I do not rise for the purpose of occupying any great part of the time of the House, but to give the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary the opportunity of answering one or two questions. I believe that all Members of the House will agree that the present state of the world is not very consonant with peace on earth and good will towards men, and we hope that during the time in which the Foreign Secretary will be away from the surveillance of this House we shall see a very great improvement in the state of the world. I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary a few specific questions. The first is with regard to the Disarmament Conference. Can he give us any information as to the progress that has been made with the supplemental and parallel conversations which have taken place with France and Germany, and whether we shall have any report of those proceedings? We should like to know, further, whether he can give us any closer definiton than we had recently of the attitude of the Government towards rearmament. A considerable amount of tendencious matter about rearmament is appearing in the Press. The country has not been calmed down by the statements made in both Houses on the subject of our air defences, and we wish the Foreign Secretary, if he can, to state very clearly just what is the attitude of the Government towards any rearmament whether by Germany or by this country. We recognise that the position of the Disarmament Conference is critical. For our part, we are unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of rearmament, and believe it would be a tragedy if the Disarmament Conference were to result actually in rearmament. Further, I would ask the Foreign Secretary whether these parallel conversations are also taking place with the United States of America.

I understand that the Foreign Secretary is shortly to have conversations in Italy. On that point I would ask whether he can make any statement as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the alteration of the constitution of the League of Nations. I would like to know whether any specific questions have been sent to Italy, and whether his visit to Italy is in any way concerned with the proposals which have been put forward respecting the constitution of the League of Nations. We on these benches hold that those proposals are extremely dangerous. The essence of the League of Nations is that it should be a democratic League of Nations, and should not be turned into a holy or unholy alliance of dictatorships: and in any case it should not be converted from a League in which small nations have their full share and their full voice to an instrument for the hegemony of a few great Powers. Anyone who has seen the Foreign Press since the pronouncement made by Signor Mussolini will have seen that the prosals raised very grave searchings of heart among the neutral Powers, among neutral Powers that have done very great service to the League. It has been stated, indeed, that any change in the constitution of the League would be tantamount to destroying it, and there has been a plea that the League should be strengthened. We hold that any attempt to alter the constitution in such a way as to throw all power into the hands of a few great Powers would destroy the League and, with it, destroy the hopes of peace.

The next question I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary is on a very delicate matter. I think everybody is aware that one of the danger points of Europe is Austria. It is difficult to know what is happening in that country, but we hope that the influence of our Government throughout the world will be thrown against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. The position in Austria is extremely difficult. One does not know whether democracy will survive there or fall a prey to one or other of contending dictatorships, but this country not only has its moral duty under the Covenant of the League of Nations but also has taken upon itself heavy financial burdens. The position there is one which gives great concern to every Member of the House, and I hope and believe that our Government will stand firm by Austria if there should be any signs of aggression from any quarter.

The last question is to ask the Foreign Secretary what is the present position in relation to the Sino-Japanese dispute. We have heard nothing of that for some time. Are we acquiescing in a fait accompli? Are we really accepting the flouting of the League of Nations, in fact, the flouting of the whole civilised world? Are we sitting by quietly and allowing Japan to consolidate her position in China? That brings me to what I regard as the second danger point in the world to-day, the Far East. One great country there does not belong to the League, although it has collaborated with the League, and another country has been in the League and has rejected it. There are rumours and suspicions of what may occur in that quarter. While those nations may be outside the League, it is the business of the League and of our representatives, who are among the leaders of the League, to do all that can be done to prevent anything like a danger of hostilities breaking out in that quarter of the world. We believe that this country and the United States can, with Russia, form the biggest bulwark for the peace of the world. Never, since the War, has the outlook been more serious for world peace and Democracy. We hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make a statement this morning that will enable people to feel more comfortable in this season of the year, and to look forward to the New Year with more peace of mind than they have experienced during the year that is passing.

I rise to ask one or two questions, first of all emphasising the questions that have been put by the Leader of the Opposition. What is the attitude of the Government to the question of the reform of the League of Nations put forward by Signor Mussolini? We all agree that the League of Nations, being a human institution, is capable of reform. In fact, M. Avenol, in the speech that he made in the Committee Room upstairs, suggested various ways in which it might be reformed by the speeding up of the procedure. There is also the proposal made by M. Briand for regional chambers. "Reform" may mean so many things. When it is applied to the constitution of another place it means the strengthening of that institution, but, apparently, when it is applied to the League of Nations by Signor Mussolini it means weakening the League of Nations. Signor Mussolini is apparently pleading for a junta of Powers which, I suggest, would mean nothing more than the dictatorship of the great States.

Who would join such a dictatorship? France would not, owing to her commitments with the Little Entente, and Great Britain could not, owing to her Dominions. The United States obviously would not commit herself to that extent. The dictatorship would consist merely of Japan, Germany and Italy. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Russia!"] I am not speaking of Russia. I say nothing disrespectful of those Powers, but where the tranquillity of Europe is concerned they are hardly an impressive combination. This group of great Powers would be the Holy Alliance all over again, and we know what happened to the Holy Alliance. Disputes broke out among the great Powers, and in a few years the Alliance collapsed. Signor Mussolini's proposals would mean a return to the old diplomacy, which would be all the more dangerous because it would mean an admission that the new diplomacy had failed. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman this morning that, as far as the Government are concerned, this is a kind of reform in which it will have no part or lot.

The second question which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is as to what kind of lead the Government are giving to a Europe that is drifting to disaster? What, is their attitude to German disarmament? There was a remarkable statement in the Paris "Temps" last week which, with the permission of the House, I will read. With regard to sanctions in the case of rearmament, the "Temps" stated:

"Before adopting this standard, one would do well to examine with care the attitude of Great Britain, Recent declarations of both the majority and the Opposition are hardly encouraging in this respect."

I wonder if we are not too much stressing disarmament and not sufficiently security, which, after all, can alone be the basis of any disarmament. France apparently thinks that our guarantees are not worth much. What, if anything, can we do to strengthen those guarantees? France has a right to know what our policy is. The greatest bulwark to security is the inspection of armaments. If only France could know what was happening beyond her frontiers I believe that we would get a new feeling of security. I wish the Government would declare with all their authority for as effective an inspection of armaments as can be devised, including provision for periodic and automatic inspections upon international authority.

Thirdly, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what our proposals are at this moment on the question of disarmament. Where do the Government stand? What is happening to those parallel and supplementary efforts that were taking place? For instance, are the Government asking for the abolition of all bombing aeroplanes, subject to the control of civil aviation? Will they support the complete abolition, within five years, of all armaments forbidden to Germany? I know that that is a very large and comprehensive programme. Can we have assurances from the Government that they are working on those lines, and that they are regarding those as proposals for future negotiation? In this House, the idea of Great Britain giving a lead is resisted by hon. Members who think that Great Britain has already done enough.

I suggest two points in answer to that. Great Britain could give a lead because she alone can. She is spared, by the existence of the English Channel, those fears, suspicions and hatreds that beset her neighbours. In this country we have no frontier problem. Our youth are spared what the German and Hungarian youth have to face—the continuous feeling that across a long stretch of barbed-wire entanglements there are territories and factory chimneys that once belonged to them, but are no longer theirs. Great Britain could give a lead because there is some guarantee that, if she does so, the countries of the world will follow. People who go abroad to-day experience a feeling as to the extraordinary prestige of this country. Everybody wants to know what Great Britain thinks of this, and what public opinion thinks of that. There is some hope that Germany would accept proposals if they did not emanate from France, and that France would accept proposals if they did not emanate from Germany.

I would like to ask the Foregin Secretary whether it is not possible that we should make to the Powers of Europe some statement on the lines of Lord Cecil's recent announcement? I know that there are forces in this country hostile to such a policy, and I do not wish to indulge in any party polemics, particularly on the Christmas Adjournment. But the proceedings of the Birmingham conference of the Conservative party were profoundly disquieting. I do not accuse any hon. Member in this House of being a warmonger; war is so fiendish that nobody could possibly support it; but, at the same time, there is a powerful section in this country that seems reckless of the consequences of re-armament, and those who are reckless of the consequences of re-armament fill me with foreboding. I hope that His Majesty's Government will use their immense majority to see that that point of view is righted.

When one examines international affairs to-day, one has a horrible feeling that it has all happened before. These alliances and counter-alliances, these feelers and counter-feelers, an indiscreet utterance here, a sabre-rattling speech there—one is back again in the atmosphere of 1913. I was trying the other day to make this particular point to a very witty ambassador, and his reply to me was: "Yes, history repeats itself. It always repeats itself. But, when it repeats itself twice in a generation, it is a bore"—a classic instance, if I may say so, of the art of under-statement. If history is allowed to repeat itself again, so far as Western civilisation is concerned as we know it, there will be no history left to repeat.

Like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I desire to take this opportunity of wishing the Foreign Secretary God-speed in the extremely difficult mission which he is about to undertake in Europe. I do not see that he can very well this morning, as the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition suggested, say anything that can give us much hope, but we hope that he will at least return with something more promising than we have had up to now. We have, however, to recognise that the Foreign Secretary is going to a Europe which is distracted, and most unpromising for the kind of negotiations that he is about to undertake. The supreme issue now, as the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) has very truly said, is not disarmament, but security. It is perfectly true that the issue of security has always underlain the discussion of disarmament in recent years, but while Germany was still in the League of Nations it was always possible to hope that the conclusion of a Disarmament Convention would give time in which it would be possible to build up greater confidence in what one might call the Security Clauses of the Covenant. That hope is now scattered to the four winds, and throughout Europe people are asking, not merely how a Disarmament Convention is to be concluded and on what terms, but how, if such a Convention is concluded, is it to be maintained?

The hon. Member for North Bristol just now suggested that France or other countries might be satisfied with an adequate system of inspection and control. That is extremely important; but there is another question behind that. If your system of inspection reports that the Convention is not being observed, what then? And what if, after a few years during which this Convention has been in operation, and during which powers have disarmed to an equal level, some Power then denounces the Convention, or uses the threat of denunciation as the means of extorting concessions which it would not get in other ways? These are the queries which are being heard throughout Europe at the present time. Europe is seething with them because it is dominated now by the fear of this militarist revival in Germany. I think we have to face the fact that this passion in the German heart, which has been smouldering through recent years, has now broken again into a prairie fire. It is a curious thing that the great Wagner music dramas, which are so near to the German heart, very faithfully represent this trait in the German mind. These dramas are supposed to turn upon the history of a ring, but the ring represents power, and the way in which power is sought throughout those dramas is always by the sword. The sword is buried in a tree-trunk; it is drawn out by the hero when surrounded by his enemies. The sword is smashed to pieces, and it is forged anew by the hero when he seeks again to make his way to power. Indeed, the theme of the Ring, properly described, might, I think, be said to be that of making the world safe for Wotan.

I was saying when our proceedings were interrupted from another place that the title of Wagner's great music-drama should not be "The Ring "alone but" The Ring and the Sword', and that the whole plot throughout the four dramas is concerned with making the world safe for Wotan, the old, blinkered Nordic god, by means of the sword. One has to realise that, although a world safe for Wotan is certainly not a world safe for democracy, it is about such a world that the German people are once again dreaming. The light has been thrown upon the hilt of the sword, as in a famous act in "The Ring", and the sword-hilt is now blazing before the eyes of German youth. Or, to take a metaphor from a later drama, the sword, which was broken in pieces, is being forged anew and forged very rapidly. No wonder that the issue of security dominates all (minds in Europe at present. It is, then, pertinent to ask what is our attitude on this question of security? Certainly, in the long run, the success or failure of any disarmament policy will turn on that. I am not going to press the Government for any declaration on that subject to-day. It would, obviously, be premature. But I think the time has come for us all to realise that there are really only two alternatives before England and the Empire. We must either face a policy of isolation and' all it means, or we must be prepared to enter into some system of collective security which gives a real guarantee. The absence of a clear policy, whether we like it or not, will lead to isolation. If we are indifferent to other peoples' security, they in due time will be indifferent to ours. It is true that we are not indifferent; it is only, I think, that we are uncertain in our minds just now.

The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council on the Locarno Treaties did immense service in Europe at the time it was made, but we have been busy ever since explaining in different parts of the country that those treaties do not mean quite as much as they seem to mean, and undoubtedly there is great uncertainty throughout Europe as to what our attitude may be. If that uncertainty continues, only one result, in my belief, can ensue. We shall find that Europe consists of one or two Powers which are profoundly hostile to us, while the rest are indifferent. If we mean to face a Europe of that kind, let us realise what it means. It means immediately, as it seems to me, very heavy expenditure in armaments and a crippling burden upon us, but at least such a policy would command respect in Europe, and would enable us possibly to intervene, though perhaps too late, if peace were really threatened. Personally, I hope that we shall exhaust every means of arriving at a system of collective security before we face isolation of that kind. If possible, let us have a system of security by which all Powers are bound, but, if we cannot get that, let us have at least a system of security by which democracies 3tand to protect themselves against attack from any source.

I am not going to detain the House any longer by discussing this subject, but I should like to call the attention of hon.

Members who may be interested in the subject to a pamphlet recently published by Lord Howard of Penrith, a very distinguished diplomat, whose experience in the United States as well as elsewhere, I think, lends great weight to his views. The pamphlet is called, "The Prevention of War by Collective Action," and it is issued by 'an organisation called "The Friends of Europe." I hope that some Members at least will find time to study it. As I said, I am not asking to-day for any statement on this subject from the Government, but I hope that such a statement, and a clear statement, will be made early in the New Year before we have to discuss the Service Estimates.

