NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 98, 21 January 1924, Page 7

NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE

IN BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS LABOUR’S ATTITUDE TO PREFERENCE AND TO FRANCE MR. CLYNES ON BRITAIN’S DUTY TO DOMINIONS The no-confidence debate in the House of Commons was opened by Mr. J. R. Clynes, who said the Dominions’ trade showed opportunities for improvement and agreed that in some sense Britain had a special duty to the Dominions. Mr. Neville Chamberlain predicted that the /Labour Party would find it impossible to abolish all food taxes. Fuithei amendments to the Address-in-Reply in opposition to a Socialist Government have been given notice of.

By Telegraph—Press Association. -Copybight.

London, January 18. In the House of Commons. the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York entered the Peers’ Gallery as Mr. J. R. Clynes was speaking on the Labour motion of no-confidence. The momentous debate opened ' quietly, and there were many vacant seats owing to the fact that the division had been arranged for Monday 11 Mr. Clynes’s indictment of the Government’s foreign policy did not raise a single Labour cheer. The first gi<m of life was when Mr. Clvncs aroused general cheers by. a reference to the Dominions. He said that Mr. MacDonald on Tuesday gave his assurance that the plages, so far as made, would be carried out, and til* House given a full opportunity or deciding the important issue raised. Mr. Clynes’s own view was the Dominions’ trade showed substantial opportunities for, and prospects of. improvement. STIMULATING TRADE WITH DOMINIONS.

Mi'. Clynes emphasised the necessity for not neglecting the European fnarkets, but, when we had done our best with our neighbours, he agreed that in some sense a special duty remained in relation to the Dominions. The question was how far we could Stimulate the trade of the Dominions without increasing taxation and disturbing the foundations of the fiscal system. We must inquire into alternatives. Transport improvemelnts constituted one line of policy, and, perhaps, substantial l encouragement to Dominion fellow-worker’s might he found in revealing by inquiry or otherwise the facts concerning the question where went the enormous difference between what the Dornin ion s’ producer of food got for his labour, and what the consumer here paid for it. Such avenues of exploration should receive th'e purely non-partisan attention of all. The Conferences hitherto had been a close Government preserve, ignoring the growing interest of Labour. If we were to lift Dominion considerations to a non-party level, there must be far more conferences on non-party lines. s The question of emigration was involved, Mr. -Clynes said, and the consequences of a voluntary transference of population must be seriously considered. Anything of the sort must be carried out on terms mutually agreed upon. He was satisfied that such terms would benefit Labour both here and in 'the Dominions. . The terms must include adequate training, and technical and general education for now d.'uties, a satisfactory remuneration, and security of employment fo, the worker before the lat- • ter could agree to emigrate. He concluded by disclaiming any desire o( the Labour Party to foster class strife. •

MR. ASQUITH ON PARTY DIFFERENCES. Mr. Asquith roused the Opposition to enthusiasm by advising his supporters to vote in favour of the motion to eject a Government guilty of vacillation and impotence at home and abroad. He had not known an administration which had done more actual mischief. There had been recently, he said, an epidemic of political hysteria. He had been cajoled, wheedled, almost caressed, threatened, browbeaten, and all but blackmailed to be the “saviour of society,” but he declined to believe that the sun was going to set on the prosperity of Britain on the eve of Mr. MacDonald coming into office. Translated into plain prose, the phiase “saviour of society” meant the Liberals and Conservatives combining to keep Labour out. Continuing, he said tha-t. there could be no question of coalition or fusion between the Liberal and. Labour Parties, because it was impossible to bride the differences on fundamental issues of national policy, but on many social and national questions there was room for co-operation not only of Liberal and Labour members but also of ipanv Conservatives. Mr. Frank Hodges (Lab.), in his maiden speech, dealt chieflv in abstract form with Labour’s political aspirations. He referred dcnrecatinglv to the Liberals’ sympathetic attitude towards the Party, recalling on this point recent Liberal associations with Labour. He declared -that the scientific organisation of industry was the crying political need. A Conservative, Mr. Gould, severely criticised, tho Government’s advisers and indicted some of ttye Conservatives. He would support the amendment. He assured Mr. Baldwin that he had not been silent when the matter of holding the election had been thrashed out elsewhere. PREFERENCE GIVEN BY DOMINIONS.

Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame (President of the Board of Trade) expressed delight with Mr. Clynes’s speech about Empire development and emigration. The Imperial Conference had made it perfectly clear that whatever the schemes of financial co-operation offered to the Dominions might be," the latter could not act thereon, unless they saw a way fo- markets in Britain". Sir Philip asked what would he the effect of rejecting the preference proposed at the Conference on a far greater preference at present given us by the Dominions. He pointed out that in 1922 the value of the rebates on duty given by the Dominions tn Britain exceeded £11.250.000. General Smuts and Mr. Bruce warned us in most proper and natural terms of the commercial advances made bv other Governments, which thev had hitherto refused. He commended the Conference proposals _on the double ground of good business and common sentiment.

THE ISSUE OF SOCIALISM.

