In consequence of the alteration in the Standing Orders passed by the House on 21st December last, I have thought that it would be to the general convenience of hon. Members and their friends if I arranged that the hour at which the second set of Orders for the Ladies' Gallery become available should be altered from 8.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Perhaps I should add that consequentially the Serjeant-at-Arms will issue Supplemental Orders for the Evening Sitting for the Ladies' Gallery from his Chair from 8.15 p.m., instead of from 9 p.m. as heretofore.

Since the House last met, the country and the Empire has sustained an irreparable loss in the death of Field-Marshal Earl Haig. I therefore propose to-morrow, at the commencement of business, to move a Resolution, which, I hope, will give expression to the feelings of this House.

I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly. It is the constant effort of My Government, in cooperation with the League of Nations, to secure the settlement of international differences and to promote the cause of peace.

I have invited the King of Afghanistan to visit Me in March and, I look forward to welcoming His Majesty to My capital. It will be a particular pleasure to Me to receive His Majesty on his first visit to Europe.

The position in China has so far improved as to permit large reductions in the naval and military forces sent to the Far East for the protection of My British and Indian subjects resident in the Concessions, but the situation caused by internal disturbances and civil wars and the consequent insecurity of life and property, both Chinese and foreign, still give cause for anxiety. In spite of these discouraging circumstances, My Government adhere to the declaration of policy published by them a year ago, as the basis on which they are prepared to meet Chinese aspirations when the Chinese can assure satisfactory protection for British lives and property.

On the 29th December last the United States Government communicated to My Ambassador at Washington, for consideration and as a basis for negotiation, the draft of a new Treaty of Arbitration between Myself and the President of the United States of America, to take the place of the Treaty of Arbitration concluded at Washington on the 4th April, 1908. The terms of the new draft are being carefully and sympathetically studied by My Government in Great Britain and will be considered in communication with My Governments in the Dominions.

Members of the House of Commons,

The Estimates for the Public Services will be laid before you in due course.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

Although the condition of affairs in some of the principal industries continues to give cause for serious anxiety, I am glad to observe that in the general state of trade and industry there are many encouraging signs of progressive improvement in both our home and external trade which justify the hope that with co-operation and, good-will steady progress will be made in the coming year.

The burdens imposed upon industry and agriculture by the present incidence of local rates have attracted the anxious attention of My Ministers. They are now engaged upon inquiries into the possibility of affording some relief from these burdens to the producing community and into the changes in local government which would thereby be involved.

Proposals will be brought before you for amending the law relating to the Parliamentary and local government franchise.

Measures will be presented to you for giving effect to certain recommendations of My Commission on National Health Insurance, and for increasing the credit facilities of persons engaged in agriculture.

Among other Bills which you will be invited to pass are Measures dealing with the laws relating to the Supreme Court of Judicature and to Arbitration, with the amendment of the Companies Acts, with the valuation for rating purposes of property in London, and with the law relating to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

You will also be asked to consider proposals for the reorganisation of certain of the Departments in Scotland.

Bills dealing with other Measures of importance will be introduced and proceeded with as time and opportunity allow.

I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your labours.

( in the uniform of the Hon. Artillery Company ): I beg to move,

By the selection of a Territorial soldier to perform this duty—although one who so recently relinquished a Command appointment that he may be considered still to be actually serving—I like to think that the tribute is being paid to our great citizen Army which today plays so large and so important a part in the defensive organisation of this Kingdom, because any recognition, however distant, however slight, cannot fail to be reflected in recruiting and will tend to bring to the colours the type of man the Territorial Army is entitled to expect.

One of the outstanding events of the past year was the return of His Majesty's son and daughter-in-law, the Duke and Duchess of York, from their visit to the Australian Dominions, where they opened, for the first time, the Commonwealth Parliament in the new Commonwealth Capital of Canberra; a ceremony which they performed with that quiet dignity which we have so long been accustomed to associate with the doings of the Royal House. Prior to that opening ceremony a deputation of Members from this honourable House presented to the Commonwealth Parliament, on your behalf, a Speaker's Chair. That Chair is in form and construction an exact reproduction of the Chair in which you, Mr. Speaker, preside over our debates in this House, and I feel sure that I am voicing the feelings of all parties when I say that we hope the resemblance will not end there, and, just as the Chair in which the Speaker of the Commonwealth Parliament will preside over the debates in far Canberra is a replica of the Chair in which you sit, so may the Rulings of the Speaker in that distant Dominion also be a replica of the courtesy, dignity, and impartiality with which you preside over the debates in this House.

Now I come to the more difficult portion of my speech. To touch with a light hand on political questions without introducing controversial matter is indeed no empty undertaking; so much so that should I inadvertently transgress the unwritten rule and trespass into the realm of controversy I can only plead the difficulty of my task and pray the indulgence of the House. After all, controversy is the soul of debate and the life blood of party government. Without controversy, debate becomes a mere lifeless formality. Without debate, with its searching and reasoned criticisms, legislation under party government as we understand it becomes a practical impossibility. It will invariably be found that, given an Opposition unduly weak numerically or relatively ineffective in debate, both legislation and government have suffered. But we need have no apprehension of a repetition of that unfortunate state of affairs in this House. We have on one side a Government who have performed the almost unprecedented feat of maintaining for more than three years their majority at approximately its original figure. On the other hand, we have an Opposition keen, alert, ever watchful, who criticise constructively and never obstructively, and I think we may rest assured that the proposed legislation will receive its full meed of useful criticism from an Opposition whose leaders are so renowned, so justly renowned, for their Parliamentary ability and for their debating skill.

Thousands of His Majesty's loyal subjects will read with gratification of the improvement in the state of affairs in China, not only because it will allow a return to their homes of husbands, sons and brothers who are at present serving in the Defence Force at Shanghai, where they have faced the dangers and hardships inseparable from active service with a spirit fully equal to the best traditions of the British Army, but also because it will permit of a still fuller resumption of that trading relationship between the two countries which in the past has been so beneficial to the populations of both countries. For every thousand who rejoice in our own country at the improved position in China, ten millions will rejoice in that distracted country itself, still, alas, torn by civil war and devastated by the marching and countermarching of revolutionary armies.

I have seen the face of war and I can realise the position of the poor cultivators of the soil; robbed impartially by both sides alike, ruined by requisitions, their plots of land and their little homes fought over and trampled underfoot. Our sympathies go out to these poor people in their sufferings, and with our sympathies the wish that we could do more to help them. The salvation of the country lies primarily in the hands of the population, and the most useful assistance we can give is a sympathetic understanding of Chinese aspirations and the harmonising of ancient views with modern ideas. One cannot help regretting that the League of Nations is not yet in a position to continue in Asia the work of pacification and reconstruction which has been so ably begun and carried out in Europe. So successful has that work been that the day cannot be very far distant when all the nations on earth will follow our example in making the League of Nations the keynote of their foreign policy.

One of the outstanding items of legislation foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech is a Measure for placing the franchise in this country on an even more democratic basis than at present, by admitting to the full rights of citizenship women between the ages of 21 and 30. I do not know, I have not been told, whether a system will be devised for securing to each party in this House representation proportionate to their strength in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I notice that that suggestion meets with the approval of the Opposition below the Gangway, and I think we may rest assured that whatever form the legislation takes Amendments in that direction will be moved with all that splendid eloquence which generation after generation in this House have been accustomed to hear from Liberal statesmen. The proposed legislation is met with opposition in the country and in the Press on two grounds, firstly, that it will increase the uncertainty of general elections, and, secondly, that women at the age of 21 are not fit for the full duties of citizenship. I think we can afford to disregard the second objection altogether. Scientists will tell us that the female of the human race matures, if anything, more rapidly and at an earlier age than the male. That being so, there is no reason why a woman of 21 should not be able to return at least as reasoned a vote on national questions as her male contemporary. As far as increasing the uncertainty of general elections goes, the results of general elections have ever been on the knees of the gods, and the only result of the proposed legislation will be to transfer a portion of the burden from the knees of the gods to the knees of the goddesses. In that case, unless fashions change, we shall be able to see exactly where we are.

In conclusion, I can only assure the Government of our diligent support and co-operation throughout the strenuous days and nights that lie before us, not only on account of the loyalty we feel for our revered leader, which is perhaps all the more genuine for being for the most part silently expressed, but also because we believe that the legislation adumbrated in the Gracious Speech will redound to the credit of this House and the future prosperity of the country.

( in Court dress ): It is with becoming modesty, which will perhaps satisfy my hon. Friends opposite, that I rise to second the Motion so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is not only interesting, but it is very gratifying to notice the conditions of peace that obtain between our own country and foreign lands, but we who live in these islands, we who have never left these islands are, after all has been said and done, more concerned regarding matters at home. Matters at home are, by arrangement, to be dealt with by the Seconder of the Resolution. We are not to be controversial. It is far from my intention to utter a discordant note or to mar the harmony of this gathering of the talents in this House to-day; but I am quite certain that when mention was made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, that the condition of affairs in some of our principal industries continues to give cause for anxiety, hon. Members who cheered that statement did not cheer it because they were glad that the condition of affairs in industry gives cause for anxiety, but rather because they believe that if they were in power they would be able to make things very much better than they are. That, I am perfectly sure, was the reason for their cheers; I should not like it to go abroad that some Members of the House of Commons were delighted that there was still so much unemployment in the country.

Those who belong to the class of industrial workers, as I do, those who are in close touch with all the misery that is entailed by unemployment on a large scale and for a long period, hope with great confidence that the signs of better conditions in the days immediately ahead will come to fruition and that no maniacal outburst of industrial unrest will shatter our hopes and throw us back again into the position in which we were eighteen months ago. When we deplore, as we do, the great number of unemployed in the country, for which in some cases the Government are blamed and in other cases belauded because matters are no worse, there is one point we should remember, and express more often, and that is, that the conditions of employment in this country are largely influenced by the extraordinary growth of our working popula- tion. During the War years, and since the War, there has been a falling off in the number of people who have emigrated on account of reasons due to the War and the conditions after the War, and there has been added to the number of employables in Great Britain a number far greater than the normal increase in our working population. The silver lining to the cloud is to be found in the fact that we have absorbed in industry during the post-War years something like a million more men than we employed in industry before. It is gratifying to notice that the Government intend to introduce measures of relief for what I believe to be the biggest hardship that industry has to bear—the grevious burden of local rates. If some relief can be given in this direction, then I hope that more money will be available for carrying on the industries of the country.

I will touch but lightly on the proposed franchise Measure because the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward) has already referred in eloquent terms to the necessity for changes in our franchise law. No man living is fonder of the opposite sex than I am; no man has greater confidence in their mental abilities and their likelihood for voting for the best candidate; no man has a higher admiration for the sex than I have, but no one has ever approached this subject with more trepidation as to what the enfranchisement of women might involve. But we follow the Government in their determination to give representation to every section of the community. Although the experiment may seem drastic and may give offence in certain quarters, there is a necessity for continually advancing and continually adding to the powers of the people in the democratic government of our country.

I am glad to notice that Measures are to be presented for certain amendments to the National Health Insurance Act. Every Act of Parliament becomes in some respects old-fashioned and out of date. Every Measure of the character of the National Health Insurance Act is bound in its administration to show up anomalies; it is bound to show defects in the machinery, and, therefore, it is the duty of successive Governments to endeavour to remove those anomalies and make the working of the administration sweeter and easier. A promise has been given to me, that in the new legislation an effort will be made to make it possible for men who are now excluded from the operation of the Act, and also of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, to be brought into such a position that they will be able to participate in the benefits of these Measures, for which directly and indirectly they are called upon to contribute. I refer particularly to the share fishermen in my own constituency and elsewhere, who have been loaded with the burden of maintaining certain funds for the payment of benefits in which they cannot participate. I hope that the Measure to be introduced will give them, and others like them, their proper place in the national scheme.

As a Scottish Member, I want to say one word in regard to the proposed legislation for Scotland, that is, the reorganisation of certain departments in Scotland. Personally, I believe it is necessary in some cases, and my only qualm, which has been set at rest, was the fear that our departments in Scotland might be made subject to English departments. That is not to be the case, and we shall soon be able, in our own country and by our own people, to see to the administration of the laws with which these departments have to deal. Representing an agricultural community, I rejoice that the Government, at last, are prepared to give the farming community access to credits, which I believe may do something to tide over the very bad times through which the agricultural community is passing. Although there is nothing spectacular in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, there is a forecast of useful Measures which will be of real benefit to the nation, and for that reason I desire to Second the Motion.

It is generally the custom to choose two colleagues of ours to move and second the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne from Members of this House who have not yet, by practice in speaking within these walls, managed to throw off that unnerving awe which overtakes even the oldest Members, but to-day two colleagues have been chosen who have taken a very considerable part in our deliberations; whom we have heard from time to time, always with great pleasure, and, in performing the new function which has been assigned to them to-day, they have done it on the best traditional lines to which this House is accustomed. Whether it was the graceful reference of the Mover of the Address to Liberal orators, or to the knees of the goddesses, he did his work perfectly, and I congratulate him very much indeed. As to the Seconder, coming from a district with which I am familiar, where the cold winds are accustomed to blow, where the weather hardens both body and mind, one expected he would be a little more breezy, a little more robust, and show, perhaps, a little more faith in his Government than his predecessor. We are ready to congratulate him in the same way as we congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion.