The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) ended his speech by suggesting that in the New Year a clear statement of our position ought to be made. I too hold that such a clear statement ought to be made, but in rather an opposite sense from that which he has envisaged. We are talking this morning about the Disarmament Conference, but it has appeared to me as I have listened to various Debates on the Disarmament Conference since 7th November that we are missing the real issue. The real issue is not the armaments possessed by the nations of Europe, but the post-War settlement which prevents Europe disarming. It appears clear that Europe is divided into two camps—those who desire to preserve the status quo established by the Peace Treaties of 1919 and 1920, and those who see the only hope of peace in a revision of those Peace Treaties. There has been a substantial change of opinion in this country. We remember very well that on 14th October, the day that Germany withdrew from the League of Nations, there was at first a reaction in this country very hostile to Germany. The country appeared to take a pro-French point of view. A few weeks passed, and it became evident that the country felt that, after all, Germany had not had a square deal. The change of opinion was evident in the "Times" newspaper. Three leading articles were published in the "Times," one on 16th October, one on 15th November, and, finally, one on 23rd November, which indicated this change of attitude from a pro-French point of view to 'a pro-German or pro-revisionist point of view.

A change in the Government's view, but not in the people's view.

A change in the people's view. I think that there can be no doubt whatever that the people of this country do not desire the Government to pursue a pro-French policy, but are definitely anxious that they should adopt a revisionist policy in Europe, and that a clear lead should be given.

Nonsense!

Very well, I will quote from the "Times" of 23rd November. The "Times" is a great newspaper, which may be said to represent the point of view of a substantial number of people in this country:

"It becomes plainer with every successive phase of the Disarmament Conference that no substantial progress is likely to be made until the question of revision is boldly faced and settled in one sense or another."

I have travelled about Europe a good deal in the last few months, and I have been driven to the conclusion that on the Continent of Europe the various countries desire to know, first and foremost, where this country stands on the important matter of revision. Are we going to adopt the point of view of the French, the Little Entente and Poland, who desire to maintain the status quo in Europe, and who, in my view, have in no small degree used the Disarmament Conference as a means of maintaining the status quo in Europe, or are we going to take the opposite point of view of a sane and sound revision of the Peace Treaties which will bring pacification to Europe? Peace in Europe can, of course, be maintained by strong armaments in France and by maintaining the armaments of the Little Entente and Poland. But mere peace is a different thing from pacification, and I want to see pacification. Europe cannot be pacified until the nations of Europe are satisfied with the post-War settlement which they have to accept. A dictated peace was imposed upon the countries of Europe, and as long as it is maintained, so long, I believe, will there not be pacification in Europe.

The hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) has suggested that the Government should give a clear lead. Moreover he and some of his colleagues on the benches opposite have been in- clined to criticise the Government for not giving a clear lead. I am not at all inclined to join in that condemnation of the Government, but rather should I be inclined to condemn this House. This House has not given a clear lead. We have in this country a peculiar method of control of foreign policy. It appears to be uncertain whether the final authority rests here in this House, or in the Executive? If it rests as, constitutionally it should rest, in this House, I feel that the House ought to decide finally and firmly which policy it wants to pursue. Without that there must be uncertainty, and, on the Continent of Europe there is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham said, great uncertainty as to what we shall do. No one for example knows precisely what policy we shall be adopting in a month's time. No one knows on the Continent of Europe. In every capital you find statesmen wondering what we are going to do. They do not know. This House, which ought not to control foreign policy in detail—it would be futile to do so—ought, on the other hand, to control in principle and should quite definitely make up its mind whether it wants the foreign policy of this country to be directed for or against Treaty Revision. Until that declaration is made, the prestige of this country, which, as has been said, is very high on the Continent at the present time, will be in danger of serious decline.

My hon. Friend opposite, apparently, would concede to Herr Hitler what he was not prepared to concede to Dr. Bruening. My only excuse for intervening in this Debate—it is the first time I have intervened in any debate on foreign affairs—is that I have visited the Continent of Europe every year for the last 10 years, and have watched, to some extent at first hand, the situation gradually developing. I agree with the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) that our potential influence on the Continent of Europe is perhaps greater to-day than it has ever been. I think our influence may prove to be decisive. But I submit, with due respect, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that at the moment our influence on the Continent is almost negligible. Why? Because we have not got a foreign policy. Not for the first time in our history, I think, we must confess that during the last few weeks, critical weeks, we have been trying to some extent to have it both ways. We think that we can safeguard peace by merely talking about it, and without ourselves incurring any obligations. I do not think that is possible, in the long run.

I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he replies, to tell us what are the principles which at the present moment are governing his actions. Surely, at this critical time, we must proceed upon certain basic principles and certain basic assumptions. I should like to mention one or two assumptions which I think will be treated, and must be treated, by all parties as basic. The first is, and it is vital, that society is not likely to abandon the use of force altogether in our time. Secondly, we do in fact, and the Labour party does, concede the use of force in a society of individuals. But we arm the law and not the litigant. If we concede the use of force in a society of individuals, surely it is logical to concede the use of force in a society of nations. The League of Nations is in a bad way at the present time. Some of its rules are no doubt in need of revision; but it is a societ yof nations, and it is the only society of nations. Moreover, it still commands the support of the democracies of the British Empire, and the democracies of Europe, and that is a very important fact.

The collective organisation of peace can only be carried out by the League of Nations, because there is no other institution capable of doing it. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) stated definitely the other day that, so far as he was concerned, he was prepared to use force on behalf of what he described as the collective organisation of peace. The question therefore arises: Are we prepared to use force on behalf of the collective organisation of peace? What is the alternative? For Europe, the final collapse of the League of Nations, re-armament, and ultimate war. For ourselves, re-armament and isolation, which my hon. Friend opposite wants. There would be something to be said for the latter course if we could maintain it, but can we maintain isolation? I submit that under modern conditions, particularly under modern condi- tions of transport, we cannot maintain isolation in the world to-day. As a matter of historical fact, we have not been able to maintain isolation in the past. If we could not do it in the past, how can we do it to-day? It is not possible. The whole implication of the Treaty of Locarno is that isolation from Europe on the part of this country is impossible. The conclusion in the matter is irresistible.

There is a type of professional pacifist in this country who spend their whole time shouting against armaments, but who will not shoulder any obligations, or countenance the use of force in international affairs in any circumstances. They are the worst menace to peace, for they deceive other countries as to their intentions, and humbug their own country into a false security. Ultimately, they find themselves morally bound to go to war, as in 1914, with inadequate forces. If the Labour party are going to countenance, and to continue to countenance, the shady tactics of East Fulham, following upon the speech of the Lord President of the Council at Birmingham, in which election that speech was used ruthlessly and most unscrupulously in order to frighten the electors into the belief that we were going to go to war—because my right hon. Friend took a stand on behalf of the collective organisation of peace—then their responsibility for war in the future will be very heavy. But it will be brought home to them. This should not deter the Government from pursuing a resolute foreign policy, based on the League of Nations, the Pact of Paris, and upon sanctions to enforce the Pact of Paris.

I cannot think that the Secretary of State is going to serve a useful purpose in his well-intentioned attempt to act as honest broker between Germany, France and Italy. He will never get disarmament by mere phrases. The Germans have not forgotten what he said and what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said from 1907 to 1914, and what in the end they were compelled to do, and therefore I do not believe that the Germans will ever again listen to mere phrases from this country. That is another reason why we should make clear what our foreign policy is going to be. Also I cannot but regret the Secretary of State's forth- coming visit to Rome. It must tend still further to diminish the influence of Geneva, which is the proper place for international discussions at the present time, if the League is to survive.

A few words on the subject of Germany. Unlike some hon. Members, I am a profound admirer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but I admire him as the author of our social system rather than as the author of the Treaty of Versailles. I suggest that it is a bit late in the day for him to come forward as the defender of the Germans, and particularly of the present German régime. I have watched the Hitler movement growing in Germany year by year, very largely owing to the Treaty of Versailles. It is the fashion to defend that Treaty nowadays, but, taken as a whole, the Treaty is almost indefensible. The main problem of Europe during the last few years and during the next few years has been, and is going to be, how to secure the modification of the Treaty of Versailles, without going to war. Meanwhile, it is surely clear that revision of the Treaty, as my hon. Friend wants, as I want, and as many of us want, together with disarmament, can only come out of confidence and security.

I doubt if Germany will ever attack the democracies of the world if she knows that if she has recourse to war and aggression she will find them marshalled against her. But do not let us minimise the dangers inherent in the situation. I hope the House will bear with me while I quote a short paragraph from a recent book by the founder of modern psychology, Dr. Freud. It is important, because we have to take psychology into consideration in political affairs, and hitherto we have not done it sufficiently. Dr. Freud says:

"The fateful question of the human species seems to mo to be whether and to what extent the cultural process developed in it will succeed in mastering the derangements of communal life caused by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction. In this connection, perhaps the phase through which we are at this present moment passing deserves special interest. Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this—hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension."

I regard that passage as hopeful. Indeed, the best hope for the future is to give the League of Nations, which in fact and in practice is international law, sanctions sufficient to stave off war, until the weapons of war have become so frightful that no one will dare to have recourse to them. This seems to me to be the best hope awaiting this country; and I wish that the Foreign Secretary would take his courage in both hands and say that we are prepared to apply sanctions, not necessarily military sanctions, but sanctions in the broadest sense of the term, in defence of the collective peace of Europe and of the world.

There is only one other matter upon which I wish to touch. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will say a word upon the subject of how our negotiations are going on with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am not speaking now on behalf of my constituents, or in defence of the Union of Soviet Republics. We do not like their system or their methods, but I repeat what I have said on former occasions: there they are, they are a fact, and we cannot ignore them; and, furthermore, they are potentially the greatest market in the world for capital goods of all kinds. There may be good reasons for the continued delay in these negotiations, political reasons, which must be explained to the people of this country; but, on the other hand, if the people of the North and North-East of England and Scotland imagine that merely because of political prejudice negotiations, which would assist them in finding more employment and more trade, are being held up they will not forgive the Government, and they should not forgive. If the Foreign Secretary can give us any indication as to the progress of these negotiations, I am sure we shall be grateful.

So far we have had some extremely interesting speeches, and I would like to endorse the observations of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays), the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) touched on a very dangerous topic when he urged Treaty revision. Treaty revision can only take place in an atmosphere of confidence, and to talk of Treaty revision now is very much, like throwing matches into gunpowder. We must not forget that most of the new countries in Europe owe their existence and their frontiers to the Peace Treaties, and they are not prepared to allow their frontiers to be altered without recourse to force. I regret to have to say so, but, candidly, the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government has made me desperately anxious. It seems to me that we have gone past the amber light; we are now disregarding the red light, and soon we shall be in the ditch. What on earth is the use of talking about disarmament conventions when, if we go on as we are doing, Europe within a very measurable space of time will be an armed camp again as it was in 1914.

The hon. Member for North Bristol said that it was still possible for this country to give a lead. If we give a lead, which the nations hope we shall give, we can prevent a catastrophe; we can save the League of Nations and prevent the danger of war. But when are we going to get that lead from the Government? Europe has waited, and the people of this country have waited, but we were so shaken by the noise that Germany made when she banged the door and left Geneva, so exhausted by our efforts to hang on to her coat tails, that nothing whatever has happened. As we did nothing, Italy stepped into the breach. The Fascist Grand Council made a declaration of policy that the League of Nations must be fundamentally altered. Neither before nor since have His Majesty's Government made any statement except to give some vague assurance of support of the League. Are we going to allow Italy to drag us back into the condition of pre-War Europe, when you had ill-assorted groups of nations jealously watching each other. If we do, if we allow these groups to be formed, we may be sure that they will be armed to the teeth.

The Italian proposals amount to a complete reversal of post-War philosophy. Modern Europe is largely composed of small States which, as I said just now, owe their frontiers and their existence to the Peace Treaties. The small countries have had their say at Geneva and the part they have played has not been an inconsiderable one, though they have not challenged the position and responsibilities of the greater Powers.

Are they going to allow themselves to be set aside; is it to our interest that they should be set aside? I say no; it certainly is not to our interest that such a thing should happen. Furthermore, I do not believe for a moment that the people of this country would tolerate such a blatant return to pre-War conditions as is pre-supposed in the Italian proposals.

There is one thing which always strikes me, and that is that you can judge of our position in Europe by watching Italy. At the present time the Italian attitude gives us the measure of our supineness in foreign policy. We are actually watching in real life Aesop's fable of the ox and the frog. Italy is swelling herself out to fill the place that we have vacated, but she is neither strong nor independent enough to do so. But the fact that Italy has climbed into the place we have vacated proves that that place must be filled. Nature abhors a vacuum and in Europe a vacuum in the place that we ought to occupy is an impossibility. I for one hope most sincerely that the Foreign Secretary will enjoy his holiday. Capri is the place for dolce far niente. I hope he will gently do nothing there, but for goodness sake let the shade of Tiberius inspire him to action when he comes home.

I do not want to say much more about that subject, but I do trust that the Government will give a lead. We have been given the impression that the Government will act only under the pressure of public opinion. Surely this Debate will have given the Government some indication of what the country requires. The country, I feel certain, is prepared to go a very great distance for the maintenance of peace, if it can only be told that the sacrifices asked of it will in fact be effective. We must maintain our position of detachment as regards other nations. We are clearly not pro-French or pro-German, or indeed anti-French or anti-German. I am often accused of being pro-French. I certainly am to the extent that I believe it is in our interests not only to be on the best of terms with our closest neighbour, but that our democracy and the French democracy can, if they stand united, maintain peace in Europe. I only wish sometimes, when people are so apt to criticise, and sometimes cruelly to criticise, our French neighbours, that they would think what our position would be if France were not peace-loving and friendly towards ourselves. The position then would be one of extreme danger. I do beg the Government to take the lead in these very important matters—to take the lead that Europe expects of this country and that the people of this country expect the Government to take.

The day when the House adjourns for a period of vacation is naturally chosen to raise questions of great urgency and difficulty, and it is therefore perfectly natural that notice should have been given by the Opposition that they would like to use this occasion for raising the question of foreign affairs. It does not, of course, necessarily follow that because this is the day when the House is to be asked to adjourn for a short time, it is the day when it is convenient or appropriate to make an important declaration. I make those observations because, as I have told one or two hon. Members privately, while I am very willing indeed to arrange to be here—I had intended to leave earlier, but have made a new arrangement—it was the idea that this was the moment when there was to be some deliberate declaration of substance and in detail made on this subject from this Bench. Indeed the moment would be very inappropriate.

