imperial Economic Committee. The money that we estimate it may be possible to allocate for this purpose is a round £1,000,000 a year, and we think that with an economic Committee of the kind we have in view, with expert members from this country and from the Dominions, and with terms of reference such as I have given to the House, it may be possible to open up entirely new and untried ways of developing trade with the Empire, trade which will bring in Empire stuff in lieu of foreign stuff and it may be, and I hope it will be, of far greater benefit to the Dominions themselves than those two or three small taxes which we proposed a year ago at the Empire Conference. The first subjects which we propose to remit to the Imperial and Economic Committee for consideration are meat and fruit. We cannot touch the question of meat or fruit by taxation but I have hopes that it may not pass the wit of man to devise some scheme where, without taxing the food of our own people, we may be able to alter to some extent the course of trade to the benefit of the Empire and for the benefit of our own people. I want to repeat once more, with emphasis, that in giving this assistance it is the hope and intention of the Government that it should be used to enable the Dominions to secure a larger share of that part of the home market which has to be supplied by importation from abroad. The Dominions have always recognised that our home producers have, and should always have, the first place in the home market but they ask—and we think rightly ask—that they should have a preference over foreign countries as regards that part of the home market which cannot be supplied by the home producer.

Perhaps the House will allow me to make one or two general observations in conclusion. I believe the majority of hon. Members of all parties desire ardently the welfare of our Empire SIS 3f whole, and not only of separate parts of it. Those who would regard the dissolution of the Empire without a pang are a negligible minority in this House, or anywhere else. Most of us would endorse the Resolution passed at the 1917 Conference, and accept the views laid down then. The House will allow me to remind them of the terms of that Resolution:

:Before I proceed to make a few observations upon the interesting and, in some respects, remark- able speech which the Prime Minister has just delivered, I may be permitted to congratulate the hon. Members who occupy an exalted position below the Gangway on this side of the House upon having preserved, so far, in this Debate a united front. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) will, indeed, deserve to be congratulated if he can succeed in maintaining that reunion to the end of the Division to-day. He will have succeeded in bringing back into the Free Trade fold the author of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; the Prime Minister under whose régime Imperial Preference was instituted, and the right hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. Runiciman), who, on personal grounds, I heartily congratulate on his return to the House of Commons. If there is to be a Liberal party in the House of Commons in future, there is no man in that party who is capable of rendering greater service than the right hon. Gentleman, with his wide experience in administration and his great business experience. The right hon. Gentleman was associated with the notorious tariff proposals at the Paris Economic Conference.

I may especially congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Leith if he does succeed in bringing back into the Free Trade camp the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I think it will be within the recollection of some of the older Members of the House that some time ago the hon. and gallant Member for Leith pronounced the final decree of separation between the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the Free Trade party, in the well-known words of Browning, when he declared that we should never hear the right hon. Gentleman's sweet accents again in defence of Free Trade. However, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will succeed, because in the fight which is evidently before us for the maintenance of Free Trade principles we shall need the support of all who realise that the commercial prosperity of this country depends upon the continued maintenance of a Free Trade policy.

Now I turn to what I describe as, in some respects, the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister. The speech would have been more interesting if he could have lifted the veil of Cabinet secrecy and have told us of the character of the debates upon this question which have taken place between himself and his colleagues. I wonder if we would be wrong if we attributed this remarkable change of policy on the part of the Government to the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, as we all know, is a very expert political acrobat. Much as we have admired the facility with which he can change, I will not say his political principles, but his political party, some of us have always believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had any firm political convictions, he was a convinced believer in Free Trade. The most interesting speech, or at least the one that will be awaited with the greatest interest in this Debate, will be that to be delivered, I understand, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall wait to hear how he reconciles the proposals, which are to be introduced under the title of the Safeguarding of Industries, with the maintenance of Free Trade principles.

I was interested to hear the Prime Minister say that he did not propose Protection. The country, he said, had declared that it would not have Protection, and, therefore, he proposes to give us a Safeguarding of Industries Bill. A rose by any other name, we are told, will smell as sweet. Protection means the imposition of a tariff on imported goods. A Safeguarding of Industries Act means the imposition of a tariff upon imported goods. The purpose of Protection is to protect industries in this country against foreign competition. The purpose of a Safeguarding of Industries Bill will be, according to the ideas of the Government, to protect industries in this country against foreign competition. Therefore, in the name of common sense, what is the difference between Protection and the Safeguarding of Industries? The actual operation of the two things is precisely the same. The only difference is that, according to the Prime Minister, one is Tweedledum and the other is Tweedledee.

The right hon. Gentleman has rejected most of the Resolutions of the Economic Conference on the ground that he found it difficult to reconcile the recommendation of those Resolutions to the House of Commons with certain Election pledges that he gave. Why was not his respect for public pledges applied to the question of the general tariff? There is no difference in principle between the two things. I am quite ready to admit that we cannot at the present time—it would be unfair to the Government—attempt to criticise the proposals in detail, because they are not in detail before us. Therefore, our criticisms can only be of a very general character, based upon the very meagre information that the Prime Minister has submitted to the House of Commons this afternoon. I will take the order in which the right hon. Gentleman made his statement to the House.

First of all, he dealt with the question of the further application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Before I deal further with that matter, may I say that I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister claim credit—some measure of credit, not a very great amount—for the success of the Safeguarding of Industries Act during the few years that it has been in operation. The right hon. Gentleman, it is true, confined himself mainly to Part I of the Act, which deals with key industries. He was significantly silent in regard to the effect of Part II of the Act, which deals with anti-dumping and imports which come from foreign countries which have a low rate of exchange. May I give, very briefly, one or two facts in regard to the operation of the Act, because an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. We have had during the last few years in operation to a limited extent the very system which I understand it is now the intention of the Government to more extensively apply.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to optical glasses and scientific instruments and the like. I wonder, in regard to that, whether it is not the fact that, for the first time, British brains and British skill have been applied to the development of this industry which is far more responsible for the success that this new industry has already achieved than any protection it has received under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. There was another case about which the Prime Minister was quite silent, and, indeed, in regard to scientific instruments and optical glasses, the Prime Minister did not give the information as to whether there had been any considerable reduction of the imports of those articles from foreign countries during the last two or three years. At any rate, in regard to another key industry, arc lamp carbons, which, I understand, are used mainly in connection with cinemas, after three years there is a larger proportion of these articles, notwithstanding the imposition of the duties, being imported into this country than was the case before this legislation was enacted.

I take it that the main purpose of the proposals which are to be submitted to the House is to deal with anti-dumping, with unfair competition. The right hon. Gentleman must be very well aware that the Protectionists have failed to produce a single case which could be proved before a Statutory Committee as entitling the industry to protection in this country because of the dumping of goods from abroad. There have been two cases brought before the Statutory Committee. One dealt with glass bottles from Holland and the other with vulcanised fibre. After the Committee had considered the claims put before them for protection against this alleged dumping, they rejected both as being untenable. I do not think it is necessary that I should say much in regard to imports from countries with depreciated currencies, because that matter is not so severe as it was at the time the Act was passed. I remember that in a speech during the Election the Prime Minister referred to the probable menace of German competition. He made that reference in connection with the operation of the Dawes Report, and in connection with the proposal which he has put before the House this afternoon for the extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

It appears from what he said on that occasion that he was aiming in this proposed legislation at dealing and dealing only with this possible German menace. Whatever other grounds there may be for fearing German competition, it cannot now be alleged that Germany in the foreign markets would derive any advantage from depreciated currency. I noticed that a few days ago the renten-mark was placed upon the London markets for the first time, and its value is higher than the value of sterling on the New York market. However, under the depreciated exchanges part of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, there have been about 100 claims submitted to the Committee. Eighty-five of those claims were rejected at once as having no case whatever. The Committee finally dealt with the remaining 15, and out of the 15 only four survived the inquiry. The most notorious of those survivors was the fabric gloves industry. What happened there? At the time when the protective duty was imposed there were 20 fabric glove factories in this country, and since then 75 per cent, of them have closed down. Evidently, in that case Protection, even if you call it the safeguarding of an industry, does not protect to the extent of keeping an industry alive.

In regard to the gas mantle trade, it was pointed out by a Committee that inquired into the matter some time ago that the main reason why the gas mantle industry of this country was not able to compete against foreign countries was the over-capitalisation of the industry. Therefore, we have practical experience over a period of some years of the futility of the proposals which the Government intend to submit to the House. May I quote another case? It is a matter in which I was specially interested. I refer to the repeal of the McKenna Duties. The right hon. Gentle man will remember that 12 months ago we had a very, shall I say, heated or excited debate in this House on a day specially set apart for the purpose upon the proposal to repeal the McKenna Duties. Hon. Members will remember the kind of stump agitation by which that proposal was accompanied. They will remember the ridiculous and absurd statements which were made as to the effect which the repeal of the duties would have upon employment in the motor trade. I see opposite the Under Secretary for the Home Department, a Member of this House for whom I and every other Member has the highest possible regard. There was issued in his constituency by his own political association a leaflet which said that if the duties were repealed two million men would be thrown out of employment. The hon. Member I know repudiated——

:I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that that statement was repudiated.

:I was about to state that. Mr. Morris said that one million men would be thrown out of employment, and a notorious London newspaper beat the lot by stating that four million men would be directly or indirectly affected in their employment by the repeal of the duties. The Prime Minister himself, in the course of the Debate, said, "Your motor car will cost you more. The repeal of the duties will not lower the price of cars, and in a year you will be paying more for your cars." What are the facts? Is the motor industry ruined? Birmingham is the great market for motor-car shares, and you have only to look at the Stock Exchange report to see that the motor industry is booming, since the repeal of the duties, as it had not boomed for a long time before. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith has already quoted testimony of a notorious Tariff Reform organ, the "Daily Express." May I quote an authority which will be accepted by every Member of this House as being greater than even the "Daily Express" or the "Daily Mail"?

There is in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-day a reply to a question given by the Minister of Labour. The Minister was asked yesterday what were the figures of persons employed in the manufacture of motor vehicles at present and the number of unemployed, and the corresponding figures a year ago. The Minister of Labour replies selfishly interested in the maintenance of the duties at that time in order that they might put bigger profits into their own pockets. That was just a sample of what you will have carried on universally if the House of Commons places upon the Statute Book an Act of the nature set forth by the Prime Minister this afternoon. You will have every industry in the country clamouring for protection. Why should you refuse protection to one industry if you are going to give it to another? It may be that the Prime Minister does not intend that this Measure shall be the thin end of the wedge.

:The right hon. Gentleman said so, but as an intelligent man he knows that it will be the thin end of the wedge of Protection, that you cannot have a partial tariff, and especially a partial tariff carried out, or proposed to be carried out, in the way set forth by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I hope the Prime Minister will excuse my language if it appears to be somewhat brusque or rude. I do not intend it to be so. But unless, when the Prime Minister fully explains his scheme to the House, he can make it more intelligible and show the working of it more clearly, the only thing I can say about it is that it is the most impracticable and ridiculous suggestion for a tariff that ever emanated even from the brain of a Tariff Reformer. An industry, he tells us, has to prove that it is efficient. Is there any industry that does not believe it is efficient? How is efficiency to be decided? Who is going to prove whether an industry is efficient or not? Are you going to set up a committee and is this committee, in the case of every application, to have the right to go into the factory or workshop and examine the books and the ooimmercial transactions of a firm? Are they going in to criticise the management and to say that this particular thing or that is not efficient? Who is going to settle it? The thing is utterly impracticable. One could understand a general tariff, because all these impossible inquiries would be unnecessary if you had a general tariff. If an industry survives the ordeal of proving its efficiency, then it has to prove that it is subject to unfair foreign competition, and the right hon. Gentleman includes everything in "unfair competition." There is the rate of exchange. Well, the exchanges fluctuate very rapidly. The state of an exchange might one day justify Protection under this proposed Act, and it might in a week or two so improve that the case upon which the tariff had been imposed would have entirely gone.

Again, labour conditions are to be taken into consideration. That is rather curious. British industry is to be protected against low wages and bad conditions in other countries. But nearly every other country except this is a Protectionist country, and the great argument that has always been addressed to the working people of this country to induce them to support Protection is that Protection means higher wages, more work and better conditions. Yet the Prime Minister is going to ask the House of Commons to give him powers to impose a tariff against the produce of the sweated conditions of protected countries. How are you going to decide, taking all circumstances into consideration, whether the wages in one country really are, in respect of the cost of living, higher or lower than the wages in our own country. But this is the most important point of all in that connection. The Prime Minister is a business man with business experience, and he knows that the competition which is most to be feared is not the competition of countries with low wages, long hours and a low standard of life. Before the War, so far as European countries were concerned, Germany was our most formidable competitor, and she had become more formidable because there had been in the years before the War a gradual improvement in working-class conditions in Germany. [HON. MEMBERS: "Under Protection!"] It makes not the least difference. No Free Trader would make such a foolish assumption. They have much more intelligencce than to believe in the absurd fallacies of Protection, and no Free Trader has ever been so foolish as to say that the fiscal policy of a country alone determines its commercial position. As in the case of Germany, as in the case of the United States, technique, business management and other things may overcome the hampering effect of tariffs, but the prosperity of such a country would be greater still if it were under a system of Free Trade as this country has been.

An efficient industry in this country may be suffering from foreign competition. It makes no difference to that industry whether it be the competition of a country where conditions are good—and therefore would not entitle that efficient industry to protection under the scheme to be proposed by the Prime Minister—or whether that severe competition is due to the causes mentioned by the Prime Minister. That only shows the impossibility of carrying out any partial scheme of tariffs such as the Prime Minister proposes to submit to the House of Commons. I can only think of one thing which can have induced the Prime Minister to make such a proposal, and it is this. Suppose that the Safeguarding of Industries Act applied only to a country where conditions such as he mentioned had been proved, then the Government would have been up against a most-favoured-nation clause, and the Prime Minister proposes in order to get over that difficulty to punish the just and the unjust alike. He must punish the unjust, and at the same time he is going to punish the just. Let us take a case in point. A country like Poland would I suppose fulfil the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister as to low exchange, long hours, low wages sand bad conditions generally. Suppose some efficient British firm found it was suffering from Polish competition. The case is established and a tariff is given. If I understand the Prime Minister aright, that tariff is to be imposed not only on goods coming from Poland, but on goods coming from the United States. Does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to work a policy like that? If he does, then I give him credit for a credence which I might admire, but which I should never hope to emulate. We shall await the introduction of the Bill before we discuss this matter further, but I think I have said sufficient to show that the Prime Minister must not expect that that Bill will have an easy passage through this House.

I wish to say a word or two about Imperial Preference. I said that probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for the Government flouting the Dominions and breaking the faith of this Government—because this Government is the same Government that was in office at the time of the Imperial Conference. Last year, when the Debate upon these Resolutions took place, we were told that we were in honour bound to implement the decisions of the Imperial Conference. What becomes of it now? Why are all these new duties thrown away? The Prime Minister says he is going to compensate the Dominions by giving them £1,000,000 a year. Why the maintenance of the Empire has now been reduced to a cash nexus. The Empire is to be kept together by a subvention from this country to the Dominions of £1,000,000 a year. Although we are given no credit for any attachment to the Empire we did far better than that last year. We made an additional grant to the Dominions for the encouragement of Empire migration of £1,000,000 a year. We gave £1,000,000 a year for the next five years for that one purpose alone. Under the Trade Facilities Act we are giving for the next five years a sum which I understand will amount to about £5,000,000 altogether by way of paying a considerable part of the interest upon loans which have been raised by the Dominion Governments for the development of their respective countries. If you add together all we are doing for our Dominions and compare it with this additional £1,000,000 which the Protectionist Members of the Government have succeeded in wringing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—if you add all we are doing for the Dominions together and put it by the side of this £1,000,000 a year, why you would not be able to see the speck of the £1,000,000.

:The objection is not the amount of money but the way in which it is going to be spent, because it certainly will not achieve the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have in mind. We are not opposed to spending money in promoting the development of Imperial trade, provided it is done in the right way. This is merely a subvention which is going to increase the price of food imported from the Dominions and, therefore, going to increase the burdens upon the consumers in this country. Then again I shall have considerable sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year. He has agreed to the demand set forth in certain (of the Resolutions off the Imperial Conference for a further increase in the amount of the preference. That is going to cost the right hon. Gentleman a good deal of money. I have no strong feeling upon this matter. There is all the difference in the world between such a proposal as that and a proposal for the imposition of new duties on articles which hitherto had not been taxed. If it takes the form of a reduction in the duty on taxed commodities which come from the Empire, it is in effect a reduction of taxation, and if the right hon. Gentleman can afford it, I do not think he will meet with very much opposition from any quarter of the House.

I do not envy the task of the Prime Minister in trying to get through this House a Bill such as he has indicated. From one point of view I do not regret that it is to be introduced, and I am especially glad that the Prime Minister has decided to introduce this legislation in the First Session of the new Parliament. In all probability this Parliament may have three or four years of life. I suppose the Government will succeed in passing this Bill. There are not the numbers to prevent them. We shall beat them in argument every time, but in the end this Parliament will beat us in the Division Lobby. They will carry their Measure. It may have three years of operation before the next General Election. It will be found to be not merely harmful but futile. The Prime Minister said the question of Protection was not an issue at the last Election. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it will be an issue at the next Election, and I know— and if hon. Members opposite and the party to which they belong are capable of being taught by experience, they know too—that whenever the question of Protection is placed before the country as a clear issue, then by an overwhelming majority the electors of this country will reject it.

:The declaration made by the Prime Minister this afternoon is, I think, one of the gravest I have heard from the lips of a Prime Minister in this House. He has practically announced a transformation in our fiscal system. There can be no mistake as to the real meaning and import of his words. They mean that the fiscal system upon which the trade and commerce of this country have been built for the last 70 years is to be completely changed by the operation of proposals which are falsely called an Amendment to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. He has really announced a general tariff, and I shall point out later on what I mean by that. It is having regard to the gravity of that announcement that I deeply regret the rather laboured, stale, and, if I may say so, rather silly gibes which my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) thought necessary to hurl at people who agree with him about that announcement, and I think he is the last man in this House who ought to do so. There was no Minister in the last Parliament who received more generous treatment from the party to which I belong than he did. I think it would have been very muv/h more to the point if, instead of hurling sneers at the unity of a party for which he is not in the least concerned, he were in a position to announce that the Members behind him are going to be united in support of his criticism upon these proposals. That would be very much to the point, because, while he refers to what I have done about the safeguarding of industries and what my right hon. Friend did about the Paris Resolutions, he might also recollect some of the speeches delivered from behind him in the late Parliament by Members, some of whom I see sitting here, that were of a very Protectionist character. Therefore, if, instead of trying to convert us here, he had addressed his observations to people with whom he has some influence, I think it would have been very much more to the point. I was bound to make that observation, and I regret that my right hon. Friend should have made it necessary to do so.

