ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

LORD DUKESTON

My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—

"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

I feel it is a great honour to be asked to move this Resolution. I understand that, by long custom, one is expected to be as little controversial as possible in discharging that duty, and in the light of existing circumstances, the times in which we are living and the problems which confront your Lordships' House, I will do my best 6 to conform to that custom. But I confess that there are many difficulties in the way of preserving that attitude.

I want to deal for a few moments with what I regard as the most important item in the gracious Speech read from the Throne by His Majesty. In the third paragraph it is stated: The first aim of my Ministers will be to redress the adverse balance of payments particularly by expanding exports. This will demand increased production and the sale abroad of a larger share of output. I understand that our adverse balance at the present time is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £450,000,000. Unless we can so increase production as to bridge that gap, then, quite obviously, we are heading for insolvency. It is good that Parliament and, I hope, the people generally, are placing that problem in the forefront of their minds. I am pleased to read in the Press that plans have already been drawn, that they have been jointly considered by representatives of industry and that the industries will know, either now or in a very short time, what is really expected of them.

We are little more than two years beyond the end of the war. We have talked a great deal about planning. The impression created on my mind has been that planning at the highest possible level has been considered and proceeded with but does not appear to have percolated down to the levels working it out in practice where alone that planning can become effective. I believe what is needed in this country at the present moment is that everyone should play his part in arousing the nation to a greater effort and the will to expand production. I find it a little difficult to believe that it is impossible to bridge that gap by methods of production and that we must resort, as I have heard suggested in certain quarters, to the imposition of further restraints and economies in our already low standard of life by withdrawing subsidies or in some such way. I believe that is a profound mistake. I cannot accept the view that it is impossible to secure the 8 to 10 per cent. overall increase of production to bridge the adverse balance, which is the greatest task before the country at the present moment.

We have heard a lot about rising spirals, wages chasing prices, and so on. My fear is lest we should get into a descending spiral and should apply economies in a way that would tend to 7 destroy the will to greater effort in the field of production. I care not how well the plans may be drawn at the top; if we go into this matter half-heartedly we shall not succeed. Everyone engaged in industry must face this crisis with a realization that, just as in the war we fought to protect life and property, today we are fighting to restore the economy of our country and to retain our place in the world as one of the leading industrial nations. That, to me, is the problem of statesmanship; it is the problem of leadership, and particularly of leadership in industry. No matter how cleverly we may draft our measures, Acts of Parliament do not dig coal or puddle iron or build houses. The will has got to be created at the lowest possible level, otherwise I fear that in the obligation which now confronts us there will be a tendency to effect the balance of our overseas payments by making inroads in directions which are likely to prove a deterrent to greater productivity.

I have heard it said that in this attempt to increase exports, we might have to consider even the export of capital plant and equipment. I hope that will be approached with the greatest possible caution. We may get through this crisis, this monetary crisis, or dollar crisis, by all kinds of economies, and we may, under the great pressure now placed upon us to accomplish that objective, so affect our capital plant and equipment that when we do emerge we shall find ourselves in a competitive world where we are very seriously handicapped in the fight to maintain our status as a great industrial nation. Therefore I place the greatest possible emphasis upon securing this balance by placing squarely on the shoulders of industry the obligation to give effect to plans and by creating the opinion throughout industry that these plans are not to be taken merely as orders, merely as something to be fulfilled and then for further instructions to be awaited. Industry cannot be run that way. Let us tell industry what we expect and then seek to establish that form of co-operation, leaving industry to exercise its initiative and will. Providing industry conforms to overall planning, the less interference there is from outside the better the possibility of results.

I want now to come to another great difficulty inherent in the existing circumstances of the partial dispersal of our 8 man-power and the transference of industrial activity from the less essential industries to those whose products are at the moment in greatest demand, and in demand particularly with an eye to establishing the balance of our overseas trade. We know that on both sides of industry the Control of Engagement Order has been accepted. The Order means, in effect, that employment of persons so displaced will be sanctioned only by the authorities at the employment exchanges operating under instructions as to the industries to which labour shall be directed. That may sound very simple, but we have to look at our industries as a growth over a century and a half, very largely devoid of planning, and we may find that some unessential industries are so located as to involve the transference of labour. That, again, is not a very simple thing to accomplish in existing circumstances. We know the housing difficulties, for example, and we know that if there is a pattern at all in the country it is one that during the war was built very largely upon the flight of the secondary industries away from the localities where the primary industries grew up. So in your great coal belts, in your great textile areas, and in fact wherever there are primary basic industries, you find in the main a lack of the secondary industries to balance the basic industries of the country. I hope that this matter will be handled with great care, and that we shall know where labour is to be placed not after but before the date of the transference becomes operative. We must have an eye on the handling of this very great and intricate problem, and appreciate the probable effects upon the domestic lives of the people concerned.

It is stated that labour controls and direction have been reimposed. I am sure we all regret the necessity for that having to be done. In a democratic country the one thing that we would avoid, and, notwithstanding our knowledge of the economic difficulties as they have existed, we have in fact tried to avoid, is the necessity of registration and direction. But one is bound to confess that appeals to those people who contribute very little towards the economic well-being of the country apparently have no effect. They may be greater in number than I believe; it is exceedingly difficult to say. It does mean, in my opinion, that one may do a 9 great injustice unless some form of registration is undertaken so that we shall know where these people are who apparently get their living—and a very good living—at distances considerably detached from any real production. I think they have got to be brought in if only to appease the minds of those upon whose back we have placed the heaviest burden—there I make no single exception, and in the main it applies to the basic industries of the country—and to assure them that, whilst we are using every possible pressure to ensure maximum production, we are also not allowing young, virile people capable of making a valuable contribution in the present crisis to obtain their livelihood by means and methods which contribute nothing towards the general well-being of the country.

As one who has spent the major portion of his life in industry, I know that to-day there exists a greater measure of good will, and certainly fax more machinery of consultation, than ever existed before. I think it would do no harm to say in your Lordships' House how much we appreciate the approach that has been made to this problem. Particularly in the postwar years we have achieved a measure of consultation over a wide field of industry, with regard to which we had the greatest possible difficulty at the end of the First World War. I played some part in the struggle for what were then termed "managerial functions." I think we have outgrown that to-day. I believe that the enlightened business people of our country, and employers in general, have come to understand that men who invest their lives in industry, equally with those who invest their money, claim as a right some influence in moulding the policy of the industry.

I note with a considerable degree of pleasure that it is intended to nationalize the gas industry. For my own part, I could have wished that that had been done at an earlier date. I am convinced that we shall not secure the fuel economy which is necessary until these three industries of hard and soft fuels, electrical generation and gas production have been co-ordinated; until overlapping has been cut out, and a policy built upon the idea that those three industries provide not competitive but complementary services. Not until the fuel power policy has been 10 completed shall we know the benefits which will accrue from that general policy.

It is also with considerable pleasure that I read of the intention to design and promote the expansion of production of all kinds within the Empire. I have just returned from Canada. It was not my first visit, and I am not speaking with the first flush of enthusiasm of one who has only seen the country once. There, amongst all sections of the community—and I think I covered a very wide range, social groups, trade union conventions, conferences, and so on—I found that the good will towards the Mother Country was almost embarrassing. They put one question: How can we help? I know that that charitable expression is mainly in the direction of helping by personal contributions of food, and so on, and in that direction they are doing wonderful work. But the business men to whom I spoke said this: "We want British goods because we know their quality, and providing they can be secured at the right price, commensurate with our population there is no greater market for British quality products." As I took my good wife with me I had to visit a few stores, and there one experienced some degree of aggravation. If you turned up a carpet that you would have been glad to have in your own house, or looked at a cup and saucer—indeed, whatever it was, if it was a quality product—there was the stamp: "Made in Great Britain." And that, of course, is a symbol which one can appreciate even in such circumstances.

I think we ought also to make some reference to that very generous gesture which has been made recently in South Africa. That is the kind of tiling which make the phraseology a reality when we refer to the Mother Country and the Empire. The same applies to Australia and New Zealand. Sometimes I wonder whether we are pushing the light button. It seems to me that there is a fund of good will and a desire to work together and help each other which so far we have not made the most of, and I sincerely hope that it is the intention, as outlined in the gracious Speech from the Throne, that some special measures will be undertaken to get the Empire representatives together to see whether some greater contribution, some brighter prospect of a greater co-ordination of 11 Empire interests, cannot be built up. I am sure that that is not only the mind of the Dominions and the rest of the Empire, but also that of our people at home.

I conclude by saying that we are all painfully aware that we have reached a period in our history in which we have to create something in the nature of a great revival in order to persuade our people that we can no longer get out of this rut by one group believing that they can win some advantage to themselves whilst other people mark time. It really cannot be done in that way. The bedrock of our economic system is such that the moment you move with one Section 1ts influence upon other groups is automatic. Let us say to our people frankly and courageously: "The choice before the country to-day is between an increased effort to secure a 10 per cent. increase in our production and the prospect of a lowering of the standard of life of our people." If it is put to them straightforwardly in that manner I have every confidence that the workpeople, the employers and all other sections of the community will rise to a sense of their responsibility and that we shall win through this crisis to emerge a better nation for the experience through which we have passed. I beg to move.

