1922 Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Money - Hansard - UK Parliament

7/12/23, 10:02 AM Trade Facilities And Loans Guarantee Money - Hansard - UK Parliament
Hansard
UK Parliament   King's Speech  Trade Facilities And Loans Guarantee Money
Trade Facilities And Loans Guarantee Money

Volume 159: debated on Monday 4 December 1922
Download text Previous debate
The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,

“"That it is expedient—
(a) to amend section one of The Trade Facilities Act, 1921,—
(i) by increasing to fifty million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans the principal or interest of which
may be guaranteed thereunder; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which guarantees may be given thereunder; and (iii) by providing for the charging
of fees in connection with matters arising thereunder;
(b) to authorise the Treasury—
(i) to guarantee to the extent set out in Protocol No. II, signed at Geneva on the 4th day of October, 1922, and the Annexes
thereto, a loan to be raised by the Austrian government of such an amount as, after payment of the expenses of issue, will produce
the equivalent of a sum not exceeding six hundred and fifty million gold crowns; and
(ii) to guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any securities hereafter issued by the Austrian government
which are to be repayable out of the proceeds of the loan afore said; and
(iii) to make an issue of securities for the purpose of rendering more readily effective any guarantee which may be given by the
Treasary as aforesaid and to provide for the redemption of any such securities;
(c) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, any loan raised by the government
of the Soudan for, or in connection with, works, for the purpose of irrigating Gezireh Plain not exceeding in the aggregate an amount
sufficient to raise three million five hundred thousand pounds;
(d) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 and 1921, by providing that for the purposes of the provisions of these Acts relating to
the period within which the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the giving of guarantees in connection with export
transactions may he exercised, the date on which the Board enter into an agreement to give guarantees shall be treated as the date
on which the guarantees are given;
(e) to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantees as aforesaid or required for meeting the
principal of, or the interest on, any such bonds as aforesaid, and to provide for the laying before Parliament of statements and
accounts with respect to the matters aforesaid."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
”
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Share
On a point of Order. May I raise a question at this stage in order to safeguard myself I This Resolution consists of several parts which
are entirely different the one from the other. The first deals with the Trade Facilities Act. We then pass to the loan to Austria,
implementing a Resolution arrived at by the League of Nations, which is entirely different from Trade Facilities. We then pass to the
Treasury guarantee of the interest on a loan for public works in the Sudan; and we reach the fourth part, which has to do with
overseas trade credit and insurance, which is entirely different from Trade Facilities or the other parts of the Resolution. It is entirely
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 1/55
against the spirit of the financial control of the Commons over expenditure to put these four or five Resolutions as one Motion. I have
refreshed my memory by looking up precedents of the way these things were dealt with, and though I find that on the surface
Erskine May is against me, yet this procedure of Parliament is without precedent. I have searched the annals of this House, and I cap
find no case in which so utterly dissimilar Resolutions are bunched together in one motion. I beg, Mr. Chairman, that you will not
consent to put these five motions together. It might well be that hon. Members would desire to vote against loans to the Sudan
Government, but might be in favour of voting for loans to the Austrian Government, or rice versa. It is unfair that we should not have
the opportunity of separately recording our votes on these several proposals and I claim your protection, Sir, accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for having given me notice of his intention to raise this question. His search for precedents has
not been completely exhaustive. Had he searched through the annals of 1912, he would have found that precisely this point was taken
by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) on the Financial Resolution necessary for the
introduction of the Government of Ireland Bill, in which maters far more incongruous than those set forth in the present Resolution
were allowed to be put as one Resolution. There are other precedents, as for example, Mr. Emmott's ruling on the License Duties in
the Budget of 1909, and I have given a similar ruling since, on the introduction of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. There is nothing
in the procedure in Committee of the whole House which prevents these proposals being combined in one Resolution.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

(Mr. Baldwin)
Share
I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that this is somewhat in the nature of
an omnibus resolution, but it is an omnibus that contains very good passengers. Some of them are there to aid employment in this
country and some of them are there under very solemn pledges. I propose to say a few words on each of the points involved. No
doubt the hon. and gallant Member will desire to debate some of them at greater length and I shall have pleasure in replying. Under
heading (a) of the Resolution, all three paragraphs deal with the Trade Facilities Act and the effect of the first two of those
paragraphs is to continue the existence of the Act for a further period of twelve months. The third paragraph puts in what is omitted
in the Act of last year and that is a provision for charging such fees as may be necessary to make the scheme entirely self-supporting,
an object with which, I think, the majority of the House will be in full sympathy. The costs of administration are very small. They are
confined to a Secretary and the legal charges necessary for employing solicitors to draw up the agreements necessary between
interested parties and the Government. A very trifling commission on the amount guaranteed will be more than sufficient to provide
the necessary funds, but my object in all this kind of legislation will be to see that so far as possible no charge for services rendered
can be charged upon the taxpayer.
All three paragraphs under heading (b) refer to what is known generally as the Austrian loan. I feel confident that this scheme, more
or less familiar to Members of the House, will be received with interest and with sympathy, for it is the result of the first international
effort that has been made to help to bring financial salvation to one of the ruined countries of Europe. The scheme was worked out by
the League of Nations, and it is the greatest creative work that they have as yet carried through. I think the success that attended
their exertions augurs well for the future of the League, and the success that they did attain is largely owing, as I am proud to say, to
the work done by our representative at Geneva, Lord Balfour, who spent some time this autumn in bringing his unrivalled powers to
bear in an international conference to bring to fruition what seemed at the outset a very difficult, if not an impossible, task. Lord
Balfour was authorised by the Government of which he was then a member to attach his signature to the agreement, and by so
attaching it to pledge the British Government to fulfil its part of the bargain into which several nations had entered. Paragraph (i) of
(b) relates directly to the guarantee and refers to a Protocol. The Protocols have all been published, and are probably in the
possession of Members of the House. Command Paper of this year No. 1765, and our share, which we have to guarantee, amounts to
something over £6,000,000, out of a total of something like £27,000,000, which is involved in the whole loan. Paragraph (ii) is to
cover this point, that in case the Austrian Government should find it necessary, before they were in a position to issue the full loan, to
issue a short or temporary loan, in the form of Treasury bills or some other short-dated security, the guarantees would apply equally
to those instruments, but the fact of guaranteeing them does not involve any extra charge, because on the issue of the whole loan
such smaller sums would be repayable out of the issue of the whole loan. Paragraph (iii) covers rather a technical point. It may well
be, in raising a loan of this magnitude and of this nature, that it may aid in floating the loan, and make it less difficult to get the
money than it otherwise would be, if the contracting parties themselves put up securities representing their share, and thus giving,