Now I come to what is really, after all, the business of this Debate, and that is the very important and far-reaching declaration of the Prime Minister. I will first of all deal with what he said about the Imperial propositions. I agree here with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, that it is not very clear what the intentions of the Government are. I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman, because, after all, he has not had very long to consider these proposals in detail, but, if I understand them, he does not propose to impose any duties upon food with a view to granting a preference to the Dominions and the Colonies. The long schedule of things which it was intended to put in the category of dutiable articles under the original proposals of the right hon. Gentleman will no longer be placed in that category. If there are any extensions of preferences, it will be in reference to existing duties. There will be no fresh duties created for that purpose. That is what I understand, but the right hon. Gentleman means to set aside £1,000,000 with a view to promoting trade and commerce within the Empire. He wants to think out the best way of doing that, and I can well understand that.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I attended the Imperial Conference in 1907, with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party, who then was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there our alternative to Preference was the expenditure of a sum of money, not merely by ourselves, but by the whole of the Dominions, with a view to facilitating the transport of goods from the Dominions to us and from us to the Dominions. I do hope that the Government will not regard it merely as a question of facilitating the carriage of goods from the Dominions here, but also the carrying of goods from here to the Dominions, because that was the proposition that was put before the Imperial Conference of 1907 by a Government which had just 'been returned upon a very overwhelming Free Trade vote. But I remember how difficult it was to carry that through, and I have always regretted that that proposition was not developed and carried through at that time. I have always felt that it is in the interests of this country, that it is in the interests of the Empire, that a special endeavour should be made to encourage business between the various branches of the Empire in all parts of the world. It strengthens the Empire, it strengthens the ties of Empire, it gives us a more reliable basis for our trade and for our industries. More than that, when the time of peril comes you have the resources of the Empire developed, and you will have done your best to increase the population under the flag instead of their having to resort to other lands.

I have always urged that, but I have never thought it was possible, apart from questions of principle, that you could ever carry a tariff which would involve a tax upon meat, upon bread. If you did it the result would be that the moment the cost of food became high you would have an anti-Imperial sentiment created in the country. Eor that reason, I preferred a method by which you could facilitate the carriage of goods from the Dominions here and from here to the Dominions, but which, so far from increasing the cost of the commodities which we receive, would lower the cost. That was the proposal that was put forward, but why was it not carried? It was not because the Free Trade Government of 1906 and 1907 refused to carry out their bargain. It was because we had this preferential tariff idea in the minds of many people here, of many people in the Dominions, and they felt that if you had a substitute for that, it would be impossible afterwards to carry through a tariff system; and the Tariff Reformers in the Dominions and here entered into a conspiracy with men who took, as I thought then, a very extravagant view of their Free Trade principles. So you had an unholy alliance between extreme Tariff Reformers and extreme Free Traders to prevent a policy of Imperial trade throughout the Empire. If the right hon. Gentleman's idea is to facilitate the transport of goods, to facilitate intercourse between the various parts of the Empire, to facilitate the marketing of their goods here and of our goods there, by means which will not put up the cost of living and the cost of raw materials, then I am exactly where I was in 1907, where I put forward proposals before the Imperial Conference of that day, with the full assent of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and of Mr Asquith.

I now come to the safeguarding of industries, and this is really a very grave declaration that the Prime Minister has made. What was the Safeguarding of Industries Act? I am now dealing with the part which has lapsed, and not with the other part. I am not defending it, because it is not in issue at the present moment. Something totally different is to be proposed by the Government— totally different. Why was it introduced? It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. He said I was the grand- father, and he was the nurse to carry this through the House of Commons. I am not sure that he cared much for the bantling—he would have preferred something sturdier—but at any rate he wheeled it through the Lobbies, with very good humour, I remember. What was the idea of the Safeguarding of Industries Act? It was to meet a temporary emergency, an emergency such as had never arisen in the whole of the intercourse of nations. There had never been anything comparable to it. It baffled the astutest political economists in Europe. The predictions they made, some of the ablest political economists in Europe, look childish to-day. Why? There were no precedents, there were no data, there was nothing they could compare with in the past. Who would have conceived it possible that the German mark would have become trillions to the £? They were nightmare figures. There was a sense of madness when you looked at the lists. That was something that the world had never seen, and it was incomputable what would happen, and there is no doubt at all that it thoroughly frightened those who were concerned for the trade and commerce of this country.

What was it that was supposed to be likely to happen? The British sovereign held its own, and it constantly appreciated. Every Continental coin—at least, of all the great countries—depreciated. The sovereign, therefore, at that moment was purchasing goods in Germany—less in France, but, certainly, in Germany— and in other countries at something like a third of the cost of production. One constantly met people who said: "Look at what I have bought at Cologne." It was something worth about £50, and you had got it for a £5 or a £10 note; and this spread, and everybody said: "If that continues, the result will be that goods will come to this country at something like a third or a fourth of the actual cost of production." The Act was designed to meet that contingency. The Germans themselves got frightened. They said: "Goods are pouring across our frontiers at ridiculous prices," so they imposed a heavy export duty upon commodities to prevent their being sold at these prices. The Government of the day, under advice, said: "During this period of fluctuating exchanges, we will introduce provisions that will make it im- possible for goods to come at a bankrupt rate into this country and completely dislocate the industries of the land."

It did not turn out as was expected, and I say so as one of those who were primarily responsible for seeing that that Act was carried, and there are no Members sitting on that bench who were in that Government who will say that things turned out quite as we expected that they would in respect to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Why? The first thing that happened was this, that the Germans, owing to the debased character of their currency, had no credits abroad and could not buy the raw material of their manufactures at a price which would enable them to compete with us. That was the first thing. That was foreseen, I must say, by some of the critics of the Act, but there was a second thing that was not foreseen by the critics of the Act—and I have read the Debates—and that had a much greater influence than even the first. What was it? It was the effect of fluctuations of exchange in Germany upon the home market. What happened? A man would have 20 dollars in his pocket, and he would say, "If I bank these 20 dollars, they will not be worth a fortnight hence one-quarter of what they are to-day. Instead of banking them or putting them in a stocking, he buys goods. The result is that no one saves, everyone spends. If you bought a piano or any article of clothing it would be just as valuable a fortnight hence as to-day, and so they instantly converted their money into goods. The result was an artificial fostering of the home market. The demand for home goods became exceptionally abnormal. The whole of the factories of Germany were working night and day in order to supply this feverish demand for goods. That is one reason why the Germans could not sell across the frontier. They were too busy supplying the demand at home.

Let us compare the position of this country, America and Germany, when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was carried. Our credit was good, and getting better every day. The United States of America were, of course, the richest country under the sun. You had 5,000,000 unemployed in America; you had 2,000,000 unemployed in) Great Britain. Our credit perfect, the United States of America and ourselves deflating. In Germany there was no unemployment; they were working full time. In France, with their coin getting more and more debased, they could not find labour. That was the condition under which that Act was carried. But what is happening to-day? You have stabilised currency in Germany substantially, and the danger now is not that of fluctuating exchanges. Your danger is that the credit of Germany has been restored. She can buy her raw material just as cheaply as we can. She has re-equipped her factories. That is what you are face to face with, and this Act is perfectly worthless for that purpose.

What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? Unless I am mistaken— if I am mistaken I shall be very glad for whoever speaks from the Government Bench to correct me—he does not propose to inquire what the effect of fluctuating exchanges is upon trade. He is going to have an inquiry in respect of each commodity, that is, in respect of each commodity where the manufacturers seek to get special protection, and, of course, they will all seek it. What happens? First of all, let us take iron and steel, because that is the usual case. The manufacturer comes and says: "We would like to have a tariff. Our ground is that steel is being sold in this country, steel which is produced by a country which pays lower wages, where the workmen work one or two extra hours a day. We, there-force, demand protection, and we are, of course, very efficient." It is only natural for them to say that. All they have to prove is that steel is coming to this country froni a country where the wages are lower. That can easily be done, and if you can prove that the wages are lower in Belgium, France or Germany—and, of course, you can—then a general tariff is imposed in respect of iron and steel from wherever it comes. I ask whoever is going to reply from the Government Bench, what commodity will escape? Can he name one? Woollen goods, machinery, cotton goods—go through the whole list. They could all make that case—every one of them. You might prove that goods were coming from Japan to this country, produced in factories where the wages are lower, and, therefore, you put up a general duty against the United States of America, France, Germany and everybody else.

That is not a very straightforward way of putting up a general tariff. At the preceding election, the right hon. Gentleman went to the country and said, "I cannot protect British industries by an amendment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act." If he is right now, he could have done it then. There is no trade that is hit at all on which you could not have put a tariff in 1923. He felt that it was not fair, that it was not dealing honourably with the electorate, after he had said he was not going to put on a general tariff, to impose it afterwards by means of an amendment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Would he mind telling me what is the difference between 1923 and 1924? I may have misunderstood the declaration he made. If I have, I say at once I shall be very gratified; but I say, that upon the simple declaration he has made now, I would ask the Minister who is going to take part in this Debate to point out a single commodity which would not be covered.

I should like to ask another question. There are certain goods brought into this country in a semi-manufactured state. They are the raw material of another trade. There was one referred to in the Times "last week—steel. The steel-rolling people protested against a duty on steel, because they said they depended on the cheap steel which came from abroad to provide employment for the people who rolled steel in this country, and they said, "If you exclude foreign steel, you will throw thousands of our workmen out of work." The same thing applies in our part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Dr. Williams) will be able to bear me out. Take tin plates. They are Very largely dependent upon the cheap steel coming from abroad. You cannot even get it from this country, and it is very important that the price should be kept down. Engineering trades depend upon it: shipbuilding trades depend upon it. I am going to ask whoever speaks in the Debate, when there is a Committee of Inquiry into the question of the effect of duties upon employment, will the secondary interests be entitled to appear before the Committee, to give evidence, to cross-examine and present their case? If not, there is no protection for the industries in this country.

Has the Prime Minister analysed the trades of those who are unemployed at the present moment? It is worth his while doing it. They are not the trades, in the main, about which he is thinking. They are trades which are dependent upon the purchase of the semi-manufactured articles. There are some which are purely export trades—coal mining, for instance. You have 130,000 unemployed there. How are they going to be benefited? In engineering, 114,000, dependent upon getting their steel, their raw material as cheaply as possible. Shipbuilding, 92,000. Cotton is in the main an export trade. There is no competition which really affects cotton. The difficulty with cotton is China, India, and the trouble in the East. Building and contracting, docks, the distributive trades —go through them, and you will find that four-fifths of the unemployment is in trades that will be hit hard by any tariff.

May I put another point to the Government very seriously? I am not one of those who think that we have not very anxious times in front of us for British trade. I think we have very anxious times in front of us. Our difficulties will not be with the home market, but with the foreign market. The home market, if it were really imperilled, we could protect in a very short time if it were necessary, but if you lose the foreign market for a season by a blunder you will not recover it. The thing that enables us to keep the foreign market is not the fact that people buy things because they are British. It is because we are selling goods of the same or better quality at a smaller price, and the purchase of these semi-manufactured articles is essential for that purpose. All these things are essential for the purpose of enabling us to hold our own in the struggle which is coming, and it is a very serious one. There are, I know, hon. Gentlemen here who regard all foreign goods in the same way as the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) regards alcohol, as something that ought to be prohibited. Restrict it if you can, but the best thing of all is only to allow people to use foreign produce on a medical certificate.

The danger of proposals like that of the Government is this: It is taking the mind of the country away from the real method of facing that competition. A question was put yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir G. Doyle), and I wanted to see the answer. I am sorry it only appeared this morning, but it is a very instructive question and answer. The hon. Gentleman put a question as to the percentage of goods, from the point of view of quantity, which were sold by us in the year 1913 and in the years 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923. Taking 1913 as 100, last year we exported only 75 per cent, of what we exported in the year before the War. But that is not the full significance of it. Three years ago, in 1921, we only exported 50 per cent. In 1922 we exported 65 per cent. In 1923, 75 per cent. I have no doubt that this year we shall export more. We are getting a larger share of such business as there is than any other country in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] A larger share, a larger percentage of the business in the neutral markets of the world.

Take Germany, the country which is really in the main aimed at because of the formidable character of its competition. Germany last year did not export 25 per cent, of what she did before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about France?"] The figures in France are vitiated for this reason: Alsace-Lorraine introduces an absolutely new element into the figures. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members laugh, but you have these figures of the potash, iron, and steel produced in Alsace-Lorraine, which are introduced for the first time into the figures of France, whereas they were formerly in those of Germany. You must make that allowance, undoubtedly, when you are judging the figures of Germany. If you were to add these figures to Germany you would find that Germany would not be selling more than 30 per cent, of what she was selling before the War.

The thing that matters is that we should be prepared to face that competition in the neutral markets. This proposal takes us away from the best method of doing that. Any business man knows perfectly well what the difficulty is. You have to consider the lowering of the costs of production—not by the lowering of wages. Often you can increase the wages, and at the same time increase production and lessen the cost, and this by a better understanding between those who are engaged in the industry. Better co-operation, yes, and increased efficiency in equipment and management. These are the things upon which we ought to concentrate. The worst of proposals like that of the Government is this: it is taking the mind of the country away from the method of confronting the most dangerous competition which we are ever likely to be confronted with by substituting this vicious, false, artificial, barren scheme for a real method of confronting your difficulties.

Protectionist countries, I know, are doing exactly the same thing, but they have realised that they cannot depend upon it. They have had experience of it, and, therefore, they are able to judge. They are turning to the reorganisation of their industries. They are overhauling their factories. Could not we do the same thing without Protection? The danger is that this is a new thing here, and the real danger is that if you put this forward now as a new method of dealing with competition those concerned will say: "We need not be in a hurry; let us see how this works out." It is a novelty here. It has worked out in other countries. They know its value. They know its merits. They know they cannot depend upon it. So they are taking real methods. I hope that in the course of this Debate to-day we shall have a declaration from some Minister who will make it clear that the Prime Minister does not really mean in 1925 to do something which he did not think strictly right to do in 1923 without putting it before the country. Does he imagine, if he had said to the country that hy this method he was going to impose a general tariff, that he would have had the support which he had at the last election—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—of the hundreds of thousands of men of the same way of thinking as those sitting on these benches—as he knows. I do earnestly hope, therefore, that the Government will not pursue this course which, I think, will be full of disaster to the industries of this country.

:I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, or take up the time of Private Members who wish to address the House, and we on this side would have contented ourselves with the speech of the Prime Minister, and the speech of my right hon. Friend who is going to follow subsequently, had not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made the comment that he has upon what I call, and what I think most hon. Members of the House will call, the plain, straightforward speech of the Prime Minister. In order that there may be no misunderstanding in this House—I do not think there will be in this House—but that there should be no misunderstanding, or misconception, outside this House I desire for a very few moments to reinforce the points which have been put and explained by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said that the announcement of the Prime Minister was something new and unexpected. It really was nothing of the sort. The Prime Minister has restated to-day in identical terms the policy he announced at the last General Election, which he stated in his speech at the Albert Hall in May, and in his late Election address. Let me quote. At the Albert Hall on 7th May, 1924, the Prime Minister said this:

"We propose to deal, so far as we can, if and when we return to power, with the industries suffering from unfair foreign competition arising from depreciated currencies, from lower wages, and other standards of living by some means analogous to that of the Safeguarding of Industries Act by which "—

Hon. Gentlemen opposite at the time made great play with the words "analogous," and wanted to know what it meant.

"by which special measures might be taken to deal with special cases after due inquiry and consideration."

:I shall be very glad to find I have misrepresented the Prime Minister, but surely there is nothing there to indicate that a general tariff would be framed against all countries—where a case might supposed to have been proved?

:I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not like to misunderstand, but the point is quite an elementary one, and what I have quoted shows the precise difference in the policy on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to the country in 1923—and lost the Election; and the policy upon which he went to the country in 1924—and won the Election ! In his Election address this year the Prime "Minister repeated in practically identical terms what he had previously said: —

"While a general tariff is no part of our scheme we are determined to safeguard the Empire and the standard of living of our people in any efficient industry in which they are imperilled by unfair competition by applying the principles of the Safeguarding of Industries Act or by analogous measures."

Where you have an industry which is subjected to abnormal and unfair competition, either because of the exchanges, or the conditions of labour, or the rates of wages, or the relative rates of taxation, where, I say, you get this foreign competition on a scale likely seriously to affect an industry of importance, then we propose to deal with the matter. But the Act is not going to be applied to industries which are not so subjected. It is only where the industry is of rub-stantial importance and great and serious harm is done. In such a case we have always maintained that our policy leaves us perfectly free to take what may be the necessary effective steps in order to retain our position.

:Are we to understand that, where a specially unfair competition is proved in the case of one country, that a general duty will not be levied against all countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

:I will explain what I mean if hon. Gentlemen will kindly allow me to do so in my own way. What we intend to do is that, where there is a case of unprecedented competition, of unfair competition, in an industry of importance, our purpose is that the Safeguarding of Industries Act should safeguard that industry by a duty placed upon all the imports from all foreign countries—[HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and that was precisely what the Prime Minister said' There is all the difference in the world between that and the general tariff. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There is as much difference between that and a general tariff as there is in the size of the Liberal party and the size of the Conservative pjarty in this House.