LORD QUIBELL

My Lords, I beg leave to second the Motion which has been so ably moved by my noble friend, and in doing so I too feel conscious of the honour that has been done me in being privileged to second the Motion to-day. May I say first of all that I am very pleased at the reference in paragraph 2 in the gracious Speech. Paragraph 2 says:— I am confident that in these times of hardship My people will demonstrate once again to the world their qualities of resolu- 12 tion and energy. With sustained effort this nation will continue to play its full part in leading the world back to prosperity and freedom. One of the most important points in the gracious Speech is contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which refer principally to agriculture. I am myself pleased—as I have no doubt your Lordships are pleased—that so far as the Government are concerned they have decided to ask this great industry to make a still greater contribution in order to earn dollars for this country. I believe, as I know many of your Lordships believe, that great as has been the contribution that agriculture has made to this country in the past, it has never had so great a contribution to make, and has never been called upon to make so great a contribution in peace time as it is called upon to make now. I am perfectly certain that those engaged in the industry will respond, but they can only do so if we provide the tools to enable them to do the job.

Now where are they? In the past housing has been sadly neglected. During the last two years priorities have been given in certain instances for housing. But what has happened? In the main, the rural councils have so far failed, except in very few cases, to give priority to agricultural labourers. Difficult though it is in rural England to find proper accommodation for agricultural labourers and recruits in this great industry, it is going to be infinitely more difficult to solve this great problem in six or eight months' time, when the German prisoners of war, who have been doing good work on our land in recent months, go back in accelerated numbers.

I am fully aware that the circumstances in which we live are very grave. There are very few of us who do not realize that. We know perfectly well that in some cases great savings have to be made in capital expenditure. But if we are to succeed in fulfilling the policy laid down in the gracious Speech, we cannot afford to economize in the amount of money to be spent in rehousing our people in the countryside. Indeed, we must accelerate housing, even at the expense of some of the larger schemes in some of the industrial cities and towns of this country. Whatever you may say about mechanization—and we want mechanization there—the human element still counts, and 13 always will count, in this great basic industry of agriculture.

I do not know whether my noble friend who has just moved this Motion is present at my "trial," but that at any rate he will be present somewhere in the Court, I have no doubt. This policy of putting price levels into agricultural products was one which was accepted by scarcely anyone. What we are aiming at, as announced by the Minister himself, is to put a higher price level on to wheat, so encouraging and increasing the wheat acreage, by giving a better price, encouraging an increase in the growth of barley, and thereby encouraging the farmer to grow wheat and barley. We aim at developing this industry by laying down the principle that 20 per cent. of the increase in these two vital products shall be left with the farmers themselves, in order that they may build up the pig population and build up feeding stuffs for the other cattle. I was never able to understand the attitude of mind in the past. It reminds me of a man who has a garden but does not grow anything in it; instead, he sends his wife to buy at the greengrocer's shop the cabbages and potatoes he could have produced at his own back door. In the same manner we neglected British agriculture because we could buy cheap food from other countries. I believe myself that the day when we can do that has gone. I hope that so far as the future is concerned the policy now announced will give encouragement to the agricultural community. They will reach their target if only we will give them the tools and allow them to do the job.

As a countryman I am pleased that it is proposed to introduce a Bill to try to clean up the beautiful streams and little rivers of this country, some of which are at present a disgrace. I sat in Committee on a Bill in the other place some time ago, when we delivered speeches congratulating the Minister on passing a Bill through the House, almost without any opposition, providing for steps to be taken to clean up these streams and rivers and in many cases providing for the cattle a water supply fit to drink. The worst feature of this matter, I am sorry to say, is that the people who have the responsibility for cleaning up the streams and rivers and administering this Act—the local authorities themselves—have been the greatest sinners in polluting them. I 14 am delighted that in the gracious Speech the Government have indicated that they intend to pass a Bill to provide for the prevention of this pollution.

There is another proposal in the gracious Speech that will give pleasure to those of us who have had any experience of public life and administration on local authorities, and that is an amendment of the machinery for rating and valuation. During the course of a fairly long experience—it is nearly forty years since I first served on a local authority—I have come to realize that if there is anything that really does need reform it is the present system of rating. I can picture two men working in the same industry, having the same family responsibilities; one of them likes to go to the dogs (in more senses than one), to spend his money as he goes along, and to enjoy it to the full. His neighbour is a man who thinks that he would like to do seme-thing for his family; perhaps to put a bathroom, and perhaps an additional bedroom, in his house and make his home a real home for his family. Perhaps he has saved his money all his life in order to be able to do so. What happens? A man comes over when he has put in his bathroom and bedroom and says, "Jones, what have you been doing here?" Jones answers: "I have put in a bathroom and a bedroom for my family and I have been saving my money for twenty years to do it." "My word," says the official, "if only you had spent your money on going to the dogs or the pictures or racing or gambling or whatever it is, I should not have had to come here to see you. I am required by the local authority to impose a perpetual fine of £2 a year on you for what you have done." That is precisely what operates in the rating system to-day. I could mention other instances. I remember a man who built four houses, and the overseers came along to look at them. All the houses looked exactly alike, but one of the overseers noticed that one of the houses had a letter box on the door. He said "This is a different type of house." Such was the system that the rateable value of that house was increased £1 because there was a fifteen-penny letter box on the door! I think there should be a revaluation.

There are other kinds of cases. There is the case of the man who goes to live five miles out of a town and enjoys all 15 the services provided. There should be an amendment of rating so that such a man pays for the services he enjoys. I hope that the proposals will end some of the anomalies, dozens of which I could mention. Some agricultural labourers pay more in drainage and land rates than some of the people living in the bigger houses in some of the agricultural districts of this country.

Another proposal in this gracious Speech that appeals to us, I think, is the abolition of the Poor Law as we know it. I myself have always thought this should be done. Many times I have spoken rather harshly to relieving officers. As regards the relief they gave when I was a boy, an old man came round and gave us half-a-crown each; he did not give us less because it was not possible. How much is given depends where you go; it depends on the type of man and also on the type of authority that he is serving. If he is serving some of the authorities that I know, they look upon him as being a wonderfully efficient man if he can deprive anybody whom he goes to relieve. Every one of us will be pleased to see recognition of the fact that the present system is dead and gone, and this realization is embodied in the new system that the Government have spoken of in the gracious Speech.

Reference has also been made in the gracious Speech to the Paris Conference and to the United Nations. I really hope that something good comes out of these conferences. I have attended so many in my life, and we have had so many since the war, that one has almost got mixed up with the number of conferences of one kind and another that have been held; and yet we have not got very far with things up to now. I wonder why it is. I cannot quite understand why, though the whole of Europe is being bled almost white, yet at the present time there seems as little confidence between one nation and another as there was before this last great conflict took place. I sometimes wonder whether the only thing that will put this world right is illustrated well in a little story to which I hope the right reverend Prelate will listen for a moment. It concerns a couple who had a mischievous little boy. The mother had enough of him in the day time, so, when father came home at night, she thought she would go 16 to the pictures and leave little Willie with his father, so that he should know the kind of boy he was. She left him at home, and the boy kept saying, "Dad this" and "Dad that." The father said to himself: "I am fed up with him," and he looked over to the window. He saw in the window a map of the world. He took this map of the world, tore it into almost a thousand pieces, and threw it on the floor. "Now, piece that together, Billy" he said. It seemed to be only about ten minutes before Willie said, "I've done it, dad." "Oh," said the father: "that lad again!" He said to the boy: "However have you done that?" "Well, dad," said the boy, "there is a map of the world on one side but there is a photo of a man on the other side, and I knew that if I had the man right I should have the world right." How true that really is! In 1910 I was one of Philip Snowden's colleagues, addressing meetings in this country—anti-militarist meetings in 1910. I have always profoundly believed that war was the enemy of mankind, and that unless society itself destroys war, then war itself will destroy society, and all that our present civilization stands for.

Yet here we are, faced with the position that we have to-day. Some people say it is because human nature is so bad. Human nature is not bad. It is only bad when you appeal to the selfishness, if you like to the mercenary instincts of a man, bargaining with him. There are occasions when that selfishness disappears—as, for example, when he goes down a mine, or when there is life to save at sea. If only we can harness that wonderful spirit which he then displays to this Conference in Paris, and with our other neighbours in Europe, if we can harness that good will that is shown at the bottom of a mine where you can see the best of human nature, if we can harness that spirit and have a different world and a different Europe, I believe that human nature will not break down. If it does, the foundations upon which the Christian religion is built—and Christianity itself—must fail, as must my ideal of Socialism. But human nature will not break down, for the faith upon which it is founded is the faith that has been founded upon a rock. I believe that under healthier and happier conditions humanity may rise to heights undreamed of now. The most exquisite Utopias that have been pictured by our 17 poets and our idealists will to our children seem but dim and broken lights compared with that great day. All that we need is strength and courage, prudence and faith—faith, above all, which dares to believe that justice and love are not impossible and that more than the best that men can dream of shall one day be realized by men. I beg to second the Motion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, before I proceed to discuss the humble Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne, I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the notable and eloquent way in which the proposer and the seconder have performed their task. It is never an easy task, especially in the days of Party Government. They have to be, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, himself said, so far as possible non-controversial on extremely controversial subjects. I thought, and I am sure that all your Lordships will agree, that they both of them acquitted themselves extremely well, though I noticed that they both of them assiduously avoided the largest fence.

The noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, is a comparative newcomer to this House, but he has already made a name for himself by his sincere and thoughtful speeches. The speech to which we have listened this afternoon was certainly no exception to that rale. He knows industrial labour, I suppose, as well as anybody in this country, and he will always be listened to here. I should like to congratulate him. I thought he made a very good job of what was inevitably a difficult task, and I know how much we shall look forward to further contributions from him.

