Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 250: debated on Thursday 26 March 1931

House of Commons

Thursday, March 26, 1931

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

Private Business

Private Bill Petitions [ Lords ] (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) [ Lords ].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Exchequer Grants (Scotland)

Return ordered,

"of Exchequer grants estimated to be payable to local authorities in Scotland in respect of the local financial year 1930–31, showing, separately, grants payable in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and other grants."—[ Mr. Duncan Millar. ]

New Writ

For the Borough of Woolwich (East Division), in the room of Henry Snell, esquire, C.B.E. (Manor of Northstead).—[ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

Oral Answers to Questions

Unemployment

Training Centres

asked the Minister of Labour how many places are at present provided in the training centres for unemployed women and girls; and how many trainees were actually in residence on any convenient date in February?

The number of places provided in training centres for unemployed women and girls—including residential and non-residential home training centres and centres for older women—which were in operation during the week ended 28th February, 1931, was 1,684. The number of women in attendance during that week was 1,516 including 95 in residence at residential centres.

Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with the progress she is making in this respect?

Is the right hon. Lady thinking of opening fresh training centres?

asked the Minister of Labour how many vacant places there are in the Department's training centres?

In the week ending 21st March the total number of training places provided was 7,233 and the number in training was 6,741. This difference of 492 is mainly due to the opening of new centres which are not yet fully operative and to the normal outflow of trainees which necessarily results in a proportion of temporary vacancies.

Can the right hon. Lady tell us what proportion of trainees who have passed through the centres are now in employment? Has she any record?

Stone Kerb-Dressers (Training)

asked the Minister of Labour whether any agreement has been reached between her Department and the representatives of the quarrying industry with regard to the scheme for training stone kerb-dressers; and, if not, on what date was the last communication between her Department and these representatives?

Proposals intended to secure increased production of granite kerb have now been submitted to myself and to the other departments concerned, in consultation with whom the matter will be considered.

Can the right hon. Lady say when she expects to be able to put those proposals into force, because there has been a shortage of labour in this important industry, I understand, for many months?

The matter will have to be considered before a decision is arrived at.

Relief Schemes (Rate Burden)

asked the Minister of Labour whether she can give the amount, or an estimate of the annual cost to the rates, entailed in respect of relief schemes approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee?

Has the Minister consulted the Minister of Health on this matter, because my question was originally addressed to him. Is no estimate possible?

The difficulty rests in the fact that a very large number of schemes are revenue-producing schemes, and it is not possible to say how far the rates are affected by the unemployment grants schemes.

Unemployment Grants Committee

asked the Minister of Labour how many times a month the Unemployment Grants Committee meets; and how many work schemes are before this committee awaiting adjudication?

The Unemployment Grants Committee generally meets once a week, but more frequently as occasion demands. On 24th March schemes under consideration by the committee numbered 1,021, estimated to cost £15,289,000.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no avoidable delay in adjudicating upon these schemes?

Royal Commission

asked the Minister of Labour if she has yet received any intimation when an interim report from the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance will be presented?

asked the Minister of Labour what is the earliest date by which a report from the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance may be expected?

I have nothing to add at present to what I said in the Debate on 16th February last.

Is it proposed to communicate with the Commission soon to ascertain when the report will be ready?

Am I to understand that the Trade Union Congress are prepared to give evidence?

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are directly employed on State-aided unemployment relief works in England, Scotland and Wales; and what proportion of the total number of persons registered as wholly unemployed this represents?

Of the total number of about 200,000 men estimated to be employed on State-aided schemes in December last, the number directly employed on the site of the works was 93,000. These figures were equal, respectively, to about 16 per cent. and 7½ per cent. of the number of men registered as wholly unemployed.

Can the right hon. Lady say if there is any prospect of this proportion being materially increased by any immediate or practical steps which the Government have in mind?

Yes. I think that the schemes are tending towards the peak when more people will be in employment.

Transitional Benefit

asked the Minister of Labour what is the basis of the estimate of £30,000,000 for transitional benefit and cost of administration during 1931–32; and what is the estimated number of unemployed for which the provision of £47,429,700 is made for the coming year?

The sum of £45,429,700 is largely accounted for by two items. First, £15,108,000 in respect of the ordinary contribution to the Unemployment Fund, equal to half the contribution of employers and employed. Second, the sum of £30,000,000 for transitional benefit; the charge in this respect is more dependent on the average level of unemployment in the past two years than on the level during the year, and the estimate is necessarily of a speculative character. Under existing legislation the transitional benefit begins to expire in October, 1931. In view of this the estimate makes provision for payment of transitional benefit to an average of about 550,000 persons in the first half of the year and of about 475,000 in the second half.

Does this estimate include the whole of the cost of Unemployment Insurance for the year 1931–32, including the borrowing?

Can the right hon. Lady state the number of unemployed in respect of which this total of £30,000,000 is estimated?

asked the Minister of Labour what is the amount estimated to be required for transitional benefit in the half-year ending 30th September?

Work Schemes (Durham and Weardale)

asked the Minister of Labour the total cost of work schemes undertaken by the local authori- ties in the administrative county of Durham which have received Government assistance since August, 1929, up to date, and the number of persons who have been employed?

The estimated total cost of schemes submitted by local authorities in the administrative county of Durham which were approved between 1st June, 1929, and the end of February, 1931, was £2,433,876. The returns relating to the employment provided on State-assisted schemes give the numbers employed on one day in each month. On 30th January, 1931, the number of men directly employed on the site of schemes then in operation was 4,094, representing about 8,000 directly or indirectly employed.

asked the Minister of Labour the result of the inquiry into the application of the Weardale Rural District Council for grants towards extension of their rural water supply?

The Weardale Rural District Council made application to the Unemployment Grants Committee for assistance from Exchequer funds towards the cost of six schemes of work for the relief of unemployment involving the construction of rural water supply. Four of the schemes have been approved for grant, but two have been found not to comply with the conditions.

Walsall

asked the Minister of Labour if she will state the number of clerical workers registered as unemployed at Walsall Employment Exchange; and the number, if any, who have been engaged through the said Exchange for work in connection with the forthcoming census?

The number of male workers registered at the Walsall Employment Exchange in the appropriate clerical classifications is 74. A number of those who are now so registered or were so registered a short time ago, have been engaged for work in connection with the forthcoming census, though not through the Exchange. I understand that the local registrars are at present in communication with the Exchange, with a view to consideration, of further candidates.

asked the Minister of Labour when the new Employment Exchange at Walsall is to be opened?

Questions

Wages (Piece Rates)

asked the Minister of Labour if she is prepared to introduce legislation providing that no changes shall be made in the fixing of piece rates in industry without prior consultation with the employés' representatives?

Is not the right hon. Lady aware that a great deal of harm is being done in that industry through employers failing to take action of the kind described in the question? May I have a reply?

Russia

Labour Conditions

asked the Minister of Labour if she will make inquiries as to whether the continuous working week is still in force in Russia; and what is the latest estimated percentage of industrial workers with a continuous working week?

From official statements it appears that by the end of the year 1930, about 70 per cent. of Russian industrial workers had been brought under the system of what is described as the "uninterrupted working week" of five days, i.e., the workpeople work four days and rest one day, while the undertaking operates on each of the five days.

Does that represent the estimated percentage of the number of workers, because it is a very great increase on the last published figures of the International Labour Office?

Those are the industrial workers, and I assume that it does not include agriculture workers.

It includes the two groups of industrial workers into which the Russian figures are generally divided?

Questions

International Labour Office (British Representative)

asked the Minister of Labour why His Majesty's Government were represented at the last meeting of the governing body of the International Labour Office by an official of the rank of principal officer; and whether, in view of the importance of the work of the International Labour Office to the workers of this country, she will give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government will be represented at all future meetings by a Minister of the Crown?

It is the policy of the Government that a Minister should attend meetings of the governing body whenever possible. On the occasion referred to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour was nominated as the principal representative of this country, but was unavoidably prevented from attending.

Metropolitan Police Force

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to announce any redistribution of the police force in the Metropolitan area?

No, Sir, I cannot at present add anything to my answer given on 26th February last.

Does that include the probable increase of numbers, as well as the redistribution?

Oh, yes. I may add that, while the question is under review, it is undesirable to state what is the complete scheme until after the Chief Commissioner returns next month.

Then the statement in this morning's papers about an increase of 500 is quite incorrect?

Coal Industry

Workmen's Compensation Cases, Lancashire

asked the Home Secretary the number of cases referred to the medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the mining industry in Lancashire for 1929 and 1930; and will he give the percentage for and against the workmen?

The total number of cases referred to the medical referees from the county courts in Lancashire was in 1929, 299, and in 1930, 503. I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the latter part of the question, except as regards cases of industrial disease where the employer or workman appealed from the decision of the certifying surgeon under Section 43 (1) ( f ) of the Act. These cases form only a very small proportion of the total. There were 30 such cases in 1929, 12 of which were decided in favour of the workman, and 19 in 1930, in six of which the workman succeeded.

Minimum Wage Act

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent recommendations of the Miners' Federation, he proposes to introduce legislation amending the Miners' Minimum Wage Act?

I am not at present prepared to make any statement.

Somerset Coalfield

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of shifts worked, and tonnage raised, in the Somerset coalfield during the period of the working of the quota system of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and the days worked, and tonnage raised, for the corresponding period of 1928 and 1929?

During the 11 weeks ended 14th March, 1931, 194,200 tons of coal were raised in the Somerset coalfield, and the number of days on which coal was raised was 65½. The corresponding figures for the same period of 1929 were 205,200 tons and 64¼ days, and for 1928, 169,200 tons and 48¾ days. Particulars of the shifts worked, which are supplied only for quarterly periods in this district, are not yet available for 1931.

Supplies

asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the Grimsby agent for the Bentley Colliery, South Yorkshire, has given notice to trawler owners in Grimsby having contracts with that colliery that, as this pit is closing down for the next fortnight, no coal can be supplied during that period; and will he intimate where coal of a comparable quality can be procured, so as to enable these trawlers to continue to operate and prevent unemployment?

I understand that this colliery up to the present has not only fulfilled its contracts with the trawler owners but has supplied coal in excess of its contracts; also that it is closing down from to-night until the 8th April. I am informed that coal of a comparable quality from other coalfields is on offer in Grimsby.

Can the Minister tell us at what price, and whether the freight is the same as from this particular colliery? Is he aware that coal has been offered on which the freight is as high as 16s. a ton?

I am not aware of freight as high as 16s. a ton, and, if the hon. Member will give me instances of that kind, I will have them examined. As regards the price at which coal is on offer, I understand that it is a reasonable, one.

Will the workmen at this colliery be eligible for unemployment benefit owing to this operation of the quota system?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that certain steamers, usually obtaining bunker coal in Yorkshire ports, have been compelled within recent time to bunker abroad owing to shortage of supply; whether he will give any details in his possession with regard to these cases; and whether he will inquire into the causes of the shortage?

Prices

asked the Secretary for Mines the average price of coal in Great Britain for the first three months of 1930, and the average price in 1931 up to date?

The average proceeds per ton of coal disposable commercially in the first quarter of 1930 were 14s. 5½d. Similar figures for 1931 are not yet available.

My hon. Friend must have some figures in his possession. Is it his view that the price will be higher or lower in the first quarter of 1931?

Without giving specific figures, I understand that the average price for the first quarter will be somewhat lower than for the corresponding period of last year.

Was not the Coal Mines Act introduced to raise the price of coal?

The bare figures I have given rather suggest that all the predictions about dear coal have been falsified.

Questions

Sunday Entertainments

asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the result of the representations made to him by the various organisations representing theatres and other places of entertain- ment with regard to Sunday opening of places of entertainment?

As a result of the representations which they have received and in view of the evidence of a public demand for a review of the problem of Sunday entertainment, the Government have decided to introduce a Bill, for the purpose, not of advocating a particular policy, but of affording to Parliament an opportunity of discussing the situation which has arisen from the recent decisions of the courts and of endeavouring to find a solution which will approximate most closely to the wishes of the nation as a whole. In the Government's view, the most satisfactory starting point for a free Parliamentary discussion is the position as it existed before the recent decisions in the courts. The Bill will accordingly provide machinery for regularising the existing practice under which certain classes of entertainment have been given on Sunday, and it will be left to the local authorities to decide whether Sunday opening for these purposes is expedient in their area and in accordance with a substantial local demand. Local authorities will be empowered to grant permission for Sunday opening subject to such conditions as they think fit, and provision will be made in the Bill for the continuance of the existing practice under which the Sunday opening of cinemas has been subject to the conditions that the profits shall be given to approved charities and that no employee shall work seven days a week. The Bill thus deals only with existing practice and it will be for Parliament in its wisdom to determine whether the existing law, as declared by the Courts, shall remain unaltered, whether the existing practice should be legalised or whether that practice should be modified or extended.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the Bill will be introduced, and may I ask whether it will be left to a free vote of the House?

Yes. The intention is to leave it free to hon. Members to vote as they desire. In regard to the earlier part of the supplementary question, I can only say that the Bill will be introduced as early as can be arranged after Easter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the local authorities to whom he refers will be the same authorities as those that have hitherto given these orders?

In the Bill the local authorities will be described as the county councils and the county borough councils.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the vote will be fully free; whether it will be as free as the vote in connection with the Deposited Prayer Book?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will be so drafted as to allow for amendment in regard to theatres as well as cinemas?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that some of the proceeds go to charity wipes out the crime so far as Sabbath opening is concerned?

It is too early to enter into a Debate on that point, but an opportunity will be given.

Road Accidents (Taximeter Cabs)

asked the Home Secretary how many persons were killed in the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 in the United Kingdom from accidents in which taximeter cabs were involved?

The number of persons killed in Great Britain as the result of accidents attributable to mechanically-propelled cabs licensed to ply for hire (whether fitted with taximeter or not) was in 1929, 86, and in 1930, 78. I regret that figures are not available for 1928, and I am not able to say whether any, and if so how many, fatal accidents attributable to other vehicles may have resulted in the death of a person riding or driving in a cab.

Drunkenness (Convictions)

asked the Home Secretary what were the convictions per 10,000 for drunkenness during 1930 in the following towns: Bristol, Stoke-upon-Trent, Sheffield and Carlisle?

I fear I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to wait for the licensing statistics for 1930 which are now in preparation. As regards Carlisle, I will give the information available in reply to the next question by the hon. and gallant Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituency is the soberest in the whole country?

asked the Home Secretary how many convictions for drunkenness there were in Carlisle in the years 1928, 1929 and 1930?

The figures are shown in the annual volumes of licensing statistics and for 1928 and 1929 were 60 and 54. The volume for 1930 is not yet complete but the figures may be given provisionally for Carlisle as 84.

Are not these figures extraordinarily high? Does it not show the disadvantage of the Government having anything to do with the sale of liquor?

That would be a matter of opinion, and I have no experience on which to found one.

Night Baking

asked the Home Secretary whether he can state if, and when, it is proposed to proceed with legislation to abolish night baking?

As previously announced, it is the intention of the Government to deal with this matter in the Factories Bill.

Is it not a fact that there is a variety of opinion in the bakery trade as to the advisability of this suggestion?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Factories Bill will be introduced?

Industrial Diseases (Silicosis)

asked the Home Secretary if a man who last worked in May, 1930, and was certified as suffering from silicosis in September, 1930, and is now totally disabled, is now entitled under regulations to receive compensation?

I gather that my hon. Friend is inviting my opinion as to whether the Order made in December last to amend the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme, 1928, applies in the case of a miner who had ceased to be employed in the industry before the Order took effect. This raises a question of legal interpretation which I have no authority to decide, and I do not think that it would be desirable that I should express any opinion on the point.

Education

Non-Provided Schools

asked the President of the Board of Education whether negotiations are still proceeding with a view to the settlement of the question of special grants to non-provided schools; and whether he has any statement to make on this matter?

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member a fortnight ago.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman can say whether these negotiations are still proceeding, in view of the fact that he stated in the House that he was going to reintroduce the Education Bill and try to pass it under the Parliament Act?

I am personally exploring the subject, but I am not actually dealing with any official body at the present time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that the Bill will be introduced?

Bethnal Green Museum

asked the President of the Board of Education the number of persons who visited the Bethnal Green Museum during the years 1925 and 1930, respectively?

The number of visitors to the Bethnal Green Museum in 1925 was 385,700, and in 1930 was 371,800.

asked the President of the Board of Education what are the specific purposes for which the contents of the Bethnal Green Museum are exhibited?