7.0 P.M.

We have both the courage and the honesty of our convictions, and we know by experience that while discriminating duties are one of the most harassing and-one of the most ineffective ways of safeguarding industries, we propose to take one simple and obvious course, and that is in a proven case to put a specific duty on against all countries. One of the criticisms, in fact, the most acute criticism, that was advanced against the Safeguard-ing of Industries Act by Liberal critics in the past was that the Act was quite ineffective, because you could not applyit against any country with which you had a Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty. It was perfectly fair criticism. Another criticism was that you had all the hampering obstruction of certificates of origin which had to be imposed not only in the countries against which the duty was imposed but in all the countries round its border. I remember time after time criticism being advanced on both these grounds. We take the step1 of imposing a duty in the necessary case against all countries from which the importation comes. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "in that case anybody could come in. You have only to prove a little steel is coming from Belgium or a little silk from Japan." That really is not the case. An industry if it claims the benefit of this Bill, has to prove that the competition is on an unprecedented scale and is causing serious unemployment. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman is right. If there is to be no serious competition in these important industries, then the Act will never be put into force in a single case, and I can profoundly wish that that was a certain forecast of the future.

:The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement now which the Prime Minister did not make. He said it is necessary to prove that the competition is on an unprecedented scale. The Prime Minister did not say that. May I ask if that is the case? We ought to know it. Does that mean that if there is no more steel coming to this country than in 1913 then it would not be an unprecedented scale and the Act would not apply?

:A de tailed question like that ought to be reserved for the Bill. I would say now and at once that one of the tests unques tionably to apply test of competi tion is what is the relative ratio of imports to production. Undoubtedly it is one of the tests which must be applied. Unless an industry is able to prove its case a duty will not be put an. The right hon. Gentleman said the difficulty you have to face is the difficulty in neutral markets. I would remind him that when a great Free Trader was defending the Safeguarding of Industries Bill in this House at his request and he was met with that argument from those benches, he said, "People seem to think you can divorce your export trade from your home trade. It is impossible. If you have not got any home trade you cannot afford to keep your factories running simply for overseas trade and being in that position your home trade comes to an end and your overseas trade would automatically follow suit. He went on to say that an export trade without a home trade was merely a flower without a stalk. That admirable metaphor was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who said it was a fantastic travesty of Free Trade to ignore so simple a proposition. I found myself on another dictum, and that is the findings of the Balfour Committee. That was in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George's) own time; then I think under the leadership of Mr. Asquith. That Committee was established. It contained a number of very eminent Free Traders. It contained representatives of all industries, representatives of labour, representatives of all schools of economic thought. It made a unanimous report, and one of the recommendations of its report was this, that it was absolutely vital in the years that lay before us where an industry of substantial importance to this country was threatened in its existence by foreign competition that this country should preserve its right to safeguard such an industry. That was a report which was accepted at the time, I think, by every single party in this House, and it is upon that report that the Government are founding the policy they now propose to carry out.

:In presuming for the first time to address this House, I seek an extension of that traditional indulgence and courtesy which is extended to new Members. The views of the Labour party on this Amendment are well known to this House, and, briefly, they may be stated that neither Free Trade nor Protection, as such, will solve the greatest of all problems, namely, the problem of unemployment, poverty and squalor, the canker of our present industrial system. After all, that is the acid test. One would think, listening to some of the speeches on my left, that the unemployment problem had just occurred immediately following the period of the War. Those on these benches who have had experience of the workshop know, much to their cost, that it is by no means a new problem. We know the same thing applied to our fathers and grandfathers. The unemployment problem is inherent in the present system, whether it be Free Trade or Tariff Reform. While saying so, I want to assure hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches that while we here are Free Traders, we are not slaves like our Liberal Friends to it; we are satisfied from experience and have sufficient evidence that tariffs would considerably aggravate the unemployment problem. Reference has been made this evening to the possible effect of a tariff on the steel trade. I happen to be a representative and one of the chief officials of the largest and most representative trade union in the iron and steel trade in this country, and I claim to know some little about it. I want to assure hon. Members that there is a real danger of doing considerable and incalculable harm if a tariff or anything which is imposed will increase the cost of raw steel coming into this country or that is manufactured in the country in respect of the production of sheets and tin plate, of which 85 per cent, is exported. To give a preference to the steel trade in this country, particularly the heavy steel trade, it will be necessary to impose a tax or tariff of something in excess of 30s. per ton on unfinished steel which may be imported. If that be done I can assure the House it will practically paralyse the sheet and tin plate trade of this country.

It is well known that in the heavy steel trade there is an association for the regulation of prices, and, if you are going to protect that trade, it can only be by the imposition of a tariff which will increase the price of the raw material of the sheet and tin-plate trade by no less than 30s. a ton. I can assure the House that from the workpeople's point of view, that will be dangerous, and also on the authority of someone who is able to speak on the manufacturers' side. Mr. F. Scarf, Chairman of the Steel Re-Rollers Association, states, among many other significant things in dealing with the position of the heavy iron and steel trades in this country: meet foreign competition, they disbursed nearly the whole of their profit, with the result that much of the plant in this country is absolutely out of date. Some of the more prudent firms, some of those who saw further ahead than others, have remodelled their plant. I have seen a statement by the Chairman of the Re-Rollers Association that there is no lack of business in the heavy steel trade, but they cannot function because there is not sufficient profit on contracts. Profit in this industry is the determining factor as to whether they function or not. I would ask my Liberal Friends why they did not carry out some of the things they promised should be carried out when they had the power to help this industry. One of the most iniquitous burdens that any industry could be called upon to bear is the injustice of royalty rents and way leaves and ought to be abolished. No other industry suffers in that respect like the coal trade and the steel trade. We call upon the Government to deal with that at an early stage. No matter how the workpeople roll up their sleeves, we cannot hope to carry a burden of that description and be continually called upon to pay those heavy charges.

I want, in conclusion, to safeguard my remarks from increasing the difficulties of the manufacturers. We want to help them, and the organisation of which I am one of the chief officers has contributed very largely to do so. Disputes are practically non-existent in our trade, yet in the heavy section of the steel trade we have unemployment to the extent of 23·4 per cent. The average of the country is 11·1 per cent. In the pig-iron trade unemployment amounts to 17·3. We may be very ardent Free Traders, we may dislike, and I profoundly dislike, the imposition of tariffs, believing it would aggravate the present situation instead of helping it, but we would be blind to the real facts of the case if we did not face up to the 'situation and appreciate the point that an important staple industry like this ought to be thoroughly examined in every branch, particularly as to the managerial side, and as to the effect of royalty rents handicapping the industry in foreign competition. The suggestion I put forward is that there should be a thorough inquiry into this most important industry, the third most important industry, I believe, in the country. When that inquiry takes place it should not be, as has been far too often the case, an inquiry only as to how more profits can be made or where the profits have gone to. We want an inquiry which will permit all the workpeople's representatives to have an equal say with anybody else. When you do set up such a Committee, and when you consider its recommendations, I trust the House will bear this important point in mind, that the workpeople in this industry, as in every other industry, because of their improved status, are claiming a definite say in the management and control of the industry, on the welfare of which they must depend for their very existence. I trust these remarks, however inadequately they may have been put forward, may prove beneficial, and I am obliged to the House for its patient hearing.

:I am unable, like the last Member, to claim the traditional indulgence and forbearance of the House on the ground of being a new Member. It is 14 years since I last had the honour of being a Member of this House—four years before the commencement of the Great War—and, although I cannot claim the indulgence due to a new Member, I think I must claim as much indulgence for appearing almost like a denizen of another world in a new sphere, though happily I find the same kind feeling still operating on all benches. I have never been able to understand why it is that fiscal questions seem to excite the odium theologicum , and the intense feeling and generate the extraordinary heat, that hardly any other subject provokes. It seems to threaten, and sometimes to break, friendships; it certainly has broken up important sections of parties; and there seems to> be an amount of heat brought into the discussion which prevents full and fair consideration by one side of the points put forward by the other. That is a further ground on which I ask the indulgence of the House. I should not have ventured to intrude in this Debate but for the fact that I have the honour of representing a working-class constituency where they hold strong views with regard to the policy announced by His Majesty's Government in the Gracious Speech, and hold the very converse of the views expressed in this Amendment. They believe the introduction of tariffs and Preference will reduce the burden of taxation, will reduce prices, will reduce the cost of living, will help industry, and will increase employment.

I ask the House to consider one or two facts which I assume will receive general acceptance. In the first place, I submit that tariff questions, and indeed, all fiscal questions, are purely economic in their character, and that a country is entitled to adopt any policy it may deem expedient in the interests of its own people; in other words, that no moral principle is involved either in the question 'of free imports or tariffs, although you might not always think so by the way arguments are met. The conditions of the industrial world to-day are totally different from what they were 80 years ago, when the so-called Free Trade campaign was opened in this country. At that time no such thing as a hostile foreign tariff existed, while in the words of Cobden himself this country occupied a position in the world in which we were unrivalled as manufacturers. At that time we could afford the risk of commercially disarming, of opening freely our ports to the goods of other people, because we got thereby the 'benefit of the free importation of foodstuffs and raw materials, and none of the disadvantages arising from hostile foreign tariffs excluding the work of the British workmen from foreign lands. The more food and the more raw material we imported, the more manufactured goods did the world take. The world did not want to exclude our goods, it needed them, and other countries were then not our rivals. To-day, as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had frankly to confess, we stand alone in the world with our industries and our markets unprotected. Every other great nation, including our own Dominions, has done that which is the first duty of any government to do, namely, to stimulate the productions of its own people by protecting them in that which they can produce and require, and letting into the country free of taxation, or with only such taxes as the revenue requires, all those things which the people require and cannot produce.

Another truism which has been lost sight of in this generation is that Cobden, whose name is taken without authority by those who to-day call themselves Free Traders, never advocated a policy of free imports. What Cobden advocated was the free interchange of commodities between nation and nation. That policy has never been in force, and when a man says to-day, "I am a Free Trader," I generally ask him, "If you are a Free Trader, have you got it, or do you see any prospect whatever of getting it?" We have at present a one-sided, what Mr. Joseph Chamberlain rightly used to call a lop-sided, system, with no reciprocity in it, although reciprocity is the essence of Cobden's gospel. Free Trade remains to-day a theory, an ideal if you lake, which has never yet been attained, and which to-day is much further from attainment than at any time during the last 80 years. That the reduction of a tariff or market toll by one nation in favour of another must depend upon the power of negotiation of the two parties, is also, I assume, a truism which no Member of this House would question. To this I would add the paradox that the only way to procure Free Trade as taught by Cobden, or freer trade as we desire it, is by the possession by each of the negotiating parties of something with which they can bargain and trade with the other. But the nation that has already given away everything is in a hopeless position in endeavouring to obtain from any other nation any modification of its existing fiscal system.

As to the authority of the Government, which was so curiously questioned by the Mover of this Amendment, I imagine that those who recognise and acknowledge the authority of a Mandate cannot question that the Government are armed with the fullest Mandate from the people with regard to the proposed legislation both with respect to the safeguarding of industries and with respect to Imperial Preference. I would venture here once more to make a statement which I do not think can be too often repeated, and that is that the fallacy in which those who call themselves Free Traders believe, that an import duty falls upon the consumer universally, is untrue. It depends upon whether the article imported, and upon which the duty has been put, is or is not being produced in the country to which that imported article is admitted. If the imported article meets with no rival, if there is no untaxed home-made article to compete with it, of course, in that case, the tax must fall upon the consumer. Our tea, our coffee, our sugar—subject to the modifications which, happily, are now on foot in connection with production in this country—and our tobacco, cannot be produced in this country, and there is, therefore, no home-made untaxed article to compete with the imported taxed article. Of course, therefore, in every instance the consumer not only pays the full tax, but pays a profit upon that tax, because it is part of the cost of the article to the importer or to the merchant who has to finance the payment of the duty, and, therefore, he gets his profit on that as well as on the rest of the cost of the article. But where an article can be produced within our own borders, then the imposition of a tax, as has been proved by experience, falls either wholly, or at any rate in part, on the importer.

The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said, truly enough, that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and I should like to put to him what is at least a hundredweight, if not, indeed, a ton of fact against his ton of theory—namely, the case of one of our own Colonies, the Colony of Victoria. I do not think the fact can be too widely stated that the Colony of Victoria—which, of course, was a Protectionist Colony before the institution of the Commonwealth—after a generation's experience of a protective tariff, appointed a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the effect of the tarff, which had been in existence for 24 or 25 years—its effect upon employment and upon the price to the consumer. That Committee, after an inquiry extending over nearly two years, and conducted in every part of the Colony, gave this unanimous finding: the rate of payment, and the conditions for health and comfort—and quite rightly so. But they know, and none know better, that employment must depend on markets, and where does the proper protection of labour exist, how can labour in this country have a fair chance if you leave a wide open door of entry to foreign-made goods produced under conditions as to rates of pay, hours of labour, and so on, to say nothing of taxation, which enable the foreigner to undersell the products of our own workpeople in our own markets, and thereby increase unemployment and increase the burden of taxation for every surviving industry? I am sure of one thing, and that is that, either with or without their present leaders, the time is not far distant when the Labour party themselves—I mean by that the workmen, the labourers and the operatives themselves—will not only consent to, but will demand from the Government that the same protection shall be afforded to them for the result of their labours as our own fellow-countrymen in every one of our Dominions demand and insist upon to-day.

If the system be wrong, if it be economically unsound, how is it that, with the exception of Great Britain, the whole of the civilised world to-day, including our own Dominions which are under the control of the workpeople themselves, who form their own Governments, whatever differences they may otherwise have, insist upon the maintenance, and even the increase, of that safeguarding of their industries which they have found has been good for employment, good for the rate of wages, and good for the standard of comfort in living? I know that the Government is pledged not to introduce Protection into this Parliament, not to use the Safeguarding of Industries Act as a wedge for introducing it; but I am sure that, when the people have realised by actual experience the blessings which must follow the safeguarding of our industries and the effects of generous measures of Imperial Preference to our Dominions, it will be the people who will demand, at the next Election, a full extension of the principles of a scientific tariff I am obliged to the House for the patience with which it has listened to me.

:The hon. Member who has just sat down says, if I understood him aright, that the people whom he represents, contrary to the wording of this Amendment, believe that a system of tariffs or preference will decrease the burden of taxation, decrease prices and decrease the cost of living. If he took with him on a visit to his constituency the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, they might, perhaps convert him to the view that a system of tariffs would mean a reduction of prices and a reduction of the cost of living. At the present moment it is quite clear that the Colonial Secretary is not of that opinion. He quite clearly understands that any system of preference, or any system of tariffs that might be imposed in this country, would naturally imply a rise in the cost of living and a rise in the price of the commodities sold.

It has been very interesting, while listening to this Debate, to see that the Minister of Agriculture has paid merely fleeting visits to the House while the Debate has been on. No doubt he had a very good reason for those fleeting visits. He much prefers to be outside the House during a. Debate of this kind. He has difficulties of his own—very serious difficulties. There are the promises which have been made to the farmers of this country. The party opposite and the Government have always claimed to be pre-eminently the friends of the farmers. They have convened a Conference, and the right hon. Gentleman has summoned several parties to that Conference; and among the people who have been asked to take part in the discussion are the representatives of the Farmers' Union. The right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty. I cannot imagine that the Minister of Agriculture could have listened with pleasure to the speeches of the Prime Minister, either here or during the Election, when he said that there was to be no taxation upon food, clearly implying that there would be no Preference in favour of the farmer on the goods that he produces in this country— that no tariff would be imposed for the protection of the farmer. Otherwise, as the Prime Minister well knows, it would involve a tax upon food. That is not disputed. Mr. Balfour, as he then was, speaking on this question some years ago, said:

I can quite understand the embarrassment that is caused to the Minister of Agriculture when he has been asked pointedly by the Farmers' Union what is going to be done for them. It is very little consolation to the farmer to be told that there will be a system of Imperial Preference, that we are going to give a preference to the colonial farmer, whether in Australia, in South Africa, or in Canada. It is very little consolation to the farmers of this country to know that colonial produce, whether it be Canadian wheat or Australian mutton, is going to be imported into this country in preference to foreign produce. That is not going to bring about the improvement in agriculture about which right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be so anxious. Their main anxiety is about the condition of British agriculture to-day, and yet, during the whole of this Debate, so far, there has been no suggestion that there is going to be any assistance to the farmer in any shape or form.

The Prime Minister himself, when he spoke at the Albert Ball, after the letter that had been sent by the Farmers' Union and the questions that had been put by them, found that he was in a tremendous difficulty. What was he to do? He had already said that there was to be no taxation on food. The only promise held out by the Government during the whole of his speech was this:

:Whatever may be said on the other side of the House in relation to the policy which has been announced this afternoon by the Prime Minister, there is no doubt whatever on this side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the right course in announcing his intention of protecting the industries of this country in the unfortunate position in which they are found to-day. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) are extraordinarily ready to criticise when any question of protecting British industries comes before this House. We all know that when we were in the throes of a great struggle, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was charged with the administration of this country, he repeatedly held up his hands and declared, with all his dramatic effect, that never again would the day come when the industries of this country would be left in the terrible position in which they were found to be during the War. We happen to be the only nation apparently endowed with a monopoly of economic wisdom. Every other nation in the world not merely continues to maintain a Protectionist system for the safety of its home markets and to have some power of bargaining, but there is not one single State with which I am acquainted to-day in which there is any movement of any pretension for the repeal of existing tariffs.

Take the United States, where Protection has apparently run mad. Is there any single Congressman to-day who would venture, in standing for the American Legislature, to make his platform the repeal of American tariffs? Would any Congressman venture to make that one of the grounds of his appeal to his constituents? In this country we have 1,200,000 persons out of employment. In the city of Birmingham—I think on this matter I can speak for all my colleagues in the representation of Birmingham—we desire not a universal or general tariff, not the imposition of tariffs that will increase the price of food, but the taking of such protective measures as will prevent goods produced in foreign countries under lower standards of living and with lower wages coming into the shops of our city, and preventing our own people having continuity of employment.

On this side we are not arguing Protection for Protection's sake. We are asking for it because we know it is the only potent means by which in these days of international competition we can preserve continuity of employment in our own industries. I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister did not take his courage in both hands at the last Election and go out boldly for a general tariff. I made no qualification whatever in my own position before my constituency, and I think the verdict was substantially in favour of my point of view. In this country we are continually in the position of being unable to make any struggle for our competitive rights in foreign communities. During the course of the last few years I have visited almost every nation in Europe except Russia, and I have discovered that in every one of those countries the present-day attitude of their statesmen is to do everything they can to protect the industries of the whole of their people and encourage employment within their own territory. Take Czecho-Slovakia, for example. That is a new country where they are intensifying industrial production every day, and they are still enlarging their Measures for protecting their own interests. At the present time they are making international arrangements with neighbouring communities at our expense in markets which were formerly almost all our own.