I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, who has seconded the Address and who has just sat down. Lord Quibell is already becoming a very old friend to noble Lords in all parts of the House. He is the kind of Englishman, if I may say so with all deference to him, whom we all admire—bluff, forthright and independent-minded. Indeed, I often wonder how he ever got into the Party to which he belongs! I have wondered even more, as I have listened to his speeches, why he stays there or why they keep him! Sometimes I have almost seemed to feel, I might say, his astral body sitting by my side. To-day, 18 on the whole, I thought the noble Lord was on his good behaviour, and I should think his colleagues must have heaved a sigh of relief at getting off so easily, though, even so, they must have had some anxious moments. At any rate, there is one thing of which I am quite sure, and that is that noble Lords in all parts of the House enjoyed every minute of his speech, and I should like to congratulate him on adding to the already considerable reputation that he enjoys here.

Now, my Lords, I would like to turn to the business of the day, to the gracious Speech, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I detain thorn for rather longer than I usually do. The canvas is a rather large one and there is a great deal to be said, especially on this particular occasion. As your Lordships know, the debate on the Address fulfils a most valuable function in the Parliamentary year. It provides an opportunity both for a review of the events of the past and for examining the proposals of the Government as to the future, and it gives to Parliament a chance to survey the national scene as a whole, in a way that is not possible at any other time; and this year I suggest that such a survey is more than ever desirable. It is now just over two years since the present Government came into power. At that time, your Lordships will remember—and it is not unnatural—a note of great optimism was sounded by the spokesmen of the Labour Party. Not only was the war over, but, for the first time in British history, a Socialist Government had been returned to power by a great majority. Things had been said at the General Election which must, I am afraid, make rather painful reading to noble Lords opposite, if they can steel their courage to face the past.

I would like to give one or two quotations, because we are bound to forget these things. There was a speech by Mr. Greenwood, whom we had hoped to see in this House: unfortunately, that has been postponed, although I hope we shall one day see him with us. He said at that time: You want a home. Tories are making promises. Labour will do the job. It did it in the past. Then there is Sir Stafford Cripps, who now occupies almost the most important position in the Government. He said: 19 Nationalization after the war will ensure that goods are available at 'decent prices' for everybody. He also said on another occasion: The Labour Party does not propose to infringe on liberties for which we have been fighting for the last fifty years. The mover and the seconder of the Address were discreetly silent on all these questions: but, in fact, where are those homes, where are those goods and where are those liberties?

Most of us in this House, I must confess, were always rather sceptical about those rosy prognostications, even at that time. Your Lordships are a very old and experienced body, and we do not believe in panaceas for human ills. They tend to be in the nature of those "quack" remedies, the contents of which hardly ever live up to the promises on the outside of the box. We had no reason to suppose that this panacea was any different from the others. It had not succeeded in other countries where it had been tried, and we deeply regretted that it should be tried here. We felt that the Government would have been much wiser to eschew ideological changes, and to concentrate on stimulating individual initiative, and on helping traders and industrialists to help themselves, with a view to expanding the volume of production which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, himself emphasized, is far the most important thing at the present time. Indeed I agreed, and I expect everybody on this side of the House agreed, with almost everything that the noble Lord said in that portion of his speech. But we were quite prepared, and I think the Government will give us credit for this, to give them a fair chance to try out their ideas. I said in the debate on the Address when Parliament met first, after the Election—the House will forgive me for quoting my own words: The Labour Party have pledged themselves to these measures. We believe them to be economically and politically unsound… How are we to prove to the British people that our philosophy and not the Socialist philosophy is right? I do not believe it is to be done by attempting to prevent a fair trial of the Labour proposals. I believe it is to be done only by allowing a fair trial of them to be made. No one can say that the opportunity does not exist for such a trial. The Labour Party are in power … Let them show what they can do". 20 I think that was a very fair interpretation of the views of noble Lords on this side of the House and, I have no doubt, on the Liberal Benches at that time.

They have been in power for two years. They have had their chance. They have made the most of it and they certainly entered on their task of socializing the country with very commendable enthusiasm. They have introduced an unrivalled volume of legislation. They have driven it through the House of Commons by every device known to Parliamentary procedure. They have used the guillotine and the closure to an extent never employed before. Indeed, such was the missionary zeal of the Socialist majority and such was their confidence in the omniscience of their Ministers that they hardly found it necessary to discuss large parts of the Bills at all. Nor, my Lords, were those Bills held up in your Lordships' House. It is true that we have tried desperately to amend Bills to improve them and make them more workable, but we have never tried to obstruct; and I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree and will give us credit for the fact that we have entirely played the game in this respect. That, I think, is borne out by the tributes that we have had from the responsible Ministers themselves.

As a result the country has at last had the chance of experiencing the blessings of Socialism as applied in practice. The Bank of England has been nationalized, the coal industry has been nationalized, the civil aviation industry has been nationalized, road and rail transport have been nationalized, controls have been put on almost everything, and things that are not yet controlled are rapidly being brought under control. A vast army of State servants has been enlisted, capital has been directed, and now labour is to be directed, and, so far as I could make out from Lord Dukeston's speech, is shortly to be conscripted. Therefore, from the point of view of the good honest Socialist things ought to be going swimmingly. If we are not in heaven itself we ought to be at least at the gates. At any rate there ought to be a new spirit of optimism and prosperity apparent throughout the country. And yet, surprisingly enough, what do we find? To this I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be bound to agree. This 21 country has never been more depressed, it has never been more disillusioned, it has never been more frustrated than it is today. The outlook has never been bleaker.

It is perfectly true—and they can quite fairly claim for this—that money wages have risen throughout the country. But these wages are very largely valueless, for, after all, the only value of wages is to enable one to increase the comforts and amenities of life, and these things are almost unobtainable and are getting scarcer with every morning that passes. And we have been warned by Ministers that they will get even scarcer. When they can be found, they can too often be bought only with official licences, and those licences are almost impossible to get, so how can the ordinary citizen buy what he wants? He can only buy what he is given. That variety which was the great delight and merit of free enterprise has entirely gone. And inflation, the danger of which only a few months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was happily past, is already an accomplished fact. Taxation is at a fantastic height and it shows no signs of any reduction; and every morning the discouraged citizens when they open their paper read new statements by Ministers, each more gloomy than the last.

Now, my Lords, what is the conclusion that the ordinary man must draw from these events? It is this: that however good the intentions may be—and I fully grant that the Government and their supporters have very good intentions—the result of Socialist theory as applied in practice is, or at any rate in our experience it has been, that everybody gets a little less of everything, from liberty to the smallest necessities and amenities of life. And what they can get they only get with the greatest difficulty, partially, at any rate, through over-elaboration of the State machine. I believe that I speak not only for a great many Conservatives but also for many people who used to be called at the last election "doubtfuls," but who are becoming perhaps rather less doubtful than they were—when I say that it is really impossible to run a great country on that basis. The complication and expense, the demands on man-power are too great. It is officialdom run mad. Noble Lords opposite will forgive me if I speak with some bitterness, but I feel that it is a tragic 22 sight to see one's country brought so low by the activities and nostrums of political doctrinaires.

Nor is the performance of the Government in the wider sphere of international affairs very much happier. At the end of the war, I suppose, the name of Britain stood higher than it has ever stood before in our history. Other countries had seen our great and lonely fight against such a World Power as had never been known before. They had seen our exhibition of endurance and our ultimate victory. But what is our position now? We are on very poor terms with Russia, with whom we were told at the Election a Labour Government alone could establish close and cordial relations. If noble Lords opposite want me to do so I can give them relevant quotations for statements to this effect made by several very distinguished members of the Government. We seem bent on discouraging our best friends in the United States. By a really remarkable stroke of foreign policy, we have managed to antagonize both the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East. We have abandoned India, which had enjoyed nearly 100 years of peace under British administration, prematurely, with the result that there has been bloodshed on a vast scale. We are retiring, as the Paymaster-General said the other day—with, I thought, obvious satisfaction—"all along the line." Both at home and abroad there has been a deplorable deterioration in our position in the past two years.

I know that we shall be told by Government spokesmen that this is not all their fault, that it is the result of world conditions; and of course there is a very great measure of truth in this. The world is undoubtedly out of joint. The elaborate machinery for the exchange of goods has been thrown completely out of gear by the shocks of war. I do not want to argue unfairly in that respect. Any Government that had been in power during this period, I do not care of what Party, would have had a difficult and delicate task in redressing the balance. But surely that is all the more reason for not causing further dislocation by gratuitous experiments in the domestic field. No one could have expected this Government to abandon their Socialist principles. No one expected it or desired them to do so if they sincerely held those principles. But surely the only 23 wise course would have been to exercise some discretion in applying them. That, as your Lordships know, was the course that was adopted by the Socialist Government in Belgium; and Belgium to-day, after four years of enemy occupation, is in a far happier situation now and is—at least this is what people who have been there tell me—rapidly approaching normal. That was the course adopted by Holland and other Western European countries. Any visitor to those countries, certainly any visitor to Holland and Belgium—that is anyone who can get permission to visit them and the means to do so, which is not quite so easy at the present time—will tell you that the spirit in those countries is entirely different from what it is in this country.