The purpose of the Bethnal Green Museum has never been precisely defined; but its function is, broadly, the exhibition of objects of artistic merit in a manner likely to be attractive and valuable to the people living in the neighbourhood. The museum is in particular organised so as to display objects associated with the history of the locality or illustrating local industries, such as furniture-making and silk-weaving.

Medical and Dental Treatment, Durham

asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children attending the elementary schools in the county of Durham who require medical or dental treatment, and how the figure compares with the average for England and Wales?

Of the children who were examined in the course of routine medical inspections last year in the administrative county of Durham, 8,618, or 23.2 per cent., were found to require treatment. The corresponding percentage for England and Wales was 20.8. No information is available as to the total number of children in the county requiring dental treatment; but out of 20,462 children inspected by the school dentists in 1930, 14,218 or 69.5 per cent., were found to require treatment, the percentage for England and Wales being 68.8.

Building Grants

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has given the further con- sideration which he promised as to the continuance of the increased building grants which were introduced in September, 1929?

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that it is intended to continue the special rate of grant to the end of the period originally contemplated, i.e., 31st August, 1932.

Public Health

Maternity and Child Welfare

asked the Minister of Health the estimated total grant payable by his Department during the present financial year towards maternity and child-welfare services, giving the comparable figures for 1928?

I would remind my hon. Friend that under the Local Government Act, 1929, separate grants for maternity and child-welfare services, other than the training of midwives and health visitors, ceased to be payable in respect of any year after the financial year 1929–30. The amount of the discontinued grant paid for these services during the year 1928–29 was £1,047,890, and this amount was included in determining the loss on account of grants under the Act.

May I ask whether the hon. Lady has now decided that it is possible to do away with all the poverty and lack of milk within a period of three weeks as she promised before the last Parliament dissolved?

Mill Road Mental Hospital, Liverpool

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a boy of 13, sent from a Bootle clinic to a Liverpool public hospital, was transferred to the Mill Road mental hospital where, together with another boy, he was kept for several days in the male ward with the adult cases until forcibly taken away by his father; whether the inclusion of uncertified boys with certified adults is within the regulations; and whether it is pro- posed to continue the reception of mental cases to Mill Road in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the building?

My right hon. Friend is making inquiry into this case, of which he has at present no information, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend understands that it is proposed to remove the mental patients from Mill Road Hospital as soon as alternative accommodation is available, and it is anticipated that this will take place at an early date.

With regard to the middle part of the answer, is not the inclusion of a boy of 13 uncertified in the same ward as certified males against the regulations?

I have said that my right hon. Friend will inquire into the matter as soon as possible and communicate with the hon. Member.

Housing

London County Council Schemes (Timber)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that an order has been issued by the housing committee of the London County Council prohibiting the use of Russian timber on their housing schemes, and that in consequence of this Scandinavian timber is being used on these schemes at from £1 to £2 a standard dearer than Russian; and whether, in view of the expenditure of public money through grants on these schemes, he will make representations to secure the use of the cheaper timber?

My right hon. Friend is not aware that any such order has been made. It is the practice of this council to give preference so far as is practicable to materials produced in the British Empire.

Will the hon. Lady say whether the Government approve of this practice in principle?

Rent Restrictions Act

asked the Minister of Health when the departmental committee on the Rent Restrictions Act is expected to make its report?

My right hon. Friend understands that this inquiry is making good progress, but he is unable at present to give any precise indication of the date when the report may be expected.

In view of the fact that a large number of people are not now affected by the Rent Restrictions Act and are being subjected to considerable exploitation, will the Minister of Health consider expediting the publication of this report?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the committee is pushing on with the matter. It has already held 27 sittings, heard a large number of witnesses, and considered a mass of printed matter. The matter is going forward with, I think I may say, satisfactory progress.

Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that rent is a big factor in view of wage reductions?

Decontrolled Houses

asked the Minister of Health what number of houses have become decontrolled under the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts to the latest possible date?

I have been asked to reply. The only information available is that obtained in connection with the compilation of the cost of living index figure. This information does not enable me to state the total number of houses which have become decontrolled, but it is estimated that approximately one-eighth of working-class tenancies formerly controlled are now decontrolled.

Stanhope and Weardale

asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of houses built in the areas covered by the Stanhope Urban District Council and the Weardale Rural District Council, respectively, for each year from 1919 to 1930?

As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the desired particulars, so far as they are available:

Building Prices and Rents, Manchester

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the smallest A 3 house in Manchester costs nearly £500 all in, whereas other towns are building A 3 houses for under £400; whether he can state what will be the average rent of a £500 and a £400 house, respectively, under the Housing Act, 1930; and, since it is impossible to fulfil the objects of the Act if the houses cost as much as £500, can he state whether he has made or will make, representations to the Manchester City Council as to the importance of building houses at a cost more in line with that of other great cities?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of the 18th December last; as regards the second part, a three bed-roomed non-parlour house holding five persons and receiving the ordinary rate contribution would, if costing £400 all in, be let on average at about 5s. a week exclusive of rates and, if costing £500, at about 7s. a week exclusive of rates: as regards the third part, the costs of building at Manchester have frequently been the subject of discussion with my officers, and do involve a heavy additional rate charge if houses are to be let at rents suitable for displaced slum tenants.

Will it be correct to say that, if 15,000 houses are financed during the next five years and let at the same low rent as in other towns, the excessive cost of these houses will involve an extra burden on Manchester ratepayers of £75,000 a year, or £3,000,000 in 40 years?

Yes, that would seem to be the case, if the rent referred to is 5s. per week.

Questions

National Expenditure (Committee)

asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference of the Committee on National Expenditure can be amended so as to allow the committee to consider the economies that would be effected by the establishment of a single Ministry of Defence?

I think the terms of reference of the committee sufficiently wide, and my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it is for the committee itself to determine the directions of its inquiry within its terms of reference.

Will this committee take into consideration the fact that since this question was last examined there has been considerable progress in aviation?

Poor Law

Statistics

asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of poor relief in one day in Great Britain in February, 1931, and the coresponding figures of 1929 and 1930?

The total number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales—excluding persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals—on the last Saturday in February, 1931, was 1,038,733. The cor- responding numbers for 1929 and 1930 were 1,202,778 and 1,102,535 respectively. The number of persons in the excluded classes was approximately 25,000 in each of these years. With regard to Scotland, I would refer the right hon. Member to the Secretary of State.

Relief

asked the Minister of Health how many local Poor Law authorities there are in England and Wales; how many require signature of the register at an Employment Exchange as a condition for the receipt of poor relief; and what is the estimated proportion of applicants who have been granted poor relief who have so signed?

There are 145 Poor Law authorities in England and Wales, excluding combinations of these bodies, to deal solely with relief to casuals. I believe that it is a general practice among these authorities to require able-bodied applicants for out-door relief to register at Employment Exchanges, and a return relating to the week ending the 7th February, 1931, showed that more than 91 per cent. of the persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation who were relieved on account of unemployment had furnished proof of registration at Employment Exchanges.

Questions

National Income

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the national income of the United Kingdom for the years 1929 and 1930 is estimated to be in respect of those persons whose incomes are below the Income Tax limit?

I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the estimates desired by my hon. Friend.

Government Departments (Typewriters)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether all the typewriters purchased for use in Government Departments are now of British make?

All typewriters purchased for use in Government Departments are now of British make with the exception of a small number of machines of special kinds for which no suitable British-made substitutes are at present available.

Can the Financial Secretary say the exact number? He said it is a small number.

May I ask whether the answer means that all the typewriters in use are of British make?

Is it not the case that there are at present in use a certain number of foreign typewriters which were purchased by the previous Government?

New Zealand Cheese (Imports)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the New Zealand Dairy Board to describe their standardised cheese as Cheddar cheese; and seeing that this standardised cheese is not full-cream cheese, whereas Cheddar cheese as made and sold in this country is full-cream cheese, whether he will take steps under the Empire Marketing Board to secure a proper description for this imported cheese?

This matter which had already been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice is receiving attention, but he is not in a position to make any statement

Will the hon. Member make representations through the Ministry of Agriculture to the Empire Marketing Board in order to ascertain whether a report can be received on this question?

Aviation (Aerodrome, Wednesfield)

asked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to announce the decision of the inquiry held on 14th January into the question of the aerodrome at Wednesfield?

The Central Electricity Board's application for the Minister's consent in respect of certain overhead electric lines near Wednesfield is still under consideration. I will inform the hon. Member as soon as a decision has been reached.

Can the hon. Member say how many more months are going to pass before something is produced?

I have said that the Minister of Transport will inform the hon. Member when a decision is reached.

Empire Marketing Board

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if the Empire Marketing Board has now been reconstituted in accordance with the recommendations of the Imperial Conference, and who compose the new board?

The question of changes in the organisation of the Empire Marketing Board is being carefully explored, but I am not yet in a position to indicate what action will be taken.

Is it not a fact that a new committee has actually been appointed, and, if that is so, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the names here and now?

It is a fact that a committee has been appointed to consider the question on the Paper, and that is the reconstitution of the Empire Marketing Board. A committee has been appointed to consider that particular question.

British Army

Officers' Pay (Hong Kong)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that military officers serving in Hong Kong recruited on a sterling basis are now paid on the basis of half at the true exchange and half at the artificial exchange; whether officers now being recruited are to be paid on the same basis on arrival in Hong Kong; whether a remission to meet the anticipated deficit will be considered; and generally what steps he has taken to meet the position of officers serving in Hong Kong arising out of rate-of-exchange difficulties?

Military officers at Hong Kong are not paid in the manner stated in the question. The majority of these officers draw their pay in sterling through the Army agents, but some officers elect to draw their pay through the Command Paymaster, and are paid in dollars at the official rate of exchange.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to recommend that War loans should be repaid on the basis suggested in this question?

Tinned Meat Contracts

asked the Secretary of State for War to what countries the contracts for the supply of tinned meat for the Army are being given for the coming year?

The contract for preserved meat during 1931 provides for supply from the Argentine.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this saving of a few thousand pounds is worth all the ill-feeling created in Australia and our Dominions?

Knightsbridge Barracks

asked the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government propose to sell Knightsbridge Barracks, or any part thereof, at an early date; and, if so, what conditions will be imposed as to the user of the site?

The whole question of the possibility of selling Knightsbridge Barracks is under consideration in all its implications.

The report of that committee has not been published. It is a confidential report, and I think I would rather not answer the question.

Questions

Liquor Traffic (Sports Clubs)

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Brown and Brett v. Joyce in the King's Bench Division, being an appeal from the Licensing Justices of Frinton in connection with the closing hours of the Frinton Golf Club; and whether he will consider introducing or giving facilities for legislation enabling golf clubs to allot the total number of hours permitted under Section 2 of the Licensing Act, 1921, to such periods during both weekdays and Sundays as would be best suited to local requirements and conditions?

I can only refer to an answer given by me on 11th February to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) on a similar point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember this question when the report comes up for his decision, and will he realise that perhaps the 19th hole is the most important hole on any golf course?

India (Riots, Cawnpore)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for India whether the communal rioting in Cawnpore has now been brought to an end, and if he can state the casualties caused by the conflict between the rival mobs?

I understand that by yesterday order had been restored in some quarters of the city, but that in other quarters arson and looting continued. There had been 49 deaths; and 215 injured had been received in the city hospital since the start of the riot.

When the Secretary of State calls for a report from the Government of India on this occurrence, will he inquire whether the local government is the appropriate authority to instigate prosecutions against persons alleged to be responsible for the outbreak of the rioting, namely, those who try to compel certain shopkeepers to close their shops?

In view of this lamentable occurrence, does the Secretary of State not think it would be wise to postpone political executions during the present negotiations?

Business of the House

May I ask the Leader of the House what the business will be next week?

On Monday, the Consumers' Council Bill, Second Reading, and the Yarmouth Naval Hospital, Money Resolution, Report stage.

Tuesday: Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair," on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates and Estimates for the Revenue Departments. The following Votes will be taken in Committee of Supply: Class 7, Votes 1, 2, 4 and 12.

Wednesday I propose to offer to the Opposition for its Vote of Censure, and, if it will not accept that offer, then the Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill, Second Reading; Public Offices (Sites) Money Resolution, Committee stage; Housing (Rural Workers) Money Resolution, Committee stage; and Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, further stages, will be taken.

On Thursday, it is proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., and that Mr. Speaker should adjourn the House without Question put, at 4 p.m. The business will be the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment.

With reference to the arrangement of business which the Prime Minister has announced, I have a few observations to make. In the first place before I come to the Vote of Censure, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it will be possible on Wednesday to put down the Committee stage and the further stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill as the first Order, as we always used to put it down. There are Members of the House, including Members on the right hon. Gentleman's own side, who are interested in discussing the Bill. There are matters of importance and of interest to many hon. Members arising on it and we always made a point of putting it down at a time of day when these matters could be discussed conveniently, but, as things are now arranged, it looks as if that Bill will not come on until late at night.

With regard to the Vote of Censure, the right hon. Gentleman has not put it on the Paper, although he was good enough to indicate to me last night that he would be willing to take it on Wednesday. I object entirely to taking it on the eve of the holidays. It is not suitable to discuss a subject of that nature at a time when the House is breaking up. Had I been where the right hon. Gentleman is, I would have accepted the challenge at once, as I always did, and given the opposition the first day available, which would have been Monday. As it is, of course, the Government have the business of this House in their hands. The House was called together at a very early date after Christmas, and what have we done since? We have done nothing but finance and have spent our time in watching manoeuvres between the Government and the fragments of the Liberal party—[ Interruption. ] I think this is a matter which ought to be taken after Easter, and I shall ask for a day at the beginning of the new period of the Session.

With reference to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, I understand that the further stages can be taken quite conveniently at the later hour. As far as Wednesday is concerned, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is not when the House is breaking up, and, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot get his followers to remain here on Wednesday for the Vote of Censure, that shows how little heart they have in the Motion of which we did not receive the ordinary notice and for which a time was chosen which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, is a time which is never chosen for Votes of Censure. But I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the subject with a speech which is reminiscent of the St George's by-election.

I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman means it to be a compliment when he refers to the St. George's by-election, but certainly it has singularly agreeable recollections for me. I. still maintain the view which I have already expressed, that a Debate of this nature on the eve of the Adjournment of the House is neither for the convenience of the Opposition, nor for the convenience of the Government party, and that the atmosphere at such a time is ill-adapted to a Debate of that kind. I am quite certain that it would be for everyone's convenience, in the circumstances, to adjourn it until after Easter, by which time the Government will have

had more opportunity to consider how they will meet the charge of neglecting the unemployment question.

If it is to be taken that that is notice for when we come back, I shall be very glad to take it, and I am also glad that I have been able to get the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty.

May I take the House away from this somewhat heated atmosphere—which I personally deplore—by asking if the Government will allow the ordinary opportunities for Amendments on the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Yes.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime minister. ]

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 90.

Division No. 205.]

AYES.

[3.39 p.m.

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

Duncan, Charles

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

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

Ede, James Chuter

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Edmunds, J. E.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Alpass, J. H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Isaacs, George

Arnott, John

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Jenkins, Sir William

Attlee, Clement Richard

Egan, W. H.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Elmley, Viscount

Johnston, Thomas

Barnes, Alfred John

England, Colonel A.

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Barr, James

Foot, Isaac

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

Batey, Joseph

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

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Benson, G.

Gill, T. H.

Kelly, W. T.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Gillett, George M.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Glassey, A. E.

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

Broad, Francis Alfred

Gossling, A. G.

Kinley, J.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Gould, F.

Knight, Holford

Brothers, M.

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

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

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Gray, Milner

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lathan, G.

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Cape, Thomas

Groves, Thomas E.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lawrence, Susan

Clarke, J. S.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Cluse, W. S.

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Leach, W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Harbord, A.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Compton, Joseph

Hardie, George D.

Longbottom, A. W.

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Daggar, George

Hayes, John Henry

Lowth, Thomas

Dallas, George

Healy, Cahir

Lunn, William

Dalton, Hugh

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

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Day, Harry

Herriotts, J.

McElwee, A.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

McEntee, V. L.

Devlin, Joseph

Hoffman, P. C.

McKinlay, A.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Hopkin, Daniel

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Smith, Lees-, H. B.

McShane, John James

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Pole, Major D. G.

Sorensen, R.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Potts, John S.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Manning, E. L.

Price, M. P.