The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) has been good enough to say that from the moment Germany banged the door at Geneva nothing whatever has been done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, has his own sources of information. I can only inform the House that there have been at any rate very prompt and vigorous efforts made from more Capitals than one since Germany's deplorable withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference took place. The decision that was then reached, not the decision of this country or of this Government, or of this Foreign Secretary, was the decision reached by the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference, which consists of the representatives of 17 States, and it was a unanimous decision to the effect that in the situation in which the Conference found itself, the best thing to be done was to suspend the sitting at Geneva, and to give an opportunity for what were called "parallel and supplementary efforts" to be carried on between various Capitals, and largely by the diplomatic method. I am not so sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle approves or disapproves of that course. At any rate, since it was unanimously decided upon, it is not for this country to give a lead by resisting it. What has since happened I will state to the House.

Some of these matters are, of course, public knowledge, in that they have been the subject of disclosure in public newspapers or by declarations in various Parliaments. One of the most important things that has happened is that Chancellor Hitler has been making some public declarations, both by the use of the wireless and by other means, which, whatever we may think of their content, are undoubtedly of very great moment to all concerned.

Very serious.

That is a very proper remark to make. Chancellor Hitler's declaration was of special interest, of course, to France. I quote the words which he used almost at the same time as Germany withdrew from the Disarmament Conference. He said:

"It will be of the first importance for the two nations, Germany and France, once and for all to ban the use of force from their common life. No further territorial conflicts exist between the two countries, as far as Germany is concerned, once the Saar is returned."

My hon. Friend opposite said that it was important to consider how far that declaration should be regarded as 'having a serious purpose. I agree with him. I was asked what the Government have been doing. We have been concerning ourselves very anxiously to ascertain what was the real intent and purpose of this declaration. We have been most careful to make it plain that in making such inquiries we were not expressing approval of some of the proposals that have, been thrown out so easily. It did, however, appear to us that it was certainly our duty to do our utmost to clarify these proposals and find out what was behind them. I am now in a position to tell the House that these in- quiries have been very actively conducted. The House is aware that our own Ambassador in Berlin was asked to come back and see the Government. There have been very useful conversations. It is obvious to the House that this investigation is in process of taking place, and it would therefore be doubly unwise to make any public declarations about them. This I can say: it does appear that on the political side—as distinguished from the technical question of disarmament—Chancellor Hitler has made propositions which are certainly intended to be formal proposals; that the declarations which have appeared in certain public prints to the effect that he was suggesting non-aggressive compacts between Germany and her neighbours were justified. As we understood it, his proposals under that head do not confine themselves to one particular neighbour, but are proposals put forward for consideration by all the neighbours of Germany.

That at least is a very necessary piece of clarification, and I will only say that in dealing with it we have been very careful to indicate that we have not forgotten the obligations which rest upon members of the League of Nations. Therefore, any such compacts of non-aggression will have to be considered in view of the undoubted obligations which the Covenant puts upon those who are parties to it. The House will observe that the Government have been in very close contact with those who are best informed on the subject in France. My hon. Friend who has just spoken—and it is a natural attitude—said that the situation was very grave and that every sensible person must feel anxious. I will not say desperately anxious, but it is very natural indeed that we should relieve our feelings by saying: "Why does not somebody give a lead? Why does not Britain have a policy? Why does not Britain adopt the policy which is suggested by me, even though it happens to be directly opposed to the policy suggested by you?" There is such a thing as bearing in mind that the object for which we are all striving to the best of our ability is not to make some gesture which would indeed give great satisfaction to a certain circle here, but, if we can, to promote and secure agreement. It does not always follow that the best way in which to promote agreement is to take any and every action to nail one's colours to the mast and say: "It must be exactly like that, or else there can be no agreement at all."

The result is that these inquiries and discussions between various Governments and capitals have been held and are being continued. It is a fact that, though my own holiday is a real holiday, I shall see the French Foreign Minister in Paris—not indeed this afternoon but possibly to-morrow. I am very much looking forward to seeing him, because we are in constant communication, and it is extremely important that we should get as close together as ever we can in understanding how the suggestions put forward by the German Government stand in regard both to the policy and to the requirements of Germany's neighbours. It would surely be a very foolish thing if anybody taking part in this Debate on the Adjournment of the House of Commons made general declarations when discussions of this sort are manifestly not concluded, and are still being pursued. I may point out that this is not an attitude of indecision or unwillingness to communicate them. There is a moment when undoubtedly these political inquiries must be gathered together for the purpose of seeing what results they produce. The Disarmament Conference adjourned for the express purpose of these inquiries being made. They hope and intend to resume in the month of January, and in the month of January, according to the present plan, there must be assent not merely by this Government but also by other Governments to what has been the result of the efforts that have been made. The House will excuse me if I do not take the present occasion to raise such questions as the occasion when some declaration should be made. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate took up a perfectly considerate and reasonable attitude; he provoked, perhaps, a comparison with that famous character in fiction, Miss Rosa Dartle, who at various moments in the course of the story of David Copperfield was found saying: "I am only asking for information." I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because I think that that was a perfectly fair way in which to put the matters which he wanted to raise.

I have stated, therefore, what is, in fact, the nature of the communications which are going on. I cannot at all agree with an observation made by one hon. Gentleman to-day that it is a pity that we should endeavour in these matters to be in close contact with Italy. On the contrary, the more it becomes important to bring the force of British public opinion and British policy to bear, on this complicated Continental situation, the more certain it is that we desire to keep in contact with all these States.

Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me if I remind him that I never at any time suggested that we should not be in close contact with Italy. My only suggestion was that international discussions of this character would better take place in Geneva than in Rome.

I was not in fact referring to the hon. Member, but it really would not be a very useful way of spending the time to go to Geneva, in view of the fact that the Conference has decided that in fact nothing is to go on at Geneva until next month. I agree with my hon. Friend when he said that we do not want to depart from the system of international negotiation in favour of bilateral discussion. I have never regarded this stage of bilateral communication as other than an intermediate or preliminary stage which ought to lead to a wider international approach.

There is another matter to which I would direct the attention of the House. There is reason to believe that a communication from Chancellor Hitler has been addressed, or is expected to be addressed, not only to our own Ambassador but also to the French Government, and I presume to other Governments. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that we should in our turn get into the closest touch with all those who have received it. I am not building any exaggerated hopes on what I have said is merely to be in the nature of a holiday, but I hope that by the time the House resumes we shall be in a position to give the House much more definite information as to what has been the outcome of this exchange of views.

Two very important questions of general principle have been raised in some of the speeches this morning. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made a speech which I am sure impressed everybody who heard it, and I am sure that those who did not hear it will wish to read it. He put forward considerations on the subject of what is called security which I assure him are by no means lost sight of by those who have studied this immensely anxious situation. It is a very difficult thing to transform mere phrases and even the ideas behind phrases into a practicable and a workable shape. The circumstance that Chancellor Hitler in a recent communication lays so much emphasis on political arrangements which are calculated to promote appeasement is, I think, in itself an indication that that aspect of the matter of which my hon. Friend spoke is one that is present to the minds not only of people in this country but of all responsible people in other countries as well.

A question has been asked as regards the inspection of arms, and I will give an answer and I hope a definite answer. My understanding is that the German Government, as part of their general scheme and outlook, are prepared to contemplate the establishment of international inspection and control in respect of the armaments of all countries operating periodically and automatically. One of the matters upon which undoubtedly there has been an advance in public opinion generally is this matter, because at one time it was thought that the utmost that could be done would be to provide that upon the complaint of one country the permanent disarmament commission might institute inspection of the arms of another country. That was a matter open to a good deal of objection. Among other things, it would be an extremely invidious business to make accusations of that, sort based upon what might be imperfect information. That is not the form of control and supervision which, as I understand it, is contemplated in the discussions which have been proceeding recently. On the contrary, it is in the nature of automatic and periodic control which, of course, would be applied universally. The last thing which anybody would seriously think likely of acceptance would be some specific and special régime applied to a particular country. On that point, I think there is some definite progress towards agreement.

It was refused by Japan.

I think it is very likely that it was, but, although we cannot travel too far afield in this limited discussion, I may as well say that one has unfortunately to test the probability or possibility of a scheme being generally adopted by considering this very case of Japan, and of course there are other cases as well—we had better face it. But while it is perfectly true that there is a degree to which this country might by its mere declaration give substance and it might be even general approval to a policy, still there are limits to that and as a matter of fact the only result which is in the end going to prove of advantage to anybody is not to be got by individual or unilateral declarations but is only to be got if, ultimately, agreement can be reached between different States.

As to our attitude towards the League of Nations I do not think we are open to any reproach in that regard. Every opportunity has been taken to state in the most specific form the policy of this country, which from the very beginning played so large a part in the foundation of the League—my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is one of the few survivors of those who were the principal architects of that tremendous work—every opportunity, as I said, has been taken to make it clear that the policy of this country, not only of this Government but of all Governments in this country, is unswervingly to stand by and support the League of Nations. It is just as well to remember that the building up of that structure involved the most delicate balancing of what might have been mutually destructive forces and the thing itself is the result of a delicate balance of opinion. Therefore common prudence would show that you should not proceed to pull the thing to pieces unless you are pretty sure that you have something to put it its place.

While we have all observed some declarations made in foreign countries which indicate a desire for the revision of the Covenant, I am glad to say that we have no reason to suppose that definite propositions are being made. I, at any rate, do not know of any. I would make one further observation which is only quoting what was said the other day by M. Avenol the Secretary-General of the League in an address within the walls of these Houses of Parliament. It has to do with what is called the rule of unanimity. Taking the point that the rule of unanimity operated as a very serious bar to territorial changes—and it does—M. Avenol pointed out that, if you look at the rule of unanimity in its proper aspect, it is really in the nature of a protection of the sovereignty of a particular country. If a majority of votes could by itself automatically change the map it would really mean that you would be inviting people to join an association and to' agree to what would be to them the risk of being outvoted on a point which they might regard as absolutely vital to their own independence. Consequently, I can well understand that when this structure was put together those who tried to get agreement found themselves obliged to support this conception of unanimity. I make no positive assertion as to there being any way of revising or amending it and no positive suggestion has been made so far as I know—

Do I understand from the Foreign Secretary that there has been no definite proposition put forward by Italy beyond what has appeared in the Press—the general suggestion that the Covenant of the League ought to be amended? Were there no detailed propositions?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There have been no propositions put forward, and I am not using merely official language, I am speaking the full content of my mind when I say that I am not aware of any concrete proposals in the nature of amendments having been put forward by any country. On the other hand, I think we have to realise two other things. The first is that all human institutions are, and ought to be, subject to reconsideration for purposes of adjustment and revision. Secondly, the Covenant of the League itself contains provisions by which amendment might be made. The actual situation at the moment is that this country has not received, so far as I know, from anybody proposals which are in the nature of definite or concrete suggestions for amendment. I am well aware that what I have been saying is not to be regarded as in the nature of a dogmatic or definite fresh declaration of policy, but I hope that I have satisfied the House that we wish to deal perfectly fairly by hon. Members, and I have made these observations to show them that there is really no justification for speaking of His Majesty's Government in this matter as though they were caring nothing whatever about what is beyond all question the most tremendous problem that faces the world to-day.

For the rest, I agree that it is true, as one hon. Member said, that this country does enjoy great prestige and authority, but it is not, in my humble judgment, true to say that prestige and authority are best exercised on all occasions by the making of premature declarations. I believe, on the contrary, that a very great deal of the authority of this country depends on this, that both the Government and the country are known throughout the world to be sincerely devoting themselves to the cause of peace, firmly supporting the League of Nations, earnestly desiring to promote international agreement, and prepared both to give and to take everything that can be done to produce such an effect.

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he give the information for which I asked, as to what is the present position with regard to China, Japan, and the League of Nations?

As I say, there are really three points, apart from the general international question. My hon. Friend opposite asked a question about the position of the Russian negotiations. I am glad to be able to say that those negotiations are really proceeding in a way which is definitely encouraging. I have communicated with a colleague of mine who is specially concerned, and he tells me that he thought that such language was abundantly justified. There are outstanding difficulties, but I do not believe that they are such as to prevent an agreement being reached, and I am very glad that that is so.

A question was asked about Austria, to which I will only reply, in a sentence, that the policy of His Majesty's Government is and remains directed towards doing all that we can, by our influence and by our advice, to sustain the integrity and the independence of Austria. We maintain most strictly the rule, the only wise rule, that it cannot be any part of our business to interfere with the internal government of another country, but at the same time the independence and safety of Austria are an essential object to which British policy is directed.

As regards the Far East, I have a very elaborate note prepared on a number of points, which I have been studying to see if there is any specific thing which I ought to say to my hon. Friend, but I think I must content myself with saying that, while there are some rumours of new movements in that area—there is an allegation that there has been a crossing of the Great Wall again—it is by no means established that that is so. Our own official information does not make it clear, neither is it clear whether, if such a movement has taken place, it is a movement towards eliminating bandits or whether it has a more far-reaching purpose. If a question is put down on this subject, I shall be glad to see if I can give an answer to it.

My question was not immediately addressed to the situation in Manchuria, but as to whether anything was moving in the counsels of the League of Nations and the world generally with regard to the situation that a large part of China is occupied by Japan against the will of the world.

I have no new information to give the hon. Gentleman about that. The Committee at Geneva is certainly not sitting at the moment. The Committee is in existence, but I cannot give any information as to anything specific having happened in that Committee, and I do not think it has. I thank the House very much for their good wishes, and I would only say, in conclusion, that a holiday is a good thing to have everywhere, even in the island which was once occupied by the Emperor Tiberius.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put off his departure in order to attend this Debate, and I shall not misunderstand the position, if he has to leave while I am speaking. There is one matter to which I think some allusion ought to be made in this House, which has not been touched upon by any of the previous speakers, and I should like to say a word about it before I come to those topics which have occupied our attention to-day. I saw with profound regret, not unmingled with indignation, the revival in the papers to-day of something which calls itself a commission, and which has met in this country to investigate a matter which has been and still is the subject of pending proceedings in Berlin. That seems to me the grossest impertinence that the citizens of one nation can commit in regard to a friendly State.