massed together under one central authority, securities which were easily recognisable and easily getatable by contributors to the
loan. The security of the loan, as Members are aware, will be a first charge on the Customs and the tobacco revenues of Austria.
Those revenues are estimated by the financial advisers of the League of Nations, who naturally take a very conservative view of the
financial position, as amounting to a sum of not less than 80,000,000 gold crowns per annum, or something over £6,000,000, which
is more than an ample sum to secure the interest which will be payable on the whole loan.
The carrying out of this loan is considered by all competent advisers to be absolutely necessary for the financial salvation of Austria,
and the financial salvation of Austria is not only a matter of the first importance to Austria herself, but to the whole of the south-east
of Europe and to the trade of this country, because Vienna has always been the centre of finance and business, not only for Austria,
but for adjoining countries, and for the Balkan countries in the south-east, and it would make what today is a difficulty, and has been
deemed an almost hopeless, task, far less hopeless, if not hopeful if we may, before too long, find conditions so improved in that part
of Europe that it may be possible once more to resume trade with those countries.
Paragraph (c), again, touches our trade at home very closely. It is to guarantee a loan to be raised by the Government of the Sudan
for completing the great dam, which is to aid in the irrigation of a large portion of the Sudan. The scheme itself is of greater
magnitude than was originally contemplated, and like all these large schemes, especially those where contract prices were got out
within a year of the Armistice, prices have enormously increased, and the estimates are considerably beyond any that were
considered reasonable when the irrigation scheme was first propounded; but it has been investigated more than once recently by an
expert sent out by the Treasury to advise, and his report is that, even after the expenditure of this increased sum, when the scheme is
finished, the benefit to that country will be so great, that there should be no doubt of the Sudan itself being able to pay out of its
revenues the interest required on the loan. The whole object, or the main object, of the irrigation is to enable cotton-growing to be
proceeded with in the Sudan. The Sudan, I am told, is one of the best fields in the world for the growing of long staple cotton, and I
am also told, by those who know the cotton trade, that there is a real fear, and more than a fear, that the supply of raw cotton in the
world to-day is not sufficient for the world's trade, and, unless immediate steps are taken to increase the growing capacity of the
world for cotton, great disaster will overcome, if not the cotton trade of the world, at any rate the cotton trade of this country, which
is dependent entirely on imported cotton. I am told that the area that it is forthwith proposed to irrigate is such that it will be
possible, on the completion of the scheme, to grow 70,000 bales for shipment each year to Lancashire. But as it may be possible
when the dam is finished to bring under irrigation a vastly increased area to that already proposed, there seems no reason why the
Sudan in the future, and perhaps the not far distant future, will bid fair to become one of the great cotton growing districts of the
world. A very small technical point is involved in paragraph (d) in connection with the Overseas Trades Acts. It is to make clear a
phrase that occurs as to the actual date to which the guarantee of the export credit is made. That will be explained, if need be,
further by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. No money is involved in it. Further, paragraph (e) is consequential on a
previous paragraph. When the suitable time comes I propose to direct my Amendment towards correcting a slip in a drafting phrase
to make the words "such bonds" read "securities."
Captain Viscount CURZON
Share
On a point of Order, Is it in order for an hon. Member on the Labour Benches to read a newspaper?
The CHAIRMAN
Share
It is not in order to read a newspaper.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL
Share
If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly there has been an increase in the estimate for the Sudan—the estimate made
within one year of the Armistice. It is now for a larger amount. In view of the general reduction will the right hon. Gentleman explain
the increase?
Mr. BALDWIN

Share
The estimates were made in 1919. It was anticipated that there would be a fall in prices; as a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman will
remember that the rise continued on all kinds of goods, the cost of labour, &c.
Mr. G. LAMBERT
Share
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the amount of money required to fulfil the obligations of what he calls an omnibus
resolution. The one thing that, more than any other, interested the electorate during the recent election was Government spending—
Governmental taxation There is one point in particular on which I should like some information, leaving it to others to deal with other
points that may afford a target for them. I refer to the Austrian loan. I have some difficulty in believing that the Treasury guarantee of
some six millions will effect the very desirable result suggested. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Lord Balfour, at Geneva,
exercised his unrivalled power of diplomacy, finesse and sagacity; but it does not require much power on the part of any British
statesman to pledge British credit for loans on the Continent. We have had too many of these loans in the past. For my own part, I
agree with the Prime Minister when he said that we could not be policemen for the world. I say, too, that we cannot be moneylenders
for the world. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he, as a business man, would put his own money into this Austrian loan? If
not, why does he put the money of the British taxpayer into it? [An HON. MEMBER: "Reparation!"] I will come to that later. I would say
that if it is a test that he knows no business men or firm here who would put their money into these loans to foreign Powers, why
should the British taxpayer be asked to put his money into it?
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
Share
The League of Nations suggested it.
Mr. LAMBERT
Share
I have a strong objection to the money of the British taxpayer being allowed to go into this bottomless sink of European
indebtedness. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite says the League of Nations asked us to enter into this loan, but I would
remind hon. Members that the League put certain questions to the Austrian Government. The first was, what measures are required
and are practical to secure Budget equilibrium in Austria? The answer cannot be given with certainty, because the period depends
upon the resolution and the authority of the Austrian Government in carrying out the drastic reforms which are necessary. Have we
any evidence that the Austrian Government is strong enough to carry out the drastic reforms recommended by the League of
Nations? If this condition is recognised, equilibrium will be established in two years and it is upon this basis that the League of
Nations recommended the loan. It is the duty of the Government to see that there is a stable Government in Austria capable of
carrying out these drastic economies in the national expenditure before we are asked to back a Bill for a large loan to Austria. It has
been laid down that State industrial enterprises should be suppressed. A most important instance is furnished, by the railways, which
involve a deficit of 124,000,000 golden crowns. What guarantee have we of this drastic action on the part of the Austrian
Government? I object to the British taxpayer being asked to back bills for the benefit of the Austrian Government, which has shown no
signs of carrying out these reforms.
Then there is the question of the reduction in the number of the officials. We have had experience of that kind of thing in our own
country. We have been told that Vienna which used to be a capital of 6,000,000 inhabitants has now more State employees than
when she was a capital of over 50,000,000. What guarantees have we that these State officials will be suppressed? Here we are
supposed to have a very strong Government, but officialism has not been suppressed. We are asked to go into this loan with France,
Italy and Czechoslovakia. France and Italy both owe us large sums of money. How if the guarantee becomes payable is the money to
be collected? The League of Nations rcommend this, but what power has the League to compel the payment of the money if the
nations default? It seems to me they have none. What is likely to be the future of Europe? You have Germany in a state of financial
collapse. Germany and Russia have made a Treaty, and they are behind Turkey. There is bound to be great disturbance in Europe
within the next few months, Yet in spite of that the British Government are proposing to lend £6,000,000 of the British taxpayer's
money to the Austrian Government! I object to it. I do not believe in the soundness of the proposal. The whole thing is wrong. We are
having far too much of this philanthropic enterprise; of this pouring of our money into countries where there is no stable Government.