Stephen, Campbell

Mansfield, W.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Strauss, G. R.

March, S.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Sullivan, J.

Marcus, M.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Sutton, J. E.

Marley, J.

Raynes, W. R.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Marshall, Fred

Richards, R.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Mathers, George

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

Matters, L. W.

Ritson, J.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Maxton, James

Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Tillett, Ben

Messer, Fred

Romeril, H. G.

Tinker, John Joseph

Millar, J. D.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Tout, W. J.

Mills, J. E.

Rowson, Guy

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Milner, Major J.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Vaughan, David

Montague, Frederick

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Viant, S. P.

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Sanders, W. S.

Walkden, A. G.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sandham, E.

Watkins, F. C.

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

Sawyer, G. F.

Wellock, Wilfred

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Scrymgeour, E.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Mort, D. L.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

West, F. R.

Muff, G.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Westwood, Joseph

Muggeridge, H. T.

Sherwood, G. H.

White, H. G.

Murnin, Hugh

Shield, George William

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Naylor, T. E.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

Shillaker, J. F.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Shinwell, E.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Simmons, C. J.

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Palin, John Henry

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Paling, Wilfrid

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Perry, S. F.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ferguson, Sir John

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Albery, Irving James

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Beaumont, M. W.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Smithers, Waldron

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Somerset, Thomas

Boyce, Leslie

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Briscoe, Richard George

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

Iveagh, Countess of

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lymington, Viscount

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Butler, R. A.

Macquisten, F. A.

Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

Campbell, E. T.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Carver, Major W. H.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Meller, R. J.

Tinne, J. A.

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

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Muirhead, A. J.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Turton, Robert Hugh

Colman, N. C. D.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Colville, Major D. J.

O'Connor, T. J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Wayland, Sir William A.

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

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Eden, Captain Anthony

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Womersley, W. J.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Ross, Ronald D.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Salmon, Major I.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Personal Explanation

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a personal statement. It has been brought to my notice that certain extracts from letters which I wrote about the India Round-Table Conference to newspapers in my constituency have been taken from their context and are being made to appear as though they contained information which I gained confidentially in my official capacity at the conference. On reading through those letters now, I see that that interpretation might be placed on those extracts. It was never my intention that they should give that impression. May I add, that during the first month of the conference when the matters in question were proceeding, I had no official connection whatever with the conference, and that my information regarding them was not gained from any official or confidential source. Nevertheless, I have made a serious mistake. I should like to express unreservedly my regret that my writings were liable to give that wrong impression, and I hope that the House will accept my apologies for any difficulties that they may have created.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to—

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Wick Harbour) Confirmation Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Bill,

City of London (Various Powers) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision for the disposal of sewage in the county of Middlesex; to confer further powers upon the council of that county and the local authorities therein; and for other purposes." [Middlesex County Council Bill [ Lords ].]

Middlesex County Council Bill [ Lords ].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

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

Disarmament

Before I discuss the question of disarmament, I would like to make a remark or two on a subject which was dealt with by question and answer yesterday and today, namely, the proposal by Germany and Austria to enter into a customs union, which, if it comes into effect, will have the result of taking down one tariff wall anyhow, a thing which we, and I am pretty sure all Members of the House, would welcome. It is fortunate that the Foreign Secretary is in Paris at the moment, and there on a subject which is peculiarly apposite to this question. He is there as a member of the committee to discuss the procedure for closer economic co-operation. No more suitable subject could be thought of in connection with this proposed customs union. It would have been rather better if Germany and Austria had taken the opportunity of the sittings of that committee, of which, no doubt, they are fully aware, to inform our Foreign Secretary and the representatives of the other Governments of what their proposal is. It certainly would have been a graceful act on the part of Austria, since she owes her present capacity to negotiate financial matters with any other nation in a very large measure to the League of Nations itself. It would have had the further advantage, a priceless asset, of bringing into their negotiations and discussions a personal touch with the representatives of other countries which are immediately affected by the proposal.

Such friendly talks have been very successful on other occasions. The personal talks which took place in Paris and in Rome recently brought about an amazingly successful solution of what had appeared to be an almost insoluble problem. We all hope that the oppor- tunity which is still open to the representatives of those two countries will be taken full advantage of. I am sure the House welcomes the suggestion made by the Foreign Secretary in Paris that this matter should be discussed in a friendly, personal spirit in some way in or through the League of Nations. It cannot be contended that it is not a subject which is directly relevant to the League of Nations, because in Article 220 of the Treaty of St. Germain the following words occur:

4.0 p.m.

Turning to the question of Disarmament, I may say that we do not in the least apologise for the constant iteration and reiteration of this vastly important topic. Not only does peace depend upon it, but also a subject which occupies none too much of the time of this House, namely, the revival of trade and the mitigation of unemployment. That depends very largely, I would say dominantly, upon the extent to which the world as a whole can get rid of this nightmare of competitive armaments. They create a paralysis of confidence, and confidence is the soul of commerce, as every business man knows. Nothing is more certain than that competition in armaments means certain war. That is the lesson for mankind to draw from the last War. I would like to repeat here what I cannot help regarding as one of the most important of all the declarations made at the time of and since the Treaty of Versailles. At that time a draft Treaty was presented to the German representatives, and the German representatives accepted the proposals for Disarmament which were imposed—and properly imposed—upon them. They accepted them in these words: in 1929 on armaments in the world was about £890,000,000, and in Europe £524,000,000. Those are facts which speak all too forcibly for themselves. As to the cost of the War, I do not propose to go over those ghastly figures which, by their iteration, have lost so much of their meaning, but we may remind ourselves of two or three figures: 11,000,000 men's lives were lost. It is calculated by a Swedish authority, a very competent and capable body of statisticians, the Swedish Society for the Study of Social Consequences of the War, that including indirect losses from revolution, famine and pestilence, the increased death rate and other losses due to the War, the total loss must be put down at not less than 40,000,000 lives. The cost in money, great as it is, is very insignificant compared with the loss in lives. Some people say it is £40,000,000,000, others say it is £100,000,000,000, but at any rate amongst the chief combatants certainly not one penny less than £33,000,000,000 was spent. That is a short summary of the position with regard to armaments after the War.

There is, at any rate, one thing arising out of the Treaty of Versailles that will shine out in history, and that was the opportunity of the establishment of the main hope of the development of the world on decent human lines, namely, the League of Nations. What has the League of Nations been doing? It has been working hard and continuously. That we gratefully accept, and, undoubtedly, living in these islands, we ought, as far as we can, to transport ourselves somewhat into the position of those who live in Continental countries, notably France, who have a long history behind them of the terrible consequences of war. Therefore, one of the first obvious things to do was, as far as possible, to see what security could be given, and my right hon. Friend the ex-Foreign Secretary will have to his lasting credit in the history of the world the part which he took on behalf of this country in connection with what is known as Locarno. That, unfortunately, has had little impression on armaments, either in this country or on the Continent, but, no doubt, its effect has been to stay a much swifter increase, which is a thing to be thankful for. But as to the actual reduction in figures, as far as men or money are concerned, it cer- tainly has not brought about what we might have hoped.

The League of Nations has accordingly addressed itself, since 1924, I think, to the problem of disarmament. Since 1926, there have been six sittings of the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament, and it has produced a draft Disarmament Convention which is to be submitted to the great International Disarmament Conference which is to meet in February, 1932. It is of some satisfaction and interest to know that the nations who are not members of the League of Nations are to be associated with it. Those nations include the United States, Soviet Russia—which is very significant—Turkey and Mexico, and, really, it may be said that almost the whole of the organised communities of the world are to meet in February to consider this most important problem. That, in itself, is a great advancement. That Convention, a copy of which I have in my hand, is contained in the despatch from Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, a former Member of this House. We, and I think all, take great satisfaction and pride in the great international work which he is doing in connection with this great subject.

That draft Convention is an intricate document, which I will not attempt this afternoon to bring it before the House other than to say this. Its framework is excellent, but the gaps which can only be filled in in February are the real problem. The various points in which those gaps will have to be filled are, I think, somewhat as follow: They affect the whole range of armaments in connection with military means of production for defence and offence. The main provisions deal with personnel, materiel, land, naval and air armaments, total expenditure, exchange of information, a very significant and affrighting paragraph—chemical arms—and the Permanent Disarmament Commission which is to be set up to follow what, I hope, will be the final execution of the treaty. That, in itself, shows what a tremendous task is imposed not only on the representatives of this country, but on all those who have pledged themselves to attend that conference.

The suggestion of His Majesty's Government that the political parties in this country should do their very utmost to lay aside, at any rate for this objective, ordinary party warfare, and each of them send their representatives to Geneva, is, I think, worthy of the best traditions of Governments in this country. I hope that all parties will be able to do so. As far as we are concerned, we eagerly and, indeed, enthusiastically accept the invitation. I can only hope that other parties will be able to take the same line. I do not say a word by way of criticism if they should be unable to do so, but I am assured of this, that the whole country would be behind them if they joined in accepting the invitation to attend. Perhaps my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Foreign Office to-day will tell us whether any further developments have taken place, and what hope there is of this very desirable end being achieved. I would like to ask if the Under-Secretary of State can tell us to-day what progress is being made as far as the Foreign Office may be acquainted with preparations for delegates from other countries taking part. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us what is happening in this direction at the League of Nations.

The only other point I wish to make is this. Nothing of such vital importance to this nation and the world lies before us in the intervening months as the subject which I have brought forward. I know there are vast questions in connection with domestic and international affairs to be dealt with by this House and other representative assemblies, but in order to succeed, or, rather, in order to attain any substantial measure of agreement and success in February next, great and continuous efforts will be necessary to get the world on to a more hopeful plane of development and prosperity. It should be realised that to fail means not only to have taken a retrograde step, but it would set humanity on a downward path which can only have one end and that is the destruction of civilisation as we know it. If we go back to competition in armaments war is inevitable. Debates here and in other representative assemblies, resolutions at great public meetings, are of little avail unless there is individual conviction within each man and woman concerned. Disarmament, like the Kingdom of Heaven, is within us. Unless we can succeed in changing the personal ideas of individual men and women as to the real meaning of this great issue, unless we can secure some large and effective measure of disarma- ment amongst the nations, we shall fail in our purpose. I believe if we only give humanity half a chance in and through the Parliaments of the world, that this great effort will not fail. Again, I say, all this depends on the extent to which individual citizens realise their responsibilities. I am quite aware that hostilities are deeply rooted in the natural mind of man. The well-known words from Macbeth are appropriate:

I have followed very carefully during the last 10 days the Debates which have taken place in this House upon the subject of Disarmament and on the subject with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) has been dealing, and I have been trying to get a general impression of the Debate and where the difficulty in future is likely to lie. The impression left on my mind is of two sides: one trusting mainly to adequate arms for security and accusing the other side of being ready to take risks with national security, and to trust to the good will of other nations; a Debate between those who, as it were, have faith in human nature, and those who have not. I suggest that these are not the issues which lie before us. The real issue has hardly been touched. Certainly, the point has not been brought out with emphasis that 10 years ago we made a radical political change which placed the problem of armaments on an entirely different political basis from that which had existed formerly. It is the failure to grasp the full significance of that change which is disturbing. Mr. Bonar Law once said that war was the failure of human understanding, not the failure of human good will. As one who has watched the Debates on this subject for the last 30 years, inside and outside of this House, I think the right hon. Gen- tleman in making that statement came nearer to the heart and core of the matter than casual comment usually comes.

Ten years ago we attempted to create a new political situation with regard to the use of armaments. Until that time armaments were the instruments of rival States or groups, each trying to outdo the other. What took place 10 years ago was the creation of a new type of alliance by which armaments, instead of being the instrument of rival nations, each competing with the other, should become the instrument of the community of nations, for a common purpose. The principle which we attempted to put into force was that armaments, instead of being competitive, each attempting to be stronger than the other, each in a position to ensure victory if war occurred—which meant that the security of one must involve the insecurity of the other—instead of that, armaments were to be the means by which the whole community of nations could resist that State which challenged the law of mankind by attempting to be its own judge. That fundamental political change is very rarely mentioned in these Debates. Yet it is the most important fact of all in considering armaments. The League of Nations is often mentioned. But it is spoken of rather as an effort of good will by which we shall avoid war, by constant contact and friendly negotiation. But the vital change is that in the political basis of armaments. How often is the fact mentioned that in the only war which we are entitled to enter we shall, if this new political instrument is a reality, have the greater part of the world allied with us? Yet when we come to consider what armaments we need we should surely take that fact into consideration. Until we know what is the political basis of our armaments—who will be for us and who against—there is no possibility of calculating what is adequate armament and what is not. Wars are fought by alliances. Until we know what kind of alliance we can count on, we do not know whether we are safe, whatever our armaments.

I would remind the House that in the past it has been possible for nations to make alliances more quickly than navies and armaments, and the making of those alliances upsets the whole calculation of what is adequate and inadequate de- fence. That absence of any basis of calculation must go on until we take seriously the fact that by the obligations of the League we have certain States in a certain situation, not neutral, still less hostile, but pledged at least to some measure of assistance, and pledged at least not to resist us. This ignoring of the real meaning of the League is brought out particularly when, in reply to the Extreme Right, if I may use that term, the Extreme Left says, "You will get nowhere by discussing these figures of armaments; the Government should be prepared to set the example, to take risks, and to initiate disarmament by example. If they will not do that"—that is the implication of the argument of the Left—"we will not play any more."

Again it seems to me that there is confusion of issues. My personal conviction is that it would be safe to set the example of disarmament without waiting for others to come in—that the risks of so doing are certainly less than the risks of entering into competition in armaments. If I felt that that gesture were of any use, I should be perfectly prepared, with my Friends of the Left, to walk into the Lobby against the Army and Navy Estimates. But I doubt whether that gesture would be of any use at all. In any case, even if the Government shared this conviction of the relative safety of unilateral disarmament it would not be morally justified in carrying its convictions into effect. It is a trustee, and trustees must not be as free with the property and interests of their wards as they might be with their own personal property or interests. In any case, the effort to secure disarmament by example has failed. We confront what Lincoln called a condition, and not a theory. The condition is that we have the nations of the world pledged to defence by arms, and the question which remains then is as to which of the two methods of defence by arms it is to be. Is it to be the method of each trying to be stronger than the other, each competing against the other; or is it to be the method of pooled power pledged to resistance against the common enemy?

I suggest to my Friends of the Left that that is the practical question which they have to answer. If they answer, "We will not have this country pledged to military operations of any kind, or to any military commitment or obligation; we will mind our own business and be neutral," I suggest that they are making the best the enemy of the better, and that the practical result of that attitude would be, not a diminution of armaments, but a reversion to competition in armaments; and that only by the step of internationalising armaments, only by making the League of Nations commitment a reality, shall we put those armaments on the road to final abolition. That intermediate step of internationalisation we cannot ignore; and those of us who hate war—and I myself, during 30 years of work in this country, have given proof of my hatred of war—should be prepared to say, "If you must have armies, let them be pledged at least to some purpose which will not be self-defeating." I would prefer that you should not have armaments at all; but, if you do have them, I want the hands of the Government to be tied by knowing that those armaments are pledged to an international purpose.

Nevertheless, whenever it is proposed, I will not say to strengthen Article 16, in which this principle is embodied, but to clarify it, to show that we mean business, then the Left and the Right make common cause to resist that clarification of our commitment. It is a confusion of thought. It is not ill will; it is simply that neither the Extreme Left nor the Extreme Right have grasped the meaning of that principle and what it involves. The danger here is that we may fail, not from ill will, not from any desire not to get rid of armaments, but from some want of clarity or some confusion of thought on the subject. Refusing to go by steps in the organisation of international society, we want to make a jump for which that society is not yet ready. We want to jump from sheer anarchy to a society in which there shall be no coercion at all—a jump which no human society anywhere has ever made. Because we want to do that, we burke, we do not face in these Debates, the real test, which is whether we mean business on our League commitments. Whether the League method of defence shall be a reality in European politics will depend upon whether we are prepared to show that we mean business in regard to the principle of Article 16.

The next step, the tangible political problem which we must tackle next, has been neglected in these Debates; and I would suggest for the consideration of the House that the real political preparation for the success of the Disarmament Conference next year resides in bringing home to this country, including this House, the political change that was involved in the establishment of the League. That change in the political basis of armaments and defence, that profound change in the method of defence which then took place, was not a pacifist method in the sense that it discarded arms, but the application to international society of the method which we have applied to individuals within the State. If we can make that a political reality, the conference will succeed. If we cannot make it a political reality, the conference will fail. The question again is whether we mean to make the best, which is a world without armaments at all, the enemy of the better, which is a world that has combined its armaments to enshrine law. Let us have the wisdom not to jump at the shadow of the best, but to accept the better in order that we may not get the worst.