It is not a friendly State.

I think some protest ought to be made against the abuse of our country for the holding of what purports to be an international inquiry prejudging the decision of a foreign court.

And such a court.

I would only ask: What should we think if the same action were taken in regard to any pending proceedings in our own courts? To proceed, however, I certainly should never press the Foreign Secretary to make a declaration before the time at which he thought it was in the public interest that such a declaration should be made, and I am content to wait as regards negotiations now pending or which may subsequently be undertaken for the time when they have reached such a point that the Minister immediately responsible feels that he can make such a statement as this House would desire to have without any injury to the prospects of the negotiations or the public welfare. But I wish the Government could have thrown a little more light upon what is now past. I think this Debate has illustrated a fact, of which we must all have been conscious in the last few months, that not only is there a great uncertainty prevailing in foreign countries and foreign nations as to exactly what our policy is, at what point we are going to stand, and within what limits we can negotiate and concede, but that there is a great uncertainty among our own people, who are restless and unhappy because they do not know the principles upon which our policy is based.

I hope that, when the Foreign Secretary is considering a declaration which he may make when we reassemble in some five week's time, he will consider also whether he could not lay papers as to what exactly did happen in October, and what is the case for the British Government, I believe that great injustice is being done to His Majesty's Ministers and to our country because, for some scruple or some difficulty in getting assent elsewhere, they have never given a full disclosure of exactly what passed. They are accused of partiality to one side or the other where, I believe, they showed no partiality. They showed a readiness to adjust the scheme which they had propounded for discussion to the feelings and sentiments which were disclosed in the discussions which they invited. I beg my right hon. Friend the Lord President to press the Foreign Secretary to give us a little more information as to the past when we meet again.

That leads me to say, after hearing utterances from both sides of the House as to being pro-French or pro-German, that I hope we shall be neither one nor the other. The only proper pro-anything for this House is pro-British, and we should consider our policy in relation both to France and Germany as that policy affects ourselves. That does not mean isolation; it does not mean without regard to the feelings and sentiments and the hopes of either of those nations. The determining fact for every House of Commons, for every Government, for every Foreign Minister in this country, should not be some altruistic motive and the entering on some crusade in which we have no interest; it will be, I hope, a correct apprehension of the friendships which are necessary to this country and the policies which, pursued in this or that quarter, help to maintain peace, which is the first of all our interests. Our attitude to this or that country will not, I hope, be pro-German, pro-French or pro-Italian, but will be dictated by an apprehension of the part that Great Britain has to play in the counsels of the world and by the reactions of world affairs upon the interest and safety of Great Britain and the British Empire. It is from that point of view I have always approached consideration of foreign affairs, as I always shall.

I do not think it was necessary, but perhaps it was useful, for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to reaffirm in explicit language the allegiance of this country and of the British Dominions to the League of Nations. Any foreign country which wishes to connect its policy with ours to a greater or lesser extent must recognise that that is a fundamental principle of British policy, and that hostility to the League would at once place this country in antagonism to it. It is not necessary to say that no improvement can be made in the Covenant of the League itself, still less that no improvement can be made in its practice. We have been told by the Foreign Secretary that the Italian Government has made no proposals to our Government for the amendment of the Covenant. It is impossible to express an opinion upon proposals which have not been made. Do not let us condemn them in advance. Do not let us assume that they are animated by hostile motives to the League. That would be quite unlike all that I knew of Signor Mussolini's mind in the years in which I held office as Foreign Minister.

But there are problems which arise in the day-to-day working of the League, and perhaps they have been illustrated in recent happenings. The League is a league of great and small Powers. Both are represented on the Council, but proportionately the greater Powers have been numerically a larger portion of the Council than they have been of the Assembly. Before the law every member of the League is equal, but they do not all bring the same support to the League or incur the same responsibilities or the same risks. I think it is very important that that distinction should be borne in mind by the smaller States as well as by the greater, and I think that anyone who tries to spread jealousy between the two or to rouse the smaller States against the greater Powers does the League a very ill-service. The Council is a small body of 17 members, and it meets four times a year. It is renewed, in so far as it is renewable, by sections, so that there is continuity of policy and purpose. It gets an esprit de corps which is most helpful in its deliberations, and leads those who sit upon it to seek methods of agreement which, but for that close association, but for their common respect for the Council and the League, and but for their common pride in being members of the Council, might not be found in an exchange of despatches or of speeches. I venture to think that the more difficult questions are remitted to or kept within the purview of the Council until the Council has worked out an agreement which can be submitted for the approval of the Assembly, the greater will be the prospect of success.

This is very germane to the question of Disarmament. Looking back on the international disputes with which the League has had to deal, I am inclined to think that the two out of which it has come with least success are the Corfu incident and the Sino-Japanese trouble. The Corfu incident was carried at once before the Assembly. The Chinese chose to make their appeal against the action of Japan, not to the Council, but to the Assembly. It turned from a body capable of dealing with the matter in council to a public meeting to settle the dispute. A re-consideration of the Covenant is really required from the point of view of the part to be played by the Assembly and the part to be played by the Council. Such consideration might give some very fruitful results; for in proportion as the work is prepared by the Council will be the success of any operations which the League undertakes. The Treaty of Versailles contemplated that the Council would make proposals for Disarmament. In the early days the Council, for weighty reasons, transferred the duty to a conference—not to any League body—to a conference held under the auspices of the League but extending, of course, beyond the League, and without the League having it directly in its charge.

That was to bring in the other Powers.

Yes, it was essential to have the United States and Russia in these deliberations; but we are not improving the possibility of the solution of Disarmament to-day by remitting it to an assembly of 67 nations instead of to the Council of the League of Nations, even if, for that purpose, we had added, as we might have tried to do, the United States and Russia. I am quite sure the success of the League in the settling of delicate international disputes will not be promoted by the kind of discussion which is apt to take place in the Assembly, where representatives of some of the Powers not at all in the forefront are loudest in urging action which others will have to take, and loudest in denouncing conduct which they expect others to punish, and whose Governments, when asked afterwards whether that represents their view, hastily disclaim their representatives and thus destroy the value of the proceedings of the Assembly. All I say is, do not let us take up the attitude that the Covenant is the sacrosanct, that it is the last word of wisdom. Surely we may learn something from experience. But let us make it quite plain from the first that we will be no party to any alteration in the Covenant except with the purpose of rendering it more effective and making the League stronger, and that we will resist to the utmost any attempt to wreck it under the guise of amending it.

I come for a moment to the allied question of boundaries. As I listened to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) I wondered whether he really appreciated how tender were the spots on which he laid such rough hands. It is very easy to criticise the Treaty of Versailles, and call it a dictated peace. Will my hon. Friend tell me what treaty following upon a war was not a dictated peace?

I was quoting from the "Times."

But it was not the "Times" that invented the phrase. I want my hon. Friend, if he will be good enough to do so, and I want other people, to go behind the phrase and ask what substance is there in it. Every treaty at the close of a war is a dictated treaty—every treaty. This is merely a bit of German propaganda, caught up by the "Times" and other newspapers as a convenient phrase to describe a situation, but it becomes misleading by repetition. It is used as if it distinguished the Treaty of Versailles from all other treaties, and put it in a class by itself, a class which is entirely indefensible. Every treaty that follows war is a dictated treaty. I do not say that the Treaty of Versailles was a work of superhuman wisdom; I do not say that it may not have been capable of revision, and that it may not be desirable that it should be revised. But what has been going on ever since but revision of the Treaty of Versailles? The evacuation of the occupied territories did not take place in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles; it took place in advance of the period fixed. Reparations have been revised, revised and revised, until they have disappeared. We are revising it all the time.

What is talked of here is revision of frontiers. The purpose of my right hon. Friend who was then Prime Minister of this country, speaking with the authority of this House and of the country behind him, was to translate into a treaty and into a fact the claim for self-determination for nations corresponding with the feelings of the people who compose them. Some mistakes were made, but, broadly speaking, how can you draw a line anywhere marking frontiers and not leave some minority on one side or the other? Minorities were on the other side before 1914, and they would have remained there but for the declaration of war by the Powers who were ultimately defeated. When it came to drawing the lines afterwards they were drawn, in the main, as fairly as racial arrangements and the geographical arrangements of the population enabled them to be drawn.

But some mistakes were made, and those mistakes might be remedied; they might be remedied with good will and by consent on certain conditions. In the first place the revisionist Powers must make it clear that they are not seeking to reverse the whole situation and to take back all that they have lost on the hazard of war, even though the principles for which we fought and on which we attempted to draw the Treaty run counter to such a return to the pre-War settlement. They must make it clear that there is a reasonable and moderate compromise which would settle for them once and for all the question of the boundaries, and that if this compromise were made it would be the end of the question and not merely the beginning of a new campaign. I have seen no sign of such a spirit in the revisionist countries, and to talk loosely or lightly, until we have an assurance from them—I do not mean an assurance in a phrase, I mean in their whole attitude, and the expression of their policy and of their national life—that the compromise which you contemplate would be accepted as final, and not merely fire ambitions which are bound to be disappointed and may lead directly to war, in which not only the countries immediately concerned but others—perhaps our own—may be involved. I appeal to the Government to be careful how they treat this situation and to make it clear what are the limits beyond which we cannot go.

If you had the kind of confidence which I have predicated as a condition of revision you would also have gone a long way in securing disarmament. It is the absence of confidence; it is fear, the livid fear, of men who have seen their countries invaded and desolated, of mothers who have seen their children slain, maimed and suffering; it is that impending fear which makes disarmament so difficult. I have watched with profound interest, and with desire to attach to them all the value I can, such assurances and statements of Chancellor Hitler for instance as that which was quoted by the Foreign Secretary. I would like to take that at its face value. I am inclined to say that it is offered by Chancellor Hitler perfectly sincerely. To some people it may seem that I am very naive to take up that point of view, but I say to myself that if that be the policy of Germany and not merely of Chancellor Hitler, what is the meaning of all this propaganda? What is the meaning of these revised school books? What is the meaning of this revision of history? Revision of history—perversion of history! What is the meaning of the suppression of everything that might guard them against making that vital mistake as to the reaction of their own words and deeds in foreign countries which brought them to the ruin of 1918?

It is not merely an assurance by the Chancellor, however sincerely spoken; it is not merely the signature of a pact and least of all a pact with a time limit of 10 years. I do not know whether there is any truth in that; I saw it in the papers. What is the use of a pact not to go to war for 10 years? It is less than the obligations which we have all undertaken already in the Kellogg Pact. It is a diminution of them. It is not an increase of security, but a reduction of it. That is no good. It is not either declarations or pacts but a national attitude, a national state of mind towards that nation's neighbours and towards the moral problem of international relations, which will decide whether it is possible to go forward hopefully towards peace, or whether we are going back to 1914.

I only want to keep the House for three minutes, and I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for allowing me to come in. I rise for the reason that I am desperately alarmed when I hear such a large number of hon. Members advocating automatic sanctions in any event, for this country. I am convinced that the people of this country are not prepared to back up those automatic sanctions, and to take part in them, on behalf of collective peace or whatever it is. I am in the position of being able to speak on this with some feeling, because I am one of those who, if this House and this Government decided to take part in another war, would appear in khaki again on that very day. Some hon. Members who advocate automatic sanctions ought to put themselves in that position also, if they are going to advocate those sanctions up and down the country.

I am certain that the people of this country are all for peace—peace for this country first, and peace abroad second. Our position as Members of Parliament, responsible to our constituencies, should be, first of all, to see that we do not get this country into another war in any way whatever, and then, to the best of our abilities, to try to see that we use our influence in other countries not to go to war. We must put first things first. I would also remind hon. Members who advocate automatic sanctions for the preservation of what they call the collective peace system, that those sanctions become the more dangerous the more we reduce our own forces. If we had overwhelming naval, military and air forces, those sanctions might never have to be put into effect, because everybody would know that we would come in with overwhelming force in any event; but the less and the smaller our force becomes, as compared with other nations, the more risky are those sanctions.

I am putting in this word, because I hope that Members of the Government will not think that they are going to get a great deal of support from this House, or from the country as a whole, for going into large schemes of automatic peace sanctions. The Treaty of Locarno, for which my right hon. Friend was responsible, went as far as this country is prepared to go in that respect. If there is a breach of frontiers between Germany and France, or Germany and Belgium, it might bring war so close to our own shores as to constitute a vital matter for us, but anything further afield than that I very strongly oppose. I am certain that the vast and peaceful masses of citizens in this country would oppose it too.

In spite of the very interesting subject which has occupied the last three hours of the Debate, we should be doing less than our duty did we not call attention to the very important pronouncement made by the Ministry of Agriculture yesterday. The Minister of Agriculture said a short time ago that he was a meat man. Yesterday's pronouncement on the top of similar pronouncements made earlier, indicates that whether he is a meat man or not his policy certainly is a meaty one. The extraordinary decision taken yesterday, almost in the last minute of the; last Cabinet meeting on the last day of Parliament, is of such vital importance that we, as an Opposition, think that a statement ought to have been prepared long before the last day, so that we should have had ample time to examine it in all its aspects before it was plunged upon the House, as it was yesterday. The reasons for that precipitate action seem to be found in the White Paper, to which I shall refer in a moment. I should like, firstly, to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the position of the Dominions Secretary, when the Cabinet were discussing this further restriction and the policy embodied in this document. The right hon. Gentleman has been telling us in this House, and he went to Retford about a fortnight ago to tell them there, and from Retford to tell the world, that the door of conciliation was always open, that the Government were anxious for a settlement of the dispute, that no possible expression of good will was lacking, and that they were always anxious to send a message of good will to Southern Ireland.

