Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 250: debated on Wednesday 25 March 1931

House of Commons

Wednesday, March 25, 1931

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

Private Business

Tamworth Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Guildford Gas and Cranleigh Electricity Bill (changed from "Guildford Gas and Electricity Bill"),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Abyssinia (Slave Traffic)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that last year the Sudanese Government was able to round up a large number of slave-traders on the Sudanese-Abyssinian border, and thereby secure the release of 1,000 slaves destined for sale in Abyssinia; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to present a full report upon this incident to the League of Nations?

5 and 6.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the success of the work of setting free the 1,000 slaves destined for sale into Abyssinia which was undertaken by the Sudanese slavery patrol, whether it is his intention to express to the men and officers concerned the appreciation of His Majesty's Government;

(2) whether he is aware that the Sudanese Government has recently captured a large number of slave traders engaged in selling into Abyssinia persons under British protection; and if he can say whether these slave traders have been or will be brought to trial and the records of the proceedings submitted to the League of Nations?

The incident referred to occurred in 1929 when investigations by the Sudan authorities led to the arrest and imprisonment of a woman engaged in the sale of Abyssinian negroes to various Arab tribes on the Sudan side of the frontier. A number of other persons implicated were also arrested and imprisoned. These investigations led to the discovery and liberation of about 650 slaves who had been imported into the Sudan from Abyssinia. Full reports were made to the League of Nations by the Governor-General of the Sudan, and were published in the Official Journal of the League for May, 1929, page 833, and May, 1930, page 393. My right hon. Friend considers that the effective action taken by the Sudan authorities to suppress this traffic reflects great credit on all concerned.

What steps have been taken to make Abyssinia carry out her obligations with regard to slavery?

We are always doing our best to prevent the occurrence of these incidents.

My right hon. Friend considers, as I have already stated, that great credit is due to the patrol. But it is some time since this incident occurred, and the first report was made by the League of Nations in May, 1929, before the present Government had come into power. My right hon. Friend would be quite prepared to send such a message, as the Noble Lord suggests, but this might, more appropriately, have been done by our predecessors.

Naval Armaments

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing that no warship exceeding 10,000 tons displacement shall be laid down after the beginning of the World Disarmament Conference?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question by him on 18th March.

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this point, among others, will receive proper consideration?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the precise terms in which the written assurance to be given to the French and Italian Governments by the British Government, in connection with the Franco-Italian naval agreement, that they themselves favour a reduction of the capital-ship gun to a maximum calibre of 12 inches and a substantial reduction in the existing maximum displacement of 35,000 tons, will be drawn up?

The precise terms in which the British Government will give the written assurance referred to in the hon. Member's question is one of a number of matters under consideration by the Drafting Committee which is now sitting in London. I am, therefore, unable to give any further information until their work is completed.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether this country will recover full liberty of action in the event of the Governments of the United States and Japan not being able to accept those reductions at the next Naval Conference?

Slavery and Forced Labour Conventions

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many, and which, States have not yet ratified the Slavery Convention of 1926 and the Forced Labour Convention of 1930?

Thirty-five States have not yet ratified or acceded to the Slavery Convention of 1926. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Forced Labour Convention of 1930 has so far been ratified only by Liberia and the Irish Free State.

The list of 36 names which I am circulating of those who have not yet ratified include the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Following are the names:

Abyssinia, Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, Free City of Danzig, Guatemala, Hejaz, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Rumania, Salvador, San Marino, Siam, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Russia

Books (Importation)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct His Majesty's Minister in Russia to approach the Russian Government with a view to obtaining permission for the entry into Russia of books printed and published in this country, except those to the entry of which exception is taken on political or economic grounds?

According to the last edition of the Tariff Law of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the possession of His Majesty's Government, books to which no exception is taken on political or economic grounds are admitted free of duty. The action suggested by the Noble Lord does not, therefore, appear to be required.

Has the hon. Gentleman received the information I sent him on the authority of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and will he look into it? Cannot he make representations through our Minister to allow Bibles which have been printed in this country to be sent to Russia?

The Noble Lord sent me this morning a report which I have read with interest and with great regret. Whether it arises out of this question is another matter. The point at issue is the interpretation placed by the Soviet authority on what books are objectionable to them on political or economic grounds. Possibly the Noble Lord will give me time to look into the matter and consult my right hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that men have been sent to prison for distributing in this country the Sermon on the Mount?

Timber Camps (Labour Conditions)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further steps have been taken by the Government recently to ascertain the conditions of labour in the Russian timber camps, and to carry out the obligations imposed on this country by Article 23A of the Covenant of the League of Nations?

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers given to his questions on the same subject on 23rd February and 2nd March, to which I have nothing to add.

Is the Government, therefore, of opinion that there is no need to take any further steps to ascertain the conditions?

Reliable information on these conditions would be welcome to the Government, but certain difficulties have hitherto prevented that reliable information being obtained.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the Admiralty should no longer be using Russian timber?

Why cannot they send to Finland to examine the numerous escaped Russian prisoners?

Will my hon. Friend urge the Labour Office of the League of Nations to inquire into a very sad case of a waiter who, after 42 years' service, was discharged on a very inadequate pension by the Junior Carlton Club in London?

Questions

Germany and Austria (Proposed Customs Union)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information about the proposed Customs union between the German and Austrian Governments; and whether this affects the most-favoured-nation or other commercial treaties in existence with this country?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement to the House on the announcement of the formation of a Customs union between Germany and Austria; if His Majesty's Government have been advised of the negotiations with this object in view which have been in process for some time between those two countries; and what measures have been adopted to protect the interests of British trade?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the preliminary agreement with regard to a future customs union that has been concluded between Germany and Austria?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give any information in his possession as to the suggested customs pact between Germany and Austria?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any notification of the formation of an Austro-German customs union; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the agreement for a common customs union between Germany and Austria which also permits other countries to join; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with these countries with a view to similar reciprocal arrangements?

Information concerning the projected Customs Union between Germany and Austria, which has been furnished to the Foreign Office by the German Ambassador and the Austrian Minister, is being very closely studied in its legal, commercial and political aspects. No agreement between Austria and Germany has yet been concluded, but the two Governments have communicated to us certain proposals which are intended to form the subject for the future negotiation of a treaty. Whether or not a union constituted along the lines of these proposals would involve the breach of any treaty provision is a legal question which cannot be answered at this stage, but which will have to be fully and carefully examined. It is impossible to forecast the result of the proposed agreement on British trade. Much would obviously depend on the level of the duties which the proposed union, if brought into being, would impose upon imports from other countries. The House may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will use all proper means to prevent injury, as a result of any such agreement, to the trading interests of this country. His Majesty's Government have no present intention of entering into negotiations with Germany or Austria with a view to concluding a Customs Union with either or both. Any such step would involve a radical change in our fiscal policy in relation not only to foreign countries but to the Dominions and India.

Without going into political questions, may I ask if it is still the policy of the Government to encourage the breaking down of fiscal barriers in Europe?

When did the hon. Gentleman first hear officially, from either the German Ambassador or the Austrian Minister, that negotiations were in progress for a Customs Union?

The actual text of the proposals was only communicated to us on Monday last, and it was not before Friday that we got even the first intimation, not from the German or Austrian representative in London, but from the French Ambassador, who called at the Foreign Office to acquaint us of what he had heard.

Did the hon. Gentleman make any protest against these negotiations being carried on behind the backs of the other nations of Europe without giving notice to our Government or to any other country?

I think I would prefer not to enter into further details. My right hon. Friend is in Paris and is engaged in consultation both with M. Briand and other representatives of European States assembled there. He will be in his place in the House, I hope, on Monday, and any further questions might perhaps be deferred till then.

May we take it that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House either on Monday or at latest on Wednesday before the House adjourns for Easter?

I have no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman or any of his friends will put down a question that my right hon. Friend will give the fullest answer that is possible. I know that he attaches considerable importance to this question from what we have heard at the Foreign Office since his departure. I suggest that the most convenient course would be for a question to be put down for Monday.

That is the reason why I asked the date of his return the other day.

Did the German proposals communicated to the Government contain a general invitation to other Powers to join the union or not?

There is a clause in the proposals indicating that the German Government would be willing to conclude a similar union with any other State that was willing to do so.

In view of the fact that there has been no discussion in this Parliament at all of our economic relations with European countries arising out of the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties, will there be an opportunity of discussing this matter in relation to the broader question at an early date?

China Indemnity (Application) Act

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now give the composition of the board of trustees appointed under the China indemnity settlement to carry out the disposal of the funds in question?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state the names of the British members of the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission; and whether any representative of the British steel industry is included in their number?

I hope to be able to make an announcement at an early date regarding the selection of the British members of the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission and of the Board of Trustees.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the inclusion upon this board of an engineer having full knowledge of the manufacture of railway materials?

Yes, Sir. We have been giving a good deal of consideration to obtaining suitable names to submit to the Chinese Government, with whom the final selection rests, for both these bodies, and I hope that when I am able to make an announcement to the House, there will be general satisfaction that the various interests concerned will be duly represented.

Royal Navy

Venereal Diseases

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what

Incidence of Venereal Disease (fresh infections) for the years 1924–29.

Year.

Number of Cases.

Ratio per 1,000 of Strength.

Increase or Decrease compared with previous year.

1924

5,987

68·32

10·19

Decrease.

1925

5,412

60·16

8·16

Decrease.

1926

5,184

57·18

2·98

Decrease.

1927

5,341

57·28

·10

Increase.

1928

5,160

56·81

·47

Decrease.

1929

5,342

61·94

5·13

Increase.

Comprehensive education schemes are in force in the training establishments. In the general depots, all new entries receive special instruction.

In boys' training establishments, Very special care is taken to ensure adequate

reduction there has been in the incidence of contagious diseases in the Navy during the last six years; and what steps are taken especially to bring entrants and lads in the training establishments under the influence of intensive and comprehensive educational schemes with a view to the prevention of such diseases?

As the answer contains a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it not a fact that the rate of reduction of these most serious diseases has stopped during the last six years, and that the Admiralty are taking no special steps in order to deal with the situation?

No; I think that the hon. and gallant Member will find that that is not quite borne out by the information.

Are the Admiralty taking full steps to avail themselves of the offer of the British Social Hygiene Council to give them help, which has been so useful elsewhere?

Following is the answer:

I presume that by "contagious diseases" the hon. and gallant Member refers to venereal diseases. The reduction (or increase) in the incidence of these diseases in the Navy, during the last six years, is set forth in the following table:

and suitable instruction in sex hygiene. This instruction forms part of the general scheme of moral training, and is carried out, in close co-operation, by the divisional executive officers, the chaplains and medical officers of the establishments concerned.

Moreover, thorough instruction, especially with regard to venereal diseases and their dangers, is imparted to those boys before they are drafted to sea-going ships.

Sisal Purchases

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the name of the firm whose tender for 50 tons of sisal was recently accepted by the Admiralty; the price at which the sisal was purchased and the estate marks on the bales supplied against the contract; whether delivery has been completed; and whether the sisal in question was shipped by British steamers?

Delivery of the sisal has been completed. It is not customary nor is it in the public interest to publish prices and details of Government contracts.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why this sisal was purchased from a company which is registered in Jersey in order to avoid the payment of British Income Tax, when it could be purchased from British controlled estates in Tanganyika, Kenya or Nyasaland at an economic price? May I have a reply to that question, Sir? Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, or rather his failure to reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House at an early date.

Destroyers and Leaders

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the estimated total tonnage of British destroyers and leaders in a year's time; and of that tonnage how much will be under 12 years of age?

The answer to the first part of the question is 172,581 tons and to the second part 45,471 tons.

Seeing that we have only 45,000 tons and are allowed to have 150,000 tons, does not the hon. Gentleman think that some more destroyer building is necessary?

No. I think the hon. Member will find that we have our full quota, taking into consideration the completion of the 1929 building programme and allowing for the scrapping programme of 1930–31.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the estimated total tonnage of British destroyers and leaders on the completion of the 1931 building programme and, of that tonnage, how much will be under 12 years of age?

The figures asked for in the first part of the question cannot be accurately forecast so far in advance. The answer to the second part of the question is 68,646 tons.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with that, seeing we are allowed 150,000 tons and in view of the very large amount of submarine tonnage allowed to Continental Powers?

Yes. We have to have regard to this as being tentative, and we have to bear in mind that there might be considerable modifications. Having regard perhaps to the position of French submarines and our own submarines, we might have to make some different arrangements with our destroyers.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that in the absence of such modifications the position will be very unsatisfactory. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I seem to be very unfortunate in getting stopped when putting my second question on naval subjects.

May I point out that these questions were asked on the Navy Estimates, and they were not answered.

Sick-Berth Branch

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the number of ratings borne in the sick-berth branch is sufficient to allow of proper nursing arrangements and attendance for the sick in hospitals and sick quarters, when sick-berth ratings are on passage to foreign hospitals and are on foreign service leave?

His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" (Panama Canal Charges)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cost to this country of the battleship "Nelson" transiting the Panama Canal in order to pay a formal call on the United States fleet at Bilbao?

The regulated canal charges for the passage both ways amount to 36,407 dollars.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that in the interests of economy, which is so necessary at the present time, this expenditure was considered desirable, particularly in view of the reductions which are being made in the salaries of ex-service civil servants?

On the whole, I think that it was desirable that the full programme should have been carried out.

May I ask whether the word "transiting" is a word which is acknowledged in the ordinary English dictionary?

Fiji Legislative Council (Indian Candidates)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position in regard to the resignation of the Indian members of the Fiji Legislative Council and the subsequent refusal of the Indian community in the colony to nominate candidates for the seats vacated, on account of the dissatisfaction felt by the community with the electoral system introduced under the recent constitutional reforms in the colony whereby the electoral roll for the Legislative Council is divided along racial lines?

So far as the Secretary of State is aware the situation has not changed. The absence of Indian members from the Legislative Council is regretted, and the Governor is prepared to issue writs for an election of Indian members as soon as there is an indication that candidates will be forthcoming.

Questions

Cyprus

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons an order of the Director of Education in Cyprus has been issued recently prohibiting schoolmasters and schoolmistresses and, generally, all teachers from publishing or editing any paper, or contributing to it anonymously, or even expressing any views by articles or letters to the Press on any matter of political or administrative nature?

My Noble Friend has not heard from the Governor that such an order has been issued, but as teachers have recently come under Government control in Cyprus, they are presumably subject to the usual Colonial Regulation regarding communications to the Press by Government servants.

Have any particular instructions been issued by the Governor in this respect, and, if so, is it possible for this House to be supplied with a copy of them?

I shall be very pleased to give the hon. Member a copy of the Colonial Regulations which deal with this matter.

I asked whether special instructions were issued by the Governor, and, if so, could we be supplied with a copy?

I have said in my answer that we have no information, but, if there have been instructions, certainly I shall be very pleased to supply a copy.

Will the hon. Gentleman make an inquiry as to whether any special order has been issued, or whether the regulation is the same as that which applies to all other colonies?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of the State guarantee given to the Agriculture Bank of Cyprus; at what rate of interest it provides loans to the co-operative credit societies; at what rate of interest these societies provide loans to the peasants; and whether the Government is prepared to consider the establishment of a State Bank of Cyprus to provide loans direct to the farmers without profit-making?

The Cyprus Government has guaranteed a net profit of 4 per cent. on the £50,000 capital of the bank and interest up to £10,000 in any one year on bonds amounting to £200,000 issued by the bank. The rate of interest on loans to the co-operative credit societies is 8 per cent., and these societies under their rules provide loans to the farmers at not less than 1 per cent. nor more than 2 per cent. above that figure. The suggestion contained in the last part of the question has been considered, but, in view of commitments which have been entered into, it is not practicable to adopt it at present.

This arrangement was made under the previous Government and has only been running for a year or two, and after such a short time it is hardly suitable to consider an alteration.

At an early moment, in view of the high rate of interest charged to the peasants, would the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

It does seem a high rate of interest, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the ordinary rate, apart from this, has been about 12 per cent.; and the rate charged is a good deal less than the peasants have been in the habit of paying. It certainly seems high, but the rates of interest in all these countries are higher than they are in this country.

Is it not a fact that the normal rate of interest charged by the only other sources available to these agriculturists is more often 7 per cent.?

Is it not a fact that this arrangement was instituted by the Government of Cyprus with the approval of the Secretary of State, in order to rescue the Cyprus peasantry from lawyer moneylenders who were charging usurious rates?

Transjordan

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to recent disturbances in the Middle East, resulting in the death of Captain Draper, commanding the mobile desert motor patrol?

Some statements have appeared in the Press recently regarding alleged unrest in Transjordan. My Noble Friend has made inquiries from the High Commissioner who reports that he recently visited Transjordan and found the situation tranquil. No British officer has been killed, and I cannot identify the particular incident to which the question refers. Possibly the reference may be based on an inaccurate version of the following occurrence. On the night of the 7th of March on the Amman-Es Salt road the ex-Chief Minister of Transjordan, Hassan Khalid Pasha, and Flying Officer Domvile, R.A.F., were fired on, but neither of them was hit, although their motor cars were struck by several shots. The incident is believed to have been a mere act of brigandage. The police have made two arrests.

Hong Kong (Child Mortality)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that an average of more than 1,300 bodies of dead children are picked up in the streets of Hong Kong each year, he will call for a report from the Governor of Hong Kong as to what verdicts have been given at the inquests held upon these children; and what administrative steps are being taken to bring to trial those who are alleged to be responsible?

My Noble Friend inquired into this matter some little time ago. In a despatch dated the 22nd May, 1930, the Governor informed him that every abandoned corpse is removed to the public mortuary for post mortem examination, but in almost every case no cause is discovered for suspicion that the death resulted from other than natural causes. Every case is reported to the coroner, but the Governor states that in no single instance in 1928 did the coroner see any necessity for a formal death inquiry. In the circumstances, my Noble Friend does not propose to call for a further report of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether, whatever may be the causes, he cannot assure the House that some steps will be instituted and prosecuted which will put an end to a state of things which, without exaggeration, can be described as appalling?

I quite agree that it is very unsatisfactory. I understand that in the main these happenings are due in some cases to fear of inquiries under infectious disease orders, and in other cases to save the expense of burial. My Noble Friend has gone into the matter and drawn the Governor's attention to it, and I believe that everything possible is being done in the matter.

Surely, the hon. Member will take some steps to stop this economy. The answer with regard to economy over burial is a dreadful answer.

I do not think so. It is no reflection on the Government of the Colony at all. Arrangements are made for burial to be free, if necessary, but probably in many instances that is not known.

Can the hon. Member give us the assurance that these children were not placed on the streets dead, as the result of violence?

Yes, I have stated that in practically every case the result of the post-mortem examination showed that death was due to natural causes. There is certainly a very high infant mortality there.

Surely the hon. Member does not accept the official view in this rigid answer. Surely, there is some heart in administration of this kind.

I do not understand the vehemence of my hon. Friend. I have given a clear answer, that these bodies were found in the streets and that they had not gone through the ordinary process of burial. Arrangements are in existence whereby they could get burial free of charge, but for the reasons that I have stated these were not taken advantage of. I would remind the hon. Member that in the last year for which figures are available in the Metropolitan Police District in London over 700 bodies were found in one year.

Palestine

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what is the latest information about the situation in Palestine?

I understand that the situation continues unchanged, and no incidents of special significance have been brought to notice. The police action usually called for at the season of religious celebrations will, of course, be taken.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that suitable precautions are being taken in view of the approach of Easter?

Yes, Sir. The High Commissioner is fully aware of the position, and I can assure the hon. Member that every necessary precaution is being taken.

Has the hon. Gentleman any information about the report which has been published in this country of an act of brigandage of somewhat serious import?

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether unemployment is increasing or decreasing among the Arabs?

I believe there is a considerable amount of unemployment, but I am sorry that I cannot give definite information about increase or decrease.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement as to the situation in Palestine since the publication of the Prime Minister's letter to Dr. Weizmann; and if he has any information as to the causes and extent of the Arab boycott?

As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Mr. Knight). As regards the last part of the question the High Commissioner has reported that the Arab Executive issued on the 13th instant a manifesto calling upon all Arabs to adopt within certain limits a commercial boycott of the Jews. No information has been received as to the extent to which the boycott has yet been put into practice.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that never at any time has the tension been so high as it is to-day, and, in view of the urgent need for co-operation between the Jews and Arabs, will not the Government endeavour to bring this about by altering the terms of that letter?

We are always endeavouring to bring about co-operation between the two parties, as the hon. and gallant Member knows. He also knows that it is a difficult task, but it is one which we certainly intend to pursue.

Is the hon. Member not aware that the letter written by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann has had exactly the opposite effect?

I know that it has been criticised, but I am afraid that I am not prepared to take the hon. and gallant Member's view of it.

Schneider Trophy Race

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state what is the cost of the seaplanes, engines, propellers, and other flying equipment for the forthcoming Schneider trophy race; whether the whole of this money is being found by private subscription; and whether these seaplanes, etc., will remain the property of the Air Ministry or His Majesty's Government after the race?

As regards the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 16th instant. It is hoped that the whole of the extra expenditure will be covered by private contribution, but it would not be expedient to make public the amount of expenditure on the purchase and reconditioning of technical equipment for the race. As regards the last part of the question, I have no doubt that in due course it will be possible to come to some commonsense arrangement as to the utimate disposal of this equipment.

In regard to the last part of the hon. Member's answer, if these aeroplanes are to be kept by the Air Ministry for a certain period for training purposes, will Lady Houston be allowed some part of the cost for the hire of them?

All I can say upon that matter is that, if we think it necessary to retain these machines permanently, my Noble Friend will consider the question of some rebate on the cost.

Transport

London and North Eastern Railway (Suburban Electrification)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the proposal of the London and North Eastern Railway Company for the electrification of the old Great Northern suburban system?

The London and North Eastern Railway Company have now submitted to the Development (Public Utility) Advisory Committee an application for a grant in respect of a revised scheme for the electrification of the Great Northern suburban lines. The application will receive careful and immediate consideration.

In view of the long delay that has taken place in bringing about this scheme of electrification, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the company to bring it into operation without delay?

I am very anxious that this scheme and other schemes of electrification shall be brought into operation without delay.

Severn Barrage Scheme

asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make any further statement as to when the report of the Committee on the Severn River Barrage may be expected; and what State funds have already been spent in connection with this project?

This inquiry is being conducted by a Committee of the Economic Advisory Council, which has appointed an expert co-ordinating committee for the supervision of the detailed work involved. I understand that the latter body hopes to be in a position to submit a further confidential report later in the year. As regards the second part of the question, the expenditure to date on this investigation amounts to £41,535.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an additional reason for seeing that there is no delay in finding out whether the Severn Barrage is a good scheme, and that is the increased cost of coal at the present time?

Highway Code

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement defining a major and minor road referred to in the Highway Code?

I think that the terms referred to by my hon. Friend are sufficiently clear. The Code enjoins caution on all drivers at cross roads even if they are on a major road. If a driver is doubtful when approaching a cross road whether the road on which he is travelling is a major or a minor road he should act as though he were on a minor road.

Toll Roads and Bridges

asked the Minister of Transport how many local authorities during the past year have exercised their powers to acquire toll roads and bridges in the United Kingdom?

I have no knowledge of any toll roads or bridges having been acquired by local authorities and freed from toll during the past year, but I understand that seven schemes for freeing bridges from toll are under active consideration by the authorities concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman bringing any pressure on local authorities in this matter?

I do not like the word "pressure," but we have drawn the attention of local authorities to the new powers conferred by the Road Traffic Act, in connection with which I am thankful for the assistance of the hon. and gallant Member.

Railway Passenger Services (Leicestershire)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have decided to close down the railway lines for passenger traffic between Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Nuneaton and Burton-on-Trent and Nuneaton via Measham; that this action will deprive some 20,000 people of any passenger service from their own town or village; and, in view of the inadequacy of the alternative omnibus service proposed, whether he will represent to the company that they should make effective connections with the neighbouring towns of Derby and Leicester, to avoid the delays at present caused to passengers and to encourage business?

The railway company have informed me that in consequence of the diminution in passenger traffic between Donisthorpe and Nuneaton they have decided to withdraw the railway services, but that arrangements have been made with the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Company, Limited, with which they are associated, for the improvement of the omnibus services. The company state that in their opinion the revised omnibus services will adequately provide for the limited amount of traffic at present conveyed by railway, but that full consideration will be given to any specific representations which may be made to the effect that the proposed service between any particular point is inadequate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the failure of this branch line of the London Midland and Scottish Railway is due to bad management; and does it not point to the need for the nationalisation of the railway system?

Electricity Supplies

Steel Pylons

asked the Minister of Transport whether the actual material which is used in the construction of the steel pylons for the electricity grid system is of British manufacture in every case?

I understand that the whole of the steel used in the construction of the towers to which the hon. Member refers is of British manufacture.

West Wales

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state what is the farthest point in West Wales to which it is proposed to take the grid; when it is anticipated this point will be reached; and what steps are being taken at present for the supply of electricity to the rural districts of Carmarthenshire?

With regard to the first portion of the question, it is not contemplated that the "grid" system will be taken farther west than Llanelly or that the construction of this line will be completed for another two or three years. Supplies can be made available from the existing generating station at Llanelly for the development of surrounding areas. Three applications for Special Orders to authorise the distribution of electricity in the unoccupied portions of the counties of Carmarthen, Cardigan and Pembroke are at present under consideration by the Electricity Commissioners.

Meters, Chelmsford

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that foreign electric meters are being put by the Electric Supply Corporation into council houses in spite of the protests of the town council of Chelmsford; and whether he will take steps to see that British meters are used?

This matter, which had not previously been brought to my notice, is not one in which I have any jurisdiction, but I will make inquiries and inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.

At a time of great unemployment in this country, surely it is the duty of the Minister of Transport to see that British meters and not foreign meters are installed? Cannot he use his influence with this corporation?

It must be appreciated that we are not the owners of electricity undertakings. I am quite sure that among the directors of these undertakings are a lot of excellent Conservatives, and that they will have every regard to the policy of their party in this matter.

Questions

School of Cookery, Liverpool

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that his representative, on 20th January, accepted the view of the Liverpool corporation that the Office of Works were liable for the reinstatement of the Custom House School of Cookery after damage by fire; and, in view of the fact that no work has been done and that inconvenience is being caused, whether he will take steps to have the work put in hand without delay?

In regard to the first part of the question, I am assured that no liability was admitted by my representative. In regard to the second part, I understand that the matter may become the subject of legal proceedings, and, in these circumstances, I would prefer to make no further statement.

Trade and Commerce

Russia

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has yet received a report on the organisation of the administrative machinery of foreign trade in the Soviet Union?

The answer is in the negative.

I understand that several reminders have been sent out in regard to this matter.

Patent Law

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report from the Committee which has been considering the law relating to patents; and whether he proposes to publish such report?

The report of this committee has now been received and steps are being taken to publish it forthwith.

Rubber Shoe Industry

asked the Minister of Labour whether she will state to the House the wages paid to operatives engaged in the rubber shoe industry in this country and the number of hours in the working week; and the corresponding figures for Czechoslovakia and Germany?

I regret that I am not in possession of the desired information, either for this country or for Czechoslovakia or Germany.

But surely the hon. Gentleman can get the information. Is he aware of the unfortunate condition of the rubber shoe industry to-day because of acute foreign competition? Cannot he give the House the facts?