And now we are experiencing the inevitable fruits of this sincere but mistaken and reckless policy. The Government have largely taken the control of the delicate business of trading out of the hands of those who were accustomed to operate it. They have removed the natural incentives from the private employers, and therefore they have to take over more and more the direction of their efforts. They have removed natural incentives from the workmen, what was called by the Economist the carrot or the stick, and now they have to direct labour. Ministers are becoming—and this applies both to the nationalized and unnationalized industries—the real arbiters of industrial policy. It is a task for which they are not in the least fitted. They have neither the training nor the experience. In short, no doubt with the best will in the world, the Government have over-estimated their capacity. As I think the Prime Minister himself suggested in a recent speech, they have tried to do too much in too short a time. As a result, the country is in the position of a man who has had a serious illness and has not waited for the healing process of convalescence but has rushed immediately into strenuous work. Of course, as we all know, such a man is likely to overstrain his powers and have a serious relapse. That is exactly what has happened to us. The burden put upon the State machine has been too great. That vast machine which the Government have created is tottering and almost collapsing under its own weight.

24 Nor indeed—and I say this with great deference in the presence of Lord Duke-ston—in practice is the Socialist State quite master in its own house. If it has a plan it cannot impose it. Behind the Government stand, as we all know, the great trade unions who impose their will on it. I said this a year and a half ago and it was denied hotly at that time by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the Leader of the House. But it has proved to be more and more true since then that the unions do impose their will. And many of the leaders of those trade unions are not—I do not say it is true of all of them, of course—actuated either by business principles or by a broad national outlook. They are mainly concerned—it is quite natural, for that is their function—to serve the interests of the particular section of the community which they represent. That, it is clear from their speeches, is the outlook of such men as Mr. Horner or even Mr. Shinwell. They regard themselves—certainly Mr. Horner regards himself—as the representative of the miners and he thinks of nothing but the interests of the miners. Very likely he mistakes the interests of the miners—but at any rate he does not attempt to take a wider view.

I think that there is definite evidence that the Government are beginning to realize the dangers of the situation into which they may have stumbled. They are becoming conscious that they have moved too fast, and they are making considerable efforts to slow down the pace. In the gracious Speech to which we listened this morning there was far less talk of Socialism and far more talk of production. If that had been the tone of the gracious Speech three years ago, our situation might be very different to-day. Indeed, if I may say so, in many ways—with one rather startling exception, to which I intend to advert in a few minutes—I do not think that the gracious Speech this year is nearly so harmful as its predecessors during the two previous years. For one thing, there is not the same tumultuous spate of legislation and the legislation mentioned is not quite so far-reaching. For instance, I notice that the iron and steel industry is not to be nationalized this year, as had been foreshadowed in some quarters. I do not want to sound a paean of triumph over this. I recognize that praise by the Opposition is not an 25 unmixed blessing for any Government and if, for once, they have done the right thing I do not want unnecessarily to embarrass them. Moreover I quite appreciate that if they have decided to postpone this—we have it on the authority of the Minister of Health that it is only postponed—it is not because they are weakening in their enthusiasm for Socialism. I wish I could believe that. It is only because iron and steel is the most delicate of all industries. It has the widest ramifications and it has the most direct repercussions upon the export trade. In addition, the Government may well feel that the practical application of the nationalization schemes which have already been passed into law is quite sufficient to occupy their energies during the coming year. But even that is, after all, a welcome sign of restraint and wisdom, on which we, on this side of the House, are bound to commend them.

On the other hand—and here I find myself at issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston—I am bound to regret that it has been found necessary to nationalize the gas industry. I know that very strong arguments can be adduced in favour of this course, but as Lord Dukeston knows and as we all know, the gas industry has for long been one of the best-managed private industries, one of the industries which has been noted for its consideration of the interests of its workmen, an industry which has in many cases taken them into partnership in management and in profits. I cannot but feel that to nationalize this above all other industries must: be counted a retrograde move. On the other hand, we shall all warmly welcome the reassurances with regard to agriculture. "All possible help" is a far-reaching phrase. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, I would say it is not merely promises and assurances that are needed. There must be performance, and we shall watch very carefully in this House, where we have a great many experts, to see how these assurances and pledges are carried out.

I now come to what I think is a notable omission. There is nothing about housing in the gracious Speech. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest problems this country has to face. There may be nothing very good to say about housing, but surely it is a subject that might have been mentioned. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he 26 speaks at the end of the day's debate, will be able to give some explanation of this omission. Perhaps it was forgotten. Anyway, we shall be very interested to hear what he has to say on this very important question.

In the field of Imperial policy, the broad statement of policy enunciated in the gracious Speech will, I suppose, receive the approval of everybody in all paris of the House. There are no Little Englanders in this country nowadays. After the experiences of the last two great wars, I suppose that all Parties alike recognize that close and cordial co-operation between members of the British Commonwealth is vital to the very survival of civilization; and anything the Government can do to strengthen that co-operation will, I am sure, receive the warm support of noble Lords in all Parties. During recent weeks I have heard some rather sinister rumours in the Press about the future of Imperial Preference. There is no mention of this in the gracious Speech. But I would remind the noble Lords opposite that the Government gave some very firm pledges on this subject at the time of the debates on the American loan, and I hope there will be no question at all of their departing from those pledges. I should like, if I may, to ask the noble and learned Viscount for an assurance that if there is anything of the truth in these rumours—of course there may not be—an opportunity will be taken to discuss these proposals frankly with Parliament before any binding commitments are entered into. In view of the pledges already given, this seems absolutely essential.

Now I would come to foreign policy (I am sorry to take so long but I have a very wide field to cover), about which the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, in the closing passages of his speech made such very moving references. Here again, with the broad statement of principle in the gracious Speech I do not suppose any of your Lordships would disagree. Of course we all want good relations with other countries. Of course we all found our policy on a strong and effective United Nations Organization. That is common ground among every Party in the State. But we must face the fact that the United Nations Organization is at present neither strong nor is it united. It is rent by deep divisions, between Russia and her followers on one side and the rest of the 27 world on the other, particularly as is exemplified in the use of the veto on the Security Council. What is to be our position in face of this very unhappy development? I have never been in favour of quarrelling with Russia. I have always believed in close and cordial relations with that country, whatever her political system is, if that is in any way possible. But if I had to choose between being in disagreement with Russia and allowing the United Nations to die, I have no doubt at all which course I should take.

We in this country believe that it is only on a basis of justice and good faith and in a spirit of give and take that international peace can be preserved. Let us beware lest, in our anxiety to maintain the universality of the machine which has been set up for this purpose, we destroy the very foundation on which enduring peace can alone rest. It is a real danger. And let us beware lest this veto, which has been given, it now appears, I am afraid, mistakenly, to five great Powers actuated by different and in many cases fluctuating principles, should grow into a disease which will kill the whole organization. If that is true, that disease, that weakness, that cancer, should be cut out as soon as possible, whatever the risks. Let Russia come forward with the rest of the world on a basis of good faith and give and take and we shall all welcome her. But if she will not, I submit that the rest of the world must go on without her. The progress of the world to peace and to a basis on which peace can rest must not be held up by one nation, however great it may be. I recognize the delicacy of this question and know that the Government are trying to find an agreed solution to this thorny and complex problem. I do not want to press them for an answer to-day. I do not want to press them to say anything, if they do not want to say it. But I feel that I must express the views sincerely held by so many of us. If we once abandon the principles for which we stand we are as good as lost.

Finally, I come to the most interesting and in many ways the most surprising item in the gracious Speech—the proposal to amend the Parliament Act of 1911. That rather cryptic phrase presumably relates to the powers of your Lordships' House, not to the membership 28 of your Lordships' House, for it is with powers that the Parliament Act was alone concerned. It may, of course, mean that the Government have decided to increase the powers of your Lordships. But that, I fear, is improbable. We must therefore assume that it is the aim of the Government further to reduce them. It will be difficult for the ordinary man, now known as the common man, to understand why this proposal is being put forward exactly at this juncture. Our country, as we all know, is on the brink of an acute economic crisis which must involve, if means are not found of meeting it, a catastrophic fall in the standard of living of every man and woman in it. One would have thought that any responsible Government would devote the whole time of Parliament to measures for meeting that perilous situation. As I have tried to explain earlier, the main charge against them already is that they have diverted the attention of Parliament from the immediate needs of the country to ideological experiments in State ownership which could not possibly ameliorate the position and might easily make the general economic situation worse. But, at any rate, now that the crisis is definitely on us, it might have been expected that extraneous matters would have been excluded from the programme.

To choose this moment to introduce an extremely contentious measure, with no possible bearing on our present necessities, is surely the counsel of madness. It is not as if your Lordships' House by obstructive action has opposed, or even delayed, any measure which the Government have thought fit to bring in. We have passed all those on which the Government obtained a mandate at the General Election, although often we disliked them very much. It is true that we have found it necessary in a number of cases to introduce Amendments, to improve Bills and to make them more workable. But, after all, that is our function; that is our constitutional duty; and, if I may say so without blowing our own trumpet too much, I think we have performed it with skill and moderation. We have, at any rate, received the thanks of the Ministers concerned. When only a few weeks ago, just before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess, the Government asked for new and very far-reaching powers to deal with the economic position, your Lordships will remember 29 that this House gave them those powers without Amendment and without limitation.