Then comes the Minister's White Paper, with a totally new policy regarding that part of the Dominions, which I think is unprecedented in its effect, and which one must regard, after careful analysis of the document, as really a monstrous attack on the Irish Free State. Already punitive taxation has been imposed against the Irish Free State, but this is something even more than punitive taxation. When one thinks of all the sentimental utterances with regard to the Empire, and when one regards all the actions that have been levelled against Southern Ireland during the past few months, it seems to me that all these statements about conciliation are not only sentimental humbug, but more or less in the nature of poisoned arrows. I cannot but believe that the right hon. Gentleman, who, after all, to this House and to the country, is responsible for these proposals, must have been forced into them by the Cabinet yesterday; and, believing, as I do, that the right hon. Gentleman had pressure brought to bear upon him, and that the Secretary of State for the Dominions would not readily agree to these proposals, it is rather a problem to ascertain who exactly was responsible for that part of this document which relates to the Irish Free State. If one looks at the document, one finds in it the following statement;

"Many United Kingdom feeders have kept back their stock from sale owing to the low level of prices, while supplies from other sources have been pressed on the market."

Surely, however, the right hon. Gentleman would not claim that the other supplies which have been pressed on the market are from the Irish Free State. It is well known both to the Minister and, I think, to every Member of this House, that, while the Minister has no power to limit imports from the Dominions, and while he has power to limit imports from foreign countries, imports from foreign countries over a period are down by approximately 500,000 cwt.; but, while imports from foreign countries are down by 500,000 cwt., they are up by 500,000 cwt. from various parts of the Dominions, but not from the Irish Free State. Nevertheless, the document proceeds to state:

"At present such cattle are imported into the United Kingdom from two sources only, namely, the Irish Free State and Canada. As regards the Irish Free State, an Order will be issued forthwith"—

to limit Irish Free State imports from now. Without so much as 24 hours' notice, or "By your leave, please," Irish Free State imports are to be limited from the moment that the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, and the limitation is as much as 50 per cent. The next stage is a reference to Canada, where there is not a restriction commencing from now. The right hon. Gentleman's own words are:

"As regards the Dominion of Canada, His Majesty's Government in that Dominion have been asked to co-operate by stabilising exports of cattle, both fat and store, to this market for the first quarter of 1934."

Therefore, while the attack is made instantaneously upon the Irish Free State, Canada has at least been invited to cooperate, and such limitations as there may be in the case of Canada only commence to operate from the 1st January.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him if he would give us to understand that he puts on exactly the same basis the extreme and magnanimous loyalty of Canada and certain uncertainties in Southern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman can make what assumption he likes, but, so far, the Irish Free State is part of the Dominions, and the attitude expressed towards the Irish Free State in this Order and in these restrictions, as compared with the attitude towards Canada, is not only discrimination, but is discrimination of a violent character, and seems to me to be the very essence, not of Empire-building, but of Empire-wrecking. That is the first part of our indictment that this Order should have been produced at such a late hour in the Session. What are the imports from the Irish Free State? If the imports during 1933 were even comparable with what they were in 1932 or 1931, or if the imports were in any way excessive imports which were endangering the market for the British producer, one could understand the policy of the right hon. Gentleman; but in point of fact even this year the imports from the Irish Free State are very much below the imports during 1931. I am not at all sure that the average Irishman is not as loyal to the Empire as the average Canadian; I am not at all sure that whether a man is Irish or Canadian makes much difference; but I am convinced that this attack upon the Irish Free State is not only one that will not be welcomed in Ireland, and is not one of those expressions of good cheer that we look for on the eve of Christmas, but that it is bound to consolidate the position of Mr. de Valera as no other single thing could possibly do. From that angle we look upon this discrimination between the Irish Free State and Canada, and the expression in the last paragraph with regard to bacon, where the Minister is so solicitous with regard to the production of bacon in Northern Ireland, as not only the sort of discrimination which is calculated to disturb and irritate the feelings of Southern Ireland, but as probably a final blow to our otherwise good relations with that part of the Empire.

I do not want to discuss this matter in detail at this late hour on the Motion for Adjournment, because I understand that several other Members are anxious to raise other subjects. I want, however, while leaving the general details of the Order for a future occasion, to challenge the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy as expressed in the Order. The right hon. Gentleman has set out deliberately, with malice aforethought, to decrease imports, to decrease available supplies, with the professed object of increasing the price to the fanners, and, of course, restoring some sort of profit to meat growers in this country. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still thinks that merely to restrict imports of comparatively cheap meat is going to bring about an increase in the consumption of comparatively dear meat? I cannot believe that that policy is bound to work out. The proposal is to cut down the imports from the Irish Free State by 23,000 head of cattle, and then, according to the right hon. Gentleman, those cattle which have been withheld by British farmers will be released and made available for the market. How is there going to be any effect upon prices at all if, by restricting imports from Ireland but releasing for sale cattle in England, the same number of cattle are going to be available? First of all, therefore, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's price philosophy is not going to work out.

But, assuming that it does, and that as a result of the restriction of imports there will be an increase in price, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is going to bring about an increase in consumption? Command Paper 4470, issued a few days ago, gives the prices of British produced and Dominion and Argentine Beef, mutton and lamb. The average price difference between English and Argentine beef is approximately 2d. per lb., between English or Scotch mutton, as compared with New Zealand or Australian, the difference is approximately 5d. per lb. and between English lamb and New Zealand or Australian approximately 4½d. to 5d. If the right hon. Gentleman restricts imports of that cheaper meat and only the higher priced meat is available, is he sure that the consumers are going to purchase larger quantities? He has the power to restrict imports but he has no power to compel people to buy meat at a price that they cannot afford. People cannot afford to pay higher prices for English meat. We have 2,500,000 people unemployed drawing 15s. 3d. a week, millions of people on short time and millions of others whose wages are slowly decreasing. An increase of 2d. or 5d. a lb. makes beef, mutton or lamb an impossibility for them. They buy Dominion or foreign meat not because they prefer it but because they cannot afford to buy English.

I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is going to succeed in the policy he is pursuing. The "Times" coined a phrase some time ago, and he has adopted it almost as his own. What we must ensure is that the farmer receives a price which will provide replacement value. We do not object to that, but the worker is entitled to a wage price level which will ensure him a replacement value in the form of food for the energy he expends whilst at work. If you force prices up to a point where he is denied the privilege of consuming beef, mutton, lamb or bacon, there is not going to be any replacement value there. It will be potatoes and bread instead of meat and the second state of the livestock growers may be infinitely worse than the first. With regard to bacon, as I read this Order it is more or less in the nature of a warning to Denmark and other countries that send bacon here. Three months notice is being given on this occasion, whereas on the last occasion restriction was introduced very rapidly indeed. But on the whole we are convinced that the policy announced yesterday by the Government was not only too precipitate, and dangerous from the Empire point of view, and will not ultimately help the livestock farmer, but it will certainly damage the prospects of the poorer section of the community, who will no longer be able to buy meat of any kind. For this policy to be announced on the eve of Christmas is the biggest crime of all. Unless and until the right hon. Gentleman will go to the retailing end and not rely, as the Under-Secretary for Scotland did the other day, too exclusively upon a consumers' council which has little or no power, or an investigation committee which only comes into operation when the consumers' committee first of all has a legitimate complaint—unless he will ascertain just what proportion of legitimate or illegitimate profits the retailers are making, this policy is not likely to succeed.

I had a letter this morning from an agricultural labourer who tells me that, despite all that the Government have done in direct or indirect subsidies, in the best agricultural land in any part of the country, that is, in the neighbourhood of Boston and Holland, a good many agricultural labourers are working short time. What beef, mutton or lamb are they going to be able to buy, the very men who make it possible to produce beef at all? It is because of the general poverty of the people that consumption is lower to-day than it would otherwise be. If we can find a means of increasing the spending power of the people, increasing the relative value of the small wages that they receive, that will help the farmers much more than these policies which are altogether too precipitate and extremely dangerous and are not going to be successful in the end. The "Economist" stated the other day that this and past Governments have already made to agriculture an annual gift of no less than £45,000,000, equivalent to every penny piece paid in agricultural workers wages, yet we are now pursuing the same policy which so far has proved a gigantic failure. We profoundly regret this very belated statement and we profoundly regret the implied attack upon the Irish Free State compared with the extreme solicitude shown to Canada and Northern Ireland. We are convinced that the policy will not succeed except in one particular. It will succeed in depriving the poorer section of the community of the joy of a meat meal occasionally.

The speech that we have just heard will enable me to curtail my observations. I wish to associate myself with the protest that has already been made as to the late hour in the Session at which this statement of policy has been introduced. There is no time for adequate discussion and it is almost impossible to grasp, in the time available, the full consequences and implications of it. I would also enter a protest against what I consider the inadequate and in many ways extraordinary terms in which the policy of the Government has been conveyed to the House. As a representative of an industrial constituency I have no wish to minimise for a moment the difficulties of the agricultural and stock-raising districts. I would, on the contrary, express the greatest sympathy with them. I do not fail to recognise fully the difficult position with which the Ministry is confronted and that they have to come to this House with proposals to remedy a situation which is undoubtedly difficult. But the proposals which have been made, whatever they may do for the stock raisers of this country, include proposals which are very disadvantageous to other sections of the community. We are not given, in the statement of the policy of the Government, sufficient information with regard to that matter. In fact, we are left to surmise whether or not any consideration has been given to the disadvantages which will inevitably be created by the policy which the Government are pursuing.

We are told in the statement of policy that the situation is "unsatisfactory." That is the extraordinary word which is used. The Government say: "You must take it from us." Where are the people of this country whose situation is satisfactory? There cannot be many of them. It is difficult to know where they are situated. Whatever may be the situation of the stock raisers, which we sincerely regret, is their situation more unsatisfactory than that of the masses of the unemployed, and the great number of people who are in poverty and whose budgets are limited to shillings and pence, and to whom a small variation in the price of meat is a matter of the utmost consequence? Is there a situation more unsatisfactory than that of those who will inevitably lose their employment in the towns as a result of this policy? It will not be an adequate response for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birkenhead West (Lieut. Colonel Allen) and myself to say, if we are approached by constituents who may lose their occupation as a result of this proposal, that the situation is unsatisfactory for somebody else. They will say: "It is not nearly as unsatisfactory for them as it is for us." The Minister of Agriculture, in a recent speech in this House, referred with regret to the conflicting interests which exist between the town dweller and the country dweller, and he went on to express the view that if the difficulties of the countryside were fully understood in the towns, the townspeople would be willing to stand by the countryside in carrying out any satisfactory solution. I share that hope, speaking as a town dweller, but, if the clashing of interests and policy between the town and the countryside is to be avoided, the situation will have to be handled somewhat differently from the manner in which it is being dealt with at the present time.

The people of this country are very long-suffering. In the last few years they have given adequate proof of the fact that there is nothing which they will not stand if it is fully explained to them and they see that it is a just and reasonable proposal operating over the whole of the country, and all the cards are placed face upwards upon the table so that they can see the proposition. If it is desired to carry the country in a policy of this kind, a statement of the kind issued yesterday is just the way to create a clash of policy and feeling between the town and the countryside, which, I am sure, it; is the desire of the Minister and every Member of this House to avoid. Has any attempt been made to balance the good and the evil in this proposal? Has my right hon. Friend, like Robinson Crusoe, sat down and made out a balance-sheet in which he has put down what is good on one side and what is bad on the other?

What is the cost of this change to the consumer? Is it to be compared with the benefit to the stock-raiser and the cattle-feeder? What price level is to be aimed at? All these things are matters of speculation. It may be that they cannot be anything else, but at least the Ministry must have had something in their minds at which they were aiming. Is it possible to help the situation in the long run by restricting consumption? I cannot help feeling that in many of the ingenious devices which are being placed before the country at the present time, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to meet with disappointment in the long run.

The world is in the remarkable state of having solved the problems of production, and it is nothing but human folly, manifested in ways which it would be out of order to discuss here to-day, which is preventing the solution of the problems of distribution. Devices which, instead of aiming at increased consumption, must inevitably limit the consumption of the articles with which it is proposed to deal under this Order will not be the final way out of this difficulty. Has any consideration been given to the amount of unemployment which will inevitably be created in the trades which are carrying on the importation and the killing of cattle, and the ancillary occupations of hide-dressing and the like which spring up in connection with the trade. In Liverpool, and certainly in Birkenhead, there will be an increase in unemployment arising directly from the operation of this Order. Has any consideration been given to these questions, and have they been set off in the balance of advantage and disadvantage? These are matters on which there ought to be some expression of sympathy with these people in the statement of policy by the Ministry. It is an unbalanced statement. It refers simply to the advantages which it is expected will accrue to the stock-raisers, with whom we have no quarrel, with whom we sympathise, and with whom we do our best to co-operate if possible. Has any account been taken of the loss of revenue? This is an aspect of this policy which, I think, would interest the Dominions Secretary. We ought to have taken the goodwill in the national balance sheet into consideration. I cannot think—and it is a very important item in adjusting the balance of good and evil in this matter—that the relationships with Denmark are likely to be improved by the further restriction of imports. It is very important in this connection that the incidence of this arrangement should be spread fairly over all the parties to it. We see that an agreement has been made with Canada, but Australia is not mentioned. Why have they not been brought into this matter? Why have not all the parties who could possibly contribute to it been asked to bear their share? Although not sharing the views of the hon. Member in regard to the Irish situation, I agree that the present situation with Southern Ireland is lamentable and cannot permanently govern the relationship between the two countries. Sooner or later we shall have to find a solution of our difficulties, and live side by side. What I feel most profoundly is that no attempt has been made in this matter to seek the possibility of arriving at a satisfactory solution and some reasonable form of modus vivendi with the people of Southern Ireland.