I rise to offer a few observations as a strong advocate of international disarmament; but, if I rise at all to take part in a Debate which I had not anticipated on the Consolidated Fund Bill—it has taken me rather by surprise and without much preparation—it is because that disarmament which I wish to see must be a real disarmament, and, so far as I can see, we are not moving at present on lines which are likely to make disarmament a reality. The first requirement of disarmament on land appears to me to be that armies should be limited to that number of trained men which is necessary for certain specific and well-defined purposes, without there being a vast number of others ready, in virtue of a specific compulsory training, to join that active force and to swell its numbers more rapidly than they could be swollen by untrained men. The question, therefore, poses itself, whether real disarmament can be consistent with the maintenance of the system of national conscription to which the majority of Powers adhere, in spite of their professed anxiety for disarmament. In the last Report of the League of Nations Commission on Disarmament, I find the question put thus:

The usefulness of limiting standing armies with short periods of service, and taking no account of trained reserves, was recognised by the Allied and Associated Powers in the conditions which they imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles. They there insisted on the substitution of a volunteer army for a conscripted army, with 12 years' service in the ranks and 25 years' service for officers. This was the course recommended by the principal military authorities when the question of disarmament of former enemy States was before them. But, while paying lip service to disarmament, they did not for a moment contemplate its application to themselves. In looking at the conditions prevailing at the present moment in Europe—and it will be necessary to ask the House to consider a few figures—I do not wish it to be supposed for a moment that I am criticising the action of other countries. Every country is entitled, I presume, to do what it believes its own security demands. What I want to do is to examine facts as they are, to bring things down to real values. Let us look at what is going on among some of the smaller nations.

Take Czechoslovakia. There you have service beginning in the 21st year, and lasting for 14 months, or, if the recruiting has taken place after 1926, for 18 months. It is now, therefore, 18 months. The service continues in the first line of reserves up to the age of 40, in the second line until the age of 50, and for officers and sergeants up to 60. With an effective of 107,000 men and 10,000 officers, this makes a very large potential force available. In Yugoslavia, the age of liability to service is from 21 to 45, or 50 in case of national emergency, in which case the manhood of the country may also be called up from the age of 18 upwards. The effectives there are about the same as in Czechoslovakia, namely, about 110,000 men, with 7,000 officers and 8,000 non-commissioned officers. In Poland, the military age is from 21 to 40, with an immediately mobilisable army of about 1,200,000 men. As regards Russia, it is very difficult to get definite figures, because the training for military purposes goes on over a period of four years for a certain limited time. After that training between the ages of 21 and 25, there is a first reserve training up to the age of 34, and a second reserve training up to the age of 40, and it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of men are being annually passed into the reserve, with the object eventually of bringing it up to a force of about 15,000,000.

It is very difficult to work out the real figures for the French Army, owing to the large number of categories that exist in that country, but a certain number of figures are, of course, available. You have a Metropolitan Army there, with about 317,000 men, and you have a Colonial Army of 150,000 men, making an approximate total of something like 500,000 men. Military service in France is for one year only, with a period during which men are subject to immediate recall of three years. After that they pass into the first line reserve for 16 years and the Territorial Army for eight years. That is 28 years' service in all. With one year's service, you can imagine the number of trained men who pass into these reserves.

I cannot go through all the countries of the world, but the one with which I am most familiar, Italy, has equally striking figures. You have there a standing army, the term of service of which is now 18 months. There are two classes, one coming and one going, and at certain times of the year there are 200,000 men with the colours and at others 400,000. You have to add to these the 12 rifle regiments of Bersaglieri, the nine Alpine regiments, the Customs guards and 60,000 gendarmerie. In addition to that, there is an entirely new force which has grown up with the present regime. The custom is that boys should enter something very like what our boy scouts do, except that it is very different in one or two essentials. They begin at eight and they go on up to 18. At 14 they begin to be trained in the use of the rifle, which our boy scouts are not, and at 18 they pass into the national militia, which is at present calculated at about 300,000 strong. The service in that is from 18 to 55. When you add those numbers to the numbers of the regular army and you see the enormous number of men that pass into the reserve, especially that first three years reserve from which they, like those in France, may be recalled immediately, you will have, without calling in an actuary, some conception of the vast numbers of men trained to arms behind the actual army at any given moment in the field. I have not spoken of the African army of either of these countries.

You must also recollect that, while we here are inclined to discourage officers' training corps and cadet corps, in these countries with conscription it is very much encouraged. They get a reduction of so many years' service with the colours for all the military training they go through at school and college. In Italian schools there are about 200,000 being actually trained, and there are certainly in the universities about 1,600 who are training as officers and who will go out as reserve officers after having done three months with the colours. One does not need to be an actuary to understand what an enormous fore of trained men this means and how in a few years' time it means practically having passed the whole manhood of the country through training in arms.

Another very striking factor in Continental armies in the present day is the very large increase in the proportion of artillery. I do not think I need go into those figures. You will find them in the statistical books, in the League of Nations year book on armaments, and elsewhere. If you make your calculations of what is the size of a regiment of artillery and see the enormous number of regiments of artillery, you will see that the artillery of Continental armies is calculated to provide for the needs of a very large army indeed and not the actual army that appears as serving with the colours. If we are pledged to leave out of all consideration at the Disarmament Conference this question of trained reserves, if we are only to look at the actual numbers of men with the colours at a given moment, it may bring confort to some people whose minds are simple, but it must inevitably give anxiety to those who, like myself, have spent the greater part of their lives in other countries. That vast horde of trained men ready to be called up at a moment's notice is to me wholly inconsistent with any idea of real disarmament. I am not in the least personally conscious of any aggressive intentions on the part of these neighbouring Continental nations. I know that France is deeply imbued with the desire for peace. I do not believe in any aggressive intentions on the part of Italy, but, if people believe, as many do, that competition in armaments is fatal to the cause of peace, competition in trained reserves behind the actual standing armies is equally dangerous to the cause of peace. This competition is going on to-day, and the condition of Europe in the matter of armaments is, to my mind, almost as dangerous in that respect as it was before 1914.

As one who hoped so much from this movement in favour of peace and disarmament that took place after the War, it seems to me a duty to warn the people of this country of what is actually going on in other countries, for I do not think they in the least realise it. In their desire for disarmament they would disarm themselves absolutely without in the least thinking of what other people are doing. I cannot see it otherwise—I wish I could—but it seems to me that the preparedness of Europe for war at present, the fact that there are several countries which would be able to place 4,000,000 men and more in the field within a very few weeks, is a matter that we cannot possibly lose sight of in going into the Disarmament Conference. After all, the influence of nations in the councils of the world is conditioned by one of three factors. First of all, if the nation is a party to the issue at stake, it is conditioned by the justice of its cause. Secondly, it is conditioned by the reputation for sincere and honest action which the nation enjoys in the eyes of its fellow nations. Thirdly and ultimately, it must depend to some extent on that nation's recognised capacity to defend itself in face of aggression.

We have taken the lead of all other countries in this question of Disarmament. We, who for centuries have lived on the sea, have taken a very definite lead there. We have, in fact, reduced our Navy to what a great number of our most distinguished admirals consider, in the matter of cruisers, would render us almost impotent in case of another European cataclysm. We have willingly given away what has been for centuries our principal weapon of defence, and perhaps of offence, that is the right of imposing a blockade and searching for contraband. We have handed that over to an international court. I trust we shall not go into the International Conference on Disarmament by land also with the knowledge in our minds, if we have really examined into what is going on in the world, that we are to be, in company with the Scandinavian nations, who share our ideals, the only people really to disarm in face of an apparent disarmament which would in reality, without wishing to use hard words, be little more to my mind than a camouflage.

I have listened with very great interest to the right hon. Baronet's realistic speech. He told us that he had come to the House to take part in this Debate with very little time or opportunity for preparation, but he has this advantage over many of those who may be called upon to speak without much preparation, that he has a wide experience of observation in foreign countries upon which to draw. The impression left upon my mind after listening to his speech is that he has perhaps rendered a service in pointing out many of the obstacles to disarmament and that his speech really should be a measure of the effort that is necessary to overcome them. There was one point of fact in his speech upon which I found myself in some disagreement with him. He referred critically to the absence from the Draft Convention that is to be considered at the Disarmament Conference of any provision for the regulation of the number of trained reserves, and he indicated that, in the absence of that provision, the Convention might be of very little value. I should like to ask, as a matter of actual fact, whether his conclusion is accurate. It is provided in the Convention that, if the Powers are so minded at the Disarmament Conference, they may limit the total number of men with the colours of an army at any one time, they may limit the number of professional soldiers, and they may limit the number of officers, and the question aroused in my mind by the right hon. Gentleman's observations is this: If that is the case, while there may be no direct limitation of the number of reserves, will there not in fact be an indirect limitation? I leave that to be answered by some who may be disposed to return to the point later in the Debate.

5.0 p.m.

I am unfeignedly glad that there has been an opportunity for this discussion before the House rises for the Easter Recess. Having listened to it so far, I am more glad than when I heard it was to take place. It is very important that Parliament should discuss these matters now, because I do not feel that the country has really caught on to the idea that the next nine months of this year are vitally important in the history of our efforts for disarmament. When the International Conference meets on 2nd February, the nations which have put their signatures to treaties or pacts since the Treaty of Versailles will be put to the test. Their sincerity will be tested as to whether they are prepared to implement the undertakings which they have given in the past. The country should realise that the action which our representatives at Geneva may take on this occasion may very well prove to be decisive either one way or the other, and I hope they will not be unmindful of the fact that, if the Conference does fail, it will immediately create a new European situation. It is fortunate that this Debate is taking place now, because the great societies which have sprung up in this country since the War for the purpose of studying the science of peace, spreading the knowledge of international affairs, and promoting disarmament are preparing a great campaign throughout the country to try to concentrate public attention on the forthcoming Conference. They are not alone; they are co-operating with similar societies abroad, so that the opinion of the people of the world may be behind the Governments of the world at Geneva next February. I hope the delegates who go from this country will have the unanimous opinion of all parties behind them, and I hope there may be co-operation between the parties in considering various matters leading up to the Conference.

I attach very great importance to this, that there should be as much preparatory conversation as possible between the different Powers who are to meet. The Naval Conference in London achieved a certain success which has happily been followed up by measures which have led to a distinct improvement in the European situation, namely, the further Treaty which has taken the sting out of the relations between Italy and France. The success of that Conference was due largely to the fact that difficulties were examined beforehand.

I should have thought that the object-lesson of the War might have led to the study of the application of the science of war being, if not arrested, at least retarded. The science of war has never lacked any number of students or any amount of money; it has never been short of the aid that science, engineering and mechanism could give, and it has never, alas, been deprived of the fullest opportunity of trying out theory and practice on human material with consequences which have not only been agonising and devastating in their effect on human life and suffering, but have left behind them an economic burden, a dead hand which to-day is not merely a handicap to our industrial recovery but a handicap in the way of every beneficent process which we may try to put in hand for the benefit of our people.

Unfortunately, the end of the War was not followed by any slackening in the study of the science of war. The Army, as the Secretary of State for War told us the other day, has been reorganising and has been rationalised. I am afraid one of the difficulties of the Disarmament Conference when it meets will be that whatever difficulties have been experienced in reorganising, re-equipping and rationalising industry, there has been no such difficulty in reorganising and mechanising armies. It may well be that one of the obstacles will be that the various countries, having got their armies mechanised and rationalised and well organised, may wish to stabilise them on their present basis.

I should like to pay a tribute, if I may, to the thoughtful speech, such as we always expect and which we always get, from the hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir N. Angell). I share his view entirely that unilateral disarmament is one of the greatest dangers to the world's peace. We cannot expect that Germany—and if I were a German I should feel it strongly—will remain permanently disarmed while other countries continue to develop and extend their armaments on a large scale. If I may say so without laying myself open to the charge of presumption, I should say that the forthcoming conference will have to get over the difficulty of reconciling the German view on disarmament with the demand which the French always put forward for national security. The Conference may find itself in a difficulty when it is confronted with those demands by the two nations.

I am glad to recognise that in the last two years the atmosphere towards this conference has been steadily becoming more favourable. I am glad that this country has given a lead in developing the machinery of peace and preparing the way for disarmament. I am glad that we have signed the Optional Clause. I rejoice unfeignedly that the Pact of Paris was signed. Quite recently this House—it was true not unanimously—decided to adhere to the General Act of Arbitration and Conciliation. While it is true there was opposition in this House, that opposition, if I understood it aright, was not a matter of principle; it was not directed to the object to be pursued, but to whether the means proposed would be a substantial contribution to the machinery of peace.

I should like to offer my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary for the way in which he has helped to smooth out the difficulties between Italy and France. I hope that, before the Conference meets, those difficulties may be further discussed with the parties to the Tripartite Treaty of London. If it is not possible to arrive at a five-Power treaty, I hope that at least there will be a complete understanding between the five naval Powers. I am not one of those who believe that security cannot be arrived at simply by means of armaments, and I think there is significance in the fact that so many are prepared to agree to what is called parity in respect to different kinds of armaments, because, if they are prepared to accept parity on that basis, they are prepared to acknowledge that security cannot be obtained by means of armaments.

I hope with regard to this vital conference, on which the whole political and economic future of Europe and the world depends, we may go forward unitedly, that the difficulties which everyone recognises are many will simply be a stimulus to the effort that we make to overcome them. Whether the results be great or not, we hope the way will be opened for progressive reductions of armaments. There are many ways in which that might be done. It might be done by way of percentage reductions of expenditure on armaments. If, say, a 25 per cent. reduction of armaments could be obtained, it would not mean a 25 per cent. reduction in the budgetary expenditure of this country, because we are under contract to soldiers, and it would mean the transfer of a contract liability from the War Office to some other Department, so that it would not be an actual saving in that respect; but there would be a great saving in the production of security.

It may be hoped that there will be some means found to reduce the number of the larger forms of armaments, such as tanks and heavy guns and the like. These and many other ways with which hon. Members are familiar may, we hope, be attempted in the work of the Conference. We hope that the result of the Conference will be that we shall take a long step forward towards that day when the countries of Europe and the rest of the world may enjoy what they have never enjoyed before in any period of history of which I have any knowledge or which I can recall at the moment, namely, the benefits of a permanent peace. We have never yet attained that ideal, because when there has been a cessation of fighting over a long period of time we have always been handicapped by the necessity for preparing for the next war.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) made an exceedingly depressing speech. He told us that we must have disarmament, but that disarmament would be no good unless we could get rid of conscription. He knows, with his foreign experience, as well as any Member in this House can know, that we cannot get rid of conscription at the Conference which is to meet next year. His speech, therefore, amounted to an attack upon the Draft Convention upon which the Conference is to work, and it amounted, if I may say so without offence, to a declaration of defeatism before the battle is begun. I wish as much as he does—and I imagine that there is no one on these benches who does not also wish—that conscription could be abolished.

We have to face the question of trained reserves in a spirit of realism. Every army has trained reserves, men who pass through the army and go out from it, our own Army like others. In the year 1914 the German Army was increased on mobilisation to two and three-quarter times its peace-time strength. Our own Army was increased by about one and three-quarter times. I have the figures from General Maurice. The number of trained reserves depends upon two things, the size of the army and the length of service which each man in the army performs. The smaller the army, the fewer the reserves; the longer the service the fewer the reserves. If we could abolish conscript armies, and get long-term service, we should, broadly speaking, get rid of this difficult element of the trained reserve question. We cannot. The Government have tried their best. Lord Cecil, when working for the late Government, and when representing our country since the present Government came into office, protested against conscription and tried to get rid of it, but, like Lord Cushendun, he could not, and therefore it is on that basis that we have to do the best that we can.

When we come to look at the question in a spirit of realism, we perceive that there are ways of limiting trained reserves, even if you cannot get rid of conscription altogether. You can limit the percentage of the annual class which conscript nations take, or you can limit the quality of the reserves by limiting the period of service which each conscript must perform. As to those two methods, some nations already limit the percentage of the annual class which they take. Holland, I think, has limited it to 60 per cent., and Sweden only take 30 per cent., although they have the conscript system. It may be that we shall be able to induce France and her Allies and all other conscript countries to do the same. We shall have difficulty with Switzerland, because Switzerland is no less insistent than France herself.