What then is the reason (I would ask this of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and any other spokesman who is going to reply for the Government) for suddenly coming forward with these proposals, which are quite unnecessary, and which are liable to lead to a bitter constitutional struggle at the very moment when the Government themselves say national unity was never more necessary? I am going to hazard a guess. The only conclusion that I can come to is that it is the result of a rather shabby, shady, political deal. It is an open secret that there have been differences in the Cabinet on the question of the nationalization of iron and steel between some older and more statesmanlike members of the Government and a group of rather younger and more irresponsible Ministers. It seems that on this particular issue the older and more statesmanlike gained the day. But they had to give their pound of flesh, and the pound of flesh which the irresponsibles demanded was a further reduction in the powers of the Second Chamber. I believe that is the explanation, and it is for that reason that the present proposal is put forward. It is, if I may say so, a pretty disreputable procedure. That the whole of the proud and ancient fabric of this House should be cut about to consummate a dingy political deal is not something of which any member of the Labour Party can be very proud.

The excuse which has apparently been put forward in the Socialist Press (which I read on Sunday to my usual advantage) was that a mandate was given by the Preamble of the Parliament Act of 1911. I have looked at the Preamble which, curiously enough, is numbered thirteen in the Public General Acts of that year. I find it reads as follows: And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation: And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament, in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords: 30 and so on. Your Lordships and the country will note that the purpose at that time (and this can be confirmed, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who was then a member of the Government, or by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who was his colleague at that time) was to create a Chamber on a popular and not a hereditary basis, and any provision to alter the powers of the Second Chamber was linked to that proposal and dependent on it.

Moreover, I think it is clear that the Preamble conferred of itself no mandate further to reduce the powers of the Second Chamber. The words used are "limit and define", which is an entirely different thing. It is evident that the power of any new Chamber could not be limitless or undefined. But what are to be those limits? There is no word of this in the Preamble. In any case, how can the Government claim, as a mandate, the Preamble of a Bill which was passed thirty-six years ago by a Government and Parliament of an entirely different character and complexion, and in entirely different circumstances? Or if, as I see the Daily Herald said this morning, the Government claim that a mandate is to be found in their Election programme, that is equally untrue, so far as I can see, if they will allow me to say so. There is only one sentence in this Election manifesto Let us Face the Future which deals with the House of Lords at all. This is what it says: We give clear notice that we wit not tolerate obstruction of the people's will by the House of Lords. As I have explained earlier, there has in fact been no obstruction of the people's will by your Lordships' House. I challenge the Lord Chancellor to produce one single example of our having obstructed the policy of the Government.

This is borne out by a very generous remark made by the acting Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, on September 9 last. In the speech which he made on that occasion the noble Viscount said: I freely and gladly acknowledge, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that noble Lords opposite have hitherto used their majority here in a moderate and statesmanlike way, and in a manner which has given us on this side of the House no real or reasonable ground for complaint. 31 In reference to the word "hitherto," which no doubt the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will take up, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, went on to urge your Lordships not to press the Motion on the economic situation which had been put on the Paper. We did not press it; we withdrew it at once without any debate. That seems to demolish entirely the very specious argument which was put forward in the Daily Herald, and may be put forward in other quarters.

Let me quite unequivocally state that, in our view, the Government have no mandate for constitutional reform. It is clearly a matter for further reference to the electorate, and we are quite prepared to take the view of the electorate on it. If the proposition of the Government were merely that the membership of your Lordships' House should be reformed, I believe there to be very considerable sympathy with that view in the ranks of your Lordships. It is an illusion of supporters of the Government that Peers are hanging on desperately to their rights and privileges. There is no foundation at all for any such suggestion. The question of the reform of the membership of this House has been frequently discussed during the years before the war, and I can say—and I think the Lord Chancellor himself knows this—that such Conservative leaders as my father, who was a Leader of the House for many years, were always in favour of bringing new elements into this House and seeing a reform of the membership: and that, I think, would apply to the very great majority of the Conservative Peers on this side of the House. In any case, the position of present members of your Lordships' House is not an unmixed blessing; and this is a thing which should be said. They have to work very long hours, often at the expense of their own private duties. Moreover, we may proudly say that we are the only section of the community to-day who are not actuated by the profit motive. I should have thought that that ought to have endeared us to the Government.

My Lords, a sensible, practical scheme of reform of the membership of this House would, I believe, be welcomed by noble Lords in all parts of the House. But a mere reduction of powers—that is quite a different thing. Were the period of the veto to be further reduced—I do not know 32 if that is the proposal, but that is what it looks likely to be—that would mean in effect the introduction into this country of single-chamber government, with all the dangers involved. It is no good your Lordships or the country blinking this fact. It would remove the last protection of the British people against extreme action by a Government with a temporary majority. I am not throwing stones at the present Government. But we may have other Governments in the future, and that is the danger to which it lays the people of this country open. To single-chamber government I believe the vast majority of the British people are unalterably opposed. Yet no doubt that is exactly what men like the present Minister of Health want. He is quite ready—and I understand his point of view entirely—to postpone temporarily the nationalization of the iron and steel industry. If he can make the Second Chamber impotent, the way is open to nationalize iron or steel or take any more extreme measures he wants at any time he wants to take them. The next step of him and his friends will be to get rid of their present leaders and assume power themselves. I cannot understand why moderate men like those who occupy the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House have agreed to this proposal. I should have thought they would have far sooner resigned. It is not a question of the prestige or authority of your Lordships' House which is at stake; it is a question of the welfare of the whole of these islands.

And what about the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House? He has been absent through all these vital discussions. He is still away from this country, and yet he is vitally concerned. Has he been consulted and has he agreed to this very important amendment of the Constitution? We have not yet seen the Bill. When it reaches your Lordships' House we shall, as always, consider it objectively. We do not want to pre-judge the issue; we want to see in black and white what the Government intend. But we shall not be deterred from doing what we conceive to be our duty by any threats, however horrific, or by any soap-box sneers by the Minister of Health or anybody else. I can only say that I bitterly regret—as I think we all do on this side of the House—that the Government have introduced this new element of discord at this 33 particular juncture. I believe that history will find it hard to forgive them.

And now I come to the last thing that I want to say, for I am afraid I have kept your Lordships far too long already. I suppose that in saying what I have this afternoon I shall be accused in certain quarters of not showing the Dunkirk spirit and of rocking the boat. But we are facing—and we all know it—a desperate emergency in this country, an emergency social, economic and political. Are we really to be told that if the boat is approaching the rapids, while some of the crew are engaged in scuttling the vessel and the rest in admiring the distant view, the passengers are to sit quiet in respectful and appreciative silence? One of the most alarming features of the present time is the growing intolerance of members and supporters of the Government to any form of criticism. That is the road to dictatorship. I noticed a speech the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in which he said that unless Mr. Churchill ceased attacking the leaders of the Government he ought to have his cigars cut off, as a man has his licence removed when he drives to the public danger. I thought that over very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that it was a joke.

LORD CHORLEY

It was.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But it is a very slight exaggeration of what is said quite seriously by a great many of the noble Lord's colleagues. I do beg them to remember Hitler, who reached a point where he really believed that everything became morally right by the very fact that he did it. The attitude of mind of some members of the Government is not so very far removed from that. We in the Opposition sincerely wish to help the country out of its present mess, but the only method open to us is to point out what we believe to have been done wrongly and to suggest alternatives which we think would make things better. That, after all, is the very essence of free institutions.

As I think I said on exactly the same occasion last year, if the Government were willing to adopt a policy—if only to see us through this present emergency—which all Parties can honestly support, they would automatically create that unity of spirit for which they themselves 34 ask. The Dunkirk spirit would become automatically an accomplished fact. But to expect national unity for a sectional and violently controversial policy is crying for the moon. I believe national policy is still possible, as it was in the war. I beg the Government to set their minds to that instead of the sort of proposals which find their place in the gracious Speech this year: not a Conservative policy, not a Liberal policy, but a National policy. Then they will soon get a response from the other Parties of this country. Let us concentrate first in getting this country on its feet. I believe, if we do that, we shall soon regain our position in the world and the future will be brighter than it has ever been. I do not ask the Government to abandon their principles. I do ask them to show just a little common sense. On that simple quality it may well be that the future and prosperity of our people will depend.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I do not propose to emulate the noble Marquess who has just spoken in making a survey of the whole situation, but rather to speak with brevity and to concentrate mainly on the new proposals which so surprisingly find a place in the gracious Speech to-day. The survey the noble Marquess made was on the lines customary in this House on similar occasions, but the ground is so wide that I think I had better leave to other colleagues on these Benches on other occasions the task of covering the greater part of it.

First, I must join the noble Marquess in congratulating the proposer and seconder of the Address to the King for the gracious Speech from the Throne. The noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, has already made speeches in this House, on two occasions in particular, which have deeply impressed noble Lords in all quarters, and indeed on both those occasions have greatly influenced opinion. To-day he has spoken with that moderation, good sense and statesmanship which this House highly appreciates, and his speech has increased a reputation already high. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, we are always delighted to hear. We were a little afraid that the solemnity of this occasion might deprive us of the breezy gusto to which we were accustomed from him; but, fortunately, "Cheerfulness kept on breaking in." He has always 35 that sound judgment combined with humour, that frankness with tact, which are so welcome here. He has been accustomed to complain of the low output per man in the laying of bricks; but he does not himself follow the example of some of his leaders in the Cabinet in displaying a high output per man in dropping them! Both these speeches show how much the country gains by the fact that in the membership of both Houses of Parliament the nation is able to make use of the talent that is widespread among all parts of the community.