The facts are not available in respect to such employment in this country, to say nothing of the other countries referred to. There are no collective agreements in that particular industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are employers who do not care too much for investigation.

But this is a very serious Case. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of these rubber shoe factories in Edinburgh is about to close down and to place 700 workpeople on Unemployment Insurance benefit for a week or so?

Questions

Church Estates, Paddington

asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he is aware of the overcrowding on the Paddington estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; what representations have been made to the commissioners in regard thereto; and whether the commissioners, as large property owners in the borough of Paddington, are willing to assist the borough council in ameliorating the housing conditions of the working classes in the borough?

The commissioners' attention has been drawn to overcrowding in Paddington not solely or particularly on the estate of which they are ground landlords and on which, moreover, they are not owners of the houses. The commissioners will gladly give their encouragement as ground landlords to any approved scheme made by the local housing authority.

May I ask whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now agree that the housing conditions in this particular area are really shocking?

The report that has been received on that particular area is certainly disquieting, but as they have no immediate power over the question the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not examined it with that particularity which they would have done if they had had any power to deal with it.

India

Foreign Cloth (Export)

asked the Secretary of State for India if the company that has been formed for the export of foreign cloth held in stock in Bombay and other places in India is to handle all foreign cloth held or only British-made cloth; and whether this project is covered by the terms of agreement between the Viceroy and Mahatma Gandhi?

My information is that the scheme covers all foreign cloth. There appears to be nothing in the agreement that precludes the formation of this company.

Maternal Deaths

asked the Secretary of State for India the rate of maternal deaths per 1,000 confinements in British India during last year or for the most recent year for which figures are available?

Figures are not available for the whole of British India. But to take a few illustrative cases, the ratio of maternal deaths per 1,000 live births in 1927 was 12 for Madras Town, and 5.3 for Madras Presidency; 5 for Bombay City and 5.4 for the Presidency. When copies of the Public Health Commissioner's report for 1928 are received I will have one placed in the Library.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to think that these figures can be complete in view of the statement of the representative of public health in Madras that 20 per 1,000 is a very moderate estimate of the number of maternal deaths?

Can the Secretary of State say how these figures compare with those in England and in other countries?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Joshi Report gave the result of an extremely careful study of 7,000 confinements, which showed a rate of over 17 per 1,000?

I have given the hon. Lady the official figures in my possession, and I have no doubt as to their accuracy. I have also drawn attention to the fact that they do not cover the whole ground.

Federal Structure Committee

asked the Secretary of State for India what provision is being made for the representation of women on the reconstituted Federal Structure Committee?

As I informed the House on Monday last, I am in consultation with the Governor-General on the composition of the reconstituted Federal Structure Committee.

Child Marriages

asked the Secretary of State for India what replies were given by the provincial Governments to the proposal to suspend the provisions of the Sarda Act, which was circulated to them last summer by the Government of India; and whether any further action in that respect is contemplated?

The correspondence between the Government of India and local Governments on the subject of the Sarda Act was of a confidential nature. So far as I am aware it is not the intention of the Government of India to take any action to suspend the operation of the Act.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the Press this week by Mr. Brailsford, that the Government have circulated a proposal to amend the Act by reducing the age of marriage to 12 and by allowing conscientious objection?

The hon. Lady will find the answer to that question in the answer I have already given.

In view of the great importance of this question and the interest taken in all parts of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman get definite information as to whether any action is or is not contemplated? He said in his reply, "So far as I am aware."

Those precautionary words did appear, but I have no doubt that the statement is accurate.

Questions

Grand Opera (Government Grant)

asked the Postmaster-General whether the agreement which includes provision involving a State subsidy to be paid in respect of grand opera has yet been completed?

Can the Postmaster-General say when this agreement will be concluded? Is he pressing on this matter with all speed?

May I ask whether any money has been paid to the corporation by the British Broadcasting Corporation or by the Post Office?

Coal Industry (Export Prices)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Yorkshire district has yet fixed minimum prices for export coal; and, if so, how these prices compare with those fixed by Northumberland and Durham?

I understand that minimum prices for a number of classes of coal for export have now been fixed by the Midland (Amalgamated) District and that these prices have been prepared upon a comparative basis with export coal shipped from Durham and Northumberland.

asked the Secretary for Mines what steps have been taken to prevent foreign competitors from learning the fixed minimum prices of British coal?

I am unable to say what steps have been taken to prevent foreign competitors from learning the minimum prices of British coal. But no doubt the coal industry will take the appropriate steps to protect itself in this matter.

Poor Law (Medical Treatment)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that applicants to the Staffordshire Public Assistance Committee for medical or surgical treatment in the infirmary are requested to sign a form agreeing that they are receiving such treatment on loan to be repaid; and whether he will consider taking steps to ensure the discontinuance of this practice?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Such an arrangement as my hon. Friend refers to would be within the discretion vested in the responsible local authority by Sections 20 and 49 of the Poor Law Act, 1930.

Is the hon. Lady not aware that the fact that this form has to be signed acts as a deterrent and, in the circumstances, cannot she take some action? It is the only case of which I know.

That may be so, but I would remind the hon. Member that the statutory powers of local government assistance authorities have been conferred upon them by Act of Parliament and not by administrative action.

Milk and Dairies Order

asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution, a copy of which was sent to him, from the Walsall Town Council with regard to the amendment of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, and the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

My right hon. Friend has received this resolution from the councils of several county boroughs. He will consider it in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture.

Conviction and Sentence, Abbeydore

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the petition signed by 500 residents; and whether he will review the case of Charles Edward Jones, aged 18 years, who was sentenced to three months' imprisonment at Abbeydore Petty Sessions on 26th January for night poaching?

As I have already informed the hon. Member, I have caused careful inquiries to be made and regret that having regard to all the circumstances I can find no grounds on which I should be justified, consistently with my public duty, in recommending any interference with the sentence passed.

Is the Home Secretary aware that during the hearing of this case the owner of the estate whose gamekeeper was prosecuting came down to the Court and took out the chairman of the magistrates while the case was proceeding?

I could not offer any comments upon that statement, but the facts relating to dangerous use of a gun and the warning to the young man in question justify me in giving the answer I have given. If the hon. Member will discuss this matter with me, I shall be glad to give him all the information.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that during the R 101 inquiry, the Government treated a French poacher with great consideration? Will he not give the same consideration in this case?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no mention, of the use of a gun was made in the charge and that this man was charged simply and solely with night poaching under the 1928 Act? Is he satisfied that sentences of this kind are in the interests of justice?

That may well be, but at the same time the factors of a previous warning and the use of a gun, even though they may not have been mentioned, may have justified the Court in coming to a decision.

Government Buildings

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet reached any decision in connection with the report of the Howard Frank Committee; and whether he can see his way to publish the recommendations of that Committee?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the 17th March. With regard to the latter part of the question, after careful consideration I have reached the conclusion that it would not be advisable to publish the recommendations.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the report included a recommendation for the demolition of Knightsbridge Barracks and the sale of the site?

I should not like to say. I do not think it is desirable to publish the findings.

Why is it that the Government set up committees and will never publish any findings?

Dog Licences (Regulations, Wales)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will issue instructions that the regulations relating to the exemption of farmers' dogs from licences shall be published in the Welsh as well as in the English language?

The published regulations relating to the exemption from licence duty in favour of farmers' and shepherds' dogs are contained in the portion of the public notices, exhibited in Post Offices and elsewhere, which explains how certificates of exemption can be obtained. These notices are already issued in both Welsh and English.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently in Pwllheli farmers were prosecuted on this ground, and the magistrates agreed that they had not been able to understand the regulations in the English language?

Naturally, I cannot answer a particular question as to a particular prosecution, but, in fact, I have in my hand a notice which is in Welsh, and I will show it to the hon. and gallant Member so that he can satisfy himself about it.

Unemployment

Vacancies, Wester Auchengeich Colliery

asked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the number of men who were required to fill the position of strippers at Wester Auchengeich Colliery on 20th January, 1931; and whether she will state the various Labour Exchanges in the counties of Lanark, Sterling and Dumbarton to which notification of the vacancies was sent, with the number of men whose claims to benefit at each of these Exchanges were refused on account of their refusal or inability to accept the work offered?

I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Work Schemes, Wigtownshire (Wages)

asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that men are being sent from Hamilton and Motherwell Employment Exchanges to work on schemes undertaken by the Wigtownshire County Council, and for which they receive a special grant from the Ministry of Transport, at a wage less than 9d. an hour, and that this rate of wage is considerably less than the recognised rate of wages for that class of work; and whether she will advise the Exchanges concerned to supply no more men to this council until the wage rates are raised to the level applying to the occupation for which they are engaged?

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me in correspondence. According to my information, the wages paid by the county council correspond with the rate paid in the district for this class of work.

Is not the class of work ordinary labouring and quarrying, and will the hon. Gentleman say whether he considers a wage of less than 9d. an hour a satisfactory rate for a scheme that is provided with money from the Government?

But it is a local authority that is concerned, and I understand that they have similar rates fixed for this class of work. My hon. Friend will understand that it is not a matter in which we have any influence at all.

Is there any reason for sending men from a locality where the rates are much higher, into Wigtownshire, where the rates are so much lower than the fair rate?

Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the residents of Wigtownshire are not quite prepared to do this work without the importation of other labour?

This is a case in which the labour is asked for through the Ministry of Labour, and therefore it has to be supplied.

Are we to understand that less than 9d. an hour is the standard rate of Wigtownshire?

Questions

Old Ships (Disposal)

, asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the committee on the question of scrapping old ships in preference to selling them to foreign countries?

I understand that the committee are considering their report, and I hope that it will be received shortly.

Intoxicating Liquor Advertisement

I beg to move, famous New Zealander were to walk through the deserted streets of London and study the advertisement hoardings and the popular Press, I think he would get some very distinct impressions as to the most popular hero of our time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gandhi."] It would not be any statesman or politician, not even Mr. Gandhi. It would not be any speed king, nor indeed any film artist, but it would be a certain ubiquitous gentleman known as "Mr. Guinness." The Bill which I ask leave to introduce deals with the question of the tremendous increase in the advertising of intoxicating liquors on the part of the licensed trade. The Bill seeks to do something to correct what many believe to be a growing evil in our midst. There may be, of course, some conflict of opinion on the general question of modern advertising methods. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether modern advertising is the lifeblood of industry or wasteful and uneconomic expenditure, but there cannot be very much difference of opinion on the proposition that there are some commodities the increased sale and consumption of which are not advisable in the public interest. That is the reason for the introduction of this Measure.

I remember that in a previous Debate on this question the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), I think it was, showed some indignation at the suggestion that a bottle of champagne should be labelled "Poison." If that hon. Member cares to read the sign over any licensed victuallers premises he will discover that the individual is licensed to sell "intoxicating liquor." We on these benches may have little Latin and less Greek, but some of us know that "intoxicating" is a long Greek word for the plain English "poisoning." It seems to me that if that word can be put upon the premises where the commodity is sold, there is no reason why it should not be put on the commodity itself. I suggest that the proposals of this Bill are called for in the public interest. They are three and are briefly as follow. First, the Bill proposes to prevent the publication and circulation of any advertisement containing an inducement to consume intoxicating liquor, except in response to the written request of the prospective consumer, or except in such cases as the advertisement contains only the name and address of the brewer or distiller or the name of their products or the name and address of the licensed premises. Further, it proposes to prevent the employment of canvassers. To-day, as some hon. Members may know, canvassers are going around especially in our suburban districts worrying housewives, in the absence of their husbands, to give orders for beer, stout and other intoxicating drinks. The Bill, finally, provides appropriate penalties for contravention of the above provisions.

Of course, the reply will be made by the hon. Member, who always prepares a number of quips for these special occasions, that this is a Bill in restraint of trade. I frankly admit it. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I commend it to hon. Members opposite. There are at least 400 precedents of Acts of Parliament passed in restraint of this particular trade and this Bill is only a further step along that line. Parliament cribs cabins and confines the retail sale of intoxicating liquor on every hand and the intention of Parliament in dealing with this dangerous trade has always been to restrict the sale and limit the consumption of intoxicating liquor. But there is at the present moment a conspiracy on the part of the wholesale trade, the distillers and the great brewing firms to frustrate the well-known intention of Parliament and use the swollen profits of their trade to increase the consumption of intoxicating liquor. When every other industry in this country is deploring that it cannot pay dividends, when we have a condition of affairs in the country which is probably as bad as any previous Speaker in this House has ever witnessed, we see this trade of all others, and "Mr. Guinness" especially, able to make £2,500,000 profit in one year.

We hear arguments addressed to us about increasing the spending power and the usefulness of the purchasing power of the great masses of the people, but I have never heard, except from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), any suggestion whatever that the £300,000,000 spent on drink might be more wisely and economically spent to the advantage of other trades which are being starved of the possibility of success. I do not want to see any increase in advertising of this kind even though it does mean £3,000,000 spent by the liquor trade every year on their own showing to persuade me to take a Guinness. I am told by the Board of Education in their syllabus on hygiene and temperance that children must be taught that beer is not good for them. Then I go out into the street and there the still small Voice of science is silenced by the blazoning blare of the brewers who tell me that beer is good for me. It seems to me that those who are interested in this trade are afraid that the growing youth of this country will not become the incipient drinkers of the future which unfortunately past generations have been. Therefore they shriek on the posters, "For goodness' sake drink beer." Why are they not candid, and say, "For profits' sake drink beer"? We have a great unemployment difficulty. This, however, does not prevent those who are interested in the sale of drink from pushing their wares to the fullest extent. I read in the report of the company which produces a concoction of cheap port wine known as Wincarnis, this passage: ing of Britain, but for the piling up of immense profits in a trade which produces less work than any other industry in this country. I conclude what I have to say by—[ Interruption. ] It is not often that hon. Members opposite have the opportunity of hearing the truth about this matter, and if they are not prepared to listen to me, let them listen to John Ruskin, who said:

In the absence of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), perhaps I should step into the breach. I have seldom seen a more gratuitous Bill than this, and the only suggestion I have to make is that my hon. Friend who introduced it is jealous of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), who acquired great celebrity not long ago, not so much for what he said as for what other people said against him, and he thinks that possibly he will acquire some of the halo and the glory which was Dundee's. My criticism is that advertising of any kind never has much success with the normal man. He regards anything which is much advertised with a good deal of suspicion. In fact, anybody who trumpets his political views too much in the Press or his particular commodity always excites suspicion. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) has been so annoyed at constantly seeing it stated on the walls of the Underground Railways that a Guinness would be good for him, that he has made up his mind even more firmly than before that he will not put that injunction to the test.

There is no reasoning with those who have once got the prohibition microbe into their blood stream. I thoroughly believe that the minority of them who were not conscientious objectors would have borne arms for the Kaiser if he had promised to commit this country to prohibition. It is as stupid a proposal as it would be to prohibit matrimony because a number of people break the Seventh Commandment. We know the type of evil doers who would rejoice here if it were prohibited, just as bootleggers rejoice in America. These ad- vertisements that are objected to seem to me to be an entire waste of money on the part of the brewers and distillers; I do not think they can possibly affect sales, because good liquor requires no advertisement. If they choose to spend money on bills and printers, let them do it.

The hon. Member said they have swollen profits. Why are the profits so swollen? Because taxation is so high. Brewers and distillers were making very small profits prior to the War, and so were tobacco manufacturers. The higher the taxation, the more profits they make, because they make a profit on the tax as well as on the commodity. That is an economic law. They contribute enormously to the revenue, however. I have never heard that my hon. Friend or any other hon. Members opposite have ever offered to make a contribution to the revenue similar to what they would make if they were normal persons and took a Guinness a day. They do not pay their fair share of taxation. The main incentives to human industry of all kinds are hunger and thirst. That is the main reason why we all work. If by restrictive taxation you prevent the satisfaction of the second human wish, and make it impossible for vast masses of the people to get what they want, you are taking away a part, at least, of the incentive to industry. It is most inadvisable. I have never seen anything quite so futile as this Bill. If people choose to spend a part of their profits in advertising, why should we interfere? I was very much struck with the remarks of an old man qualified to be an old age pensioner, whom I met in the Mull of Kintyre, who refused to draw his pension because he preferred to continue in work, because he said that if he retired he would die, as he loved to work—a type of man of which, now, there are not many samples. The only thing about which he complained was the cost of the national beverage, but when the beneficent law came in which enabled him to

draw his old age pension and still continue his toil, he said it only cost him now 2s. 6d. a bottle a week, because his old age pension paid the other 10s. He also told me that in his young days they all made their own liquor, and that he would do it yet, but people nowadays were so treacherous that they would inform about him; he believed modern treachery was due to the education, which made them less loyal than they used to be. He never saw the advertisements of Guinness or anything else.

I do not believe that a single pint more of any of these commodities is consumed on account of these particular advertisements. I am perfectly sure that they have no effect, but if people choose to spend, and there is competition, by all means let them do it. It is scattering some of the wealth. This proposal is another attempt to decry a particular industry which, as my hon. Friend has said, has often been saddled by Governments with legislation, because all Governments have always insisted on having their share of the swag, of getting their cut off the profits, and now take the lion's share. The only Member of this House who is thoroughly consistent is the hon. Member for Dundee, who said that it is wrong for people to go into partnership with the Devil's trade, but we see what is happening in the United States of America, where they have tried the particular remedy of the hon. Member for Dundee, and brought about seven devils ten times worse. I do not want to see this country Al Caponised, and brought to a state of tragedy such as there is in the United States, and I do not want to see Measures brought forward which are part and parcel of the same absurd, ridiculous, illogical, unreasonable, anti-national propaganda.

Question put,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to persons carrying on business as manufacturers or distributors of intoxicating liquor."

The House divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 127.

Division No. 204.]

AYES.

[4.4 p.m.

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

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

Ammon, Charles George

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

Arnott, John

Benson, G.

Cape, Thomas

Attlee, Clement Richard

Broad, Francis Alfred

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Ayles, Walter

Brockway, A. Fenner

Charleton, H. C.

Barr, James

Bromfield, William

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Batey, Joseph

Brothers, M.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Sanders, W. S.

Duncan, Charles

Lees, J.

Sandham, E.

Freeman, Peter

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sawyer, G. F.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Scott, James

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Lowth, Thomas

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Glassey, A. E.

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

Sorensen, R.

Gould, F.

McElwee, A.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

MacLaren, Andrew

Strauss, G. R.

Gray, Milner

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Vaughan, David

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

McShane, John James

Viant, S. P.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mansfield, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

Hardie, George D.

Mathers, George

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Matters, L. W.

Wellock, Wilfred

Haycock, A. W.

Maxton, James

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Healy, Cahir

Messer, Fred

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Millar, J. D.

West, F. R.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Milner, Major J.

Westwood, Joseph

Hopkin, Daniel

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Paling, Wilfrid

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Kelly, W. T.

Palmer, E. T.

Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wise, E. F.

Kinley, J.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Pole, Major D. G.

Lang, Gordon

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Rathbone, Eleanor

Mr. Ernest Winterton and Mr. R. Russell.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Raynes, W. R.

Lawson, John James

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

NOES.

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

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Quibell, D. J. K.

Atholl, Duchess of

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Hammersley, S. S.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Hanbury, C.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Romeril, H. G.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hartington, Marquess of

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Boyce, Leslie

Hayday, Arthur

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bracken, B.

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

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Sherwood, G. H.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

Shillaker, J. F.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Skelton, A. N.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Chapman, Sir S.

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Christie, J. A.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cluse, W. S.

Leach, W.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Daggar, George

Manning, E. L.

Thurtle, Ernest

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Tillett, Ben

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

Marjoribanks, Edward

Tinker, John Joseph

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

Meller, R. J.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Tout, W. J.

Ede, James Chuter

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Eden, Captain Anthony

Montague, Frederick

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Edmunds, J. E.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

England, Colonel A.

Muirhead, A. J.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ferguson, Sir John

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Fielden, E. B.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Womersley, W. J.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Gower, Sir Robert

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Mr. Macquisten and Mr. Beaumont.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Price, M. P.

Great Western Railway Bill

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Metropolitan Police (Staff Superannuation and Police Fund) Bill, without Amendment.

London Passenger Transport Bill,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated to them yesterday: "That it is expedient that the London Passenger Transport Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

Orders of the Day

House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As the Title shows, the object of this Bill is to remove certain doubts that have arisen as to the scope of the House of Commons (Disqualification Acts), 1782 and 1801. The House is asked to pass this Bill to-day through all its stages, as it is a matter of urgency, and it is desired to send it to another place to-night. The urgency arises from the fact that at least one Member of this House, and probably a large number, are at the moment in a position of jeopardy, owing to the uncertainty of the meaning to be given to Section 1 of the Act of 1782. There is no question, as has been suggested in some quarters, that this is any political bargain in the way of a Bill. His Majesty's Government take the view that it never was the intention of the Act of 1782 that Members who find themselves in any contractual relationships with the Government of the day should suffer the pains and penalties of disqualification. Indeed, if the view that has been expressed in some quarters that a Member is disqualified because of a contractual relationship such as that disclosed in the particular case to which I will presently draw attention, then I have little doubt that the majority of the Members of this House are disqualified, and are subject to a penalty of £500 a day so long as they continue to sit or vote.

The Act of 1782, as the House will, perhaps, recollect, was passed in order to deal with a specific grave scandal which existed at that time as regards what were known as contractors' profits, and also to deal with corrupt administration as regards the giving out of contracts by various Government Departments. When the Act was first brought before this House in 1782 it was known as "the Contractors' Bill." Apparently it was generally acknowledged in the country at that time that excessive profits were being made in a corrupt way by the various contractors who were supplying war material and stores and money for the purpose of carrying on the American war, in which this country then found itself engaged. The first Section of the Act deals with two classes of persons, those who enter into contracts with a Government Department and those who subsequently carry them out, and it applies the disqualification to both classes of people. The first class are dealt with in these words:

There has been a very natural tendency amongst lawyers to resolve any doubt there may have been in their minds in favour of the widest possible construc- tion of the Section in view of the very heavy penalties laid down in the Act in the event of any Member who has become disqualified continuing to sit in the House. The penalty is £500 per day so long as the Member continues to sit, and the penalty cannot be remitted except by Act of Parliament. It can be sued for by any common informer, so that so long as doubt exists as to the type of contract covered by this Section all Members of the House who enter into the most harmless contractual relationships with any Government Department are put in jeopardy of finding themselves either afraid to continue sitting or else of being liable to be sued for enormous penalties at the hands of some chance common informer. In the past a number of personal indemnity Acts have been passed by the House in cases where trading contracts have been entered into by Members of this House unwittingly, the most recent being the case of Mr. William Preston, who had sold some pick handles to a Government Department in 1925. But that case, like other cases, was one that would clearly fall under the Act of 1782, whatever the interpretation put upon it.

The urgent necessity for the present Bill arises from one particular case which raises the whole question of the interpretation of Section 1 of the Act of 1782. The case in question concerns the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne), and it arises in this way. In 1912 Lord Salisbury, the Noble Lord's father, entered into an agreement with the Postmaster-General for a year-to-year tenancy by the Post Office of the building used as the Hatfield Post Office. Some years later the interests of Lord Salisbury in a number of properties were assigned to the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset, and among them there happened to be the interest of Lord Salisbury in the Hatfield Post Office as lessor to the Postmaster-General. The Noble Lord thereby became the assignee of the lessor's interest, and as such became landlord of the post office, receiving rent from them for the property. Nothing can be clearer than that such a case was not intended to be covered by the Act of 1782, but opinions have been expressed, and opinions to which great weight must be given, that the Courts might interpret Section 1 of the Act of 1782 as wide enough to cover such a case, and, indeed, any case where there was any contractual relationship at all between a Member of this House and a Government Department. If such an interpretation were to be put upon the Act of 1782 then, without doubt, in my opinion, the Act would cover every contract of whatsoever nature entered into between a Member of this House and a Government Department. I might instance, as forms of contract which no doubt exist at the present moment between many Members of the House and the Post Office, the wayleaves for telegraph and telephone lines, and, indeed, the ordinary telephone agreement which everybody who has the telephone enters into with the Post Office.

It is for that reason that the usual course of introducing a personal indemnity Bill cannot be followed in this case. If such a Bill were passed by this House it would indicate that the House considered that such a case as the present came within the intention of the framers of the Act of 1782, and as a result practically every Member in this House would be in jeopardy—at least, all those who have telephones. It is, therefore, urgently necessary to deal with the matter by making clear the meaning of the Act of 1782. When the present case arose a few days ago the legal advisers of the Government were in the course of considering the whole position, and a preliminary view of the true meaning of Section 1 had been arrived at, which is that expressed in the Bill before the House. Since then I have again reviewed the Acts and all the opinions that have been given upon them and the cases which have been decided under them, and I can tell the House that in my view the interpretation put upon Section 1 of the Act of 1782 by this Bill is the correct one.

The view which I had formed from an examination of the Act was reinforced when I read carefully through the whole of the Debates in this House and in another place which took place on the passing of the Act in 1782. The sole objects of the Act were to stop the growing abuses in giving out contracts for the supply of various goods to Government Departments and to bring about a measure of economy by preventing the undue inflation of prices by Government contractors. I will illustrate this by some extracts which are typical of the Debates that took place. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Thurlow, who was opposing the Bill, said:

I rise to express in the briefest possible terms the satisfaction of my right hon. Friends and myself with the very clear and full statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made and our concurrence with it. There is no doubt that the Act of 1782 was passed in days when conditions were so wholly different from those which exist to-day that it would be practically impossible to put upon the Act the interpretation which has been current in some quarters up to the present time. The interpretation of the Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes in the present Bill will not allow the mischief at which the Act of 1782 was aimed to be within the law, and on this side of the House we not only assent to the statement of the real meaning of the Act of 1782 which the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed but we assent also to the proposal that, if the House thinks fit, this Bill should be passed through all its stages with a view to bringing about the necessary relief in what would be otherwise an intolerable situation.

I do not rise to delay the progress of this Measure at all, but just to say a warning word or two, because these Statutes and the decisions which have been made under them constitute a safeguard of the nation against the misuse of positions in this House in connection with the public services. I can only suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that his statement on a matter of such extreme perplexity was exceedingly clear. The method he has chosen of achieving his object is rather interesting, but I hope it will not be one which will be followed, because it is in fact a repeal of the particular Section which the hon. and learned Gentleman has read to the House by saying that the meaning of it shall be as expressed in this Bill. I do not mind this myself on this occasion, but I hope that the subject will not be passed over without further examination of the special case which has been put before us. I know it is a horrible prospect to contemplate that everybody in this House is liable to a fine of £500 a day. I will just add this note, that I hope there will be very great care taken in the future as in the past that something will not be impinged upon without a clear and overwhelming case being presented to the House.

In view of the speech which has just been made to the House, I think it is only right that we should know exactly what is the position. I want to ask, in the first place, does this Bill make legal what used to be illegal, the sale of wares used or employed in the service of the State? Many hon. Members will recollect that during the War there were cases where considerable quantities of goods were offered for sale. I myself was offered a tractor for use on my farm by the local agricultural committee. That was public property, and I assume that I became liable to disqualification and to a fine of £500 per day. I want to know if that illegality is maintained, or if it is possible now for anyone to enter into a contract with any State Department for purchasing surplus goods. My second point is whether it is clear now that this Bill, when passed, debars any action in respect to anything done before the Act comes into operation. There is no Clause to that effect.