I would like to say that the abandonment of the McKenna Duties during the last Parliament was one of the most stupid and foolish acts ever committed by any political party in this House. Today we are making proposals for a great variety of social reforms and we are the party of social reform. In the last Parliament the Government deliberately threw away £2,500,000 of revenue which would still have been at the disposal of this country for helping on very valuable social reforms if the previous Government had only had the statesmanship and common sense to allow those duties to remain. We have been asking for a return to penny postage in this country in order to facilitate the gradual expansion of trade, but we have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that would entail a loss of revenue.

8.0 P.M.

It is part of the policy announced by the Prime Minister that the working of the Trade Facilities Act and Export Credits schemes will be maintained. I appeal to the Government to take care in creating new machinery for the administration of these Departments to make their working a little more smooth and sympathetic. In the past the Export Credits schemes and the schemes put forward by the Trade Facilities Committee have demanded securities almost equivalent to those which would have been asked for by a bank. I submit that in the administration of these particular branches for the support of industry we ought not to apply such rigid rules. The Government ought to recognise that there are risks to be taken in giving extended credits to countries struggling to establish themselves like some of the Baltic States. Three of the Baltic States and Finland are now doing practically more trade with this country than Russia did before the War. Therefore I think there ought to be a more generous interpretation of the spirit of the Act which created these institutions, and I hope the Government will allow the wheels to move round a little more quickly in the way of granting applications made before these Committees than has been the case in the past. Now I turn to the question of the promises of the Government in relation to the sugar beet industry. The Government will take measures, by a Financial Resolution in this House, to carry out the promises that were made to sugar beet growers in the last Parliament. All I would observe is this, on that point, that I do not think, while we all desire to do everything possible for British agriculture, that we ought to go so far as to sacrifice a great national industry already in existence in carrying out that process. We have in this country a very great industry, in the sugar-refining industry, which has £12,000,000 of capital invested and gives employment to 8,000 people. I say that the Government ought to limit the application of its subsidy to beet produced for sugar to the production of raw sugar alone to a polarisation of from 96 to 98 and allow the production of refined sugar to remain in the hands of the sugar refiners who are competent to carry it put. The industry would be ruined by this proposal of giving what is practically 22s. per hundredweight as a preference for sugar grown in this country as against the refiners in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "And so help agriculture!"] We are helping agriculture. I am asking the same for raw sugar as for the other.

The other matter to which I will just refer for a moment is the importance of the electricity distribution organisation referred to by the Prime Minister. I am certain that the Government are wise in promoting by every means possible the continuity of private enterprise in this particular industry. The whole tendency of lion. Members' enterprise on the other side of the House was to nationalise the distribution of electricity. The experience of the continuous rise of the industry itself tends to demonstrate that it is only where private enterprise has the direction of the industry that the greatest measure of success is obtained. When you point to the great municipal successes in the distribution of electricity supplies, what you are really indicating is that business men of great capacity and competent business knowledge in that particular city or town have applied their training and business acumen to make it a success. It is the personal element which enters into the administration of the enterprise itself, though nominally under municipal control, that made this municipal enterprise a great success.

:In this country, where everything depends upon industry, I am particularly glad that the Prime Minister indicates that the burden of taxation will be one of the elements to be considered in determining what is an efficient enterprise. We are carrying a burden of taxation upon the industry of this country greater than has ever been imposed upon the economic life of a nation before. You have every section of the population deriving its maintenance directly or indirectly from organised industry, and on every sovereign industry can create we impose a burden of taxation of 4s. 6d. I am glad that in consideration of what is an efficient in this country and which is unfairly competed against by the products of another country, account shall be taken of the comparative burden of taxation borne by such industries in this and the other countries respectively. Personally I do not think the policy announced by the Prime Minister to-day goes far enough. I am a Protectionist—full-blooded if you like. I would protect every article coming into this country that tends to deprive a single man or woman of an hour's employment, and I would make the extent to which people are deprived from earning their livelihood at their every-day work the test for the degree of protection to be given. For all these reasons I strongly support the policy announced by the Government, and though I am sorry the Prime Minister did not go further and give more generous protection to the industries of this country, on the whole I am proud that he has gone so far.

:I was greatly interested to hear the announcement of the Prime Minister with regard to his policy, and was glad, at any rate, he had some constructive proposals to put forward on behalf of this Government, instead of the rather barren spate oratory which came from the Liberal Benches with no constructive proposals at all. May I be permitted to correct one misapprehension on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he suggested that there was a good deal of division on these benches with regard to these matters. Analysing the right hon. Gentleman's speech as he went along, it seemed to me as barren in suggestion and only fertile in the very complicated obscurities which do not help the situation in any way at all. While he was speaking I conferred with my right hon. Friend sitting in front of me, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we agreed that although there might be slight differences which divide us on matters of preferential tariffs, yet they were nothing to the ocean which divided us from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and all of his party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Borough had apparently no constructive proposals of any kind to put forward whatsoever, and it has been very striking this afternoon to hear the lack of any kind of proposals at all which have come from the purely Free Trade point of view.

The Debate has indeed been rather a barren one. Some of the extreme Protectionists have been quite as barren as the extreme Free Traders, if I may say so. After all, this matter is a practical one which ought to be judged by purely practical standards, and the question which I should like to address and, I hope, may be answered by the Minister who replies on behalf of the Government, is a very simple one and one which I believe goes straight to the root of the importance of the Government proposal. How is it proposed to relate the proposed changes which the Government is going to bring about to the standard of life of the ordinary workers in this country? How i3 the worker's standard of life to be one of the factors considered in this question? I am prepared to believe that a boldly conceived Dominion policy, with constructive proposals such as has been talked of in this House before, might put a new complexion on the life of this country and on the life of the Dominions. Those proposals have not been put before us this afternoon. They do not appear in the Gracious Speech. They have not been stated by the Prime Minister. We have had at best a very partial statement of what might have been conceded to the arguments which might be put forward by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had proposals put forward which can only have a very small effect upon the life of this country and upon the life of the Dominions, and I suggest that is for a reason elementarily simple, but one which has escaped the observation of a good many Gentlemen in this House. Look back to the discussions of the Imperial Economic Conference. Consider all of the matters in the discussion which ranged there round the three subjects of men, money and markets. I venture to say that, although the range appeared to be wide, the discussion was in fact only a discussion in a very narrow field.

Let me explain what I mean by that. The discussions were almost entirely concerned with those of the machinery of the Empire, not with the men, not with the standard of life, not with the condition affecting the worker's life of this country or in the Dominions; only from the standpoint of machinery. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will take the summary of the conclusion of the Imperial Economic Conference, with which no doubt they are all familiar, they will find that among all those subjects dealt with, only one, Workmen's Compensation, directly affects the life and the living conditions of the ordinary worker. There is nothing whatsoever about the standard of life. I do not suggest that is because the people at that Conference were hardhearted persons, only concerned about their own individual interests and not concerned about the standard of life, but I do suggest that it shows quite clearly that the consideration of the standard of life of the worker in this country and in the Dominions was to a very great extent indeed left out of consideration by that very important Conference. This consideration was not always left out of discussions on Preference. I have lately been refreshing my memory with regard to the speeches of a very eminent statesman who belonged to the other side— Mr. Joseph Chamberlain—who constantly referred to the question of the standard of life and to the effect of his proposals on the standard of life. But at the present time that consideration appears to have receded from the field. I think it is very largely because there are so many immediate difficulties round and about us that the main objective, which I take it must be for all of us the improvement of the conditions of life of the people in this country and in the Dominions, has been forgotten. The difficulties of Imperial cooperation between this country and the other Dominions are very many indeed. All kinds of serious questions will come up for consideration before this Parliament, no doubt, in the next few months —the question of the representation of the Dominions in this country, the problem of the methods of contact of the Government of the Dominions with the Government of this country in the determination of foreign policy and in the determination of economic policy, all most urgent questions—and in all these questions the Dominions are treated, quite rightly, more and more fully as complete partners in this association, the commonwealth of nations.

But if we are trying, and quite rightly trying, to solve our inter-Imperial trade problems by the policy of seeing that the Dominions have an equal partnership with ourselves, I suggest that we have forgotten another aspect of the matter altogether, and that is that the Governments which have considered these Imperial matters, whether in this country or in other countries, have been Governments which have only represented a section of opinion in the countries from which they have come and have not represented the whole of the nations in whose name they appeared to be speaking, and if you are to have a real partnership of Empire you must have a partnership, not only of the Dominions on equal terms, but a partnership of the peoples, and you must have the peoples within the individual nations also on equal terms within those nations. That is what you have not got. That is what vitiates the proposals of the Prime Minister at once, and to my mind makes nugatory the proposals of the Imperial Economic Conference, that the working people of the country and the working people of the British Dominions have not been sufficiently consulted or considered with regard to Dominion policy and Dominion affairs. Let me take some very concrete examples of that. It is commonly lamented by hon. Members in all parts of the House that the efforts of all parties, and all Governments, to make migration a success, have not been as fully successful as they might have been. Why not? Do hon. Members know what procedure has to be adopted by people who wish to go abroad? Do they think the atmosphere of the Labour Exchange is very encouraging to Imperial visions of splendour and magnificence in the future? Do they think that association with the admirable relief agencies of the Church Army, the Salvation Army, and Dr. Barnardo's Homes is the only doorway through which people in this country ought to look at the Empire? Do they realise—no doubt they have read the reports—that when you read what the Dominions want in the way of emigrants from this country, you read, in the case of Canada and Australia and all the countries, so far as I am aware, that what they are asking for with regard to men is chiefly agricultural labourers, and with regard to women, domestic servants? Is there not a very big gap indeed between the noble and exalted sentiments of hon. Members opposite, and the entry into the Empire of the common people in the guise of agricultural labourers and domestic servants? The facts of the case do not quite square with the vision and the beauty of the dream as outlined by Imperial speakers in the fervour of their enthusiasm.

We sometimes wonder why Labour in the past has expressed hostility to these migration schemes. I notice the hon. Member on these benches who was a member of the delegation that went to Australia to consider the conditions of emigration in that country, pointed out, in the special section devoted to his report on labour conditions, that there was unemployment in Australia, that the land was fenced wherever he went, that there was no free access to land, and that the same conditions existed over there as exist here. In that Report there is a big map of Australia and there is a little tiny patch representing the space which is at present under cultivation. That is an insignificant part of the total area available for cultivation at present. But under the existing conditions, whatever they are, it is a fact that all of that immense area of land cannot absorb the number of migrants from this country who are willing to go to it. The arrangements are not made. We must search rather more deeply into the causes underlying the failure in our Imperial organisation and not expect that it is going to be entirely cured by merely putting a little patchwork of Preference, on to our fiscal system. It is true that in the last Parliament I supported the preferential proposals then put forward by the then Opposition, the first four Votes, which did not involve the imposition of any further taxation, and I should in this Parliament take exactly the same action, but I should not now, and I should not then, if the matter had been pressed to a Division, have voted for any further taxation to be placed on food for the purpose of giving a preference, for the simple reason that I do not believe, and I do not think hon. Members over there really in their hearts believe, that by means of a little preference you are going to bring about any very great social change in this country or in the Empire. How are those preferences going to affect unemployment in this country? How are they going to affect the problem of migration to Australia? To a slight degree they may do so, but that effect will be very slight indeed. We must ask, and I think we are entitled to ask our Dominions, because we are speaking here as Members in an equal brother Parliament, as it were, to look into the ques- tion of the monopoly of land in their countries and to determine how far the monopoly of land is preventing the free use of those great areas of growth and a population such as they might, theoretically, bear upon them.

It is proposed in the Report of the Imperial Economic Conference which the Government propose to implement that-greater financial assistance shall be given to the development of the Dominions. I urge that much of that assistance should be given to enabling individual people to start properly in the Dominions and to start, not as inferiors, not as people going about in their country, whichever it is they go to, as they did in this, searching for a job from one place to another, but enable them to start as equal partners in that country That is really the way in which the situation may be, to a certain extent, improved. I also suggest that we should not forget our tropical dependencies. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has recently been visiting East Africa, may come home full of all kinds of suggestions for work in our tropical dependencies. We have there one of the greatest stores of untouched wealth in the world. I hope something may be done to develop that quickly in order to help trade in this country. But with regard to markets the Preference, it taxes were imposed, as I am very glad indeed to hear from the Prime Minister they are not to be imposed, could only have the effect of raising prices.

I am very glad they are not to be imposed, but what else is to be done? It is not enough really to say that you are going to spend something up to £1,000,000 a year on facilitating methods of transport. Why not, as the Prime Minister himself when in Opposition one night said rather surprisingly and very interestingly, go in for bulk purchases of wheat and meat? Why not get hold of the wheat supply of Canada, get it shipped in British ships direct to this country through the Panama Canal, stored in elevators to be erected and maintained here, so as to keep a good supply of wheat and so continually be able to govern the price by the amount released from those elevators? In the course of the Imperial Economic discussions Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, made some very interesting proposals indeed for the stabilisation of prices and the issue of import licences in order to regulate foreign trade coming to this country. I hope very much indeed that the Minister will indicate whether the Government have any intention of exploring those suggestions of Mr. Bruce and dealing at all with the question of the stabilisation of prices. It is possible to give an effective Preference to the Dominions, a financial and transport Preference, a Preference in better organisation than exists at present, and at the same time reduce the price of food. That would substantially improve the standard of life. The two main lines of development of the Commonwealth would appear to be the redistribution of population as partners in the Commonwealth—as men with a real stake in the country and not as people merely permitted to go in as domestic servants or agricultural labourers, and a definite attempt by definite State and inter-State organisation at cheapening the cost of food. I believe that it can be done. I believe that if the Government will do that, they will get away from this eternal controversy about Free Trade and Tariff Reform which is, if I may venture to say so as a new Member, one of the very dullest controversies that I have ever listened to, on both sides. Free Trade, obviously, takes you nowhere, and Tariff Reform seems to take you into such a tangle that hon. Members do not understand what they are saying. If we confine ourselves to direct and concrete suggestions for cheapening the cost of food, improving migration, and definitely adopting imperial organisation we may get on very much more quickly than by having these barren controversies on purely hypothetical lines.

May I make one or two minor suggestions, which may be of some service? One of the difficulties in regard to the development of the British Commonwealth of nations is that people do not know it, do not understand it, have not seen it. It would be a very cheap thing to do, and it would be one of the best possible kinds of propaganda, if the Government made Empire travel exceedingly cheap, and set multitudes of people travelling about the Empire. I would like to see delegations from all the different trade unions and from all the different commercial organisations of this country, travelling round the Dominions, seeing them, and studying them. To do that cheaply, would cost the Government very little more than the organisation of the effort, and it would have a tremendously beneficial effect on the whole policy of this country and upon knowledge in this country. There is no reason why we should not do what we do in regard to foreign countries. We exchange teachers and children with France and Switzerland. I should like to see teachers and children exchanged with the Dominions. That would be an exceedingly good thing. It has been done to a slight extent, and it might be extended.

At all costs, I do urge the Government to take the whole question of migration out of the atmosphere of the Employment Exchanges. The Employment Exchanges are not the proper places for dealing with this matter. Those of us who have the privilege of being Members of this House, and who think about this question and about the British Dominions, find that our minds rise, as it were, to the greatness of the subject. We think of the great lands which are to be peopled. A very different view must be the view of those to whom entry into the British Dominions is not a privilege and an opportunity, but only a last resource. That is the situation at the present time. I do urge that by making a change, by appointing definite migration centres and definite training schools in this country, where people can be kindly and courteously treated and be taught something about the kind of life they are going to lead in the Dominions, the whole matter might be removed from its present surroundings, in the case of the Employment Exchanges, of the underside of life, if I may so express myself.

One cannot but feel, from the point of view of a constructive, forward-looking politician, disappointed with the Empire policy announced by the Imperialist Government which is now in office. It is a very small instalment of Commonwealth construction. It does not take into account the most important factor of all, that of the standard of life of the worker. There is no mention of some of the greatest Imperial problems, recognised as such by all Imperial statesmen, such as the conflict of white and coloured labour, and the labour of different standards of economic height. There has been no discussion or suggestion of how the movements of great races like the Hindoos, the Bantus and the negro races are to be related in our great Empire. I believe that we can solve our great problems, but when I think of these problems of Empire that we have been speaking of to-night, related as they have been in the speech of the Prime Minister to the problem of unemployment also, I think of our problems in the slums of our great cities here. What is the good of talking about our great Imperial ideas if we are not able to clear up the muck, if I may so express it, which lies around our feet. If we cannot even deal with our slum question here, how shall we be worthy of the much greater inheritance which stretches out all over the world?

In my own constituency, two weeks ago, a little child was suffocated to death because there was not room in the room in which its parents slept, for all of them to be together, without the child being squeezed and suffocated. That was in Little Lant Street, close to a polling star ion at which a large number of people voted during the last Election—a street within 10 minutes' walk of this House, where we are this evening discussing these Imperial questions. All our Imperial ideas become a mockery if we leave these questions untouched. How can we deal with this question of the standard of life here; how can we hope to improve the standard of life, by which I mean the amount of food, clothing, leisure and the amenities of life which can be enjoyed by the worker, unless we apply our minds directly to the question, and not only indirectly, through the medium of Preference and other machinery?

I beg the Government, and I am sure that I have the sympathy of many hon. Members on the other side of the House, to get away from the machinery of these things, and to get down to concrete problems. I believe very strongly in the great future of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but I do not believe that we shall be successful in solving its problems unless, first and foremost, we consider these problems in relation to raising the standard of life of the worker in this country and in the Dominions.

:I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me the opportunity of speaking on this Amendment, and I trust that hon. Members on both sides will pardon an inexperienced Member like myself intervening in so important a Debate. Hon. Members will recollect that on the eve of the Election a pledge was given by the present Prime Minister that any Imperial Preference proposals which the Conservative party would introduce should not add to the cost of food. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), speaking in this House a few days ago, threw out some hints or inuendoes as to whether or not the Conservative party, now that they have been returned to office, would endeavour to differentiate between staple foods and foods that are not staple foods. He said that the pledge would possibly only apply to staple foods. In our Prime Minister we have a man whose honour, I say without hesitation, stands very high throughout the length and breadth of the country, and I never feared for one moment that there would be any such quibbling with words as to try to differentiate between staple foods and foods that are not staple. Tinned fish may not be a regular daily article of diet in British households, but it is a food, and it is almost a luxury in some poor households.