While speaking on personal matters, I would refer to an announcement which has lately been made, that Lord Beaver-brook has retired from public life in this country and proposes to make his home on the other side of the Atlantic, and that we are likely to see him here in the future rarely, or not at all. One of his own newspapers announced this a few days ago, observing that in praising the spirit of the British people Lord Beaverbrook had said, "The further I get away from them the more my admiration grows." I feel sure that that observation was kindly meant, and in that spirit perhaps I may say that I have no doubt that the sentiment will be mutual. But, seriously, we shall none of us forget the inestimable service which Lord Beaverbrook rendered to this country, to the Commonwealth and to the world, as Minister of Aircraft Production in 1940, in the moment of our greatest peril. It was then his finest hour, as well as the nation's. And perhaps, as I have on several occasions been the object of his sometimes sardonic animadversions in debate in this House, I may be allowed to be the spokesman of what I am sure will be the general feeling of your Lordships in offering to Lord Beaverbrook a friendly valediction.

As to the gracious Speech itself, it contains two surprises. At the very head of the list is mentioned a measure which is to to be proposed in the Session which is now opening. The paragraph is: "Legislation will be introduced to amend the Parliament Act of 1911." Further down the list we are promised a reform of the franchise and of electoral procedure. What these measures mean we do not know. Our curiosity has been whetted but has not been satisfied. I listened with close attention to the speeches of the proposer and seconder 36 to discover what they would say upon these very important and novel proposals, but I found that the subject was shrouded in complete silence. It may be that they did not know. It may even be that the Cabinet themselves do not know and have not yet made up their minds just what they will propose. But I would express the desire—I will not say the hope—that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will give us some information on these points to-day. A Government reply on these points would give pabulum for the speeches of noble Lords who take part in to-morrow's debate that is entirely lacking for those of us speaking to-day.

There are two members still attending your Lordships' House who were members of the Cabinet of Mr. Asquith when the Parliament Act was passed; and there was a third, very much in the forefront of the fight at that time, who is still a Member of Parliament, though not of this House, but whom probably noble Lords on the Conservative side of the gangway will not expect to take the same active part in a similar fight at the present time—namely, Mr. Winston Churchill. The Preamble of the Act I was about to quote in extenso to-day, for the same purpose as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, but as he has done so it is obviously unnecessary. As he said, there are two questions which at that time of the passing of the Act commanded, and still at this time command, the attention of those who are interested—the constitution of this House and its powers. As he has already observed, almost everyone agrees that the right of hereditary succession which now constitutes the title of the great majority of the Members of your Lordships' House to a seat in this Chamber is in itself alone very difficult to defend, and there would be a general desire for a reform. Unfortunately, there has never been, and I think there is not now, any wide measure of agreement as to what shape that reform should take.

Mr. Asquith said, in 1911, that this question of substituting for the House of Lords as it was a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis was a matter that brooked no delay. Thirty-six years have gone by since then and there has been a good deal of "brooking", but there is still no agreement. From indications that have been given from quarters which have 37 proved in this matter to be accurate so far, we may be allowed to suppose that it is not the constitution of this House (about which there is general agreement that reform should be undertaken at some time that is suitable and expedient) that is engaging the attention of the Government, but rather Section 2 of the Parliament Act. This section states that a Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions over a period of two years, dating from the Second Reading in the House of Commons on the first occasion to its passage in the House of Commons on the third, may become law (except in the case of a Bill for extending the life of a Parliament) without the assent of your Lordships' House. The period of two years is a very important constituent of that Statute. The whole of the clauses were considered with the utmost care and consideration. The principle of the Bill had been the subject of two General Elections specifically fought upon that issue, each of them returning a majority to the House of Commons of over 100 in favour of the policy in the Bill—the passage of which would have been assured, if necessary, as your Lordships know, by the creation of Peers sufficient in number to ensure a majority here if this House had rejected it. The assent of the Crown to such creation was only given, of course, after the nation had expressed its clear opinion on those two occasions. Any attempt to amend that section could not be expected to be accepted without some similar authority to that on which the original section was based, unless it were of such a completely unobjectionable character that it would not cause serious constitutional difficulty.

The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has given a reason which may perhaps have animated the Cabinet in inserting this paragraph in the King's Speech. He suggested that the postponement of the iron and steel nationalization Bill is to be countered by the advancing of the question of the House of Lords in order to satisfy at the same time two groups in the Cabinet holding different views. Maybe that is so; I have no notion whether that is the reason or not. But for my own part—also without any foundation on any private information—I seem to detect the first faint whiff of the atmosphere of the next General Election. Is it not possible that the Government may think that perhaps the economic 38 circumstances may get not better but worse, and, if unemployment becomes heavy and increasing, supplies scarcer, prices rising and the pound falling, that it would be very desirable to have something else to talk about in the constituencies? Thereupon they would, not unnaturally, turn to an endeavour to emulate the policy of Mr. Lloyd George and to conduct an electioneering campaign with a cry of "Down with the Lords!"

But in those days that was a real issue, not a purely artificial one. Our predecessors in that former generation had deliberately thrown out, year after year, many of the principal measures of the Government which that Government had been returned to office to promote. It culminated in taking the unprecedented course of rejecting on Second Reading the Finance Bill of the year, a Finance Bill which embodied in itself a whole social policy. But is the issue to-day in any degree so comparable that it would necessitate giving the first place in the year's programme of legislation to a Bill dealing with the Parliament Act of 1911? We await further elucidation of the matter before we put forward our considered opinion and declare the course that we shall take. Until then everything must be hypothetical. When we get the facts before us, then we shall speak with a full sense of responsibility.

The second matter which affords us some surprise but does not arouse anything like the same constitutional questions is the mention of electoral procedure and the franchise. I should be greatly interested to know whether that means a reform in our system of voting. Does it mean some change in our present over-simple system of a cross against a single name, which does not fit the political circumstances of the present time? Mr. Winston Churchill in a recent speech referred to the swollen majority of the Government in the House of Commons which was installed in office on an electoral system which to-day (these are his words) "is largely obsolete." If the Conservative Party regard this system as largely obsolete, then what measures are they proposing to take to bring it up to date?

We have now, after the last General Election of 1945, a Government in power which, on the votes cast, is in a minority, an actual minority, in the constituencies, 39 but which nevertheless has a two to one majority in the House of Commons. That Mr. Churchill condemns. I do not recall—I may have omitted to notice it—any occasion when the Conservative Party condemned it after the General Election of 1935—the previous General Election, when the Conservative Party, with just a little more than half the votes of the electorate, also had a two to one majority over all others in the House of Commons. What we of the Liberal Party have been declaring for many years past is that our system of election should be reformed in order that each voter might vote for the candidate whom he really desires to see elected, without any question coming in of splitting the anti-Socialist vote, or splitting the Progressive vote. Let the people vote for whom they like, free from all such circumstances, under the system of the single transferable vote or the alternative vote, and then let Parliament reflect the wishes of the people as so declared. Only then shall we have a truly democratic Constitution.

There is one other matter, and one other only, on this constitutional question, quite separate from those upon which I have already been speaking, to which I should like to refer. An important step has been taken during the Recess which is an example of gradual and almost imperceptible change in our Constitution such as frequently has happened in our past history; there have been changes which afterwards are seen to have been following an important, although hardly recognized, principle. In the debate in your Lordships' House in August, I ventured briefly to say that our economic difficulties were partly due to the fact that the structure of our Government is wrong and inadequate to cope with the enormous range of subjects at home and abroad, economic and political, with which the Cabinet now have to deal. I suggested that the structure of the Cabinet should be changed, and that I further elaborated in an article which some of your Lordships may have seen in The Times of a month ago, in which I put forward concrete though tentative proposals. Mr. Amery and others have written in much the same sense and have proposed various schemes.

It is essential that the Cabinet should have time to think and time to plan. Many people urge that there should be con- 40 stituted a Planning Board to deal with these economic problems. The Cabinet itself should be the Planning Board and can be the only adequate Planning Board. I suggested in my scheme that the Cabinet ought to consist of ten members, most of whom should have no departmental duties. I suggested five groups of departments, each of which should have one of the senior members of the Cabinet as its Chairman who should represent it in this smaller Cabinet. Of those five groups three have been almost unostensibly and almost accidentally created. Not long ago, the three Service Ministers were excluded from the Cabinet, and a Minister without departmental duties, the Minister of Defence, was brought into it. Recently, Sir Stafford Cripps has been appointed to a new office, that of Minister of Economic Affairs, and he will preside over a number of departmental Ministers dealing with various aspects of economics. The Foreign Secretary has been enabled to devolve a large part of his heavy burden of departmental work upon two Ministers who are not in the Cabinet, but who are of Cabinet rank—the Minister of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy. He will be presiding over what is in effect a Sub-Cabinet dealing with external affairs. When some fresh Government is formed, it will be possible to bring the scheme into existence as a comprehensive whole. It is very interesting to see that we have already gone some way under the pressure of the actual needs of the case, but only half-way towards the constitution of these Sub-Cabinets under the chairmanship of several non-departmental Ministers. The smaller Cabinet was recommended thirty years ago by the Haldane Committee and, as it usually takes about thirty years for any obviously necessary reform to be adopted in this country, it is now about ripe for completion.