Mr. D. Cooper Rawson (Con.) gave notice of an amendment to the Labour no-confidence amendment. “That before any Ministry founded upon principles of . Socialism be formed a general election on the issue of Socialism should he held first.” Sir William Joynson-Hicks stressed the fact that .the country’s emphatic rejection of anv Socialists for office would prevent the Liberal Party from (Aiming into office for a hundred years. , , , General Seely suggested a. conference of leaders' of the parties with a high judicial authority to consider the poUtical situation. The House adjourned.—Reuter.

LABOUR’S ATTITUDE TO FRANCE (Rec. January 20, 5.5 p.m.) London, January 18. Mr J .H. Thomas (Lab.) resumed the debate on the. Address-in-Reply. He said the Labour Party did not regret, and would not apologise for, their association with inter-national-ist Labour. The party was resolved to spare no effort to give the world and civilisation a common organis.'vtion which would bring tho peoples together and enable them. to understand each other. The more they understood each other the more difficult it would be for other neople to plunge them into war. Mr. Thomas declared that British prestige was never so low as it was to-day. A situation was being created in Central Europe necessitating expenditure in cur own defence. It was asked how was Labour going to deal with France, and the implication suggested that it would bo war. But it was not real friendship to pretend that all was well when it. was not. If we believed that France was heading, towards disaster, we ought to saw so. God forbid that any word of his should be construed as meaning that Labour was anxious to break with France or talk about war. But it was not surprising thiit France did not believe the Government and treated them with contempt in view of their vacillating policy. The statements that the first steps of the Labour Governmen would be to corrupt the Army. Navy, and police, to abolish marriage and introduce free love, were mere rubbish. Decent men and women of all classes were anxious to remedv the social conditions. The Labour Party would make mistakes, but the experience of the responsibility of Government would be good for them, and they would work with a single desire to make the country worthy of the citizens who shown! patriotism at the time of its greatest trial. LABOUR UNABLE TO ABOLISH FOOD TAXES Mr. Neville Chamberlain said the Government had plainly told France that they would not answer fbr a continuance of friendly relations if she continued to occupy tho Ruhr. AU desired to avoid war, but they might come to a. point when the nation would have to choose whether it would carry out its. views forcibly or take the alternative. He begged the Labour Party not to hastily dismiss the Imperial preference proposals on any pedantic theory, and emphasised the enormous importance of tho Dominions’ trade. Mr. Chamberlain hoped tho Labour Government would treat the proposals with all the sympathy possible. -He predicted that the Labour Party would find it impossible to abolish all food taxes, and if they could be satisfied that tho proposals were expedient they might ' well, without departing from their principles, rearrange the food duties so as to enable them to be carried out. The proposals were in the nature of a moral gesture, and the diiection in which the gestuuro was made affect very seriously the future attitude of the Dominions to Britain, when, a generation or two hence, the Dominions were among the greatest nations of the earth. The action of tho British Government to-dav might determine the value thov would be to the Empire, and the help they would he to the people of Britain. Mr. Chamberlain declared that a Socialist Government would be a national misfortune, and warned tho Labour Party against allowing the extremist section to exercise a too-p.owcrful influence. He said the Imperial preferonce proposals did not affect the question of unemployment now, but they would profoundly affect trade and unemployment in Britain in the future —perhaps the not very distant future. DUCHESS OF ATHOLL SUPPORTS GOVERNMENT. The Duchess of Atholl, in liej maiden speech, supported, tho Government projiosals to develop moans for dealing with ’ juvenile unemployment in the large centres, to protect children born out of wedlock, and to amend the law relating to maintenance and separation orders. Mr. G. Lambert (Lib.) emphasised the necessity of continuity of policy in foreign affairs. He would vote for the amendment. The debate was adjourned till Monday.—Router. SERIOUS NATIONALMISFORTUNE A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT London, January 18. Mr. Winstoh Churchill, who is evidently among the Liberals who do not relish the idea of supporting Labour, has published a letter in which

ho declares that the enthronement of a Socialist Government in office would be a serious national misfortune, comparable with defeat- in. war. He contends that the exhortation to give a chance to Labour would only really mean giving a fair chance to faction and manoeuvre. He paints a dark picture of the result .’’of Socialist minority rule, and suggests that after Mr. Clynes’s amendment to the Address-in-Reply is carried, the House should further record its repudiation of Socialism and its distrust of the advocates of the capital levy and nationalisation. —Reuter. “VIOLATION OF WILL OF ■ELECTORATE” (Rec. January 20, 5.5 p.m.) London, January 18. In connection with Mr. Churchill’s letter it is noteworthy that the Parliamentary industrial group has given notice of an amendment to the Ad-dress-in-Reply saving that as an overwhelming majority of members were returned definitely pledged against Socialism it would bo a violation of tho expressed will of the electorate. to place in power a Government which manifestly cannot on its own declared policy effectively carry the administration. —Reuter. A LABOUR RECRUIT (Rec. January 20, 5.5 p.m.) London, January 19. Professor Gilbert Murray’s wife has notified the Oxford Liberal Association that she has joined tho Labour Party.—-Aus.-N.Z. Cable Aasn.