At Question Time yesterday someone raised the point whether beer was to be considered a food. Almost a sinister light is thrown on that question now, because if it could have been held that beer was food, I can imagine that hon. Members representing Devonshire and Herefordshire would have risen quickly to support the beverage of their counties, by holding that if beer was food, cider was food, and if cider could be proved to be food, apples would follow as a matter of course. Fortunately the Prime Minister has cleared the issue by his speech to-day. He has made it clear that the proposal of the Government is to introduce only the first four of the 10 items of Preference which the Imperial Economic Conference laid down. Those involve no taxes; indeed, they are all in the direction of reducing the cost of living in this country. I have not heard that point admitted by any of the opponents of Imperial Preference. If dried fruits, which are now subject to duty—figs, raisins, plums and currants—are made free of duty in the case of Empire-grown products, the result is bound to be the lowering of the cost of those commodities in this country. It would be the same with tobacco. We are going to give a substantial preference on the import duty on tobacco in respect of Empire-grown tobacco, and the working man's tobacco will cost him less. It will be the same with regard to wines and with regard to the halfpenny a pound preference on sugar.

The Prime Minister has not stated definitely what is to be done in lieu of the six other recommendations of the Imperial Economic Conference. I feel that he should give the Dominions the Preference that they desire, in place of those six, by subsidising the cost of the shipping freight. The Dominion products have to come from the uttermost ends of the earth, and this subsidy on freights, without our putting any duty on the foreign-grown fruit—for instance, fruit grown in Greece—would enable the Dominions to compete on level terms with similar products that came from foreign countries nearer Home. It has been complained that these proposals are only paltry, that if our Empire is to hang by such small threads, it is indeed in a poor state. This is not the first time that such expressions have been used in this House. In June last, when the proposals of the Imperial Economic Conference came before this House, the Prime Minister of the last Government spoke contemptuously about the provisions. The words he used were: that the very moderation of those requests, unanimously agreed to at the Imperial Economic Conference, ought to have made it certain that they would have been passed by the House of Commons unanimously. When I listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, I felt that they were speaking in some high and rarified air of economics and that they were not talking in the House of Commons of the oldest industrial nation in the world, a nation to which industry is life or death.

We are impelled by every possible motive to grant the Preference that our Dominions require. On the very lowest grounds alone we should do so. They are far and away our best customers. Our exports of British produce and manufactures in the year 1923 were valued at £767,000,000, and £300,000,000 of that went to the British Empire. There is no more pressing problem before this House than that of unemployment. I ask hon. Members opposite what would have been the state of unemployment in this country but for the trade that we got from British Dominions and Possessions? During the first half of 1924, out of £383,000,000 of exports, the Empire has taken £157,000,000, which is a slightly higher percentage than that of 1923. Forty per cent, of our total exports of British produce and manufactures have gone to our Dominions and Possessions. And they have given us Preference. I can imagine some hon. Members opposite, the ultra-doctrinaires, saying, "Ah, yes, but they bought that £300,000,000 worth of goods from us only because it suited them to buy from us. They were buying in the cheapest market, and they did not buy because of any feeling of loyalty to the British Empire."

Let us consider whether the Preferences that they gave us from 1897 onwards have resulted in greatly increased trade to this country. I think I can give figures which will shake the views of those who are opposed to the principle of Imperial Preference. Before 1897 we did not have Preference. The statistics I quote are for periods of five years at a time. For the five years 1895 to 1899, inclusive, the nearest possible five years' average I can give, we sent to the British Empire from this country produce and manufactures worth £81,000,000 per annum. That £81,000,000 has grown steadily year by year until the present figure is £300,000,000. Before 1897, when these Preferences were first given us by our Dominions, our trade with the Dominions had been stationary. Indeed, it had slightly decreased during several years prior to 1897. The reason no doubt was that our foreign competitors, who at one happy time regarded us as a nation of shopkeepers and would not trouble to compete with us in the markets of the world, had been becoming more and more alive to the necessity of manufactures, and had been competing more heavily with us. That definitely proves the value which these Preferences have been to us.

Our population in these islands is growing at the rate of from 300,000 to 400,000 per annum, which means that approximately from 300,000 to 400,000 men and women each year come to the employable age. It means that our difficulties in securing employment are accentuated as the years go by. Our population now is 1,000,000 more than it was before the War, in spite of all the boys we lost in the War. Where are we to find markets to provide employment for that ever increasing population? Market after market is being closed to us by high tariffs or is being made more difficult for us. The British Empire, which now takes £300,000,000 out of a total of £767,000,000, are huge countries and are only in their infancy. Canada is a country as big as the United States with a population of, I think, only 8,000,000 or 9,000,000, and they buy all they can from us. Canada some day will be as great a country as the United States. How much will they be able to buy from us as the years go on, and the population grows bigger and bigger? Is it a very big step to think of, if we imagine Canada, Australia and New Zealand doubling the populations which they have to-day? If that time comes, as it will come, if they multiply at the same rate as they are doing now, they will take from us £600,000,000, or practically the whole of the figure which we export at present and our unemployment question will be solved.

Inevitably there is a certain amount of emigration from this country. Where do we wish to see settled the best of the men and women who leave this land? I think every member of the House will agree that we wish them to keep within the British Empire. If we wish them to go to other parts of the Empire, is it not eminently fair and reasonable that those other parts of our Empire should expect us to buy what those men and women produce when they get there? In 1919 we first granted some Empire preference by giving one-sixth off the import duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, wines, spirits, dried fruits and tobacco, and one-third off the McKenna Duties on motor cars and musical instruments. Let us see whether the preferences which we then gave benefited the Empire. I think I have demonstrated that benefit accrued to us through the preferences which they gave us, and per contra , when we gave them preferences it resulted in a benefit to our Dominions. I take the comparative figures of 1913, the last pre-War year, and of 1923. In 1913 we bought 370,000 cwt. of cocoa from the Empire. That figure had grown to 1,140,000 cwt. by 1923. We bought 1,600 cwt. of currants in 1913, and ten years later that figure had grown to 41,000. In 1913 we bought 1,400,000 cwt. of Empire-grown sugar and ten years later that figure had grown to 7,600,000. That shows that these little preferences were of the greatest assistance to the Dominions. Without adding one penny piece to our cost of living, they assisted the Dominions to secure our markets.

It was not merely a benefit to them, but it enabled them to buy more of our goods. This is a snowball. If we can assist the Dominions by consuming more of their products, they in turn buy more of our manufactures and keep our people employed. Hon. Members opposite, and particularly certain hon. Members below the Gangway, insist upon sticking dogmatically to doctrines with regard to trade which were laid down by certain great men who graced this House 60 or 70 years ago like the late Mr. Cobden, the late Mr. Bright, and the late Mr. Gladstone. These hon. Members claim that what those gentlemen said in those far-off days is bound to be true at the present time. Far be it from me to say one word derogatory to those gentlemen. They were three of the finest men we have produced, but to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment—who struck me as being doctrinaires of the first water and whose absence from their places just now I regret—I say in all seriousness that I consider it an insult to the memory of those great and capable men to assume that they would have adopted the same attitude in 1924 when the conditions have so absolutely changed, as that which they adopted in 1850 and 1860. Mr. Cobden himself said in 1852:

I am also very disappointed that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is not present, because I should like to have had a word with him through you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the McKenna Duties. I could not help being struck that he is so thoroughly complacent and pleased with himself on the removal of those duties, and I was much amused—perhaps some of his hon. Friends opposite will see that this reaches the right hon. Member—to read a speech that he made recently, in which he said that immediately the McKenna Duties were removed the exports of motor cars went up enormously. They did, but I know a little about the motor trade, and let me take the House into my confidence. I wish the right hon. Member could be here, because I would like to have seen him hear this. The McKenna Duties were 33[ILL] per cent, on imported motor cars, but, when those motor cars were for re-export, the firm that imported them could draw back the amount of duty it had paid; in other words, the McKenna Duties on goods for re-export were not chargeable.

On the 1st August, I think it was, the right hon. Gentleman removed the McKenna Duties—the 1st April, I think, would have been a more suitable date—and, to the right hon. Gentleman's intense satisfaction, the exports of motor oars went up. The firms which had imported motor cars into this country paid the 33j per cent, duty on them, intending them, as a matter of fact, for the home market, but, owing to the removal of the duties and other oars coming in duty free, they chartered ships and sent those motor cans out of the country again. Some of the motor cars went across the Channel to France and Belgium, and others, who preferred a simpler holiday, went to the breezy Isle of Man. They were exported, and in due season they were re-imported. They came back into the country free, but when they went out from the country the firms that had chartered the ships to send them out drew back from the Government the tax they had previously paid upon them when they came into the country. You can picture a firm that had got, say, 1,000 motor cars, on which it had paid about £80 apiece duty, chartering a ship at a cost of £20,000, sending the motor cars out of the country, and picking up £80,000 out of the Government at a cost of £20,000; and then the right hon. Member for the Colne Valley sits there in complete satisfaction, delighted at the increase of exports!

9.0 P.M.

The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) asked if the party on these benches really believed in what they were advocating. I would like to put the same question to him. I have a strong suspicion that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, although they feel it incumbent upon them to look askance at, and even oppose, Imperial Preference and any form of tariffs, are not quite in their hearts as much opposed to them, particularly to Imperial Preference, as they feel it their duty to pretend to be. I can see that their position is a somewhat difficult one. I am very thankful indeed that I am one of 400, or thereabouts, junior counsel who were briefed on the 29th October last to represent this side. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did Manchester say?"] I can assure the House that I did not get in for Salford on any false pretences. My Liberal friends tried to entrap me into pledges, but no!

I think the position of hon. Members opposite is very understandable. When the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was advocating Imperial Preference, 22 years ago, it was very much more far-reaching than the present modest proposal, for it involved taxes on wheat and meat and other things which we regard as essentials. Consequently, they adopted as one of their slogans that there was to be no Imperial Preference, and they have carefully taught their supporters that Imperial Preference is an evil and a wicked thing, until now, although they see the present Imperial Preference proposal to be innocuous and harmless, they feel quite unable to reverse their engines, as it were, and vote for it. Hon. Members on this side will not be able to appreciate the difficulties in which those hon. Members opposite find themselves, because if hon. Members on this side have occasion to change their views, they know quite well that they can go to their constituents and tell them why they have changed their views, but hon. Members on this side must remember that their supporters are naturally the most intelligent and enlightened of the electorate, and they must not be unsympathetic towards hon. Members opposite. I thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to my speech, and I hope I have not been unduly long.

:I am sure the whole House will have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford), which we have just heard, with great acceptance, and that they will all feel that the hon. Member has discharged a very difficult task with confidence and with success. If I may venture one word of comment on what he said—and I offer it to him, because I can see he is a wholehearted believer in the British Empire—I would beg him not to use the possessive pronoun too often when speaking of the Dominions. After all, we belong to them just as much as they belong to us, and inasmuch as his speeches will in future be read throughout the British Empire, I hope that that particular feature in them will have disappeared by that time. I shall gladden the hon. Member's heart by saying from these benches that I welcome the declaration made by the Prime Minister this afternoon on the subject of Imperial Preference. It is perfectly true that the duties which remain under the remodelled and revised scheme he has presented this afternoon are inconsiderable, but they are not unimportant on that account. I think anyone who has travelled throughout the Empire must feel there is a psychological value even in a small departure of this kind, and, for my part, I welcome it particularly, because in the Preference movement in the Dominions there is at the present moment the only movement towards freer trade visible in any part of the world, and any encouragement we can give to that movement is well worth our while, whatever views of the fiscal controversy we may take.

I am very glad, on that ground alone, of the declaration he made. I am also glad he has kept faith with the Dominions. Whether one agreed with his policy, or whether one did not agree with it, I think everyone in this House would 'have regretted that a Prime Minister who was in power when the Economic Conference met in 1923, and who was returned to power arts the end of this year, should not have done his utmost to carry out the pledges he gave to the Dominions a year ago. He had a difficult task to perform in reconciling the pledges he gave to the Dominions with the pledges he gave regarding taxation of food in the course of the General Election. But I am glad he has interpreted his pledges at the Election as the plain man interpreted them when he made them. We honour him for having done that. I am sure it will be understood in the Dominions, and that his proposals will not suffer in their esteem because they have been honestly whittled down to meet the public opinion of this country.

So much for the Imperial Preference side of what the Prime Minister had to say. I am sorry I cannot speak with the same commendation of the other part of his speech, which he devoted to the Safeguarding of Industries. I said that when he interpreted his pledge regarding the taxation of food, he rightly interpreted it as the plain man interpreted it at the time. I wish he had done the same regarding the Safeguarding of Industries, because I am quite convinced that, certainly in the part of the country which I have the honour to represent, there are hundreds of thousands of people who cast votes without the slightest idea that a scheme of this scope or a scheme of this magnitude would be introduced into this House, on the return of the Conservative Government, under the name of the old Safeguarding of Industries Act. The old Safeguarding of Industries Act has gone out of the window, and we have now an absolutely different scheme in its place. So far as I can see, there is nothing in this new scheme which will prevent the establishment of a complete system of Protection in the course of one or two years, and, for the enlightenment of many of us on these benches who have no desire to press the party point unduly against the Prime Minister, I should like to ask two questions, which, I hope, may be answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is to conclude this Debate. Can he tell us of any article produced within the whole range of our industries which will not be able to claim protection under the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman described as justifying safeguarding? He mentioned, as it seemed to me, every form of competition that is conceivable. He mentioned lower wages, longer hours, and lower taxation, as well as those special things like depreciated exchanges, which the old Safeguarding of Industries Act was intended to meet. I cannot see that there is any article produced by the industries of this country on which it would not be possible to go to the Committee which the Prime Minister proposes to set up, and to say, "We are meeting with unfair competition, and we claim protection under this Act."

If that be the case, and if, as I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said in amplification of the Prime Minister's statement, a duty put on for special reasons against any single country is also to be a general duty on that article against all countries, what difference will there ultimately be between the effects of this new safeguarding scheme and a full-fledged scheme of Protection? For my part I can see none. I came into this House this afternoon regretting the fact—and I say so candidly—that it seemed to be making a party question of Imperial Preference before there was any reason for doing so. I had no intention of voting on this Amendment when I came into the House, but the Prime Minister's declaration regarding the Safeguarding of Industries has convinced me there is a real danger to Free Trade which I did not imagine to exist, and I shall, therefore, vote in favour of this Amendment and against the Government to-night. This may not be Protection all at once. Like Mercutio's wound,

:I agree with hon. Members in all parts of the House who have alluded to the importance of the subject which has been raised to-night, and I venture to ask their forbearance for not more than a very few minutes while I try to take some points as they occur to us, partly in the light of this long controversy, and partly in the light of our experience during the time we were in office. The Prime Minister, in the course of his statement, made it abundantly plain that what he had in mind were steps designed to try to secure employment in this country, and I will waste no time to-night in saying that we are entirely at one with him in support of every Measure properly designed which will find work for unemployed people. But almost every proposal which he has made this afternoon appears to me, and, I think, to many on these benches, to be admirably calculated, not to provide employment at all, but to aggravate the disease from which we are suffering now.

One of the earliest points which the Prime Minister made was the statement that he intended to reverse the practice under the Trade Facilities Acts as regards the provision of guarantees for shipbuilding in this country. May I briefly remind hon. Members in all parts of the House of the position of that controversy now? Under the Trade Facilities Acts, as they were extended by us during the time we were in office, we set aside £65,000,000, or rather we increased the available guarantee from £50,000,000 to £65,000,000, to cover works of capital expenditure, such as would provide employment in Great Britain, and while I was standing at that Box across the Floor, endeavouring to recommend that scheme to the House, I was very stoutly attacked by hon. Members on this side on that occasion, as they objected strongly to the provision of additional guarantees for the shipbuilding industry. They reminded us, as indeed the official accounts show, that we had already guaranteed £13,000,000 or £ 14,000,000 for shipbuilding. They pointed out that about five or six million tons of shipping were lying idle throughout the world, and that in this country there was a considerable amount of efficient and unused tonnage. Accordingly they took the view that it was dangerous to guarantee anything more to shipbuilding on the ground that there was no real need, or security for remunerative use of the vessels which would be built. Since the Prime Minister made his statement this afternoon indicating that there is now an intention to give further shipbuilding guarantees I have made some inquiry. Let me make it perfectly plain that there is no one on this side of the House—I am perfectly secure in making this statement—who would be opposed to a guarantee in shipbuilding at the present time if it was designed to provide employment in the shipbuilding and engineering trades. At the same time we are bound to take a longer view of this controversy, and it is the case that there is still a great amount of unused and efficient tonnage, and if the vessels provided are not going to be remuneratively employed then we are not in the very least helping shipbuilding in Great Britain. I am not sure that we are not going to aggravate unemployment in the shipyards in the future.

The position is that there is a very large amount of unused tonnage in the United States of America. There is also a large amount of unused and efficient tonnage in Great Britain; so that there is no change in the circumstances with which we were confronted when we extended the guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act. I do not want to leave the matter in a purely negative position. There are round about £15,000,000 or £17,000,000 available for guarantee under the Act at the present time. What I do say very definitely is this, that if the Treasury is going to give a guarantee to British industry for works of capital expenditure, then there is a large amount of capital expenditure which I think should be undertaken and guaranteed in this country which is probably sure of remunerative employment—a condition which you cannot apply to the shipbuilding industry. I do not, therefore, understand the decision which the Prime Minister has reached. I should say that it is going to be very difficult to get the approval of shipbuilding conferences and the other people interested, which is precisely the difficulty we encountered during the time we were in office. No one would be more delighted than I, as one associated with that task for a short time, if it could be proved that you could employ these vessels remuneratively, and I am disappointed to find that the conditions are not substantially different from those in the time when hon. Members, now on the other side of the House, opposed our proposals for the extension of the guarantee.

