LABOUR’S AMENDMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 18917, 21 January 1924, Page 5

LABOUR’S AMENDMENT

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS CONTINUED

LEADERS INDICATE PARTY'S POLICY

The Labour amendment to the Address-in-Reply was advanced another stage in the House of Commons, when the principal speakers were Messrs Clynes and Thomas, two leaders whose utterances may ,-be regarded as those of the party.. Mr. J. H. Thomas defended internationalism, contending that the better nations understood each other the less was the danger of war breaking out between them. Mr. Neville Chamberlain urged the Labour Party, when dealing with the dominions, to think of them as they would be in years to come.

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE

A QUIET OPENING. By Telegraph.—Press Association. —Copyright <; LONDON, Jan. 18. ' The Prince of Wales and the Duke of York entered the Peers’ Gallery in the House of Commons as Mr. Clynes was speaking on the Labour motion of no-confidence. The momentous debate opened / quietly. There were many vacant f seats, owing to the fact that the division is arranged for Monday night. MR. CLYNES’ SPEECH. Mr. Clynes’ indictment of the Government’s foreign policy did not raise a single Labour cheer. The first sign of life was when Mr. Clynes ar oused general cheers by a reference to the Dominions. He said that Mr. ' MacDonald, on Tuesday, gave an as- ‘ sura nee that the pledges, so far as I they had been made, would be carried out, and the House would be given a full opportunity of deciding the important issue raised. Mr. ■Clynes said that his own view was ' that the Dominions’ trade showed • substantial opportunities and pros rpects of improvement. He emphasised the necessity of not neglecting European markets, but, when we had j 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 Do , minions’ trade without increasing taxation or disturbing the foundations k cf our fiscal system. We must in--1 ‘quire into alternatives. Transport constituted one line of w policy, and perhaps substantial enAcouragement to Dominion fellow '■Tworkers might be found in revealing, ,by inquiry or otherwise, facts con- , cerning the destination of the enorm- ‘ ous difference between what the Dominion producer of food got for his labour and what the consumer here paid for it. EMPIRE NOT A PARTY MATTER. Mr. Clynes went oj to say that such avenues for exploration should receive purely non-partisan attention. All Imperial Conferences hitherto had -been a close Government preserve, igI noring the growing interest of La- ■ hour. If we were to lift Dominion ' considerations to a non-party level, there must be far more conferences on non-party lines. The question of emigration was involved and the consequences of the voluntary transference of population must be seriously considered. Anything of the sort must be carried out on agreed terms. He was satisfied such terms would benefit Labour, both here and in the Dominions. The terms must includ-* ! adequate training in technical and • general education for new duties, i satisfactory remuneration, and secur- ! ity of employment before the workers would agree to emigrate. Mr. Clynes concluded by disclaiming any desire on the part of Labour to foster class strife. MR. ASQUITH SPEAKS. Mr. Asquith aroused Opposition enthusiasm by advising his supporters to vote in favour of the motion to eject a Government that had been 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 an epidemic of political hysteria. He had been cajoled, wheedled, almost caressed, threatened, browbeaten, and all but blackmailed to be the savtour of society, but he declined to believe the sun was going to set on the prosper ity of Britain on the eve of Mr. MacDonald coming into office. Translated into plain prose, ’’the saving of society” meant the Liberals and Conservatives combining to keep Labour out. There could be no question of a coalition or fusion of the Liberal and Labour parties, because it was impossible to bridge their differences »n fundamental issues of national policy. But, on many social and national questions, there was room for the co-operation, not only of the Liberals and Labourites, but of many Conservatives. ACADEMICS. Mr. Frank Hodges, in his maiden speech, chiefly dealt in abstract form with Labour’s political aspirations. He referred deprecatingly to the Liberals’ sympathetic attitude to the Labour Party, recalling in this connection the recent Liberal associations I with Labour. He declared that the scientific organisation of industry \ was the crying political need. h Mr. Gould (Conservative) severely X criticised the Government’s advisers, ’ and indicted some Conservatives for supporting the amendment. He assured Mr. Baldwin that he would not i be silent when the matter of holding the election was thrashed out elsewhere.