I should have liked to have put a question to the right hon. Gentleman if he had remained here—If we had the choice of making a treaty on the basis of the Draft Convention as it stands or making no treaty at all, what would be his choice? I do not think that any sane man could doubt what our choice should be, or would dispute that we ought to make that new treaty on the best terms that we can. And if we can make it on the basis of the Draft Convention, the terms will not be so bad. Under the Convention, manpower in an army is to be limited in various ways. The total strength of the standing army is to be limited. The proportions of professional officers and long-term cadre is also to be limited. The maximum service which the recruits will do will be limited, and that maximum service will include the periods of retraining after the regular service has been completed. I have no doubt that that will limit the power of an army in two ways: First, it will limit its numerical strength. That depends upon the figures we shall get. Secondly, by limiting its quality, we shall limit its power to strike. We have recently discussed the factors of mechanisation. It was evident that long-term service gives a great advantage to the Power which has it, because those men who use these new machines of war will require long-term training to enable them to do so with efficiency. Mere cannon-fodder no longer counts as it used to do long ago.

In most of the countries of Europe the period of service has already been reduced to one year and in some places to nine months. We may, I think, hope that at the Conference which is to come we may get the period of service down as low as eight months or possibly even less. Suppose that we get such a result, can anyone doubt that it will limit the quality of the armies, reduce their striking power, and make Europe less like an armed camp? The same thing applies to the limiting of numbers. If we could get a drastic limitation of numbers we should limit the number of trained reserves, because we should force Powers that make that limitation to take only a smaller percentage of their annual class. Therefore, I say that, if we can apply this Draft Convention in the spirit in which we hope it will be applied, we shall make great progress towards the ideal, not of abolishing conscription, but of turning the old long-term conscript armies of Europe into national militias like that of Switzerland, which cannot be used for aggressive purposes.

If we can reduce the numbers we shall do very much to prevent Europe from being the armed camp it used to be. May I before leaving the point—because it is exceedingly important—take the concrete example cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone? France in 1914 had an army of 890,000 men, of whom 760,000 were on French soil and of whom nearly all had completed more than six months' service—a tremendous striking force that could be thrown straight into the line. To-day France has one-year service. France has a total army, including all the Colonial forces, of a little over 500,000 men. Of this number, 276,000 are in France, and almost half have done less than six months' service. Can anybody doubt that that is a change and a change for the better and that that change means that Europe is less like an armed camp than it was in 1914? It is not what we want, but it is progress. If we can follow it further and get the period of service reduced from one year to eight months, should we not endeavour to do so, should we not proceed on that line and refuse to accept the defeatist attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone, should we not support the Draft Convention with all our hearts?

That Convention is very important because the difficulties of the Conference next year in any case are going to be great enough. If we were to endeavour to throw over as waste paper the Draft Convention to the preparation of which so many years have been given, the difficulties might well prove to be insuperable. We must consider what would be the prospect if that Conference failed, The right hon. Gentleman who raised the Debate this afternoon spoke of that. He spoke of our pledges to Germany which we must fulfil. Suppose that we do not fulfil those pledges. Suppose that we have to face the prospect of Germany perhaps leaving the League and perhaps demanding the right to re-arm, ourselves obliged to make a choice between allowing her to re-arm and of helping others to compel her not to do so. Surely, that is a prospect, so dark and so difficult, that any Member in any section of the House will recoil with alarm and horror from it. We have to face the further fact that this Conference will fail unless we can get substantial reduction from the level of armaments which now exist.

Whether we would like it or not, there is a standard by which our efforts this year are going to be judged. It is the standard of the Disarmament we imposed upon Germany 12 years ago. Do we remember what that standard was? Germany had an army of 850,000 men in 1914. It was reduced to 100,000; conscription was abolished: she is allowed no voluntary force; she may have no artillery of over 4-inch calibre; she may have no tanks, nor make any preparations for chemical warfare. Her navy was reduced from over 1,000,000 tons to 100,000 tons. She may have no ships of more than 10,000 tons displacement, and no submarines of any kind. She may have no aircraft carriers; and, as for air forces, she may not have any at all, nor may she make armaments which are forbidden to herself even for export to other lands.

We have been discussing for the last 10 days the reductions which we have made in the last 10 years. They look considerable, if we view them from a certain point of view. But, if we compare them with that German standard, I suggest that they do not look as though they were enough. In fact, they are only a very small percentage reduction upon the armaments we maintained in the year 1914, the peak of a long period of competition. There is none of us who if he were asked to consider the German position would not say that, from a military point of view, it is dangerous; but that, nevertheless, if other countries would reduce their armaments on the same scale and in the same manner as Germany has done, her position would all the same be absolutely secure. It is not more armaments that Germany needs to give her security; it is the reduction of other people's armaments. I put it to the House that that is true not only of Germany but of Great Britain and of the world. It is drastic reduction which is required, and we must have it if we are not to perpetuate and indeed immensely to increase the risk to our security which militarism has always meant.

I mention just now the comparison between present day armaments and those of 1914. I do not want to dwell upon it at any length, but I want to say that we sometimes forget that our society is still militarised in a very high degree. The world at the present time is spending £890,000,000 a year on the preparation for war. Europe is spending £580,000,000. Broadly, that is as much as we were spending in real values at 1914 prices, on the eve of the War. There is another fact which has been mentioned from the benches behind me during the last 10 days more than once. These armaments are infinitely more effective and powerful than those which the troops had in 1914. We often have difficulty in voting money for civilian research. There is a great Cambridge agricultural scientist who invented a new kind of wheat—I think it is called Biffin wheat—which has saved this country millions upon millions of pounds. He used to get an annual allowance of £1,000. If the doctors can make a discovery of any kind, it may bring a return to this country which money cannot compute. We allow our Medical Research Board, I think, £150,000 a year. But we are able to find for our military research almost anything we need. I forget the exact figure—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—but it is about £1,250,000 that we are now devoting to military research, and principally to research in chemical warfare, for the Army, Navy and Air Force. As a result, we are getting what we pay for. Our Armies, our Navies, our Air Forces are incomparably more efficient than they used to be. It has been said by one Service writer that one aeroplane to-day, if it could carry enough petrol, could quite easily shoot down 1,000 of the type of aeroplane used for fighting in 1918 when the War came to an end. It is certain that the gases now available are incomparably more devastating than those with which we ended the War. The mechanisation of the Army has doubled the striking power of the Army in four years. It is true, as the Secretary of State for War has said, and I agree with him all the way, that that is not an argument for further unilateral disarmament by ourselves, because these developments are going on abroad; but it is an argument for drastic reductions of armament by international agreement. It is an argument for saying that our society is more militarised than it used to be, and militarised to a degree which remains exceedingly dangerous.

I beg the Government to give a lead and to go to the Conference with bold proposals. I want to make myself quite clear. I am not in favour of uni-lateral disarmament. I think that advocacy of disarmament by example is foolish, and is unwise because the elections will not have it. It is worse than that, the thing itself would be useless, because unless you get the other countries to do the same, you have done nothing. It is misconceived because what we want is a general social act by the nations of the world, which shall be a living and concrete symbol of the solidarity of mankind. Lastly, to advocate disarmament by example is absolutely wrong, because it divides the friends of peace. I want the Government to give a lead and to make proposals for drastic reduction of armaments by agreement.

I am not complaining of the present Government and praising others. I am not complaining of our country and praising other countries. On the contrary, I think that our country has done quite as well as any other, and I think that the present Government have done magnificently well, in respect of Disarmament, at least. In the London Treaty, the Franco-Italian Agreement, the termination of the work of the Preparatory Commission, the fixing of the date of the Disarmament Conference, they have a record of practical achievement which is already considerable. They have more than that. They have this to their credit, that by the work of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and of the others who have helped them, they have forced into the consciousness of the world the conviction that Disarmament has to be carried through. That is a great record. But I do ask the Government, while congratulating themselves upon that achievement, not to assume that we have done our share and that we can sit back and watch the foreigners do the rest.

There is a general assumption in this country and in many quarters in this House that we have made far more drastic reductions than other people. I do not want to go into very elaborate statistics, but I should like to give a certain number of figures. There was a discussion in the House the other day about the reduction which has been made in the Army since 1921. It was pointed out that the cost of the Army in 1921 was £82,000,000 and that to-day it is something like £40,000,000. Yes, but there are pitfalls in things like this. In 1921, our total Service Estimates were something like £202,000,000. Is anyone going to suggest that that was a normal year or that our demobilisation had really been carried through? If we take 1923, our total expenditure on armaments was £110,000,000 and it is £110,000,000 to-day. And in the meantime, prices have fallen by 40 per cent.

Other countries have done something beside ourselves. I want to speak on this matter because I know from personal experience that our claims to have done everything while other people have done nothing are rather bitterly resented in foreign lands. Let us look at the expenditure on armaments. The figures which I am about to quote were prepared by Mr. Jacobsen, late of the Secretariat of the League of Nations, afterwards Secretary of the Statistical Council of the Swedish War Office and now a member of the Budgetary Experts Committee of the League of Nations, a man who is recognised by everybody to be perhaps the greatest living authority on this subject. In 1913 we were spending £77,000,000, and in 1926 we were spending in real values approximately the same. In 1913 France was spending $384,000,000 and in 1926 $239,000,000. In 1913 Germany was spending $447,000,000 and in 1926 $178,000,000. For Russia the corresponding figures are $425,000,000 and in 1926 $370,000,000. It is true that since 1926 a number of those countries have increased their expenditure. France has increased her expenditure because she has increased the pay of her soldiers, she has increased by about 25 per cent. the professional cadre of her Army, she has embarked upon a great system of concrete fortifications along her frontiers, and she has started a naval building programme, because between 1914 and 1924 she did not build a single ship.

Similarly, if we look at the official records of man power, we find that compared with 1913 we have reduced by something like 15 per cent. on our three Services, France has reduced, as the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone told us—I heard M. Briand give the figure last September—from about 890,000 to 550,000, which is a little over 40 per cent.; Italy has decreased from 264,000 to under 200,000; while Russia has reduced from the Tsarist Army of 1,200,000 to something under 600,000. Therefore, there has been a general reduction by other Powers. I am not using these figures to show that our Government has not done well. I am not using them for the purpose of saying that they should go further and reduce by one man or get rid of one weapon unless other nations will do the same. I use them to show that the existing level of armaments does work out reasonably and fairly as between ourselves and other peoples. What we want to do now is to secure reductions from that level. If we can get such reduction, it will be immensely in our national interest and will prejudice our national safety in no way whatever.

Therefore, I urge upon the House that the Draft Convention is a good basis for our work, and that it would enable the Conference, if anything will, to succeed. I urge that the Conference must succeed; that it can only succeed if we get real reductions, and that those reductions must be from the now existing level. And I urge that it is for us, the British Commonwealth of Nations, to propose the reductions that should be made. I hope that we shall do so. I know that hon. Members opposite, when we talk about further reductions from the existing level, are assailed by doubts and hesitations. I know that there are risks and dangers which they fear. I understand their feelings and I respect them, and in a certain measure I share them. But I have in my mind another fear. They are thinking of what might happen to this England if one day we should suffer invasion and defeat. I am thinking of what must happen to this England if another war should ever come. Our safety lies in getting rid of war, and to get rid of war disarmament is the first essential step. I hope, therefore, that from every quarter of the House we shall encourage the Government to give a lead and that we shall give them power so that they can carry other nations with them in securing the carrying out of all those pledges which we have made, and the fulfilment of which the present hour so urgently demands.

The right hon. Member who introduced the Debate made reference to the recently announced Austro-German Customs Agreement and made a few observations upon it. I would rather wait until we have some further information before making any comment, except to say that, whatever may be the value or otherwise of that Agreement, the method of its announcement might very well have been a little happier. It is unfortunate that news of that kind should reach our Foreign Office apparently on the day when it appeared in the public Press, and from a source from which one would have expected that it should have reached them three or four days earlier. That is a pity, and it has not facilitated the reception of the Agreement as well as might otherwise have been the case. If the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has any other information to give to us, we shall be very grateful for it.

The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) referred with regret to the very slow progress which has been made in disarmament since the signature of the Treaty of Versailles. That is a regret which we all share, but I do not think that, looking back over the immediate history of the matter, we can really feel much surprise that progress has been so slow. It is unfortunate, but it was probably inevitable that in the first decade after the War the progress of disarmament should have been slow. That it has been slow there is no denying. Some of us have a hope that we are now entering upon a new era, and, although the difficulties are still formidable, we hope that the progress may be more promising that it has been hitherto. I do not deny the stress which the right hon. Gentleman laid on the importance of the Conference next year. Nothing could be more calamitous for the future of Europe than that that Conference should break down. Nor do I for a moment ignore the magnitude of the difficulties which are going to confront the Conference when it meets. Its task will be one of very profound difficulty, and some of the problems that confront it make us very anxious for the future.

The hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir N. Angell) dismissed, and I think rightly dismissed, the value to-day of any gesture of uni-lateral disarmament by this country. I not only think that such a gesture would be from, our point of view one which we have no right to make, as trustees for the nation, but that it would be one which, if we did attempt it, we should be extremely foolish to make, because we should be casting away a bargaining power which we hope will be of great value when the Conference is in session. I feel sure that everyone on this side of the House will be willing to do everything they can to co-operate in making the Conference a success, bearing in mind the obligation which rests upon us, as the hon. Member for North Bradford admitted, as trustees for the national defence of this country.

I listened with interest to the figures which the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker) gave, but I say with great respect that we ought not to be led away in this matter by a discussion of those figures. The difficulties of comparison of figures, before the Conference, are great. There is always the danger that we may lose sight of the wood for the trees. It is always difficult to compare the requirements of the whale with those of the elephant. Therefore, we must content ourselves, as far as the past is concerned, with the reflection that at least this country has not been backward in the work which it has done. I would say that we have set a considerable example for the other nations to follow. We need have no shame as to the record of this country in the past. We have taken risks for disarmament, and the difficulty which will confront our Government in this matter is to induce other nations to take similar risks to those which we have taken.

The hon. Member for North Bradford suggested that there was a difference of view between hon. Members on that side of the House and hon. Members on this on the question of disarmament. I do not think he was quite justified. I can assure him that we on this side of the House are as earnest in the pursuit of disarmament as he or any other hon. Member opposite. I do not think there is any difference in principle, there may be a difference in degree. We are all inclined from time to time to modify our views. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, and as he was speaking I thought that it was very different from some of the speeches we used to hear from these benches—the Opposition benches—during the last Parliament. I remember accusations being made not, of course, by the hon. Member for Coventry, who was not in the House at the time, and suggestions that there was something very wrong with the last Conservative Government because it had failed to induce the nations of Europe to give up conscription. We were arraigned because we had consented to the maintenance of trained reserves on the continent of Europe. Now we have a truly eloquent defence of conscription from the point of view of these countries and the necessity of maintaining conscription. I do not quarrel with this, but I only draw attention to it, because I fear that sometimes challenges are thrown out to us on this side of the House which are not altogether fair, but which may be due to the variations which change of environment very often induces in those who make the challenges.

The hon. Member for North Bradford made one suggestion with which I must quarrel. He suggested that since the gesture of unilateral disarmament was of no value we should consider political action in the direction of further guarantees, for instance, a fresh interpretation of Article 16. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. We in this country have for the moment undertaken sufficient international political obligations. They are very heavy indeed, and I do not think we should be justified to-day in taking on further obligations unless, indeed, the reward in the shape of world disarmament is to be extremely striking. But that was not the suggestion of the hon. Member. His suggestion was that this gesture should take the place of unilateral disarmament, but I do not think the country would be justified in saddling those for whom we are trustees with further political responsibility.

Let me say one word about the lines upon which we may hope to make some progress in the matter of international disarmament. The hon. Member for Coventry waxed quite eloquent in the defence of the Draft Convention. So far as the framework goes it is well enough, but I am not prepared to say that it is a great achievement. I am glad that the work of so many years has succeeded so far, but, after all, it is only the framework, and what matters is the picture which is eventually put into this framework. We can none of us judge of that until the work of the conference has begun. While admitting the difficulties, yet the headlines which are now prepared for us—the blank spaces so to speak which are to be filled in—are such as may serve for useful results. We have to obtain a limitation of numbers in the first place, and I agree that this is the only way by which you will eventually effect reductions in trained reserves. We have also to obtain limitation of classes and length of term service. These are the three headings. Equally we have to obtain some limit, if we can, some budgetary limitation, on general expenditure, which is the only real check you can have upon armaments in the air and upon small arms.