As a matter of fact, for quiet and graceful speeches the Government gave them both an admirable opportunity. This is the most meagre King's Speech I have ever heard read during my time in this House. The Government, having talked for a great many years about economy, meaning economy in cash, have at last discovered how to find economy in work. The Government's idea of this Session apparently is that it is going to be very much of a prolonged holiday as far as they are concerned. We shall have to see about that. We do not take the complacent view of social conditions that is taken by those who drafted the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

Let me take the sections as they come, and on this occasion one can take only a very hurried and somewhat disjointed survey of the Gracious Speech. First of all, we come to foreign relations, and I want to say quite candidly that I welcome most sincerely the reference to China. I am not going to raise any past controversy now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am perfectly willing so to do if required and the challenge is thrown out. What I propose to do is to confine myself to the scope of the Speech, and within that scope I want to say that it is most gratifying to know that troops are being withdrawn, and on behalf of my colleagues I express the opinion, the wish and the hope, that that process of withdrawal will be accelerated because we believe the time has come for it. The last part of the reference to China is of special importance. I believe that every section of the House will desire to be associated with it. All sections in China ought to be made fully aware of the fact that this nation as a whole stands by a policy which, sympathising with full self-government for China, hopes to co-operate with them as a governing State for common purposes in the most friendly and whole-hearted way; and the declaration made in the Gracious Speech, that the Government withdraw nothing from the policy published by them a year ago, that that statement is still the basis of the Government's policy, and that the Government are only anxious to wait for a political opportunity to carry that statement into effect—about that there should be no doubt in China whatever. It ought not to go to China as the decision of one side of the House or another, but as the declared and settled policy of the British nation regarding the future of China.

There is another point about China to which I would like to make reference. I do not think that people are quite satisfied with the Government taking a negative or waiting attitude, in spite of the obstruction and disorder in that country now. Perhaps if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is to take part in the Debate, he can give us a little more information as to what is actually going on in China now and what we are doing in order to help to a solution. There is one suggestion I want to make. The funds available from the Boxer Indemnity are being held. This House has solemnly declared to the world that those funds are to be devoted solely to the advancement of Chinese purposes. We have not only said that to China, but we have said it in the eyes of the world, with other nations in the world interested in the policy that we were declaring. The Boxer Indemnity, every brass farthing of the balance that lies in it now, has been earmarked by this House for the purpose of expenditure upon Chinese objects, and it will be an act of the grossest bad taste if any hand is to be laid on those funds to divert them to purposes other than those concerned with the development of China. I think that those funds might very well be used now, legislation being passed if required, to do beneficent things in the public interests of China, for the advancement of Chinese purposes. Even now the funds might be used with tremendously good effect on the future good relations between this country and China.

With reference to America, it is perfectly evident from the facts that the failure to come to an agreement with America at Geneva has resulted in most unfortunate circumstances. It is a warning to the Foreign Office, and a warning which, I hope, the Foreign Office will never forget, that in its hands and in its hands alone rests the policy for peace and international agreement, and that if it hands over negotiations to Army Councils or to Admiralties, that if it asks the Admiralty or the Army or the Air Force to make agreements with the corresponding bodies of other countries, failure is bound to follow, whereas it is the Foreign Office, holding grip of the political causes of armaments, holding grip of the political causes, which alone can bring settlements and steer the ship of State through its difficulties and bring it safely to port. It was the surrender at Geneva, or the failure on the part of the Foreign Office to make the necessary preparations for that discussion and Conference, and the handing over of the arrangements to Admiralty representatives, that were solely responsible for the failure that took place at Geneva. I, therefore, hope that the negotiations that are now going on to renew the Treaty of Arbitration between this country and America may be broadened out, so that the issues raised at Geneva may again be considered and result in a complete settlement, as I am perfectly certain it is quite possible for that to happen.

Leaving the paragraph in the King's Speech on foreign policy and the foreign situation, and considering the domestic programme outlined by the Government, the most prominent feature about the Gracious Speech is its omissions; it is not what is there, but what is not there. Take, for instance, the Factory Bill. Such a Bill has been promised again and again. We were told solemnly last year that this year a Factory Bill would be in the programme. I am within the recollection of both sides of the House when I say that the Home Secretary said so and that the Prime Minister said so. Now, apparently, if the Home Secretary is to speak during this Debate, he is to get up and promise the Bill for another year. Not only that. There is the Washington Convention that has been promised. Negotiations took place two years ago to arrange the provisions of that Convention so that they might be carried into law. To the amazement of everyone and to the consternation of the nations represented, not the industrial parts of the nations but the Government representatives of the nations present at Geneva, our Government and our Government alone, through the mouth of its representatives, took up an absolutely impossibilist attitude.

Here, again, we are told at one time that international competition is preventing high wages being paid and preventing a lowering of the hours of labour here, but when the Government are asked to do something to meet that and to raise international conditions in the only way they can, through the International Labour Office, they send their representatives to Geneva to tell the Governments assembled that it is absolutely impossible to do anything of the kind. His Majesty's Speech has not even a word to say on the subject. That is carrying out the Government's economic policy, which from beginning to end has been that this nation's trade is to be built up on low wages and long hours. From beginning to end, if anyone works up the economics underlying the Government's position and attitude, it is that only by accepting sweated conditions can this country successfully compete with its foreign competitors. Therefore, there is no Factory Bill; therefore, the continued opposition to the Washington Convention; therefore, no proposal in the Speech, in this programme of legislation, which has any bearing upon raising the standards of the lives of the masses of the people of the country.

Then there is the question of pensions. Already there are enough examples of how the Contributory Pensions Act, which has just come into operation, is not only not covering enough cases, but is actually going to worsen a great many cases. Category after category and type after type of case has already been displayed. There can be no dispute at all about it. With its present wording, the Act must work in that way. The Government are prepared to go on for another year and to leave these poor women and poor children to undergo the miseries for which the Government are alone responsible because of bad drafting. We shall give them an opportunity, long before the Session is over, to support or to vote against a Bill which we shall present to meet the difficulties that have already been experienced in the administration of the Act.

It is very curious that the biggest problem that we have to face at the present time, the problem of transport, is not to be dealt with by the Government. It is to be dealt with by private Bills. The Government surely must see that the co-ordination of the transport power of this country, its management and its control, are not matters that can be dealt with adequately by private Bills. The Government have been in power for three years and have seen the problem develop and mature, and now they come forward with this programme of legislation, and not a word about transport, not an indication that the Government are aware of the fact that this matter has to be settled and settled by a central authority and not by a variety of private authorities or local authorities.

On the general question of trade, in the next paragraph we have the same complacency. Would any man or any woman, after reading this paragraph on the prospect of trade, be aware that there are over 1,000,000 people unemployed in this country at the present time, and hundreds of thousands getting an income, not with their own labour but by public and private charity in addition to that? There are signs of a revival of trade, and we welcome them. It looks as though we were going back to the conditions in 1924, when there was confidence, when there was security, when trade was reviving, when money was very much cheaper and under far better control than it is now.

You wanted to lend it to Russia.

4.0. p.m.

The figures that the Seconder of the Address gave are the most quoted or the most referred to. Those figures, given in the official publications of the Government, must be very carefully scrutinised. It is not enough merely to throw out figures. As I understand the position, it is that in certain trades there has been a gain between 1923 and 1927 of 874,000. In certain others there has been a loss of 304,000. The trades in which the loss has taken place are coal, general engineering, woollen and worsted, shipbuilding and repairs, iron and steel smelting, marine engineering and so on, all large fundamental industries. The trades where the gains have taken place are very curious. The distributive trades show an increase of 327,000—well on to half of the total increase. Building and public works construction—very good signs—173,000; artificial silk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—the right hon. Gentleman opposite really thinks he can run the country on artificial silk—17,000; motor construction, 41,000; printing—no cheers there, because there is no safeguarding—road transport—no cheers again there—49,000, and so on. There is, first of all, the peculiar phenomenon of the distributive trades. What is the explanation of that? Is it a larger demand for luxuries, or is it that the pensions, and what you call the doles, the insurances, really mean that there are more of the smaller things and the cheaper things required in very humble homes, and not only required in, but actually bought for, very humble homes?

The whole point is that this apparent increase in the figure put alongside the loss in the figure shows that we are losing those industries which have characteristically been the foundations of our prosperity, and the other industries that we are getting are of very doubtful social value—a large number of them of very doubtful social value. For instance, supposing the motor increase is an increase in commercial vehicles, that is good. Supposing the motor increase is an increase of luxury motor consumption, that is thoroughly bad, and the less we have of that the better. No nation can afford to withdraw from the real, solid, productive industries, the productive industries that increase our wealth, that produce things not merely for personal enjoyment but things that fructify for social enjoyment. No nation can afford to withdraw its labour from those industries and put it into artificial things, which are really of no benefit to the State at all except as State luxuries. Therefore, as far as trade revival means more wages, more employment, we welcome it. Nevertheless, the Government must keep their eye very closely upon those figures, because those figures indicate labour running into channels which, so far from being good, sound, social channels, are exactly the opposite.

Then there is coal. There is not a word here about coal. The paragraph about trade was written as though there were no pressing human problem in the coalmining industry to-day. There is no improvement there. As a matter of fact there is a deterioration, and as we have been pressing on the Prime Minister, the victory which he secured for the owners is not being used by the owners to enable them to control their economics, not merely to control their pits, not merely to determine wages and hours. Their victory is being used to enable them to be the owners of their men as well. One never goes down to a coal-mining area and comes into personal contact with the men and the women but one finds that the iron that is entering into the souls of those people is not merely the iron of physical poverty, but is the iron of the sense of human degradation which they resent, and will continue to resent. That is going on, and with it the creation of false trade unions and so on. This Government, which gave the owners the power to do that, at the same time that they professed to be shocked when the workmen used the same kind of weapons, have got the responsibility to see to it that the powers which they conferred on the owners are not used any longer in the way the owners have used them since they got them. There is not a word here about co-ordination or about enforcing their own laws on the coalowners. No, the Government who devised this consider there is no coal problem at all, and that everyone is perfectly happy and content.

Then on the question of rates, the Seconder was very optimistic. He expects something. As a matter of fact, the King's Gracious Speech says nothing about that at all. As far as I am concerned, I am very glad indeed that the Government at last are beginning to be aware of that problem. The problem has been in existence for years and years. The distressed area has been in existence for years and years, and this is the first time that the Government admit that they know it does exist. In what form do they make their admission? The Gracious Speech says:

With reference to the franchise in the next paragraph, the most striking thing when both the Mover and Seconder referred to it was the ominous silence on the benches opposite. As far as the franchise is concerned, it need not take long. Where is the opposition? The Opposition, in a sense, in this House has converted the Government. The Opposition, which is used to signify these benches, has been striving to get this change made in the legislation year after year. The Opposition has been agitating—

So have we!

And the result is that the Noble Lady can say that she has been helping us to do it. As far as the Government are concerned, the Noble Lady and ourselves have converted them.

Minister's words!

I know the. Noble Lady is going to have a most terrible hammering during those days of discussion, but we shall help her in every way we can to keep her party obedient to her and the Prime Minister, and give us the franchise for women, at the very earliest possible time. Why should not this Bill be introduced at once? I am assuming, of course, that it is a perfectly straightforward, honest Bill enfranchising women of 21, and that there is no other provision except applying the franchise to local government, and so on. Why cannot that Bill be produced straight away? Is it impossible to have that Bill through before Easter? I ask it for this reason. The Prime Minister of course knows what I have in mind. It is not enough to pass an enfranchisement Bill. We must also have, the register. That comes into operation on the 15th October, and unless the Prime Minister proposes to give us special legislation for registration, his Bill, if delayed to the end of summer, will not be effective for the next election—it cannot be effective for the next election—[HON. MEMBEBS: "Why?"] The next election is bound to come between 15th October this year and 15th October next year. Therefore, if the 15th October, 1928, register is made up without the new women's names in it, then those women cannot vote at the next election. The only alternative is to put the Bill through before Easter—I think that is almost necessary—in any event, in time to get the names on the register by the 15th October, or, if not that, then a special Bill making a special register so that the women may vote. I should be much obliged indeed if we could have that on record, and if the Prime Minister will say what the Government propose to do with reference to the Bill.

Before I conclude this very disjointed survey—necessarily so because one has to mention all these various points in any attempted survey of a King's Speech— there are just two points which I should like to add. There are two inquiries on foot just now. There is, first, the Indian Commission. We all remember the altitude that was taken up, I am glad to say by the House as a whole, towards that Commission. The Commission has now landed in India, and has reached Delhi. I understand communications have passed. I have had some myself from Delhi, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has now received any official communication regarding the position of the Simon Commission and its proposed outline of work, which it would be possible for him to communicate to the House this afternoon. That is the first question which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman.

Then there is to be an inquiry into certain unpleasant matters relating to foreign exchanges. This is one of those matters about which one does not want to say anything whatever at a stage like this, but it has been in all the newspapers, and not only the people of this country, but the people abroad have been reading about it. I think it would go a good long way to settle and assure the public both at home and abroad, if the Prime Minister would tell us what procedure he proposes to adopt. I do not want anything more than that. What does he propose to do? I daresay he will receive a report of some kind or another. It would help people just to forget the matter in the meantime, until the time comes to remember it, if the Prime Minister would tell us how he proposes to handle the matter.

Such is the King's Speech. I can assure the Government that the matters which they have left out—these large social questions—will not be forgotten by the Opposition and, as the days go on, as the weeks go on, as the months go on, we shall fight them stage by stage, day by day. It will have to be done and the elections will come as they have been coming, and the Government majority and the Government support will go down, down, down. Already in three elections this year, their support has gone down by 10,000 votes, and the only way in which this Speech can be regarded as a fitting symbol of the Government's mind is that it is going down slowly, steadily, but persistently to nothingness. When the time comes for the country to say whether a Government that can produce a King's Speech like this, under social conditions like those in which we live, ought to have the country's confidence, then the country I am perfectly certain will give its reply in a sound, emphatic and determined negative.