Of the other measures in the long list in the gracious Speech I shall refer to none in detail, but I will only say that I rejoice to find that the Criminal Justice Bill, which was first drafted by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, when he was Sir Samuel Hoare, is to be introduced during this Session of Parliament. That is a Bill generally desired by enlightened opinion. The Care of Children Bill, in regard to children who are deprived of normal home life, is also, we are glad to see, to be included in this Session of Parliament. That is the Bill which is 41 founded upon the invaluable Curtis Report, which has been debated in your Lordships' House, and I am sure your Lordships will be very ready to pass that Bill when it comes to our attention. Then there is the Bill dealing with the national status of married women. British women are subject to the loss of nationality if they marry foreigners, and, on the other hand, foreign women automatically acquire British nationality if they marry British subjects. These matters have given rise to a grievance very deeply felt. The case has long been recognized as overwhelming. For my own part, it is many years since, in Parliament after Parliament, I have advocated this measure, and I am glad to see that it is before Parliament this year. I hope that no circumstance will lead to its miscarriage.

I am exceedingly glad to notice that one Bill is not included, and that is the Bill for the nationalization of iron and steel. The gracious Speech makes no reference to it. Last year, in the Debate on the Address, I urged that such a Bill ought not to be introduced until the Government were able to show a case establishing the merits of nationalization in this particular instance. The present Government have repeatedly declared that they are not seeking simultaneously to nationalize everything for the sake of nationalization. They have said they recognize that the duty of the burden of proof lies upon them, and that it is for them to show in each case that this course is the right one to take. The Government must not expect Parliament to pass a measure of this character until there has been very careful study of the whole subject and until we have been enabled, through material presented to us, to form a considered judgment on the merits of the particular case—as I would suggest, by an impartial inquiry. I would suggest that, as the Government say they are not going to introduce this Bill during this Session but during the latter part of the present Parliament, they might use the interval in an impartial inquiry into the whole matter, so that Parliament may be fully seized of all the facts of the case, and may be made aware of any defects which it is thought require remedy, and also of such valuable elements which it is desirable to preserve. So far there is no reason whatsoever to say that this industry is one in any degree suitable for national ownership.

42 With regard to the other matters I do not propose to say much. On world affairs all that can be said is that it is a great disappointment that the situation is, in almost every direction, in no way improved as against what it was several months ago. As we all know, the Government are not mainly to blame for that. The chief cause is the non-co-operation of Russia, which exposes to so much danger both Russia herself and us all. However, this is not the time to discuss that matter. The question of the strength of the Forces and the national defences is to be debated in your Lordships' House next week; and, similarly, the economic situation in a two days' debate. There I do not think it is possible to acquit His Majesty's Government of many examples of mismanagement and of avoidable failure in the economic sphere. It is true that the adverse forces have been strong and are still operative, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who is bringing fresh zeal and energy into the handling of the situation, seems to me, for all his efforts, up to the present to be making very little progress. It seems rather like the case of a man in an underground railway station who has got on to the wrong escalator, and who finds himself continually going down when he wants to go up and whose utmost efforts only succeed in keeping him where he is.

The most cheerful thing we can say of the conditions of to-day, about which we are so dissatisfied, is that when they come next year to be compared with those that will be prevailing then, our present conditions may be seen in retrospect to have been much better than we think them now.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I should like to begin by associating myself with the congratulations which have been offered to the two noble Lords who opened this debate. I think that any stranger coming in here, and unaware of the various ways in which the different Parties sit, would have found it difficult to gather from the greater part of their speeches to which Party they belong. I think their speeches were an illustration of that national unity which I feel is so essential at the present time. I think that everyone in this House is fully aware of the gravity of the crisis into which we have now entered, but I am not sure if the gravity is generally realized 43 outside. I believe there are large numbers of the general public who believe that we have encountered a sudden squall which will quickly pass away, and have not realized that in front of us we have months, and possibly years, of stormy and difficult weather, and that we shall not avoid shipwreck unless there is shown great courage, great statesmanship and great unity.

I believe myself that there are three model qualities which are absolutely essential if the nation is to survive this crisis. First, there must be honest hard work on the part of every individual and of every class in the community. There must also be unselfishness—and I am thinking not merely of the unselfishness of individuals but of the unselfishness of classes and of various interests and industries. There must also be unity. Nothwithstanding what was said by the noble Viscount opposite, I want to spend a few minutes in stressing this need for national unity. Let me disarm criticism from the Benches in front of me by saying at once that there could be nothing more unfair than to appeal to one section, to one Party alone, to abstain from controversial matter and from criticism. I feel that it is deplorable and humiliating that we are entering upon one of the greatest crises this nation has ever had to encounter as a people divided, criticizing one another. The Government should have full credit for the way in which they have succeeded in reaching agreement with the unions. I think that is a remarkable achievement. I hope they have been equally successful in reaching agreement with those who manage the various industries, and I hope also that they will fully recognize that it is one thing to reach agreement with the unions and their representatives in London, and quite another to reach agreement with the various industries in different parts of the country. They look upon the questions involved very largely as local, and they are not prepared to accept orders given from above without careful local explanation and discussion.

I am mainly concerned about the political disunion which we find in the country to-day. It is very difficult to hear or to read any speech without the first part of it, at any rate, being devoted either to attacking the other Party or to a statement in self-defence. And while the leaders of the different Parties almost 44 invariably show a great deal of restraint, and speak with a sense of responsibility, the same restraint and the same sense of responsibility are not always found in the constituencies. In the constituencies, at the present time, there is being waged a controversy, a political Party controversy, with the kind of bitterness which might be found immediately before a General Election. Here I am bound to say something about the pamphlet (I have not yet read it myself, but I have seen extracts from it) issued by the Central Labour Party, I believe, and called, I understand, The A.B.C. of the Crisis. That pamphlet has in it a statement to the effect that the Opposition are trying to drive the people into starvation. That kind of statement is disgraceful in itself, and is calculated to create intense bitterness between the various Parties. I hope that I have quoted the pamphlet accurately. As I say, I have not read it myself, but I have read about it in The Times.

LORD WALKDEN

My Lords, I have no recollection of seeing any such bald and bare statement in the print referred to when I went through it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I hope that I have not been mistaken in what I have said, but I think it is correct that The Times stated that The A.B.C. of the Crisis says that the Opposition wish to drive the workers to the point of starvation to create unemployment. I am certain that that is a statement of which no one on these Benches would approve, and I hope very much indeed that responsible members of the Government will see that a statement of that kind is withdrawn. It is bound to embitter feeling up and down the country. I must add that I could quote things emanating from the other side. I could quote bitter and unfair statements made by various speakers up and down the country against the present Government. This disunion is doing great harm. It is doing harm to the nation. The nation will not easily realize the gravity of the crisis if it finds debating points in the speeches of the various leaders. It will believe that this is again the old battle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee and that neither is going to be very much worse off in the end. It must be bad, I think, for our leaders to have to spend valuable time on these controversial issues instead of on those matters which really are of 45 first-class interest. Moreover, it does harm to the reputation of our nation abroad. I heard a broadcast the other day by a speaker who has recently, I think, been in America. He said that our speakers do not always realize how the bitter remarks which they make are exaggerated and misunderstood abroad. I myself have seen letters written by well-wishers of ours in the Dominions expressing their wonder as to whether we shall be able to survive the crisis in view of the divisions in our own ranks.

I am not, for one moment, asking that there should be a Coalition Government. I know that that is entirely out of the question. I know that the present Government, with their vast majority, would not for a moment think of forming a Coalition Government. I am perfectly certain, too, that the last thing that the Opposition want to do is to enter into a Coalition Government. I am also certain that members of the Government are conscientiously convinced that their Government will alone enable the nation to survive the crisis, and I am sure that the Opposition are equally conscientiously convinced that the crisis will not be solved satisfactorily while the present Government are in office. But is there not a middle way? We have managed to keep foreign politics out of Party controversy. We have a very fine and noble tradition in that respect. Would it not be possible to take some of these questions dealing with this economic crisis entirely out of the ordinary run of Party controversy. It would, I know, be a counsel of perfection to suggest that all controversy should cease. I am not asking for that. So long as there is an Opposition there must be criticism, and so long as there is a Government the Government must defend their position. But surely there must be some way in which the various Parties could reach agreement on the main remedies which are required in the present crisis? It would be strengthening the Government for one thing. Later on, the Government may have to make decisions which may be extremely unpopular, decisions which are absolutely essential for the economic safety of the country. The Government may hesitate to make those necessary decisions if they know they will be at once exposed to the fire of Party criticism. On the other hand, there are a large number of members of the Opposition who are anxious to take their part in 46 endeavouring to solve the problems of this crisis. There are men who have had first-class experience of business administration, and who ought to be able to make their full contribution to the nation at this time.

Therefore, I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister should ask representatives of the other Parties to confer with some of the members of his Party, to see if they cannot find common ground upon which they could meet. I know that round-table conferences have often failed in the past. But even if this round-table conference failed it would not make the position worse than it is at the present time. And it might succeed in the formulation of a united policy on the most serious matters connected with the economic crisis. I can see that there are all kinds of difficulties. The matter has not been made easier by the Government proposing to introduce a Bill amending the Parliament Act. That may mean bitter controversy up and clown the country. There are all kinds of difficulties of which a non-Party person like myself is probably totally unaware. Yet I feel that it is well worth while seeing if common agreement cannot be reached upon some of the main remedies required for the nation in this time of grave crisis. If such an agreement were reached it would hearten the nation, and it would enable our friends in other countries to see that the nation is facing this crisis with unity and courage. We should be able to look forward to the day when the nation would come out from this crisis able once again to make its full contribution to the prosperity and peace and freedom of the world.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, I welcome and most heartily endorse everything that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, has just said about national unity, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a very few minutes, since by our standards this is a comparatively late hour, if as a member, myself, of no Party I plead a cause which is not at all popular with politicians but which possesses, I believe, an immense, inarticulate backing in the country. If the citizens of this country could wake up one fine morning and read in their newspapers the news that all the three great political Parties had consented, as the most Reverend Primate has suggested, to drop their differences 47 for the moment, and to pool their resources in a combined effort to extricate the nation from the morass into which it is sinking. I believe that something like eight out of ten of them would welcome the news with much of that elation and much of that prescient sense of coming deliverance which electrified the nation on the morrow of the victory of El Alamein.