I strongly object, too, that the Government should have thought it necessary to bring in this their first administrative achievement
involving I do not know how many millions sterling—
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
The Austrian loan comes to about 27 millions, of which we guarantee six millions.
Mr. LAMBERT
Share
I was saying I did not know how much was involved in this omnibus Resolution.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
They are all guarantees amounting in the aggregate to about 34 millions.
Mr. LAMBERT
Share
Well I will not pursue the matter further, I object to this Austrian loan, and if I can get anyone to go into the division lobby with me, I
shall divide against the Resolution.
Mr. HILTON YOUNG
Share
I do not find myself in as close agreement with the financial criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr.
Lambert) as I usually like to do, always being sure of sound economy on his side. But in this case, as far as his criticisms of the
provisions of this Resolution are concerned, they have gone too far. I believe them to be useful and salutary provisions, judging by
their apparent common sense. In two cases—in the case of Trade Facilities and in that of the Overseas Credit Scheme—they are but
carrying on work well begun and which has proved thoroughly beneficial for the relief of the great evil of unemployment. Then as
regards the proposal which he criticises with more severity—the proposal to guarantee a loan to Austria, there again I think it may
be claimed that it is dictated by common sense. It is the case that the financial machinery of Eastern Europe depends normally upon
the nervous ganglion which if it be financially depressed may lead to a worse paralysis of trade in Eastern Europe. Therefore, it
appears to me that in this region also, if we are considering simply and solely the alleviation of our own great evil of unemployment
and the return of our trade to normal conditions, we shall be well advised to carry out this scheme of the League of Nations for the
relief of Austria. It appears to me that the answer to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asks, and most naturally asks, is
provided by the League's machinery. As I understand it, when this loan has been raised and guaranteed, it will, not be made
available for the purposes of the Austrian Government unless those measures of reform are carried out pari passu which we all know
to be so desirable. In these circumstances, there is nothing but what is consonant with the strictest economy and practical common
sense in this Resolution.
I rose, really, for the purpose of asking a particular question of quite minor detail in connection with paragraph (a, iii) of the
Resolution. As I understand it, power is to be taken to charge fees for the administration of the Act. That is an admirable purpose,
but there is a wider purpose, namely, to provide some reserve fund against possible defalcations upon the guarantees, and that
could only be done by charging a commission. The question that I want to ask is whether the powers taken under this Resolution
would be sufficient to enable the Treasury to provide a reserve fund against possible defalcations upon the guarantees. That is
clearly a wider purpose than merely meeting the administrative expenses of the Measure. I do not know whether it is intended that
the Bill which is to be introduced shall cover that wider safeguarding of the Exchequer or not. If it is not intended that it shall be
covered by the Bill, I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to the question whether it is not a
desirable purpose to raise a reserve fund by means of a commission or something of the kind, in order to provide against any actual
loss upon the guarantees.

With regard, finally, to another minor point of detail, as regards paragraph (c), it will be within the memory of the right hon.
Gentleman that, when the Tokar Railway Act was passed last session, an undertaking was given that no further money should be
raised for the purpose of the Sudan barrage scheme without very careful financial inquiry. Since that time, as I understand from the
right hon. Gentleman, such an inquiry has been carried out, and what I wanted to ask was whether it would be possible to lay Papers
on the subject of the inquiry, or any other Papers which would be informative, before the Bill is introduced, the day after to-morrow.
Mr. CHARLES BUXTON
Share
I should like to dissociate myself from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) in the criticisms which he
offered with regard to the loan to Austria, and to associate myself rather with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I think that
the engagement entered into, in a sense through the mediation of the League of Nations, is one which has got to be fulfilled. I am not
going to suggest that we ought to go back upon it, but what I do want to suggest is that the form of control which the Agreement
suggests should be imposed upon the Austrian people and the Austrian Government is of an exceedingly oppressive nature. It
appears that the Austrian working classes—shall I say the Austrian people in general?—are confronted with a painful and tragic
alternative. Either they are to go without all possibility of reconstruction and re-habiliation, or they are to submit to a control which,
leaves them practically without, anything of the nature of internal sovereignty or independence left. It is a terrible alternative for any
nation to have to face, and it appears all the more terrible to us, seeing that we ourselves and our Allies are responsible for reducing
the Austrian people to the condition in which they now are. The severe restriction imposed upon them takes, broadly, three different
forms, and they are all illustrated by the Agreement, the text of which has been circulated to the Members of this House. In the first
paragraph, we have a repetition on the part of the Austrian Government of a condition which was forced upon them in the Treaty of
Saint-Germain, when they were precluded from joining any other State. It is a political restriction, under the name of not alienating
their independence. This was a restriction imposed on them in the Saint-Germain Treaty, which they are now, as part of this control,
compelled unwillingly to repeat once again on their own part. It is a political restriction upon their freedom and upon their
sovereignty, which is in absolute contradiction to the professions with which this country went into the War, namely, that it was
fighting for the self-determination of the nations, whether they were enemies or friends. I do not believe that anyone who has even
pretended to reconcile these declarations of belief in self-determination with the restrictions imposed on the Austrian people has had
the slightest measure of success or made himself anything but ridiculous in attempting to reconcile two things which are absolutely
irreconcileable.
Then we come to the second point, in which the control is very severe. The powers given to the Commissioner-General, as
representing the League of Nations, and the Committee of Control, as representing the Guaranteeing States, are very far-reaching
indeed. I will not take up the time of the Committee by going into any details, because they are familiar enough to anyone who has
cast his eye over this printed Agreement. Practically everything which in this House we consider as the prerogative of this House,
every measure dealing with financial problems in which we regard it as vital to be perfectly free, in Austria is submitted to the control
of the Commissioner or the Committee of Control.
The third point, which is the most serious of all, is that there is an absolutely direct interference with the sovereignty of the people of
Austria, in the shape of a control over their Parliament itself, expressed in the most general terms. The Austrian Government is
obliged, as a condition of this Loan, to lay before the Austrian Reischrat—the Austrian Parliament—a law of a most extraordinary
kind; a law which, if it were introduced into this House, would be treated, if not with indignation, at any rate with ridicule; a law by
which the Parliament is asked virtually to commit suicide; a law by which the Parliament is asked, of its own pretended volition, to
give up its own essential life, power and prerogative. The Austrian Government has to lay before its Parliament a law "giving, during
two years, to any Government which may be in power"—
An HON. MEMBER
Share
A Soviet Government?
Mr. BUXTON
Share
Yes, including a Soviet Government—

“"full authority to take all measures within the limits of this programme which may be necessary"—”
I omit non-essential words—