I come, in the second place, very briefly, to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman proposes as regards Colonial and Dominion development. Some time ago the Prime Minister made an unguarded suggestion, which, I think, many of his supporters then looked upon as of a highly collectivist character. He was concerned about the prices then ruling in this country. He remembered that there had been no substantial change in the cost of living, except in an upper direction, for about 18 months or more. He knew that in certain quarters of this country there was gross profiteering; there were very large profits and returns in the midst of industrial distress. Accordingly he made the proposal which, as he stated to-day, meant that we were to get in bulk, or in wholesale supplies, commodities or goods from the Dominions which we were to place on the market in this country on the easiest possible terms. That proposal was immediately assailed by large numbers of people who could not tolerate any interference in private industry or private enterprise. Unless I misunderstand the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon what he now has in mind is something of the same kind under a slightly different name.

We have not heard anything to-day about a stabilisation of Preference. What is now put forward is a proposal, a very vague thing, and I think the whole House will agree it is very difficult to criticise it. It seems to be the design to put aside a million per annum in order to encourage production in the Colonies and the Dominions, and so get supplies for this country. We must await details of the scheme. I do not dispute for a moment it is very difficult indeed to offer sound criticism in the absence of the precise proposals. This is, however, a convenient opportunity for the whole House of Commons to ask itself what kind of policy the right hon. Gentleman intends to pursue in connection with the economic progress of the Dominions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) recalled the fact that we were already providing about a million a year, or thereabouts, under the Empire Settlement Act. I mention that only as one of our contributions in this matter; but more has been done than that. Under the Trade Facilities Act, as we extended it, and following, if I remember rightly, a decision of the Imperial Economic Conference, we provided a sum of about one million pounds per annum for five years, which is to go towards the payment of three-quarters of the interest on loans for capital expenditure by the Dominions—loans which are to be raised in this country for the purpose of work designed to provide employment here. That is quite a substantial gift spread over five years. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that we in Great Britain—the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it plain the other night in his speech on inter-Allied debts—we have shouldered a large part of the financial responsibility of the War.

It is also not unfair to remind the House that the economic and financial conditions in certain of our Colonies are on the whole better than the conditions which obtain in this country to-day. Their powers of recovery or restoration are very great. They have great untilled territories, and they are free from many of the difficulties which beset us here, so that what I suggest is that while we all want to encourage Dominion and Imperial Preference we should not do so at the expense of perfectly legitimate interests at home. If the proposal of the Prime Minister means anything at all it means that we are to find £1,000,000 per annum for this purpose, in the hope, as I understand it, that we will gain in the supply of commodities, and probably in prices, in this country. There is not the least doubt that if this is to be accomplished there must be something like price regulation, and some kind of control. I imagine it will be found on inquiry that in regulations of this kind you have no real safeguarding device—that is, if later investigation proves that to be part of the scheme. I do not, however, want to leave this part of the proposal without trying to make at least one constructive suggestion. We on these benches have often been taunted with the criticism that we have no interest in Colonial or Imperial development. I entirely deny that. I think any man would be a fool, in existing conditions, anybody who was trying to improve the standard of life of the people and to see the population of the world spread over the world in something like decent conditions, to leave out of account what we can do by ready co-operation with our Dominion kith and kin.

I would introduce into this a Socialist or Collectivist principle, to which, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely opposed. I will not press the Socialist side of it to-night, because I am quite content to ask hon. Members whether what I am going to say is not merely a business proposition. We are providing £5,000,000 as a sheer gift, of three-quarters per cent, on the money raised for those works of capital expenditure in the Colonies and Dominions. We are making a contribution of £5,000,000 to the extension of their industrial capacity. When we proposed that from that Box some months ago, two hon. Members, one of whom is now a member of the Government, thought that that was too liberal, and they proposed to fund the allowance and actually suggested a scheme of repayment. I do not propose that tonight, but I ask the House to consider this point, that not only at home but in the Dominions under this head we are either giving actual grants of money or we are guaranteeing very large sums, and we have no part or lot in the capital assets at all. We have no part in the asset which is created by the out and out gift in this case of £5,000,000. My proposal is this—and I have not the least hesitation in putting it forward—that surely it is ordinary business to have some right in that capital asset if we are going to give an out and out gift or a guarantee. I suppose any business man would make a claim of that kind. If that were done the Government and the people of this country would be distinctly interested in works of great importance in the Colonies and Dominions, and would be very near on the financial side to the development which they have done so much to build up. It is sometimes said that we are not paying anything under those guarantees. I am perfectly sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take that view to-night. If the Trade Facilities Act is carried to its completion there is a contingent liability of £65,000,000 for the taxpayers of this country. Even if we are not called upon for a single copper, the influence upon our credit is obvious. It is a contingent liability and must be taken into account. We do pay for guarantees and credits of that kind and I think I speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that the time has come when we should be definitely represented in the ownership of the capital assets created.

I am afraid that if I have to leave the allotted time for subsequent speakers, I will have to be brief. The Prime Minister has made a new proposal which he justifies on the ground that it is merely a modification or a use of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. In other words, he denies that this is Protection. He says, "It is not Protection at all. It is in keeping with my Election pledge that I will use the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921 to safeguard industries in this country exposed to severe or specially hard competition." In all these discussions surely it is important to go back to the actual terms of the Statute itself. What does the Act of 1921 provide? It provides first for the defence of certain key industries in this country. It then proceeds to make two proposals. One deals with dumping, which, in the long range of economic history in this country, has never been defined with any accuracy or completeness, and in the last place there is a proposal designed to meet the unfair competition to which trade in this country is exposed by reason of the export advantage enjoyed by other countries based on their depreciated exchange. As I understand the Prime Minister's proposal, it comes to this: that he now has simply grouped together those two second parts of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, and he has added certain other ingredients, such as the taxation of industry within that country, the rate of wages paid and other conditions, some of which we know, and he then proposes to take them together in some kind of economic index and to say that certain industries in Great Britain are exposed to unfair competition because of that aggregate of conditions in a competing country. I do not press that unduly, because we are all hampered to-night because we have only had a very general statement of the scheme. Suppose it is an aggregate of conditions, and that an attempt is made to work out an index You are unfairly treated or competed with as regards this other country. You will have very great difficulty in the first place in arriving at an index of that kind Suppose we take the test of the taxation of industry in certain European countries at the present time. Some hon. Member might suggest France or any other country. You are at once up against the difficulty of the nominal and real taxation. Everybody knows that there are certain nominal taxes, but everybody also knows that these taxes are in some cases largely evaded. There you have one factor, one very great difficulty, and there are many others which could be multiplied if I had time.

Notice the proposal to which the Prime Minister is driven. He gets an industry in this country which is exposed to that kind of difficulty as regards a European or some other market. He then says, "You are unfairly treated," and he proposes not to try to discriminate against that country but to impose a tariff as regards that article which operates against every country in the world. A most extraordinary proposal. I have heard a great deal of argument about the benefit of rivalry and competition and difference of treatment designed to bring out the best either from individuals or countries. Here you abrogate that principle altogether. You have a country which is unfairly competing with you. Other countries are not in that position, but you apply your general tariff as regards that industry to the whole lot, and not only do you penalise what trade they are doing for you, but, what is far more important, you penalise yourselves. In the last place, may I select the argument referring to depreciated exchange? It is quite true, as hon. Members have pointed out, that the exchange position has improved, but there are still exchange difficulties in Europe, and there are still articles which enjoy the export advantage of a depreciated exchange. The Prime Minister's speech makes it abundantly plain that the element of the depreciated exchange, which was the important part of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, on its temporary side, is to be a factor, amongst other factors, which he is going to take into account. Is the exclusion or the partial exclusion of goods from this country by a tariff, whatever the rate of the tariff may be—the Safeguarding of Industries Act put on 33⅓ per cent, all round—any remedy for the exchange problem?

:I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood). I am perfectly content to fall back upon an orthodox report presented by people who had little or no connection with the Labour or the Socialist movement, and who, therefore, will not be accused of any bias or particular economic sentiment. The Cunliffe Committee made it perfectly plain that one of the important factors in getting rid of the dislocation and depreciation of the exchange was not the building up of fresh tariff barriers but the removing of those barriers, and a definite encouragement of the free flow of commodities between the different countries of the world. That is abundantly important at the present time, altogether apart from the exchange question. I invite hon. Members to consider the bearing of that issue on the debt and the payment we hope to get from other European countries. Is it not very important that we should try to lay the foundations of the greatest freedom that we can secure? But there is another element in the situation. Suppose we do succeed to any extent at all, by means of the tariff, in excluding these goods, either wholly or partially. Surely the first effect of that is definitely to restrict the market to which those goods can appeal, and restriction of a market within any exporting country, in Europe or elsewhere, means the aggravation of this economic disease within that market, which depends for its health and strength upon free contact with other countries of the world.

This is not a cold, economic, or, I trust, academic argument at all. It is fortified by all the experience we have had in these matters in recent years. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in agreeing with hon. Members who tell us that the Government has to-day raised the old Protectionist issue. I do not regret that in the very least, because I am encouraged by the thought that in doing so they have materially shortened their life as a Government, and have substantially reduced the possibilities for mischief which they could do in this country.

:The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) speaks on economic questions with a knowledge and a clarity which every Member must envy, and there are many of us who wish we were endowed with his close leasoning faculty and with as tenacious a memory as he possesses. He has brought to this discussion some important information of business which he was transacting at the Treasury just before the General Election; and the information he has given of his dealing with export credits and the extent to which the Treasury received advice from and gave advice to the Advisory Committee is, of course, of great interest in the course of our discussions here with a view to the relief of unemployment. The Debate to-night has taken rather a different course, though it has never wandered far from the provision of work, which must, of necessity, be one of the first concerns of hon. Members above the Gangway as well as of those below the Gangway, and on the other side of the House. If we cannot test these questions in terms of the volume of trade, I can see no justification for our taking so much trouble about the discussion of fiscal questions at all.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is to close this Debate, is a first-rate debater, and will, I have no doubt, be able to take care of himself at any time and on any aspect of this question. I know my right hon. Friend of old, and I need hardly say I have never heard anyone speak with greater cogency or power or so eloquently in favour of Free Trade. It naturally follows that, knowing the subject inside out, he will, no doubt, be able to make a most convincing and persuasive Protectionist speech. I am sure hon. Members will forgive me if I say that Protectionist arguments are never more powerful than when they are put by Free Traders. I am not going to accuse my right hon. Friend of inconsistency, for I know that he is quite capable of reminding me of my past. He will, I have no doubt, refer to the Paris Economic Resolutions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I had better deal with them at once.

I believe my right hon. Friend had left office before the meeting of the Paris Economic Conference, but he will not have forgotten that it was held in the middle of the Great War. He will remember that part of the duty of the Cabinet was to wage that War, not only with the military, the naval and the air arms, but also by economic means. We forgot all about Free Trade during the War, excepting only that we knew that our national credit had been prepared by it. But Free Trade during war is a ridiculous idea. Blockade is the only way in which you can deal with the situation, and blockade is the very antithesis of Free Trade. We were threatened at that time, for the War was by no means over, and its result was still in the balance, with a possible ending of the War and the prosecution of an entirely new campaign by the middle Empires of Europe. When that threat was made it produced consternation amongst some of the neutral Powers. The neutral Powers of Southern Europe had not then decided which side they would take. They were shocked by the idea of finding themselves victims of Mittel-Europa immediately arms had been laid down in, possibly, an indecisive War. It was necessary for us to reply, to hit at once and to hit hard. I therefore collaborated with M. Clementel, who is now the Finance Minister in France, for the most ingenious and convincing way of dealing with that situation. We produced the Paris Resolutions, which were accepted by the Allies. They had an immediate effect in Southern Europe. They served their purpose, and when the War was over we were as ready to lay down those warlike measures as we were to dispense with the blockade and sign the Treaty of Peace. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to refer to the Paris Resolutions, I hope he will do so as war measures and not as peace measures.

Let me put another point. I know the right hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently good trader never to look on trade as war. He never looks on a competitor as an enemy, and he has never looked upon a foreigner who sent goods here as the enemy of British industries. The right hon. Gentleman understands what so many people forget, that when we buy foreign goods here we buy them because we want them, and it is not an offence on the part of the foreigner to send them here. If there is any fault it must be the fault of the individual customer here who buys them, and who suits himself and himself alone. That is not war but it is exchange, and as between nations trade is not a matter of hostility but an exchange of commodities, and under the freest trade it is the exchange of commodities which can be most easily produced in one country for the commodities which can be most easily produced in another country.

I know that is a doctrine which my right hon. Friend opposite has put into very picturesque language. My right hon. Friend will recognise how far in the minds like my own and other Free Traders the idea of war is remote and foreign, and we regard trade as exchange and not as war. We regard every means which can be taken to reduce the obstacles in the way of trade to be for the benefit of all trade, and for the benefit of the industrial community. We want to reduce those obstacles as much as possible and not increase them. If we think of exchange in this respect it is clear that we must conclude that warlike methods are injurious and do more harm than good. I should like to approach this subject not as a theorist but as one engaged in industry and commerce, and as one who wishes to see the widest volume of trade conducted in this country for the benefit of the country. I approach in that spirit the preference proposals of the Govern ment. The old economic proposals were trivial, and they have quite rightly been dropped, but something else has taken their place. What has taken their place is a proposal to devote £1,000,000 a year of our money to improve the marketing methods in this country of Australian producers, but we have no particulars as to the expenditure of that money. We do not know who is going to receive it or how it is to be distributed.

There was a hint in the Prime Minister's speech that that £1,000,000 was to be used for the purpose of increasing facilities for the carriage of goods between tbe Dominions and this country, and no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us what is intended. It bears the familiar remembrance of what are known as shipping subsidies. If the right hon. Gentleman means shipping subsidies I should very much like to have Very early information on the subject, because I want to be early in the field for a portion of those subsidies. Who is going to get them? What lines are to receive this favour? Under what principles will you distinguish between one route and another? Is mileage to be taken into account? Is the size of the ships or the speed at which they travel to be taken into account, and in particular is this subsidy to be open to the whole of British shipping or only a portion of it? No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some information on that point, but I will not criticise this matter further until I hear more from the right hon. Gentleman. I know that a great many people are very anxious to learn exactly what is meant.

The next point I will put to the House is that when we are considering the development of trade with its headquarters here, whether of buying or selling, it is a mistake to be always thinking in terms of sentiment. In regard to this point, I would infinitely prefer to deal with an Englishman—[An HON. MEMBERS: "Or Scotsman!"]—no, an Englishman than I would with a foreigner, because I prefer their methods, and I understand their language.

:In particular I know that those who are going to have any dealings will much prefer to do them with people they can understand and according to methods to which they are accustomed. We should, however, be fools if we did not attach very nearly as much importance to our foreign trade. I am quite ready to trade with South Africa and Australia and Canada in preference to America or with the Dutch or the Spanish, but how foolish it would be for us to injure ourselves, for instance, in Argentina because it happens to be under the Argentine flag. As a matter of fact, I believe there are more Scotsmen in Argentina than there are in Glasgow, and our trading in Argentina is of the greatest importance. I know there are considerations which are neither sentimental nor practical, but they are Imperial, which impel a great many hon. Gentlemen in this House to prefer British Empire trade to foreign trade, but if they are preferring British Imperial trade on the ground that it gives us greater security in time of war, let them remember what happened during the late War. As a matter of fact, we were more dependent upon Argentina during the War than upon Australia, and that is an actual fact.

The reason is very simple. The Argentine was about 20 days' steam away from this country for a slow vessel, while Australia was well over 60 days. Argentina conferred great benefits upon the Allied forces by keeping up the maximum supplies, and when the War was over our Argentine trade remained one of the most staple trades of the United Kingdom. To-day they take a large amount of raw materials from this country. I do not know where South Wales would be without the Argentine. It supplies us with immense quantities of raw material, and as a matter of fact in the matter of food we have a larger field from which we can draw food in time of war and peace in the Argentine than we have in South Africa, New Zealand or Australia, and the demand for grain in those Dominions is likely to be so great during the next 25 or 30 years that they will be barely growing enough grain to feed their own people, and in Canada they run the same risk. I believe there are about 35,000,000 acres of arable land in Australia, in Canada there are 160,000,000 acres, while in Argentina there are 730,000,000 acres available, so long as we keep up that flow of foreign trade with them as we do with our Dominions.

Do not let us under-estimate our foreign trade. It is quite true that in some directions the trade between this country and the British Empire has increased. It has increased without artificial stimulus. The reason why people in the Dominions buy from us is that we can supply them with better and cheaper goods than they can buy from the rest of the world, and that is the only reason why they do it. Indeed, I am not sure that it is not a mistake to go on describing trade in terms of dominions and nations. It is individuals who buy. It is individual merchants who sell, from whom individual merchants buy in the Dominions. Those merchants find they can buy cheaper and better goods which originate in this country than they can from foreign countries, and that accounts to a very large extent for the volume of our Imperial trade. Let the British producer, the designer, the engineer, the manufacturer, the merchant, and the carrier have a chance of dealing with their own'problems in their own way, and they will retain that trade, no matter what may happen in any other part of the world.

I do not want to say anything on the subject of Preference that is at all resented by anyone who conies from the Dominions, but, really, it is about time we made a balance-sheet on this subject. It was made to some extent to-day by one hon. Member who addressed the House, but the only comment I will make on it is this: We have never grudged giving the Dominions the benefit of cheap credit in our own markets. The throwing open of our trustee lists to their investments has been of the greatest possible benefit to them. We gladly favour the continuation of that privilege. We pay far more for Imperial defence than they do, and our poor people are no richer than theirs. The burden which falls on the people of this country for defence is drawn from indirect taxation as well as from direct taxation; it is the people of this country who pay for it. If we are to draw up a balance-sheet, let it be drawn up on the basis of individual sacrifice, and, as my hon. Friend said to-day, it will be found that, per head of the population, we bear a burden out of all proportion to that which is borne in any of the Dominions.

I gladly turn from the subject of Preference to the much more important announcement made to-night with regard to the Safeguarding of Industries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) declared, in the course of his speech, that the announcement made to-night was momentous. It is, indeed. It bears a very strong family resemblance to what happened on the Floor of this House as long ago as 1903, when suddenly, to the surprise of the House, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain announced that he had become a Protectionist, that he believed in the doctrine which Free Traders had long since renounced; and we began the fiscal controversy which continued right through that Parliament and the two succeeding Parliaments', and is, apparently, to be revived now.