There is one thing I desire to say to the Government. Before the Conference actually meets I hope every effort will be made to obtain some basis for the limitation of the larger arms. It is practically impossible to check the amount of small arms which can be easily concealed, but I should have thought that every effort would be made before the Conference to obtain some basis for the limitation of the larger arms.

Does the hon. and gallant Member mean a direct limitation of larger arms as distinct from limitation of cost?

As distinct from a budgetary limitation for the larger arm, I should like some direct limitation other than a budgetary limit. It is possible to know how many six-inch guns a country has, because they cannot well be secreted. The main consideration before us this afternoon is this. The machinery we have is quite sufficient, just as I believe the machinery for the avoidance of war is sufficient. It is not a question of machinery so much as the spirit in which you are going to operate it, and it is upon that that the future of the Disarmament Conference depends. It is true, unhappily, that this problem is not merely one of figures and arms. Armaments are only the reflection of a state of mind, and while uneasiness exists in Europe the temptation to arm will also exist. I am not arguing as to which is the cart or which is the horse, as to whether security or disarmament comes first, the two are closely related. If you can make progress in disarmament you will increase security, and if you increase security you will facilitate disarmament. But there is no question that if we are to have a successful Disarmament Conference next year we shall have to pave the way for it and do everything to soothe any susceptibilities which, unfortunately, exist in Europe to-day.

Let me add this further observation. I hope that as a result of this Debate that it is clear that in this House, although there may be a difference as to degree, there is none in principle. If that is so this Debate will be well worth while. No one will attempt to belittle the magnitude of the task of the Disarmament Conference, still less its consequences to this country and the peace of the world. This House and this nation has a formidable task confronting it, and I am sure that everyone in the House will wish the Government well and offer them every assistance to bring it to a successful conclusion.

The contributions of the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Cap- tain Eden) are always welcome, and he is not included in the strictures which are sometimes passed from this side of the House as to the sincerity or feeling which is brought to these discussions. I rise to support the general line of argument advanced by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker). Some of us had the advantage of standing with his distinguished father, who spent a long life devoted to the purpose which we are now discussing, and, while he did not find himself in general agreement with the opinion of his day, yet he did his utmost to advance the idea of peace and disarmament, which his talented son, to our good fortune, expresses and reflects in our Debates to-day.

The vital importance of this forthcoming Disarmament Conference cannot be exaggerated. I hesitate to use any expression which suggests in any sort of way a failure, or even a partial failure. None of those who lived through the trying days of the last war will fail to realise that if this conference does not reach a full measure of success the days ahead before the young people of to-day will be full of terror. It is, therefore, the desire of all sides of the House to urge His Majesty's Government to go forward at Geneva with the utmost preparations that they can put in hand. Reference has been made to the steps that they have already taken in preparation for this assembly of the representatives of the nations. I join in congratulating them on the steps they have taken, but their final testing is coming next year at Geneva. Whatever Government is in office, I hope it may be the present Government, it will be tested by its work at Geneva next year. I have had conversations at Geneva with representatives of other nations and a witty French statesman once said to me: "You English are charming people. You are enthusiastic about the reduction of armaments except your own." The gibe was perhaps a little malicious, but after all it included a truth which must be stressed in this House. The preparations that we are making for Geneva must be directed to a particular line of argument. It is useless to go there and recommend the abolition of conscription because we have no conscription of our own, and such a suggestion would not be listened to. It became popular to recommend the aboli- tion of submarines, but the suggestion received no sort of attention on the Continent of Europe, since the policy to which that arm was directed failed to be discussed.

6.0 p.m.

There is a line of preparation which I think the Government should pursue, and that is to relate the work of our own Navy not only to its own work but to the work of the world. We have got to bring the trade routes of the world under international control. If you examine what has been done in other countries in this matter, you will find that all the efforts have been directed to the same purpose, the protection of commercial marine, and that being so the obvious way out of this difficulty is to arrange a plan which will relate these general necessities to the same principle of control. This is a matter which has been argued in this House for generations. I remember that the late Lord Birkenhead in some of his most brilliant efforts, as far back as 1908, soon after his return to this House, at the request of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce made a plea that the trade routes should be brought under international regulation so that interference with the ships of other nations should be brought within the ambit of regulations or law which the other nations had assisted to frame, and urged the setting up of a tribunal to which disputes which might arise could be brought.

He was supported by distinguished men on all sides of the House. He was supported in the plea that until that work had been undertaken effectively naval armaments were bound to increase. He said that if he were a member of a nation whose commerce at sea remained in jeopardy, he would be the first to urge the provision of a navy large enough and powerful enough to support those needs at sea. It is common knowledge that it is the absence of any such plan and regulation at sea which is one of the primary reasons for the huge expenditure on naval power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) has again and again recited the long series of engagements into which we have entered to deal with disputes arising between ourselves and other nations. He knows as well as I do that there is in existence no treaty and no pact which applies to the resolution by arbitration of disputes arising at sea.

I press upon the Government in their preparation for the forthcoming Conference to do their utmost to explore ways and means, consistent with national safety and the national interest, by which they can reach conclusions which they can offer as a basis for discussion with other powers. These trade routes are the arteries of the world's commerce and they have to be brought under regulation. We have to extend the Covenant of the League to the high seas, and endow the international court with powers to deal with disputes which may arise. I do not enter into the matter more fully now, but I beg the Government to pursue the question with the utmost energy. The relief which may come, as we all hope, from the deliberations of this Conference, will be relief of a very vital character. It will not only lift from the public conscience the fear of another catastrophic war, but it will be a financial relief to a business community over-burdened by heavy taxation, and there will be the relief due to the spending of less money on ships. We do not build ships to provide employment in the dockyards; we build them to defend the country. If after discussion with other governments we can agree on better methods of defending our country, the result will be that we shall pare down the expenditure on armaments.

It is sometimes suggested, and the appearance of the House at the moment lends strength to the suggestion, that Disarmament is not a serious topic in this land. But it is a very serious topic outside this House. The uttermost desire in the minds of men and women is that more war should be prevented in every possible way, and they are going to test the success of any Government by its efforts to remove from this land the fear of war. It is a matter in which I am intensely interested, and I do not desire this welcome opportunity which has been given by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have to thank the Liberal party!"] In these day of rewards and punishments I am anxious not to distribute them wrongly. I thank the hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party for providing this opportunity, although I am bound to say that the Government concurred in their suggestion. Whoever was responsible, this has been a welcome opportunity to discuss the forthcoming Conference, which is a matter of the most vital concern to everyone in the Realm.

I wish to say a few words on the very interesting topic raised by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) at the beginning of his speech—the proposed treaty arrangements between Germany and Austria. I am grateful to him for having raised that issue, because I feel that it is very important, when matters of vital international concern of that sort come into the arena of diplomatic discussion, that public opinion in this House and in the country should at the earliest stages of the discussion have an opportunity of keeping itself informed and formulating its own opinion. I think that the Clause which was designed to keep Austria and Germany apart in the Treaty of St. Germain was always regarded very uncomfortably by public opinion in this country. It was prima facie unreasonable. It was a product of war conditions and war psychology, and of the fear, not unnatural at the conclusion of the War, of a new alliance. It was a cynical application of the rule divide et impera, which has been followed by many countries when opportunity arises.

But this step which has now been taken by Germany and Austria together, will at any rate be of very great value both in connection with our general foreign relations and in regard to this proposed Disarmament Conference, if it makes us realise that central Europe will not for ever permit its destinies to be determined by the hates and fears engendered by the War, which were embodied inevitably and perhaps naturally in the treaties immediately after the War—treaties which were drafted in an atmosphere of war. This generation cannot be held in perpetual leading strings by the statesmen of Versailles. Moreover, one of the purposes of that Clause in the Treaty of St. Germain was undoubtedly to calm the fears felt by Czechoslovakia at the moment when it was coming into existence as a separate independent country. At that time, of course, it had not established either its government or its place in Europe, and naturally felt apprehensive at being hemmed nearly all around by countries with whom it had been in opposition. But the situation now is quite different.

Czechoslovakia has established herself politically and economically as one of the steadiest and firmest-grounded States in Central Europe. She plays a part in European affairs which reflects immense credit on the wisdom and skill of her statesmen and on the character and deep qualities of her people. The anxiety which she might have felt then, that she would not be able to establish herself or be supported by public opinion in Europe against her powerful neighbours, need not cause her very much trouble now. The fact is that post-War Austria was an economic anomaly. It was an impossible economic unit. It was a capital city left derelict, with industries and institutions and an organisation suited to a great and populous Empire, but left with little more than suburbs and a country totally inadequate to the upkeep of the city. Although the Austrians with great courage and cheerfulness have accommodated themselves as best they could to their straitened economic circumstances, it has been quite clear for long that sooner or later the difficult and nearly impossible position of Austria and Vienna would have to be dealt with. There was a hope for some time that the establishment of a Danubian economic federation might provide the outlet, but the circumstances in which Germany and Austria have found themselves have undoubtedly contributed to the inevitable bringing together of these two peoples.

Germany, having got rid of the domination in spirit and government of the Prussians, has become less Prussian and therefore more south German, and more akin to the Austrians; and, on the other hand, Austria, having ceased to be bothered with the anxiety which came from her domination of other Slav races, has become less Slav and much more German. Culturally united by literature, by language and by the growing need—the product of this last two or three years—of an economic community of interests, the two countries have been brought together. One of the most significant things which has happened in the last year or two has been the coming together of the agricultural countries in Eastern Europe which were political enemies and rivals for generations. Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia, under the stress of the common misfortunes of their agricultural populations, have come together for the purpose of selling their harvests jointly and acting together in matters which concern the common interests of those populations. There is another movement which has not been so much remarked in this country, on the part of the countries in Central Europe which have to buy their agricultural produce, to come together and make some arrangement under which they can face the combination of agricultural countries with another combination—not necessarily a hostile combination but a group of industrial countries able to make some sort of common agreement.

In that process Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia have been brought more closely together, and have been brought to a greater realisation of their common economic interests than has existed at any time since the War. Therefore, I think that the development of the last few days is, from the Austrian point of view, a natural and inevitable movement. Moreover, Germany's situation has inevitably caused her to adopt an attitude tending to bring her into economic arrangements with anybody with whom she could make such arrangements, and we cannot blame her since we and the other allied countries are more or less responsible. Germany is undoubtedly in a state of grave economic crisis, with unemployment going up and wages going down, and the burden of reparation payments becoming heavier and more difficult to be borne, and it is quite clear that before many months are over the reparation arrangements must break down. It may be a question of weeks, but it is certainly not much more than a question of months before the whole of the economic and financial arrangements based on the reparation clauses of the treaty will have to be reconsidered.

In these circumstances it is quite natural that Germany under the stress of great economic difficulty should seek to find some outlet, should seek by combination with other countries to find some possibility of dealing with her financial difficulties. It was inevitable that these two countries, culturally and racially so much akin, with so long a history of association politically and economically, and with economic forces driving them together, should take the opportunity which their common necessity has offered them of coming together. I hope sincerely, whatever may be the exact juridical interpretation of certain clauses in the Treaty of St. Germains and the Protocol of the Agreement under which Austria got a loan in 1922, that the Government will make it clear that opinion in this country desires very earnestly and emphatically that the problems of Europe at this moment shall be faced on the facts as they are, and not on the facts as they were in 1919.

I am not going to express any opinion on the legal questions involved. It is said that the most-favoured-nation clause in the Treaty of St. Germains requires that Austria should not enter into any such arrangement with Germany, without giving corresponding privileges to other countries. I have always understood that a customs union was not a contravention of the most-favoured-nation clause. In any case, I understand that the Austrians and the Germans have made it plain that if any other neighbouring country wishes to enter this general customs union, that country is at liberty to do so. As for the clause in the agreement of 1922 which prevented any arrangement being made which threatened the independence of Austria, the Austrians apparently have no apprehensions on that score and in any case that clause contained a proviso that it should not prevent Austria making such arrangements in regard to customs and import duties as her interest might dictate. At any rate I express the hope that, in approaching this problem, the Government while doing everything to allay fears which I think are unnecessary and unjustified on the part of the neighbours of Austria and Germany, will recognise that the time has now arrived, whether we like it or not, when the circumstances and the facts, when the needs and the aspirations of a generation which has come to strength and intelligence since the War, will not permit us any longer to stand pat on settlements made under the stress of war difficulties.

We have to face the fact that in the course of the next year or two the whole economic basis of the 1919 settlement will have to be revised and if a start is made in that direction by breaking down customs and other barriers between two nations whose joint economic interest will clearly be assisted thereby, and whose working populations will be assisted if they become one unit, then I think we can congratulate ourselves that the development has come in that peaceful useful progressive way, rather than in the other and more dangerous ways in which it might have arrived. In any case, I hope that the Government will realise that disarmament depends, not on exact comparisons of figures of guns and displacements and ships and the like, but on the spirit of peace among nations. The best security for Europe is to be obtained, not merely by disarmament but by the growth throughout Europe of the spirit of common political and economic institutions. The route to greater political unity lies via economic arrangements of this sort.

I was very glad to note that the Foreign Secretary yesterday in Paris, dealing with the question of the United States of Europe, made it clear that in his opinion the first stage on the journey in that direction must be of an economic kind and while it is very desirable that nothing should be done which might affect or injure the prestige of the League of Nations—and I am sure there is no real desire as far as I am aware of public opinion, in either of those countries to keep the League out of its proper place in regard to arrangements of this sort—I hope that the Government and the public will recognise that an accomplished fact leading towards European unity is of more value than any number of speeches of an idealistic kind, approving principles but fighting very shy of the actual facts.

I desire to associate myself with what has been said as to the desirability of making the contribution of this country to the Disarmament Conference, that of a united country. I hope that a triumph will be obtained there by the representatives of this country, and that it will be regarded not as the triumph of one party, not as the triumph of the Government alone, but as the triumph of the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal party, too. This is far too great a subject for any one party in the State to try to make party capital out of it and therefore I support the view that we should all join together to make the very best we can out of the great opportunity which lies before us. Some reference has been made to the question of unilateral Disarmament. I entirely agree that anything in the nature of unilateral Disarmament by this country is not going to advance the cause of peace but is going to cause doubt and misunderstanding in the country and place an obstacle in the way of peace and I am glad that there is no party in this House which seriously proposes any step of that kind. Disarmament when it comes should be and will be simultaneous in all countries, on an agreed basis, and it is in that way that we shall best make our contribution.

There was one remark made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Geneva last year which seemed to me to be peculiarly valuable. He called attention, publicly, to the fact that we in this country considered Article 8 of the Covenant, dealing with Disarmament, to be as binding on all the nations of the League as any other Article. I believe that to be absolutely true and I think it desirable that nations which have benefited under other Articles, territorially or otherwise, should realise that if their obligations under Article 8 are not carried out then their territorial or other gains do not rest on the soundest of foundations. There are three clear and well-understood reasons why we in this country at this time should go forward with Disarmament. There is, first, the fourfold pledge of the members of the League on Disarmament, including the promise made to Germany. We cannot treat that pledge as a scrap of paper. Secondly, there is the economic argument. I am sure there never will be a time in the history of the world when the peoples of all nations will be more anxious than they are at present to grasp at any opportunity of cutting down taxation and I would like to give an illuminating figure mentioned by my hon. Friend at Geneva last year. If the nations of the world gave one year's expenditure on preparations for war, as a contribution to the League of Nations, it would keep the League going for nine centuries without any further contribution.

