EMIGRATION DEBATE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 81, 5 April 1923, Page 7

EMIGRATION DEBATE.

LABOUR'S STUPID NEGATION". (From Our Special Correspondent.) LOXDOX. February If. The most contentious subject on the first day's debate on the address was! emigration, and its outstanding feature —and incidentally a pathetic one—was tlie hostility shown it by the Labour i party. To many who sympathise with a number of Labour ideals it was a. disappointing display of futility and lack of common sense. For that in essence is how one must characterise the display made by the various Labour members. They seemed to envisage the Act of the harmless Colonel Amcry as a devilish conspiracy to carry children out of British working parents' homes into some species of slavery in the Overseas Dominions. If Labour directed its energy to constructive schemes instead of destructive and stupid criticism of this kind it would not alienate support both hen; and in the Dominions which it would otherwise have retained. i Bui the position taken up is best shown by tlie speeches themselves. A Conservative member, Major f'adogan. spoke first lamenting that. 1 he subject had not been mentioned in the King's speech. "Money." he said, "now being spent on Mesopotamia and other places abroad could be much better expended on emigration." lie would much prefer! to see it devoted to the arabs in the] streets at home rather than to the Arabs; abroad. I To this Mr. Hardic. a Glasgow Labour] member, replied that Major t'adogiui had made, a pagan speech, The child j emigration of which he spoke meant the', tearing up of all that was true between mother and child. What control would | there be of children in the far lands to] which they would go? Lady Astor: "Young people." I Labour cries of "Yon go borne.") Lady Astor: "I won't." j THE DIVINE mcllT. ] Mr. Ilardie. continuing, insisted thai] every child was bom with the divine right to liie. Why should the children of the poor be denied access to this right because of the stupid individualist, com-| mercialist system of society? In the' previous day's debate reference Mas' made to tlie Royal birth. "We welcome all births.'' he declared, "we welcome all marriage, but why should the House have its attention specially called to one birth? There are as good parents and as good children throughout the Knipire. I T say more: il would be much belter (o| recognise the birth of a producer tlinnj the birth of someone who is going to live on the produce of labour. Wo have] thousands of young men and women who are unemployed al an ngo when they should get married, but they are denied the right because of economic conditions. and lie know the horrible results (hat follow. But even these poor pen,,!,, are I taxed to pay a couple to go and live and ' breeil a I leisure." Mr. MeN'amara said the,-,, was a creaf ' prejudice against emigration. People objected to being lorn up by , be roofs and soul to countries where' 1 hcv knew] nobody, and that prejudice was ~',,( eon fined to any particular class. The problem, however, had been lifted fo a higher plane by the F.mpire Settlement Act.] which provided for the expenditure of a million and n-half up to the end of nevf : month, ami three millions „ year for lhe| ne\t fifteen years. i There were parts of ihe Empire which could be developed if the riglit people' went there. Some IIOO.oiH) young men' of first .-lass material, were out. of work' here, and their continued unemployment] chance. Most of them were ex-Service men. I„ ,|,e war. by l.'l weeks ~f inten-l siie training, these young fellows became' fit to fa,-,, tlie grentest w-. r machine tinworld had ever known. Win- should not these men. if fl.ev were willing L ,„ ',„ f., r I a similar intensive training now. fining' them for -el t lenient In 11„- Dominions'' 1 Li that case f hey would have belt!,. happiness and prosperity. Here tliev were faced |, v failure and disaster ' I Mr. Shinwell. Labour member for Lin- 1 lillurow. said it had bee,, suggested ( |,.-,t young men. and pcrlnps middle-age I! I men. and women as well, who might be' regarded as useless from the ,„,;„, ~f view of productive capacity in this coiin-l try. should |,c S( .„, ~, , ,„, l>„ m j ni( ,„J V\ hen ihe Labour party expressed abhor' rence of that proposal Ibev were told that tliev were prejudiced.' They were I not prejudiced against the emigration of anybody who wished to emigrate. Hut sii, far from regarding emigration as a solution of the problem they called it n confession of economic impotence and national despair. i MXX ON THE LAX!). There should be more equitable distribution of men on the land in this! country. The unemployment .urobilin i was being aggravated by the introduction of labour-saving appliances, and still more by attempts to extend the working day. There were great praclieal diflf ■ culties in the way of emigration. There I was as much unemployment in the indus- ] trial centres of tho Dominions as in outown. If they proposed to send men into the bush or fo potential agricultural districts in Australia, they must send the right kind of men. They would have to draw from the best of the nation at. Home. They should see how far it was possible to solve the problem here without going overseas. They would be compelled lo transfer large numbers from industries like mill- : ing, shipbuilding, and engineering to the agricultural districts, and should be prepare;! for by sotting up agricultural colonies and farms on which men and women could be trained at tlie expense of the nation for agricultural work. We 'ought to adopt a national spring cleaning—completely recon- j struct, roads, railways, and electric sys- ! terns, and deal with housing, and thus help lo solve tlie problem. They were told that- millionaires were to be regarded as useful persons. He did not suggest j that for matrimonial purposes they were | not useful, but in other respects they i were of no value to modern civilisation. Mr. Muir. a Olasgow Labour member. said the Labour I'nrty were sometimes accused of attempting' to weaken parental responsibility. Here was the scheme of a Conservative Government, under which boys and girls under 14 were to be shipped abroad. Was there n single member of the other side of the House who would send out his own boys? "A FANTASTIC OTDEVANCK." Viscountess Astor: To a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have five, ] and by the time they arc eighteen tliev ought to have a moral sense if I have done my work properly. The Deputy-Speaker.-' 1 am afraid that is not a point of ortler. Mr. Muir: I repeat my question. Is there one member on tlie Government Fid" ivh.i would allow his i or hen hoy or girl to emigrate at fourteen? Viscountess A.stor: roiiiteen : Mr. Muir: Tlie lion, member seems surprised. But it is so, niy dear lad}'.

Tho Deputy-Speaker: May I remind tho hon. member that the lion, lady is not in the Chair. Then occurred another fracas involving Lady Astor, who declared, as the mother of five boys, that she would rather the 3' went, abroad than walked the streets. Mr. Muir, continuing, said: "No Conservative member would allow his boys or girls to emigrate at the. age provided —fourteen to seventeen, We know that there are safeguards. But wo also know tho value, of those safeguards. At one place I heard older boys asked if they knew anything about farming. All said 'Yes.' B u t it was not true. Only the children of the working classes are sent out at fourteen. It is all riglit, for the others, who can keep their children at school until they are eighteen." "One effect of the proposal,'' he continued, 'would he to create a boom in the sale of real estate. (A Labour member: 'Hear. hear. That's it.') He hoped the House would never consent to the wholesale shipment of boys and girls overseas so long as they were to be exploited by private farmer's who had no interest in their welfare." He was answered by a Conservative member, who protested that Mr. Muir had made a wholly fantastic grievance of what was really a tremendous benefit to people of his own class. Apparently, Mr. Muir ivould prefer that these boys should remain at home to swell the ranks of the hunger-marchers, so that class hatred might be promoted.