On the question as to whether the burden of sacrifice which will have to be borne by some people is being fairly distributed, I should like my right hon. Friend to give consideration to the question of the importation of stores. Looking at the figures set out in the statement of policy, it would appear that the greater portion of this burden is to fall upon the importation of fat cattle, upon that section of the trade where it will create the maximum amount of unemployment, so far as the information at my disposal goes. The importation of fat cattle from the Irish Free State has been reduced, in comparison with 1931, by approximately 100,000 head, and this further reduction which comes on the top of that is going to create a very difficult and serious situation for those who in one capacity or another have relied on this business to make their living. Could not the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the incidence of this matter and see whether in regard to store cattle some arrangement might be made which would, on balance, be less injurious. This matter is arousing much anxiety, and within the last few minutes I have received a telegram about it. I should like to know if anything can be done to lighten the incidence of this burden, which will hit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, West, and my constituency, as well as the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman.

We in Birkenhead in regard to our other industry have a privileged position. In regard to the materials which we use in the shipbuilding industry we enjoy an immunity from taxation under the Import Duties Act. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to consider giving some privilege to the stock-raisers on the same line. I do not know what the money value of the tax on the stock-raisers has been under the Import Duties Act. It must be a considerable sum. It gave rise to a considerable complaint some months ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) called attention to the matter and quoted the case of a farmer friend of his who had to find £400 more for his stock raising on account of those duties. Might not some considerable relief be given to the stock-raisers and cattle feeders by giving them immunity from taxation on the range of feeding stocks which they have to use for the purpose of their business? That matter ought to be considered. I hope that if my right hon. Friend looks into it and he finds that he could give relief to stock-raisers without raising prices, and still give some reasonable margin of profit to the raisers, he will come down to the House with some proposals on those lines. If it is legitimate for the shipbuilding industry to be given a privilege, I see no reason why it should not be legitimate, fair and reasonable for the stock-raising trade.

I will not occupy the time of the House further at this late stage before the Recess, but I wish to enter the protest that I have already done and to express the hope that wiser counsels may prevail and that we may next Session have more constructive suggestions. I hope that whatever suggestions are made the Government will convey all the facts to the country so that those directly concerned may not feel that they are suffering any injustice.

I believe that it is customary in making a maiden speech to pray the indulgence of the House. I earnestly implore the House on this occasion to give me its fullest measure of indulgence. Not only am I one of the latest arrivals in this House but I believe I am right in saying that I am the youngest Member of the House. I have no doubt that I shall be severely criticised by many for throwing away the opportunity, which only occurs once in one's lifetime, of making a maiden speech. The subject before the House is one on which I feel most strongly and, although unprepared and at short notice, at a time when many have gone away for the Christmas Recess, I could not refrain from speaking in support of the action which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken.

I come from a constituency the inhabitants of which are all, either directly or indirectly, dependent on farming for their livelihood. In recent years they have suffered from a very lean time. I have on occasion recently attended their live stock shows. It is amazing the way in which they have carried on, in spite of the hard times. One cannot help regretting that the prices they are receiving to-day are, unfortunately, less fat than their stock. The way they have carried on shows that, in spite of the depressed conditions they have had to contend against, we in this country can produce and do produce the best beef in the world, and it is most praiseworthy. I am proud to be a supporter of a Government who realise the importance of agriculture in the prosperity of the nation and who have worked so untiringly to improve the conditions throughout the industry. I would remind the House that live-stock farming is not merely a key branch of the industry, but the keystone of the whole industry. Live-stock farming constitutes 70 per cent. of the whole industry, and any measure of prosperity that is brought to this branch of the industry must be of great help to the agricultural industry as a whole. This country cannot hope to prosper to-day without a prosperous agriculture.

Although I am afraid that I do not agree on all political questions with my relations by marriage, I am most grateful on this occasion to have the opportunity of helping in my small way to forward and advocate a policy which my father-in-law has done so much to help—namely, the protection and encourage- ment of live-stock farming. I know that any question so closely related and connected with the subject of imports as is livestock farming must always be controversial and must meet with a large measure of opposition, but I would remind those who are opposed to the policy of the Minister of Agriculture that British producers also buy British goods, and that the purchasing power of farmers and farm workers throughout the country has been steadily reduced during recent years. Any increase which is brought to their purchasing power must be ultimately reflected in every industry throughout the country. In conclusion I should like to say that a general review of the whole field of agriculture shows that since the present Government has been in office a considerable improvement has taken place. On the home front line the condition to-day is far more promising, and along the whole front there is a feeling that we are going to win—and that is half the battle. The index figure for agricultural wholesale prices to-day stands at 109, which is the highest it has been for 17 months. The sector of the front which has, unfortunately, suffered most from the opposing forces is the livestock farming industry, and I hope I have said sufficient to prove what a vital and important sector it is of the agricultural front. Now that the Minister of Agriculture has launched his counter attack I ask the House to support his action, which I am sure is in the best interests of the agricultural industry.

May I, in the first place, congratulate my hon. Friend on his very admirable maiden speech, especially as it came so unexpectedly upon him. I remember that when I made my maiden speech I was full of trepidation for a long time before, and that I did not acquit myself as well as my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be a distinguished ornament of this House and will add greatly to its debating power. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is so charming and moderate that it is difficult to disagree with him. He asks for a balance as between town and country. We know the difficulties of the towns, and we ask representatives of urban constituencies to realise ours—they are very great. In the last 12 years 187,000 laboureres have left the land, they have gone in to the towns and increased the difficulties in the towns. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to a letter he has received from a labourer in one of the richest districts in England, Boston, who is being dismissed, or is on short time. Why? The reason is because the price of the products will not pay his wages. That is the only reason. I beseech hon. Members opposite not to think that a farmer has a double dose of original sin. He would employ men if it was profitable for him to do so. All that the Minister of Agriculture is doing now is to enable the farmer to avoid a loss, I will not say make a profit. The beef situation, with which the Minister is now dealing is, in a most deplorable state. Instead of attending the all-night sitting here I was in North Devon at a number of cattle markets. Prime cattle made a reasonable price, but anything of second quality you could hardly sell it. In the "Times" this morning there appears the Smithfield official report:

"Supplies of all descriptions of meat were large and more than ample for a very poor demand."

I ask hon. Members to have a little sympathy with those men who have carried on under most depressing circumstances for several years. This morning I received from the admirable statistical department of the Ministry of Agriculture figures showing that in 1926 the price of beef per live cwt. was £2 9s.; this year it is £l 15s. 4d., a drop of 22½ per cent. I would remind hon. Members opposite that wages are fixed, tithes are fixed, the farmers charges are fixed, but the decrease in the prices of this product is 22½ per cent. How these men have been able to carry on I do not know, if they were not enterprising and capable they would not be able to carry on at all. Farmers, enterprising and capable, are really being driven into the bankruptcy court. Can the House of Commons contemplate such a state of affairs? The hon. Member for the Don Valley referred to the Irish Free State. I am one of the few Members left who was in the House when the Irish Land Act was passed. It was a most generous gesture. It gave Irish tenants a loan on the British Exchequer at 2¾ per cent. How can my hon. Friends as representing the Labour party say that the Irish Free State is justified in repudiating a bargain of that description?

The right hon. Gentleman is scarcely entitled to put those words in my mouth. What I said was that the Dominions Secretary is frequently making statements in this House and outside of the conciliatory spirit, the ever-open door, the hope that an agreement some time would be reached; but that in this case, without a 24 hours notice, economic action is being taken against the Irish Free State which is bound to exacerbate feelings and destroy any desire for conciliation. I did not justify anything that Southern Ireland have done.

I have not seen much reasonableness in Mr. de Valera's actions. I wish the hon. Member would go over there in the sweet spirit of reasonableness and persuade him to be a little more reasonable. I am sure that the British Government would meet him half way. Really, in this matter I cannot feel great sympathy with the people of the Irish Free State who have received benefits from the British Exchequer. This is not the time for a long speech. But I do congratulate the House, the Government and the agricultural industry that at last we have found a Minister who faces facts. We have had a lot of theories about land settlement, land tenure and the rest, but the right hon. Gentleman really comes down to the question of price. He has shown sound sense on that question. Give the farmers a fair price and they will produce. That has been shown in the case of poultry and pigs. Given a fair price the farmers can pay a reasonable wage to their labourers. I want to help the agricultural labourers. Hon. Members of the Labour party do the agricultural workers no good by constantly carping at the policy of the Minister, who endeavours to raise prices so that fair wages shall be paid. I congratulate the Minister that for the first time in 13 years the lag of agricultural employment has been checked. I hope that under his guidance the flow will set in the opposite direction and fertilise the land. Before the House meets again I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a long-term policy for agriculture. He must deal with the Ottawa Agreements. There is no doubt that at Ottawa agriculturists were sacrificed to the interests of industry. I hope for a long-term policy which will enable those who cultivate the land to earn a decent livelihood.

I have become very interested in the Minister of Agriculture and his policy. Unless I am mistaken he will be the Minister who, sooner than any other, will reveal to the country the bankruptcy of the system he is trying to bolster up. It is true that if we are to run the present system there must be some consideration given to price. I am convinced that the present system of private production and private profit cannot run unless the system brings in a price that will provide profit and provide wages. As I understand the Minister, he is after that price. But mark how he is trying to get it. He is trying to secure his price, in all the schemes he has put before us, by the creation of scarcity. In order to get his profitable price he has set himself a number of other problems. As far as I can see he will be confronted with many difficulties. First of all he is forced to cut down what is after all the real wealth of the nation; he is bound to cut down the production of this and that product, and he is in the dilemma that while he is searching for a price he has actually to decrease the amount of real wealth throughout the land.

He has also to relate his policy and price to a demand for the products of the industry. If he has not got the demand his policy is bound to end in futility. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that, for a short time ago he told us in this House that we would have to deal with the problem of the necessity for expanding consumption as well as dealing merely with the problem of restricting supplies, and he added that it was ten times as difficult to sell as it was to produce. The right hon. Gentleman realises that the problem is a problem of demand. Has he dealt with it? How is he dealing with it? As far as I can gather, the only way in which he is going to deal with it is in the way of Sadler's Wells—lots of nasty food at a high price.

There is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's policy dealing with a higher demand. As 'a matter of fact the higher he raises his price for agricultural products through quantitative restriction, the less demand he will have. If the industrial workers of the country were able to buy more goods, the money which went to the purchase of agricultural products at higher prices obviously could not be spent in the purchase of industrial goods. It cannot be spent in two ways. On the other hand, if prices are so high that the workers cannot buy the goods, there is a lack of demand for the goods, and the last condition of the right hon. Gentleman will be worse than the first. Instead of trying to solve this problem by raising prices, the right hon. Gentleman should have tackled it from the other end. This is where I probably part company with ray Liberal friends. They would agree with my suggestion that we should try to create a demand. But how is the demand to be created? Whence is it to come? Is it to come from higher wages? It can only come from higher wage3. Is it to come from an increase in the unemployment benefit? Are hon. Members prepared to say these things? I do not believe that the capitalist system can stand an increase in demand by an increase in wages, because under the capitalist system industry cannot bear it.

The policy of the right hon. Gentleman is inevitable, but it is inevitable under a capitalist system. Lenin forestalled the right hon. Gentleman. I was only the other day reading a book that Lenin wrote during his exile in about 1915. In describing the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is now putting into effect, he said that capitalism would be bound to do this in order to preserve itself. It would be bound to have quantity restrictions, because capitalism cannot stand the abundance which science can produce. I was also reading what Lord Balfour said, that it was the task of modern statesmanship so to ensure social stability that science would, unhindered and undisturbed, increase the standard of living of the masses to undreamt-of heights. The policies which the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing are hindering the progress of science, preventing abundance, and preventing science and all these technical powers that men have produced from coming into effect. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of being the Minister for Agriculture, ought to be the Minister for the Sahara Desert. He is trying to create a desert. He says that food, the goods which mean something to the well-being of our people, must be cut down, and he is restricting the production of all that is necessary for a decent physical standard of life. He is now forced to say: "Too much; we must cut it off," in spite of the fact that large numbers of our people have not sufficient to feed them properly.

I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the book written by the distinguished relative of the hon. Member who made such an admirable maiden speech just now. In that book the writer says that willingness to pay for expensive foods is not the same thing as the capacity to pay for them. None of us here is not willing to pay for expensive foods if we can do so. The working classes are prepared to pay for the very best, provided that they have an income. That is the whole problem, and there is no income for the working classes in this policy. The right hon. Gentleman has said, as I Have quoted, that he realises this problem. I must confess that I have a feeling, which is shared by a number of us, that he is one of the dynamic Members of the Cabinet, and that we have to watch him very carefully.

The market for the bulk of British farm produce depends on good income and wages. The greatest part of the country's wealth is derived from industry and commerce. Are you sure that you are not damaging industry and commerce by this policy? The right hon. Gentleman himself is a little uneasy about it—or, at least, that is the way in which I interpret the last speech which he delivered here, which secured such a good press. The right hon. Gentleman himself is concerned that the policy which he is now pursuing may damage industry and commerce. An increase in that wealth depends upon an increase in the demand for meat, food, milk, butter and vegetables, which must in turn depend upon income. If that demand fails, all the advantages of the policy are lost. The author continues:

"Perhaps the most important to the British farmer as influencing his immediate plane are the year-to-year fluctuations in demand. So much attention has been paid to the effect of supply on price that there is a danger of losing sight of the importance of the demand factor in price determination."

The Minister and the Government, if they are to make a real contribution to this problem, must therefore not pursue the policy of curtailing supplies nor of cutting down the real sources of wealth and well-being in the nation, but must follow the policy of increasing the power of our people to buy the goods which science and human ingenuity can so easily produce in great abundance.

I, too, pray the indulgence of the House for a second maiden speech on the same subject as the last one, but I feel, representing as I do the Market Harborough Division, which is primarily interested in the grazing industry, that this is a most opportune time to speak on the Government's behalf. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has said that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has not given the Irish people a welcome Christmas present. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has given the people of the Midlands a most welcome Christmas present, and one of which they have been in great need.