10.0 P.M.

What is to be the result of reopening this controversy? The first thing that is apparent is that the Government themselves have not fully thought out their proposals. It is quite clear that the true significance of them has not come home to their minds, but, as they have been described to-day—and it is only this sketch that we have to guide us—may I point out to the House how the machinery is likely to work? When the Bill is introduced, we shall know more about the use which is to be made of the Board of Trade Committee, and that is a matter of very great importance. Until we get the Bill we cannot discuss that fully and in detail, but, as it has been described to us to-day, the process is to be something like this: The organisations of some great trade suffering during a period of depression, or a fit of hopelessness, turn in despair to the Board of Trade. They make their case, or it is made for them by someone who can perform that duty with skill. They point out that they are meeting with competition in countries whose exchanges are at a discount. They produce wages lists showing that the wages in this country are more generous than they are in the foreign country. They produce further information to show that the hours of work in the foreign country are longer than those which are worked here. Finally, if all this fail, they produce careful statistics drawn up either by professional statisticians or by the editor of one of the 'business newspapers, to show that the taxation per head of the population is less in that foreign country than it is here.

I will undertake to say that there is not a single trade in this country which will not be able to prove either one or other of these conditions. You can turn to the great staple trades if you like—iron and steel, the textile trades, pottery, machinery, engineering, chemicals—every one of them will be able to show than they have from time to time to meet that competition in countries where either the exchanges have depreciated, or the wages are low, or the hours are high, or the taxation is less heavy than in this country. And then a fourth test was laid down by the President of the Board of Trade. I took down his words carefully. I do not know whether he had considered it or not, and do not want to pin him to it if he had not, but he said, also, if the competition was unprecedented. What does that mean? Does it mean that the competition is larger now than it was three years ago during the boom? Does it mean that it is larger now than in 1913—I presume he would not take the War years? Let him take either one or other of these trades. In every direction competition is unprecedented, for prices are low and manufacturers and traders are working at a loss. To that extent the competition is unprecedented. It has shoved prices down below the profit level. If he is thinking only of volume, then there is another condition which makes it still easier for any trade wishing to get something out of this Act to qualify itself for that assistance.

Then there is to be instituted, not a system of general tariff—and here the Prime Minister safeguarded himself—but there is to be a system of general duties on the goods which come from all countries of that particular category. First of all, you have steel. I do not know whether that is to be one of the first, but let me take it for the sake of example. The steel industry will come and make out its case, and if the conditions in, say, Belgium or Germany, are enough to constitute a qualification under this Act, they will claim its protection; and then steel, which comes from all other countries, will come into the tariff. That provides for steel. The heads of other industries are just as active, and they will come along and do the same thing. The Bradford cloth manufacturers will make a case, and then all cloth coming in from all countries, once they have made that case, will come on to the tariff. Equally that will be true of chemicals, and so on, and you can run right down the whole list. You will not have a general tariff, but you will have all the goods that we make in this country on a tariff under this Act.

What is the difference? So far as the consumer is concerned it makes no difference whether you call it a general tariff, or whether you call it Protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Let me give an instance. Steel is by no means the least important of the trades which should be receiving the consideration of the Government at the present time. Probably there never has been a time when the condition of the steel trade in this country was graver than it is at the present time. I doubt whether there is a single concern making steel billets which is making a profit at the present time. The imports from abroad have been unprecedented, far larger now than they were three years ago. They need not show anything else. They have to show that the figures have put them in an unprecedented position, and they come under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Immediately that happens, the steel manufacturers may say, "Hear, hear!" but those who want to buy steel and use it will have to pay the tax. The railways are about the largest steel consumers in this country. Everybody who is engaged in trade knows that one of the greatest burdens that we have to carry at the present time is heavy railway rates. They are hampering us in every direction. They are particularly hampering the trades which are inland, far away from the ports. There will be little hope of the railway rates coming down if the cost of their raw materials goes up. We have received a great many warnings from many quarters of proposals which have been put forward by the National Union of Railwayman that will send up the expense of the railways, and that that can only be paid for by higher railway rates. An appeal has been made to all manufacturers and traders to do what they can to prevent this unfortunate occurrence. If at the same time as wages are going up raw material is going up, it will be impossible for railways to be run more economically than they are at the present time. The raising of wages I know nothing about. I am only using it for the purpose of illustration. The raising of wages may or may not be juatified, but any artificial raising of the cost of raw materials of the railways will place a burden, not upon the railway companies but on the railway users. They are every class of the community. Then turn to the shipbuilding industry. A tax on iron and steel will not assist the shipbuilding industry.

:As a very large buyer of steel, I am perfectly satisfied that in the long run it is in the interests of this country to have these protective measures for the steel industry.

:The hon. Gentleman has supplied the very word. It must be most distasteful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a user of steel, I put the other side. What about shipbuilding? Is it supposed that you are going to get cheaper steel plates because you put a duty on imported plates from abroad?

:Well, I give up in despair an hon. Gentleman who comes to this House and declares that taxing a thing makes it cheaper! Let me point out to the House how the thing works. There is a comparatively small number of rollers of steel plates in this country. They meet in two sections. There are the Etaglish rollefrs and there are the Scotch. They meet round two tables in two rooms. If the English put their prices up too high, the Scottish communicate with them and they suggest to them that they should go up together. And they do! It has been done many a time by the simplest possible method, by that of conference and agreement. There is one thing that keeps those Scotsmen and Englishmen in order, and that is a little spill of foreign steel plates inr.o this country from abroad.

:The hon. Gentleman ought to know that ships do not grow on gooseberry bushes. The operation of these two circles, rings or whatever you like to call them, is very well known by everybody. It has never been denied. It is the natural thing. The only thing that keeps them in check is the flow of manufactured steel plates from abroad. It is equally true of bars and angles. Exactly the same thing happens. If there is an importation from abroad, the prices are low, and that is all to the good of British shipbuilders. If they are high, it is impossible for the British shipbuilder to build their vessels at a profit.

:I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows anything about British shipbuilding. If he does, he will know that there are nearly 100,000 shipworkers out of work to-day. You are certainly not going to give them jobs by taxing the raw material. Every industry in this country, sooner or later, is dependent on the steel trade for its raw material in some degree. What about cloth? Is cloth to come into this category? A good deal of wool comes in from abroad, and it has been a matter of very serious consideration in Yorkshire for many years how they were to meet foreign competition. They have done it with a great skill. The woollen industry can satisfy any of those five conditions under the Safeguarding of Industries Act very easily. They can do it at once. Bradford asked for it before the last Election in 1923 and they have survived foreign competition to the benefit of the people of this country. If prices are to be put up artificially in the woollen trade, it is the wearer of woollen goods in this country that will have to bear the burden. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about chemicals?"] Chemicals are already on the Schedule of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. A case can be made out for nearly all chemicals. Chemicals are the basis of nearly every industry. I would also like to ask what is to happen to agricultural produce. We have been given no information on that subject. Is it proposed that the agricultural industry shall have the right to go to the Board of Trade and complain that hides are coming in from the Argentine, a country where taxes are lower than they are here, where wages are not so high, where the hours of work in the agricultural industry are unlimited? If hides are to come on to the list what will the leather manufacturers have to say? And if they do not mind, because they can put up the price of boots and shoes, where does the poor consumer come in? Is he once more to bear the burden? We have to face sooner or later the question of wool. The Australians have invited us to discuss wool at more than one Imperial Conference, and it is no use our shirking the fact that to them protection given to wool which is raised in South Africa, in Australia and in this country, would be regarded as being good business for them, but that could only be done by imposing a burden on foreign goods.

I am not at all sure from what was said by the Prime Minister to-day what is to be the Preference given under this scheme to the Dominions. Are they to come in tax free? Are the new taxes under the new Safeguarding of Industries Act to be taxes on foreign goods only, or are we to follow the Australian, the Canadian and the South African method of having a low tariff for Dominion producers with a medium tax and a second scale of tariff for the foreigner? We should like to know exactly where we stand in that matter, for wool is one of the most important of our raw materials, and the agriculturist wants to know something about that. I need not remind right hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is a very large and important industry in England and Scotland, and to some extent in Wales, dependent on the price of wool. Is there to be artificial assistance given to them? If artificial assistance is to be given to them it is ultimately the consumer who will have to pay for it. May I now say a few words from the traders' point of view? As far as I have gone I have put the consumer's case, very rapidly, for time is short, but I want to ask what is going to happen to trades which are now very heavily oppressed by foreign competition. Is it really seriously decided by the Government that trades which find their customers almost entirely abroad are to have their raw material taxed in any way whatever? If there is any duty placed upon hides, which go into boots which are exported from this country, we shall be placing an obstacle in the way of the recovery of the Leicester and Northampton trades which export so largely abroad. Is there to be any burden placed on the chemicals which are used in the pottery trade, and in a score of others, even when they are exporting abroad, or is it suggested that there is to be a drawback for any of these exporting trades? If there is a drawback we once more get into the well-known familiar machinery of Protection without any distinction.

The last point I want to put is this. Taxation in this country has been a matter within the discretion of the Government and of this House without interference from outside and without consideration to any interest outside the United Kingdom. That has been a matter of the gravest concern to us. We have been able to do as we liked with our taxation. It has been elastic and it has been productive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is hobbling himself if he adopts this scheme. He will not be free to recommend to the Cabinet such taxes as he thinks best in the interest of the United Kingdom, for mark what happens. Under the Preference to be given under this scheme, which will create vested interests in the Dominions, a single year will be quite enough to make the people feel sure that they can work on an established basis, and he will not be free to reduce the taxes without causing offence to those who have been drawing benefit from them in the past. Indeed, he will be landed in the unfortunate position, when he wishes to reduce taxation, of not being able to give relief without withdrawing Protection. I cannot imagine anything which is likely to add less to the popularity of the United Kingdom Government in the Dominions than that these preferential rates should be going up and down year after year as our Budget varies. [ Interruption. ] They will. They are bound to. The difficulty has already arisen on the subject of sugar, and it will arise on other things, and as we have had described to us to-day the working of the Act, everything is to depend upon the decisions of a Board of Trade Committee. Their decisions may vary from year to year. The very things which have drawn the trade within the purview of the Act may have disappeared at the end of the year, and then the tariff is altered and those changes, made from time to time, will be irritating to those in the Dominions who have succeeded in drawing benefit from the Preference created here.

More than that, the right hon. Gentleman himself will not be free to act as the guardian of the taxpayer and the consumer, which is his supreme duty. Everyone has been expecting, after his appointment to the Exchequer, that a great many of the hereditary qualities which have distinguished his family in the past will be shown during his period of office. Lord Randolph Churchill was well known for hi? devotion to the cause of economy. The right hon. Gentleman himself has been a doughty champion of the cause of economy, and he is all the more capable of exercising those qualities now because he has been in the past one of the best spendthrifts who ever presided over a Government Department. He knows both sides of it, and, indeed it is a very good thing that the Prime Minister should have sent to the Exchequer anyone who knows the other Departments so well. If he is to be hampered, if he cannot give relief to the taxpayer and cannot guard the interests of the consumer because he is involved in thia business, he is not a free Chancellor of the Exchequer and this House is not free to deal with national finance. This House has guarded its interests with great care. The financial procedure here is slow, and some people think it is cumbrous, but it has the immense advantage of exposing again and again, to no less than six processes, the taxation and the changes which are to be made at the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are discussed from every point of view, and it would be a grave danger in this country if the Budgets were subjected to less discussion than has been given to them in the past. Under this proposed system, a Committee of the Board of Trade is, apparently, to decide what are to be the taxes borne by the taxpayer here. I hope that is not the meaning of the proposal. I trust that the Government are going to leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the unfettered duty of making recommendations to them, to be placed before the House, as to the charge that is to be placed upon the taxpayer.

At the present time, the one thing that the men who are responsible for the control of our great industries want more than anything else is a feeling of certainty. The Prime Minister knows that, because he has made innumerable speeches on stability. He means the same thing by it. What business men want—and I speak as an ordinary business man—more than anything else, is to know the conditions under which they are to trade in 1925, in 1926 and in 1927. There are a great many uncontrollable factors. There are variable harvests. There may he wars in many parts of the world. There are great industrial changes. He calculates on them. By his experience in the past, he is able to make a fairly certain forecast as to what will happen. He is good at that; but he is uncommonly bad at making political forecasts.

I need not tell hon. Members above the Gangway how important it is for the whole of our industry in the future that our traders should be able to make long-term contracts, which give the greatest benefit that could be conferred upon the working classes, spreading their work over long periods of time, and giving them some chance of knowing that they are not to be thrown out of work at the end of a few months, or a few weeks, by the caprice of those who control their affairs. Long-term contracts are essential to our industry and commerce. These long-term contracts cannot be entered into if there is uncertainty as to what the Duties are to be, as to the articles that are to have the Duties imposed upon them, and whether the raw materials which are used in their industry are to be affected or not. There is always the old question, which has never been answered, what is and what is not raw material. Every man will want to know where he stands.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues have to justify themselves to the great trading communities. Are they going to give to those great communities the certainty which they require? If there is to be uncertainty, there will be a continuation of speculative and bad trade. If they can restore stable conditions in this country we may have some hopes of recovery, but one way to destroy stability is to bring industry and commerce into the political arena and let it be subject to the political changes of a General Election, which do not always go the same way. I need not remind the House that there was a time in 1906 when we had a far greater majority than the majority which the Government has to-day. There have been many great changes since 1906. Some strange things have happened both to parties and individuals, and that has all been because of the political fluctuations and changes in this amazing country. Now, business men will have to take into account all these political changes. To bring the business man into the political arena is one of the worst services that can be done to British industry and commerce.

:This has been an exhilarating debate, and the zest, ardour and hopefulness of my right hon. Friend who has just addressed the House are only characteristic of what is felt by a certain number of Members in every part of the Chamber when they see the prospect of embarking on a fierce, full-dress party discussion on the great differences between Free Trade and Protection. I noticed that my right hon. Friend, in order to clear the decks, began his speech with a very tactfully introduced confession. Evidently he felt a weak spot in his otherwise impenetrable armour. He spoke of the Paris Resolutions. He wanted to get them out of the way. I have had a great many shocks in my life. Never have I experienced a more surprising shock than that which I felt when I saw my right hon. Friend embark upon the path of the Paris Resolutions. I was sitting on the other side of the House—a rare experience in my Parliamentary career—when I learned of these Resolutions to which my right hon. Friend committed himself, Resolutions which did not, as he would gladly have the House believe, refer solely to the period of the War, but contained a whole section of provisions applicable to the post-War period. If I had been asked whether there was one institution, one fact in this world, which would have survived the crash of Armageddon, I would have said that it was the Free Trade orthodoxy of my right hon. Friend. Judge my feelings when this ideal was shattered. But the right hon. Gentleman did not stop there. He carried with him in his fall the venerable statesman, Mr. Asquith, and I heard him as Prime Minister deliver a speech from this Bench which, I do not hesitate to say, contained many lamentable indications of lapse. My right hon. Friend has indicated some of these unconsciously and forgettingly to-night. He spoke of the fallacy of referring to trade as if it was war, and using the terminology of war as applicable to the peaceful and beneficent operations of international exchange. What did he persuade the leader of the Liberal party to say? Such language as this: incident in byegone days when some question arose of the dumping of slates in Wales. My right hon. Friend's demeanour was such that it caused great disquietude among the elders. They did not feel quite sure that he had completely eradicated the old Adam and finally beaten down Satan under his feet. The last shock of all would have been the most severe, but I was getting rather hardened by this time. It came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), whom one is glad to see in his place. He was our guide and adviser in the formation and drafting of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were both members of the Committee, but the man to whom we really looked to reconcile the impeccable purity of Free Trade principles with the practical experience of a great business man, was my right hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen.

I have unfolded to the House the tale of my downfall such as it is, and I will proceed to address myself to some of the very serious issues which have been raised in this Debate. Let me begin by a general observation. Under democratic systems of government and modern conditions, at every election which takes place there is a party platform and a programme, and at every election which takes place a mandate is sought by the leaders of the different parties from the people. It is not always the same mandate. It is not always the same platform. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is not a necessary condition. For instance sometimes a platform contains a Capital Levy. In 1905 the platform of the Liberal party contained no mandate for Home Rule—although they believed in it all the time—and a few years later a Measure was introduced. But it is affectation for Members of all parties, knowing well the conditions of our modern life, to pretend that if we are to work democratic institutions in a real, sincere, practical manner we can work them otherwise than by the submission of definite programmes and the demand by the party leaders from the electors of mandates specific and definite, and confined between limits which everyone can understand. What is the mandate of His Majesty's Government?

:The hon. Member is like Mr. Dick. He cannot keep King Charles's head out of his memorial. I quite understand the hon. Member, but what is the mandate in this matter of His Majesty's Government? It is to give effect to the policy of Imperial Preference without the imposition of taxes upon food, and it is to apply the principles of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the well-known principles of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, without the institution of a general tariff. That is the mandate for which my right hon. Friend asked, that is the mandate which he got, and that is the mandate which he is going to execute. The intention of the Safeguarding of Industries Act is well known to the House, and the Government propose to replace Part II of that Act, which has lapsed, by a new Bill, providing against exceptional conditions in special cases which affect important industries and cause, or are likely to cause, widespread unemployment.

Let me say at this stage that we decline, utterly, absolutely, to be drawn into definitions and full details of the Bill, which will be introduced in the early part, of the Session after Christmas. Is it not reasonable for us to take that line? Has any Government ever taken any other line? Has any Government ever attempted to discuss its legislation piecemeal on Amendments to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne? No; it would be absolutely unreasonable. We have a right to fair play in the matter of Government legislation. Even if a great majority has been obtained, that majority has a right to submit its proposals in due course, according to the regular, recognised methods of Parliamentary procedure, and in proper time. I decline utterly to attempt to prescribe,, in debate, by question and answer across the House, by interrogatories and rejoinders flung this way and that, here and now, the exact clauses, terms, and phrases, and conditions, and specifications which will have to be introduced into the framework of the Bill.