I do not propose to intervene for more than a few minutes before the Prime Minister replies, and I shall confine myself to a few questions. In doing so, I shall revert to the old traditional practice on the occasion of the first day of the Debate on the Address which has been to elicit information with regard to the intentions of the Government rather than to engage in criticism of their programme. The criticism, as a rule, used to take place after this preliminary stage. May I join with the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the Mover and Seconder of the Address upon the very felicitous way in which they discharged their difficult task. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion did so with grace, with great good humour, and with wit—some of it subtle, and some of it audacious, but all of it very delightful and very gratifying to the House. The Seconder of the Motion belongs to the most combative race in this island, but, in spite of that fact, he restrained himself and avoided all controversial matters. I could see in his face the struggle that was going on, and that he was very anxious now and again to have a good punch here and there, but he restrained himself within the traditional limits and avoided controversial subjects. I congratulate both, upon the admirable way in which they discharged this duty.

There are a number of inquiries which I wish to put to the Prime Minister, and to which I should like answers if he is in the position to give them when he rises to speak. On one or two of these matters I have given him short notice. Before I come to those inquiries, may I also say how much I welcome the paragraph in the Speech with regard to China. I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have come to the conclusion that things have improved to such an extent that it will be possible to withdraw a great number of the troops from China. I wish it had been possible to say that things had improved to such an extent that all the troops could have been withdrawn, but it is quite clear to anybody who gets information, even from the Press, that that happy state has not yet been reached. From the first moment when the Foreign Secretary approached the House of Commons with a view to getting its sanction for sending an ex- peditionary force there for the protection of life and property, I supported that policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I supported that policy in the House, and the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong. In addition to that, I voted for every Motion for the supply of cash, for the payment of the expenses of that force. I believe there were two occasions upon which a Vote was taken in this House. On both those occasions by voice and certainly once by vote I supported the action of the Government, and I have nothing to regret in what I have done.

I come now to the second part of this paragraph, with regard to China. I am delighted to see that not merely is the right hon. Gentleman adhering to the very important declaration which be made a year ago with regard to the intentions of the Government, but that, in spite of all the difficulties which have been encountered since—and very great difficulties there are—the Government have come to the conclusion that they do not see any reason for departing from that exceedingly wise policy. Anybody can see the difficulties that exist, because there is no Government there which you can depend upon to continue beyond a few weeks. At one moment one man may be on top; then he disappears, and another takes his place, and they have not even the same provinces under their control for any length of time. Even if a person there manages, more or less, to secure his base, he can never for any length of time guarantee that he can speak on behalf of any particular area. That makes the task of negotiation extraordinarily difficult. I know how important this matter is from the point of view of foreign countries. They attach great importance to the attitude which has been taken up by the Government, and I know that that attitude has won a great deal of acceptance in foreign lands and that the declaration of the Foreign Secretary in that respect has made a very great impression. I think it was wise for the Government to repeat that declaration, not because there was any doubt about it, but because it will have the effect abroad of making it clear that the British Government, at any rate, are going to adhere to the policy which they laid down, and that, whenever an opening offers itself in China, they will take full advantage of it along those lines and along no other. I am very gratified that this paragraph has been inserted in the King's Speech.

I come now to the questions which I wish to put to the Prime Minister. The first is with regard to the Treaty of Arbitration. I should like to know whether in the new proposals there is any advance upon the old. Is it going to be an "all-in" Treaty of Arbitration? Does it include everything? Is there any departure, and, especially, is there any improvement or extension in the ambit of arbitration? Does it go further? Is every subject of dispute between us and the United States of America to be subject to arbitration? I agree with my right hon. Friend that the failure of the Geneva Conference was a very disastrous failure, and that makes it all the more necessary that some treaty of this kind should be entered into between the two Governments so as to exclude even the possibility of war and exclude even discussions with regard to war between these two countries. If it is known that every subject of dispute will be also a subject of judicial reference between the two countries, you will soon exclude all discussions about rival armaments and you will have a new temper which will achieve very great good, because the peace of the world depends, in my judgment, more upon goodwill and co-operation and even partnership in foreign affairs between these two great countries than between almost any other two great countries in the world.

In reference to the inquiries with regard to rates referred to in the Speech, I should like to press this matter a little further. The question has been put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister: What do these inquiries mean? Is there to be a Departmental inquiry? If so, I also ask will there be evidence, and will the evidence be published, or is it to be a Parliamentary inquiry? I assume the idea of a Commission is excluded, because a Commission very often is merely a method of shelving the whole problem. [ Interruption, ] I should like also to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health what is to be the scope of the inquiry? Is it purely a question of subsidies from the Imperial Treasury for the relief of rates? There is a rather ominous para- graph in the Speech which seems to indicate that. It refers to

The other question which I should like to ask is this: Is there going to be any inquiry with regard to the subjects of taxation? At the present moment one of the difficulties of local government is that you are confined to taxation upon very limited lines. There is a certain kind of property which you can tax. Other countries have all kinds of other resources to supplement that particular method of raising local revenue, but here we have not got them. I should rather like to know whether it is contemplated that the inquiry shall extend not merely to the question of subsidies, but to the question of the extension of the area of the subjects of taxation—to betterment, site values, and so on. I have heard it suggested that there might be a form of local Income Tax. I am not making the suggestion, but it is one of the methods by which revenue is raised in other parts of the world. Is there to be any inquiry at all into the subjects of taxation? The last inquiry with regard to this which I should like to make is this: Is it contemplated—I should like to ask the Prime Minister's special attention to this—that the inquiry should come to a termination in time for legislation this year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer rather indicated in his speech at Birmingham that he would wait until he was able to spare the cash or to raid the cash.

Raise it or raid it?

Raid it. He is a very practised hand at that. Does it really mean—and I rather gather that it means—that probably he could not see his way at the present moment to make any grant which would create any impression, any what I call electoral impression, and that therefore what he probably suggested to the Minister of Health, who will always accept his suggestions, I have no doubt, was the possibility of inquiries. He probably said: "Of course the subject has never been inquired into before. We have never had any inquiries, and had we better not inquire into this interesting subject?" And the Minister of Health then said he would do his best to set up some sort of inquiry but, as I gather from him at present, he has not made up his mind what form this inquiry should take or what the subjects are, and I should rather like to know from the Prime Minister what is this inquiry, what its subjects are, and what its extent is; and, above all, I should like to ask him whether it is contemplated to deal legislatively and effectively with this problem this year. There is no doubt at all that some of these authorities are bankrupt at the present moment; and bankrupt is the word. They have not got the cash to meet their requisitions; they cannot collect the rates, they cannot meet the demands which they are legally obliged to discharge, and, unless the Government come to their rescue in some form or other, the result will be that local government will be completely derelict in very considerable industrial areas. I know that, as a matter of fact, when you come to South Wales, they have not got the money, and there is no one there from whom they can collect it. Therefore, I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to deal effectively with this question.

I have a question which I think has been put by the Leader of the Opposition, but, in case the Prime Minister may have forgotten it, I will repeat it. When are we going to get this Bill with regard to the franchise? Is it to be introduced soon, and is it to be pressed through the House of Commons at an early stage? Because it may have a bearing upon a great many questions. The last question I wish to put is with regard to National Health Insurance. I am assuming that that is dealing with the recommendations of the Commission that reported about a couple of years ago, the Commission appointed by the late Minister of Health, which reported, I think, in 1925 or 1936.

indicated assent.

I should like to know whether there is any cash in that. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to put back the money which he extracted?

indicated dissent.

Then I can tell him that unless he does so, those recommendations will be of no use at all. It will be like a machine without any petrol; it will not march, it will just stick. The only recommendations of the slightest value in that Commission's Report were recommendations with regard to additional benefits. Some of those recommendations are invaluable, but they all mean more cash, and I do not believe that the cash is available now—so I am assured by those who are running these insurance companies and friendly societies—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the money away. Can the Minister of Health get that money back? The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head very emphatically. I am afraid he is going to win on this particular occasion, and I do not look forward to this Bill with any sort of satisfaction, nor would anybody else.

With regard to the omissions from the King's Speech, they are very remarkable. The Government have left out all questions of unemployment, all questions of housing, the clearing of slums, great questions with regard to the development of our national resources, questions like drainage, that we had last year, which were promised most definitely by various Ministers. All these questions of national reconstruction, upon which the solution of the problem of unemployment depends, have been omitted, but they are questions which will be dealt with, I have no doubt, in the course of debates later on, and I shall confine myself now merely to asking those questions of the Prime Minister.

On this day, as at the beginning of every Session, it is the pleasant task of the Leader of the House, first of all, to join with the Leaders of the other parties in congratulating the Mover and Seconder of the Address on the manner in which they have played their most difficult part. I am always thankful that it never fell to my lot to be either the Mover or the Seconder of the Address. There is no task in the Parliamentary life of a Member of Parliament more difficult or more nerve-racking, and I would, now that the event is safely over, just ask the House to sympathise for one moment with the feelings of one with whom they can have little sympathy as a rule, and that is the Leader of the House himself, who has to select those Members to make those speeches. It is exactly as though he called them out for the final test to obtain their badge and asked them to do five minutes' free skating on a rink where the ice is extraordinarily thin. He has to watch them and to see them approaching the danger spots, and he wonders if they are going to skirt round them or if they are going through the ice. I congratulate them most warmly on their performance this afternoon. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are not going to cut much ice!"] That is an excellent prelude to the observations which I am going to make. I was going on to add that, owing to the gift of tongues which the Leader of the Liberal party has, I am going to quote an observation of his; he puts these things so much better than I can. Only six years ago, speaking on an occasion similar to this, he said:

The right hon. Gentleman asked five questions, and that is all. He said he was glad, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to read the paragraph expressing the intention of the Government with regard to China. That paragraph was put in that prominent position on purpose, so that it might be read throughout the world, and I am glad to think that the endorsement that has been given by both right hon. Gentlemen to-day will make that a national policy and that the whole world will recognise it as such. With regard to the American Treaty, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to deal with that. It is a difficult and technical subject, and he proposes, if it be for the convenience of the House, to speak to-morrow afternoon and to deal with any points having regard to foreign policy that may be raised in the general Debate.

Then the next point is the paragraph in the Most Gracious Speech bearing upon the incidence of local rates. I should like to give the right hon. Gentlemen answers to all the questions they have raised, but perhaps I can answer them best in a sentence when I say that this whole problem has been inquired into for the best part of a year past by the Government, as a Government and as a whole. It is inevitable that this question should be inseparably bound up with the financial results of the year and the financial prospects of next year. We hope it may be possible to take a forward step, but it is impossible to say what at the moment. If it be possible, as we hope, a little later in the year, we shall certainly take whatever preliminary steps are possible in the way of legislation during this Session, and proceed with the business in the new Session which, I hope, will begin in the autumn. As the question is, and must inevitably be, bound up with the financial proposals of the year, I am unfortunately debarred from saying anything more on the subject at present.

With regard to the Franchise Bill, I cannot yet say when the Franchise Bill will be introduced, but I do say this, as I have said before, that whenever the Franchise Bill—it is going to be introduced this Session—is passed, we shall take care that there will be a Clause in it, if it is necessitated by the time, to ensure that all who are enfranchised by that Bill shall vote at the next election.

Will they also be ready to vote in the municipal elections?

That is a question which I have not considered yet. With regard1 to the right hon. Gentleman's fifth point, which had to do with Health Insurance, I could not quite hear whether he asked, "Is there a catch in it?" or "Is there cash in it?"

Cash!

There is neither—neither cash nor a catch. It deals purely with machinery which will facilitate very much the working of the Act, and it will neither cost the Exchequer anything nor bring anything into1 their funds. The rest of the right hon. Gentleman's speech contained complaints about omissions. I will have a word to say about that as I deal more specifically with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party. I have no doubt that it has struck those who have occupied in the past the position I now hold, that anyone leading this House at the time of the King's Speech is more or less like the old man in Æsop who is walking with his son and an ass. Whatever he and his son did never gave satisfaction to the spectators. The right hon. Gentleman, I saw the other day, complained that it would be grossly immoral on our part if we were to put controversial legislation into the programme this Session. I have tried, as far as possible, to avoid controversial legislation, and all I get for that is to be told that the House is going to have a prolonged holiday. It is not; and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I can look for holidays, prolonged or otherwise.

I wish at this point to make one or two observations on the business of the House. When I spoke a year ago—and I think, it may be, that I said the same thing two years ago—I pleaded hard that the Session might be wound up at the end of July or the beginning of August for the general convenience of the House, and for reasons which I gave at the time. The Government have decided that this year they will prorogue the Session, and definitely begin a new Session in November, after allowing the House an adequate holiday and some time for hon. Members to tour about in England. I would ask the House to remember this—and it is not realised generally, I think, by Members who have not had to do with the conduct of the House: if you take the time from the beginning of the Session until the end of July or the beginning of August, and you take out all the days that have to be given to necessary legislation—to the Budget, the Finance Bill, the Consolidated Fund Bill, Supply Days and a few other Bills that must be got through—it only leaves you about 22 days for legislation and for emergencies of any kind that may occur in the course of business. That shows that the amount of legislation that can be passed in that period must be limited, and the only way by which the large amount of legislation that has been passed in recent years—an increasing amount, whatever Government has been in power—has been passed is solely by the Bills getting to a certain stage by the end of July. They have then all accumulated in the later stages in the Autumn, meaning hard and heavy work in the Autumn, which has thoroughly tired this House before now, and then all been thrown at the end in a heap into another place where, very often, they cannot be gone through with that care which long, technical Bills very often require; and the whole machinery of the House gets clogged in the process. I have been long convinced that, as far as the efficient business of the House is concerned, by far the best thing is to prorogue at the end of July or the beginning of August, so that Members can have their holiday in the holiday months; and to begin the new Session in October or November. Parliament could meet then and get through the Address, and perhaps a couple of the big Measures of the year could be introduced, so that afterwards they could be brought immediately into Committee. You could then get quite an effective part of your legislation through and passed by Easter. There is no question that, as far as business is concerned, that is by far the better way, but it does mean that, unless this is a regular rule in the House, if at any time you begin the Session in February and want to bring it to an end in July or August, you have to cut your programme down. I can assure the House that this is a matter to which I have given the very closest attention for some time past, and even with the comparatively small amount of legislation which is alluded to in the King's Speech, I think there is work that will take us all our time until the date when I hope the House will be able to prorogue.