“"to assure … budgetary equilibrium without there being any necessity to seek for further approval by Parliament."”
The Parliament in those terms completely abdicates its functions.
I recognise that this Loan is a necessity for Austria, and I do not share the criticism of the right hon. Member for South Molton who, in
addition to other attacks, suggested that £6,000,000 is a very small sum to rehabilitate Austria. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is
perfectly justified in pointing out that £6,000,000 is merely our share of a fairly substantial Loan, and that the Loan as a whole is
undoubtedly enough if not to rehabilitate Austria at any rate to arrest the terrible decline that is going on, and to give her a chance,
with hard work and great effort, to recover.
But I deeply regret that it should not have been found possible by the League of Nations Committee, and by our representatives on
that Committee, to attach to this Loan conditions that were less of an invasion of democratic rights in Austria itself. I think, in view of
the responsibility both of this country and of our Allies towards Austria, the responsibility for the fearful debacle which has occurred
there, we might have managed to suggest conditions that were less derogatory to their sovereignty and to their national feelings. It
certainly is a very extraordinary contrast to place this agreement, with the measures which it involves for helping Austria, side by side
with the Treaty of St. Germain four years ago, and one might forma striking and even an amusing contrast by setting the proposals of
these two documents side by side. Four years ago we were not setting up machinery for handing over money and helping Austria out
of her difficulties. We were setting up machinery for getting even larger sums of money out of Austria. I might, if I were permitted,
quote various Clauses of that Treaty under which we not only—
The CHAIRMAN
Share
That would be beyond the scope of the Resolution.
Mr. BUXTON
Share
I am very glad that contrast is so great and so striking and so glaring as it is, and that we have before us to-day a document very
different from the Treaty of St. Germain and very much more favourable, and I hope it will realise the objects it has in view.
12 M.
Colonel LAMBERT WARD
Share
I should like to remind the Committee and the last two speakers that already no less than £12,000,000 of the taxpayer's money has
been advanced to Austria, and of that amount not one single penny of interest has been paid, nor has any sinking fund of any kind
been raised for repaying the capital. Under these circumstances it seems to me that, from a financial point of view at any rate, we
are doing an extremely rash thing in guaranteeing any further amount, because, make no mistake about it, there can be no possible
doubt that the guarantors will be called upon to make good the sum they have guaranteed. We have in this White Paper a list of the
securities which are to be hypothecated as security for the interest and capital of the loan which we guarantee. A great portion of the
first three have already been mortgaged for the new bank of issue, and all that is left is the Tobacco Monopoly, which is estimated to
produce 40,000,000 crowns a year, which is approximately £2,000,000. I quite agree if there was any chance of their being paid
that is another thing, but if the Austrian Government have these valuable resources to their hand why have they paid no interest on
the money we have lent them? Furthermore, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if our liability under this guarantee is
definitely limited to the £6,000,000 that he spoke of. It seems to me that we are entering, with France, Italy and Czechoslovakia, into
a joint and several guarantee. Let us suppose that the English public put up a large sum. Let us say they put up £14,000,000. Is only
half of that amount to be guaranteed by the British Government? If so, which half? Why should one-half be guaranteed in preference
to any other? If we are not going to guarantee the whole amount, is it reasonable to suppose that money will be found in this
country? If it is not found here, is there any likelihood of it being forthcoming from Czechoslovakia, France, or Italy? As the right hon.
Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has said, France and Italy between them owe to us £700,000,000. If they cannot pay that—I
give them every credit for the best intentions in that way—but the fact remains that they have not paid any interest and are not
making any attempt to repay the capital—it does not seem that the security of our co-guarantors is particularly valuable. In reply to
a question a few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the loan or various loans we had made hitherto were to be
repaid out of the £6,000,000 which were to guarantee. If he means that it seems a too-hopeful view to take. The hon. Member for
Accrington (Mr. Charles Buxton) said we are placing upon Austria Conditions which are derogatory to her status as an independent
State. I would be the last person to dictate to Austria, but if they want money from this country, I want to borrow from the taxpayers
here, it is only fair that representatives of the taxpayers should have some say on the question of how this money is to be dealt with.
It seems to me that we are throwing good money after bad, we have already taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers £12,000,000,
which with interest amounts to, approximately, £14,000,000. In my opinion there is no chance of our ever seeing that back again. To
the money already thrown away we are throwing another £6,000,000. I protest against this being done, and I shall have the greatest
pleasure in dividing against the Government on this Resolution.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
I rise to speak on this matter with the greatest sympathy for the Republic of Austria. At the same time, I cannot but be glad that an
opportunity has been given not merely to this House, but to the peoples of Europe and the world in general, to see the kind of thing
which awakens the sympathetic interest and the undaunted enthusiasm of the League of Nations. Belonging as I do to the
Communist party, I regard the League of Nations with disgust and abhorence. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I thought it was
the habit in this House to listen to points of view however unpleasant they may be.
The League of Nations has shown itself very slow to interest itself in the starving children, regardless of whether they were in Russia
or Vienna. Nothing has been done during all those years for the little children of Austria who were dying off like flies, and nothing
worth mentioning has been done in this House to save the starving children of Vienna. But when it comes to a matter of saving the
credit of a country, which has been aptly described as the nerve centre of finance, immediately we find the League of Nations and
this House all agog at a moment's notice. I spoke of this matter on the Address and I made certain references which I intend now to
amplify considerably. There is no country in Europe with which this Government—I do not mean merely this Ministry: I mean the Ring's
Government—that goes on from year to year, regardless of whatever Ministry is in office—and your Foreign Office and your Treasury
have had closer relations than the government of the Hapsburgs of Austria. That government has been one of the greatest borrowers
in Europe. It has been a country where national loans, municipal loans, railway loans, tramway loans, collieries, steel works and
every kind of state, industrial and commercial activity have derived their finance either from the Hopes of Amsterdam, from the
Rothschilds of Frankfurt and Buckinghamshire or else from the Rothschilds of Paris. Austria, Vienna, has been mortgaged from 1816
to the present time, to the very hilt to the great international houses of Rothschilds. That is the group which has Austria, and which is
responsible for this last poor attempt to save Austria from ruin not in the interests of civilisation or of Europe, but in the interests of a
bond-holding clique of unscrupulous rascals. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I did not expect that it would be the duty of His Majesty's
Opposition to please His Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBER: "Go on!"] When we come to the question of this Loan we find that it
is to be secured upon the Austrian tobacco monopoly. I have been looking carefully into the matter of this Austrian Loan, and I have
here a document which I have had certified by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, giving intimate details as to the directors and
as to the aims of the Anglo-Austrian Bank, Ltd. We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter has been brought
forward and carried through by the instrumentality of the League of Nations. Now, it is a curious fact that one of those who are to
benefit by this Loan is the Anglo-Austrian Bank, which has as one of its directors, Sir Henry Strakosch, the Chairman of the financial
section of the League of Nations. We see, the League of Nations on the one hand, and at the same time we find its financial head
intimately associated with the exploitation of the people of Vienna. There is the impartiality which we expect from hon. Members. This
loan further needs to be examined by reason of the fact that its guarantee is also placed on the tobacco monopoly. This tobacco
monopoly is a feature which one finds in nearly all these attempts to secure the resources of a country in the interests of the
bondholders. It was characteristic of the Imperial Ottoman Debt; it was characteristic of the finance of the Commissioners
responsible for putting Greece into, power after the war between Turkey and Greece in 1896.
There is an attempt being made on the continent of Europe to take away the State monopoly on tobacco and to put it in the hands of
two tobacco companies—one British and the other American—if it is possible to distinguish the two. They work together. They desire
to exploit Austria, France, and Italy in the same manner as they are exploiting Turkey, Greece and other countries. I find something
more. I find that among the list of directors of the Anglo-Austrian Bank there are two directors of the Imperial Ottoman Bank. That
points clearly to their association, taken together with the other associations of these gentlemen, and the associations of their
fathers and grandfathers. I have studied this matter of the Austrian banks right back through the whole period of the Hapsburg
régime and I have also studied Turkish finances right back to the 18th Century, and I know something of the way in which you have
gradually been throwing the noose over the necks of Turkey, Rumania and Greece, and now over the necks of the little children whom
you have not been able to get into their coffins, otherwise in the city of Vienna. During the War hon. Members opposite, and certain
hon. Members who sit on the Front Bench on this side of the House—Privy Councillors who have since recanted—have been talking
about the self-determination of small nationalities [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you do?"] I tried to stop it, and if there is another War,
I shall try to stop it by revolution.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
That question is not congruous to the present proposal.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
Pardon me, Sir. When one is being "barracked" by Gentlemen of England, one sometimes loses one's way.
Mr. MAXTON
Share
These are not the Gentlemen of England.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
Well, the Gentlemen of Scotland. In the War you talked of self-determination of small nationalities. You discovered a triangle of races
which no one in this country knew about. You discovered the Czecho-Slovakians and, I think, the Ruthenians, and some other people
of that kind.
Mr. HOHLER
Share
On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the matter before the Committee?
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I presume that the hon. Member intends to connect it with the Resolution under discussion.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
We have heard a great deal about self-determination of small nationalities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite discovered the Czecho-
Slovakians and began to tell the nation in general about them. [HON MEMBERS: "Lloyd George"] Yes, and some people with Lloyd
George, discovered the Yugo-Slavs and the Czecho-Slovakians and God knows who besides, and when it came to the Treaty the old
dual monarchy was divided up and the new State emerged known as Czecho-Slovakia. It was a State whose government was a
Republic—a Republic economically and politically too weak to stand by itself. It needed monetary assistance and so, from every part
of the world, the bagmen came to Prague. Some came from Paris, others from Amsterdam; others, in turn, came from London, and
some came from New York. Everybody was ready to help the poor little bourgeois Republic at Prague. A new Government was set up
in the interests of these people who had previously been clients of the banks of Vienna. It was set up as, and is to-day, the creature of
the international bond-holders. It may call itself an independent State, but to all intents and purposes Czecho-Slovakia is as much in
the bag, as Vienna will be, when you have provided it with funds. The same is the case with Yugo-Slavia, Rumania, Hungary and
Poland. It is doubtful which is the greater curse—to have your blessing or to have you as bond-holders. In either case, it means
slavery, undoubtedly. You have got to have your pound of flesh.