As regards the first question, the purchase of surplus goods, this will be covered in so far as it is at present covered by the Act of 1782, but I do not think that it is so covered. As regards the retrospective character of the Bill, it is retrospective as it lays down the interpretation which is to be given to the Act of 1782.

The hon. and learned Member spoke of contractual relations in regard to moneys and wares. Is he quite satisfied that the position of contractors in regard to money paid is what we all take it to be? Is it not that anyone who subscribes to a Government loan is entering into a money contract with the Government? I would like to ask: Would hon. Members be infringing the Statute if they subscribe for a loan at the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Subscription to a loan to-day is very different from contracting for a loan in the time of Mr. Pitt and his immediate successor, and I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to make that point clear.

The position is that under the Bill contracts are limited to those for furnishing or providing money to be remitted abroad, and it is only in the case of such contracts that the Act of 1782 will apply.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[ The Solicitor-General. ]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

India (British Cotton Industry)

Many important subjects have been dealt with on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill in years gone by, but none have been more vital to the welfare of this country than the subject which I desire to raise to-day, namely, the question of the cotton industry of Lancashire, as it is affected by the present situation in India. The cotton industry is the largest exporting industry in the country, and India is one of the greatest markets of that industry. Therefore, anything which affects detrimentally the largest exporting industry in the country and also affects detrimentally the largest market of that industry, must be a great national loss.

In the observations which I wish to address to the House to-day, I desire to deal only with matters which concern Lancashire trade with India. My first point is the boycotting of British cotton goods, and my second is the re-exportation to other countries of existing stocks in India. I will deal, first, with the point of the boycott of British piece goods. The boycotting movement in India started approximately in March or April last year, and that boycott was almost solely confined to British goods. The object of the boycott is clear, and it has never been denied either in this country or in India. The object was to force the British Government to make concessions of a political character. Trade concessions were not desired, and they were never asked for. There was no quarrel of any kind as to the quality or as to the price of the goods which Lancashire was supplying. It was purely of a political character. The boycott achieved such proportions by the end of July last year as to compel our senior Trade Commissioner in India to use these drastic words in the annual report which he made to the President of the Board of Trade:

In view of these facts, hon. Members who do not represent Lancashire constituencies may well ask the question why has Lancashire not been more resentful, and why have Lancashire Members of Parliament remained comparatively silent while the Lancashire cotton industry has been suffering these terrible losses? There are two reasons for our silence, neither of which it would have been desirable to give a month ago. In the first place, it was our desire not to advertise the success of the boycott lest the knowledge of its success should add fuel to the fire of the agitators who were carrying on the boycott. The second reason was that we did not wish to add to the difficulties of the Bound Table Conference. We did not wish, if I may say so with respect, to add to the troubles of the Secretary of State for India; and, moreover, we did not wish to add to the difficulties of His Excellency the Viceroy in coming to what we all hoped would be a satisfactory agreement. That agreement has now been signed, and to-day Members of Parliament sitting on this side as well as hon. Members on the other side representing Lancashire constituencies, and who are in constant touch with the industry, feel that we must now come out into the open for whatever the consequences, we know that things could not very well be worse than they are at the present time.

What is the recent history of the agreement? On the 5th March the Secretary of State read to the House the statement concerning the agreement which had been signed by His Excellency the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi. Many of us sitting here were surprised at the satisfactory nature of the agreement. I believe also that the House was agreeably surprised at what appeared to be a very satisfactory agreement. I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman himself was pleasantly surprised. I need not deal with that agreement, except as regards one portion of it, the portion which concerns the question of boycotting. Under the terms of the agreement, the political boycott had to cease forthwith; but under the terms of the agreement an economic boycott could continue, and I must quote, if I may, the exact words of the agreement which deal with the economic boycott: If the political boycott has really ceased, then all I can say is that the so-called economic boycott is worse than the political. But has the political boycott really ended? May I quote again from the report of our Senior Trade Commissioner in India? Writing at the end of July in connection with the boycott, he says, in this same report:

Be that as it may, so long as the effect of the so-called economic boycott is worse to-day, three weeks after the agreement has been signed, than the combination of both forms of boycott before the pact was entered into, then I assert that something is wrong, that at any rate the spirit of the agreement is not being carried out. Further, if this present boycott were merely an economic one, then why have any boycott at all against Lancashire goods? Lancashire goods do not, in the main, compete with the Indian manufactures. Competition with the Indian mills comes, in the main, from Japan. If, then, the present Indian boycott were really economic in character, and economic alone, it should be directed solely against Japan, which is India's real competitor; but we all realise that that is not the case. That is one reason why we are frankly suspicious that the political element of this boycott has not really disappeared. The Secretary of State has at his disposal many means for finding out the true position which are not possessed by ordinary Members of Parliament, but I am informed, on the best authority I can obtain, that both the boy- cott and the picketing are supported by those who are closely connected with the Indian textile industry. I would ask the Secretary of State whether or not that is so. If it is, then the boycott, even if it is in fact economic, which I doubt, is still nevertheless quite clearly not within the terms of the agreement. The agreement approves of an economic boycott—I quote the words again—

It would be interesting to see some of the most recent balance-sheets of some of these Indian industries. They might, and I believe they would, although I have not seen them myself, convince the Secretary of State of the accuracy of my statement. That is the present position. There is, so far as I know, absolutely no improvement in Lancashire, and when we ask the Secretary of State, as I have asked him on more than one occasion lately, what he is going to do about the present position, he replies, "Wait a little longer for the improvement." I would ask him, how long, really, does he expect us to wait? I had a telegram only this morning telling me that, so far as Manchester shippers are concerned, they can see no sign at all of any improvement, and I would tell the right hon. Gentleman, in as kindly terms as I can use, that the sands are fast running out in Lancashire; our patience is quickly being exhausted. I would say that we cannot wait indefinitely, and we now demand that the Secretary of State should take immediate action to stop this boycott, so that Lancashire may once more have the opportunity of carrying out fair and legitimate trade with her greatest customer in the East.

I turn now to the question of the exportation of British cloth from India. We now know, as a result of questions and answers across the Floor of this House, that a scheme has been agreed upon between the Bombay millowners and Mr. Gandhi for the exporting of British cloth at present in India. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question across the Floor of the House to-day, said that that included all foreign cloth, but in the main, of course, it is British cloth that is being affected. The agency is to be formed, so I understand, with capital furnished by Congress—that makes me rather suspicious—by millowners, which makes me still more suspicious, and, curiously enough, by the general public. I wonder how much of this capital is being provided by the general public. I would very much like to see a list of the subscriptions from the general public; I would like to know what their occupations are, and what were the amounts subscribed in each case. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can get that information. If he can, I believe it will help him to make up his mind that, in the main, this agency is being run by those who are not particularly fond of this country at the present time, and by those millowners who have much to gain financially by the success of the scheme.

This agency is to accept, apparently, very little financial risk, and it is always nice to have an agency that has to accept very little financial risk. Its sole function appears to be to prevent, in the main, British piece goods at present at the ports from ever having the slightest chance of getting into circulation in India. Some few days ago I ventured to describe this matter of the re-exportation of our goods from India as a most vicious form of boycott. The Secretary of State said on Monday that it was not so serious as I imagined when seen in Its proper perspective—those were the words that he used. My sight may be partly dimmed by straining my eyes looking for an improvement in trade in Lancashire; my eyes may be dimmed by my concern for the Lancashire industry; but I can only repeat here in this House that in my eyes, this re-exporting of Lancashire goods is in itself a flagrant breach of the spirit of the agreement.

5.0 p.m.

So much for the boycott and the re-exportation of goods at present in India. I must leave other speakers to deal fully with the serious effects upon Lancashire trade of the suggested increase in the Indian import duties. I would only say that these duties are no longer designed for purposes of bringing in revenue to India. They are now nothing less than protective duties, again chiefly aimed at damaging the trade of our country. The effect of these duties is the same as in the case of the boycott and the re-exportation of goods. It is to shut out Lancashire goods from India. It will mean dearer clothing for the teeming millions of people in India—[ Interruption ]. Dealing with India is a very different matter from dealing with this country. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees that they should have these protective duties in India, I hope he will use his influence to have them abolished. The effect of those duties Is to make clothing dearer for the people of India, and to impose great hardship on the people of Lancashire, and nobody will benefit except the present wealthy millowners in India. [ Interruption. ] I am very glad to hear those cheers, because I realise that it means that on both sides of the House we have some agreement on this question. I am not prepared here and now to argue the whole field of Protection. Give me an opportunity of showing the difference between a country like India and a country like Great Britain, and I would gladly avail myself of that chance. It is because we believe those facts that we ask, we plead with the Government to-day to do all that it can to bestir itself to bring about improvement in the situation within the Indian Empire.

India owes much to Great Britain. There is no less than £700,000,000 of British money invested in that country. We have built her railways; we have created her great systems of irrigation; we have taught India her secondary industries, which are now being used against ourselves; we have developed her primary industries, such as tea, jute, oil and other commodities, and we have kept peace in India among the various races at great sacrifices of our own people at home. We buy vast quantities of her goods. In the last 12 months we bought no less than £65,000,000 worth of goods from India. What happens to us in return? That can only be realised by a visit to my native county of Lancashire, where business is almost at a standstill, and where there is grave unemployment and much poverty in many districts. It is too awful, walking through some of the streets in some of the big cotton towns, to see the distress. In 1927, the peak year since the War, our exports of cotton cloth to India from Great Britain were 1,653,000,000 square yards. That dropped slightly during the next two years, but the average for the three years, 1927–1928–1929 was 1,523,000,000 square yards sent to India. In 1930, although the boycott did not commence until April of that year and thus great quantities of cloth goods went into India, during the first three months, the exports for the year dropped by almost a half to 778,000,000 square yards, and now there is practically no business at all.

Those who should be engaged in the great industry of our county are fast losing hope of ever regaining their occupations. Many, alas, have already lost their skill. In pre-War days there were 700,000 looms operating in Lancashire, but there is not half that number to-day, and mills are completely stopped for loss of business. I have them in my own constituency. Those mills are not stopped because of any financial trouble. They are not stopped because of the quality or price of the goods. They are stopped because of the absolute impossibility of getting orders at any price. Blackburn is the centre of the Indian cotton trade. There are 90,000 looms in Blackburn, and 70,000 of these are stopped indefinitely.

I have no desire to exaggerate the present situation, indeed it would be almost impossible to do so. Every thousand looms which are stopped in Lancashire means a loss in wages alone of £50,000 a year, not to mention the loss on transport and other services. As a result of those 70,000 idle looms in Blackburn, no less than £3,500,000 is lost in wages in a full year. We are a hard-headed people in Lancashire. We do not ask for sympathy. We are sometimes called obstinate, but at any rate we are practi- cal people. We maintain that we can carry on our industry if we receive a full measure of justice and fair play. It is because I am convinced that fair play is not forthcoming at the present time that I have addressed the House on this subject. I make an appeal to the Secretary of State for India and through him to the Cabinet, many Members of which sit for Lancashire seats, not only on behalf of my constituents—and they, God knows, are suffering at the present time—but also on behalf of hundreds of thousands of my fellow subjects in the county of my birth.

The one thing that we want between this country and India for the sake of trade is to get rid of the mistrust and lack of confidence that there is between the two countries, and I very much doubt if this Debate will help to get rid of that mistrust in India and whether it will do much good to Lancashire. India is taking up the theory and doctrine of Protection that the Tories are constantly preaching as being good for this country, and India seems to believe in it. I think India is wrong, but it seems to believe that Protection is a good thing, and it has adopted it. It is absolutely essential that you should get rid of any suggestion that we should dictate to India whether she shall have Protection or shall not have Protection and whether she must take in Lancashire goods or any other goods on special terms or not.

The agreement which was come to recently between Lord Irwin and Mr. Gandhi was a great step in advance in the restoration of trust and confidence between the two countries, and the civil disobedience campaign was stopped after that. But India claims the right to urge her people to buy Indian goods as against any foreign goods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) has told us that the position is worse than it was before that agreement. The reason for that is probably not very far to seek. Immediately after the signing of that agreement we had a Conservative meeting upstairs on India, and at that meeting a resolution was passed which, whether it was so intended or not, did convey to the people of India the view that we did not intend, or rather that the Conservative party did not intend to stand by the agreement, and that they would do all that they could to get it cut down. Immediately after that, a cable appeared in the "Times" describing an interview which their own correspondent had had with Mr. Gandhi. The message is dated Bombay, 11th March. Mr. Gandhi is reported to have said in that interview—I need not read the whole of it, but at the end he said:

I want to point out how unfair some of the reports in the newspapers have been. In the "Daily Telegraph" of 8th March, their Manchester correspondent stated that letters—let it be noted, not cables—had been received that week by Lancashire cotton shippers indicating that, despite the Irwin-Gandhi settlement, the Congress was not relaxing its efforts to boycott British cloths. It was also stated that Madras cloth dealers were circularised by Congress on 23rd February and given two days in which to sign an agreement undertaking not to buy British cloth. That happened on 23rd February, and it is stated that on 8th March letters were received in Manchester by mail, which presumably had been posted a fortnight or three weeks earlier in India stating that the Irwin-Gandhi settlement was not helping to relax the boycott. But the settlement was only come to on 5th March, so that letters received on 8th March could not have had anything whatever to do with that. Certainly circulars or instructions sent out in Madras on 23rd February had nothing to do with the agreement that was come to between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi on 5th March. Yet this is headed in the "Daily Telegraph" "The boycott goes on." Those messages are cabled to India, and they show how unfair those representations in some of our newspapers are.

What really is the position? The boycott for political ends which was inspired by racial animosity—no one denies that—has ceased, but the picketing continues. I notice that the "Evening Standard" and other newspapers state that there have been many more inquiries since then from trade centres in India for British goods. But until the large accumulated stocks of foreign goods that are lying in India have been got rid of—they are lying in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras—normal conditions cannot possibly be restored. A good deal has been made of the agreement between Mr. Gandhi and the mill-owners to export foreign cloths. That, as the Secretary of State pointed out to-day, does not apply specially to British cloth, but to all foreign cloths, and these are goods that were bought before June, 1930. In any event, we cannot complain of that. If they are going to export it, they are not going to sell it in India. The "Manchester Guardian" points out that, after all, that may be very good for Lancashire instead of being a breach of the agreement.

They may be sent to another of our markets but, at any rate, they are being taken out of India, so that, if there is any chance of getting in there, we should have more chance after that foreign cloth is out of the way than with that foreign cloth there. But let us remember about this boycott—after all, we taught them all they know about boycott—as we have seen it for the last 12 months, it could not possibly have come but for the very widespread sense of legitimate grievance that they have felt regarding the manner in which in the past we have subordinated India's interests to the commercial interests of this country. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the senior Trade Commissioner as saying that the economic and political boycotts are interwoven. That is true but in no small measure, although we are intensely sorry for the plight of Lancashire, Lancashire is reaping the whirlwind that she herself has sown in the past.

We may forget the past, but India does not. In order to develop the industry of Lancashire, we taxed the import into this country of Indian cotton goods out of existence. In 1813 we imposed duties on Indian cotton goods, at the instance of Lancashire, of 85 per cent. on calicoes and 81 per cent. on manufactured cotton, and some Indian cloths we absolutely prohibited from entering this country. It was made a penal offence. As a result of that, between 1814 and 1835 our imports of cotton goods from India fell from 1,250,000 to less than a third of a million pieces, and our exports in the same time rose from a million yards to 25 million yards. Later on when, to meet revenue requirements and not for protective purposes, the Government of India imposed a five per cent. duty on all imports, including cotton, the cotton interests in this country brought pressure on the Government and got a countervailing Excise Duty put on everything manufactured in India. Later on, when the Import Duty was reduced to 3½ per cent., the Excise Duty of 3½ per cent. was still retained and it remained until 1925. That was always felt by India to be a very great injustice to her cotton trade. It has always been admitted to be entirely in the interests of Lancashire and no one ever pretended that it was in the interests of India. The injustice of that Excise Duty has left a very deep mark on Indian minds. As has been said by a writer on India with whom I entirely disagree in most things, though I agree in this, it was an imposition which no one in Britain to-day defends.

One saw in the Press the other day that Indians are coming to Bolton and selling goods which Bolton herself produces, and we are told that Lancashire resents it. It is rather like carrying coals to Newcastle to bring cotton goods to Bolton but are these feelings which are right in Bolton to be wrong in Bombay? Is it wrong for Indians to try to sell their goods in Bolton but right for our people to go to India and sell in Bombay goods that Bombay herself produces? I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are many qualities of cotton that go from this country to India which are not made in India, and, on that account, far too much fuss was made about the protective duty that was put on, because it affected us very little comparatively and it affected Japan very greatly. But these people, in trying to sell their goods here and in putting on their boycott, are merely following the methods that we have taught them. I read the City Notes of a London evening paper last night. They are more to be relied on than its political notes. The City Editor wrote:

The hon. and gallant Gentleman began his speech by doubting whether this Debate would do good. I suggest that it is almost time that we realised that we must not always think of the atmosphere that is being created in India, but that for once we should think about the atmosphere that is being created here. In my opinion, this Debate has been all too long delayed. It will be realised on all hands that this is a subject of absolutely first-class importance, not only because of its immediate effect on the cotton industry of Lancashire in throwing thousands of men and women out of work, probably permanently, but also because it will have a very great effect on the atmosphere in which future negotiations between India and our own country can be carried on.

I was in Delhi about a year ago, when the Budget which put a very largely increased tariff on cotton goods coming into India was introduced, and I well remember the arguments that were used then, both in public and in private. They said that these increased duties were necessary, because the duties on cotton goods were lower than the general run of duties on other imported articles, and that this levelling up was necessary both for revenue purposes, so as to make up the deficit in the Budget, and also as a protection for the Indian cotton industry. But, to soften the blow, our imports were given a preference of 5 per cent., the idea being that we should have some sort of Imperial rationalisation, and our manufacturers were urged to do everything they could to buy Indian cotton and to get on close and friendly terms with the Indian cotton industry, so that, when the political boycott was lifted, you would have closer co-operation between the two trades. It was felt that we could get better results by co-operation between the industries concerned than by co-operation between the Governments.

The political boycott lasted a great deal longer than was expected, and our particular question of Lancashire cotton became part of an even wider issue. We now find that the political boycott has nominally been removed, but that something infinitely worse has taken its place, and that is an industrial boycott with political support and what is practically legal sanction. I realise perfectly well the difficulty there must be in differentiating between what is a political and what is an economic boycott, but it is not so very difficult to realise where the border-line comes between what is just and what is unjust. India is perfectly entitled to protect her own cotton industry. We do not deny that for a moment. We want to do that ourselves the moment we come into power again. It is obvious that that is the one large industry that she can establish. But it is contrary to our conception of the true value of the decisions arrived at during the conversations between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi that India should discriminate against British goods. They may have kept within the letter of the law but, as far as the spirit is concerned, they have shown themselves to be so far total abstainers. We have only to read the "Daily Mail," the figures in which we always trust implicitly, to see what a discrimination has been made between the import of British and of Japanese goods. They show that the boycott has not been used simply as a legitimate means of protecting their own home market but it has been made a means of hitting British trade as hard as they can and letting in foreign goods instead of our own.

The attitude they are adopting makes our position extremely difficult. We all realise that constitutional reforms have to be given. We are pledged to assist them in their legitimate national aspirations, and we are ready to assist them in a thoroughly generous spirit, but if this is the spirit in which the reforms are to be worked, it is going to make a very great difference on public opinion and on the opinion of Members on this side of the House. It is certain that the attitude that is being adopted in India will be reflected in our own country. Lancashire realises that a contented India is a far better market for her goods than a discontented India. That makes her all the more sympathetic towards India's aspirations. If we make the advances which we undoubtedly have made during the past months, we expect to be met half-way, and not to be met with scorn. The attitude which is being taken up now is not good for India as a whole. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the advantages accruing from this boycott are not going into the pockets of the vast majority, the poor population of the country. The only people who are getting the advantage are a few rich millowners and traders, and a few of the more extreme politicians who are able to satisfy their rancour against anything British.

It is only fair to point out that one of the safeguards laid down with great clearness and very decisively by spokesmen of this side of the House is that we must insist upon having fair treatment for the British trading community in India. That is one of the safeguards upon which we must insist before we are ready to agree to further proposals of constitutional development. We have been asked several times not to raise this question, but to be patient. I think that we have been patient long enough. Those right hon. Gentlemen who have been to Lancashire—and I know that the President of the Board of Trade has been there—know perfectly well that feeling is running very high there at the present time, and unless some satisfactory solution can be found, it may get somewhat out of hand. I want to assure the Government that we on this side of the House have a genuine desire to see better relations between India and our own country. We hope that that desire is not to come to grief at the very first fence. It is said that charity begins at home. Lancashire to-day is not asking for charity, but is asking the Government to give her a fair deal.

With the last, or rather penultimate, sentences uttered by the Noble Lord the Member for Fylde (Lord Stanley) I thoroughly agree. I welcome what he said about his party desiring to come to better terms with India and regretting that this boycott is continuing. I do not want to say anything which is not of a helpful nature to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. His position, obviously, is one of great delicacy in this matter, and what has happened must be a great disappointment to him as it is to everyone else. I hope that anything I say will be useful and my suggestions constructive. This is a difficult Debate. I do not think that any good was done by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole) by raking up what happened in 1813. It was rather too much like the history of my Irish friends on the other side of St. George's Channel when they used to talk about Oliver Cromwell, and it was like my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) who always brings in what Burke said about India. Let us deal with the recent events of the last few weeks, the last few months, and the last few years.

I am going to suggest one or two things that will lead to a way out. I was in India at the same time as the Noble Lord. At that time the boycott had not begun. It was being freely talked about in advance in certain circles. But there were loud complaints in India against what was called the unfair competition of Japanese goods. Many Indian manufacturers and mer- chants from both coasts with whom I spoke complained very loudly of the undercutting from Japan. One of their demands was that they should have fiscal freedom to deal with this Japanese undercutting, the unfair competition from Japan. I, therefore, think that it ill becomes the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) in his otherwise very interesting speech to complain loudly not of the boycott—I think that there is a justifiable grievance there—but of India putting on tariffs. He is sitting in the heart and centre of the party of high Protection, and when I hear the devil rebuking sin it makes me very suspicious. A little later on in the evening hon. Gentlemen opposite are to initiate a Debate on Russian timber, and they are going to advocate the boycott of Russian timber. I hope that those who are going to take part in that Debate will sit through this Debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who has retired for a moment to the second bench will be there. I hope that he will take to heart what I have said about the devil rebuking sin.

The fact of the matter is, that this horrible weapon of the boycott is spreading in many countries. It is a miserable weapon, and I hope that it will be abandoned by everyone. You have the boycott threatened to-day in Palestine because certain Arab extremists and Jewish extremists are at loggerheads. You have it to-day between Poland and Lithuania because of a territorial dispute, and between Germany and Poland because there is trouble there. We have had it threatened in Egypt. It is a horrible and inflaming creation of hostility. I am very glad that for this reason only this Debate has been initiated, and I hope that the boycott will be condemned on all sides of the House. At the same time, we must recognise the Indian point of view. The boycott has also been used in other respects by other countries. It really is, when used as a political weapon, an act of war. I would remind my hon. Friends of the action of Turkey in boycotting Italy when the Italians seized Tripoli. It was used after the Great War by China when the Japanese were supposed to be seizing and annexing Shantung. It is an act of war.

I do not think that matters can really be allowed to rest as they are at present, and that fact has to be recognised. I could repeat and stand by every word I said a fortnight ago in this House when I deplored the continuance of the boycott on the India Debate then. The point is, how are we to deal with it? I would draw the attention of the House to a statement made in the "Times of India," and reprinted in the London "Times" of 19th March, reporting their Bombay correspondent on 18th March. This has to deal with my first constructive suggestion. The "Times of India," which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India will recognise has been friendly to our Government and to the efforts we have been making to bring about a peaceful solution of the whole Indian situation, says: on these benches. I hope that they will not be able to profit by exploiting the perfectly natural feeling of nationalism and patriotism of young India. This boycott has only been possible because of the intensive nationalist propaganda.

I would ask my right hon. Friend, what steps are being taken by the Government in India to put our side of the case? We have a case apparently. On this side the Labour party have been endeavouring to bring about a peaceful solution of a most difficult problem in India. What means have we of letting the masses of the people know what we are doing—not the handful of monopolistic millowners of the worst type to whom I have referred, but the great masses of decent people in India who, up to quite recently, looked upon us as their friends, and who will be our friends again? What steps are we taking to inform them of the real facts? My information in India last year was that all the propaganda was against us, and some of it very unscrupulous. I ask my right hon. Friend in the most friendly way to look into this matter. A year ago nearly I asked him repeatedly on the Floor of the House, for example, what he was doing to make known the actual report of the Royal Commission. Why was not that broadcast and made available in India in the vernacular languages? All that happened in India was that most distorted accounts of it were broadcast throughout the Indian bazaars, and there was no attempt to show exactly what was in that report.

Here is another matter of quite a different nature in connection with this question which I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. The trade of India in cloth is very largely concentrated in Bombay, and if those who wish to create mischief can get control over a certain number of agitators or patriots, call them what you like, in Bombay they can bring great pressure to bear on store-keepers, merchants and others and make the boycott effective against the wishes of the people in India. One of the dangers is the over-concentration of the cloth trade in Bombay. I think that three or four crores of rupees worth of British cloth were held in stock recently and it is now proposed to export it as a result of the agreement to form an exporting agency. The policy of the past has been not to encourage the development of trade through the ports of the Indian states and especially through the ports of the Indian states that might compete with Bombay. There is no trouble in the Indian states which have ports in importing goods from England. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention particularly to the southern states. Travancore and Mysore are served by the excellent port of Aleppi, and also there are the Kathiawar ports of Baroda and Nawanagar and so on.

The policy in the past has been one not to encourage the development of these smaller ports in the maritime states—the Indian self-governing states—in the interests of Bombay. Now we are seeing the result. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the matter very carefully. I have mentioned this matter in previous Debates in this House. We must reverse the policy of hampering the economic development of the Indian states. It may have been all right 100 years ago when we thought that there might be a further insurrection in the country or a new mutiny or something of that sort but it is quite out of date now. The spokesmen of the states helped us enormously in the last six months in our negotiations and they and their subjects deserve most generous treatment, and in this case it is in our interests that their maritime and independent trade should be developed. Most important of all—and this, again, is a matter of the presentation of our case—we must convince the people of India that we really do not want to exploit them in the interests of Lancashire or of Yorkshire or of any other part of England, but only to do a perfectly legitimate trade. We have to make it clear to them in India that in the future, when they are ready for it, they shall have control of their fiscal future. They will have such control when India is ready for it, not when this country is ready. That is the difference. They will learn their business and make mistakes if necessary, and they will come into the full stature of nationality on the fiscal side. If we can make it absolutely clear to them that the days of exploitation by this country are over, I believe that will do more than anything else to defeat the machinations of the few illwishers of this country who, I dare say, are still behind this movement.