There are two things I should mention to the House which will have to be dealt with, and which have not been mentioned in the Gracious Speech. The House will remember that at the end of last Session there was a Resolution passed in another place asking His Majesty to appoint two more Judges. In due course the House of Commons will be asked to deal with that Resolution. I am advised that the state of business in the Law Courts at present is such that two more Judges are urgently needed, and will be needed for some little time yet, to deal with the work. That Resolution will be submitted to the House, and it will possibly be submitted in another place. It is only, as the last Resolution was, to appoint two more, but not to increase permanently the number of Judges on the King's Bench. I need not go further into that point to-day. When the Resolution comes before the House, the House will have all the arguments put before it. Then, so far as I can judge at the present, there will be one day, or it may be more, which will be needed for a further discussion on the Prayer Book. That takes up probably two days altogether on matters which will have to come before this House out of the small amount of time that there is.

Then, with regard to the Factory Bill, I regret very much that, in the circumstances which I have just described to the House, there is no possibility of getting through any Bill which may be regarded as controversial between now and the end of July. I hope it will be possible, if the House prorogues, and we are able to begin a new Session as we intend to in November, that that Bill may be dealt with before the end of next Session. I do not see anything to prevent the next Session running along for some time. I should like to make one observation about the Private Bill coming before this House, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. I do not think, in spite of what he said, that that is a matte>r for a Government Bill, but I am advised that the only way in which railway companies can obtain power to run motor traffic on the road is through the medium of a Private Bill. That is the normal procedure, and that procedure is to be taken. I know that there are difficulties opposite, because there are various views now on that subject, and there will be in other parts of the House, too but, in any case, when that Bill comes, the House of Commons will be able to deal with it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions. He asked me a question about the unhappy event which has been alluded to in the Law Courts. I think perhaps the best thing would be to put to the House quite briefly, as I have had it prepared, a statement of the exact procedure which the Government have adopted, and that will, incidentally, answer a question which has been put down for to-morrow on the subject: India at 5 o'clock, Indian time. It will obviously, be in the Press to-morrow morning, but if the House would like to hear the letter read—it will take about 10 minutes to read—I will be very glad to read it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bead it!"] I think I can give the gist of it in a few pages without reading every word of it. The whole document may be published in the morning. He writes on behalf of his colleagues:

Now I come to the last two or three pages. These are of importance, because they will show the House very clearly, I think, the attitude of the Commission on their arrival in India. municated the most important part of it to the House—I believe the whole document is being communicated to Parliament by the Secretary of State for India—and I feel confident that the House has the same trust in that Commission as it had when it sent them forth and that it wishes them every success in their difficult and arduous task.

I do not want to prolong the congratulations to the Mover and Seconder of the Address, but the Mover is a colleague of mine in the representation of Hull, and I want first of all to thank him for his references to the other Members of the city and to apologise for not being here to listen to them myself. I congratulate him and the Seconder generally, as every other speaker has done. I have risen only to draw attention to one matter, which affects the City of Hull, and which, I know, will have the support of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotian), whom I see on the benches opposite. I refer to that part of the Gracious Speech which deals with agricultural credits. As far as I know, everyone on these benches—I think I am speaking for all my colleagues—welcomes the proposed cheaper credits for farmers. Whether these are what are required by the agricultural community we shall hear presently from agricultural Members. Personally I have my doubts; I think agriculture wants something else. But there is another industry which is very much akin to agriculture, and I am sorry to say that it is not mentioned in the reference to credits in the King s Speech. I refer to the industry of sea fishing, and would observe here that I am glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). He represents the greatest fishing port in the world, and I know he will support what I am going to say as a representative of Hull, which is the second largest fishing port in the world. I had been looking for the hon. Member to give him notice that I was going to raise this question, but I am glad that he is here.

If agriculturists are to be given special credit facilities by the Government, we demand that the Bill shall be drawn in such wide terms that those engaged in sea fishing shall have those facilities also. We rely on the hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies to support us in this matter. In fairness they ought to support us, as we are prepared to support them. The harvest of the sea is sown by no man, being placed there by the Almighty, but it is reaped by man to the wealth and the advantage of the whole country. The reapers of that harvest face very great perils at sea—no one can avoid those; but they face also great difficulties in the fluctuation of markets ashore. Since the War, for various reasons into which I will not go in detail just now, they have been very hard hit. Their industry was injured during the War itself, and since then markets have been extremely difficult for them. I am glad to say that taking the country as a whole—I represent a trawling port, but my proposals would apply to inshore fishermen, to line fishermen and to the Scotch herring fishermen—the number of men engaged in this arduous but honourable calling has not fallen off. I suppose it is the calling with the greatest hardships of any. Men go to sea for weeks at a time in small vessels, about half the size of the ship with which Columbus discovered America, and they go to sea for as long a voyage as he went—in point of the distance they sail to reach their fishing ground. But we still have men of our race going into the fishing industry and willing to make it their calling. These men need the help of cheap credits.

I am speaking here with an exact knowledge of the situation of the fishing fleet in Hull, and the same thing applies to Grimsby, Fleetwood, Aberdeen and the other great trawling ports; they do require the same facilities as it is proposed to give to agriculture, for perhaps different but not altogether dissimilar reasons. I hope that in the time which will elapse before the Bill implementing the promise in the Gracious Speech is introduced, the Government will so draw the Bill as to include in it the toilers of the sea engaged in fishing as well as the reapers of the harvest on land. This is the one point I wish to make, and having made it I will resume my seat.

The point I wish to refer to is not raised in the King's Speech, and I take this opportunity of bringing it forward as being probably the only occasion when I can do so. I raised it in the Debate on the King's Speech last Session. My point deals with boys who are employed underground at collieries on night shifts. Last year I found so much general sympathy with the view I put forward that later I brought in a private Member's Bill under the Ten-minutes Rule. There was no opposition to the introduction of that Bill, and several Members on the other side of the House said they would help to forward it at all stages. When the Second Reading came on, opposition arose, and in this form—this is what I object to—that hon. Members on the other side shouted "Object!" I could not find out from them who it was who raised that protest. I say, that if anyone has the courage to shout "Object," he ought to get up in his place and voice his objection. If a First Reading has been given to a Bill but later, for some reason or another, objections are advanced to it, people who put forward the objections ought to give their reasons when they say "Object"; otherwise, it does not give a chance to private Members who are bringing forward such Measures.

On the merits of the case, there are 25,000 lads under the age of 16 working in the mines. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) put down a question some time ago about raising the school age in mining areas as a means of relieving the under-employment which obtains there, but the point I make is that these lads are on night shifts, that they are working all hours of the night, although it has been decided by this House that lads of the same age, who are working on the surface, shall not work between the hours of 9 at night and 5 in the morning I hope that this Session, when I bring forward this Measure again, help may be coming from the other side to get it through. It will take only a short time. All that is required is a small amending Bill to the Mines Act.

I want to refer to the Workmen's Compensation Act and the non-payment of compensation for the first three days after the accident. At the present time the first three days are not paid for, and that is in accordance with the Act of 1923 that came into operation in 1924. I expected that that anomaly would have been removed before now. Last Session I put a question to the Home Secretary asking if he did not think that the time had come to bring in a short amending Bill dealing with this question, but the answer I received was that it could not be dealt with because the Holman-Gregory Report bore out what the Government had already done in the matter. That is quite correct, but one would be inclined to think, from the answer which was given to my question, that the Government had taken the whole of the Holman-Gregory Report and carried it out, but they have done nothing of the kind. The Government have simply taken certain parts of that Report which suited them. I wish to point out that the Holman-Gregory Report recommended that men and women totally incapacitated should have two-thirds of their average weekly earnings but they do not get that proportion. I know that in some cases they get 75 per cent. of their earnings but in other cases they get only 50 per cent.

The Holman-Gregory Report also laid down that, in the case of children of persons killed in industry, the first child should receive 10s., the second 7s. 6d. and the others 6s. each. As a matter of fact, the Government are only paying a maximum of 6s. and a minimum of 3s. Therefore, I say that the Home Secretary ought to have told us why the Government had not accepted the other parts of the Holman-Gregory Report. I wish to emphasise these points as being of the greatest importance to a large body of workpeople. In the first place, it is certainly a moral obligation on the part of the House of Commons to prevent young lads under the age of 16 working in the mines on the night turn. My second point is in reference to the compensation, and that is a subject which the Government ought to tackle at once. I contend that from the first day of injury every man is entitled to compensation. With these two points I will conclude my speech, and I hope the Government will take the earliest opportunity of dealing with these questions.

I wish to refer to a remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in which he pointed out that if facilities were granted to agriculture they should also be granted to the great fishing industry which I have the honour to represent in this House. Time after time we have urged that assistance should be rendered to that industry, but not quite in the way in which the agricultural interest is expecting assistance from the Government. The fishing industry is the largest in the country, and probably that is a fact which is not so very well known. The fishing industry of this country is responsible, directly and indirectly, for the employment of 1,000,000 people, and consequently it is an industry worth the encouragement of this or any other Government. I am going to make a suggestion to the Government on behalf of that industry. During the War on all sides we heard acknowledgments of the great work done not only by the fishermen who manned the minesweepers but by the fishing vessels which proved to be a ready instrument for the Government to use for that particular purpose. These fishermen are asked to join the Royal Naval Reserve, and they do so in great numbers. Of course, they receive a retainer in return for their Obligation to serve in the Navy, and they have to keep themselves fit and ready to answer the call of the Government at any moment.

It is necessary that these fishing vessels should be an efficient instrument suitable and ready for mine sweeping if required, and the suggestion which I make is that, just in the same way as a retainer is paid to these fishermen, a retainer should be paid to the owners to keep those vessels up to a certain standard of fitness. In that way the country would get a very cheap instrument ready at hand for mine-sweeping and other purposes. Since the War very few new vessels have been built. I would like to point out that the average life of a trawler before the War was about 15 years, and to-day many of our vessels are 20 years old. Unless more new vessels are built, the Admiralty, should they require these vessels, will find them obsolete and not suitable for the purpose. I understand that the Government are building a few minesweepers at a, very great cost, but in my opinion that money could be much better spent by paying a retainer to the owners of these vessels in return for a guarantee to keep their ships up to a Government standard, so that they might be placed at the disposal of the Government when required. In this way, the Government would be saved the great expense of building new vessels. It has often been said that an industry which cannot exist without subsidies is not worth preserving. I will not argue that point at the present moment, but, as the representative of a district largely concerned with agriculture, I say that something will have to be done to assist agriculture to get over what is certain to be for the next year or two a very difficult time. I welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the assistance that is going to be rendered to agriculture, and I think it reflects very great credit on the Government.

There are other matters in connection with the King's Speech to which I should like to refer and one of them was referred to by the Seconder of the Address, the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. Templeton) who, along with myself and other hon. Members, has been pressing the Government for three years to deal with the anomaly in reference to insurance in the case of the share fishermen, as well as the question of old age pensions. I am sure we are all glad to hear that legislation is going to be brought forward to amend the National Health Insurance Act. I hope that does not simply mean putting into operation what the Commission recommended two years ago. I hope that what is meant is the carrying out of the promise made by the Minister of Health that this question of share fishermen would be dealt with. These are very important matters. Take, for instance, the position of those employed on the smaller fishing vessels. Those who are sharers in the adventure, such as the skipper, the mate, and the working members of the crew, who work on the small motor vessels which sail from Grimsby and the Scottish ports, are not entitled to the benefits of those Acts, although the engineer and the cook on these small motor boats come under the Act. Consequently, the very people who have to find the employers' contribution are the sharers in the adventure, and often the earnings of the share men are less than those of the cook and the engineer. When a vessel and its crew are lost, what happens? Under the new Act the wife of the engineer receives a widow's pension and orphans' pensions are granted to her children. The same applies to the wife and children of the cook. But the wives and children of the other members of the crew have to depend upon the tender mercies of the Poor Law or upon charity. We contend that that is an anomaly which ought to be remedied at once. I hope that the Government, when introducing legislation dealing with the Insurance Acts, will deal with this matter. I think the skippers of the larger vessels are not included, but I hope something will be done on their behalf.

There are several anomalies dealing with old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions which I thought would have been mentioned in the King's Speech. I have been spending a good deal of my time during the last three weeks dealing with the question of old age pensions, and I find existing certain anomalies which ought to be removed. One of the worst of these anomalies is the fact that because a man is over 70 years of age five months before the Act came into operation his wife at the age of 65 is not entitled to a pension. I think that is a most absurd position. I know there are many men 65 years of age who have wives of the same age who are now enjoying these pensions, and they are praising the Government for having provided them. Many of these men at 65 are quite capable of working. Under the provisions of the Act they are allowed to continue their work, and in this way they bring into the home an extra source of income. Simply because a man has a wife a few years younger than himself he is deprived of his pension rights. I hope that the Government will inquire into these various anomalies. I know they are not very large matters, and they will not involve a large expenditure of money in order to remedy them. We hear a good deal more about these anomalies than we do about the benefits, but, on the whole, I think the Government proposals in this connection have been received with approbation by the people of this country. This question has played a very prominent part in the recent by-elections. I hope the Government will deal with these small anomalies in the Insurance Act as soon as possible.