The CHAIRMAN
Share
I thought the hon. Member proposed to connect this argument with the present financial situation in Vienna. He is not at liberty to
run round the various nations which composed the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
In naming various States which formerly composed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, I had in mind the fact that their trade had its
centre of finance and credit facilities in Vienna and it is because of the fact that you have detached these States from Vienna, that
you are face to face with this problem to-night. I would suggest rather to His Majesty's Government that they should tear up that
infamous instrument known as the Peace Treaty, and go back to the former position. I wish to dissent from my hon. friend the
Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton). I do not myself see anything inconsistent in the policy of the Government in 1918 and the
policy of the Government to-day. In 1918 it was the desire of the capitalists of Britain and France to emancipate Vienna from
dependence upon the four big bankers of Germany. To-day it is equally their desire to attach Vienna to the big bankers of Paris and
London. It is necessary to do one thing for one process and another thing for the continuance of that process in another direction.
The Treaty of Peace was an instrument designed for the purpose of furthering the bondholders' interests here, just as this to-day is to
reverse the process now that it is time for them to go in a slightly different direction. The whole of this policy is calculated in the
interests of the bondholders, in the interests of the big "bosses" who have not been able otherwise to save themselves.
I wish now to leave the question of Austria and to pass on to that of the Sudan. There is no territory which makes a more interesting
study than that of the Sudan. It is because of the Sudan, because of its potentialities for producing cotton and corn, in the interests,
not of Britishers, but of that gang of Greek merchants behind Sir Basil Zaharoff, naturalised Greeks, not Britishers—not the genuine
article, at any rate, only with the hall-mark, like the Rothschilds—it is in the interests of these people, and because of these people,
that you have forfeited your pledges, broken your promises, gone back on your word, and refused to leave Egypt, as you promised
that you would do. You are broken pledgemakers. You have shown that you do not believe in keeping faith when it does not pay—
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL
Share
What about paying America our debt?
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
That, I believe, will arise in another discussion. The Sudan is the territory, as hon. Members know, through which passes the Nile—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—It is just possible, in view of the fact that at the Peace Conference a certain Prime Minister did not
know the location of Teschen, that some Cabinet Ministers to-day do not know the location of Khartum. It is just possible that some
hon. Members do not know that the Nile supplies the necessary water, not for making beer, but for the purpose of growing cotton and
corn. However, unless there are built several great barrages like the one at Assuan or the big dam that you are building today, it will
not be possible to grow that greater supply of cotton which is necessary for the purpose of rendering you able to produce bogus silk,
and when you come to the question of bogus silk, otherwise known as artificial silk, you come straight up to the whole question of
Near Eastern Policy. Having arrived that far, I shall turn aside until a future Debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that Egypt, or, rather, the Sudan, is a region in which it is
possible to grow long staple cotton, but you have that to-day also in Kenya Colony, Uganda, Iraq, and Syria, and other regions which
you have got mandated to you under the League of Nations.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Syria is French."]—France is your Ally. These
territories also produce long staple cotton. Long staple cotton is, if my technical informers are correct, necessary for producing that
form of cotton thread which is necessary in turn for the production of artificial silk. Artificial silk, in the present degraded state of the
world's market, when the peoples of Europe and America are short of purchasing power, has driven pure silk practically off the
market. The pure silk interests are up against your cotton interests, and I protest, and were it possible to take this particular
paragraph apart from the other paragraphs dealing with Austria, I should oppose this Resolution, because I believe that by this
means, by this endeavour to hold on to the Sudan for the purpose of exploitation, and in conflict with France and America, for that is
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a… 10/55

what it means, you are driving as straight as you can go to another world war. Hon. Members opposite do not crowd those Benches
and support these Resolutions in the interests of liberty, in the interests of equality, in the interests of justice, but in the interests of
the Stock Exchange, in the interests of the bankers, in the interests of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in the interests of the—
[HON. MEMBER: "Silk worms."]—Hon. Members opposite little know how much good they are doing the Communist party by this
discussion. It is precisely the kind of thing which shows to the toiling masses of this country what you are like, and that is why I have
come here. You are here in the interests of the—
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I must ask the hon. Member to return to the point.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
If you were to assist me a little more in getting order, as you would, I believe, in other cases—
HON. MEMBERS
Share
Order, order!
The CHAIRMAN
Share
It is quite out of order for the hon. Member to comment or the action of the Chair.
Mr. NEWBOLD
Share
I apologise, Mr. Chairman, but you must, I think, understand that the maximum provocation is being given to me. I am very sorry if I
have offended against the rules of this House. I am a party of one. It is 614 to 1. I repeat again it is in the interest of the bondholder, of
the banker, of the Chambers of Commerce, of the bill broker, of the cotton manufacturer and of the whole capitalist class that you are
rolling up in your forces upon those Benches. I give my general support to this matter of the loan to Austria. My opposition and my
protests so far as I can make them are to this matter of the endowment of the building contractors who are engaged upon the dam in
the Sudan. It is noticeable that this barrage project has the approval of a Committee presided over, I believe, by Sir Robert M.
Kindersley. Sir R. M. Kindersley, curiously enough, happens to be the chairman of Lazard Brothers. Lazard Brothers, curiously enough,
have half their share capital held by S. Pearson and Sons and Clive Pearson. These people are the building contractors engaged upon
the dam.
Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY
Share
I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
I hope the hon. Member will not misunderstand me when I say that with regard to his remarks about Austria, many of us are in a
large measure of agreement with him. But it is entirely wrongly that he says this is the first opportunity we have taken to save Austria
or prevent the appalling catastrophe that has occurred to that country. If the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) had been a
Member of the last Parliament he would have known that a few of us on this side of the House took every single occasion, very often
even later in the night than this, to draw attention to the heinousness of the crime that was committed against Austria.
Mr. NEWBOLD