The grazing industry had reached a point when it was on the very verge of bankruptcy. That is nothing more than a just estimate. Graziers have had two years of steadily falling prices, and they have been unable to get rid of the cattle that they have produced. Despite the fact that in the last quarter of the year the right hon. Gentleman has put restrictions on meat coming into the country, those restrictions have not proved adequate. As he said last night, farmers in the country had held back their stocks and waited until this time of the year, and the prices that they would then get would not be anything like enough to pay a fair profit. That would mean that when the time came next spring to borrow money from the banks in order to get fresh stores, the banks would not give them the needed credit, and that in another few months we should have a virtually derelict grazing industry, with unemployment in the Midlands in a very serious position and the fields going to waste. In addition to that, grazier farmers—and I do not think that there is any branch of the farming industry that is more efficient—not being able to make money out of grazing, were going into milk production and pig-breeding, and that in turn was making a glut in those industries. Only if each branch of the industry keeps to its own special branch of production can we have a fair all-round farming industry.

The hon. Member for Don Valley has stated that the price to the consumer will tend to rise under the new restrictions, but I think he forgets that during the last two years, despite the fact that prices have fallen from 48s. per cwt. to the present rate of 30s. per cwt., that reduction has not been handed on to the consumer. I do not see why, because prices will under these new conditions tend to rise, that increase should in turn be put up to the ultimate consumer. There is a long way to go before the price returns to the level at which it stood two or three years ago. Although this is only a temporary Measure—it is to last, I believe for three months—it will get over the immediate trouble. I hope however that the Minister is going to bring forward a long-range policy for agriculture in the early days of next year, and I hope that such a long-range policy for agriculture will have the meat industry as its keystone. The question of meat and meat products is of the greatest importance to British agriculture, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider it in relation to his general agricultural policy. I would like on this occasion to compliment the Minister on the restrictions which he issued last night. They will prove, I am sure, of immense help and benefit to the graziers of the Midland districts.

I count myself as very lucky in being able to congratulate the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Tree) on his maiden speech. That is a constituency which a good many years ago I had the honour of representing and I have the satisfaction of feeling that in the representation of that division I have a very competent successor and one who has a promising future. The hon. Member put his case extremely well. I am sorry that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) missed another very interesting maiden speech from another relative of hers. She will find, I think, that she has now two excellent supporters in the House. I do not know if they share her views on all subjects but time will show. No doubt they have studied the excellent book, which has been quoted from to- day, written by the Noble Lord her husband, who has done such fine work for agriculture. I cannot, however, agree completely with those two excellent maiden speeches.

Naturally, the hon. Members are satisfied with this proposal. This is a House—and I mean no offence in saying it—of sectional interests. Members more and more come here to fight for various vested interests, and local interests of their constituencies. It is inevitable and it is becoming increasingly necessary for Members to put forward in this House the claims of particular trades and industries and interests in various parts of the country. Each one is fighting for himself but in the meantime the greater interest of the community as a whole, of the general public, of the consumers is being sacrificed. I do not know whether this proposal has been before the Cabinet or not. I am glad to see the Lord President of the Council here, because I would like to know something about the reactions of this new policy.

Some reference was made in the opening of the discussion to the reaction on Ireland. The Dominions Secretary has very vigorously defended the policy of collecting revenue from the imports of livestock from Ireland in order to meet the engagements which they have failed to meet. This little policy has nothing to do with that. This is a direct attack on the interests of one of the Dominions that make up the Commonwealth of Nations. Little did we think that one of the first fruits of the Ottawa Conference would be an attack on the agricultural interests of the various parts of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), is quite frank about it. He does not mind whether he ruins Germans, Frenchmen, Canadians, or Irishmen so long as Devonshire prospers.

And Bethnal Green.

He does not mind ruining Bethnal Green either. He only takes an interest in his own particular section. That is the way to war and disaster, to breaking up the Empire, and to revolution in this country. I have taken the trouble to go down to my constituency to find out the reaction there already. This is a very grave winter for them, with much unemployment. Things have never been worse for them than in this winter of 1933. The streets are crowded with people anxious to make provision for their Christmas dinner, but with very little in their pockets, and the only Christmas message that the Minister of Agriculture has to send them is that he is conspiring artificially to raise the prices of the food that they have to buy. I say that that is a very serious thing to do to long-suffering people who have had to put up with hard times, short commons, and irregular wages for the last six or seven years.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question?

I shall be delighted.

How does the hon. Member get over the fact that the unemployment figures for the East End of London are lower than last year and that the index of living is lower also? Why does he say that this is the worst winter they have had?

I say it because I know that we have 6,000 unemployed in Bethnal Green, and that it is not better there. Among the unskilled labourers and the workers in the docks, taking this winter as compared with previous winters, there is no improvement, and things in some ways, are worse. After all, while there is hope there is life, and as long as there is a chance of things recovering people will exercise patience, but every year that bad times continue, endurance gets strained and patience exhausted. I have always been able to say to the people down in the East End, "After all, things may be bad in this country, but at any rate you have a full cupboard and a full larder, and you are able to draw your supplies from the four quarters of the globe." Now the Minister of Agriculture comes down, with his clumsy hand, trying to lock the door and prevent the entry of commodities into this country. If my right hon. Friend thinks that in the long run he is going to bring about prosperity by his policy, I am satisfied that he is wrong. He is not even going to benefit those for whom he has taken this stand—the farmers.

I agree with a previous speaker that the only reason why the price of British meat has slumped is that people have not been in a position to buy British meat.

In the poorer districts, not only of London, but of the great cities, they will always buy British produce in preference to imported if their wages permit them to do so. It is common knowledge that there is no better judge of a good joint of beef than a working woman. When they have a limited amount of cash to spend they take the trouble to buy the best, and it is a remarkable fact that up to a few years ago in many of the working-class districts they would not buy imported meat. This may be information to the Noble Lord opposite. West End housekeepers used to criticise their extravagance. They would always say that they would buy New Zealand lamb or Argentine chilled beef and express surprise that the working-class woman insisted on home-produced meat wherever she could. During the last two or three years, because of the long series of unemployed years and because they have exhausted their savings and have been on short time or unemployment pay, they have got into the habit of putting up with inferior substitutes like chilled beef, and now frozen beef, because even the price of chilled beef is considered beyond their means.

During the last few months the right hon. Gentleman has put another burden on them by his bacon policy. I have heard of the reactions of that policy on working-class women. I consulted large dealers in bacon and found that the immediate reaction of his policy of artificially increasing the price of bacon was to decrease the consumption and to divert expenditure from bacon to other inferior food substitutes. I want to know how far the right hon. Gentleman is going with his policy of keeping out tinned meat and canned beef. I am informed that as a result of the bacon policy there has been a diversion of expenditure on bacon to expenditure on canned beef. How far is he going in these restrictions and regulations by quota of the importation of canned beef? It is a cheap food. It is not food that people consume for choice, because it is an inferior substitute for fresh meat. They only buy it when they are hard up. Is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to force people first to use substitutes by artificially raising prices, and then to make the substitute more expensive? If he wants revolution and wants to drive the working-class into the hands of hon.: Gentlemen on the Opposition beaches, or, what is worse, to Communism, he is going the right way about it—

Or to the Liberals.

The hon. Member supports that kind of policy. He defends it to-day because there is no vote, but I hope he will tell his working friends in the North of England.

I am perfectly prepared to go to my constituents in the distressed areas, where I have done all that is possible to justify every vote I have given in this House. I am not prepared to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) in talking in this House in terms of revolution on a subject which admits of no justification for language of that kind.

I hope that the hon. Member will go up to the North of England and tell his friends. I am not preaching revolution. I am trying to warn the right hon. Gentleman who is encouraging revolution by his policy. I have been using a qualifying influence, as every one knows, in the East End by fighting Socialism in every form in the last 12 years, and now the right hon. Gentleman is supported by his so-called Liberal friends opposite to make living more expensive for the working-classes. I have consulted the retail trade. The first person I selected was a well-known Conservative butcher, and he assured me that the reaction of this policy would have two effects: first, to raise prices, and, second, to decrease consumption. It may be argued that meat is not a necessity. I agree that it is not a necessity. There are plenty of substitutes. My hon. Friend seems surprised, but it is a common practice, when meat is expensive and when men are on the "dole," to give up meat and go in for cheese and even bread and margarine.

This is one of the worst day's work done by this or any other Government during the last 20 years. The Government come here with their proposal at the eleventh hour, when the House is about to go into Recess, with practically no figures and no facts, and without giving us any opportunity for discussion. There are none of the ordinary protections which we have when we are levying taxes. This is a tax, only instead of the money going into the Exchequer it will go into the pockets of privileged people. It does not matter to the consumer whether the artificial increase in price is caused by a tax or a limitation of supplies. As an hon. Friend of mine said, if we put on a duty, at least we bring some revenue to the Exchequer to assist in carrying on the country, but the whole proceeds of this particular tax go into the pockets of privileged individuals. I protest—and I am sorry to have to speak with such heat—against this most reactionary policy, which has been put into force without full opportunity for Debate. I believe it will do great mischief. I am prepared to go down to any part of the country and justify a tax or a scheme or a policy if it is for the general well being of the whole Empire, is going to consolidate us, and is for the well-being of the Commonwealth, but this action cannot be justified along those lines. It is a narrow, sectional, class proposal, and if my right hon. Friend opposite thinks that by this kind of policy he will strengthen the National Government and bring about National unity I can assure him that he is very much mistaken, because it is going to be resented by the working class in every industrial area.

The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) told us, first, that we must look at this question from a broad point of view, taking the whole interests of the country into account, but when he was challenged on the fact that unemployment and the cost of living had gone clown he said that he did not look at it from the point of view of the country as a whole but of Bethnal Greed. I beg the House to consider the subject from the broad aspect and not from a sectional point of view, because it seems to me that those who have spoken against the Order have all taken the sectional view. There was the speech made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White). From the way in which he spoke one would think the Government had never considered the question, but when imports are decreased naturally the carry- ing trade is affected, one cannot help it. But has it not been the central policy of this Government to try to give our people the first place in the home market? And if we are to do that it cannot be expected that more goods will come in from outside.

A speaker from one of the Socialist benches said this would not be a happy Christmas for those in Southern Ireland, but surely it is much more important, at this time of Christmas, to bring a little cheer to our own great agricultural industry, and I congratulate the Government very much on giving the farmers of this country about the biggest Christmas present they ever had. I speak as one of those who, for the last few weeks, have been pressing the Minister to do something for the live-stock trade. I want to thank the Minister for what be has done, because I am sure that it will bring relief to many farmers.

We must not for a moment assume that this is the whole of the Government's policy, and I warn hon. Members opposite that the Government's policy will be on broad lines similar to what it has followed before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I assume from those cheers that we may expect the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Cheers are either a sign of approval or of derision, and as they were not cheers of derision they must have been cheers of approval. On behalf of all those who have been pressing the Government in the interests of the stock-breeder, who is admittedly of vital importance to the country, I express our thanks to the Government for what they have done. The Orders are only for a short time I admit, but there are indications in the White Paper that the matter will not end here.

With regard to canned meats, I would like to point out to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green that he should look at the matter from the broad point of view. Canned meat is by no means the cheapest form of meat that can be obtained by the people in this country. I should like him to come down to my part of the country, where I could take him to butchers, and Conservative butchers, who can tell him that they cannot even get a penny or two for sheeps' heads.

I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. R. W. Smith). The opposition to the Government's proposal is rather inclined to be sectional, and any criticism that I shall bring to bear upon these Orders will be entirely from a sectional point of view. It must of necessity be so. The Orders are intended to help British agriculture, and with that I am, of course, in full sympathy, but I must stand up for my own constituency, which is being damaged by such Orders. I put it to the Ministry that damage is being done also to other interests, and that they should be good enough to bear that fact in mind when there are other favours to distribute, as it were, besides favours to agriculture. The business of lairages in Birkenhead, and on the Merseyside in general, is a large business, and damage is being done not only with regard to the employment of men but to the industry itself by these Orders.

I do not think that it has been made perfectly clear that this is not an attack upon Ireland. Ireland had an opportunity to safeguard herself under the Ottawa Agreements, but as she took no steps, as Canada did, to safeguard her position and to join the rest of the Empire in an agreement to assist the general good and welfare of the Empire, and especially because of the way in which she has looked upon us lately, she cannot rightly expect us to regard her in quite the same light as we regard Canada and those who have come to our assistance.

If I may return to the question of my own constituency, I should like to make some observations to the Government. The No. 3 Order, which we discussed the other day, helped the lairages of Birkenhead. The bringing of the duties upon both dead and live meat into line was of great assistance. But, after the Treasury, by doing that, has given us these crutches to help us along, the Minister of Agriculture sneaks up behind and "pinches" the crutches, and we do not feel quite so happy. The Minister evidently recognises that by the prohibition of imports of beef, meat offal and veal we are being put at a disadvantage, but that fact does not give us any advantage.

From a purely constituency point of view, we are in a peculiar position. None of the things that the Minister has done in any direction has helped our port or the industry of Birkenhead; and none of the things that the Government have done from an industrial point of view has helped Birkenhead. Tariffs have helped Birmingham and other parts of the country, but not Birkenhead, while the policy that has been pursued by Mr. de Valera has been definitely detrimental to trade, industry and employment in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). We have been most unfortunate, in that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was first giving out grants for distressed areas, we were below the qualifying level. Now, however, we have come into the distressed area qualification, but, because we did not qualify for the first grant, we are out of it in the case of the second.

There is another factor to which I should like to direct the attention of the House. We very much fear that the amalgamation of the Cunard and White Star Lines, owing to the building of the new steamer No. 534, will throw out of work a considerable number of men and women, employed not only on sea staffs but on shore staffs, who live in my division. We look upon that with grave disquietude. Indeed, I should like to say one or two words on that vital subject, because this will be the last opportunity of doing so. I understand that the Government have so far only made their arrangements with regard to one steamer, but I very much fear that they may go further and include two steamers, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to one or two matters in that connection. If the building of one of these gigantic steamers is subsidised, it will be necessary also to subsidise the running. These large vessels are very expensive luxuries, and they rely entirely upon rich American travellers and business men. If the Government think that the policy of Mr. Roosevelt is going in a short time to make America a rich country, we shall be delighted, and shall say that we ought to follow that policy a little more; but personally I am not so satisfied, and do not feel at all happy in that regard. I feel that if there were a little more of the blue ribbon of teetotalism we should probably not see so much of the Loch Ness monster, and that if there were a little less in the blue riband of the Atlantic we might hear a little less about this monster.