I would tell my right hon. Friend this, and I wish he would look into it, that the anti-British boycott has received not a little encouragement from certain rival foreign sources in India. I had that information from a well-informed person only a few hours ago who had all the facts at his disposal. There are certain foreign trade rivals of ours in India who have not been at all sorry to see this boycott and have been encouraging it, and then there is the small group of monopolistic millowners behind it as well. That can only be countered by the truth, and we can only counter it by once more winning the trust of the Indian people. The whole story on the economic side in recent history has been one of tragedy. The greatest disaster in India from our point of view, and from the point of view of those who want a peaceful solution of this matter, was the 1s. 6d. rupee instead of the 1s. 4d. rupee. I do not want to go into that matter in detail, but it did create a suspicion once more, and quite recently, that our sole interest was in some way to exploit India for our own benefit. We have to overcome that feeling of suspicion, and if we can do that I am sure that the mass of the people of India will be only too glad to buy our goods, provided the prices are reasonable and the quality good and that we trade fairly with them.

As the right hon. Member for Chorley said we are very heavy purchasers from India. Not only is she our greatest customer, but we are one of her best customers. India, like every other agricultural country, is going through great economic distress at the present time and her peasantry are finding the greatest difficulty, as are the peasantry in other parts of the world, in paying their way. I am sure that the mass of the people, the peaceful, honest business men who are in the great majority in India, would be only too glad to get back to normality in this matter. I hope that this Debate will clear the air and that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us an encouraging account, and an even more encouraging account in a very short time from now.

The Debate that has been initiated this afternoon touches a matter of fundamental import- ance to Lancashire and, through Lancashire, to the whole nation. We are all oppressed by the consciousness of the vastness of the problem of unemployment in this country. Week by week we read with dismay of the high figures of the unemployed. By far the most important single cause of those high figures is the unemployment in Lancashire, due to the loss of the Indian cotton trade. No other single element in any of our trades contributes so largely to the great total of more than 2,500,000 unemployed as this one factor. In previous Debates on unemployment I have frequently quoted the figures of Lancashire unemployment, and I do not propose to do so again, but I should like to say that in our constituencies we have half of our working population unemployed and of the cotton operatives more than half are unemployed.

When we debate the unemployment problem we speak of the need for rationalising and reorganising our industries, for lightening the burden of taxation or for ensuring among our industrialists a spirit of greater confidence and enterprise, but it is useless to emphasise all these things if the markets for the sale of our goods are closed. So long as that state of affairs continues, our remedies must be inadequate. It was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, in reply to a question a day or two ago, that there was some improvement in regard to the lessening of the boycott, and an increase of Lancashire trade with India. The information that reaches me from Lancashire is not to that effect. One of the largest manufacturers in my constituency, who has lately spent some weeks or months in India investigating the whole question, and who is now in England, telegraphs to me that there is no foundation for that optimistic view. That is confirmed from other sources.

What Lancashire feels very deeply is not only that her trade is so gravely affected, but the fact that the competing trade of Japan has not been subjected nearly to the same degree to a boycott which is ostensibly directed against the foreign importation of cotton cloth in the interests of Indian manufacture. The right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) quoted some figures showing the decline of Lancashire trade. I will briefly recapitulate them in order to show what has happened in the case of Japan. I will go back to the pre-War year 1913. In that year Lancashire sent to India 3,000,000,000 yards of cotton cloth. In 1928, that total had been halved. It stood at 1,500,000,000 yards instead of 3,000,000,000 yards. In 1929, it fell to 1,374,000,000 yards and last year it was only 778,000,000 yards—one-fourth of the pre-War figure and half the figure of 1928. Japan sent to India in the pre-War year 1913, nearly 6,000,000 yards of cotton cloth. In 1927–28 she sent 323,000,000 yards, having taken advantage of the War situation, when our overseas trade was stopped and when hers could with greater ease enter the Indian ports. In 1928–29 the Japanese imports of cotton cloth into India had risen to 357,000,000 yards. In 1929–30 it was somewhat reduced, but nothing like the reduction that had been effected in our trade. It had been reduced to 265,000,000 yards. There were 265,000,000 yards of Japanese cotton cloth going into India last year.

A later figure has been supplied to me of the importations into Calcutta last December compared with December of the previous year. In December, 1929, Great Britain sent to the Port of Calcutta—I am speaking now in bales—just upon 15,000 bales of cotton cloth. In December, 1930, the number was not 15,000 bales, but 1,500 bales. Nine-tenths of our trade had gone. Japan sent in December, 1929, 13,000 bales and in December of last year just upon 10,000 bales. Hon. Members will see that the reduction in the Japanese trade was almost insignificant compared with the loss of nine-tenths of British trade entering the Port of Calcutta. It is stated by the cotton manufacturers, in figures that they have recently obtained, that in January in the trade in dhooties, which is a most important part of our trade, 150 bales of dhooties went to Calcutta from this country, compared with 4,000 bales that went to Calcutta from Japan. That is felt very deeply in Lancashire because, however much we may deplore a boycott which for particular reasons aims at the exclusion of all cotton cloth in the interests of Indian cloth, there can be no possible justification or even a semblance of justification of a boycott which discriminates by allowing in Japanese cloth to the detriment of In- dian cloth, if it is a detriment, and does not allow in British cloth in similar circumstances.

The tariffs that have been imposed in India, according to my information, have had a very serious effect upon Lancashire trade. The hon. and gallant Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole) said that that had affected us little. I do not think that is the view of the Lancashire manufacturers. These increases of duties, continually proceeding and rising to a high figure, have undoubtedly had a very detrimental effect. I confess that I was somewhat surprised and not a little pleased to find that so keen a Protectionist as the right hon. Member for Chorley deplored the effect upon the consumer in India of the adoption of Protectionist tariffs. He said, "This means dearer cloth for the teeming millions of India, in the interests of no one except a few wealthy mill owners." The Noble Lord the Member for the Fylde Division (Lord Stanley) used almost precisely the same words. Do not hon. Members above the Gangway realise the fundamental inconsistency of their position?

I made it perfectly clear that the Indian cotton industry is more or less in its beginning. Obviously, if they have Protection, Lancashire will eventually have to look elsewhere for exporting her goods, or will have to export a different class of goods. I feel perfectly confident that eventually Protection will take a great deal of the Indian market away from Lancashire.

The Noble Lord has not touched the point. If he and his friends say that it is right in Great Britain to exclude foreign imports, that it is for the prosperity of this country, how can they say that in India it is not right from the point of view of the Indians to exclude manufactured goods from overseas, and that that will not add to the prosperity of India? If the exclusion of goods from abroad adds to the employment of British people in this country—the Noble Lord and his friends always say that it does help our employment to shut out foreign manufactures—how can they say that it will not add to the employment of the Indian people to shut out manufactures from Lancashire? The whole of their contention to-day, which I think to a great extent is sound, is a rejection of their argument, which they are continually addressing to the British people, that the exclusion of foreign manufactured goods is for the benefit of our own people.

Is there no over-production of cotton goods in India?

6.0 p.m.

There is no question of over-production. What the Indian Protectionists say is: "Let us shut out Lancashire goods, and there will be more work for the Indian people in the Indian mills which are being built in large numbers in different parts of India as a result of Protection." In support of that argument they quote the arguments of hon. Members above the Gangway. They say: "Look how right we are. In England, the Conservative party are saying that it is the right policy and the right way to develop national industries and to increase the employment of our own people, to keep out foreign manufactured goods." Now that their own argument is quoted against them, to our detriment—and it is to our detriment—the argument that Protection is right for Great Britain and that therefore it is also right for India, the right hon. Member for Chorley comes forward and uses Free Trade arguments, and says that the adoption of this policy in India means dearer cloth for the teeming millions of India, and no one will benefit except a few wealthy millowners. I speak with full consciousness that the economic and political considerations are in timately intertwined in the Indian situation, and that we must all speak with great reticence and care in view of the gravity of the general situation in India. I speak in no way hostile to the Indian national movement, as expressed at the Round Table Conference here by those representatives who attended that gathering, and I think that the British people understand that that movement, not as voiced by its extremists but by those who represent large and responsible bodies, must be respected as patriotic from the Indian standpoint, in the best sense of that word. We must recognise that the constitutional issues in India cannot be decided in obedience to commercial interests in Great Brtain, that the political issue transcends the economic issue, but we may also suggest to our fellow-subjects in India that the Indian national movement, if it is to retain its authority and command the respect of progressive minds throughout the world, ought not to be directed in accordance with sectional commercial interests in India.

The Indian Government and Legislature will, no doubt, have prime regard, and ought to have prime regard, to Indian interests, but those interests are not single. As in other countries, they are diverse. There are the interests of the producers, and the interests of the consumers, and they are not always the same. The interest of the producer is to secure, if he can, a monopoly under the shelter of a tariff and a high price for his goods. The interest of the consumer is to have free access to the best goods he can obtain from wherever he desires to obtain them, and at as low a price as they can be secured. The complication of the matter in India is that the interest of the Indian consumer is parallel with that of the British producer. It is to the interest of the British producer of Lancashire to supply goods to the Indian consumer as cheaply as they can be supplied, and, therefore, the Indian Government and Legislature are always liable to be attacked when they are defending the interest of the Indian consumer by saying, "You pretend you are forwarding the interest of the Indian consumer, but really you are promoting the interest of the British producer," and that is why the interest of the Indian consumer is largely sacrificed in the course of Indian politics, it is regarded as bound up with that of Lancashire and is prejudiced in the eyes of the Nationalist movement for that reason.

I trust that if freer trade is really to the interest of India as a whole, as I believe it is, that the Indian Government and Legislature will not be deterred from adopting a policy of freer trade in the interests of the Indian people as a whole merely because it will also work out to the advantage of Lancashire. I trust that the Indian people and Legislature will put aside those weapons of pressure which have been adopted in order to secure a settlement of the constitutional issue, and that on both sides the method of coercion will be abandoned; military pressure on this side—[ Interruption ]—and economic pressure on the other side —at any rate possible military pressure in the background if the government of India were to be conducted against the will of the Indian people. I hope that any such suggestion will be abandoned here, and that on the other side the methods of economic pressure will be abandoned. [ Interruption. ] I do not want to exacerbate the discussion, but I could quote from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in this connection. I hope that on both sides these methods will be abandoned, and that in the spirit of the Round Table Conference we shall move forward in an atmosphere of good will and by methods of rational discussion.

I am very glad that this Debate has been raised, because it is of interest to the whole of the North of England, where the position at present is one of doubt, distrust and suspicion. When the Secretary of State replies to the many questions which have been put to him, I hope that he will give us as much of the truth as he can, although I realise that there may be things that he cannot tell us. But if accusations are made and things are said which he knows are not true I hope that he will at once contradict them, because it is only in that way that the country will come to know the truth. I hope that nothing will be said which will prejudice any settlement in Lancashire. So far as the boycott is concerned, the Secretary of State has said that we must wait to see the result of the Irwin-Gandhi conference, but while we have been waiting to hear the result of that conference Mr. Gandhi and his friends have been setting up a syndicate to arrange for the export of foreign made cloth in India to other markets. That cannot possibly help the trade of Lancashire. We know Mr. Gandhi's history perfectly well. He comes from Ahmadabad, the flourishing centre of the cotton industry. I have not seen the balance sheets of these companies, but I am informed that many of the cotton mills made up to 40 per cent. during last year, which was a very bad year. I am doing my best to get a copy of the balance sheets, but for a British Empire affair to be making 40 per cent., while we cannot keep our people at work in Lancashire, is a bit thick.

Mr. Gandhi is a saint. He is a friend of the working people, but he also happens to be a very great friend of the employers, industrialists and capitalists in Bombay. There is no doubt about that. It is said that you cannot have it both ways, but, as far as I can see, Mr. Gandhi is having it both ways, and, therefore, he is rather an exceptional person. Whenever there is a strike in the Bombay cotton mills he is the arbitrator, and he can always get a settlement. I am perfectly certain that the capitalists in Bombay are out to wreck British industry. If you look at the debates in the India Assembly you will find that all the bitter discussions have been about industrial or commercial matters, the rupee ratio, shipping or higher tariffs for cotton goods, and a friend of mine who was speaking to one of these capitalists the other day was told that, "We are going to be rich in our time." I think they are going to succeed, and at the expense of our Lancashire people. Mr. Gandhi has said that the boycott remains the greatest task still before the Indian people. I want to know whether the boycott is going to continue, or whether it will be lifted? I do not care whether you call it a political boycott, or an economic boycott.

There is plenty of room for British goods in India. The spindles there have increased by only 33 per cent. since 1913, and during that time the population has gone up by 30,000,000. There must still be a great demand for British goods. It is true that the conditions of work in India are nothing like the same as those in Lancashire. They have a 60-hour week and two shifts. They ought to be able to produce cheaply, and should not need these high tariffs for which they are asking. It is most important that every hon. Member should grasp the gravity of the situation, and especially Lancashire Members, because there is not one of them who does not hear about the terrible situation from employers, and their own constituents. It must also be a matter of importance to the Cabinet, for the Foreign Secretary sits for a Lancashire seat, so does the Secretary of State for War, and the Minister of Health, and the Home Secretary, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the borderline. Cannot the Cabinet do something to help these hundreds of thousands of people who are looking for a job? What have the Cabinet done? Take the position in Lancashire. There are 75,000 looms in Blackburn that are shut, and 20,000 unemployed. In Darwen there are 20,000 looms shut; in Accrington 13,000, and in Burnley 30,000. Cannot the Cabinet do something to get these looms going again?

As to the question of duties, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he knew beforehand of the proposed increase in the duties? If he did, what did he do to prevent these new duties being put on? What did the Cabinet do to prevent their being put on? These duties are really of vital effect to Lancashire. It will be impossible to ship if India goes on putting duty after duty on Lancashire goods. I do not know whether anything can be done yet to prevent this last straw being put on. Is the Finance Bill passed? Is the duty on the Statute Book now? Surely something can be done to prevent these duties being raised? It makes one so afraid of the result of the Round Table Conference and all the rest. We have heard of nothing but safeguards here, there and the next place. Why were we not safeguarded here before? I rather thought we were. A lot of people thought we were. But evidently not. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer these questions. Lancashire is full of suspicion and doubt and distrust, as I have said, and it is up to the Government to try to allay those suspicions. That is one of the first ways in which the right hon. Gentleman is likely to get some peace and some better chance of coming to arrangement with the Indians.

Speaking for the operative side of the industry, I am glad that this Debate has been raised. What has surprised me most is the evident concern of Members of the Opposition for the condition of the industry and for the tremendous amount of unemployment that exists in the industry now. One would think that this was a development of the last year or so, but we have been suffering since 1920; there has been a gradual increase in the number of unemployed in the cotton industry ever since 1920. It sounds to me very strange that these heartrending appeals should now be made. They ought to have been made in the earlier days of the depression, when something might have been done, and might have been done very much more easily than is possible now. The right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) said that the sands were fast running out. We have felt that for a very long time. We asked the Opposition, when they were in office, to institute an inquiry into the causes of the intense depression in those days. We were persistently refused that inquiry. It seemed as though it did not matter then that there was a progressive increase in the number of unemployed and that the cotton trade was being lost to Lancashire. We on the operative side now say that if the same concern had been shown by the Conservatives, when in office, for the depression in the cotton trade, something might have been done.

The right hon. Member for Chorley also said that the position was worse to-day than it was a few weeks ago, when we heard the very joyful news that the boycott had been lifted. I am not going to discuss the difference between an economic and a political boycott. What concerns us mostly is the effect of either boycott or both of them, and what we do know is that the effect of the political boycott is very intense indeed. My information is quite contrary to that of hon. Members who have preceded me, as to the difference to-day compared with three or four weeks ago. I am assured that in those districts which cater mainly for the Indian market there has in fact been a substantial improvement, that the signs are very much more hopeful, that there are more looms running, and that the industry is anticipating substantially increased orders. If that be true, the removal of the political boycott has been a move in the right direction.

I want to express the hope that no attempt will be made to make party capital out of the depressed condition of Lancashire. The position is too tragic. The dark and gloomy pictures that have been drawn have not been overdrawn. In all our Lancashire towns there are streams of people in the streets during the day-time—people who ought to be and would gladly be at work. I suggest that it is not true to assume, as the Opposition have tried to suggest, that the import duties are a modern institution. I remember accompanying deputations to previous Secretaries of State for India, to protest against import duties that have been progressively imposed under Conservative and Coalition Governments. The Indian import duties are not a new institution. They have certainly been aggravated during the last year or two, but all that we could do, all that the present Government could do, I am assured, was done, just as we were assured by previous Secretaries of State for India under the Conservative Government. Consequently it is not fair to create the impression that because there is a Labour Government these import duties have been imposed and that the Secretary of State has not done his best.

I suggest that you may have the boycott removed and you may have the whole of the import duties removed, but unless and until the Opposition, those who can help to bring about a complete reorganisation of the cotton industry do their part, there will still be unemployment in that industry, and we shall still be faced with the inability of the employers to dispose of their production. The position is tragic. Unemployment is great. The workers' side of the industry is looking to this House to do something. The Opposition can help, but the Opposition may hinder. I ask them, in the interests of the class to which I belong, in the interests of the workers' side of the industry, to help rather than hinder by assisting in securing a settlement of the Indian dispute.

In a matter of the importance of the relationship between Lancashire and India it is perhaps advisable at the outset that we define the objective of our criticism. We on this side have not raised this question in order to make an attack on the Government of India or on the Round Table Conference, or indeed to make an attack on the Congress party. We have raised this question in order to criticise the administration of the party opposite. We have raised it in order to suggest that it is because of the handling of these important matters by the Government that we have got into this very deplorable position. At a time when Lancashire is suffering from the most severe depression that it has known since the cotton famine, at a time when India is confronted with gravely important constitutional questions, an acute difference of opinion has arisen. That difference of opinion is not limited to questions of tariffs. It also deals with the question of the economic boycott. It is our view that these questions would not have arisen in the acute form in which they have arisen had there been better and more competent administration by the Government in office. I agree that that is a mere assertion and I wish to give chapter and verse to show why I make that assertion.

I do not want to enter into any of the technicalities concerning the fiscal autonomy convention. I would rather like to go behind that. Quoting from the Simon Report we learn that:

The first point of criticism that I make is that the present Government have neglected the interests of the largest exporting trade in the country. I am aware, of course, that they have to consider the vital interests of India, but that should be no excuse for the omission to consider the vital interests of this country. The facts of the decline in Lancashire trade have been spoken about by many others. It is a fact that before the War the position was that approximately four-fifths of our industry was for the export trade, and of that four-fifths approximately half went to India. We have had a decline, compared with pre-War years, of three-quarters in our exports to India. The value of our exports to India for the months of January and February of 1930 was over £20,000,000. The value of our exports for January and February of the present year was £12,000,000. If things remain as bad as they are, the position is that we have lost 90 per cent. of our trade with India. What does that mean translated into terms of employment? It means over 250,000 looms permanently stopped. It means that 11,000,000 spindles will never start again. It means that the support of something like 250,000 people—I do not mean actual employment but support—has been taken away.

The Government may reply that while these are, unfortunately, the facts the Government are not responsible for them but I believe that the Government have a responsibility. In 1930 the Indian Government proposed to raise the duty from 11 per cent. to 15 per cent. The Cabinet made representations and those representations were flouted, but when it was proposed by an amendment in the Indian Legislature further to increase the burden of these duties no protest was offered by the Government and no representation was made to safeguard the vital interests of Lancashire. That amendment proposed to introduce a specific duty of 3½ annas per lb. I put a question as to whether the Government were or were not prepared to make representation on this specific levy which, in respect of a large proportion of the coarser quality of cloth, meant a duty in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent. I make no charge against the Government of having been aware of the whole facts but it is unfortunate that the reply given to me was misleading to the House and the country. That reply was to the effect that it was then too late to make representations. As a matter of fact it was not until several weeks had elapsed that that amendment passed through all its stages in the Indian Legislature.

Now, we have to consider a further increase in the duty and I understand that again representations have been made but it would appear that those representations are in the nature of window dressing. At all events they are not effective. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Tout) pointed out that the question of a tariff against Lancashire goods was no new question and he endeavoured to compare the record of the previous Administration with the record of this Administration, but if we examine the record of the last Administration we find that the duties against Lancashire goods were not increased. It is true that the excise duty was omitted, but the import duties were not increased, whereas under the present Administration we had last year import duties which in their specific effect—as far as the cloth coming under the 3½ anna duty is concerned at any rate—imposed from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. Now we have, as regards the ad valorem duty, a proposition for a still further increase.

The second criticism which I make is that the Government have allowed Indian nationalism to be used as a cloak to cover the aggrandisement of rich Indian millowners to the detriment of the poorer classes of the people in India. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) gave us one of his charming speeches but, as is not infrequently the case, he failed to appreciate the strength of the Protectionist case. The Protectionist case is that where there are safeguards for the consumer and safeguards in respect of wages then we should consider the imposition of tariffs provided that the home productive power, in respect of the particular item concerned, is sufficient to prevent the price being raised against the consumer. The productive power of all the Indian mills working full capacity is in the neighbourhood of 2,500,000,000 yards, and the consumptive power of the Indian people, taking good years and bad years alike, is about 4,500,000,000 yards. The attempt to draw an analogy between what it is proposed to do in India and what it is proposed to do by a protective tariff as advocated on this side of the House will not bear examination.

The selling price of cotton goods in India to-day is about 55 per cent. above pre-War prices, yet the cost of cotton is 3 per cent. below pre-War prices, and the selling price of their primary products is between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. below pre-War prices. From an appreciation of that fact it must be realised that the putting on of these high duties is an intolerable hardship to the vast masses of the Indian people. Lancashire has no desire to burke legitimate competition. If, in point of fact, it could be shown that the production of cotton goods in India was more economical and better with a reasonable tariff, then we in Lancashire are prepared to say that that market ought to be given to India. We make no bones about it. But it is a vastly different matter to utilise this economic weapon in such a way as to cause hardship to those people in India whom it is the duty of the Government to protect, in order to benefit a small section or class in India. On the point as to whether or not hardship is caused I shall give a quotation from the reply of the Viceroy to the representations made by the Government last year. My point about the hardship caused to the Indian consumer is illustrated by the following passage from the telegram sent by the Viceroy to the Secretary of State on 12th February, 1930: trade—assaults of such a character that, if they had been made in any foreign country against our trade, they would have caused lively protests from our Government. It is extremely difficult to speak about the Gandhi agreement. Nobody appears to know what is to be understood by it. I asked a question as to the precise meaning of "peaceful picketing" and what was to be allowed and what was to be illegal, but we have had nothing of an informative character on that subject, and I hope that the Secretary of State for India, when he replies, will give us full information on that point. But nothing that we want to do in Lancashire should be construed as an effort to exacerbate the existing difficult situation. We want legitimately to protect the interests of our own people and at the same time the interests of the consumers in India, and when one hears of this proposition to start a company to export foreign goods, and when one finds that the subscribers to the company are almost all interested parties, then one is inclined to regard the matter with a great deal of suspicion. My summing up of the position is that the present Government have neglected alike the interests of Lancashire and the interests of the Indian consumers; that in the exercise of their constitutional powers they have been dilatory and have played into the hands of the Indian millowners and have not protected the special interests of their constituents which they promised to protect.

I wish to approach this question of the present position in the cotton industry from another standpoint. This afternoon we have listened to the bleatings of the Protectionists because of protective action haying been developed in India, and we have also listened to the bleatings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that the Japanese are being allowed to get into British markets and are competing with the Lancashire cotton manufacturers and securing part of the Indian trade. I wish to remind the House that this difficulty in the cotton industry is not wholly attributable to the Indian boycott, either in its political or in its economic sense. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) has already intimated to the House some of our functions in connection with the development of India. He indicated that we have been responsible for the development of Indian industry, railways, etc. I quite agree. As a matter of fact we have been largely responsible for the development of the cotton mills in India. It would be safe to say that 90 per cent. of the machinery in the cotton mills in India has been made in Lancashire and exported from this country, but, when we keep in mind these facts, we have also to keep in mind the motive behind that piece of business, namely, profits. It is interesting, even if at times disgusting, to hear the capitalists, particularly on the other side of the House, bleating in regard to the profits that the Indian millowners are making consequent upon the extra duties that have been put on Lancashire cotton manufactured goods. Profits are the order of the day, not the interest of the workers.

I would remind hon. Members that there have been organisations in Lancashire which had for their object [ Interruption ]. It is quite true. We have intimation that the employers were mainly responsible for the extra duties that were put on in India. We have been told in this House that the profits accruing from a £90,000 contract to the millowners in India totalled over £60,000, and that the main portion of those profits was utilised to develop organisations which had for their object the boycott of British goods. It is useless to bleat about the effects of Protection when we have been largely responsible for the education of the Indian mentality on the lines of Protection. It is futile for us to criticise the Indian millowners for making huge profits when the millowners of this country amassed wealth beyond the dreams of avarice in the cotton industry in years gone by.

It is not entirely a question of boycott or of duties which is affecting the Lancashire cotton trade. Chairmen of important organisations in Lancashire have intimated the imperative need of the economic reorganisation of the industry, and that is not surprising when we remember the vile effects—which, of course, are a development of capitalism as we understand it—of over-capitalisation in the cotton industry from many of which effects we are suffering even to-day. I was born within the confines of a con- cern which was worth about £20,000 but which was refloated for £200,000; it is now back in the hands of the debenture holders, who keep control of about £20,000 of debenture stock. We are feeling the effects of over-capitalisation in the cotton industry, and the unfortunate part of the whole business is that the workers in the industry are the main sufferers in the depression. Many people in Lancashire have attributed various reasons for that depression, but some of us who are interested in this business attempted by an inquiry in Lancashire to understand what were the causes. We could not attribute the causes to the duties or the boycott. Three or four years ago the cotton industry was in a most depressed state, but there was no question of duties or of boycott at that time. It was due very largely to the bad organisation in the industry, and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) knows that quite well; he requires no tuition in regard to that.

I want us to look at the cotton industry from the point of view of what we can do by organisation for the betterment of Lancashire and of India, and there is no other way apart from approaching the question on governmental lines. We have huge amounts of imports from India, and Lancashire wants to export her goods to India. If we had a cotton control board, national in character, I feel sure the avenues for trade for Lancashire cotton goods to India and the avenues for trade for Indian goods to this country could be developed upon satisfactory lines. I hope that the Government will utilise the opportunities that are presenting themselves now, and deal with the cotton control question in order to save the industry from the morass in which the capitalists have landed it.

I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on this question, because no question could touch more vitally the daily lives of the people of Manchester, among whose representatives I have the honour to be one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) spoke rightly when he asked the House to give some credit to Lancashire Conservatives for their self-restraint in not raising this matter before this evening. Our party in Lancashire have been most anxious to say nothing and to do nothing which might in any way embarrass the Government, or those who represented our country and Indian interests at the Round Table Conference. We are anxious also not to make party capital out of this question. It is a far larger question than a party question, and I deprecate attempts which have been made by one or two hon. Members to make it a party question. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Major Pole) showed himself more Gandhi-ist than Mr. Gandhi when he said that picketing was justified in 1931 because we had placed a duty on Indian goods in 1813. That was a very illogical argument. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the time has not now arrived when the seventh clause of the Agreement between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi should have effect given to it. That clause, which describes what picketing is to be regarded as lawful, runs:

The conditions, therefore, are not analogous, and it seems a scandalous thing if picketing and boycott should operate to prevent the mass of the people buying British goods. Boycott per se is unobjectionable. If a man says, "I will not buy English goods," no one can complain, but it becomes objectionable if, by reason of action on his part, the wish of the great mass of the agricultural population in India to buy British goods is interfered with and arrested. Take the case of the Indian States; they have no voice whatever in tariffs, and take no part in boycott, yet they have to pay import duties, and are sufferers from the effects of picketing and intimidation. We say rightly that picketing which operates to prevent the great mass of the people buying what they want is a course which no well-wisher of India can support in any way.