Share
I fully accept that there was opposition
Share
I am much obliged to the hon. Member. It was a sweeping assertion that he made. I only wish to make a remark about the paragraph
which deals with Austria at this stage because I wish to move an Amendment to the first part of the Resolution. But before doing so I
think it is right to say that the objection we have on this side, at least, speaking for the Members I can speak for—[An HON. MEMBER:
"You are a party of one!"]—I have been in a party of one before. The objection to the loan is not that it is an attempt—a belated
attempt—to help the Austrian Government to get on its legs, but that it is wrapped up with conditions that are anti-democratic. The
Austrian Parliament is practically forbidden to function in the direction of controlling finance. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to
get us to discuss finance at twenty-five minutes to one. The Austrian Parliament, as a body, is not allowed to have any say whatever
on the subject of finance. It is a great blow at the great-principle of democracy and it mars this otherwise fairly good makeshift.
Secondly, it is no use filling the coffers of the Austrian Government unless you do something to prevent the process which makes it
necessary to give the money to Austria. The trouble is that, whereas Vienna is the only banking and business centre for Austria and
because it was the capital, it has been made the transport nodel point for the river and railway transport for the whole Austrian
Empire. When the Peace Treaty of St. Germain was torn up—incidentally largely by Lord Balfour, who is how responsible for this
proposal—no effort or attempt was made to prevent the Succession States from putting up impossible tariff barriers. That is the
trouble to-day with Austria. By prohibition or impossible taxes, the trade of Vienna and the port of Vienna could not get the raw
material for its manufactures. That is why we have this instead of getting the vast indemnities which the Coalition parties promised in
the General Election of 1918. I would like, to ask the hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Foreign Office or the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, when he comes to reply, whether any attempt has been made by our representatives at Geneva on the League of Nations
to see whether it is possible to have some demolition of the tariff walls. Czecho-Slovakia is establishing herself as a new nation and
Rumania and Jugoslavia are prevented from becoming so by these mad tariff walls. Of course, the Government may be assisted in
this endeavour by the same adverse vote they received to-night on a somewhat similar Motion. The only hope of Austria lies, firstly, in
a real peace, I do not want to go into details, but I am sure hon. Members know what is meant.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
That hardly comes within the Resolution, and the hon. Member's recent remarks have had no connection with it.
Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY
Share
I was attempting to follow the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward), who objected to this security.
Unless Austria gets a real peace, it is a bad security indeed. Before we vote on this matter we should invite the Government to say
whether it is now possible to do something to remove the tariff wall which is ruining Austria: and, secondly, whether His Majesty's
Government's action can be explained— making this proposal unnecesary and making the security for this loan better. There seem to
be only two alternatives. What is the attitude of the Government towards a Danubian Federation or Zoll-verein, which I believe would
solve the problem, or the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton) of the eventual union of Austria
with Germany? It is along one of these lines—either a Danubian Federation for customs purposes, or union with Germany—that the
continued existence of an economic independent Austria seems to lie. This loan will not be the last, unless some policy of that sort is
adopted. Austria is not the last country which will have to be given such a loan.
The German mark is in the express train for Vienna. It is following the krone. We will be faced with similar and greater demands for
preventing Germany from relapsing into chaos. I desire to limit this discussion by moving an Amendment. When that Amendment is
disposed of it will permit a full discussion. I do not propose to allow the Sudan loan to pass without considerable examination and
getting some information from the Government.
This sub-paragraph (iii) provides for the charging of fees. I hope we shall have information of what these will be. We are told that the
purpose is to make the scheme self-supporting. Another point is what is the charge going to be for companies, or bodies, or
corporations who apply to the Committee set up by the Government for guarantees under this scheme. We want, after all, to

encourage people to come to the Committee with reasonable schemes. If they are to be charged large fees, whether granted
facilities or not, the smaller men will be frightened off, which would be extremely undesirable. There seems to be a tendency at
present, looking at the previous sums granted and previous bodies favoured, on the whole to rather favour the larger corporations. I
am certain that is not the intention of this House. The immensity and range of a company should not be any reason for preference in
getting facilities or credits under this scheme. In order to get assurances on that point I propose my Amendment.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD
Share
It is very unfortunate that the most important range of subjects and interests covered by this Resolution should have to be discussed
by this Committee at a quarter to one in the morning. I am sure, however anxious the House may be to terminate the Session,
everybody who is seriously interested in the problems raised in this Resolution would prefer to sit a day or two longer than sit up all
night; as a matter of fact, not discussing the merits of the Resolution at all. Hilarity grows very profusely after midnight. [An HON.
MEMBER: "Closing time."] I doubt very much if the question of advances in the interests of trade, if questions relating to the present
position of Austria—
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I must remind the hon. Member that a specific and narrow Amendment has been moved, and to that he must confine himself.
Mr. MacDONALD
Share
It is absolutely impossible under these circumstances to discuss these matters. I was afraid I was slightly out of order while raising
the more general question, and I wish seriously to discuss this matter later, and will bow respectfully to your ruling.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Share
Surely we may have a specific reply as to how much these fees are to be. We are entitled to that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will
state whether they will be such as to frighten off smaller corporations and whether they will be charged if facilities are granted or
not.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL
Share
May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what is the procedure; whether we can afterwards proceed to the more general discussion.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
The procedure is the ordinary one. In this case a specific Amendment is moved and discussion must be confined to that. When that
Amendment has been disposed of, other Amendments will be in order, or the general discussion may be resumed.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
The Act is merely being amended by giving power to charge and then it would be possible to say what was required and what would
be the expense. The fees shall be kept as small as possible. I do not fear that the amount charged will prejudice any application for
facilities under the Act.