The blue riband of the Atlantic seems to be an attraction which has put the Government quite off the track in this matter. If you are going to put into that shell an engine which will enable it to beat, say, the "Rex," you are going to put in an engine for which it is not designed. I hope the Government have gone into that matter very carefully, and also into the question of what these large steamers are carrying in the way of passengers as compared with the smaller ones. I would like to see, instead of the construction of these enormous steamers, which have to be run at the expense of the nation, the construction of smaller vessels, which I think the figures will show to be much more popular. That construction could be spread round various shipyards. That is one way in which the Government could make up for some of the troubles that they are bringing upon us, and they have brought us very severe trouble. They have hit Merseyside pretty hard in a great many ways. They have hit them over agriculture and over the Irish policy. We are prepared to take a few knocks but we do want to be hanging about when the Government are dishing out mince pies. We want them to help us in some way and, if they help shipping, they help not only us but a great many of those magnificent people, the mercantile officers and seamen, who are the backbone of the country. I regret to have to bring up any criticism of the Government but I feel certain that they will understand that they have hit us very severely and I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to bear this in mind, especially when he is talking about measures that will in some way help us in our distress.

I also would plead with the Minister of Agriculture to reconsider this new Order which has sprung fully equipped from his brain so precipitately and with so little notice. We have heard of Devonshire and of Bethnal Green, and I should like the House to hear something about Holyhead, which has been one of the victims of the dispute between this country and Ireland and which is to be further victimised by this new Order. Holyhead, like other parts of the country, has suffered from the trade depression and, in addition, has been penalised by direct Government action, by the Irish import duties. The town, which is wholly dependent on the Irish trade, has nothing to fall back upon. There is no other industry or trade to which she can turn. Of course, traffic has been decreasing to an alarming extent as a result of the import duties. Even the slight improvement in trade which has taken place, and which has given a gleam of hope to some other distressed areas, has not brought a crumb of comfort to Holyhead, which cannot be affected by any improvement in general trade conditions. If this policy continues, and if these Orders are carried out, it may well be that Holyhead will not only be a distressed area but may become a derelict area. One right hon. Gentleman has said he hopes very much that the Dominions Secretary will meet Mr. de Valera half way. I only hope he will meet him half way, at Holyhead. I may be accused of taking a local view of this question. When the national aspect of the question came before the House in the form of the Irish Import Duties, that was one of the very rare occasions on which I voted with the Government, and perhaps I may be forgiven for taking a local view on this occasion.

Many hon. Members have spoken of the great concern which is felt about the situation of the cattle farmers. Never before within the memory of living man have the cattle farmers in my constituency had to pass through such a time of distress. They need assistance, but I do not believe that they will get it in this way. I do not think that the measures which the right hon. Gentleman propose to take will greatly assist the farmers, because, first of all, the crux of the problem is not touched upon at all. The complaint of the farmers in this country is not against one Dominion or against the Irish Free State, but against the whole of the Ottawa Agreements. I do not need to differentiate. One might have thought that it was the Irish Free State which was flooding the British market, but, as a matter of fact, the imports of cattle from the Irish Free State have fallen sharply, whereas the imports from Canada have risen equally as sharply, and the imports from Australia and New Zealand have had an even more remarkable increase. But nothing, I understand, is to be done there. In fact, the Government have encouraged the imports from Australia and New Zealand.

If the right hon. Gentleman is to adopt this method of dealing with this crisis—it would not be the method that we should adopt—he should deal with the Ottawa agreements not piecemeal but wholesale. After all, the quantity which comes from the Irish Free State is comparatively small, and the gain will be comparatively small. Although the quantities which come from Canada are infinitely greater, the quantities which come from Canada and the Irish Free State are to be cut, I understand, by the same proportions, which seems to be hardly fair. I do not believe that this is the most effective way of putting this section of the agricultural industry upon its feet, and I make an appeal to the Government to deal fairly and justly with this distressed area of Holyhead.

I am sure that, as the House is, within a short time, to adjourn for the Christmas Recess, it will be the desire of all of us to wish a speedy recovery to health of the Leader of the Opposition, whose absence from our Debates has been so much deplored. I am sure that every one in all parts of the House heartily joins in that desire. I know that there are other Members who have other subjects to raise, and, therefore, I wish to be as brief as possible. I should like, in the first place, to make a short reference to the circumstances of the present Debate, since more than one speaker has referred to the short time which the House has had to consider these important matters. This point was raised by the representative of the Opposition at the conclusion of my statement yesterday. The statement which was made by me yesterday on behalf of the Government was the culmination of close investigation, long discussion, and negotiation. Clearly, it was not a statement which could have been made without weighing up over weeks of consideration the pros and cons, for no one acquainted with Cabinet government could conceive that any Minister would be allowed to rise in his place and fling at the head of the House a statement which had not previously been canvassed to the last stitch by his colleagues.

It became clear during those deliberations that conclusions could not be finally reached until yesterday, and until that time it was not possible to say what announcement, if any, could be made. In view of the Adjournment to-day, it became a question whether the statement had better be deferred until to-day, after the Opposition leaders had been notified and copies of the statement had been previously submitted to them, or be given yesterday to the House, although this involved the seeming discourtesy of not previously informing the Opposition leaders, and the further disadvantage, as you, Mr. Speaker, have since pointed out to me, that an important statement of some length is better made at the conclusion of Questions, by leave of the House, rather than in answer to a Private Notice Question.

It seemed to me, that, in spite of these disadvantages, the House might pardon me if I made the statement at the earliest possible moment, with a view to having it in print and in the hands of hon. Members before the Debate on the Adjournment, in view of the difficulty which we all encounter in trying to follow a complicated statement involving numerous figures, verbally or from manuscript. I hope, therefore, very much that hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly on the Opposition benches, will take my action as merely directed towards putting the relevant facts before the House at the earliest possible moment. If I have transgressed, owing to excess of zeal, on the unwritten courtesies of the House, which are as real and as important as its written Rules, I hope that they, and you, Mr. Speaker, will extend to me, pardon.

What is the justification for the admittedly drastic steps we are taking? The justification is the supply position and the supply position alone. Let me repeat that there is not in these proposals any hostile or penal action towards any part of the world and certainly not to any parts of the British Empire. The position in regard to beef prices had become acute. The agricultural index number for fat cattle as compared with prices in 1911 and 1913 has fallen from 128 in November, 1930, to 115 in November, 1931, to 101 in November, 1932, and to exactly the pre-War level in November, 1933, although, of course, the costs, the chief of which are wages, remain considerably above pre-War rates. Prices of fat cattle in this country were low in 1932, and they have been consistently lower in corresponding periods of 1933. The prices this year fail to show the normal seasonal rise from January to June. There are causes which it would be possible to suggest such as the long-continued heat wave last summer and the quality of the cattle not being up to standard because of the long-continued drought.

But there is another factor, and it would be folly to neglect it, and that is the change in fashion, not merely, as hon. Members opposite have contended, through the diminished purchasing power, since it coincides with a rise of consumption per head of other forms of meat. The consumption of beef per head fell steadily all through the boom years between 1927 and 1929. We call them boom years, although I do not think they were exceptional in any way, or that they were up to the level of prosperity that we would like to see; but they were boom years in which hon. Members opposite take a certain amount of pleasure as compared with the gloomier picture which they depict to-day. Particularly was it so in the second half of 1929 and the first half of 1930, which hon. Members opposite have always pointed to as the real halcyon days of the British working-man. During that time the consumption of beef fell steadily from 69 lbs. per head in 1927, to 68 in 1928, 67 in 1929, 66 in 1930, 65 in 1931 and 61 lbs. in 1932. There was thus a continuing fall in the consumption. On the other hand the consumption of mutton and lamb rose from 27 lbs. per head in 1927 to 28 lbs. in 1928. It then went back again to 27 lbs. in 1929, went up again to 28 lbs. in 1930, to 30 lbs. in 1931 and to 32 lbs. in 1932. I will not weary the House with figures as to bacon but the consumption went up from 40 lbs. at the beginning of that period in 1927 to 49 lbs. per head at the end of 1932. It is clear, therefore, that all who press upon us the necessity for a long-term policy and planning for the industry are those in whose mouths it does not lie to condemn us because we draw the attention of suppliers of this market, by restrictive measures, to the fact that the fall per head in consumption of beef shows that it will be impossible for all suppliers of beef home, Dominion and foreign, to continue supplying this market on the same scale as before. The fact remains, that in spite of all the efforts which the Government have made prices remain far below remunerative levels and the position of the home beef producer is becoming desperate.

It is desperate.

I find my position a little difficult. When I use language of studied moderation and say that the position is unsatisfactory I am attacked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) because I do not use language strong enough. He says that unsatisfactory is very moderate term. We are all in an unsatisfactory position. To say that it is desperate, tragic and appalling, is not the language one would use in an intentionally understated case such as that I have put before hon. Members in the White Paper. There I say that it is unsatisfactory, and I mean that it is a position with which neither the Government nor I are satisfied, and that it is a position with which we desire to deal. It was pressed upon our attention by the Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, by the Council of the National Farmers' Union, by the Council of Agriculture of England and Wales, including representatives of all shades of political opinion, by the Bursars of the Oxford Colleges in a very important statement since it came from men of the highest agricultural knowledge who have no axe to grind, and also, oddly enough, it came from the Council of Agriculture for Wales. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) will agree that with a conflicting demand from her county I am in a quandary, but there are more counties in Wales interested in livestock than the single town of Holyhead which is, of course, interested in the transport trade.

Given that the position is unsatisfactory and that the measures to be taken to handle it were not sufficient, the question was should we act or should we remain seated, should we deal with the situation or should we leave it alone. Hon. Members of the Liberal party who say that the position is difficult and that the measures taken by the Government will bring difficulties to this or that section of the industry, put forward no alternative proposals except to suggest that we should wait until everything in the world becomes much more prosperous than it is to-day.

That is the only real remedy.

But while the grass grows the steed starves. Let us consider the scale of the industry with which we are dealing. We are told that this may injure investments abroad and may injure revenues. What is the amount of capital invested in agriculture in England and Wales alone? It runs to £1,280,000,000 sterling. The amount of British capital invested in the whole of India and Ceylon is less than half, or £458,000,000. There is more than twice as much invested in agriculture in this country as in the whole of our overseas investments in the Indian Empire. The value of the meat produced in Great Britain runs to something like £40,000,000 a year. This is not a small industry; it is a great industry, and one which could not be allowed to founder as long as the Government felt that it could in any way improve the situation.

The state of the industry does not affect farmers only or the people on the employment side only. There are over 2,000,000 acres of land under public ownership in this country, for which the revenues are of the greatest importance to various public bodies. The university colleges alone own between 200,000 and 250,000 acres. They derive a big proportion of their revenue from that source, and the impending collapse of the beef industry would have dragged down a great proportion of the agriculture in this country, because, as has been repeated in two very able and interesting maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland (Lord Willoughby de Eresby), and Market Harborough (Mr. Tree), beef production is not the key of the door but the keystone of the arch, and the whole of the industry will collapse unless we get the livestock section on its feet. Accordingly, after considerable examination, we decided on the steps which have been detailed to the House. It has been said by those who have criticised us that the action was too swift. I am content to bear that accusation. I do not think it was too swift, but even if it were I should rather be blamed for over-swiftness than for over-slowness.

We have had the situation under review for months and in recent weeks I have repeatedly spoken of the necessity of dealing with it. It has been pressed on me by every section of opinion connected with agriculture and from many outside. This is no new policy. We have already dealt with the situation in the way that was open to us. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead asked, Why has not an attack been made upon the imports of beef from New Zealand and Australia; why have they not been reduced? We have, as part of the Government policy, signed agreements with many foreign countries and a good many parts of the Empire, and, of course, we are bound by our signature. Under that signature these imports do not come in for any regulation during the first part of this year. Surely, it comes strangely from the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen), who was complaining about the danger of the rise of the cost of living, that he should complain that we are regulating what is admittedly the highest-priced kind of meat, the luxury kind of meat, and not at the same time regulating, restricting, cutting down the lower-priced quality of meat which he himself says is necessary in the present state of distress.

May I correct my right hon. Friend? He is referring to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). I pointed out that Ireland could have covered herself when the Ottawa Agreements were being made, but she preferred to take no part.

I am very sorry; I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead. He asked whether the restrictions were being shared equally all the way round, and particularly whether New Zealand was being brought in, and, if not, why Australia and New Zealand were not brought in on this occasion. The answer is that we have signed an agreement which deals with those two countries, and under that agreement we are precluded from considering any proposals for dealing with the beef situation in Australia and New Zealand at present.

Another argument was, why deal with this particular class of cattle imports. We had to deal especially with live cattle, the cattle for immediate slaughter, the cattle on which a reduction would bring the most immediate relief to the beef markets, since from the continuing decline in consumption per head it was clear that some relief for the beef market would have to be found. The other arguments which have been brought do not go so much to the root of the matter.

I have done my utmost to make it clear to the House that we are not animated in our proposals by any spirit of hostility to the Irish Free State. They are proposals to deal with an economic and not a political situation, and on economic and not on political grounds they will have to be challenged. The sectional interests have quite fairly put forward their point of view, as indeed they were bound to do. The hon. Member for West Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Anglesey in particular have put forward these views, although they have also been voiced by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead and others who have spoken. These hon. Members have said, "The carrying trade will be injured by the proposals which the Government are bringing forward." We have to weigh up the pros and the cons. These were all very carefully taken into consideration and, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) himself said, I myself have drawn the attention of the House to the balance which will need to be worked out between home production and overseas importation. I am by no means to be taken as a fierce devotee of the absolute exclusion of everything from outside our shores.

You are fast becoming one.