As the representative of a constituency in which there is a considerable amount of slum property, I feel it incumbent upon me to express my disappointment at the absence of any reference to the housing problem in the King's Speech. I feel considerable dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Ministers immediately concerned with this question and the Government generally upon this subject as a whole. At present, the Government seem perfectly satisfied with the development of the housing situation, and recently Ministers have definitely expressed, in speeches in the country, their satisfaction with the present state of the housing problem, and they have declared that this question is practically solved. They have gone so far as to claim that practically there is a house in this country for every person who desires one. Those words, or something very much like them, were used quite recently by the Minister of Transport. May I point out that in the year 1919 the local authorities of this country reported to the Government that in order to meet the normal requirements of housing it was necessary to build 800,000 houses immediately and to continue the building of 100,000 houses each year for a very large number of years? If you add up the years that have intervened since, you will see that, in order to meet merely normal requirements, 1,600,000 houses should have been built, without considering at all the important question of the abolition of slums and the improvement of slum property generally. That was the minimum number of houses required between 1919 and the end of last year to meet the wishes of local authorities, the majority of which were not Labour, but Conservative, and the estimate itself was a conservative one. Now we are told that, by private enterprise and also by public building, 1,000,000—not 1,600,000—houses have been built since 1919, and that is a source of gratification. It may be so far as it goes, but it does not justify the Minister of Transport in what he said at Bournemouth, and it certainly does not justify the complacency of the Government on this question and the neglect of any reference at all to this important problem in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

We have had only recently, within a few yards of this historic building, an example of what this problem is. We have had the Thames flood. A lot has been said about that flood, about the necessity for dealing with drainage somewhere in Oxfordshire, or somewhere or other, about the protection of embankments, and other matters of that character, and the question has been canvassed as to who was responsible for the damage that was done. But the real essence of the problem has been almost entirely neglected. Thames floods are not something that has only just happened; they are regular in some parts of London where there are no embankments at all. In Poplar, Rotherhithe, West Ham, and so on, there are floods year after year to some degree or other. The real tragedy of Westminster was not the neglect of the embankments, but the existence of cellar homes for people—the existence of those basement dwellings which ought to have been abolished, and which, if it had been a question, not of civic decency but of war, would have been abolished years ago. You have problems like that, arid yet we see the self-complacency of the Government.

Let me put it in this way. The Minister of Transport said that practically the problem has been solved. If that be the case, I want to know whether the Government are prepared to withdraw the taunts and insults that were levelled a few years ago at the building trade workers of this country. The Government cannot have it both ways. In order to boast about the number of houses that have been built, the selfish, lazy bricklayers were put back into the property-box. Obviously, the building trade unions have not been standing in the way of adequate training, or there could be no boast about the solution of the housing problem. We do not hear about the bricklayers to-day. Everyone who has studied the subject knows that the building trade workers did not stand in the way of adequate training, and, if there had been a decent plan for housing in this country, even more training would have been accomplished than has been done up to the present time. Therefore, they ask whether the Government are prepared to withdraw the insults and gibes that they levelled at the British trade union workers in the building industry only a few years ago.

I have seen the reports of medical officers of health all over the country. I have seen the report for this year of the medical officer of health for Manchester, and also that of the medical officer of health for Birmingham, model city as it may be. In Manchester, in Birmingham, in Norwich, in all the great towns and cities of this country, apart altogether from distressed areas, you find the same thing said, namely, that, in spite of the complacency of the Government, we are nowhere near a solution of the housing problem in this country. In my own borough of Islington, the medical officer of health tells us that since 1919 there have been built, by one form of enterprise or another, public or private, roughly speaking, 1,000 houses—1,000 tenements, 1,000 homes of one kind or another. But it was admitted by the Conservative administration there in 1919 that nearly 2,000 new homes were needed to meet the requirements of that borough.

I know what the circumstances are there. When I see what I do see, and when I listen to and read the speeches of Members of the Government in the House of Commons, I am simply appalled. I have a case in hand at the present moment which is typical of hundreds in my constituency—that of a working man, his wife and six children living in two basement rooms. They are typical basement rooms, and they are of such a character that I would guarantee that there is not a Member of this House who would care to house his dog or cat in them. There are hundreds of such places in my constituency. In this particular case, there are only two rooms underground, with three beds in them, to house a family of eight, and every member of that family is suffering from a breathing disease. The effect of that is that, although this man is earning what are called good wages, and is prepared to pay three times as much as he is paying in rent if he can only get somewhere to go to, the London County Council turns him down because of the very diseases that have been created by the overcrowded conditions under which he and his family are living. What is true in that particular case is true of hundreds in my constituency, in other parts of London, and in the country.

I ask, what justification is there for the complacency which is being expressed by the Minister of Health and other members of the Government with regard to this question? Is it a question of money? The Minister of Health knows the cost of social services in this country. The cost of dealing with disease alone is a matter of £62,000,000, and a leading authority like the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), in his "Economics of Social Service," tells us that the greater part of that disease is due to the housing conditions of the people of this country. Surely, it would be much more economical to take the broader and longer view on this question, to see that the people are housed decently, and to bring forward and carry out a real plan of housing development which will mean, not cellar homes for heroes, as you have in Westminster, but decent homes for people who are willing to give their services and their work for the benefit and progress of the community.

It is a little unusual, perhaps, to take this early opportunity of speaking on the first day of the new Session, but the position of agriculture is so serious, its plight so disastrous, that I wish to take this very earliest opportunity of impressing that upon the House of Commons. Something must be done. Except in one or two favoured parts of the country, the position is really disastrous, and, on the top of the economic disaster, we have had the wettest season on record since 1879. Even in the last month we have experienced no less than 8 inches of rain in the part of the country from which I come. I welcome the paragraphs in the Gracious Speech from the Throne in which we are promised some slight relief. I am, however, a little doubtful in regard to one paragraph—to my mind the most important paragraph in the Speech—relating to agriculture, as to how far the Government intend to go. That is the paragraph relating to rates So far as regards the paragraph relating to credit facilities for persons engaged in agriculture, I have no doubt that a Bill will be introduced and carried through, but I would impress upon the one representative of the Government who is here that, while the long-term credits which will be included in that Measure will be very acceptable and useful to those who are owner-occupiers of land, and will be very gratefully received by them, they will be a comparatively small section of the agricultural community.

I shall look with great expectation and anxiety to what the Government propose to do about short-term credits. To my mind, it is impossible to do anything effective, because, if credit facilities are given on the security of chattels or matters of that kind, and securing the lender without a bill of sale, the farmer who avails himself of that will be practically ruined in his credit, because nobody will dare to deal with him and give him credit, for fear lest there may be some secret preferred creditor who will come in and scoop the lot. On the other hand, if the farmer is to obtain credit by giving a bill of sale or chattel mortgage requiring registration, equally the credit attaching to him or his farm will be gone, because other people will not lend him money after it. Therefore, it is really to the paragraph relating to rates that we who are interested in agriculture and engaged in it look with the greatest hope, but I would urge the Government to consider whether it would not be possible, in the consideration which they are going to give to the burdens imposed upon industry and agriculture by the present incidence of local rates, for them to separate the question in regard to agriculture, as being even more urgent than that in regard to other industries.

The old game again!

I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means. If he means, by "the old game," trying to save the most distressed people in the country, I agree that it is the old game. It is the same tenant farmers of this country on whose behalf I am speaking, and it is on account of the urgency of the matter that I have risen to raise this question, because some real relief would be given to those tenant farmers if they could be freed from the rates on their agricultural land and their buildings—

Put it on to the others!

and left, like other occupiers in this country, to pay the rates on their houses alone. If that could be done, it would assist in alleviating the deplorable condition in which three-fourths of the agricultural tenants of this country are.

I have in my hand here a copy of this, which is called a Gracious Speech, and I want to1 say to the House that it is the poorest attempt at being gracious that I ever read in my life. In fact, it is a parcel of lies. To begin with, it says, in the first paragraph, that the relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly. We know that that is not the case. It says also that everything is left to the League of Nations to settle the differences between our country and other countries—China, and so on. I want to know: Is this not a "codding" speech, which is "codding" us all? You may well "cod" the Tories, because there are none of them here. Fancy all the great enthusiasm that is caused by this wonderful Speech, and we have only two Tories present—not 1 per cent. They are coming in to try and make 1 per cent.—there are four now. Did they leave the question of the differences with Egypt, only last year, to the League of Nations? No fear of that. They would not tolerate the League of Nations for five minutes. Did they bring the League of Nations to bear when the Foreign Secretary cleared Arcos out? Where was the League of Nations then?

Then the King says that he has invited the Ameer of Afghanistan. Why did he invite him? Is it because we have been kind and generous to the Afghans or that the Afghans have been nice and kind? Certainly not. It is the Tory game, the capitalist game, being played here just as it always has been. Why are we friendly with Afghanistan? We have got to pay through the nose. So many hundreds of thousands are given to the Ameer in order that he may be friendly with us and be an enemy to the Russians—not the Russians of to-day, because it was the same under the Tsar's régime. What have the Afghans done? Have they not wiped out British armies on the march from Kabul to Kandahar? It is merely that this country wants to get control. It is all part and parcel of capitalism. There are no friendly relations there at all.

Then you come to China. Was there ever such a lot of nonsense as is put down here? The audacity of the present Government is in keeping with that of British Governments ever since the inception of capitalism. They have agreed to Home Rule in China provided it conforms to our ideas. Who the mischief are they? Who are the British to dictate what kind of Home Rule they should have in China? It is bad enough to impose their rule on Scotland. We have allowed them to do it. We have trained up this English race, and consequently we are largely responsible for it, and we have allowed them to impose their will on Scotland. You want to rule everyone and to be the dominant race, but it is only your self-assertiveness; it is not your ability. You simply impose yourself on other countries in order that there may be cushy jobs for your sons. Then you are going to protect British lives and property. Why should you have Britons out in China, and why should you be giving them protection? If China does not suit them, let them leave it and come here. I never knew a Briton go to China for the good of China, but always for his own good, and that is what Britons want everywhere—their own particular good. The only folk who ever want to do any good were the missionaries. Lord Inchcape decried the missionaries and told us it was the missionaries who were the cause of all the trouble in China. They are the only people who ever tried to benefit the Chinese.

Then the Speech mentions the Ambassador at Washington. I should like to see this Ambassador. I have never met this particular chap, but I have seen a few of them. I am sorry that even the Foreign Minister is not in his place. It does not suit him to be here to-day. The Prime Minister has asked that he may be excused and says he will come back to-morrow and make his speech—special conditions for the son of Joseph! I remember drawing attention to the fact that the reply the Foreign Secretary made to the American Government meant possible war with America. The whole of the Tory benches, which were full on that occasion, drew me up and said that was not a proper way to put the question. If the representative of the Government pulls me up in the same offensive manner he will have to take what he gets from me, Speaker or no Speaker, and I will pay the price for it.

I do not think I can allow that observation to pass. I understand the hon. Member says he is prepared to defy the authority of the occupant of the Chair in order to express himself on foreign affairs—a most improper thing to say.

Possibly, but I have said it all the same. If they wanted peace with America, it was the easiest thing in the world to have it. There is no barrier between Canada and the United States. There is no great wall of China to keep out the Canadians. There are no warships on Lake Erie. They came to an agreement, and they do not protect themselves against one another. Why is there trouble between this country and America? It is not true that it arose over the calibre of the guns and the size of the cruisers. If that had been all, it could have been got over quite easily. It was because America demanded that this great world-wide Empire should be placed on an equal footing with her. We are the only country in the world that can send a fleet round the world, the reason being that we have got the coaling stations and the key positions, which no other Power has. When the Russian Fleet went out to the Eastern seas, in the Japanese War it had to coal at Cochin China, which is against international law. The Japs waited on them coming out in single file and sank them. Every Power in the world would be placed in the same position except Great Britain. The United States say, "If you will put us on an equal footing with you we will extend the right hand of fellowship to you. Give up Gibraltar, give up Malta, give up the Suez Canal, give up Aden and Sngapore and Canton and internationalise the lot. We shall then be on an equal footing, and we will consider what can be done." Until that is done, America will torment the life out of the great financial houses of this country. It is the great financiers of this country who are competing with America and America is competing with them. Then you come to another paragraph: bleeding at the Government's feet. They have well-nigh butchered—that is the word—tens of thousands of women and children in the coalfields. Think what is stated in this Speech you Tories, you who claim to have the interests of Britain at heart, you who claim to be Christians. After you have been in power four years there are 25,000 boys under 16 years of age working underground. Who is responsible for that? The Prime Minister. If he is going to be Prime Minister, he must carry out not only the honours but the responsibilities of office. He and the Government are responsible for that. Anyone who had any human feelings left in him, whether he was the King or the Prime Minister, would not sleep in his bed until he had done what he could to remedy such a state of affairs. The same paragraph mentions co-operation. Do you think we are going to co-operate with men of that type who subject my class to work under such conditions as these? All I can possibly do as a Socialist, as a Scotsman, as an intelligent man, is to fight against men who do anything of that kind, and do all I possibly can to have them removed from the seat of power and put into power men who will be more humane and act in a more intelligent fashion.

6.0 p.m.