Mr. PRINGLE
Share
There is a specific question put by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young). He asked whether this power to charge was
merely intended to cover expenses or an attempt to cover any risks?
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
I had intended replying on that point. The charge will cover expenses.
Share
Will there be some indication of the sort of fees which will be charged when the Bill is printed?
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
It is possible that I may give some indication on the Second Reading. I will try.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. PRINGLE
Share
I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (a, iii), to insert the words
“"Provided that no guarantee shall be given in respect of any capital undertaking outside the United Kingdom, or for the purchase of
articles in connection therewith, where such undertaking would fee in competition with any British industry which is suffering from
depression."”
The point which is raised in my Amendment is one which has considerable interest to many British industries. I have been induced to
move this Amendment by certain representations which have been made to me. These representations relate to an application which
has already come before the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee. I do not know what has happened to it; I believe it has still to be
decided. This is an application for a grant for the purpose of erecting a new paper mill in Newfoundland. The application, I believe,
has been made on behalf of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co., who are supplying the machinery. Undoubtedly, if the application
be granted, employment will be given to workers in Armstrong's in manufacturing the; machinery. But another question arises in
connection therewith, and that is, what is to be the position of those who are engaged in the paper industry of this country? They
have, so far as I understand, not been heard at all by this Advisory Committee. This Committee proceeds simply by hearing
applicants and refuses altogether to listen to any representations which may be made against the application. I am told that this
scheme for a paper mill in Newfoundland has hung fire for a long time. Attempts have been made to raise capital for the purpose
both in Canada and Newfoundland, and have failed. Now, however, with the aid of the guarantee and the British Government, the
project is to go on, and the question which naturally arises is, is the credit of this country, and in particular the credit of those
engaged in the paper industry of this country, to be used for the purpose of subsidising competition against themselves abroad?
That is the question which we must face, specially in the present depressed conditions of the paper industry. That industry has been
going through a bad time. I believe it is somewhat better at the moment, but my information is that to-day there are 5,000 men out
of work in the paper-making industry. It is, therefore, a very strange thing that we 6houId be considering a Bill, or the extension of a
Bill under which competition with this depressed industry may be subsidised by the British Government and at the expense of the
credit of the people who are suffering from this competittion. I put it that this Order was not contemplated when the Trade Facilities
Act was passed in the first instance. You might have a similar case arising in regard to India. Some promoters might come forward
and desire to start a new jute mill or a new cotton mill in Bombay. The machinery would be made probably in this country, but what is
going to be the effect on Dundee or Lancashire of these methods? While you might be creating employment in one industry, you
might be creating unemployment in another. I have no objection to these industries being established abroad. I have no objection to
the extension of the cotton or jute industry in India nor have I any objection to the extension of the wood-pulp industry in
Newfoundland, but if these undertakings are to be started they should not be carried out by means of guarantees under this Act. I
therefore propose that a limiting amendment should be introduced. The Trade Facilities Act is, in effect, a subsidy to industry,
because it enables those industries to raise their credit on preferential terms. I am against subsidies as a general rule, but for the
purposes of the present unemployment I am quite prepared to support, in these exceptional circumstances, this kind of subsidy. But I
object to a subsidy being granted to people outside who are competing with us. I am not in favour of subsidising imports at the
expense of the British taxpayer.
There are risks here. Here is a case where the capital could not be raised in Canada or Newfoundland, but had to be raised at the
expense of the British taxpayer, and it is to be on the basis of the credit of the people who are to suffer from the competition. I say
that this a perfectly reasonable proviso to introduce. It is in the interests of employment in this country. I have no objection at all to
the Newfoundland paper-making industry going on provided it is done at its own charges and without the help of British trades, and I
say the same of any industry abroad that is in the same position, but I object to the credit of the depressed industries of this country
being, utilised to increase competition against us. I should have expected the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut,-
Colonel Croft) would have supported that.
When the idea of Imperial Preference was first mooted by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain he suggested, and it was a sound idea,
that the development of the Empire should be carried out on these grounds, that the Empire would produce the raw materials
themselves and that we should do the manufacturing. It was contended then that he was basing the Empire on a schedule of
forbidden industries and he withdrew it. But the new Tariff Reformer wants to subsidise these industries in the Colonies at the-
expense of the British taxpayer. That is sound neither from the British nor the Imperial point of view. I beg therefore to move this
Amendment, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it his consideration.
Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL
Share
I wish to ask if it is to be a condition of these credits that all possible purchases are to be made in this country? I see there is to be an
advance of £10,000 to the tin mines in Cornwall. Is that a name which has any geographical significance, and are the mines in
Cornwall?
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
I am sure it is not for the convenience of the Committee that I should be asked questions with regard to every scheme on which the
Committee has reported. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), I hope that the Committee
will not adopt his Amendment, although at first sight, it seems that it has a good deal to be said for it. The number of cases in which
advances have been made outside this country have been but a small proportion of the total amount. The whole object of the Trade
Facilities Act was to help to provide employment in this country, and it is an essential condition
Division 13.] AYES. [1.4 a.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hill, A. Ritson, J.
Ammon, Charles George Hinds, John Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Barnes, A. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Saklatvala, S.
Batey, Joseph Hogge, James Myles Salter, Dr. A.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shinwell, Emanuel
Bonwick, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowdler, W. A. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Buckle, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simpson, J. Hope
Burgess, S. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, D. Stephen, Campbell
Chapple, W. A. Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lansbury, George Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Collison, Levi Lawson, John James Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Darbishire, C. W. Leach, W Thornton, M.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Lunn, William Tout, W. J.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Trevelyan, C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) M'Entee, V. L. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. March, S. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Dunnico, H. Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Warne, G. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Morel, E. D. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fairbairn, R. R. Mosley, Oswald Westwood, J.
Foot, Isaac Nichol, Robert Wheatley, J.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Murnin, H. White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Whiteley, W.
Grundy, T. W. Newbold, J. T. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Nicol, Robert Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hancock, John George Pattinson, R. (Grantham) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Harris, Percy A. Phillipps, Vivian
Hartshorn, Vernon Ponsonby, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hastings, Patrick Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Mr. Pringle and Mr. Lyle Samuel.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Riley, Ben
Herotts, J.
10. A.M.
of all contracts made under it that all material should be obtained in this country, wherever the contract may be placed. Therefore
when business does come forth in any Dominion or in India it will give substantial employment in this country. There is a strong prima
facie reason for allowing the business to go through and securing an order which can be placed promptly at a time when we need
orders very badly. I would go this far with the hon. Member. I think that it is desirable to examine very carefully what the condition is
with regard to industries in this country, and I can assure him that we do that, and I can assure him that that has been done with