Another reason why we say that this Clause ought to be given effect to is that hostile intimidation and picketing is inconsistent with the true interests of the Empire and of England, and inconsistent with the true interests of the Indian people. If that be the true view, I ask the Secretary of State whether the actual facts of the present situation are not facts which justify a suspension of the practice of picketing. Is it not a fact, from information which he has received from Bombay, Calcutta and other centres in India, that British goods which have been consigned to dealers in India are held up? Is it not a fact that there is now restraint, demonstration and obstruction to the public of India? That is the information which has reached the representatives of the cotton industry in Lancashire, and if it he a fact that there is restraint, obstruction and hostile demonstration, does it not follow on the true construction of this Clause in the Agreement, that a position of affairs has now arisen which would justify the entire suspension of the practice of picketing? This practice is not in the interests of the great masses of the people of India, nor is it even in the interests of the workers in the Indian cotton mills.

7.0 p.m.

I was looking at a book sent to all Members of Parliament for Lancashire, Mr. Pearse's "The Cotton Industry in India," which describes the shocking condition under which the operatives in Bombay and other cotton centres spend their lives. Their houses are bad, their diet is inadequate, they have no educational provisions, and in Bombay they work 60 hours a week, and when the women go to work they give opium to their children to keep them quiet. The conditions are simply horrible. It cannot be said that this system of boycotting British goods serves the true interests of the working people employed in the mills in Bombay for whose interests these steps purport to have been taken. The truth is that the mill-owning classes in India are exploiting the idealism which animates Mr. Gandhi's group of nationalists. They have gained what we regard as an unfair influence on the two English members of the Viceroy's Council, and the result is that the whole economic policy which is now given free rein in India is detrimental not only to Lancashire interests, but to the interests of the Indian people themselves.

If it is true to say we have intimidation and restraint in India, I think the time has come for enforcing clause 7 of the agreement made by the Viceroy to stop picketing, and particularly to take energetic action against those who are instigating the boycott. The real offenders are not the rabble and riff-raff of the bazaars, paid so much per day by the mill-owning class, but the people behind the scenes. It will be a bad thing for India if the arm of the law is not long enough to reach the real offenders. I hope the Secretary of State will see his way to support strong action by the Indian Government and to hearten the police force in India in carrying out the very difficult and onerous duty of keeping law and order in the bazaars and preventing what is clearly illegal, not only in English law, but in Indian law.

I should like to say something about the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Tout) and the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. They seemed to think that all would be well if the Cotton Report was carried out. The hon. Member for Sowerby blamed the late Government for not initiating a Cotton Inquiry, and the last speaker said the Cotton Inquiry pointed the true way to salvation. The report of the Cotton Inquiry, as carried out by the President of the Board of Trade, with the best intentions, has not led in any way to any mitigation of the position. Hon. Members opposite seem to think there is magic in amalgamation. Amalgamation in the cotton trade has not led to better times; it has directly contributed to higher costs in printing, dyeing, packing and shipping. Amalgamation, isolated and alone, certainly holds out no hope of salvation in the cotton industry. What is the good of reorganising industry and beating down the cost of production and encouraging new methods if markets are artificially closed to us?

It does not follow that because in past times the tariff was raised—in 1917 to 7½ per cent. and in 1921 to 11 per cent.—that we should go on approving of every increase. The hon. Member for Sowerby seemed to think that because under the Coalition Government, in the stress of wartime, there had been an increase in the cotton duties, that justified an increase ad infinitum of the import duties on Lancashire cotton goods. It is true there is this convention directed to show that as far as possible India is autonomous in finance. But it is laid down as the law in the report of the India Commission that the Secretary of State in this country has the responsibility and the right of advising the Crown to disallow tariff measures if in his view they are unfair or cut across general Empire policy. I ask the Secretary of State if he does not think the present prohibitive tariff is unfair? I suggest that it is unfair to the people of India and to Britain, because it is directed to check the normal and desired development of inter-Imperial trade relations. I suggest that it is unfair and cuts across our Empire policy, because, whether or no we agree on every question of fiscal policy, all thinking Members will agree as to the eminent desirability of cultivating the closest trade relationships between the home country and our Dominions. The fact that India is to be a self-governing Dominion in future makes no difference to the point. If it is true that this increase of the tariff against Lancashire goods cuts across the general tendency of Imperial policy and is unfair, then in such circumstances the Secretary of State for India has rights, and I think we in England and the masses of the people in India have every reason to complain if he does not exercise the jurisdiction which the law has given him.

We have had a very interesting Debate this afternoon. There is really very little that I can say or that is called for in reply, but I will say what appears to be necessary. As the House knows, I read out on the 6th March the terms of a settlement which had been agreed upon by the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi as to the future course of events in India. That settlement, if I may call it so, will be recommended for acceptance by the National Congress in Karachi in the next few days. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first in the Debate will agree with me that it is a desirable thing that that settlement should be generally accepted by the Indian Congress.

You mean recommended "to" the National Congress; you used the word "by."

It should be "recommended to and accepted by." It is quite clear that three weeks is an insufficient period in which to appraise the effects of that settlement. The figures cannot be collected, and it would be an impossible task to give any specific account of what the result of that settlement has been. Nothing much can be said that would usefully serve the purpose which we have in mind. The right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Members have been conscious for a long time that the purpose they have in mind would not be served by much speech or interrogation of the Minister responsible. I should like also to pay tribute to my hon. Friends, Members from Lancashire on my side, who have been persistent in watchfulness for their constituents, but have realised that the best way they could serve their interests was by quiet efforts to restore better feelings between ourselves and India.

Most of the statements which have been made this afternoon and most of the figures that have been given have been figures of last year, and obviously are not relevant to the subject which we are now discussing. There is no denying that there was a decline in the trade last year, but the figures are not relevant, because we are now dealing with a post-settlement condition, and therefore a good deal that has been said in the course of the Debate—interesting and lamentable as much as the information is—is not relevant to the issue. The hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) asked me if Clause 7 would be implemented. So far as I know, it is being implemented. If the information he has concerns some period after the settlement, I shall be glad to be supplied with it. Most of the cases dealt with have been cases before the settlement was made. It would be a great mistake to present this Agreement as if it had been made with some commercial aim. It is a political settlement dealing with a political situation, but it has commercial and economic corollaries. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the passage which deals with the attitude of the Government of India in the matter of this agreement for boycott or encouragement of Indian industries. In Clause 6 of the settlement, it says:

The Government is at present responsible to Parliament, but later the Minister will be responsible to the Legislative Assembly. When that state of affairs does arise I think the air will be cleared and the Departments will be in a much better position to deal with the matter free from the difficulties of the present time. But if it has this positive side there is another side to which I would like to draw attention. It is clearly laid down in this settlement that pressure and coercion are to cease. That is a very great gain to us—that those who have given up during a time of political excitement the sale or purchase of British goods must be left free and without restraint to change their attitude if they so desire. It is laid down that any form which involves coercion, intimidation, restraint or obstruction of the public, or any offence under the law will be discontinued. Some hon. Members have spoken as if this settlement legalises something which was not legal before. That is not the case. It legalises nothing that was or has been illegal; it merely states, on behalf of those who have been engaged in the civil disobedience movement, their intentions as to the future. Nothing is made legal by this agreement which hitherto was not legal. It goes further than that, and says that the boycott of British commodities as a political weapon is to be discontinued.

Some hon. Members have expressed their difficulty in distinguishing between the boycott as a political weapon and the boycott as an economic weapon. There is a very great difference. The boycott as a political weapon is a discrimination against us; the economic boycott is merely discrimination in favour of Indian interests of industries themselves. In fact, the Swadeshi movement becomes constructive, not discriminatory and not coercive, and begins to resemble—although I do not attempt to disguise the fact that for many reasons it is a more passionate movement—movements with which we have been familiar and which we know so well as the Empire Marketing Board, the King's Roll, and things of that kind.

The Empire Marketing Board never discriminated against Empire products from any part of the Empire.

No, and I have pointed out to the hon. and gallant Baronet that discrimination against British goods as British goods is excluded by the abandonment of the boycott as a political weapon. Surely economic discrimination is the very root of the hon. and gallant Baronet's own case. I have one other word to say about tariffs and the Tariff Autonomy Convention. It must be stated quite plainly that it is quite impossible for me to attempt to hinder in any way the operation of that Convention, and I make so bold as to say that it would be impossible for anyone to do so who might be occupying my place in the House. It has been respected by Ministers of all parties who have held my office. It has been respected by me, it will be defended by me, and, as I say, we hope that under the new constitution the whole matter of tariffs will pass entirely under the control of a Minister responsible to the Indian Assembly.

The right hon. Gentleman ought to take the opportunity of, perhaps, modifying something he has said which may have an effect in India which he has not intended. He said earlier that the Indian Government was an autocratic Government responsible to this House. What he has said in regard to the Tariff Convention is opposed to that.

When I used the term "autocratic" I meant that the Government of India was not responsible to the Legislative Assembly, that their responsibility rests in this House, but that the interference of this House is modified to the extent to which the Tariff Autonomy Convention modifies it. As I said, there is no sort of intention on my part, and I am certain there never will be any intention on the part of my successors, to lay hands on the Tariff Autonomy Convention, and, as I say, I anticipate that before very long tariffs will be in the hands of a Minister responsible to the Indian Assembly. I have said it is impossible to give any realised effects of the agreement, because the time elapsed does not permit, and I can only draw attention to the terms of the agreement and express my belief that those who entered into it desire honourably to discharge their obligations under it. I would point out that we are better off with this agreement than we are without it. I will add this, that under this agreement, restoring as it does civil quiet in India, both Indian industry and India's international trade will flourish, and, that being the case, we earnestly hope that this settlement will be widely accepted in India and will remain operative for the benefit of both countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he sits down, answer the point which was raised by an hon. Member on these benches? Does he intend to exercise his powers to prevent this proposed trust which will dump foreign goods in this country and all parts of the British Empire—anywhere where they can sell them? Does he mean to do something to stop this system of organised dumping which is proposed in the agreement between Gandhi and the millowners?

I apologise for not dealing with that point. A question was asked about it in the Legislative Assembly yesterday, and I will read the answer which was given by the Minister responsible. The question was:

"Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the published account of the scheme for re-export of foreign cloth? If the reply be in the affirmative, have the Government satisfied themselves that it is within the terms of the statement issued by the Governor-General in Council on the 5th of March."

The answer given, which is also my answer to the question of the hon. Member, is:

"The answer to the first question is, yes, attention has been called to the published account. As to the second question, the Government understand that methods of persuasion only will be used to induce dealers, to participate in the scheme, that there will be no interference with their freedom of action, and that they will be free without any form of restraint to join or not join as they consider fit."

I am sorry to have to stand between my hon. Friend who wishes to raise another important question and his Debate, but I feel bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India has done very little to allay the very serious apprehensions which we feel on this side of the House, and I must make some comments on his speech to show that I am not in agreement with his reading of the situation in some particulars. Before I do that I would like to make a reference to some words in the speech of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I do not propose to follow him into the fiscal controversy into which he entered with my right hon. Friend beside me, because it does not concern the main issue. He gave, if he will allow me to say so without impertinence, a most admirable account of the situation in regard to imports of cotton goods into India, but although he emphasised the gravity of the situation he failed to emphasise one point of great importance.

Not only has this boycott been directed to a far greater extent against British goods than against Japanese goods, but it is a fact that it is the Japanese goods which come into competition, from a business point of view, with the Swadeshi goods made in India; British goods only come into that competition to a very small extent. That shows how essentially this movement was directed against British goods from the very start. I do not wish to be controversial, but I rather regret the reference made by the right hon. Gentleman, which I feel was an unhappy one, to military pressure. I would like to assure him that there is no military pressure by this country in India. If he will read this evening's papers he will see that at this moment, so far as the military are being used at all, they are being used to prevent different classes of Indians from cutting each other's throats in the streets of Cawnpore.

I hope he does not suggest that there was in the past when he was a very distinguished Member of the Government, or that there was in the days of the Coalition Government, or the last Labour Government or the Conservative Government.

I am afraid I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to.

I was referring to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping speaks for himself in this matter. I did not take his reference as being directed to the right hon. Member for Epping. I think that is rather a happy afterthought. However, the matters we are discussing to-night are far too important for the right hon. Gentleman and myself to get into a controversy of that kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), in a speech to which I listened with the greatest attention, gave what I thought was a very fair analysis of the situation when he divided the motive for the boycott and the propaganda against British goods in India into three main divisions. He said, if I took down aright the sense of his words, that it was partly political, partly what might be called legitimately national, and that it came partly from people who want to line their own pockets by keeping out British goods, by grossly unfair and aggressive methods. Of course that is the case, and yet we have not had one word from the Secretary of State or one word from the Government of India on that point. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody in this country that the people who have been behind this boycott from the first, or a large proportion of the people who have been behind it, are those who wish to keep out British goods from India and, to a lesser extent, foreign goods, because they believe that in that way they will be able to benefit themselves. Nobody objects to their having these views provided the methods they use are fair methods and not illegal methods.

The complaint I made in the Debate the other day was against the terminology in this White Paper. I do not disagree with the spirit of paragraphs 6 and 7, but the complaint I make against the terminology is that it seems to lend colour to the idea that it is legitimate to use picketing and the boycott in some respects, though not as has been used in the past, against British or foreign goods. That is nothing less than encouraging these people who are anxious to keep these goods out by illegal methods. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should try to draw a comparison between those who support the campaign in this country in favour of buying British goods and that action. Nobody can suggest that the Empire Marketing Board would at any time picket shops to prevent foreign goods being sold. There is no connection between the two methods.

I deeply regret that it has not been made clear by the Secretary of State that he and the Government of India will lend no countenance to the idea that it is legitimate for any body of people in India to keep out British goods by aggres- sive or unfair methods of picketing or boycotting. Until he was reminded by an hon. Member on this side the right hon. Gentleman said not a word about the question of the proposed formation of a company to export British goods which are in India and to sell them in foreign markets, and when he had been reminded of it all he did was to read out an answer given in the Assembly. If the right hon. Gentleman had not said that he agreed with that answer I should hesitate to make any comment or criticism on it as an answer given in the Assembly, but I feel bound to say that I regard it as a very weak answer indeed. I shall quote to the House the words used at the bottom of the first page of the White Paper:

Does the Noble Lord bear in mind the terms of the official answer which I have read?

The official answer is exactly the reverse of what the Noble Lord says. It says that methods of persuasion only will be permitted, that there will be no interference with their freedom of action, and that they will be free without any form of restraint. That is a contradiction. The Noble Lord who may have information of his own is flatly denying what is the official information supplied to me, and by which I stand.

I answer that by asking: Does anyone think for a moment that in the present state of India, with the power Congress exercises, that any owner of British cotton goods, any merchant in Bombay, if approached by this company, will not be put under pressure to hand over his goods? [ Interruption. ] The Solicitor-General seems to be amused at that statement, but he would not be so amused if he happened to be an unfortunate merchant selling British goods in India during the last few months. Does the Secretary of State for India think it is fair to Lancashire, and that it is a fair interpretation of the agreement which has been arrived at that such a company should be formed at all, when he must know that the result of the formation of the company will be further to reduce employment in Lancashire or make the chance of improvement in Lancashire much less than it otherwise would be. All these goods are to be exported and sold in another market to the displacement of British goods. When the Agreement was signed did anyone believe that, under that Agreement, it would be possible to form a company to sell these goods? If at the time the Government of India had stated that they saw no harm in that proposal, they would have been told that the Agreement was not of much value. The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible in the three weeks which have elapsed since the settlement has been reached to appraise the situation, and say whether or not the boycott had been taken off or whether the pickets had been removed. It seems to me very strange that we have had no information on that point, and surely the Government of India must have the information.

That is not what I said. I said that in three weeks it is impossible to give the final figures of imports and exports.

The right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to appraise the situation.

I asked the simple question whether or not the Agreement was being carried out as far as picketing and boycotting was concerned. I ask the Secretary of State to answer that question, because he is responsible to this House. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the particular sources of his information, but I should have thought from the information he has received from the Government of India and from the Governors he would have been able to answer that question.

I must apologise for again interrupting the Noble Lord, but I say that in my judgment those who signed this Agreement said that they were going to keep it and are keeping it. I invited one hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me whether the instances he quoted were post-settlement or pre-settlement, and, if the Noble Lord alleges that the Agreement is not being kept, perhaps he will provide me with the evidence, but he cannot force me to provide the evidence for a case which I do not believe has any existence.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a very difficult question to deal with. This is the only time when we are permitted to extract information from the Minister. Why does he tell us now that he is not able to appraise the situation in regard to picketing and boycotting? Has he not received sufficient information to be able to say whether or not boycotting and picketing have stopped? That is all I ask. I am only asking for information, and I am making no allegations. It is an astonishing thing that the right hon. Gentleman should not have recent information to say whether boycotting and picketing have been taken off. The Secretary of State says that he is not in a position to say that, and he has not the information.

The Noble Lord asked for specific information about exports and imports, and I have already given my answer. He has also asked me whether I think the Agreement is being carried out, and I have told him that I think it is. If the Noble Lord has any information to the contrary, perhaps he will give it.

I have no information to the contrary, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman for the information. My question is not whether those who made the Agreement are going to carry it out or not, and I do not suggest that Mr. Gandhi and the others who are concerned are not going to carry out the Agreement. What I am concerned about is whether or not boycotting and picketing have been taken off. I want to know whether the ordinary boycott of British trade in India has been taken off, and to that question we have not received any answer. It may be that three weeks is too short a time to appraise the situation, and in that case we shall have to ask for a further opportunity of debate in order to obtain the information. It is a matter of the greatest importance to know whether or not the Agreement is being effectively carried out, not by those who made it, but by the country. If it is not, obviously the Agreement is of no value and falls to the ground.

The effect of what has happened in India has been to lessen trade and cause greater unemployment in Lancashire, and, if this action is continued in India, it must lead to irritation and ill-will against the Indian people. If this condition of affairs continues, it will be contrary to the views expressed by responsible Indians at the recent Conference, who paid a tribute to the good will created at that Conference through the agency of the speeches and general attitude of the British delegates. It is a fact that Indians generally stress the need of creating good will in India. No responsible person denies the importance of trying to produce that good will, but why are so many Indians in responsible positions so slow to see the other side of the case? Why do they not realise that this House is more likely to authorise far-reaching constitutional changes if the people of India show more good will towards the British in the next few months. I cannot imagine anything less calculated to produce good will in this country than this calamitous proposal to form an export company to take British goods from India for sale in other countries, thus causing more unemployment and trouble in Lancashire.

If anything is certain in a fluctuating world of politics to-day, it is that if the people of this country, irrespective of party, think that Indians are going to kill British trade in India they will never allow this Government or its successors to make the next change in the Indian Constitution as full and complete as it would be if more good will existed in India. That fact ought to be realised by the Government and by everyone concerned. I am not speaking of tariffs, because that question must be left to the judgment of the Assembly, although I am very sorry that it has been found necessary to raise the tariffs against Lancashire. I want to make it clear that I am not speaking of tariffs, but of the general atmosphere in India. I think the Indian people will be under a delusion if they think that by adopting a policy of boycotting and picketing or taking hostile action against British trade they are doing anything to further the ideas which they have in view. I hope the Secretary of State will take an early opportunity of making it clear that, if good will is to be produced in India, it cannot be achieved by such a policy as I have criticised.

Russia (Labour Conditions)

I desire to raise the question of the importation from Russia to this country of certain goods which are produced under conditions very much akin to slavery. It seems to me that this question ought not to be treated as a party question at all. Hon. Members opposite have listened very impatiently to questions which have been addressed to the Government on this subject because they supposed that it was merely a party stunt. This is in no sense a party stunt. The Anti-slavery and Aborigines Protection Society is absolutely a non-party organisation. They have taken this matter up. They are making investigations and impartial inquiry at the present time, and they have a retired Judge as one of the members of the committee. The Howard League for Penal Reform is also a completely non-party organisation, and they are associated with this investigation. I am going to do my best to avoid all kinds of exaggeration. On the other hand, I hope the party opposite will not allow any party animus to close their minds on this subject. On this side of the House, we have absolutely no quarrel with the Russian people. We wish them well, but we are bound to take account of the policy adopted by foreign governments so far as it affects the citizens of our own country. At the present moment, as everyone knows, the Soviet Government are trying out what is known as the five-year plan. What is the five-year plan? So far as I understand it, it is, speaking very roughly, to convert Russia from an almost wholly agricultural community into, very largely, an industrial community; and this is desired by the Soviet Government in order to make Russia self-sufficing and to make her a very powerful State—to accumulate sufficient wealth to give her a predominant position in Europe and elsewhere; the ultimate object being, not merely economic supremacy, but political supremacy as well—to enable her, in short, to impose her political system upon all the nations. I have here a rather interesting report—a special report of a Committee of the House of Representatives in the United States of America. They reported only a few weeks ago, and this is what they say: able for exports, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, consists of raw materials such as wheat and timber; but, in order to find increasing markets all over the world and in this country for those goods, the Soviet are obliged drastically to undercut the prices taken for similar goods in the countries where they want to sell, and, again, this can only be done by drastically lowering the costs of their production. I am giving this just as a preface. This is what the Soviet is doing at the present moment. Compulsory levies are made upon the Russian peasants' wheat amounting to from 26 to 50 per cent. of the whole of their harvest, at the Soviet Government's own price, which, of course, is a very low one; and compulsory labour is extorted fir this purpose in the grain areas of Russia. In answer to a question the other day in this House, it was shown that over 12,000,000 cwts. of wheat were imported into this country from Russia to November and December last.

The timber in Russia is produced under what I believe, and what my hon. Friends believe, to be conditions utterly alien to our notions of civilisation. A decree was issued by the Soviet in 1929 that timber was to occupy the first place in the Soviet's exports, and they said in this decree that it was, therefore, necessary to increase the production of timber eight-fold, and to reduce the costs by no less than 37 per cent., before 1933. Naturally, the result has been an enormous increase in the exports of timber. From answers given in this House, comparing 1928 with last year, we find, giving only rough figures, that 300,000 loads of pit-props and pit-wood were imported in 1928, as against 727,000—that is to say, more than twice the amount—last year. If you take wood other than hardwood, and compare the same years, you find that, in 1928, 1,600,000 loads were imparted, as against very nearly 3,000,000 loads last year; that is to say, more than 1,000,000 additional loads were imported last year. I understand, though I am subject to correction here, that the Central Softwood Buying Corporation has made a contract with the Soviet to buy this year up to a limit of 60,000 standards, of the value of £7,000,000.

It may be said that the conditions of the Russian labour market are their own affair, that they are merely a domestic matter; and, so far as these conditions merely affect Russia only, they are a domestic matter, although I may point out that even in that case we have our duty under Article 23 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Unfortunately, however, those conditions do not only affect Russia, for the very good reason that these goods are being imported month by month into this country, and this importation will not only have very far-reaching consequences upon our markets and aggravate our problem of unemployment, but it is also shocking the consciences of thousands of people all over this country for whom party issues have very little interest indeed.

What are the facts about this forced labour? Over and over again the Government have been pressed in this matter. Their reply has been that they cannot get at facts, because the Soviet will not allow an investigation into the methods under which these goods are produced. Is not that highly suspicious in itself? If nothing wrong is going on in these timber camps, why not open the door to the light of public scrutiny? I may say, however, that even His Majesty's Government are very uneasy about this matter. The Prime Minister stated that he realised full well the anxiety that was being felt in this country with regard to it, and the Foreign Secretary said the other day, in answer to a question, that he had suspicions that all was not right. In another place, the Government representative went a good deal further. He said that he did not dispute the evidence; he said that the facts might be true, and that they were very horrible; and he said that the Government had grave suspicions.

If the Soviet will not allow investigations, why cannot the Government themselves take the evidence of those people who are perfectly ready to give it, and who have been witnesses of a good many of these horrors, thereby satisfying their own minds and public opinion one way or another in the matter? When they were asked in the House to do this not so many weeks ago, they refused, and the Prime Minister—it was the Prime Minister who was asked that question—refused on very insufficient grounds. He said that in his opinion no useful purpose would be served, but that he would continue to watch the situation. The only thing that the Government have done, after repeated pressure, has been to publish a Blue Book showing the labour legislation in force in the Soviet at the present moment. I take it for granted that every hon. Gentleman opposite has read this Blue Book—[ Interruption. ] I hope they have read it. Is there any hon. Gentleman opposite, who has read these 200 pages carefully, who does not think, although he may not own, that our case on this side has been proved?

This Blue Book proves to the hilt that forced labour is widespread in Russia at the present moment, and that it is most carefully organised, with all its attendant cruelties and suffering. It also proves that convict labour, as distinguished from other forced labour, is employed wholesale in the timber camps and in the grain areas. I will only quote a few short passages, because I do not want to weary the House. One of these decrees, at page 141 of the Blue Book, says: It says, further:

I should have been glad to be able to quote a few more passages, but I must not do so to-night. This, without the slightest doubt is forced labour, and starvation if that labour is refused. It is only those on the register of the Labour Exchanges in Russia who are entitled to food cards. Without these foods cards, they cannot obtain food at the State shops, and the State shops have a monopoly of supplies. Therefore, if a man is removed from the register, he starves. I am perfectly well aware that the Soviet deny that this timber comes in here, but does any reasonable Member of this House believe that, in face of the accumulated evidence that we have received? My right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) will, no doubt, deal with the evidence which has reached him, and other hon. Friends of mine will give the evidence that they have received. Do hon. Members opposite really believe that this is nothing but a party stunt? To my mind, that is incredible. I can assure hon. Members opposite that I have no intention of making this a party stunt. There are plenty of other sources, in addition to the Blue Book, which prove our case. May I once more refer to the special report of the Committee of the House of Representatives in the United States of America? The reported in January:

Now, I cannot understand, if I may say so without provocation, the attitude of the trade unions in this matter. They cannot wish to see goods coming into this country produced under slave conditions. That is contrary to all the ideals of the trade unions. I have got here a report of the Labour party committee on Sweated Imports and International Labour Standards. This was a very important committee. I do not know in what year it reported, because there is no date on this document, but it included the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Foreign. Secretary, the present Lord Privy Seal—to whom I should like to offer my respectful congratulations—the present Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the present Minister of Health. It will thus be seen that it was a very important committee, and it said, among other things:

I fail to see how the Minister can be responsible for what the trade unions do or do not do.