Then you come to National Health Insurance. The Government are going all over the country to try to make good. This possibly is one of the things they are going to use for their slogan if they cannot get a red letter. Think what the Prime Minister brought out to-day about those civil servants. Why should it not be brought out? Why should it not be shouted from the housetops? If it had been a member of the working class who had done anything like this, he would have been exposed. Further, it will not be simply those civil servants who will be impeached, but the Government, because they are there because of this red letter. That is why we call them a forgery Government—the result of a forged letter. As I was saying with regard to this Health Insurance, the Minister of Health—I am pleased to see that he is in his place; I am pleased to see that one of the sons of Joseph has arrived—thinks, after the Cabinet had discussed it in conjunction with him, that here is a method by which they can carry the country. They will eliminate from industry poor old veterans, those who have served their day and generation, the people who have made this country what it is, the people who have produced the wealth of this country, now that they are old, and as a result of this rationalisation of industry. This is part of the subtle mind of the Minister of Health in conjunction, I believe, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nevertheless, it is in order to deceive the working classes into believing that the Tories are intent and are doing something for the benefit of the old people of this, country. Ten shillings a week! There are in my constituency as good men as any that sit on that Front Bench or on any other bench, either in this House or anywhere else. They are unemployed at the moment. They are on the Employment Exchange registers. A Measure was introduced, and it has been the law of the country since the 2nd January of this year, which put these men off the Employment Exchanges where they were getting 18s. a week. And now, under the Old Age Pension, they are only getting 10s. a week, a reduction of 8s. I do not say that the Government deliberately did this to effect a saving, but that is how it works out. It works out against the interests of the working class. They are either knaves or fools. The Minister of Health sitting there is either a knave or a fool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

That is an entirely unparliamentary phrase, and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Well, I will withdraw it in the singular, Mr. Hope, but the Government are a Government of fools and knaves.

The hon. Member must observe the ordinary traditions of debate. I must ask him to withdraw that phrase.

Well, I will withdraw it, because I want to get on with my business. My point is that that Government—and the Minister of Health sitting there is one of the individuals who has stated what I am now going to state—have got the brains! They know how to govern! They belong to the governing class. Their fathers and their grandfathers before them were governors, and therefore they should know, but we know that they do not know. Labour is not fit to govern! The right hon. Gentleman drafted this Bill—he was responsible for it, at any rate. This is how it works out. Instead of being for the good of those old people, it is against them. Instead of their getting 18s. a week, they are only to get 10s. They either did that thinking that it would be for the benefit of the old folk, or else they did it in connection with this economy stunt. Economise! The Tories have always economised on the incomes of the workers; never on the incomes of the rich. They never attack the incomes of the rich but they attack the incomes of the workers. So that the workers will not get much kudos out of the Health Insurance.

It is perfectly true that the Government are going to give credit facilities to persons engaged in agriculture. We will see how that works out. In industrial centres their Insurance has worked out against the workers and not for their benefit. We cannot say how this thing will work out in agriculture. Here, again, when you come to this question of agriculture, we see our country life languishing and some of the most fertile soil in the world lying untilled and becoming derelict, because they are making it impossible for the individuals whose work it is to cultivate the soil. You have them bringing into this country eggs from China, not simply liquid eggs but eggs in shell—bringing them in by the million all the way from China. Not only is the ruling class of this country by that action exploiting the people of this country, but they are poisoning the people of this country. In this case they preserve those eggs, and that preservative preserves the egg on the stomach. There is the difference. There is the ignorance over there. They know no better. I will just say: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." There they sit all in a row. They preserve the egg on the stomach so that it will not digest. Our people in this country are suffering from indigestion in a manner that they have never suffered before. [ Laughter. ] All that the Tories can do is to "Smile and smile, and be a villain" all the while.

That is Shakespeare, the hon. Member's favourite poet.

Not only do they bring eggs from China but they bring eggs from Egypt, and eggs are sold as hens' eggs when, in many cases, they are alligators' eggs. You can take it from me, that I would not care a button if it were the Tories that were getting them, if it were the rich that were getting them, but it is my class. It is the working class who have to buy these cheap eggs, and it is my colleagues who have to pay the piper. Dairy produce in general could be produced in this country. I do not say that you could produce all that we require. I will not go that length, but I am satisfied that we could go a long way in that direction instead of agitating, as the Tory party do by coming into my country and saying that my fellow-countrymen should leave their native land and should migrate across the wild Atlantic sea because of unemployment. Here is the means whereby we could employ our people at useful service, producing food. Not only that, but you have at the moment, away in the far North of Scotland, in the Isles of Harris, men who did offer to go on the land and who did work on the land. Because they went and worked on the land, doing what I am now suggesting should be done, namely, producing food, they were thrown into gaol. They are lying in gaol now, and the only crime that these Harris crofters ever committed was to till their native soil. There is not a word about anything of that kind in the King's Speech. Why did not the Tories suggest when they were drawing up the King's Speech that they would open up the country and that they would spend millions? We can get millions for war; millions for warships.

Millions for Clydebank!

Well, yes; that is quite true, and no place can build them better. Millions for war! Millions, in fact, for any place but home.

Clydebank is home.

Millions for any place but home. They put their millions into Vienna. Some of my colleagues who were in the administration of the late Labour Government and who went out to Vienna only a short time ago told us how in Vienna 32,000 houses were built in two years. Where did they get the money? In this country. They obtained the money from here. Even the Austrians, aye and the Germans, our late enemies, the Huns, anybody can get it, but there is no money for our own country. There is no way of opening out our own country. Last year we had 60,000 people in Scotland who wanted to emigrate, who wanted to get away from their native land. Who are the type of people who go? Is it the ragtag and bobtail of city life that migrate from the cities of Scotland? No fear! [An HON. MEMBER: "Landlords!"] If it were the landlords it would be all right. It is the best blood of our land, the young and the vigorous. You would really think that there was some malignant influence at work in this country of ours. When there is a war on it is the best blood of the country that is taken away—the young men, the strong the vigorous and the intelligent. The old have-beens have been left behind or else they have been wiped out. It is the same with emigration. It is our young men, the best asset that any country ever had, the finest raw material in the world—the British working class. That raw material is being sent away across the seas instead of being retained at home and put upon our native land. An intelligent thing to do. They have done it in Denmark. They have transformed Denmark in 50 years. Scotland is being denuded of its population. They only increase in the last census was in the number of gamekeepers; all because of the action of the present Government. There is not a word about that in the Address. The Address finishes up with the words: mover of the Address, what were to him the most wonderful things that had happened during the year? Two outstanding things had happened which were vivid in his mind and which had been burnt into his mind by red hot irons, never to be effaced. One was that the Prince had gone out to Australia and come back; the Prince who was sitting in his place in the House of Lords to-day. The next thing which impressed the mover was that we had sent out a Chair exactly the same as the chair in which you are now sitting. Two outstanding things—the Prince came back and the Chair went out. There are things that have been burnt into the minds of my class. What about the chairs of the workers who have been evicted, thrown out into the streets, not only in Clydebank, not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales? Chairs thrown out, and the workers with nowhere to lay their heads. The chairs are broken and the hearts of the workers are broken. Their hearts are broken and, of course, the Tories laugh; yet these are the same individuals to whom they appeal to go and fight their bloody wars. These are the same individuals who are thrown out of house and home, with their furniture broken, and same of them are in the poor house in my own constituency. They fought in the Great War, and they are forced to go to the poor house. These are the things that this House ought to be concerning itself about, and not about the rich and the great, not about what is going on in America, not about what is going on in China or Russia.

Why is there all this trouble all over the world? It is because of the enmity which exists between the ruling classes in every country against one another. Surely the time has come when we, if we are the great race which we have been told we are, should take the opportunity at the beginning of another year to extend the right hand of fellowship to men the world over; to let them understand that we do not envy them in any way, that we do not want to rob anybody, that we want to play our part as a nation, that we will take from other nations what they can do better than we can do, and we will give them in return what we can produce better than they can produce. If we approach other countries in that spirit there will be no need of war, war will never loom on the horizon and will be a thing of the past. Surely, it is worth some endeavour for men and women to make in this House of Commons, instead of keeping it before our minds that we are a superior race. If we are that superior race, let us give whatever we have that is superior, and let us diffuse the gifts that we possess in order to defend those who are not able to defend themselves. I oppose your King's Speech.

I wish to say a few words on the question of agriculture, but in the first place may I make an appeal to the Minister of Health? I welcome the promise of another Bill dealing with health insurance. It may be within the recollection of the House that when the Pensions Bill was under discussion it was found that a large number of men, in particular Nonconformist ministers, were excluded from benefits because they were not included in the Insurance Act. I asked at the time whether the Government would consider the matter later on, because it was a serious disappointment to Nonconformist ministers in Wales to find that they did not come within the Health Insurance Act and, consequently, not within the Pensions Act.

I should like to support the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) with regard to the agricultural position, but I am sorry that he does not think that much benefit will be derived by the farmers from the proposal to be put forward by the Government in regard to agricultural short-term credits. I agree with him that the position of agriculture is serious. The financial position, particularly of the farmers in the lowlands, is probably more serious than it has been at any time within the last 50 years. The effect of the depression in the agricultural industry upon other industries is serious because there are 1,200,000 people depending upon agriculture in this country, and if agriculture is low and if the finances of the farmers are weak, the natural result is that the farm labourer makes his way to the town and to the industrial districts generally and increases competition and poverty.

There are two forms of credit which the farmer desires, long credit and short credit. Long credit would help him out of the mire in which he found himself as a result of the sales of landed estates a few years ago, when he was compelled to pay an excessive price for his farm in order to keep his home and to keep in the industry. Something could easily be done by the Government by way of very long-dated loans to assist him; but there is something required which is even more essential. I have travelled through my constituency, which is very largely agricultural and is 80 miles long, and I found that the most pressing necessity is not the long credit. Although that is necessary, it is not the most pressing, and for this reason, that the proportion of owner occupiers and tenant farmers is roughly one to seven. Consequently, there are seven men involved in the question of short credits as against one concerned with the question of long credits.

The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead put his finger on the difficulty, and that is that if the farmer is to give his security to the bank or to some society which may be formed he gives a bill of sale and then owing to publicity his credit in other directions is abolished. I would like to point out how the difficulty was overcome in America. Some four years ago they found that the markets had broken in hogs, with the result that the Government stepped in, through the Federal Reserve Bank, and advanced in all, I believe, £3,000,000 to the farmers in order to enable them to keep back from the market the hogs which in the ordinary course of things would have been placed in the market at very low prices to meet immediate expenses. I suggest that the question might be got over in another way. Advances were not made under the Trade Facilities Act but guarantees were given in various industries for the repayment of loans. I suggest for the consideration of the Government that some guarantee should be given by the Government either to the banks direct or to the banks through the agricultural committees to help the farming industry.

Let me refer to what took place during the War. I happened to be the chairman of a County War Agricultural Committee. We had applications from farmers for financial assistance for their immediate needs. The difficulty of the farmer at the present time is that having no credit and being generally short of cash he has to buy on credit in the spring and is under the moral obligation-to sell his produce to the trader in the autumn. He has to meet specific payments on certain dates and he has, therefore, very often to put his cattle and beasts on the market sometimes when they are immature and sometimes when the market is bad. Trade conducted by anybody under these circumstances can only lead eventually to the bankruptcy court. To meet the position of farmers during the War, the course adopted was this, and I think it is feasible now; the agricultural committee of the county council entertained applications for assistance from farmers to meet their immediate and pressing needs, if they were satisfied as to character. The character of the farmer is a most important element in his credit. In any event, up to a few years ago the banks lost less from loans to farmers than to any class in the community. The hon. Member for Thirsk (Sir E. Turton) will endorse that, from his long experience in the banking world.

My suggestion is that the Government should work out a scheme whereby money might be advanced to farmers with the guarantee of the Government. I think that guarantee should be given, as it has been given in other industries, and matters could be dealt with by the county councils. If this were done, it would help the farmers for the next two or three years to tide over what is a really serious difficulty. It is no use ignoring the effect of agricultural depression upon other industries. Men are leaving their farms and are being driven to the towns to add to the competition and the consequent unemployment and poverty.

The Mover of the Address said that silence is golden. There may be times when silence is golden, but there are times when silence would be criminal, and I feel that to remain silent to-night would be criminal. I have just come back from the Durham coalfields and I have before me the great poverty and misery which prevails there; the thousands and thousands of men and women who are gradually sinking deeper into poverty. When I came back to London I waited anxiously for the King's Speech wondering whether there would be anything in it which would give any hope to these starving men and women. I find the King's Speech a skinny thing. It is all skin and bones, and contains nothing which can bring any hope to any of our starving people in the north of England. There are three passages in the industrial proposals in the King's Speech to which I desire to refer. When Mr. Speaker was reading the Gracious Speech and came to the words: That is a shame. This is followed by a report which I saw in a Sunday newspaper this week. It said that a new phase in the coal problem was disclosed when 2,000 men at a certain colliery received a fortnight's notice. The manager declared that when any of the men were required to return preference would be given to members of the Miners' Non-political Union. Here are the Durham, miners without any hope of getting work in the county, and we were led to believe that the Government were taking steps to have them transferred to other coalfields. They are offered work in the Nottinghamshire coalfields on the condition that they desert the Miners' Federation and join this non-political union. We ought to know what the Government is doing, whether the Commission which has been appointed is allowing this to take; place. We want to know whether they are engaging men in the Nottinghamshire coalfields only on these conditions. The Commission ought to be strong enough to say to the Nottinghamshire coalowners that it is a condition which should not be enforced and that miners should be employed in the coalfield without being forced to leave the Miners' Federation. There can be no co-operation and good will in the mining industry if such conditions as these are enforced. It is the duty of the1 Government, who have brought the miners into this sad position, to say to the Nottinghamshire coalowners that they must not insist upon such conditions as these. Let me also point this out. I noticed an advertisement in one of the Northern newspapers the other day which to me was an entirely new kind of advertisement. It read like this: at another colliery should be able to obtain work only after the production of a reference from the manager of their last colliery. If managers stipulate conditions like this it will not tend towards the promotion of co-operation and peace in the industry. I am sorry the Secretary for Mines has gone, but I think he should take some steps to prevent this kind of thing and should say to colliery managers that they must not stipulate such conditions. In the Durham coalfield we still have thousands of men who are being victimised merely because they are loyal to the Miners' Federation. The managers will not allow these men to start work. When these men have been victimised by managers at collieries where they were last employed what is the use of their going to those managers to ask for references because they want to go to another colliery? They could not get the references. Someone in the Government ought to be strong enough to say to the colliery managers that this new type of inquisition must stop. Otherwise it is no use for the Government to talk of co-operation and good will and peace.