The third reason is because by disarmament we shall best obtain security. If the last War taught us any lesson, it taught us that we do not get security by armaments. At one time the nations thought they did get security in that way, and they piled up armies and navies until they all thought that they were secure, but we know that such was not the case. If armies are allowed to continue to exist in the world the time will come when they will be used. It has never been put better than in the Shakespearian line:

It may be asked whether it is possible for other nations to have such confidence in each other that they can feel secure without armaments. That condition exists to-day. The British Empire presents the noblest example of that. There are seven independent nations, separate members of the League, which never give a moment's thought from the beginning of the year to the end how one part can be protected against another part. There is complete security between them. The same security exists between Canada and the United States, and if we have managed to do it in our own Commonwealth of Nations, it is only a question of time for our great example to be copied by all nations; and when the League of Nations has absorbed the spirit which the nations of the British Empire show towards each other, it will, so far as peace is concerned, have accomplished its great task. When the Disarmament Conference comes about, there is one matter that will have to be faced frankly and fearlessly. It was referred to earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir N. Angell). It is the question of the international obligations of this country. I am opposed to this country undertaking any fresh obligations, for there is no necessity for it. We have obligations enough at the present time of the most binding and far-reaching nature under the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The point that will have to be considered is this: Other nations may say that they are quite willing to disarm as long as they can be assured that the pooled security that has been promised will be available when the time arises. In circumstances of that kind, and as part of a disarmament bargain, we have to be prepared to say more definitely and precisely what is meant so far as the British Army and Navy are concerned. It will be a question of merely putting into more finite words than we have done up to the present the existing obligations to join with all other nations, members of the League, to resist the aggressor, whenever and wherever he might arise. It has already been said that a good deal of progress towards security has been made by the Optional Clause, by the General Act, by the Naval Treaty, and in other directions, and these provide an excellent basis of preparation for the Disarmament Conference. The Preparatory Commission has presented a report, and it is only a matter—although it is the most difficult matter that the world has ever had to tackle up to date—of filling in the precise figures of men and money in the spaces that remain empty.

The question of trained reserves was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd), and dealt with effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker), who speaks with such expert knowledge and wide experience on this subject. Surely the position is quite clear that continental nations are resolutely attached to their system of conscription, while we in this country regret it profoundly. I do not think, however, that there is any chance of persuading them to give it up. Therefore, we have to attack the problem in a different way, and try to arrive at the same result by other means. I am inclined to think that it may be done by the three-fold process of a limitation of the amount of money that can be spent on an army, a limitation on the total personnel that can be in an army, and a limitation of the period of training. If we can gradually get that down to any think like the system of the Swiss militia, we shall arrive at a state of affairs when trained reserves are really not a matter of very much importance, because they could not be used for purposes other than for defence and not for aggression.

In the proposal for budgetary control which has been made in the reports of the Preparatory Commission, we have a great new weapon for dealing with this matter. It is very difficult to limit directly small arms of various kinds, because they may be hidden and distributed about a country. But it is more difficult to hide sums of money in a budget, for taxpayers in every country will be able to look every year to see whether anything is hidden away for armaments of any kind in any hole-and-corner way in which it ought not to be. If we can get a systematised scheme in the budgets of the various countries, we shall have a powerful check through the public opinion of each country, and through the taxpayers of each country, to keep down the amount to the lowest possible figure. I hope that the Government will fill up the really lamentable omission that was made in not applying budgetary control to air force expenditure. Surely that was wholly illogical, and could not be defended. It may have been necessary to agree to it at the time; it was carried by only a small majority; but I hope the Government will press by all means to include this control in Air Force expenditure, as well as in naval and military expenditure.

With regard to civil aviation, no doubt it is very difficult to deal with. There will always be a suspicion that some particular country is preparing to use its civil aircraft for military purposes, and I hope that the Government will raise the question of some scheme for the internationalisation of civil aviation. We have it in the International Sleeping Car Company and things of that kind, and if we made European aircraft transport under one international control, we should have an international staff which, in its daily work, would go from one country to another, and, unless it kept its eyes shut, would be able to see at once if any particular nation were trying so to make use of its opportunities as to use its civil aircraft in any way for military purposes. The same thing applies to chemical warfare and gas. The Secretary of State for War told me in answer to a question yesterday, that all those countries that are parties to the treaty for not making use of poison gas, are busy at the present time developing and cultivating the best means of using gas. Here, again, the Government ought to raise the question of some method of internationalisation of the chemical industries which could be developed in wartime for poison gas purposes, in order that in peace time the international staff would be able to see that no one country was adapting its processes and factories for a scheme of this sort.

I hope that the Government will be prepared also to make a proposal in the direction of the limitation of battleships. I hope, for instance, that they will put forward the idea that after the opening of the Conference no battleship greater in size than, say, 10,000 tons, shall be laid down. No doubt there would be great opposition from the United States, and even from people in this country. Let other nations reject it, but let us have the credit of putting it forward, and if we cannot get agreement, it will not be our fault that such an enormous advance in economy and safety has not been obtained. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the issues for the whole future of mankind that are bound up in what is starting on the 2nd February of next year. The present generation and their children and grandchildren will live or die very largely as the result of what is decided then. We are to decide whether the War has been won. We cannot say the War has been won unless its objects have been achieved for all time, and those objects are security and permanent peace.

Striking figures have been given in the Debate of the number of people who were killed in the War. I will add one figure. There are still in the hospitals of this country 20,000 men maimed, blind, mutilated, and not in possession of their senses, who will never live a full human life again as the result of what they went through. Was it worth while? It was worth while, and it can be justified to a great extent, if we now use our opportunities through the League of Nations to make sure that war never occurs again in this world. If we fail next year and wars come again, we have to face the fact that the great sacrifice of life was made in vain. That shows the immense responsibility that remains on us so to influence public opinion that the Governments of the world will go to Geneva next February to make certain that peace will come in our time for ever more.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, if he had been in the House, would have been delighted and encouraged by the general development of this Debate. It has shown the great degree of harmony which prevails on the subject of Disarmament, and on the problem that lies before us as a nation. Before I come to the question of Disarmament, may I say a word or two about the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), with regard to the proposed German-Austrian Customs Treaty Agreement. I am not in a position to give much information to the House beyond that which I gave in answer to a question yesterday, but I can perhaps add this. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is very anxious that no promising movement towards the reduction of European tariffs and trade barriers should be prevented by any misunderstanding or mishandling. He wishes to follow the policy that we have always as a Government pursued, and which indeed we inherited from our predecessors, which is that a difficult question of this kind, where misunderstandings may arise, should be considered in an impartial and friendly atmosphere by the Council of the League of Nations; and his proposal is that the Council should in such an impartial and friendly spirit examine at an early date the bearings of the proposed agreement, and how far it can be held on any legal grounds to be contrary to existing treaty engagements or to commercial treaties which may have been entered into by our own country with either Germany or Austria.

Our desire is to examine carefully and impartially the whole bearings of this proposal, and I need hardly remind the House that we have pressed for so long, not always with the full approval of all sections of the House, such projects as the tariff truce and other first steps towards the general reduction of tariff barriers on the Continent, that I am sure that in desiring to secure some far-reaching reduction of these trade barriers, we shall be under no suspicion of being unsympathetic towards that idea. But the distinct possibility of some exclusive arrangement between those two countries only, as a result of which perhaps, through the raising of an even higher tariff barrier around the new proposed Customs union, we might find even greater obstacles in front of our trade than we find now, is one that must evidently be explored. In view of the active part which my right hon. Friend has taken in encouraging these movements towards freer European trade and closer co-operation, and the support which he has given to M. Briand's proposals for closer economic collaboration, I am sure it will not be thought that he is not entirely sympathetic to the general idea of lowering tariff barriers. But he may have had some hesitation, and I think he has, as to the exact time and manner of announcing this particular proposal and as to the exact implications of the proposal in the form in which up to this moment we know it.

The Council of the League would not consider merely the legal aspect or the legal interpretation of any Clauses in the Treaty? I hope the Council of the League will go beyond that and consider, if it is necessary, to what extent it would be desirable to relax those obligations.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into further detail on the matter at present. All that I can tell he House is that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is very anxious that this whole question should be considered by the Council, when he will be present, at its next meeting.

I am not going to compete with my hon. Friend in putting a gloss on what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said. What he has said is that he hopes the Council of the League will examine the matter at their next session, and he has suggested that to the German and the Austrian Governments, and has also told M. Briand that that is his view as to the best method of handling this question. In his absence I cannot go beyond that.

In passing to the main question discussed this afternoon that of disarmament, I would like to say that we were all extremely glad to hear the statements of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), that the Liberal party were willing to associate themselves fully with the Government in preparatory work for the Conference. I am sure that he will not expect me to make any further comment on that particular point, but at any rate we appreciate very much the spirit which underlay his words. As to other matters on which he questioned me, I can reply in a little more detail. He asked about the preparations that were going forward here. The next meeting of the Council of the League, in May, will have to take certain important decisions, for example, as to the place of meeting, whether it is definitely to be held at Geneva or whether there is any reason for considering the claims of some other place. The next meeting of the Council will also have to consider the presidency of the Conference and other matters regarding what I may call the mechanical preparations for its assembly.

It may be of interest to the House to know that the Foreign Secretary recently addressed a letter to the Secretary-General to the League of Nations, making certain suggestions with regard to the collection of information from other Powers. In his view it is very important that we should get uniform statistics and uniform information, so that we can compare the level of armaments of different States without any fear of misunderstanding. My right hon. Friend communicated some detailed suggestions. I have his letter here, but I will not weary the House with it. He suggested that the Secretary-General should ask all the States represented at the Conference to make uniform returns and to put their information on a comparable basis. That is a businesslike proceeding which will both save time and prevent any false estimates of the position.

In addition to that a very useful committee, the committee of budgetary experts, on which this country has been represented by a very able Treasury official, has been meeting in Geneva in order to draw up a model form of budgetary statements and to examine the implications of budgetary limitations, on which I will say more in a moment, and how far we can get a uniform and clear statement of the expenditure of various countries on their armaments under various headings. The report of the budgetary experts committee is now, I understand, in the hands of the printers, and I hope that it will be available in the course of the next week or two. It will, I think, be found very useful by those hon. Members who study this matter closely and continuously, as so many do.

The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), in reply to a speech made by the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd), asked whether it was not possible under the Draft Convention, as it now stands, to limit the number of effectives, and the period of service in conscript armies, and hence, indirectly as it were, the number of trained reserves. That point has been dealt with by a previous speaker, but I should not like my hon. Friend to think that I did not answer the question he put to me. The Draft Convention, which, as hon. Members know, contains no figures, does make it possible, if appropriate figures are filled in, to limit not only the period of service in conscript countries, but also the number of effectives brought into the army year by year, and also to distinguish between the number of conscripts and the number of regular long-service soldiers. Although I share to some extent in the pessimism of some hon. Members, who have said that we cannot hope to see the abolition of conscription on the Continent of Europe yet awhile, there is nothing to prevent us from pressing towards that end, pressing towards a great limitation of the very large intake of effectives which the main Continental powers now arrange. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) spoke of the budgetary limitation of air forces. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but I do not think he quite did justice in his remarks to the fact that Lord Cecil did press very hard for budgetary limitation in this case.

That proposal was defeated by a narrow majority, but I hope it will be possible to restore it when we come to grips with this matter. Not to impose a budgetary limitation on air forces would leave an ugly, an illogical and an inconvenient gap in the general scheme of budgetary limitation to which we attach great importance. The hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) spoke of the direct limitation of the larger arms and, as I understand him, he desires not only to have budgetary limitation covering those arms, but a direct limitation also. If I may speak quite personally, not now speaking for the Government but as one student of the subject to another, I have always felt that it would be a very great advantage if we could have direct limitation here, but the argument which has hitherto carried great weight is that for technical reasons it is very difficult to enforce any such direct limitation. That view is held by certain of our advisers. None the less this is evidently a question which remains open and, if the hon. and gallant Member and others can persuade us that it is technically possible and that it does not lend itself to gross evasions and deceits—that one can, for instance, effectively define a tank, which is one of the points sometimes put up—then I should hope that his wish will be carried out and that we shall add to budgetary limita- tions the direct limitation of the larger arms also. But I cannot commit the Government upon that point. I can only say it is a matter upon which it would be very interesting to have further discussion.

If I may pass to the question of budgetary limitation, there is a growing feeling, and I am glad to note that it is so, in various parts of this House that, whatever other elements we may need in this disarmament treaty, we do need very urgently, almost more than anything else, a check to the continuous growth of expenditure on armaments. Budgetary expenditure, though by itself it is not enough, is an extremely important element in any scheme which is to avail us anything. Quite apart from other considerations, the psychological gain of seeing a reduction in the amount spent on armaments year by year in various countries would be a very great one. May I quote one sentence from a speech made by the Foreign Secretary in the Queen's Hall on the 9th February:

Passing to another aspect of our preparatory work, I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate pay a tribute to the work which my right hon. Friend, with others, has done in creating more direct personal relations between the various leading statesmen of the world. That, after all, is a great and important aspect of postwar international relations. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used to cultivate friendly personal relations with foreign statesmen when he was Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) continued that in his regular visits to the Council of the League of Nations, and since the present Government came into office there have been perhaps more occasions for such personal contact than previously. The Prime Minister's visit to the United States of America in the early days of this Parliament was of the very greatest assistance. It was followed up very happily by the presence of American and Japanese statesmen in London during the meeting of the London Naval Conference, which brought together statesmen who very seldom meet in the ordinary course, not being among those who annually gather at Geneva in connection with the League of Nations. Over and above this we have had remarkable results from the meetings at Geneva of the Council of the League and the Assembly of the League. Gradually the leading men in various countries are coming to know one another, and lose the fear and prejudice which is apt always to attach to the unknown.

If I may refer parenthetically to the point raised regarding Austria and Germany, it is perhaps a pity, as has been said, that the German and Austrian Foreign Ministers have not been present in Paris during these last few days because they might have been able to remove by personal contact some of the misunderstandings which arose on the first announcement of the Customs Union proposals.

7.0 p.m.

The Foreign Secretary is, as he has often told the House, focussing the whole foreign policy of this country upon this immediate—for it is now coming very close—this immediate and supreme objective of our whole policy, namely, Disarmament. I am going to venture to read to the House one or two sentences from the address given by my right hon. Friend to the Council of the League at their last meeting when the Draft Disarmament Convention was brought up:

If I take leave to add a few words to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him it is not to differ from the sentiment of his concluding remarks, which we on this side fully share. I must say a word or two about the other matter introduced at the beginning of his speech by my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate and which was dealt with at greater length by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Wise). I came down to the House with no clear knowledge of what was going to be the subject of discussion, and with no intention to take part in the Debate, but I do not think that any of us was prepared for the introduction into the Debate of the proposed Austro-German Customs union, although it is a matter of the highest importance. At any rate, I, myself, have placed upon the Order Paper some questions for the Foreign Secretary for next Monday, when I hope he will be back among us, and I should have been content to wait for the fuller information he will be able to give us then, had it not been that other Members have introduced the subject now and have spoken about it with insufficient caution, and with a little too great readiness to welcome it, without knowing exactly what it is. I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary speak with greater caution.

There is the fact that, whatever view we take, we and other nations, who have been engaged whether in the conferences for the proposed tariff truce or in the conversations and conferences which have taken place for some closer union among European States, have reason to complain that a project of this kind is secretly matured while those conversations are proceeding, and sprung upon the other Powers who were parties to them. I cannot help feeling it showed a certain want of diplomatic tact on the part of the two Powers not to have taken the other nations earlier into their confidence and given them some hint as to what were their proposals. Apart from that, which is only a question of time and methods, there remains the broader question of the exact substance and purport of this agreement. I am wholly with the Foreign Secretary in the course he has decided to take in bringing this question before the Council of the League of Nations. I am the more glad that he has done this, because I might have been a little afraid that the Government, who had only a couple of weeks ago persuaded this House to approve the General Act for the Settlement of International Disputes, and which had previously secured the acceptance by the House of the Optional Clause, would have felt themselves bound at once to carry it, as a matter which in one of its aspects, at any rate, is purely a matter of law, of treaty construction and of legal right, before the High Court of International Justice or before the special tribunal, which might be constituted under the later document. This projected union raises legal questions of the greatest value and, no doubt, those questions will have to be cleared up and may exercise a determining influence on the final result.

The right hon. Gentleman has been wise to prefer a reference to the Council, because the Council can take account of the various political issues, which are also raised, and which are perhaps not less important than the strictly legal position of the document or of the union in question. I do not desire, since the Secretary of State has taken that action, to go into any detail on the matter. I do not want to pre-judge the Council's decision or recommendation, neither should I like to see them pre-judged in any other quarter, but I would venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, after all, progress on the very subject which forms the main topic of this Debate, namely, Disarmament, depends on the mutual confidence of nations, each in the good faith of the other, and on their determination to abide by the agreements that they have signed, and that any phrases used in this House or in any other assembly which tend to throw doubt on the sanctity of those international agreements, which tend to upset what is the existing basis of public law in Europe, far from advancing the cause of Disarmament, feed exactly those fears which have prevented us from making progress, and throw us back into an unhappy past, instead of leading us to the brighter future to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I venture to add those words of caution. I should not like it to be thought that, as a result of this Debate, the House did not share the hesitation which the Foreign Secretary obviously feels, and that they did not think that both the legal position and the political consequences of such an act as this were a proper subject for discussions at the League of Nations, where, of course, the parties interested will be able to take their place and support their view.