A PLEASED CONSERVATIVE. Sir Philip Lloyd Greame expressed delight with Mr. Clynes’ speech about Empiredcvelopment and emigration. The Imperial Conference made it perfectly clear that, whatever the schemes for financial co-op-eration offered to the Dominions might be, the latter could not act thereon unless they saw a way for markets in Britain. Sir Lloyd Greame asked what would be the effect of rejecting the preference proposed at the Conference on the far greater preference at present given us by the Dominions. He pointed out that, in 1922, the value of the rebates of duty by the Dominions to Britain exceeded eleven and a quarter million sterling. General Smuts and Mr. Bruce warned us, in the most proper terms of commercial advances made by other Gov ernments which they had hitherto refused. He commended the Conference proposals on the double grounds of good business and common sentiment. Mr. Cooper Dawson gave notice of an amendment to the Labour no-con fidence amendment, that, before any Ministry founded upon the principles of Socialism is formed, a general el ection on the issue of Socialism should be held. General Seely suggested a conference of leaders of parties with a high judicial authority to qonsider the pol itical position. i The House then adjourned. SPEECH BY MR J. H. THOMAS INTERNATIONAL AIMS DEFENDED (Reuter). Received January 20, 9.50 p.m. LONDON, Jan. 18. In the House of Commons, Mr J. H. Thomas resumed the debate on the Ad-dress-in-Reply. He said the Labour Party did not regret, and would not apologise for, their association with the International Labour Party. They were resolved to spare no effort to give the world and civilisation a common organisation which would bring peoples together and enable them to understand each other. The more they understood each other the more difficult it would be for other people to plunge them into war. Mr Thomas declared that British prestige was never so low as it was today. A situation was being created in Central Europe necessitating expenditure in our own defence. It was asked how was Labour going to deal with France, and the implication suggested that it would be war; but it was not real friendship to pretend that all was well when it was not. If we believed France was heading towards disaster, we ought to say 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 that France did not believe the Government, and treated them with contempt, in view of their vacillating policy. The statement that the first steps of the Labour Government 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 remedy existing 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 the single desire to make the country worthy of its citizens, who showed their patriotism at the time of its greatest trial. MR NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN’S APPEAL REMEMBER THE DOMINIONS. Received January 20, 10.40 p.m. LONDON, Jan. 19. Mr Neville Chamberlain said the Government had plainly told France they would not answer for the continuance of friendly relations if she continued to occupy the Ruhr. All desired to avoid war, but they might come to the 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 hastily to dismiss the Imperial preference proposals on any pedantic theory, and emphasised the enormous importance of the dominions’ trade. Mr Chamberlain hoped the 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 the 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 direction in which the gesture was made might 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 the British Government to-day might determine the value they would be to the Empire and the help they would be to the people of Britain. Mr Chamberlain declared that a Socialist Government would be a national misfortune, and warned the Labour Party against allowing the extremist section to exercise too powerful an influence. He said the Imperial preference proposals "did not affect the question of unemployment now; but they did profoundly affect trade and unemployment in Britain in the future, perhaps the not very distant future. FOR THE CHILDREN Received January 20, 10.40 p.m. LONDON, Jan. 20. The Duchess of Athol 1, in her maiden speech, supported the Government proposals to develop the means of dealing with juvenile unemployment in large centres, to protect children born out of wedlock, and to amend the law relating to the maintenance and separation orders. FOREIGN AFFAIRS Received January 20, 10.40 pjn. LONDON, Jan. 20. Hon. G. Lambert emphasised the necessity of continuity of policy in foreign affairs. He would vote for the amendment. The debate was adjourned till Monday.