In the Durham coalfield there are coal-owners who, since the dispute of last year, have forced a reduction of wages upon our men, even after they had secured the eight hours' day. They are to-day before an Umpire pleading for further reductions in wages. I do not know whether the House realises how much the wages of our men have been pulled down. Men who in January, 1921, were receiving 17s. 3d. a shift for a seven hours' day, and who in 1926, before the dispute, received 7s. 6½d. for a seven hours' day, have since had their wages reduced to 6s. 8½d for an eight hours' day, and the coalowners in Durham were last week seeking to reduce that starvation wage to 6s. 1d. per day. If the owners follow that course what is the use of the Government talking of co-operation and good will? Nor can there be good will if the owners continue to do what they did 12 months ago, namely, victimise our local miners' officials. They victimised some of the best men in the industry, who have not been able to get a day's work since. Unless the owners change their policy and show a change of heart, it is idle to talk about co-operation and good will.

I was amused by the Prime Minister's letter to the Conservative candidate in the Bristol by-election. In effect the Prime Minister said that there were signs of an improvement, signs of peace in industry, and he added, "I did it." He claimed that the Government had paved the way for better industrial relations. The Government did not do it in 1926, for they then passed legislation providing an eight-hours day in the mines; they passed the Guardians (Default) Bill and the Emergency Powers Bill. In 1927 the Government passed the Trade Disputes Bill, the Bill relating to unemployment, and the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill. In face of those facts, how the Prime Minister can claim that the Government have paved the way for better industrial relations, is beyond me. I do not know what they intend to do in 1928, but if the King's Speech is any indication, they are simply going to do nothing. The Government should cease claiming that they have paved the way for better industrial relations. In his letter the Prime Minister also claimed that the Government had paved the way for a trade revival which is continuous. I wondered where the revival was. There may be a revival in some of the luxury trades. One heard to-day about the motor trade, the Rolls-Royces and such things; but there is no revival in the mining trade.

Last year I asked the Secretary for Mines how many pits had been closed in the County of Durham from the time when the present Government came into power until the end of last year. The Secretary of Mines replied that there were 30 fewer pits working in the county at the end of November last than in 1924, that there were 36,000 fewer men employed, and that the total wage bill in that one county was £116,000 a week less in November last than in 1924. What is true of the County of Durham is true of the whole of the coalfields of the country. As to this, one of my colleagues put a question to the Prime Minister, who replied that at the end of November last there were 170 fewer pits working than were working when the Government came into office, and 158,700 fewer men employed; and the total wages bill was less by £800,000 a week or £41,000,000 a year. One of my colleagues put a question to the Prime Minister, as soon as the House met in November last, as to the increased suffering and poverty in the coalfields, and asked the Prime Minister what he was prepared to do for the mining industry. The Prime Minister gave one of the most heartless and most callous answers that any man could give. He said that the Mining Industry Act of 1926 included everything that the Government considered could be done directly by legislation for the industry, and he added, "We are watching the situation continuously." It is a poor thing when our people have simply to live upon the Prime Minister's continuous watching of the situation.

7.0 p.m.

What did the Mining Industry Act do? It provided for recruitment. It provided for a shilling levy out of every 20 shillings on royalties for the purpose of supplying pithead baths. It provided for the setting up of pit committees and for amalgamations in the mining industry. So far there has been nothing done, and the Act might as well not have been passed. As a matter of fact, the amalgamations that are threatened under the Act seem likely to add insult to injury and to make things worse than they are at present. We are told in the Press that the Yorkshire coalowners, combined with the coalowners of two other counties in the Midlands, are proposing to organise and set up a selling agency. If they do that, it will simply make the position of the County of Durham immensely worse, because Durham and Northumberland could not compete against Yorkshire and two of the other counties organised. If that were all that the Government meant by the Mining Industry Act and the amalgamations under it, then they will find, when these partial amalgamations get under way, that they will make things worse than they are at present in the coal industry. The Prime Minister, in his letter to the Bristol Conservative candidate, said that political opponents painted the industrial situation in the blackest colours to damage the prestige of the Government. I make no apology for doing so. I confess that I do everything I possibly can to damage the prestige of this Government. In all the histories of Conservative Governments in the past there has never been a Conservative Government so bad, so mean, so vicious, so callous, or so indifferent as this Government. Is it possible for any of us who are opposed to it to paint the industrial situation, especially the coalmining situation, blacker than it is at present? It is not possible to do so. In my own county the official December figures of unemployment for four Employment Exchanges are as follow:

I was glad, as far as it went, to hear the reference in the King's Speech to the relief of local rates, but I have no faith in this Government doing anything in that direction. It is not only in Durham that the Poor Law authorities feel the burden. There was a conference in South Wales recently at which a resolution was passed calling on the Government to make the relief of unemployment a national charge and, pending action, to take immediate steps to relieve local rates where they are excessive. Durham has been complaining on this point for a long time. At the end of last year the local authorities in Durham sent a deputation to meet the Minister of Labour and to get him to do something as men were being thrown off unemployment benefit on to the local guardians. They got no satisfaction, and they are now proposing to meet the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope they will have better luck than they had with the Minister of Labour, for the condition of the local authorities in Durham is such that they are justified in complaining of the heavy burdens thrown on the boards of guardians which really ought to be borne by the Unemployment Fund. I have never known my own district in such a condition. Thousands and thousands of men and women have been plunged into poverty. I have never known suicides so common as they are at the present time—men and women losing all hope, feeling that it is no longer worth living, and being prepared to get out of this world. I wonder what our people will think when they read the King's Speech in the Press. They will say that there is no hope for them, and that nothing is likely to be done to lighten their burden. We are justified in laying the blame upon this Government for this condition of things, and our only consolation is that every week and month brings this Government nearer to their end. When the time comes for this Government to appeal to the country, I can never imagine any working man or woman being so foolish as to vote for them again.

The leader of the Liberal party said something this afternoon about commissions, and, when we reminded him about the Sankey Commission, he said in an undertone to some of my hon. Friends that "the Labour men did not sign the Sankey Commission." He knew when he made that statement that it was a misleading statement, true, but made in a misleading way. I have looked it up since, and I find that the report of the miners' members ran as follows:

Neither did they.

But he did not say why. They said that they did not sign because they were in substantial agreement with the Chairman's Report.

But there are four Sankey Reports.

Yes, but Mr. Justice Sankey signed the one Report which we were prepared to accept, and it was not correct for the leader of the Liberal party to say that we did not sign when he knows that, in effect, we did. I am sorry that the King's Speech contains so little and that it leaves our people in the position in which they are. Most hon. Members were at a reception given 'by Lady Londonderry the other night, and Lord Londonderry is one of our biggest coalowners and one of our best coalowners. I hope that they will not get the impression from what they saw there that that is typical of the things in the coalfields. If we could only get the Prime Minister to come down to the county of Durham and see the condition of our people and how thousands are sinking deeper into poverty each week, then I am sure he would be bound to take some action and do something in order to help those people. If he would do that, he would not come to the House of Commons with a King's Speech like this, which means so little to the working classes of this country. We are bound to hope that this Government will come to an end much quicker than they propose to do.

There is one aspect of the King's Speech with which I shall deal in a few words and that is the question of agricultural credits. It is mentioned; in the speech that it is the intention of the Government to bring in facilities for agricultural credits. That is rather a wide term, and I would like to know of what that scheme—as I assume there is a scheme—consists. Does it consist of a comprehensive scheme dealing with both short-term as well as long-term credit? Because, if it does not, I fear, speaking as the representative of an agricultural constituency, that a great many farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country are going to be very much disappointed. The question of agricultural credits has been discussed for the past two years and farmers have naturally been led to believe that, when a scheme was introduced by this Government after such long deliberation, it would be a scheme which would benefit them very greatly indeed. Unless any scheme introduced by this Government at the present time is sufficiently comprehensive to cover both those aspects of agricultural credits, both short-term and long-term, then there is going to be a great deal of disappointment throughout the agricultural constituencies of this country.

One of the reasons I want to see short-term credits included in this Government scheme is that in my constituency I have met several small dairy farmers who have found very great difficulty in carrying on their business, because on their small holdings they were unable to get sufficient credit to increase their stock. What they argue is that if it were possible for them to obtain loans on the stock which they already possess, they would be able to increase their stock, thereby increasing their milk production and making their small holdings pay. They point out that on a small production of milk, butter and other agricultural produce they are unable to make the holdings pay and that if they could increase their credit, or obtain further credits, in order to purchase stock they would be able to bring about prosperity. In regard to long-term credits, there again agriculturists are much concerned as to whether the rate of interest to be charged on those loans is going to be of any benefit to them. Unless the rate of interest to be charged on any loans obtained from a loan bank or any other source is at least not higher than the existing rates, it will be of no benefit to agriculturists. I would impress upon the Government the necessity of dealing as comprehensively as possible with these two aspects of the question when the scheme is introduced, and I would like to see the scheme carried through without a Government guarantee.

An hon. Member below the Gangway on the other side has impressed on the House the necessity of the Government giving freely of guarantees in order to promote a scheme of agricultural credits. I beg to differ from that argument because any guarantee by this or any other Government, cannot be given without impairing the credit of the country and it would seriously hamper the funding operations which the Government, I understand, contemplate undertaking next year. If they are going ruthlessly to scatter guarantees, it will impair the Government's credit. There are other means of granting these facilities without adopting the method of guarantee and, although I do not profess to be sufficiently versed in finance to commend them to the Government, yet I hope that when they are dealing with this proposal they will consider the aspect of the situation which I have just indicated, namely, that any guarantee on the part of the Government is going to interfere with their funding operations in years to come.

Agriculturists throughout the country have been looking forward to these proposals ever since the Government came into office. They were told that a comprehensive scheme was to be introduced. They have been holding on—a large number of them in the face of the greatest difficulties—in the hope that when the scheme of credit facilities is introduced, it will assist them to tide over a very trying period. When the scheme is introduced—and I hope it will be soon—short term credits as well as long term credits should be dealt with, and the rate of interest charged on any loan given to a fanner should be such as will make the loan of assistance to him. Unless that rate be lower, or at any rate not higher than the existing rate charged by banks and other loan organisations, it will be of no assistance whatever to the farmer. As this great mountain has now been labouring for so many years I hope after all this time it is not going to bring forth a. mouse. I hope that there will be a comprehensive scheme, dealing with both sides of agriculture and giving the farmers an opportunity of obtaining loans on their present holdings at a reasonable rate of interest.

I am not going to wander all over the earth in criticising the King's Speech. I have more respect for His Majesty than to imagine that this is his Speech, and I am going to confine myself to one paragraph of it. The last speaker referred to the difficulties of the agriculturists and he had a perfect right-so to do. The agriculturists have always been the friends of the Government and the Government always promised to be their friends. Now the agriculturists are asking that the goods should be delivered and I do not blame them, but when I hear the woes of the agriculturists expressed in this House, I wonder if those who speak for agriculture ever travel through the parts of the country which are not agricultural. Do they ever give their minds to the position of the industrial areas of Great Britain? I notice that the Government state that they are inquiring into the position as regards local rates. We should like to hear what kind of inquiries are being made, who are making the inquiries and what facts have been ascertained as a result of the inquiries. I come from one of the highest-rated districts in Great Britain. Our rates are 24 shillings in the £. Of course West Ham always had a bad name among those who claim to be cleverer than we are. We may not be as clever, but we hope we are just as clean as they are. There is no subject discussed in this House on which certain people talk so much and know so little as the subject of rates.

Two districts were seriously affected by the flooding which took place unfor- tunately in London within recent times. These were the City of Westminster and the Borough of West Ham. The rates in Westminster are somewhere about eight shillings in the £ and the rates in West Ham, as I have said, are 24 shillings in the £. That seems to be greatly in favour of Westminster, judging only by the number of shillings in the £, but from our point of view that is not the proper way in which to compare rates. In Westminster a penny rate levied upon its rateable property produces about £36,000; in West Ham a penny in the £ brings in just over £5,000. If we want to get the same amount of money as Westminster for public purposes in West Ham, with a bigger population than Westminster, with a greater problem of poverty, and with all the difficulties attaching to casual labour in a dock area, we have to levy a rate of 7d. for every penny levied in Westminster. That is the proper way in which to judge rate comparisons—not by the shillings in the £ but by the amount of money produced by the rate. To-day there are 80 of the most important industrial centres in the country which are relatively in the same position as West Ham. The Government thought that some of our local representatives were extravagant in certain directions and in their wisdom they appointed Commissioners. Those Commissioners have been at work for some time and with all their economy and cheeseparing, and their so-called improved administration, they have saved about 6d. in the £ on the total rate. They have reduced the rates from 24s. 6d. to 24s., although the council, which is only part of the administration, has been responsible for reductions on its own side.

We would like to know what kind of assistance is in the minds of those who have put this paragraph into the King's Speech. What idea have they of helping the necessitous areas to meet their responsibilities? I can say without offending anybody that the richer districts of London are getting rid of their responsibilities and the poorer districts are having increased responsibilities. As London grows, new buildings, such as banks and hotels and places for pleasure purposes, are being erected and the poor are being pressed out to residential areas in the outskirts. They come to places like West Ham or East Ham, Tottenham, or Walthamstow, and every family that comes into these areas, driven in by the growth of inner London, brings a fresh burden on to the people already established in those areas. The mere superseding of local bodies will not alter that situation. You cannot alter economic organisation by appointing new officials. We wish to know who are making these inquiries and what knowledge have they of local administration? On these benches there are men and women who have spent their lives as members of local authorities. Many of us have received our early education in local and national politics as members of boards of guardians arid borough councils. Finally we find ourselves here and the longer we are here the less we know. We want the Government to realise that an inquiry of this character should be more than a mere Departmental or Ministerial inquiry; it ought to be an inquiry in which the people affected will have some voice.