It is obvious that this Bill must be drawn, in its terms, with the greatest care, so as to preclude its becoming, in the Prime Minister's words, a wedge to introduce a general tariff. It is quite evident that if more than a limited number of industries were comprised within the practical operation of this Bill, the pledge of my right hon. Friend would be affected. Therefore, the industries which are admitted to the safeguarding provisions of this Bill must be industries which can be shown to fall in a category of grave, exceptional, and, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, unprecedented, or almost unprecedented cases, and in which it is felt, by the expert Committees who examine the matter and by the Government, which, through the President of the Board of Trade, would have an absolute control over this matter, that unless action is taken there will be widespread dislocation and distress. It was exactly the object of the collapsed exchanges part of the old Bill. Again and again I have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs dilate on the dangers which our industries would suffer in the extraordinary and unprecedented conditions of the post-War period. Again and again I have heard from him of the tremendous competition to which we might be exposed from Germany and from other nations under these new conditions.

My right hon. Friend now says that the proposals which have been made from this bench to-day constitute a great transformation of our fiscal system, and the speaker who has just sat down has described them as momentous in character. What is the essential difference between them and the proposals for which half the leaders on the other side made themselves responsible? I will not conceal the difference. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. Under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, Part II, the safeguarding against a particular form of dangerous competition or unfair competition was to operate through the agency of duties discriminating against particular countries where the offence originated. Under the proposals which we contemplate, the industries which receive the exceptional treatment will receive it, not by a duty against a particular country, but by a duty on that particular commodity operative against all. If an important industry is threatened by exceptional and unprecedented conditions, as is contemplated under our Bill, and those conditions arise in one single country, that industry will be safeguarded by a duty extended to all.

Why do we make this provision? There are various reasons, but the principal reason is a reason which is very acceptable to Free Traders. It is, of course, the relation of this policy of safeguarding of industries to the most-favoured-nation clause. The most-favoured-nation principle is one of the great foundations of our fiscal system. Take the Anglo-German Treaty which has been recently negotiated, a Treaty which, I think, has received from the business men of this country, irrespective of party, a very hearty welcome. That Treaty contains a most-favoured-nation clause more beneficial to this country than any other most-favoured-nation clause ever drafted. It would be absolutely impossible to reconcile that clause with invidious discrimination against any country and against Germany in particular, and, therefore, if you were only to proceed by discrimination against countries, either your most-favoured nation clause would be ruptured, and your policy destroyed, or your safeguarding of industry policy would remain a dead letter. It is for that reason that we have decided to apply the exceptional duties which in special cases, in accordance with the principle of the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, will be required for certain industries during the next few years, not by a discrimination in a particular case, but by a general duty in those particular cases.

There is your violent transformation of the whole business! There is the momentous decision which has raised again the great issue of Free Trade and Protection! Of course, I can see that such a conclusion would be very grateful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite benches. That is the explanation, and the only explanation, of the change of method. There is no deep-laid plot, no ulterior motive behind it, except this necessary reason of reconciling the principle of safeguarding industries, to which the vast majority of Members of this House are definitely pledged, with the principle of most-favoured-nation treatment which, now that Germany has been released from some of the penal provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, have become once again the foundation of our fiscal system.

There was a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the effect that we were engaged in a not very straightforward attempt to introduce a general tariff. No doubt it is very important for the right hon. Gentleman and others to try to pick out some of the differences that divide our policy on the proposed Safeguarding of Industries Act from the original Safeguarding of Industries Act, but that is no reason why the suggestion should be made that in these matters there has not been a scrupulous adherence to the mandate, or that there has been a lack of good faith in the interpretation of the pledges given to the electorate or that the Government are wanting in scrupulousness or that anything of the kind applies to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. There is no man in the whole of this country about whom that could be said with less justice than about the Prime Minister. Everyone knows the Prime Minister. Everyone knows what action he took at the Election of 1923, with consequences which, at the time, were disastrous to his party. He did this rather than abuse or exceed the mandate which had been given to him. Again, what is the position before the House of Commons and the country to-day? Take the question of the taxes upon salmon, honey, dried fruits and the whole series of taxes to which reference has been made. Anyone who reads the Prime Minister's Gravesend speech will know that it was intended as a general statement against the taxation of food, and that it was intended to exclude whatever of these proposed duties would in any way affect the general well-being of the nation. These smaller duties are apart from those taxes or duties on the basic articles of food consumption, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has come here to announce on behalf of the Government that in consequence of what has previously been said the Government feel themselves inhibited from imposing duties of any kind on any foodstuffs for the purpose of Imperial Preference. No point can be made against the Prime Minister or the Administration for any lack of straightforwardness in the interpretation of the mandate which they have received. What is true of that mandate in regard to Imperial Preference is also to be maintained in the same strict manner in regard to the pledges about using the principle of the Safeguarding of Industries Act in such a way as to make a wedge for the production of a general tariff. I trust myself absolutely, in full confidence, upon the declaration of the Prime Minister, and so do hundreds and thousands of people all over the country.

During the short time that is left to me I desire to say a word or two about the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has leapt into the fray on the fiscal issue. He sprang up to take a prominent part. He tells us that the fight before us is that of the maintenance of Free Trade. Protection, he said, would be the issue at the next Election. I do not know whether he has private information of any movement going on on the benches behind him, and whether, in consequence, he is proceeding to marshal his forces for the campaign. He began by appointing my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea Leader of the Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carnarvon!"] Swansea. I think I am right, am I not? The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) used an expression applying it to those who sit on this Bench—the little Dictators. We now know where one of the little Dictators sits. The right hon. Gentleman plunged into the controversy with great eagerness. There is one aspect of his financial administration with which I am bound to express difference. I admire all his correct, scrupulous, skilful maintenance of the public finances and the national credit; but he was very ready to get rid of necessary revenues. Take the McKenna Duties. It was a wanton act to deprive the State of that revenue. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the motor trade?"] I am only arguing it on one point. I am not arguing whether it improves the motor trade. Old taxes are no taxes. Here were duties which nobody objected to. Here were taxes on luxuries, here were taxes paid by the well-to-do; here were taxes the burden of which no one was conscious in this country, and taxes which yielded two and a half millions of revenue—half the cost of the penny post. I make no implication of what will happen next year. This I do say, that the wholesale giving away of revenue in this way, not in order to relieve any serious pressure on any part of the community, but in order to gratify a theoretical opinion, and possibly to lead the Liberal party into a trap, is a financial policy in which I must with the greatest respect part company from my right hon. Friend.

I must say a word about Imperial Preference in the few minutes left. The history of this question is a long one. I have seen it from its first inception 20 years ago. In its original conception Imperial Preference was to be based upon the taxation of the basic foods. That was met by a counter-proposition by my right hon. Friend and the Liberal Government that the unity of the Empire and the development of its trade could be established by improved communication, marketing, advertising, and other methods of developing Imperial trade. But both these projects failed and fell to the ground after 15 years of fierce political strife.

Then we came to the Resolutions of the Imperial Conference of 1917, Resolutions with which all parties were officially associated. Then there was the actual grant of the Preferences by the Government in 1918. Then came the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923. The view of the Government of that day was that they could not agree to taxation on the basic articles of food; it would have been definitely contrary to the mandate they had received, and to the platform of the party, but they looked about to find in what ways they could show consideration, could show sympathy, could show goodwill to Imperial statesmen who had come all this way across the ocean to sit at the council table. I am not asking whether all these duties were well conceived or not, but that was the motive; and, speaking for myself, had I been in the last Parliament I would unhesitatingly have voted for every one of those preferences, not on fiscal grounds at all, but as an act of Imperial diplomacy. I did not think they affected the fiscal situation, because I 'believed they were a pledge and an earnest of good will.

Then came this important Election from which we have just emerged. At that Election pledges and statements have been made—in the stress of an Election which, rightly or wrongly, we conceived to be of immense consequence to the government of this country, to the fortunes of this country—pledges have been made which inhibit the Government from imposing any taxation on articles of food for the sake of Imperial Preference. Therefore we have decided to calculate the bounty value of the abandoned food duties, and to apply the resulting sum, on lines not dissimilar from those proposed at the Imperial Conference of 1907, to the improvement of communications, to the development of marketing, advertising and popularising Imperial products and Empire food.

But I must say this word of caution before my time is done. Great care will have to be taken in the administration of this policy, about which full details will be given at a later stage, to make quite sure that we do not in so doing do an injustice to our own domestic agricultural producers. [ Interruption ]. Certainly. Is it not very natural? We wish to encourage Empire products at the expense of the foreign product, but not at the expense of the domestic producer.

I thank the House for having listened to me on these exciting topics with so much consideration, and I have one word to say before I sit down. Whatever may be felt about the fiscal merits of these controversies, surely there is one matter on which we can all join in satisfaction, and that is that these proposals, so far as Imperial Preference is concerned, take the subject of Empire trade development out of the domain of party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), stern, austere critic of these matters, said quite frankly he would not object to my proposing, as I shall do when the Budget comes, preferential remissions upon all the existing food duties.

:No strong objection. All right. I do not wish for a moment to press my right hon. Friend; but if he has no strong objection that, at any rate, is a very remarkable advance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his speech definitely associated himself, so far as I could understand it, with the Government policy, and in that sense we may embark upon a movement which shall carry the whole question of Imperial trade forward, not on party but on national lines.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 339.

Division No. 6.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Ammon, Charles George

Harney, E. A.

Scrymgeour, E.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Harris, Percy A.

Scurr, John

Baker, Walter

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Barnes, A.

Hayday, Arthur

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barr, J.

Hayes, John Henry

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Batey, Joseph

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Sitch, Charles H.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hirst, G. H.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Briant, Frank

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Broad, F. A.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bromfield, William

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Clowes, S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kelly, W. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Compton, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Taylor, R. A.

Connolly, M.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Kenyon, Barnet

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lansbury, George

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Dalton, Hugh

Lawson, John James

Thurtie, E.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lee, F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Livingstone, A. M.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lowth, T.

Varley, Frank B.

Day, Colonel Harry

Lunn, William

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Duncan, C.

Mackinder, W.

Warne, G. H.

Dunnico, H.

MacLaren, Andrew

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

March, S.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Fenby, T. D.

Morris, R. H.

Whiteley, W.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wignall, James

Forrest, W.

Murnin, H.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Oliver, George Harold

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Gibbins, Joseph

Owen, Major G.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Gillett, George M.

Palin, John Henry

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Paling, W.

Wilson, R. J (Jarrew)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Windsor, Walter

Greenall, T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wright, W.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)

Richardson, R. (Hougnton-le-Spring)

Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

Rilcy, B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Groves, T.

Ritson, J.

Sir Godfrey Collins and Maj.-Gen.

Grundy, T. W.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Sir Robert Hutchison.

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Rose, Frank H.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Bennett, A. J.

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Albery, Irving James

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Berry, Sir George

Buckingham, Sir H.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Bethell, A.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Betterton, Henry B.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Bullock, Captain M.

Apsley, Lord

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Burman, J. B.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Atkinson, C.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Campbell, E. T.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Brass, Captain W.

Cassels, J. D.

Balniel, Lord

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Briggs, J. Harold

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Briscoe, Richard George

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

Beckett, Sir Gervase

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Nuttall, Ellis

Christie, J. A.

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., scar. & Wh'by)

Oakley, T.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hilton, Cecil

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Clayton, G. C.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hohler,. Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Penny, Frederick George

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Cohen, Major J. Brunal

Holland, Sir Arthur

Perkins. Colonel E. K.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Holt, Captain H. P.

Perring, William George

Cooper, A. Duff

Homan, C. W. J.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Cope, Major William

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Couper, J. B.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Philipson, Mabel

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Pielou, D. P.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Pilcher, G.

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Preston, William

Crook, C. W.

Huntingfield, Lord

Price, Major C. W. M.

Crooko, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Hurd, Percy A.

Radford, E. A.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Ramsden, E.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Rentoul, G. S.

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Jacob, A. E.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Rice, Sir Frederick

Davies Maj, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Jephcott, A. R.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Ropner. Major L.

Dixey, A. C.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Drewe, C.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rye. F. G.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Knox, Sir Alfred

Salmon, Major I.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lamb, J. Q.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Ellis, R. G.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Elveden, Viscount

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Erskine, James Malcoim Monteith

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Sanderson, Sir Frank

Everard, W. Lindsay

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Sandon, Lord

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Sir G. (E Sussex, E'stb'ne)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Savery. S. S.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Fermoy, Lord

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

Fielden, E. B.

Loder, J. de V.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Fleming, D. P.

Looker, Herbert William

Shepperson, E. W.

Ford, P. J.,

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Lougher, L.

Skelton, A. N.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Slaney, Major P. Kenyan

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lumley, L. R.

Smithers, Waldron

Galbraith J. F. W.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Gates, Percy

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)

Gault Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Gee, Captain R.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Gilmour Lt -Col Rt Hon. Sir John

Macintyre, Ian

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Glyn Major R. G. C

McLean, Major A.

Storry Deans, R.

Goff Sir Park

Macmillan, Captain H.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Gower Sir Robert'

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Grace, John

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Grant, J. A.

Macquisten, F. A.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Malone, Major P. B.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Margesson, Captain D.

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Gretton, Colonel John

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Templeton, W. P.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Merriman, F. B.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Tinne, J. A.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Waddington, R.

Hammersley, S. S.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Walker, Forestier-, L.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Harland, A.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Warrender, Sir Victor

Harrison, G. J. C.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Watts, Dr. T.

Haslam, Henry C.

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hawke, John Anthony

Nelson, Sir Frank

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Wells, S. R.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Wolmer, Viscount

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Womersley, W. J.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Wragg, Herbert

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wise, Sir Fredric

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Commander B. M. Eyres Monsell and Colonel Gibbs.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household .

Supply

Resolved,

"That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[ Commander Eyres Monsell .]

Ways and Means

Resolved,

"That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[ Commander Eyres Monsell .]

Gas Regulation Act, 1920

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Helston, which was presented on the 9th December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Gosport Gas and Coke Company, which was presented on the 9th December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Mossley, which was presented on the 9th December and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Redhill Gas Company, which was presented on the 9th December and published, be approved." —[ Sir B. Chadwick .]

Electricity (Supply) Acts

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Dunstable, the urban district of Leighton Buzzard, and the rural districts of Luton and Eaton Bray, in the county of Bedford, the urban district of Linslade, and the rural district of Wing, in the county of Buckingham, and part of the rural district of Hemel Hempstead, in the county of Hertford, which was presented on the 9th day of December, 1924, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Bland-ford, St. Mary Bryanston, Langton, Long Blandford, and Pimperne, in the rural district of Blandford, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on the 9th day of December, 1924, be approved."—[ Colonel Ashley ].

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Kenfig Pyle and Tythegeton Higher, in the rural district of Penybont, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 9th day of December, 1924, be approved."—[ Colonel Ashley .]

:I myself was quoting from memory. I have looked it up and I find the agreement was 10.

:Do not you think, Sir, 10 is rather a lavish allowance and that if you concluded 10 was a sufficient number last year, with a minority Government with very limited power, you might reduce your allowance on this occasion to, say, five, which would be a proportionate reduction?

:I do not want to press the point, but the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) took up the position for no other reason than party spite and jealousy. I would never have taken my action but for his very headstrong action. I had no further object than to teach him a lesson in manners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Ticehurst, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 15th day of December, 1924, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the counties of East Lothian and Midlothian, which was presented on the 15th day of December, 1924, be approved."—[ Colonel Ashley .]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— { Commander Eyres Monsell .]

:I have to explain to the House the reason for which I have to stand up now more or less in connection with the Amendment, that stood in my name, to the Address. Though I may have to put forward a new point of view arising out of a new situation I do not for a moment want them to understand that it is in any spirit of wanton interruption or dragging of the proceedings at this time of the night. It may seem rather out of proportion for an individual to stand up and say he represents a party which claims to put forward its views, but I appeal to the House to realise the position. We have heard about the great fondness this House has for its traditions, and I can well understand that it would take some time to adjust itself to some new feature that arises here. I represent a proper, well-organised, well-formed and rather too loudly acknowledged political party in this country now. I am not one of those international Socialists who take offence at having friends in Moscow, Berlin or Delhi. As a member of the International Communist party, I submit that our movement does extend from Moscow to Battersea, and much beyond that. It is as well organised a party as any other party in the State, with its machinery, its Press, and its branches all over the country. I would point out to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not know whether it was merely put on or whether it was their sincere belief—that right up to the last Election they were saying that our party was the vital tail that was wagging the whole of the Labour dog. We do not count by numbers, but what we lack in numbers we make up in solid importance. Our friends of the Liberal party only succeeded in returning to the House one Member for every seven-and-a-half candidates, whereas our party succeeded in returning one Member out of seven candidates.

Considering the change that is going on, and considering the rightful place that the Communist party is taking in the Parliaments all over Europe, this House might now grant to us our justifiable claims, and put us in the time-table. I do not for a moment claim that our party should have a whole day, or a couple of days, allotted, but surely, now, the House can begin to allot to us, say, an hour, when other parties can have a full day to themselves. I have looked over the Debates for the last four or five days, and it seems to me that our party would be the only one that would stand in real difference without getting mixed up at times. We find it very difficult to find a line of strong demarcation. The last time that I was a Member of the House, our friends of the Labour party were fighting tooth and nail against the very scheming wording of the Amendment of the Rent Restrictions Act, which was likely to endanger its existence. Yesterday we heard from the same Labour party that the Rent Restrictions Act was standing, and will stand, in the way of building new houses. We have heard during the last few days of the Debate many points of agreement between the Tory party and the administrators of the Labour party, and we have seen very few points of strong disagreement. We have seen in to-night's Debate the party believing in Protection pointing out instance after instance where the parties believing in Free Trade were indulging in Protection and almost asking for it at times when it suited them.

We have heard to-night even the example quoted about the Capital Levy having disappeared, and looking at it all I submit that it is for the good of this nation and not for its harm that one party should stand up boldly to say that it always says what it believes in, and believes in what it is prepared to say, and to act up to it. We represent that section of the working class that does not believe in continuity of policy. We represent a section of the working class that does not believe in saying at one time that your employers are your enemies, that individual capitalism is the source of all your evils, and yet that we should sit down with them, make friends and form a joint club so that these evils may disappear from time to time.

With regard to the wording of my Amendment, I remember that when I was in the House in 1922 the first King's Speech I heard was read and debated. My hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton was reported to have said this:

:May I ask the hon. Member to inform the House and round off his speech by telling us why he has been excluded from membership of the Labour party?

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock , Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order .

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.