Every great crisis in our recent history, in 1916 and 1940, has been surmounted by national unity. Without it, we could not have survived. And if any member of your Lordships' House supposes for a moment that our dangers to-day are less than they were in 1940, then I am afraid he has yet to learn the A.B.C. of the present crisis. The Press, of course, has little to say in favour of national unity just now. It seems to have written that off as for the moment no longer practical politics. But what the Press constantly does demand is just that kind and quality of action which is unobtainable without national unity. Take an example almost at random. That Left Wing journal, the New Statesman, this week writes that our chance of pulling through depends "absolutely on the skill with which the Government succeeds in mobilising popular good will and sense of personal responsibility"; and much that was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in the closing passages of his speech meant little more than just that; an appeal for a sense of national unity.

But the nation-wide good will for which we are always getting these appeals is unobtainable so long as many utterances, both by the Government and by the Opposition—and I am thinking of utterances outside your Lordships' House, where a decent courtesy is preserved by Ministers and Opposition spokesmen—seem expressly designed to prolong and accentuate our disunity. Of course, one has to recognize, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop obviously recognized, that Party warfare is formidably entrenched in every Party. From the Ministers and ex-Ministers down through members and candidates to the local chairmen and committee members, there is something like a nation-wide vested interest in Party warfare, and tens of thousands of sensible and respectable citizens are genuinely persuaded that the opposing Party is something like a personal em- 48 bodiment of evil. But behind the formidably entrenched partisans, let us try to remember that there waits the often addressed but seldom heard nation, who are now often disposed to ejaculate, "A plague o' both your houses!"

Of course, an alliance for the duration of the crisis, which the most reverend Primate has rightly said might well be a very long affair, would mean real sacrifices to all three of the historic Parties. The Labour Party, or at any rate a powerful section of the Labour Party, is still passionately convinced that this is the destined moment for the socialization of our economic structure, and of course the Labour Government has in its hands the magnificent instrument of an unprecedented majority.

It is not for an outsider to comment on the views of Socialist members, but I cannot help remembering that quite a lot of Socialist textbooks used to say that a collapsing market was the very worst possible setting in which to embark on a Socialist revolution. As to the unprecedented majority, well, the Liberals in 1916 and the Conservatives in 1940 had very effective majorities which they were doubtless reluctant to sacrifice, and any move towards unity would mean it was Labour's turn to make a sacrifice which was made in the past by both the great Parties before. On the other hand, the Conservative Party must often feel, one suspects, a half-reluctant pleasure at the spectacle of opponents who have committed themselves to apocalyptic prophecies floundering in this formidable morass. They may even sometimes be tempted to calculate that there is everything to be gained, in the Party sense, by holding aloof, at any rate for a considerable while longer. The Labour Party might have been conscious of much that sort of temptation in 1940. They resisted it and made a sacrifice characteristic of the Opposition in the cause of national unity, and it is the turn of the Conservative Party to do what was done by the Labour Party in 1940.

However we may gloze over it, the fundamental fact remains that without some greater measure of national unity, we cannot expect a national effort. The class and Party bias of much that has been said by certain Ministers is one of many causes, but still a prime cause, of our failure to bring out our full national 49 strength, and if it be said, as it can very well be said, that it is largely provoked and excused by the class and Party bias of much that has been said and written by Opposition critics, that is only one more argument for national unity.

I was very much struck the other day by some comments made by a Canadian friend of mine who has just revisited this country after several years' absence. She told me she had been staying with some very respectable elderly maiden Scottish cousins, the sort of people who in 1940 would rather have frozen to death than break one jot or tittle of the regulations with regard to fuel or food. She was astounded to see these respectable old ladies turn on the electric stove at forbidden hours, and when she spoke about it they said, "We don't give a tinker's cuss for Shinwell." Of course, they were gravely to blame. Their conduct was not even to be excused by the Party spirit of those occasions when some Minister of the Crown, instead of addressing an exhortation to the nation, which, God knows, needs encouragement and exhortation just now, prefers to deliver some irritable and rather pedantic Socialist lecture, or even go out of his way to insult and traduce the great middle class which only two years ago he and his colleagues were so passionately wooing. But that Scottish family is typical to-day of millions of all classes and Parties who are not putting forth anything like the effort which they might be devoting to overcoming the national crisis, primarily because the Government and the Opposition between them have not succeeded in treating this crisis as the no more formidable crisis of 1940 was treated.

Some sort of national unity is required and I myself would like to see nothing less than a National Government. At best or at worst some step such as the most reverend Primate has mentioned should be taken towards national unity. This would mean two things. It would mean, first, that, with the possible exception of a few crypto-Communists and fellow travellers, there would be no Opposition inevitably committed to painting the darkest imaginable picture of our present plight—and I fully sympathize with the complaints of some Government spokesmen at the effect which such criticisms have overseas. On the other hand, it would mean that the short-term remedies, 50 which are all that matter at the moment, would not be tainted, and therefore largely rendered ineffectual, by the class or Party bias of much of present Ministerial legislation. Above all, a National Government would mean a national effort. That is the long and short of the crisis: that we need national unity because we need a national effort, and we cannot get a national effort, it seems, without national unity. Sooner or later, I profoundly believe, it is bound to come. Sooner rather than later an hour will strike so sombre that we shall be compelled to unite. Every day by which we anticipate that dark moment will spare the nation unnecessary suffering.

LORD SCHUSTER

My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that at this hour I venture to intervene in this debate, for neither my speech nor, as your Lordships may think, my subject rises to the level of the high debate which we have heard this afternoon. Indeed, I would not have spoken but for the request of my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe, who is unfortunately, owing to domestic bereavement, unable to be hero. I am not calling attention to anything which is in but to something which is not in His Majesty's most gracious Speech; something which all those who are interested in the administration of the law have ardently desired for some years now. I mean the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Report. It was published two years and six months ago; it received a cordial welcome, and we had ardently hoped that it would have received notice in His Majesty's most gracious Speech. I see at the end of His Majesty's most gracious Speech a ray of hope in that we are told that if time permits other measures may be brought before Parliament.

I want to say only one thing about the Rushcliffe Report. Time will not permit a long delay before effect is given to its provisions, or something like them. When the war came to an end all the workers who were looking after legal aid and advice in the Army were going to be scattered, but emergency arrangements were made to tide over the period until the Rushcliffe plan could come into operation. Those emergency measures cannot subsist for long. They were devised merely to fill a gap, and not to have even a shadow of permanence. I do not want 51 to go on talking about the plan; I certainly do not want to talk about the merits of it. As I understand the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to reply in this debate, I want only to ask him to give a word of encouragement and hope to those who wish the plan to be put into operation. I believe that means all who have studied it.

THE EARL OF HALIFAX

My Lords, it is only with some hesitation that I venture to rise to make a few observations. I think all the speeches to which your Lordships have listened, from the two notable speeches of the mover and seconder to all those who have followed them, show to what extent the deliberations of your Lordships' House both now and in the forthcoming Session are bound to be overshadowed by the conditions in which this new Session opens. On the general economic situation there will no doubt be an early opportunity of fuller debate, but meanwhile I think it is impossible to refrain from some general reference to it. The situation is, of course, plainly very grave, involving as it must appear to the layman our capacity to achieve our own recovery, to assist others to achieve their recovery, and, in short, to maintain our position as a World Power.

I think the redeeming feature of grave situations, as a rule, is that they are usually very clear. As we saw in the war, there is substantial unanimity as to what ought to be done, and everybody sets about and does it. That is all very good. In the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, although thinking people of all Parties no doubt desire to contribute to the national effort, the ordinary man outside—and here I have considerable sympathy with what was said by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York—does not see the outward signs of the same concentration of purpose as he saw, and indeed was very proud to share in, during the war. Of course, he apportions the blame for that according to his political sympathies. The supporters of the Government blame the Opposition for, as they put it, generating an atmosphere of Party strife when, in their view, all citizens ought to be giving all support to the Government, whatever their Party colour, in 52 the intolerable burden that they have to bear.

To Conservatives, and I think many others, it often seems that His Majesty's Government are at least as much concerned with demonstrating their loyalty to the letter of full Socialist doctrine, irrespective of any immediate good results, as they are with pulling the country out of the mess. The announcement which your Lordships have heard in His Majesty's most gracious Speech concerning the Parliament Act seems to me hardly to be explained on any other ground. It almost looks as if my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition, may have proferred in his speech the right explanation. My own thought had been that it partook somewhat perhaps of the nature of the laying of a smokescreen of evil odour that was designed to conceal at a later date something else from the inquisitive eyes of the British public. It will surely be incredible to the ordinary onlooker, as my noble friend said, that they should choose this moment of all others, when appeals are being made for unity by members of His Majesty's Government, in which to throw that monkey wrench into the works. In those circumstances, it will not be surprising to find, not only on the Conservative sid