I am not an agriculturist, although I was born and bred in an agricultural family, but I should like to know if the old policy is to be pursued of relieving agriculture at the expense of the industrial areas—robbing Peter to pay Paul or vice versa. Are we to have a comprehensive scheme of rates' reorganisation? Are we going to make the people pay who can afford to pay and lift the burden from those who are least able to pay? Has the question of the taxation of land values been taken into consideration as a method of redressing to some extent the present inequality of the burdens? I remember when we could buy land for schools in West Ham for £100 to £120 an acre, but to-day we have to pay about £600 an acre. The owners of land of that kind have made fortunes by the development of the area in which we reside, but the people who own the land have never paid a penny to the local authority, which has not merely to buy the land and build the schools but has to take the whole responsibility for the education of the thousands of children who have drifted into the district in consequence of industrial developments. I should like to know if this question of the contribution of the ground landlords towards meeting the ever-increasing responsibilities of local authorities in areas of this kind, has been taken into consideration?

I understand that some of our friends want to know if the Government will give them favourable terms for borrowing, but when we have asked for favourable terms we have been told that in the Government's view loans were not necessary and that in consequence of our high rates we cannot have anything in the way of assistance. Probably because the Government see the danger of losing the agricultural vote to a greater extent than they have done already, they are willing to show more favourable consideration to the agriculturists than to the industrialists. Can we have the names of those who are making these inquiries? Can we be told what is the basis on which the inquiry is to be held? Are they going to take into consideration all the incidences of local taxation, not merely from an agricultural standpoint, but from an industrial standpoint as well? West Ham has often been held up as a place to be avoided by people who want good government, but on the Stock Exchange to-day West Ham stands higher, from the standpoint of the power of West Ham to deal with it, than does the stock of the London County Council, which is a great Moderate authority. I mean the stock so far as West Ham itself is responsible for the raising of money for public purposes, and this, in spite of all the talk against us and all the attacks that the Press have been responsible for issuing against us.

We say that we ought not to be called upon to deal with the problem of unemployment in the way in which we are being called upon to deal with industrial derelicts. We have disease and death growing up around us in consequence of conditions over which we have no control, but we have to bear the burden of it. The more we go in for better education, the higher are our expenses, and when we ask the Government for more consideration in the matter, we generally get an answer which is not altogether desirable from our point of view. We want some member of the Government to give us some idea of what they mean by the paragraphs in the King's Speech dealing with this matter. We simply have the King's Speech, which is of course a Gracious Speech, gracious by the fact that it contains less than possibly some of the Ministers have in their minds, but just enough to make us curious to know where they are going and what they are doing. We hope they will give us some constructive proposals, and, instead of taking up the attitude of a Mussolini in miniature, we hope they will face the real issue of how to meet local responsibilities in a fair way. We do not want to escape our responsibilities, and we have never grumbled about the responsibilities placed upon us, though we think they are greater than we ought to be called upon to bear. Hardly a Session goes by without some Act being passed which makes the position of local authorities more difficult than it was before. These burdens increase year by year, and, therefore, we say that we are entitled to have from the Government something more definite than mere pious paragraphs in the King's Speech.

I wonder why no reference has been made, either in the King's Speech or in any of the speeches that have been made on behalf of the Government, to the fact that the "A" reservists who were taken out to China and who, have returned are now finding that they are left, despite promises made, without a return of the occupation which they held before they were taken away to serve in China. I am not surprised at the fact that employers make promises to men who go to fight for them, because we had the same lesson given to us in the Boer War, we had it in the last War, and now we are having it again. I have had letters from "A" reservists sent to me showing what I call a horrible state of affairs. I had hoped that, since this matter had appeared in the Press, to-day would have been a splendid opportunity for either confirming or denying the statements in the Press, because it is not nice to feel that men who have been promised a certain thing on the chance of their return from war are being treated as if it did not matter whether they existed or not.

The Speech itself cannot be called one that is comprehensive, nor does it contain any detail of any kind that might guide anyone reading it. We are suffering in Scotland the same as they are in England from the expenditure of public money. One would imagine that the expenditure of public money creating wealth, such as expenditure on new roads, would be good for the citizens, but instead we are discovering that it becomes worse for the ratepayers, because all these values that we have created, instead of returning to those who provide the money, are finding their way into the private pockets of the landlords. If you take the road between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance, the road itself will be a small matter, because after you have made and paid for it you have something, but here is a value that is being passed on to individuals, and that will be passed on to individuals, unless we get into power, from generation to generation for all time to come.

The paragraph in the King's Speech that interests me most is that which speaks of the general state of trade and says there are very encouraging signs. It is a pity that those who have not the insight possessed by those who drew up this Address were not given something that might remove the scales from our eyes. Some of us may not have as good sight as others have, and it would be a kind act to show us where these encouraging signs lie. If you take what has been taking place in Germany in relation to coal, the system of organisation that they took up some time ago was criticised in this House, and then sneered at, and then spoken of as something that would result in good. There are various names for what has happened in Germany, but I am dealing not with names, but with the results of what has taken place. We find that the output in the Ruhr, with 1913 as the highest pre-War output, despite every condition that has been imposed upon the Ruhr, despite all that is implied in changing over from one system to another, as they have done, shows an increase of four millions over 1913. That record has been achieved in the face of all the competition that Britain was able to bring to bear by cutting prices of coal and sending it into Germany. It was stated in this House that if we could crush the British miner and reduce the price of British coal, we could cut down the prices in foreign countries and knock the Germans out.

Despite all these things, I have in my hand a report which says that that record has been achieved in the face of a heavy rise in export prices caused by British competition, and with a working shift from 20 minutes to half an hour less than the British on the average. The reason for that is simply that they have realised that a man may call himself a master or an owner of a thing, but unless a man has knowledge of that which he is going to do, he is bound to make a mess of it. What has happened in Germany is this, that the scientist and the technician have been placed in charge of the organisation. It is strange to think that in this country, where we boast about being leading intellectual factors in world civilisation, we do not yet realise that it is necessary to put men who understand things to get them done. We call men captains of industry, but you want to see them when they are trying to talk about their industry; the great mass of them know nothing at all about it. I have here also an interesting article that appeared in the "Daily News," dealing with this situation in Germany, but I should first have mentioned that they were able to reduce their hours and that two increases of wages were awarded in the Ruhr last spring, and these have been maintained.

All this took place in face of the cutthroat competition that was stupidly put against that country. There is no country in the world that can start that form of competition with another country unless it has got some natural advantage, and we have none in this country. The position there shows that the whole of the attitude of the so-called owners of minerals in this country has been such as almost to destroy the British coal trade. Yet they have developed the science side in the treatment of coal. They are doing it with coal much inferior to British coal, and they are able to absorb on the chemical side all the men displaced by machinery improvement. We have more than one mine in this country in which there is at work a system that replaces one in which it was necessary, where the coal was being worked, to blow down part of the roof to lay the track in order to bring out the coal. All that expense is now being saved, because, instead of blowing down the roof to make roads and lay rails, there is a travelling belt, no matter how thin the seam is, and this belt travels to where the men work and brings the coal out, and puts it as near the shaft as possible. Yet, when we speak to the owner of these coalfields, he says: "Yes, with all these improvements, it is not paying."

If it pays in other countries, what is it that prevents it paying in this? This report shows that conditions are no worse. Hours are less in Germany and they had two increases of wages last spring. They increased output and decreased hours, and yet we are told that we cannot possibly compete; and it is always, in this House, put down to wages. It has nothing to do with wages at all. It is a question of the application of science. If we got this form of organisation output could be regulated. You could always regulate your output if you knew exactly what you are capable of doing. If you put all these processes in harness, you could tell what they are going to do, and the effect would be to reduce unemployment. It says in this report that since August the time lost owing to trade conditions has not amounted to half a shift per man per month, and since September it has only been a quarter of a shift. Compare that with the conditions in this country, where to my knowledge men get one day a week, two days or three days a week, and yet we are talking about making further cuts in order to compete.

You cannot compete, as I said in my first speech in this House, if you remain ignorant. Surely we have got as much mental power for the application of science as the Germans have, and what is to prevent us doing it? In Germany, the coalowners go to the scientists and find out what can be done, but in this country the owner runs to the bank to pawn part of his colliery, instead of getting somebody in who understands it to help him out of his difficulty. This pawning has gone on to such an extent that coalowners say, "We would like to apply what you are saying, but the fact is that we are up to the eyes with the "bank." And here is the great British Government, and this Most Gracious Speech that makes no reference to the great basic industry of this country, despite the desperate situation in which it is placed. Any ordinary miner of my acquaintance would be ashamed to claim that he had anything to do with making up a Speech like that. The average of the miners' intelligence is greater than is represented by this piece of paper and what it contains.

I have been able to show from this report that with inferior conditions in Germany, and with shortened hours and increased wages, they have been able to-absorb men displaced by machinery in the scientific production of coal. In this country we have a very definite burden placed upon us by the displaced man. The man who is unemployed through some interruption of trade can be absorbed again, and you can call him unemployed, but you cannot call a man unemployed who has been displaced by some new invention. On the railway stations, for instance, you are soon going to see a machine in which you will put in money—it may be more than the purchases you are about to make—into a slot, and the names on that slot will be printed upon the ticket and the change will be delivered if you have not the net sum to put in the slot. That means that the man who in the past has been handling these goods and the printer who has been printing the tickets are going to disappear. They become displaced men. I know that a great many politicians who take their politics from the past argue that this was said long ago when steam was brought in as a great power, and that it was shown that even men who tried to destroy the machines were in the years that came after able to be absorbed in the making of the machines and the increased production of the machines. That was true, because you then had the world as a market, but to-day that market is closed. No matter what invention is produced in this or any other country, it becomes an equivalent inside 12 months. You could absorb all the men displaced in your productive organisations, even if you increased your production, if you had a continuously expanding market to keep pace with the process of production and its increase, but when you keep shutting down then you come to that position when you cannot absorb these men.

So that I should not talk without facts, I asked the clerk of the Glasgow Parish Council if he would kindly go into the cases in the Springburn area, and show me the number of men who had gone through all the benefits in unemployment and extended benefit, and at last had been passed on to poor relief. I find in the first statement this fact, that there are men who have been registered on the Poor Law 4½ years. I took the trouble to find out the industries in which these men had been engaged. I found the biggest proportion of them had been engaged in the steel trade. I followed up every individual, discovered what he did and the reason why he was displaced, and I found it was that improvement which I mentioned before in this House, where as much steel can be produced by seven men now as by 70 men three years ago. If the manufacturer Had Been left with less goods to sell he could have said, "I cannot pay more than the wages of the seven men," but there is more steel to sell, and he has only seven men to pay, and yet we are told that the community must be responsible for the men displaced, and the Government says that this is not a national matter. Is not marketing a national matter? How can you escape from the national market in the production of heavy steel? The national need becomes a national responsibility, but it is quite evident that the Tory Government are seeking to try and destroy working-class representation on local bodies, in industrial centres especially, by putting everything that belongs really to the national responsibility upon the local bodies. I have no faith in the promise in the King's Speech to afford relief to local rates because, with my knowledge of the past Tory Governments and the present Government, I know that they never do anything in this relation without increasing the burden somewhere else. Every time they make the public pay for getting something, the owning class are always getting ten times more.

Let me conclude with this. A reference was made to the intimidation of certain miners in Durham. I thought that was a most horrible thing. I think there is nothing more stupid on the part of supposed employers. Can you expect, for instance, from men who suggest such things as that any capacity to apply what I have been talking about? There is no logic in the mind that does a thing like that. Unless you have a logical mind, I do not see how you can improve the production of coal. I hope that something will be done by responsible men in the Government to see that no coalowner will be able to say to a man, "Unless you do this or that you are going to walk the plank," because that is what it means. Why is it that they specified two trade unions? They did it because they know that they as employers have got these trade unions in their pockets. Towards the end of the King's Speech, put in as though it was nearly forgotten, are a line and a half saying:

I hope the Government will give attention to the points I have made in regard to the effect of public money spent as I have described increasing the rates of the citizen who has to provide the money. Many of these things are biting right into the heart of every city, and yet we have a most Gracious Speech making not the slightest reference to them. Medical men at the apex of their profession are disturbed over the great increase of rheumatism in children, but in this Speech there is not the slightest reference to rheumatism in children. [ Laughter ]. You may smile at that, but these children will be the citizens of the future. If you smile at that, just listen to this. Is it realised that in the great majority of the houses with more than one room in this country families have only one fire to sit round, even during the coldest months of the year, because they cannot afford to buy more coal? Children in those houses are put into beds where the bedclothes are often damp; and if hon. Members knew anything about what doctors know they would know that that is the start of the rheumatism from which the children suffer. So we have the children of the poor getting rheumatism because their parentscannot buy coal, and colliers starving because the people who require coal to keep them warm cannot buy it; and then we say that we are the apex of the intelligence of human civilisation, we, the great hard-headed, intellectual, British public! The Minister of Education knows how serious this matter may become, not only as regards the education of the children tout from the point of view of the interests of the nation. I think every Speech should be called "gracious" which includes a reference to children, and every Speech which does not include the interests of the children ought to be called "a careless Speech," because children are the basis of our citizenship. After all the facts and figures I have given, especially with respect to the mining industry, I hope the Government1 will see to it that if those who claim to be captains of industry are not going to do something, those people who are prepared to deal with the problem shall toe given an opportunity to get on with it.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[ Lord Eustace Percy. ]

Debate to toe resumed To-morrow.