. I will pass from that. What an extraordinary situation we are in as a country at the present moment! We have got diplomatic relations with Russia. We have got a com- mercial treaty with Russia, and, on paper, reciprocity is supposed to be complete. But, in actual fact, there is no reciprocity at all. Russian subjects are perfectly free to move about in this country. The Soviet Embassy is perfectly free to investigate our labour conditions, and go where it wishes. But British citizens are not allowed to move freely about in Russia, and our Ambassador in Moscow has been refused, in the curtest terms, his request to make an investigation into certain conditions of labour. What is the use of diplomatic relations and a commercial treaty, and all this humbug of pretended reciprocity? It is very significant that these requests for an investigation have been refused. If there is nothing to hide, why close Russian frontiers against all witnesses? [ Interruption. ] There can be no doubt, in the mind of every free-minded man, that there is something very wrong indeed in the conditions of Labour in Russia to-day. I know that hon. Members sometimes retort, "What about conditions here?" I never regard that retort as a very serious one. We have the full light of day upon our own labour market. We have the full and clear criticism of the Press, the public platform and this House. Any grievance can be ventilated in this House and it can be rectified, but in Russia there is no free Press, no political liberty, no platform for ventilating grievances. There is only one party allowed by law, and that party is the Bolshevist party.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to this Debate if he is really satisfied with the position? We believe, on these benches, that terrible sufferings are being inflicted upon helpless thousands of people in the Russian timber camps. We believe that slavery exists there all but in name. We believe that this forced labour, living in unspeakable misery, is being used for the export of goods to this country, and we do ask the Government once again to press the Soviet to allow an investigation, and, if that request is once more refused, to institute their own inquiry here and alsewhere. The United States of America have not only prohibited the importation of pulpwood and lumber coming from four districts in Northern Russia, but they have also prohibited the importation of articles produced in other localities from such lumber or pulp. They have done so because they firmly believe that convict labour and slave labour are being used. I understand also—here I am subject to correction—that the French Government are about to do the same. Is Great Britain going to lag behind for the sake of cheap imports and the making of profits out of the poor wretches who are living in those conditions? I do not know how long the present Government are going to last. They may go on for a year or two, and they may go on for a few months only. But they still have time to show their humanity in this matter. If they do not, this callous indifference will be the worst blot of all in the whole history of their administration.

The right hon. Gentleman who has been addressing the House is actuated, without a doubt, with the utmost sincerity in the case he has put forward, and no one would question the fact that he himself, as also other right hon. and hon. Members on those benches, are fully convinced of the accuracy of their indictment. I hope, therefore, he will not take it amiss, or take it as doubting his sincerity, if I question the case he has advanced, and the facts he has adduced to support that case. I do not think that his speech was at all convincing except on two points. He showed that, as we all knew, forced labour does exist in the Russian timber camps. What has not yet been proved is that this labour is used for export and that these appalling conditions really do exist. He also showed that unless the workers or peasants were willing to accept the work which is offered to them, they are refused relief, as in England.

That is an undoubted fact. But when we come to consider the justice of the series of allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the many newspapers which have been writing about these matters recently, I think we are justified in a close examination of the bona fides of the accusers, in examining closely the sources from which the accusations come, in seeing whether similar accusations have been made in the past, and on what basis of fact they have rested, and to consider whether the accusers have any prejudice in this matter. If one applies these tests, there can be no doubt that the newspapers, led by the "Morning Post," which have been conducting this and similar campaigns, will fail to come through. I do not think much need be said about that. Prejudice is admitted. When this Government first resumed diplomatic relations with Russia, the "Morning Post" and other newspapers definitely stated that Russia was governed by a set of criminals who were our implacable enemies.

On the question of reliability, I am in a fortunate position in that I am able to check, to a certain degree, some of the statements that have been made, because I spent several weeks in Russia towards the end of last year, at the period of the campaign directed against the alleged prosecution of the Church. Being a credulous person, I believed there were no churches open, and that no religious ceremonies could take place in Russia under fear of brutal punishment or even death. What was my surprise when, in passing through many towns, I found most of the churches open and worship going on inside; and even to discover funerals taking place in the streets of Moscow, headed by priests in their ecclesiastical garments, waving their censers, without any interference from anyone. My faith in the "Morning Post" was severely shaken.

A campaign had also been raging in regard to the conditions in the wheat trade, and it was alleged then, as it is alleged now in regard to timber, that the conditions under which the wheat was produced were abominable, that the workers were driven like slaves, and so on. I visited several farms, among them one of the big Government wheat farms—not a show place, but a very big one. The conditions appeared to be fairly satisfactory in regard to wages, accommodation, social amenities, and similar matters. But what was my surprise, when I was introduced to the managers of the farm, whom I expected, believing what the "Morning Post" told me, to be brutal, depraved slave drivers, to find that one was an American and another a Canadian, technical experts, people of very great charm and obvious ability. After my second experience I became very doubtful indeed of the evidence put forward in these campaigns.

I regret that I am unable to give any direct evidence as regards the prison camps in the timber forests. I can only say, as bearing on it in a slight degree, that I, in company with other Members of the House, visited several penal establishments—prisons, Borstal institutions, and so on—and that, as far as one could judge, the prison routine, atmosphere, and general treatment were admirable. Certainly, whether it is right or wrong, the conditions of the prisoners in Russia are very much more favourable than in our English prisons.

I have not been in an English prison, but I know the conditions existing in many of them. They are common knowledge. For instance, an English prisoner is not allowed a fortnight's holiday a year and does not receive money for the work that he performs. One of the reasons put forward for the good treatment of prisoners in Russia, rightly or wrongly, is that Russia is the only country in the world where the Government is composed of people, all of whom have spent some part of their life in prison.

May I examine closely the evidence which so far has been adduced by hon. Members opposite in support of their case. Let us see whether it is so overwhelming as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think it is. There is plenty of it in quantity, but the quality is very doubtful. It is self-contradictory. In many cases it is quite impossible. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be gulled by some of the affidavits that have been put forward. Let me give one or two examples. It was stated in one of the affidavits that has been published that the number of trees that has to be felled by each man in a day was 35. A Dr. Ferguson, a Canadian who has had considerable experience as medical officer in Canadian timber camps, has pointed out that this is quite impossible. It means cutting down a whole acre. Further, according to the same affidavit, not only did the trees have to be felled, but all the top branches have to be cut off as well. In another affidavit it was stated that the men have to work from, I think, five o'clock in the morning till eight at night. It was further pointed out by Dr. Ferguson that in this region there is only daylight from nine till four, so that eight hours of this work have to be done in a dense forest in complete darkness.

These affidavits, by the way, vary very considerably as regards the number of prisoners in the camps. They vary from 60,000 up to 600,000. In another affidavit, or perhaps in the same one, it was stated that the trees were in ground that was frozen all the year round. It is well known to anyone who understands anything about forestry that, in soil that is frozen all the year round, no timber whatever can grow, so that in this case there was no timber at all. That was beaten in another case. There were two places about which horrors were told—Ussolk and Vishesky—and it is denied that any such places exist in Russia. There can be no doubt that, in many of the affidavits that have been put forward, the information is quite impossible, and it is really surprising that hon. Members have allowed their legs to be pulled to this degree.

I have personally searched the gazetteers. It is particularly remarkable in connection with the accusations which have been made that the most reliable evidence, put forward by the only two Englishmen who have been there and stayed there, has been completely ignored. I should have thought that in fairness alone, if for on other reason, their evidence would have been mentioned. One is a Mr. Stewart, a consulting forest engineer and a university lecturer. He says:

"As far as I know, no outsider, certainly no Britisher with practical experience of lumber camps as a worker in them, has been permitted to visit these camps since the Soviet rule except myself. … I travelled thousands of miles through the forests and visited and lived in the lumber camps wherever I went. … The camps themselves are quite good, and mostly a good deal better than I have often built for my men and myself in other countries. … That the Soviet makes no attempt to provide medical comforts is not quite accurate. I have been in hospitals in the forest villages where they were well equipped and excellently managed by a partly qualified medical woman, kept spotlessly clean, and in their small way were the last word in efficiency. A very good mail service is kept up throughout the entire North, as well as an efficient telegraph service."

The hon. Gentleman has his name down to speak later on and should, therefore, allow the hon. Member to proceed.

There is even more striking evidence in a letter which was published in the "Manchester Guardian" on 2nd January, 1931, from a Mr. Harby. The letter says:

When hon. Gentlemen talk of the dumping of this cheap Russian timber, who is it that makes the price cheap? The Russians, of course, want to sell their timber at the highest price they can obtain. There was a report in the "Daily Telegraph" that when negotiations took place with English buyers through the Central Softwood Buying Corporation, the Russian price was beaten down—I have no information myself—from £15 10s. to prices ranging from £15 to £13 15s. per standard, and, further, the contract which has been made for next year is, I understand, at £11 10s. The price was forced down by the English purchasers. In my view, they were doing a very useful thing in obtaining this cheap timber. They were enabling houses to be built at less cost, and eventually enabling lower rents to be charged to the working people who were to live in those houses. Naturally, there are very powerful interests concerned in keeping up the price of timber, but I cannot understand why this House should give any encouragement to those interests. I will give a final quotation, which, I think, is apt in this discussion:

If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that his party will support the establishment of import and export boards, I do not think that he will find that our Government would be backward in bringing forward such a proposition. Finally, I suggest, and I think the evidence supports me, that the stories of brutality put forward now in connection with Russia, like the atrocity stories during the War, were put forward on political grounds with political motives. As the reason then was the hatred of Germany, the fear lest Germany might succeed, and the determination to squash Germany, so I suggest that these stories put forward now are based upon the hatred which many people feel towards Soviet Russia, the horror lest Communism might perchance succeed, and a determination to wreck, if possible, the five-year plan. In view, therefore, of the obvious prejudice of the people who put these stories forward, we ought to examine their case with great reserve and suspicion. If the people who advance these accusations showed similar moral indignation at the labour conditions under which workers and convicts are forced to live in Dutch, Belgian, French and Portuguese colonies, and displayed the same moral fervour in their protestations against those conditions as they do in the case of Russia, we should be able to consider their case with more sympathy than we can at the moment.

I would make a very obvious comment on the speech of the hon. Member, and that is that we cannot cure the ills of the Czar's prisoners, but we can cure the ills of prison timber camps of Russia. Another obvious comment on the speech of the hon. Member is that it is not the quality or the price of the Russian timber that is in question, but the conditions under which Russian timber is produced. The hon. Member quoted from a letter of Dr. Ferguson in the "Manchester Guardian." Dr. Ferguson, according to the account of the hon. Member, said that 35 trees covered an acre of ground. The average number of trees to cover an acre of ground in Russia is at least 250. Even in West Australia where the great Jarra tree is grown there are 20 to 25 to the acre. The idea that 35 trees grow to the acre in Russia shows how absurd Dr. Ferguson is in regard to these matters. I remember the letter. In referring to Russia he made the sun rise at 9 in the morning and set at 4 in the afternoon. A queer sort of sun which has three hours before midday and four hours after noon. The hon. Member also dealt with a letter of a Mr. Hardy. When hon. Members opposite are able to produce Mr. Hardy, I shall pay more attention to what he has to say. He gave no address in his letter, and I have been unable to trace him. Mr. Stewart is undoubtedly an authority. I asked Mr. Stewart when he made his progress through the timber camps. It was at the very early part of 1929. I asked whether he visited the camp at Soloviski and the camp at Kim. He did not visit them. The great drive of prison labour took place in the latter part of 1929. Prison labour was being used the early part of 1929 only on a limited scale, and as far as I could ascertain he did not go to Soloviski, Kim or Archangel where there was prison labour.

I should like to refer briefly to the history of this controversy. I first asked a question in the middle of 1929. At that time I was very doubtful what the proof of the matter was, and I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would make inquiries into the alleged prison labour in the felling of timber in the Russian forests. His answer was a peculiar one. He said that as we had no diplomatic representation he could make no inquiries. It that meant anything it meant that when we had a diplomatic representative he would make inquiries. Even at that time he could have made inquiries through the Norwegian Minister, who would have been glad to enlighten him to the best of his ability. When we had a diplomatic representative, I again asked whether inquiries would be made, and I was met with the very extraordinary answer that it was up to me to supply the evidence. With great difficulty I got the evidence—we find it easier now, because many prisoners have escaped to Finland—but when I had the evidence ready the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that it was not necessary to look into the matter, because no great public body in this country had protested. Even when the weight of protests became very large and overwhelming and the evidence became more extensive than ever, we were put off with the plea that the Soviet Government would not allow us to investigate the timber camps.

I make this challenge to the Government. I will undertake, through friends, to produce at Helsingfors 25 or 30 of the escaped prisoners who are in Finland. The Government can carry out their inquiry in Finland. They can examine and cross-examine the prisoners. It is very easy to pick holes in the testimony of men who have laboured in these camps and have endured the sufferings that these men have endured. Probably they may have exaggerated their hours—they have no watches—and the number of trees, but if you submit to meticulous examination the men who have come from ships of war at sea or the men from trenches in war you find the same type of exaggeration. But the solid truth remains, that the prison camps exist, that they are on a very extensive scale, that there is considerable cruelty practised and that a great many people have lost their lives. It is not always Russians through whom the stories come. I have here the evidence given before a recent committee of the United States House of Representatives on the question of imposing an embargo. It is the testimony of an American who was a prisoner in one of the camps and who was released through the offices of the British Consul. He says: in camera. I have heard of cases of merchant seamen who have allowed themselves to be interviewed and their statements have appeared in the Press, and they have been told that they can no longer trade in ships going to Russia and Archangel. I doubt if I would accept the evidence of any man who is dependent upon contracts or concessions from Russia or intends to go back there, because, if he speaks against communist Russia, he will never get a contract or concession, and he will not get a passport into Russia. That is the system of intimidation that prevails.

The indictment we make against the Government is this, that they are doing nothing, they are making no inquiry. We are proud of the distinction which Napoleon gave us of being a nation of shopkeepers, but we do not desire the distinction of being a nation of receivers of tainted goods. France, the United States of America and Canada all made inquiries about this matter, and they have the same affidavits, because I compared my affidavits with those of Mr. Bahr who convinced the authorities. They had the best legal advice, came to the conclusion that the case was proved, and put an embargo on Russian timber. Take the reverse position. We are asking for an embargo on one commodity. Soviet Russia has an embargo on all commodities because she is the sole buyer. And she is buying only our machinery which she can use against us under the five years plan later on. To my mind it is not fair to the Baltic nations and to Canada that we should allow the competition of this timber produced by starving people under conditions of slavery and imprisonment.

What has produced this drive to an intensive slave labour in the timber camps? In August, 1929, a British delegation visited Russia to negotiate for Russian timber. From that moment the drive started, because on 21st October, 1929, it was pointed out that only 18 per cent. of the forest area was exploited, and the Planning Division determined on trebling exports. It is no mere coincidence that the drive towards collectivism of farms occurred at the same moment as labour was required for the timber camps. The policy adopted by the Communist party in this cruel drive against the Kulaks as the more prosperous peasants are called, was that these Kulaks as well as those who resisted the collectivisation were taken up to the timber camps. There is in addition to the five year plan a sketch plan, which provides that the population of Russia will probably be 200,000,000 in 1942, but the agricultural element, which is now 125,000,000, is to be cut down to 75,000,000, so that the whole of the expansion of the agricultural population is going into industry or will be got rid of by other means and in addition 50,000,000 have to be disposed of. One of the aims and objects of the plan is to take those who have not got the Communist mind up to the timber camps to be used up there in prison labour. I have evidence from the "Izvestia" of 19th February, where the well-known Communist Carl Radek says: the peasants into collective farms. We know how the peasants resisted by slaughtering their cattle, so that one-quarter of the live stock was slaughtered last spring. In March, 1930, there was an order in the "Izvestia" to impress 500,000 peasants for seasonal occupation, and in December, 1930, the "Investia" said: leader, Mr. Gladstone in reference to the Bulgarian atrocities. The Bulgarian atrocities were numbered at only 10,000, according to the investigator who was sent out. That was enough for Mr. Gladstone to carry out a campaign with tempestuous fury from one end of the country to the other. But in this matter the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has not said one word. All that he has done is to write in the Continental Press praising Stalin up to the skies. What is taking place is that Russia is determined upon an economic war, a class war, and to bring about world revolution. The Russians make no secret of it. As recently as 9th February Stalin said: Interruption. ] It certainly is the destruction of civilisation as we understand it.

On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not traversing a very wide field, and is he not out of order?

The hon. Gentleman can leave that point to me. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to go beyond anything for which a Minister is responsible.

This system of slave labour is part of the economic war, and it enables Russia to do things that no other country in the world can do. It enables Russia to run machinery for 380 days in the year, through day and night, and to gain a year in five years on every other nation. We do not hear of any other agricultural country running tractors all through the night. But Russia may do it. She uses flood lights and electric lights on the tractors. The result is that Russia is able to do things, through slave labour and prison labour, that no other country can do. The result of the Russians' timber drive is that they are lowering conditions in Finland and in Sweden, where wages have had to come down. Orders get less. We are suffering in the coal trade with Sweden because we are ordering less timber from Sweden, and Russia is taking Sweden's place. Nothing will avail us but to put up a barbed wire sanitary cordon which will exclude all trade with Russia. I would go even further than that. I would not allow any of our nationals to take service with Russia. I would not allow them to go to Russia.

Surely the prohibition of Russian imports would require legislation and to prevent our nationals going to Russia would also require legislation?

9.0 p.m.

The thesis I wish to maintain is this: If wrong goes unpunished, then wrong will certainly triumph. It is just the same as with Gresham's law that bad currency will drive out the good currency. The rouble to-day is worth only three halfpence to two-pence in the smuggling frontier cities. Our object on this side is to see that wrong is punished, and that it no longer triumphs in this world.

I want to bring the Debate back to the subject of timber. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has allied his name with the investigation of the Russian timber camps, and has devoted a great deal of time and attention and ability to endeavouring to find out the facts with regard to that matter. The larger part of the speech which he addressed to us was, however, an indictment of Communism and of the communistic State. We are not debating the internal affairs of Russia. Russia is admittedly a communistic State. She is pursuing an economic mission of her own by methods which are not employed in any other country, and it is a truism to say that you must compare like with like and not like with unlike. I am not a Communist, and therefore I do not approve or applaud what is taking place in Russia. But that does not seem to be the issue which confronts this House at this moment.

As I understood the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this question, in a speech with which no one could have the slightest ground of complaint, a speech most moderate in utterance and reinforced with quotations, in every way attractive—as I understood his position it was that this country has a right, if it thinks fit, to declare an embargo on certain imports from Russia. Surely there is no one who contests that right. Of course we have a right to do it. We are a sovereign country, and can control our own affairs of commerce and navigation as we think fit. If at any time, by reason of proved facts, this country came to the conclusion that it was a moral duty, an economic advantage, or that some other great reason existed for creating an embargo, I have do doubt that this House would very soon find that the country had the requisite power.

But it seems to me that we have to walk a little warily in this matter. If you have a communistic State, if you have a State in which a very large number of individuals are in penal settlements and prison camps, you will undoubtedly have dreadful suffering, inexplicable misery and starvation; but I know of no means by which this country can talk to a friendly Government under international law with regard to matters that are happening in its midst. I know of no classification in international law which prevents Russia being a friendly Government with which this country is at present at peace. I think we have to be a little careful in Debates in this House, and in speeches outside, to moderate our language when we are referring to a friendly Power. It may be said that that rule is not observed by the nationals of Russia, but that does not justify us in departing from it.

Another fact which has greatly impressed me in this discussion is that no reference appears to have been made to what I may call common-form lumber conditions, which apply to any timber camp in any part of the world. A very large part of the forest reserves of the world are situated in northern latitudes, particularly around the Baltic. The conditions under which timber is felled in those districts; the time of year at which the felling takes place; the fact that enormously heavy logs have to be transported over packed snow; the fact that the system of transport is not the use of roads, or ordinary western methods of transport; the fact that those logs are taken to river-sides, man-piled to a large extent, and that the moment the flood and the thaw come they have to be pushed into the stream and sent hundreds of miles to the saw mills—all these conditions are not peculiar to Russia, but are common to the timber trade of northern latitudes. A very large quantity of the evidence which has been referred to in this Debate, in the affidavits which have been quoted, in the literature published on this subject and in speeches made outside this House, has referred to conditions which are common to lumber camps the world over.

I want to make this point. If you transfer a civilian from a town occupation and send him, as a penal measure, to a timber camp, and give him some task, which to the lumber man would be child's play, you may very likely kill him in the process. That is an admitted fact. Mr. Stewart, whose evidence has been quoted, has something to say upon this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone said that it was in 1929 that Mr. Stewart visited these camps, and that he did not go to Solovetski and some of the camps on the mainland. That is true, but he was there for 10 months. He was in the Russian timber camps for that period, and his object in going there was on behalf of a London trust company to inspect forests in regard to which that company wished to obtain a concession. He lived among the workers and shared their lives and, as a knowledgeable timber expert, he is, an extremely valuable witness to tell this House and the world something about the conditions. This is what he says: I mention that because nobody in this House stands for approving or supporting conditions of labour which would be abhorrent to any of us. Conditions of bad clothing, lack of heating, improper shelter, bad food—all these things, if they exist, will be condemned by all parties in this House. There was nothing said in detail by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this matter as to whether the conditions of which he complained were bad clothing, insufficient housing, lack of heating, length of working day, insufficiency of food, low wages or lack of hospital equipment. No details were given. Mr. Stewart is very emphatic on all these matters. He has detailed information. [ Interruption. ] I understand the right hon. Gentleman to make the observation that the details have already been published. I was referring to the speech which he made in presenting this matter this afternoon. He asked again and again had not his case been made out and my answer, emphatically, is "No." His case has not been made out. That there is a great deal of suffering and preventable misery in Russia—granted. That a great deal of it is caused by Russian Government authorities—granted, that a great deal of it occurs in Russian prison camps—granted. But that that is a reason for saying that this country should place an embargo on all Russian timber is a non sequitur as glaring as any I have ever heard.

This matter must be pursued a great deal further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear that observation meet with applause. Nobody wishes anything to remain undiscovered because it is hidden. I was struck with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman when he asked why, if Russia had nothing to fear, did she not allow full and free investigation. The answer is that she is prepared to have it. The timber trade authorities of this country are even now organising the necessary mission of inquiry to Russia to look into these matters. Do not let it be understood that one in any way complains of this matter being raised. Great good will comes from such a discussion as this. There is anxiety in the country on this matter and to clear it up is a national service—indeed an international service because commodities may be exported from Russia under the five-year plan with regard to which special legislation, such as that adopted by America and France and other governments, will be requisite. There may be such exports, but the point here is: Has a case been made out in regard to timber? On the submission which I am making to the House a case has not been made out with regard to timber, and certainly not in relation to timber felled in northern latitudes—in Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Baltic States generally.

Efforts have been made in connection with the propaganda against Russian timber to do without that timber. One of the most successful minor industries in this country is furniture manufacture. It is common knowledge that one of the woods largely used in furniture manufacture hitherto, has been Russian oak. Under the influence of this propaganda that one ought not to touch wood felled and exported to this country under conditions of which this country would not approve, the furniture-making industry has been endeavouring to diminish its orders for Russian oak and to place larger orders for Polish oak. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who says "Hear, hear!" does not happen to be in the furniture-making trade—at least not to my knowledge. The effect of the substitution of Polish for Russian oak has been to produce a state of resentment in the industry. The wood is not as good. When we talk here of an embargo on an essential raw material like timber, we should remember that we are dealing with a very big industry, with big figures, and with an immense number of users. I appreciate the motives which have actuated the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen in raising this matter. I am prepared to give full credence to those motives, but let us consider two points of view. There is, first, the effect on the industry of this country of cutting off a large section of our essential supplies; and it should be remembered that Great Britain can produce only about 25 per cent. of her timber requirements.

There is another angle to this matter. Whole communities in the northern latitudes live by timber export, and they expect during the felling season to make their income for the 12 months. If we are to put an embargo on the importation into this country of the timber that we are normally in the habit of importing from Russia, we not only deprive our operatives of raw material, and not only increase the price of an essential raw material for a large number of trades, but we deprive whole sections of perfectly innocent people in other countries of their means of livelihood. That is a matter which we ought to consider. Of course, all that would go by the board if we were satisfied that there was an overwhelming duty not to handle this timber at all because of the cruel conditions under which it was produced. I entirely assent to the proposition that there might be a moral condition so grave as to override every economic argument, but I entirely deny that the facts that have been laid before the House bring us within miles of such a conclusion.

I want to add only one other reflection. Great credence has been attached to evidence of escaped prisoners. It was the duty of some of us during the War to cross-examine escaped prisoners, and, except when fortune was with the cross-examiner, they proved a singularly unreliable source of information. I do not think that anybody who has had any experience on a bench of magistrates, or in the law, will require to be told that there is no evidence quite so untrustworthy as that of the dismissed servant or the discharged employé, for there is a feeling of resentment and bitterness, which naturally discolours the narration, even of a simple set of facts. So although there has undoubtedly been suffering of a great and most distressing character, we must be a little careful in accepting evidence from these escaped prisoners in Finland or elsewhere. There has been published a warning against the purchase of these affidavits, which have now become a matter of export trade.

Does the hon. Member mean to say that these affidavits were purchased by Members of Parliament?

I make no allegation that any of these affidavits have been purchased by Members of Parliament. I have not made any such assertion at all. In the "Anglo-Russian News" of the 14th March, 1931, there appears this warning:

"Offers of affidavits and sworn declarations from escaped. Soviet prisoners are reaching this country from Finland, Poland and adjoining countries. The majority of these affidavits are fictitious, and British politicians and business men are warned against purchasing them."

Perhaps the warning is unnecessary. I am only saying that practical experience of the cross-examination of escaped prisoners shows that they are not a very reliable source of information on matters of accuracy and fact. I am satisfied that a large number of the complaints genuinely and honestly put forward as complaints of brutal conditions would be common to the lumber industry in most northern latitudes, and that there is a great deal of confusion of thought between lack of conditions of which we could approve arising from intentional conduct, and conditions arising from lack of organisation. In Russia, with her extraordinary distances and with the scattered population in those areas, it is very easy for the organisation for the importation of food to break down and to fail. It is entirely another thing to say that the defective organisation is intentional, callous brutality produced under Government authority. We have to bear these distinctions in mind. Because the evidence so far produced, and which has been examined by some of us who are interested in this matter fails to show that these allegations against the timber trade can be substantiated, I venture to intervene in this discussion.

This Debate has done a good thing in clearing the air, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who initiated it. It will now be clear, as it has not been clear hitherto, that there is another side to the case which has not yet been sufficiently stated. I hope that, as a result of the discussions that have been going on, further investigations will be made on the spot in Russia, so that an end will be put to much of this talk. Hon. Members above the Gangway do not seem to realise that it is always open to private persons or to private associations to go to Russia and inquire into the conditions. The Russian Government, however, certainly objects, as we should object, to any foreign Government sending an official delegation to inquire into the labour conditions of the country.

The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) made some interesting assertions which I should like to take up. I was present at a debate the other day when Mr. Stewart gave a lecture on the conditions prevailing in the timber camps. I spoke with him afterwards, and I understood him to say definitely that he was in Russia during 1929 up to the autumn of that year. The hon. and gallant Member says that he was not, but that conflicts with the evidence that I have. It is true that he did not go to Solovetski Islands, or inquire into the camps there, but he was in Archangel, in Kamenka, and in the Petschora. From the Petschora on the eastern coast of the White Sea, comes the largest size of timber which is exported to this country. It is not the small forests with several hundred trees to the acre from which the export timber comes. It is just that type of forest, where there are 30 or 40 large trees to the acre, which is referred to in Mr. Fergusson's despatches, from which timber is exported to this country and Western Europe. Therefore, there is nothing incongruous in the statements of Mr. Fergusson to justify the doubt cast upon them by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone. A Mr. Harby has made a statement in the Press recently about his experiences in Russia and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would be more inclined to believe what he said if we knew something about him. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) who tells me that he is personally acquainted with Mr. Harby who has been for many months working for the Society of Friends on relief work in Northern Russia, that he is a perfectly reliable person and that there is no reason to put him in the same category as the persons whose evidence we very much doubt and from which the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone draws so much of his evidence.