I turn now to the other and major portion of the Debate on Disarmament. I may say at once that, as regards the general position of the Opposition, for whom I speak on that question, I should accept without qualification the statement by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden) in the able and interesting speech which he has contributed. There is no shadow of difference that I can detect in any quarter of the House as to the importance of this question, no shadow of difference as to the desire of all parties to contribute to its solution. Whether it was wise to write the question of Disarmament into the Treaty of Peace as was done, whether it was wise to give it the particular position in the Covenant which it has, may be a question for argument, but, at any rate, it is there, and it is a subject which has necessarily to occupy our attention. My doubts, such as they are, of the wisdom of the course which we took arise not from any doubt about the desirability of a limitation of armaments, but from hesitation as to whether the prominence given to it has not in fact, as far as we have gone at present, delayed rather than promoted such Disarmament.

We have now arrived at a point when the Conference, so long contemplated, so long in preparation, is fixed to meet at a particular date. It is one of the perils which we run in dealing with matters of this kind that, if an international conference meets to settle a question of that gravity and fails to reach a solution, we are not where we were before the conference met. The position dos not remain the same. Unless we can make progress, the end of the Conference will mark a set back, the extent of which no man can measure. It may mean that the whole subject is thrown back for another generation, and it is, therefore, impossible to exaggerate the importance of arriving at an agreement at the forthcoming Conference. I can only repeat what my hon. and gallant Friend has said on behalf of the party to which he and I belong, that we will do nothing to impede the task of the Government, and we shall be happy if we can contribute to its successful conclusion.

I will venture to make an observation about what has fallen from some other hon. Members in the course of the Debate. I am not sure that it is very useful in a discussion in this House in our own Parliament to indicate, or to attempt to indicate, details of the scheme which we ought to attempt to secure. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is desirous that we should ask for a limitation of battleships, and he appears to be unaware that the battleship proposal which His Majesty's late Government took to the Three-Power Conference at Geneva failed to gain support, and failed to get a fair examination from the parties with whom we were associated at that Conference. I mention this, because, as was said by another speaker with whom I am not in agreement, there is no question in which the French proverb "that the better is the enemy of the good" is more true, and that if we want to make progress in disarmament, we cannot wrap ourselves up in our insular ideas and refuse to move outside. We have to make allowances for the different conditions, the different traditions, and the different circumstances of other countries, and I think it will be the task of the British Government, while defending the British point of view, while seeing that we are not called upon to make sacrifices out of proportion to those to which others will consent, to take that line which gives the best hope for a successful result, and not insist upon this or that particular proposal if such insistence would wreck the whole prospect of agreement.

I now come to two observations in regard to one of which I want to put in a caveat, and in regard to the other of which I wish to express my dissent. The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker), if I rightly understood him, in the course of the very interesting contribution that he made, said that it might be broadly taken that the numbers which the nations now possess bore a sort of relative fairness, and that any limitation by a uniform percentage reduction would be a fair basis for limitation. If I rightly understood the hon. Member, I differ from him. I do not think that the figures which he read out supported his conclusion, and, above all, I do not think that they do so when the relative obligations and characters of the forces which he enumerated are taken into account. I hope that the Government have not committed themselves—certainly the Under-Secretary said nothing to commit himself to-day—to the doctrine that a mere percentage reduction would produce a result that would be acceptable to this country as being fair between us and the other countries affected by it.

There was another statement which, speaking subject to correction, I think was made by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir N. Angell) who suggested that we were tackling the problem of Disarmament from the wrong end, and that it was in the development of Article 16 of the Covenant that a real basis for Disarmament was to be found. From that point of view, I profoundly differ. May I remind hon. Members that Article 16 is the article which embodies the sanction for a breach of the Covenant. Let me say, in the first place, that the 12 years' experience which we have had of the working of the League has led the League, in its practical application to the problems which have been presented to it, to lay less and less stress on the sanctions, and attach more and more importance to the conciliatory procedure.

No doubt at the Peace Conference at Versailles, when the Covenant was being framed, immense importance was attached to the sanctions, and no doubt had America joined in the Covenant and become a member of the League the sanctions themselves, and particularly the economic sanctions, would have taken on a different power and effect from those which they enjoy at the present time. It was especially upon the universality of the application of the economic sanctions that the negotiators of the Treaty and the framers of the Covenant were so insistent, and it was only because they were in that form that they came to the conclusion they did about the military sanctions which are in Section 16. The situation was very largely altered by the abstention of America, and there was almost immediate reaction in the League itself. The Assembly discussed it, and it is now, I think I may say without fear of contradiction in any quarter, an accepted League doctrine that each nation is the judge of what military assistance, if any, it will render; and it has further accepted the doctrine, based upon resolutions of the Assembly, and set out in the letter which the signatories of the Locarno Treaty addressed to the German representatives, that in other respects no country can be expected to make an effort in the common cause out of proportion to the means which she has at her disposal. That is common sense, that is a truism, and it is formally on record, not as a decision of the Council of the League, but as the interpretation which the Powers who signed the Locarno Treaty placed upon the Covenant.

The whole result of the practical experience of the working of the Council of the League goes to throw the sanctions into the background and to press conciliation into the foreground. If you stress sanctions, you run a danger of breaking the League. The nations of the world are not yet prepared to set up a super-State. I hope nobody doubts my loyalty to the Council of which it was my pride at one time to be a member when I say that the Council is not fit to exercise the power of a super-State, nor to direct the super-State force taking the place of the forces of the nations who compose it.

On a point of correction. I did not say that the Government were in any sense tackling this matter at the wrong end, but merely that, to my mind, our commitments under Article 16 ought to imply that really we did not mean to discourage political preparations for this Conference; and, in so far as the use of armaments is attached in any way to alliance obligations, those obligations must be of a League character and not of a balance-of-power character.

I am not sure how far the correction which the hon. Member has just made invalidates the criticism which I am making. Perhaps I was wrong in saying that he stated that the Government were proceeding from the wrong end, but I think he does want to stress Article 16 and strengthen the obligations which we are undertaking. No country has undertaken so definite an obligation as we have to put at the service of a League decision the whole resources of the country. That is the contribution which we made to the peace of Europe at Locarno, and we were justified in making it, in my view, because the area in which we became concerned was one in which our interests and security were inextricably involved, but to say that we ought to extend any comparable obligation to every quarter of the world, and to every quarrel that may arise, and while doing so that we are to reduce our armaments is surely not only a non sequitur but a contra diction of the most glaring kind. If you are going to undertake obligations of this kind, you will have, not to reduce your armaments, but to strengthen them. Your armaments are insufficient—

May I say, again on a point of correction, that, if we are committed to others, equally others are committed to us; and, the more the purpose of our armaments is a common purpose, the less will the contribution of each need to be.

Then the hon. Member will see that his argument comes to this, that he relies upon every Power to discharge its recognised obligations under the Covenant or under any treaties which they may have signed. Very well. Why, then, does he want any sanctions? If they will keep the one agreement, there will be no need for war, there will be no need for sanctions. If they will not keep the one agreement, what is the security that they will keep the other?

That brings me directly to my concluding observation. The whole question is a question of good faith. If the nations believed that all the obligations which have been signed would in all circumstances be kept by the Powers which have signed them, they would not need an international conference in order to enable them to reduce their armaments. It is the fear that agreements may not be kept that causes the reluctance to disarm, and the necessity for this lengthy and difficult procedure. It is not by adding written obligation to written obligation; it is not by insisting on the most difficult, most dangerous and most bellicose sections of the Covenant of the League; it is not by filling up what are called the gaps and the crevices in the League's structure, that you will make progress. If you work on those lines, you tend to overstrain the structure; you tend to snap it at the moment when it is most important that it should function, it is by cultivating a spirit of mutual conciliation, by encouraging that conciliatory spirit in the procedure which the League has so often, so usefully and so successfully employed, that you lay the firmest foundation for a present limitation and reduction of armaments, and that you obtain the greatest security that the obligations undertaken under any conventions on the subject will be maintained, not merely in the letter, but in the spirit, by the Powers which signed them.

There is no doubt about the grave anxiety that exists on this question of disarmament, and there is also a considerable deepening of doubt as to whether we are going to have that substantial element of security of which we hear a good deal from time to time. The general feeling, undoubtedly, is that the Government have been making very creditable steps forward in the direction of endeavouring to tighten up the peace interests of our country and of other countries of the world, and we have had this afternoon contributions from experts representative of the Forces, and from others representative of what we may term the pacifist movement. The hon. Member for North Bradford (Sir N. Angell) argued that the Government could not be expected to accomplish that which he personally had in view, namely, unilateral security, by taking that step, and he stated that the difficulty was that the Government were in the position of a trustee. I do not see the matter just in that light. The Government are not tied up like a trustee. It would be a very strange Government, and, indeed, I do not think it would be a Government at all, if it were tied up in that way. The truth of the matter is that the Government have all the power that they have sought and that they are anxious to exercise.

The hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker) said that the taking of this step would not be supported by the electors, but I have not heard very much of its being put before the electors; I do not find any very definite leadership in that direction. I hear statements from time to time from Labour platforms of the general pacifist position—that we ought to go in for disarmament; but when one follows the De- bates here on the subject, one does not find any proposals for disarmament. One does find, certainly, very definite proposals for the reduction of armaments. You can get a specification regarding the larger battleships, you hear proposals for the restrictive control of the production of poison gases, and recommendations for rationalisation. You also hear, as we have heard this afternoon, the proposal that we ought to get down to the great question of the reserve forces which are so powerful in other nations. But you do not find any actual definition that the people can understand of what you mean by disarmament.

The whole discussion is based, as it always has been based, on the acceptation of armaments. The whole position has been laid down in the triple alliance of the three parties. That does not put the Liberal party in such an awkward position as is sometimes the case; it is a sort of all-in movement; and, when we find an all-in movement on the Floor of this House, there is grave reason to examine the situation. The cause of the League of Nations is being urged from the ecclesiastical platform, but you will find the League of Nations Union circulating from its headquarters intimations that the responses are not by any means encouraging, that the advance in its numerical strength is comparatively slight; and yet it is to the League of Nations to which, apparently, all our hopes are being directed.

One of the great reasons why we have landed into the appalling result which was so well described by a right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Liberal benches, and with which we are all familiar, is that the nation which is involved in warfare on the one side declares that God is on its side, that it has the whole case for righteousness, while a similar declaration is also made from the other side. Then there was mention of the 20,000 or so of our men who are still in hospital, and never likely to be available for anything like activity in life—a deplorable situation. I do not find in the whole of this discussion the slightest indication that we are moving towards the point to which the last War was said to be directed, namely, the ending of war. There are many urgent appeals to the Government, from this side and the other side, to go forward with courage and determination. There is no doubt that the Government will do that. It is in the interests of the Government, and especially of a Labour Government, that they should make a good show from the point of view of endeavouring to do all that they can in the way of reduction of armaments; but we heard not very long ago an emphatic declaration on the part of the Government that they cannot do anything more than other nations are going to do. That settles the matter. That is the regulation of the pace. There is to be no leadership here. We are to join in the procession. We are in the procession now; we are in the vicious circle, and we cannot get out of it. That is the hope for this country.

The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) spoke about the trade routes, and I remember its being said on the other side that we have given away the blockade. The blockade was a magnificent power in our possession. We could bring people in other countries to starvation. But we can do that now. We are putting them on the verge of starvation now, millions of them. To my mind, that points to something that has not been discussed in regard to the question of disarmament. Armaments are not in themselves exclusively a cause; they are a result. What is the reason for our being armed to the teeth? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has said that we must have faith in one another. You have an evidence of the faith that we have in one another. The Secretary of State for War thinks that we must be armed to the teeth—

Yes, on the essential point of having all that the right hon. Gentleman considered necessary.

May I intervene to say that I never made any such declaration at all? It is a monstrous perversion of anything that I have ever said.

I was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's exact words, but I say that from the official point of view he considers it necessary, and he put up the defence that the armaments for which he is officially responsible for the time being are essential. Figures were given by the hon. Member for Coventry which, while giving credit to the Government, show that other nationalities have made a substantial reduction, as we have done. The Government, therefore, are not entitled to any special credit, since they have only been making a comparative reduction along the same lines as other nationalities. Therefore, I say that in the main the nations, including our own, are now armed to the teeth.

I was endeavouring to get to the deeper question. References have been made to the remarkable development, which we should quite naturally expect, of Germany and Austria saying, "It is high time that we were getting together. It is time we were getting our hand in. We have to get back to the old game. We were formerly powerful competitors with Britain. We are entitled to come into the ring." And the powerful forces that fought them say, "No, you must stay where you are. For God's sake do not come in. There was big enough trouble before, and it is possible that we may have great trouble with those who are here now. You must stay where you are." Is any man in his senses going to be able to defend that state of affairs? It is impossible. The natural result is taking place. You said you would have the knock-out blow, and now those whom you have knocked out are beginning to recover, and to recover with some considerable effect. They are stepping into the arena; and the Foreign Secretary, to whom we give all credit for what he is trying to do has to say, "Please bring this to the League of Nations. That is where we have a nice love feast, and we will have a talk together about this business." That is a very solemn warning not only to our country but to all the nations involved. What is the form of retaliation? It is business—selfish interest. It is the great economic system, which is not at all economic but wasteful and disastrous to nations—the impossibility of having faith in each other, and the system that says we have to cut out our neighbours. Our nation has to fight other nations in time of peace; hence, this remarkable development.

One great issue which has to be confronted concerning the League of Nations is this: It is not so much a matter of the League of Nations getting members of churches and so on to join. The issue is for the church now to decide that, as far as our organisation is concerned, it stands for the principle of everlasting peace and that it is the decision of every member of every denomination that we will have nothing to do with war. When the church takes its stand and makes that pronouncement, it will shiver the representatives of every political party on the Front Benches here. Then there will be a move on. The Ministry were bought in the last War, hence the reason why you were able to force conscription upon the masses of our fellow men, who were taken in the bloody massacre, and 20,000 of them left in hospitals now. We are drifting steadily into the dark abyss of another bloody massacre of more colossal dimensions than ever before. The electorate do not need very much encouragement. They would soon rise to it.

Let us get beyond our political party machine. Let us get beyond all this diplomatic finessing and saying: How can we get some little agreement and go to Geneva and make a show in the way of saving expenditure on the Army? That is not what is wanted. It is easy enough to say we are in a deplorable condition industrially, and it would be a grand thing to save money on armaments, but that is no moral issue at all. It has no meaning. The issue is whether Labour is to stand for the defence of the homes of the people who are now defenceless. I thank the Liberal party for giving us the opportunity, because this is a momentous question, and we are not grappling with it, just as we have failed ignominiously to grapple with any of our big questions. We have fished round the waters, we have dabbled about round the sides and got shells from the seashore, and we say that is a wonderful bit of gathering that we have done. We ought to be the leaders in this great question of peace for the world. You who have been fishing all night and catching nothing should launch out into the deep. Let each party and every man and woman of us individually launch out into the deep. We are determined that our people are not to be butchered. We are bound to admit that the Government have their difficulties, but I would not be in their position for £10,000 if they cannot stand for the straight business of out-and-out defence of the people from being butchered—man made in the image of God. You may say that is a retreat. I say it is going to the front. When we stand for real disarmament and stand for the leadership of the people, we undoubtedly get into a position where we may seem to have lost, but we win. It is when we are prepared to lose our lives that we gain, and that is the position that I hold.

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

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[ Mr. T. Shaw. ]

London Passenger Transport

Ordered,

"That so much of the Lords Message of the 25th March as relates to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the London Passenger Transport Bill be now considered."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,

"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, to be joined with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith and to request them to appoint an equal numbers of Lords to be joined with the Committee appointed by this House.

Ordered,

"That the Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection."

Ordered,

"That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bill presented on or before Friday, the 17th day of April, 1931, be referred to the Committee."

Ordered,

"That the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill."

Ordered,

"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."

Ordered,

"That Two be the quorum."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Watford and St. Albans Gas Company, which was presented on the 5th day of March and published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Alnwick Gas Company, which was presented on the 5th day of March and published, be approved." [ Mr. W. B. Smith. ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes before Eight o'Clock.