We have often heard from hon. Members above the Gangway opposite that we should not mix politics with business. That argument is frequently used when they lecture the Miners' Federation, say, for adopting a policy to which they object—the nationalisation of mines, the seven-hour day, and so on. They are prepared to use the argument that politics and business must not be mixed up when they wish to take objection to the attitude of organised political labour in this country but they change their ground very quickly when they are dealing with a foreign Government to whom they have certain political objections, and then they are quite prepared to mix politics with business. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate asked why the trade unions were not taking more interest in this matter.

I think the hon. Member was also in the House when I prevented the hon. and gallant Gentleman from pursuing the matter about the trade unions. The Government are not responsible for the actions of the trade unions in connection with this matter.

On a point of Order. Surely when hon. Members quote statements about the slave conditions affecting the timber trade and the timber which is imported to this country, the opinions of the leaders of the Timber Workers and Woodworkers Association can be quoted to disprove the assertions they have made?

I did not allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to pursue his argument as to why the trade unions were not taking action, because the Minister is not responsible for the actions of trade unions and, therefore, it does not arise in this Debate.

On that point of Order. Cannot statements in regard to any inquiries that may have been made by trade unions and published by them be quoted in this House?

That is not the point at all which has been raised on the point of Order. The point before the House is a question of what the trade unions are doing, and there is no Minister who can answer for that.

I was only proposing to reply to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said by quoting the secretary of a trade union on that very point. May I do that as evidence?

Providing that it is not the point for which I called the hon. and gallant Gentleman to order.

I wish to point out that the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers' "Journal," in February of this year, published the following: Dutch East Indies. It would be interesting to inquire why we do not. I can hazard a guess. It is because in neither of these territories is there a revolutionary Government which got its powers through revolution, to the principles of which hon. Members opposite object. I think that that is the main reason why we hear nothing about forced labour in those areas.

In this campaign there is great confusion of thought between forced labour and convict labour. It is true that the principle is followed in Russia that if a man does not work neither shall he eat. It is also true, though I am not going to say whether I approve of it or not, because it is not germane to this discussion, that penalties and fines are imposed upon peasants in North Russia if they do not carry out certain work which they are requested to do in connection with the selling, floating and running of logs. But to make the assertion that that forced labour is sweated labour is entirely wide of the mark. Even if it is forced labour it is paid labour. It is paid according to certain rates which are not bad rates, and the hours are strictly enforced.

Hon. Members tell us that Russia has a plan to flood the world with cheap goods and bring about industrial and economic chaos outside Russia. Have they ever stopped to think that forced and convict labour is the dearest kind of labour you can have? It is not likely to make it possible for the five-year plan to succeed, or for Russia to be able, even if she wanted to, to flood the world with goods, because anybody who has any knowledge of economic and social problems knows that costs of production are bound to be raised if convicts, persons who are not used to lumber work, are shoved into the camps in the northern forests to undertake work with which they are unfamiliar. [HON. MEMBERS: "No wages are paid."] I am coming to wages.

If the hon. and gallant Member will wait a minute I will give him the facts. I have information from friends of mine, Englishmen, who are periodically going to Russia, and have the evidence, to the effect that there are collective agreements between the trade unions and those working in the lumber camps which provide rates of wages from one and a-half to three roubles a day, according to the category of workers. Before the revolution the rate of pay was 60 kopecs a day, a little over 1s., about 1s. 2d. Before the revolution the hours of labour used to be 10 a day, and now they are eight. Those figures are for non-convict labour. They apply to peasants who come from the villages to work in the northern forests, and in view of the fact that in winter the country is snowed up and no work is possible on the land the peasants are in most cases very glad to earn that money during the winter months. The camps also include professionals, who have been engaged, all their lives in this very intricate and difficult work of lumbering, and they earn far more, five roubles a day. Both these categories of workers have food supplied to them at reasonable prices, medical services, and huts in which to sleep.

A question was raised by an hon. Member opposite as to whether convict labour is employed. I have it on quite definite authority that no convict labour is employed in the export timber industry. Political prisoners, those who are condemned for political offences, as well as prisoners convicted of ordinary offences of a non-political character, are sent up to the camps to work, and they earn money. Their rates of pay are, it is true, at a lower level, but they earn from one to two roubles a day while they are working in the camps, and the hours of labour are the same as for the free labourers. These men are employed in cutting down the smaller kinds of timber, which is not exported, but is used for home consumption. A great deal of it is required both on the railways and in the industrial centres in South and Central Russia.

A good deal has been said at different times to the effect that the Russian Government have been increasing timber exports to such an extent that it must be regarded as dumping in Western Europe. As the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal benches said, the actual facts are that last year and this year Russia has been and will be exporting no more than she exported in the last year prior to the War. During the War Russia was cut off from Western Europe. She was unable to carry on timber exporting, and the bulk of the trade got into the hands of the Swedes and the Finns, who enormously increased their exports, so that they are now greater than they were in 1913 and 1914. Russia, which before the War was sending to Western Europe 900,000 standards of timber, in 1924, when she was just beginning to restart her export trade, sent abroad only 330,000 standards, which is about one-third of her exports before the War. In 1929 she sent abroad 800,000 standards, which is less than in 1914; and this year she will probably send abroad much about the same quantity.

Therefore, there can be no question of Russia doing anything more than trying to get back to her former position in the timber trade of Western Europe. If anybody can be accused of dumping it is the Scandinavians, though I do not say that their timber is not equally welcome on our markets with that of Russia. I have a very strong suspicion that some of the people behind this agitation are those who are trying to keep the price of timber in this country high.

The facts are that the Scandinavian price of timber is now £2 a standard dearer than Russian timber. [An HON. MEMBER: "Low wages!"] Hon. Members opposite do not appear to know the facts. The export trade of Scandinavian countries is in the hands of the banks, and they are trying to keep up the price of timber. They foist timber on to this country at £2 per standard dearer than the Russians simply because the Russians are not in the hands of the banks.

Is the price of Swedish timber higher than it was last year?

I think the price has come down a little. If hon. Members will listen to me, I will quote from the "Timber Trade Journal," an ordinary trade journal which does not take any side in politics. This is what appeared in a leading article in that journal this week:

"The attempt by a number of consumers of soft wood to boycott Russian stocks may bring about an increased demand for the Scandinavian output."

In their previous issue appeared the following passage:

"Scandinavian exporters have, moreover, been kept well informed of the campaign in this country against the use of Russian wood, on the ground that it is produced by slave or forced labour and, although they may very well despair of any British Government taking action to hamper the Russian export, they see the possibility, in certain quarters, of a boycott sufficiently extensive to put a premium on Scandinavian wood."

Is that not a strong indication that they are trying to keep the price of Scandinavian timber at the same price as it was last year, and they are resenting this competition, not for the reasons given by hon. Members opposite, but in order to keep up the price of this class of timber. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone said that it was not fair to Canada to buy this Russian timber, and he referred to the desirability of the timber importing trade buying more Empire-produced timber. I believe it would be a very good thing to develop that trade. I am all in favour of buying as much as we can from our Dominions and Colonies, and I am in favour of buying timber from them as much as any other article, but it is not an easy matter, because the only timber which Canada can send is Oregon pine, which is not used in building specifications in this country. An importer of timber writing not long ago in the "Times" said:

"Not one in 10 building contracts will allow the use of Douglas fir."

However much one may wish to see the development of our timber trade with the Dominions and Colonies, there are many difficulties to be got over. First of all, a lot of this Oregon pine is not properly seasoned or cut into the sizes which are desired quite apart from other defects. Therefore, we are dependent to a very large extent at the present time on the products of the Baltic and North Russia. I am very glad that this Debate has taken place, because it will do much to clear the air, and, when once the facts are really known, it will put an end to much of this very doubtful kind of propaganda that is going on. We believe that there are interests behind this propaganda to keep up the price of the timber which we require to be cheaper for building purposes, and there are dangerous political intrigues going on with the agents of the Russian counter revolutionaries. There is also going on a campaign which to some extent has had an effect in preventing the use of Russian timber in this country. I am informed that two important railway companies have excluded Russian timber from their contracts and are now buying Scandinavian timber at £2 a standard dearer. I wonder what the shareholders in those companies and the wage earners will have to say when they find that the directors are wasting money by spending it in this way. I think that is a matter which ought to receive more consideration. I understand also that an important county council has excluded Russian timber from its housing contracts, and here the Government are interested. After all, it is not only the ratepayers' money but money from the taxes which is used to carry out housing schemes, and we have a right to know that housing schemes are being carried out with a minimum of waste. Surely a policy of that kind comes with very bad grace from those who are always saying that they are anxious to save the ratepayers' money. There are sinister influences behind this campaign, and I think this Debate will do more than anything else to lift the veil.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price) has suggested that behind this campaign there are all sorts of dark and sinister motives. I did not expect that the hon. Member would have made a charge of that kind, because the case which has been placed before the House is a very simple and clear one and certainly none of those motives actuate any one of us who make a claim for investigation. The hon. Member for Whitehaven seems to think that it is an unspeakable crime for railway companies to refuse to buy Russian timber, because they know that the conditions under which it has been produced is a disgrace to any civilised country. If that is the view of hon. Members opposite, it is indeed astonishing. Have they no interest now in hours and conditions of labour? I have previously thought that the raison d'etre of the Labour party has long ceased to exist. Evidently that is so. I hope the country will take careful note of what has been said to-night by the hon. Member for Whitehaven, because it is a flagrant contradiction of the declarations made by the Prime Minister himself some time ago before he was Prime Minister of this country. What was the declaration of the leader of the Socialist party in 1928? He then said: Interruption. ] Or are they? They are not. Then the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration is accepted. He went on to say: Interruption. ] If that is not the case that has been put, we shall be very glad to hear any subsequent explanation. We were asked, what would the shareholders say to this? Although I am not a railway shareholder myself, I feel quite certain that the shareholders would rather use timber produced under reasonable conditions of labour than buy timber a few shillings cheaper which was produced under conditions the existence of which was admitted even by the hon. Member below the Gangway.

I want to try to put what seems to me to be the very simple issue that is before us. There are three aspects. The political one, which is apt to arouse heat and animosity, can be very swiftly dismissed. No one on this side of the House argues that we have a right to interfere with the internal conditions in Russia. That is not our case. I am not here to argue that we have any power or right to say to the Russian Government that they shall or shall not use certain methods in the internal administration of their country. We are not concerned with the internal conditions of Russia, but we are concerned with the conditions under which manufactured or semi-manufactured goods which are exported from Russia, and which we accept in this country, are produced—as to whether we import them or no. That is our affair and not their affair, and it is that with which we are concerned to-night.

10.0 p.m.

We do not pretend that our case has been proved to the hilt to-night. How can it be proved from private sources? What I do suggest, however, is that a very large volume of evidence from diverse sources has been produced, which is fully sufficient to justify the Government doing a little inquiry on their own account, and that is what we have asked them to do. Why must they assume this non possumus attitude which other countries and other Governments have not assumed? Why cannot they do what the United States have been able to do, and make inquiries into these matters?

The evidence which has been produced to-night is not merely ex parte evidence. My right hon. Friend quoted the evidence given before a committee set up by the United States. Why cannot we make use of similar sources of evidence? It would be easy to obtain accurate evidence from the refugee camps which exist on the borders of Russia. Only yesterday I was reading, in a book recently published by a well-known woman traveller, how she visited certain Russian refugee camps in Northern Persia, which are very familiar to anyone who knows that country. Among those who gave her evidence were some men whose relatives had been sent off to North Russia to work in the timber forests. Nobody can tell me that that lady explorer went to the trouble of concocting all these stories, or that those in the refugee camps either did not know what they were talking about or took elaborate trouble to deeive her. Surely there is sufficient evidence available to the Government.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have some suspicion that, in bringing forward these matters, we have some political motive. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are unproved!"] If they are unproved, why cannot we have an inquiry to see whether they can be proved? [ Interruption. ] It is no answer to our case to say that they cannot be proved. I can only tell the House that there is this very large volume of evidence, and we ask our Government to follow the example of other Governments in this matter and to institute an inquiry. There is nothing so very preposterous in a suggestion of that kind, and I suggest that there is fully sufficient material available to the Government if they will take the trouble to look for it. The only inference that one can draw from their attitude is that they do not wish to know any more than they can possibly help about these matters. There are none so blind as those who are determined not to see. We are not shutting our eyes; we are asking that everyone shall open theirs. [An HON. MEMBER: "GO over there!"] We are asked to go over there, but, if hon. Members think that I should be shown everything if I went to North Russia, they are even more simple than I took them to be. It is no use producing journals of the timber trade representing this or that particular interest. We maintain that it is the duty of the Government to make inquiries, and that they should be fully able to do this and to produce results.

I do not think that there is any real conflict as to the main items of evidence. The Government spokesman in the House of Lords did not deny the general charge, and I shall be interested to hear what the Government spokesman here to-night has to say about these conditions. The hon. Member who spoke from below the Gangway admitted the awful character of the conditions. He said that these conditions exist, and that there is very grave suffering, but that that is a very different thing from stopping the flow of goods of this kind from Russia into this country. As I listened to him, I fully understood why the Liberal party meeting lasted for five hours yesterday, and also how it is that every by-election in the country shows a fall in Liberal votes. If there is to be such hair-splitting on this issue, the party has indeed fallen since the days of Gladstone.

May I point out that it is not so long ago that the Conservative party was only induced to pass a vote of confidence in its Leader by a very small majority?

If the hon. Member will compare the figures, he will find that the majority given to our Leader was very much larger than the majority given to his.

I will come back to my charge against the hon. Member's party in a minute. Some 80 years ago, Mr. Gladstone startled the country on the issue of the Bulgarian atrocities, and he then raised the country on allegations which were certainly far less supported than are these present charges, though they were supported by evidence, which no doubt he believed to be accurate, that the Turks had committed atrocities on the Bulgarians. In those days, at least, we were not making any profit out of those atrocities, and that is the particular aspect of the matter with which we are concerned to-night. We are not only making a profit, but we are proving to be one of the chief mainstays of this trade. The Liberal party, which could be very indignant in those days, has so very little spirit left now that it is willing to condone and extend toleration and to split hairs on this very narrow issue, as they see it.

We are aware that the United States have actually closed their market to this timber, and I would ask the representative of the Government who is going to reply if he can give us any figures as to the present percentage of this timber which is being taken by this country. I gather that we are now the largest users of this timber, and in that case we have to bear the heaviest burden of responsibility for the suffering to which the hon. Member for Luton referred just now. I do not think it can possibly be argued that we have no direct concern in this matter. If that be the view of the Government, we have had no pronouncement upon it yet. In times gone by certain hon. Members opposite were Members of the Liberal party. We have heard rumours that the Prime Minister believes himself to be directly in the Gladstonian tradition. If so, I am afraid that the mantle of that Grand Old Man is a good deal too big for him just now; it flaps somewhat vaguely round his figure. He is not likely to fill it if, instead of facing those responsibilities when they confront him, he prefers to say that the people who give the evidence are only doing it out of party spite. It is no good to talk to us about events under the Tsarist regime. We are not here to apologise for them.

Certainly not. An hon. Member who spoke earlier referred to the attitude of the Government of 1908, but the Conservative Government was not the Government of 1908. I would not apologise for the Tsarist regime any more than I would expect hon. Members opposite to apologise for the present Russian regime. It astonished me to hear the speech from the hon. Member who has just sat down. Surely the Government have received enough evidence to show that there is a case for inquiry. We ask for nothing more, and surely it is a reasonable demand. If it is found that our fears are groundless, we shall be the first to admit it; but, if the Government refuse an inquiry, we can only conclude that they are afraid of the consequences or anxious for those who would suffer for the consequences.

I should like to make one or two observations in answer to the hon. Member who has just sat down. I can only contrast his zeal for this inquiry with the attitude which was adopted by members of his party some time ago when it was proposed that there should be an inquiry into the Indian prisons, and I could wish that his attitude in this matter was spread over a very wide field. Russia itself is full of allegations and stories as to the state of affairs in the prisons in India, in convict settlements and of forced labour in Kenya, and in various parts of the Dutch and Belgian colonies and other parts of the world, and I can well understand what would be the attitude of hon. Members opposite if it were suggested that the Russian Government should send a commission to inquire into affairs in India, or, a few years ago, a commission into the affairs of Ireland. But I am not going to pursue the discussion which has been going on. The only evidence of British subjects, both of whom have been in the northern timber districts, entirely contradicts most of the allegations which have been made. I would remind the House that the very remarkable warning which was read by an hon. Member on these benches was issued not by Russian "Red" sources, but by the editor of the anti-Soviet propaganda agency in this country, who, I think, has contributed greatly to the circulation of those stories. I think that warning is a sufficient reminder of the danger of trusting to the sort of evidence on which this House is invited to take very serious and dangerous action.

A good many of the stories about what is going on inside Russia remind me of the story of the Russian peasant woman who had gone from her village to a market town to attend a fair for the first time in her life and who, seeing a camel, after looking at it for a considerable time, said, "See what those dammed Bolsheviks have done to our horses." I have not been in the timber districts of the north, but I was in the timber districts of the south a year and a half ago, and the only complaint made there was that the wages paid were so high that the peasants were being drawn away from all other sorts of occupations. I do not attach too much importance to that, but that is the fact about the other timber districts.

I want to deal with the wider implications of the matter and the suggestions which hon. Members opposite are making. They make no secret of the fact that they are not so much concerned with the conditions in the timber district as they are concerned broadly with the whole Russian experiment. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) suggested the establishment of a cordon sanitaire or a complete blockade of Russian exported products, and the Leader of the Conservative party a few weeks ago talked in extravagant terms of the danger of the five-year plan. This campaign is the latest of a whole, series that have been going on for the last 10 years, and I suppose there will be others after it is finished. It is part of the general campaign carried on, no doubt with the best and most patriotic intentions, to discredit, to hamper, and, if possible, to destroy the experiment that is going on in Russia.

Let us examine what chances the blockade and boycott of Russian exported products would have and what would be its effects. Such a blockade, if success- ful, would have to be complete. It would not be if Russia could sell her products to Germany or Austria or Italy. The only effect would be that Germany and those countries would get a most valuable trade, and this country would be landed in every kind of way. Is there the slightest chance of that? It was tried in 1919, and it broke down and had to be abandoned. It was tried again in 1927. That is the only kind of explanation of the events of that year which I have ever heard. The Germans absolutely and definitely refused to play up, and necessarily so, because they had no alternative. Germany could not possibly exist if Russia were off the map of Europe. Germany economically would go at once into a state of complete chaos and dissolution if her trade with Russia were cut off. That is the position in a good many other countries adjacent to Russia.

There is not the slightest chance, as everyone familiar with international affairs knows, of Germany ever entering into such a league of folly. In the last three weeks, and it is a striking commentary on what we are discussing, the German Government have made an arrangement through the German banks by which £14,000,000 or £18,000,000 are being devoted to the export of German machinery to Russia. Without the participation of Germany and Italy, who herself has made similar arrangements during the last six months, such a scheme would completely break down. If by any means those countries could be bullied or forced into inclusion in such a scheme, does anyone doubt that the immediate result would be an outbreak of European war? Hon. Members opposite say they do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia. If they cut Russia off from contact with the rest of Europe in order to stop the progress of the five-year plan, how long do they suppose Russia or any other country would tolerate that situation? We have heard about the effect of the Indian boycott on Lancashire. Has that boycott made Lancashire more tractable from the point of view of Indian opinion? It has produced exactly the contrary effect, and the effect inside Russia of any attempt to coerce her on the lines suggested by hon. Members opposite would also be exactly opposite.

I was in Russia a very few weeks after the breaking of relations in 1927. Was. Russia brought to see what they thought the error of her ways? It produced precisely a different result. Those who have been in contact with the Russian situation—British, Americans, Germans and others—date the commencement of this overwhelming and widespread fear of war, this militarisation of the whole Russian nation, this dangerous change in their attitude to the rest of Europe, as well as the beginning of the five-year plan and all the rest of it, to that incident in 1927, when this country which Russia regards as the leader of European opinion, took, as she thought, the first step in war. It is a turning point in Russian psychological and Russian history in these post-war years. It is the most disastrous thing that has happened in the relations between Russia and Europe. It was at once followed by an intensification of control, the sense of fear, the sense of war and the putting into operation of those war measures. Things were getting more comfortable, the Russian people were feeling safer, when that incident occurred and changed the whole course of events. If hon. Members opposite desire that Europe should progress in peace, I implore them to adopt in this matter an attitude which, at any rate, admits the point of view of those on the other side of the North Sea.

Hon. Members opposite are going up and down the country saying the five-year plan is an attempt to disorganise the trade of the world and to plunge the rest of us into misery. Never was there a graver or a more disgraceful—it is not disgraceful; I think they do not know-travesty of the truth. The export and import side of the five-year plan is of absolutely no importance compared with the internal operations with which it is concerned. The centre and basis of it is a definite attempt to increase to 100 per cent. the standard of life of the average Russian.

May I quote a statement by a Soviet statesman who has written a book on the five-year plan. He says it is a programme for the further extension and consolidation of the great October revolution. Its great international significance should not be underestimated. It is a great plan of world revolution.

The Russians did not discover that till months after it started and until the Press here had begun to put that interpretation upon it. As a matter of fact, at the end of the five-year plan there will be an increase of exports and imports, not of manufactured goods, not of semi-manufactured goods, but of grain, oil, flax, manganese and goods of that sort. Hon. Members opposite who suggest that the Russians are sending those goods abroad, dumping them, as they say, and trying to sell them at a low price, have not the slightest knowledge of the needs of the country or of its object in regard to export trade. Russia, more than any other country, has suffered from the slump in the market prices of foodstuffs and raw materials, and if any hon. Member can suggest any means to the Russian authorities by which they can get a higher price for any of their export goods, I can assure him that they will welcome him with open arms. On that point, with regard to grain—there is not really time to discuss the point in detail—actually the price the Russians have received for their grain this year is nearly 15 per cent. higher, quality for quality, than that of any competitor. I am not going to pursue that point further.

I should like to emphasise that the policy proposed by hon. Members opposite of blockade and boycott, far from producing the result internally which, apparently, they desire—I am not saying whether conditions are good or bad; I know quite well that they are very bad in regard to conditions of life in many parts of Russia, and a good many other countries, including our own—would produce precisely the opposite result. Conditions of life are bad in Russia at this moment because she is short of capital. She is short of capital because she is putting a third to a half of her total national production back into machinery, tractors, ploughs, electricity stations. She has to do that because at the moment, for reasons into which I cannot enter to-night, she is isolated and cut off from ordinary financial facilities in the rest of the world. To make that situation worse, far from assisting the people of Russia to grapple with the problem, it would make it much more difficult for them. The international effect of the sort of action which they propose would, in my opinion, be disastrous. It would hand over to Continental competitors the chances of developing the Russian market. It is most unlikely that it would succeed in isolating Russia from the rest of the world. If it did succeed, it would force her into closer and more dangerous relations with the Eastern world. If it succeeded in isolating Russia, and in putting round her that cordon sanitaire about which the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone spoke, it would only be at the expense, absolutely and inevitably, of a European war. I do not think that hon. Members desire that.

I know of no country which has been blockaded yet which has not attempted to break that blockade by war, and in the present temper and spirit of the Russian people, confident, proud and convinced of their capacity, either in industrial or military affairs, to carry through the plans of reorganisation which, be it remembered, without any help from this country or the rest of Europe, are now well on their way to fulfilment, I can assure hon. Members opposite that the effect on the Russian people of that sort of action at this moment would be, from the point of view of this country, commercially and politically, and from the point of view of European peace, an unmitigated disaster.

It is undoubtedly a very grave matter to raise a Debate in this House on matters which must necessarily affect to some extent the internal affairs of a great foreign nation. I am confident that there are many hon. Members of this House who have listened to the Debate to-night with an eager anxiety to give full weight to any considerations that could be advanced which would relieve them from the necessity of imposing upon this House and upon the country an issue which appears to them to raise the deepest moral as well as material issues. I fear that in the speeches from the Benches opposite we have heard nothing which relieves us from that necessity.

The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss) dealt with the issue whether the conditions in the prison camps in Russia are as we suggest they are. He told us that he has attended divine worship in Moscow under pleasant conditions. It is not a question of the conditions exhibited in Moscow before the eyes of an English Member of Parliament. It is a question of what takes place in secret in the remote prison camps of Northern Russia. The hon. Member said that there is no evidence that the timber produced under the conditions which we describe is the timber imported into this country. That, again, is not the grave issue. No doubt we are concerned that the timber imported into this country under those conditions affects our standard of living here. But even if it can be proved and, of course, it cannot be proved that none of the timber so produced is imported into this country, we are still not able to acquit ourselves of the moral responsibility of considering the conditions of labour in the camps in the forests of Archangel.

Let me turn to the speech which we all waited with anxiety, that delivered from the Liberal benches; the speech which was to show us how the heart of the Liberal party still beats for those generous causes which inspired the party in the past. That speech was made by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin). It was a speech remarkable indeed for the generous warmth of its anxiety for the cause of humanity, truly remarkable. The hon. Member told us that we have only described conditions which are natural to every lumber camp. He said that hard work in a lumber camp is not peculiar to Russia. It is not. Hard work in a lumber camp is not peculiar to Russia, but that men and women should be starved in lumber camps, that they should be under-clothed and under-fed in lumber camps, that the mortality should be such as horrifies those who hear the evidence, that the conditions should be those of servile labour and not of free labour; these conditions are peculiar to Russia, and it is into those conditions that we demand an inquiry.

The hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) referred to the campaign that the Liberal leader, Mr. Gladstone, waged on behalf of Bulgaria in connection with the Bulgarian atrocities. Passing through the country like a fire, he roused, in the spirit of the Liberalism of those days, the indignation of the country, against the atrocities committed by the Turks. I have no doubt that at that time there was one Liberal Member who said that, on the whole, the Bulgarians rather preferred the atrocities, that such conditions were only normal in the Balkans, that it was impossible for us to inquire into them, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Luton, if he had been alive, would have been that one Member. Then the hon. Member cast doubt upon the evidence produced as being the evidence of a discharged prisoner. That again recalls a curious historical parallel. Is it within the memory of the hon. Member that on another occasion when Mr. Gladstone roused the conscience of this country against atrocities committed in foreign prisons—

On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Member to go back 50 years?

Does the hon. Member remember that on that occasion when Mr. Gladstone awakened the conscience of the Liberal party, of the country, and of Europe as to what was going on in the secret dungeons of Naples that he relied upon the evidence of an escaped prisoner, and that on that occasion as upon this the escaped prisoner was of the flower of his country. We are not dealing in this case with the evidence of criminals in any ordinary sense of the word; we are dealing with the evidence of some of the most distinguished and highly educated people in Russia. I pass to the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Wise) whose speech on any Russian topic we always listen to with the closest attention because they are so particularly well informed. But to-night we have suffered a great disappointment. We were expecting some real enlightenment upon this issue. We felt that the hon. Member for Leicester, East, could tell us how much truth there really is in the charges which are brought of outrages upon civilisation in Northern Russia. But he did not take us into his confidence. The House observed with regret the alacrity with which the hon. Member departed from that subject: he took refuge in something totally irrelevant and unhelpful in this inquiry—his own visit to Southern Russia. What was the rest of his argument? It was indeed a curious argument to listen to from a Member of the House of Commons. It was nothing else but a threat. When we claim that we are entitled to arrange the conditions of our foreign trade in accordance with our own interests and conscience, the hon. Member, throwing himself for the moment into the attitude of the Russian Government, told us that if we ventured to do this we should incur the peril of war with Russia.

If there was any truth in his representation as to the attitude of the Russian Government we should be totally indifferent. We are not yet so liable to such minor apprehensions as not to be able to stand up in this House and say what we think is right for the interests and honour of our own country. But I believe that the hon. Member is totally inaccurate in his representation of the position. We are much greater optimists than he. We think that were we to take such a course against Russian trade as a certain conclusion of the desired inquiry would lead to, it would not end in war with Russia, but in a reform of these intolerable abuses. At any rate, we are not to be diverted from our course by such menacing utterances in this House. The rest of his argument was a defence of the five-year plan. Let me make it as clear as I can that there is no attack upon the economic policy of the five-year plan in any argument that has been advanced from this side of the House to-night. The Russian Government is wholly at liberty to take any course they desire for their own economic reconstruction.

Our case is a simple one, a definite one, and one that will be familiar to everyone who has studied the bases of national liberty. It is this: That timber and wooden manufactures are being imported into this country from Russia. That is not denied. Secondly, that they are being imported at prices which kill competition and which are not compatible with economic production in any part of the world. That is not denied. Then we come to the grave issue which we desire to raise. We suggest that there is prima facie evidence which no candid man can reject that that timber and those wooden products are being produced in Russia under conditions which in the first place are an outrage to the standards generally accepted in any civilised country; and secondly, that quite apart from the miseries, as we suppose, suffered by these people, the status of those engaged upon this trade is not free, that it is servile labour, and that no civilised country is bound to tolerate or in any way to support trade with a country which tolerates servitude. Those are clear and simple issues.

Let me deal very briefly with the arguments which have been put on the other side. In the first place the argument is that it is not true that the conditions are an outrage to civilisation or that they are servile conditions. That, of course, is an issue which we do not desire to try to-night. It is not our business. Our business is to show that there is such a prima facie case that no Government can afford to ignore it. That we have done amply. I should say that what most carries conviction to the mind of a candid man is the extraordinary number of coincident sources of evidence which all go to show that the conditions in the prison camps are atrocious. There is correspondence which comes from Russia. Remember the difficulties of gathering evidence, the iron grip of the Soviet Government upon any leakage of evidence. If it is true that the camps are in this condition, of course you must suppose that the Soviet Government will do everything possible to prevent any evidence of it coming out. But still in correspondence from Russia there is evidence. There is the evidence of travellers in Russia, not conspicuous travellers like the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss). Then there are the inquiries of our own diplomats. These are the sources which can really tell us what is going on.

But undoubtedly the most striking piece of evidence yet produced is the evidence of those who have escaped from the prison camps. It is evidence which I myself had the responsibility, which I had the obvious duty, when it came into my possession, of placing at the disposal of the Government. What better source of evidence could there be than that? How else can you get evidence from inside the prisons? It may be thought these affidavits are concocted. I ask attention to the internal evidence of the affidavits. They breathe truth in every word. [ Interruption. ] If any hon. Member doubts it, he has no literary judgment at all. We know how a concocted story reads from experience. It is full of obvious and familiar common places. Any candid man who will read these documents through will find confirmation of their spontaneous truth in the unexpected detail. Then there is the springing up of confirming information from other sources all over the world—from Canada, the United States, and everywhere. In every Press, you find that people who have got out of Russia provide the confirmation. To-day there cams into my hands, what seems to me to be one of the most striking pieces of confirmatory evidence which one could have. It is the diary of a young English sailor, who sailed from Hull in March to Kem. He took the sort of casual, cheery notes of his journey that one would expect any half-educated sailor lad to take. Any hon. Member who glances at this document will, I think, find it impossible to doubt that it is a genuine first-hand document full of little trivial thoughts and incidents such as any sailor lad would put down. It so happens by chance that among other entries there are a few scattered observations on what he saw in Russia. After talking about taking in the timber he says:

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake. He says that this was in March, but the White Sea is blocked with ice in March.

The hon. Member is quite right: I am obliged for the correction. I see that it was in September. If hon. Members cannot find in that document the sort of accidental and extraordinarily convincing subsidiary evidence which confirms the view that there is here grave cause for an inquiry I think it shows that they have minds closed by prejudice altogether. I turn to the second argument advanced against the case which we are putting forward for an inquiry. It is said, "Supposing it is true that such things are done, yet it is no business of ours to interfere." Certainly that is an argument which deserves to be met, which always has to be met when any question is involved of the economy of a foreign country. But it is an argument which must proceed on one or other of two legs, the material or the moral. The material argument is that we should not interfere, because it is in our interest to make use of this timber; that is the argument advanced by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). It is a very short-sighted argument that we should use this timber because it is so cheap. Admittedly it is cheap. But in the long run, to allow a market to be disorganised, to allow it to be deprived of regular supplies at reasonable economic prices by dumped produce of this sort will do more harm than good. It is a penny wise and pound foolish so to take advantage of Russian dumping. It means that we are sacrificing our permanent trade connections with Finland, Sweden and with Imperial sources of supply, and getting in return nothing whatever but a short advantage which we shall soon lose. We shall then find ourselves with our regular supplies cut off. So much for timber, but when we come to wooden manufactures, which come here partly or wholly manufactured, such as doors and the rest, the case is one which much appeal to hon. Members opposite, because there is a direct attack on the standards of life of our wage earners. I will not add to the quotations which have been made so forcibly from labour pronouncements against sweated goods. We have nothing to gain for our material interests from this trade.

It is said on the moral issue that these conditions are the result of a political system in Russia, that the Russians are entitled to choose their own political system, and that it is part of the comity of nations that other nations should not interfere. It is a principle of absolute validity that no country should interfere with the government of another. But there is a limit to that, and the limit is that that principle of non-interference cannot be pleaded against the ordinary laws of humanity, and that when things are being done in a country which are contrary to the ordinary laws of humanity, you must apply a new standard.

Let me assume that things are being done in Russia which are contrary to the common laws of humanity. Then what new rights come into being? It is quite true that active intervention can never be justified, except under conditions which we need not contemplate to-night. They would not have been accepted by Mr. Gladstone at the time of the Turkish atrocities; a more vigorous doctrine prevailed then; but we recognise that in these things there has been a development of the comity of nations. There are other things which stop far short of active intervention. The first of these is that the country should not be silent if great wrongs are being committed against the ordinary laws of humanity in any foreign country. It should call the attention of the organs of international public opinion to the state of affairs, and should make use of the ordinary diplomatic channels in order to make its weight felt in the public opinion of international affairs. Something more is required—

The hon. Member's speeches would be far more effective if they were delivered when he is in pos- session of the House, and not interspersed in the middle of other people's speeches. Something more is required, and it is that there should be no active assistance given to a foreign government in those courses which are outraging humanity. The truth is that we are giving active assistance to the Russian trade, maintained by these means through the export credits scheme. Our contention is that to-night we have raised such a strong case of presumption against what is going on in Russia, that, until that presumption is removed by the inquiry which we demand, no further Government assistance should be given to Russia in any form of credits.

The other argument which has been used in order to stifle inquiry and put the nation and the Government to sleep on this question is that, even if what we suggest is true, yet there is nothing effective we can do about it. That is a point of view which one would be very reluctant to accept if the state of affairs is really as described. I should very much suspect any contention that one of the great Powers can do nothing to put an end to an outrage against the international standard of humanity. It cannot be so.

There are actions which can be taken in order to enforce the doctrines which we have advanced upon this matter. I have referred already to one that we can take in the way of withholding credits from Russian trade. Then there is the whole question of the admission of the tainted goods to our market. If new legislation were necessary for that course, I should no doubt be unable to argue it to-night, but the truth is that new legislation is probably not necessary. At least we desire to be informed as to whether the opinion of those who are best qualified to give an opinion has been consulted as to whether action cannot be taken against these imports under the Foreign Prison Made Goods Act. The Prime Minister was good enough to put forward the argument of the Government about this in a letter which he sent to me at the time of the communication of the evidence to which I have referred. The argument is that you cannot make use of that Act, in the first place, because you have got to prove prison origin of the actual consignment in question, and, secondly, because it refers only to goods actually made in prison. As to the first, does it not seem obvious that the general evidence affecting the whole trade shows that it is inevitable in the case of any particular consignment that it is produced under these conditions. That should satisfy any reasonable tribunal. Secondly, as to the prison origin of goods, that is a matter for legal interpretation. Why not seek a decision as to whether the Act is wide enough in its terms to cover this case? If then it is found, under a decision of the Courts, that the Act is not wide enough, the question of fresh legislation would arise.

In view of the contention which we have made to-day, it is necessary that we should add, in order to make our position perfectly clear, that if we find ourselves in the position that these allegations as to the conditions of production of Russian timber are proved true, unless indeed they are disproved, and, in the second place, if it is found that the existing legislation is inadequate to enable us to say we will not admit the goods thus produced to our markets, in that case, certainly, there will be many of us to contend that it is essential that we should immediately rectify that omission by fresh legislation, and put ourselves in a position to protect our material interests and to discharge our moral obligations.

That is our appeal to the Government to-night. But is it any good making an appeal to the Government upon such an issue as this? Clearly not. They seem to be sunk into a sort of trance about all the real issues before the country. They seem to be stunned by the misfortunes which their own policy has brought upon the country—or is it the paralysis of premature senile decay? In any case they become impotent. We know it is no good to appeal to them on any material and practical grounds, but we felt we might make an appeal to them on the ground of their ideals for humanity. They are wont to be so high in their professions on that subject. They are wont to lift up their eyes and their hands in an ecstasy of uplift about the interests of humanity. Now we put a case of humanity before them, a case in which they ought to spare no pains to find out whether they may not be encouraging a great wrong. If our appeal to them is vain, if they are still deaf, there remains the appeal to the country, which is not yet deaf upon such issues as this, and which will not yet endure to hear without indignation so grievous a tale of wrong.

Our business to-night is exempted business, not subject to the usual Eleven o'clock rule, but I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to bear with me if I make a comparatively brief reply. Powerful orators have already spoken, and to a large extent they have answered one another. Many of the charges which have been preferred by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been effectively answered by hon. Friends on this side and in the impressive speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin). I will try to summarise the position as the Government see it as plainly and simply as I can. It is one of the odd contradictions of our Debates in this House that we should have devoted one half of the day to a demand from hon. Members opposite for the abolition of one form of economic boycott and the second half of the same day to powerful requests from the same side of the House for an extreme form of embargo. Those two doctrines are not easily reconciled. First of all, we must be clear as to the position of the timber trade with Russia as we find it to-day and as compared with the pre-War period. There is no doubt that timber forms a large percentage, probably round about 30 per cent. of the aggregate Imports into this country from Russia, but when it is all added up, and more particularly if account is taken of the position of adjacent territory in Esthonia, Latvia and other countries, it practically amounts to-day to the quantity of timber which we were taking from Russia in pre-War times.

When hon. Members opposite speak of competition, as the right hon. Gentleman has just spoken in his concluding speech, it is fair to recall that this importation has not been at the expense of the home; produced supplies, which are limited in quantity and are all absorbed, or even the supplies from the Empire, but rather at the expense of the supplies from Norway, Sweden or other Scandinavian territories. That displacement has taken place very largely on the question of price—the lower prices of the Russian supplies in a time of falling prices, and that is a side of the controversy which ought to be clearly borne in mind. The Timber Trade Federation has made it perfectly clear in a recent resolution that they are against any kind of discrimination in the importation of timber into this country, as being disadvantageous to a good deal of quite healthy business practice, and we have also to remember that supplies have been purchased for the year 1931, including a surplus from 1930, by a body called the Central Soft Wood Buying Corporation, whose object, as I understand it, has been, in part at least, to stabilise the market in this trade. They thought that was a desirable thing to try in existing economic conditions, but in any event these people, who presumably understand the business in which they are engaged, and would like to conduct it in their own way, have pronounced quite definitely against discrimination of any kind.

11.0 p.m.

Let me turn to the controversy which has "blown up," if I may use a popular phrase, within recent times in this House All kinds of questions have been rained on my defenceless head every Tuesday, and upon the heads of other Ministers, as regard the so-called convict conditions, or serf labour conditions, in the Russian timber camps. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton made very effective reply in alluding to conditions in these northern latitudes in general, and to the conditions under which a good deal of the lumber trade of the world apart from Russia, is carried on. It is undeniably a hard, difficult and laborious occupation. There is no doubt that the evidence before us shows that there may be a certain amount of prison labour employed, but I am afraid that some of the statements which have been made will not bear investigation because they seem to indicate that people are felling trees right and left day and night. I think we can disregard a good deal of extravagant material of that kind and endeavour to come to this proposition as to other propositions in this House on something like a common sense basis. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) who opened the Debate will allow me to say so, I think he asked with all his characteristic courtesy and kindness in these matters what the Government proposed to do in the matter of inquiry, and I will give him a frank and candid reply. We have already indicated in reply to questions in this House that representations were made, and it was also stated that the Government of the Soviet Union was not prepared to admit that there was a prima facie case or any other case and was not prepared to co-operate or assent to a Government investigation. It would be perfectly impossible for this Government to try to force investigations in these circumstances either through its Ambassador or Trade Commissioners, or in any other way, in the absence of agreement on that point. Moreover, it has been pointed out in reply to questions which suggested that the League of Nations should take action, that that is also impossible, because we are dealing with a country which is a non-member State, and which has not indicated its assent. There is no strict comparison between investigations where the country involved was a member of the League of Nations and one which was in any event prepared to co-operate or agree to an inquiry.

I understand that there is open at the present time, unofficially, the opportunity of various forms of investigation, and that one leading and influential newspaper has in fact sent its representatives to these territories. With all that, the Government, as such, has no concern, but, if these inquiries proceed, the results of them will be open to Members in all parts of the House. Even, however, if we admit the prima facie case, and any case beyond that, and even if we were prepared to become involved in demands for inquiries and all the rest of it, the practical point for the House of Commons to-night is as to what steps hon. Members would recommend even if the preliminary conditions which they suggest were satisfied. When we pass to that consideration, and have regard to the conditions of trade in Europe and in our own country, I believe we have a very clear and emphatic reply. We are precluded to-night from discussing legislation, but I think I shall be able to keep well within the rules of order in offering a very brief reply under three heads—because I am afraid that all these speeches proceed in terms of Scottish theological arrangement.

The first head is that of full embargo in regard to imports and exports prohibition. Hon. Members are familiar with the Convention which exists on that point, and to which we are a party, and surely it must be plain, having regard to the bewildering variety of conditions under which raw materials, half-manufactured articles, and manufactured articles are produced at the present time, that nothing is to be gained, as I hope to show a little later, by any device calculated to exclude these goods from other markets, or to restrict trade, or to force people back upon political and even economic reprisals. I do not for a moment, speaking for the Government, entertain any such suggestion.

Various hon. Members have asked, in the second place, what is our position under the existing modus vivendi of the temporary commercial treaty with Russia, and here we approach the practical considerations in connection with this matter. It is no use hon. Members making an onslaught on the treaty unless they are prepared to stand up to the consequences of action of this kind, and what are the consequences? Under that temporary trade agreement, which we hope will be the basis of a larger and wider instrument in due course, it is quite impossible for this country to discriminate against any class of Russian goods. The preliminary Clauses of that treaty make it perfectly clear that we will only take any step for the complete or partial exclusion of Russian timber if we apply that to the timber of all other countries in the world, unless, of course, on the basis of six months' notice, we were prepared to denounce that temporary commercial agreement. Is any hon. Member prepared to suggest that course, and should we add to the aggregate trade of Europe by such a step? Is it not correct to say that the chances are that that would naturally excite feelings of animosity, and weaken the already difficult position in which we European countries find ourselves at the present time?

Then, on the third head, the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken revived the question which has already been put very frequently at Question Time in this House, as to the position of the Govern- ment under the Foreign Prison Made Goods Act, 1897. I hope to be able very shortly to describe the legal position, if I may for a moment, as it has been put by those who are competent to advise. The position is that, going back to 1897, and recalling the experiences which at that time fell, as they fall now, to the President of the Board of Trade, I find that Mr. Ritchie based his case very largely on the exclusion of the goods which were manufactured within prison walls, and which at that time were being imported. There is no doubt that the terms of that legislation indicated as a prison, some enclosed settlement or penitentiary; they did not contemplate the wide area of a timber camp or anything of that kind, and, even if they did, hon. Members will observe that it would be necessary, for the purposes of satisfying the conditions of this Act, that specific quantities or consignments would have to be identified and evidence would have to be tendered to the Customs authorities, because this is really a Treasury matter. On this point many questions have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has said in reply to any section of importers in this country, "If you will produce evidence, that evidence will be carefully considered as to whether it does satisfy the position under this Act and whether action should be taken." But from that day to this no evidence of any kind has been tendered. We have remained in this atmosphere of wild and general controversy, affidavits and criticism of the Soviet Union regime, of an attack on a vast experiment, conducted to some extent in this House, and from outside in the daily Press.

That is really the position, both as regards this inquiry and as regards the three heads of possible action. But I do not want to conclude on that. Surely there are before us to-night wider and more important considerations. Hon. Members say, "Does not this appeal to you as a Labour Government largely connected with the trade unions? Is not this depressed labour, and should not you take steps to deal with it?" I think they have misconceived our attitude on that point. We have always maintained that it is our duty to try to do everything in our power to raise the standard of labour conditions in all parts of the world, and that, in order to carry out that doctrine, we have had to rely, and we must rely, on steady progress in international labour regulations. No doubt that will be very difficult to attain, but nothing is to be achieved by excluding goods, which would mean restricting the trade of this country, aggravating its economic difficulties, and forcing down its labour conditions. Surely that would be the effect of such a policy. I do not think there is a remedy along those lines. But do hon. Members opposite appreciate the kind of campaign which they have been pursuing within recent months? They will not criticise me, I hope, for being unduly hard upon them. I have been strongly criticised for going too far in the opposite direction. But hon. Members opposite do not confine their attack to this timber. Every Tuesday I am bombarded with questions on two subjects—and I long always for Tuesday afternoons—first of all on tariffs and in the second place on all classes of imports from Russia. It does not matter what it is—they press for details of it. Cannot you exclude it? Will the Government never introduce legislation to keep out this, that and the other class of goods? Although, to be just to hon. Members opposite, they have selected a phase of the problem to-night, there are speakers on the other side who have travelled beyond the confines of these camps into the whole of the Russian experiment and the whole position of Russian trade. That was never better illustrated than in the question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. He said, "We ask you to keep out these goods and, until a remedy is found, to withdraw all the support that you are giving to European trade." What is the practical application of that? It must refer to the inclusion of Russia within the Export Credit scheme of August, 1929. It is true, if I remember the figures aright, that we are importing between £25,000,000 and £30,000,000 worth of goods from Russia each year, but we have increased exports to Russia within recent times. In any case, during that period about £6,000,000 of goods in export have been covered, the great bulk of which would not have gone from this country but for the existence of these credit facilities. Who pressed me for those credit facilities? Admittedly some of my colleagues in the heavy industry districts and in other trades whose constituents are affected, but scarcely a week passes in which I do not receive appeals for a wide extension of these credit facilities. I draw a clear distinction between politicians in the House of Commons and business men outside. These people want to do some trade and it is not practical politics on an issue of this kind on which, to say the least of it, there is a great deal of controversy and considerable doubt, to close down the plan and wipe out many millions of trade.

We have made it perfectly clear that we are not necessarily supporters of everything that is being done in Russia at present. They are engaged in a vast and very remarkable economic experiment, and what we have always said is that they are entitled in their own way to pursue that experiment without outside interference. I believe for the sake of Europe, for the reconstruction of the industry of the world, in which Europe has a profound interest, we should do all the trade we can and get rid as far as possible of artificial barriers, and we believe that having that form of co-operation there will be a steady improvement in labour conditions. It is a matter of controversy at present how long this experiment will last. I believe it is essential to this phase of the situation, or to the approach to the situation of the five-year plan. An hon. Member opposite certainly said that in his judgment that plan would not fail but would succeed. But in any case there is an all-developing argument for order in Europe whatever form it takes, and that is an unanswerable case. That is our reply. Some hon. Members opposite seemed to suggest that we should be in grave difficulty in this Debate. I do not think that that question arises. I say, let the experiment continue. Let us give all the co-operation we can. Let us remember that until that vast territory with between 140,000,000 and 160,000,000 people, comes back effectively into European economic enterprise, there can be no sound basis for European peace, and no real hope for the economic prosperity of millions of European people.

I am not going to prolong this Debate, but there is one thing which ought to be said from this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has given a reply which we regard as a deplorable evasion of the issue. He has admitted, or more or less admitted, that it is difficult to know what is happening in Russia, and that there might be undesirable features in the experiment of the five-year plan, particularly in regard to the timber trade, but, he says, let this experiment nevertheless continue. I can leave hon. Members to imagine for themselves what that implies. Above all, the burden of his speech was that there may be abuses and evils, but we can do nothing, because we have involved ourselves in an agreement with the Soviet Government under which the Soviet Government impose an embargo and only allow such British imports into Russia as they may in their discretion and sovereign pleasure decide to admit. We, on the other hand, under that agreement, have tied our hands and withdrawn from ourselves all power to impose any restriction upon any export from Russia, no matter what it may be.

We have, therefore, rendered it absolutely impossible for us to conduct any bargaining with the Soviet Government on the basis upon which the Soviet Government themselves conduct their own trade bargaining. Could any position be more humiliating than to admit that we absolutely refuse and are afraid to meet the Soviet Government upon their own basis and bargain with them upon their own principles? In these circumstances, with this evasion, and the refusal of the Government to exercise even moral influence, to make even a moral protest against conditions which they admit might exist although they are not quite certain of it—in view of their refusal even to consider the very strong prima facie case, making all deduction on points which have been impugned in this Debate, we regard the position to be so serious that we shall certainly ask the House to return to this subject and to consider it in far more detail and in a far more responsible spirit than has been exhibited by hon. Members opposite to-night.

We now know that if the Tory Government were in power there would be war with Russia, and on the flimsiest evidence. For years we have been told there has been a serial of atrocities in Russia, and they have all proved to be untrue. The ex-Empress Marie was murdered many times. She was murdered one week and the next week; in fact she was murdered so often that she had to leave the country. The only way the old lady could save her life was to flee the country. Eventually, she died in Copenhagen. Kropatkin was murdered many times. Then there was the propaganda about the nationalisation of women, propaganda about the churches, about petrol, about trade, and now we have the propaganda concerning slave labour. It has been going on for years. The present leader of the Conservative party—we do not know how long he will lead the party—has complained that the worst thing that came out of the War was propaganda. The propaganda about Russia is not even respectable propaganda. It is a continuation of the kind of stuff that was circulated during the War, that the Germans were cutting the hands off Belgian babies, and the breasts off Belgian women, and boiling down corpses. The last lies are the silliest lies.

I know what a cold climate is. We are told that there are people working in the Arctic circle in the winter time, when there is a temperature of 13, 14 or 15 degrees below zero; so cold that even much further south Miss Amy Johnson could not stand it, and came home. It is said that the people are working there without proper clothes. In a temperature like that a person who was not warmly clad would be a corpse in a few hours. The people who circulate these stories are not even artistic liars. They tell us that the conditions under which these poor people live are so shocking up there in the Arctic circle that the ground never thaws all the year round. Anyone knows, or ought to know, that, if the frozen ground never thaws out, even moss will not grow, let alone trees. You must have heat and summer time and sunlight in order that trees may grow. The name of Dr. Ferguson has been mentioned during this Debate. He is my brother-in-law, and I am going to encourage him to write more letters of the same kind.

We are told that these people have to work in a temperature 60 degrees below zero, ill-clad, that they have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning, four hours before the sun comes out, and go into the dark forest and then work until 8 o'clock at night, four hours after the sun has gone down, and that they have to cut down 35 trees per day. Anyone who knows anything about cutting down timber trees will know that to cut down 35 trees per day is a task which has not been done since Hercules cleaned up the palace stables. Anyone who can cut down 35 trees a day, after having scraped the snow away, must be a marvellous individual; and, if the Russians are able to do this, then their five-year plan should succeed. Thirty-five trees cover an acre of ground, and there are 600,000 of these unfortunate prisoners cutting down these trees, which means that they are cutting down 1,000 square miles of timber units per day—the most marvellous performance in the history of timber cutting in this or any other world. The propaganda at the moment is a propaganda of lies too silly for words.

I am giving the House certain figures, and I am trying to say that the conditions in Russia to-day are enormously better than they were under the Tsarist Government, which hon. Members opposite supported. They said nothing about the slavery conditions which then existed. What about Abyssinia, where there are 2,000,000 slaves? We sent a member of the Royal Family to Abyssinia when the Emperor was being ushered into his Holy of Holies. There was no protest from hon. Members opposite that a member of the Royal Family should go to the country which is the main source of the slave traffic. I know what is what. Things are happening all right in Russia. The Russians took over chaos and famine. There was nothing so horrible or terrible or devilish as the cordon sanitaire. Kiddies were dying like flies, there were no anaesthetics for soldiers, and this country provided £100,000,000 of money to subsidise Denikin and Koltchak. There were pograms that lasted weeks and months. Jews were flogged to death and kiddies of 10 and 11 were outraged again and again. We have had our cordon sanitaire and the war that cost £100,000,000—an illegal war that was carried on behind the backs of Parliament, and a war which, when I think of it, makes me wonder why some person was not impeached and why the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was not hanged.

At any rate, we have interfered with Russia. We had the Arcos raid, and we now know that if the party opposite get into power again it means the breaking off of trade relations with Russia, and perhaps another war. If there is to be war, I hope that the common people will understand and will invite the party opposite to get there first and do their own fighting. Then, perhaps, we shall not have any more war. It is a dangerous game that the party opposite are playing. The Great War broke out in 1914, but the business against Germany started in 1904. We can start the business now that will end in another war. The party opposite are stirring up the fires of hatred and are using the same kind of lies that encouraged our boys to hate the Germans, during the last War—lies, lies, lies about the Germans! Before that the agitation was against the Boers and the French. The party opposite have boxed the compass in their likes and dislikes.

I do not even hate you; I just despise you. There are one million of our boys dead across the Channel, and it was to be the last war. This is the kind of spirit that will lead to another war. I hope that the people of this country will understand what a dangerous thing it will be to allow the gang opposite to come back to power.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

Road Traffic Act, 1930

Resolved,

"That the Highway Code prepared by the Minister of Transport under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which was presented on the 19th day of March, be approved."—[ Mr. Herbert Morrison. ]

Probation of Offenders (Scotland) [Money]

Resolution reported,

"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to probation of offenders in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, towards the expenditure of local authorities under the said Act (including expenditure by way of contribution towards the expenses of maintaining persons who have been released on probation under a condition as to residence and towards any travelling expenses incurred in respect of any such persons) of such sums as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct and subject to such conditions as he may, with the like approval, determine."

Resolution agreed to.

Electricity (Supply) Acts

Resolved,

"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Saint Thomas, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 24th day of February, 1931, be approved."—[ Mt. Parkinson. ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'Clock.