regard to these works in Newfoundland, and I think that opinion in this country is unanimous that the completion of such works will
not seriously damage any industry in this country. That obviously is not the opinion held in that industry, but I think there is a very
strong case for my view. With regard to the tin mine I understand that it was a misprint for Lelant, which is in Cornwall.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 195.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Penny, Frederick George
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Greenwood, William (Stockport) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Grigg, Sir Edward Peto, Basil E.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Philipson, H. H.
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Hall, Re-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by) Pielou, D. P.
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Halstead, Major D. Privett, F. J.
Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Raine, W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Harrison, F. C. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Barnett, Major Richard W. Harvey, Major S. E. Remer, J. R.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Reynolds, W. G. W.
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Berry, Sir George Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Betterton, Henry B. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Blundell, F. N. Hewett, Sir J. P. Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hiley, Sir Ernest Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Brass, Captain W. Hoare, Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Russell, William (Bolton)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Hood, Sir Joseph Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Hopkins, John W. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bruford, R. Houfton, John Plowright Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bruton, Sir James Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hudson, Capt. A. Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.) Sandon, Lord
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Shakespeare, G. H.
Butt, Sir Alfred Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Shepperson, E. W.
Cadogan, Major Edward Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Sinclair, Sir A.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Jarrett, G. W. S. Singleton, J. E.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Skelton, A. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Churchman, Sir Arthur Joynson-Hicks, Sir William Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Clayton, G. C. Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril King, Capt. Henry Douglas Stanley, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Lamb, J. Q. Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Lane-Fox, Lieut-Colonel G. R. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Sutcliffe, T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lever, Sir Arthur L. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Titchfield, Marquess of
Dawson, Sir Philip Lorimer, H, D. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Lougher, L. Tubbs, S. W.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Wallace, Captain E.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lumley, L. R. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Ednam, Viscount Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury) Wells, S. R.
Elveden, Viscount Makins, Brigadier-General E. Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Margesson, H. D. R. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Mercer, Colonel H. Whitla, Sir William
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Windsor, Viscount
Falcon, Captain Michael Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Winterton, Earl
Ford, Patrick Johnston Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Wise, Frederick
Forestler-Walker, L. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wolmer, Viscount
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Nail, Major Joseph Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Frece, Sir Waiter de Nesbitt, J. C. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Ganzoni, Sir John Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Gates, Percy Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Lieut.-Col. Gibbs and Major Barnston.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Paget, T. G.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD
Share
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." A continuation of this discussion is absolutely
impossible. It is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure to discuss such important matters at this hour.
Share
We are glad to hear of course what the leader of the Labour Opposition has said. [An HON. MEMBER: "Leader of the Opposition."] I
am in opposition too. The matters which are being discussed now, especially that part of the Resolution about which there will be the
most controversy, are of the most vital importance and it is unfair that the Committee should be asked to consider them at this time
of night. I see no reason whatsoever why the House of Commons should not sit an extra week, if necessary, to discuss the many main
questions which are involved in this important Resolution and other matters. It is quite unnecessary to sit until the small hours of the
morning like this. I made a proposal at the beginning of the Session that we should meet at 11 o'clock—a much better proposal than
to discuss intricate matters of this kind at a quarter past one in the morning. I do hope hon. Members who have some regard for the
necessity of financial control over expenditure will support us in this Motion. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman did not put
forward this Motion to embarrass the Government, but if there is one thing the constituencies and the public are determined to have
either from this Parliament or any future Parliament, it is financial control over the Executive. We cannot consider these things
properly at this time of the morning. At least I can —I happen to be able to use my head at this time of the morning but I cannot get
the information I require from the Government. If we are to keep a tight grip on finance we must not attempt to pass a financial
measure of this kind at this hour. That is absolutely fundamental and quite apart from anything else I do not want to support it.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS
Share
I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not a case of obstruction, which does not much appeal to me, but a
case of substance. These matters in reference to the Austrian loan are matters of real grave national importance. They are not
suitable to be discussed in this kind of temper and hilarity. After all, a good many things get said in the House of Commons for which
none of us are the worse, but they are read and considered, and I am bound to say that when you have at the present time the
spectacle of what was once a great European State going down into collapse, to discuss it in the temper in which we shall
undoubtedly discuss it between two or three in the morning is a great mistake, and the Government would be well advised to
postpone it until a time when we shall discuss it with more gravity and more sense.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
I would remind hon. Members who have spoken that this is not the only opportunity of discussing these matters. This is merely a
Financial Resolution which has to go through two stages to-night and to-morrow night before the Bill on which these Resolutions are
based can be printed and circulated to the House. There will then be the-Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. HOGGE
Share
There are two other Bills the same day.

Mr. BALDWIN
Share
There will be the Committee stage and the Third Reading and so I cannot see that there is not ample opportunity to discuss what I
quite agree is a very important matter. We have now been discussing the Resolution about two hours and most of the discussion has
been about Austria. The time at our disposal to get the business of this Session is limited through and I must ask the Committee to let
me get the Committee stage of this Resolution to-night.
Mr. HOGGE
Share
This a story that we hear from the Treasury Bench every time. There is absolutely no substance at all in what the Chancellor of the
Exchequer has replied in regard to the time of the House. In the first place, the Second Reading of this Bill is suggested for
Wednesday. It is preceded by discussion on the Safeguarding of Industries. On the same day you have down the Second Reading of
the Canadian Cattle Embargo Bill and to make a pretence that we should not discuss it to-night because there will be ample time on
Wednesday is sheer nonsense. My right hon. Friend is one of the best Parliamentarians in the House and he knows that ruse. He has
fallen back on the oldest excuse that has come from the Treasury Bench. What is the trouble about time? We are sent here to
represent our constituents. There is no reason under the sun why we should rise on the first debate, and moreover we were not
brought here to consider this matter, but Ireland and Ireland only. That was the express answer of the Prime Minister when anybody
on this side of the House asked for a day to discuss foreign affairs. We were told no, this was an Irish Session and we were to devote
ourselves entirely to that. When we have done that and given a Third Reading to both Irish Bills, they come forward with fresh
legislation, because they want the House up for some reason or other. The most important discussion on any Bill is the Financial
Resolution, which determines the principle of that Bill.
Mr. D. HERBERT
Share
Tell that to the unemployed in Edinburgh.
Mr. HOGGE
Share
They are in East Edinburgh and they increased my majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), who is making
himself very comfortable on the Back Bench, will have ample opportunities any time he comes down to East Edinburgh to tell the
unemployed I prevented them from getting work. Either the Government are right or wrong. If they want fresh legislation such as this,
they should give the House of Commons ample and full time to discuss it. The only reason they can give for their present action is
that the House has expressed a desire to get up next week. Nobody has expressed that wish except the Government and the
supporters of the Government.
Mr. HERBERT
Share
Leave the Government alone.
Mr. HOGGE
Share
I am not sent here to leave the Government alone. No one on this side of the House wants to get up before we have given ample
consideration to the subjects we are asked to discuss. It is for the Government to do the same as we are prepared to do in
Opposition. We shall vote in favour of the Motion to report Progress.
Mr. LANSBURY

Share
I wish to join in the protest against going on to-night and to say, as I said on the first afternoon of the Session, that the House should
continue to sit until we have dealt with the great problem—dealt with it not only by talking, but action—concerning the unemployed.
I am asking the Committee and especially the Government to consider the effect of legislating in the sort of fashion we are to-night.
The one charge against the House of Commons which is made outside, and which makes for the Soviet point of view—that its
machinery is worn out—is the sort of spectacle we are witnessing to-night. We are not legislating, we are not considering, but
talking and talking. There are other ways. We have done a very considerable amount of shouting this evening. That does not add to
common sense and decency at all. The point is that you cannot, without discussion, sensibly make laws for any country. You shout
when we talk in a certain fashion as if you did not come here to talk and discuss. That shows how thoroughly ignorant you must be of
the function of this place, which is to take the proposals laid before it and discuss them in a common-sense manner. [Interruption.] I
was here as early as probably anyone, and I would suggest that if anyone should talk with little authority—
Mr. H. H. SPENCER
Share
As a new Member may I ask whether we have to address you, Mr. Chairman, or other Members?
The CHAIRMAN
Share
The rule is for Members to address the Chair.
Mr. LANSBURY
Share
It is also a rule when an interjection is made for the speaker to answer that interjection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Through the Chair."] It is
this sort of thing which causes workmen outside to say that this House has outgrown its usefulness. We are here to-night discussing
three very important questions, each one of which would take, in the multitude of us here, some hours to discuss. It is not our fault we
are met in the sort of way we are, with the whole body of the House discussing in a general sort of manner. You, Mr. Chairman, might
not allow me to proceed along the line of how it ought to be done. The point I wish very emphatically to make is that to go on through
the small hours of the morning discussing these matters with the frame of mind and the atmosphere which accompanies it, will only
make people outside—and they are taking notice because you have us here—understand how useless is this body for doing useful
work for the community. I hope the Government will consent to the Motion to report Progress and allow us to discuss this question
when fresh, and no one is fresh now, not even Ministers. They all look quite sleepy.
Mr. SHINWELL
Share
I am convinced that the arguments of Members on this side are having an effect. It is obvious hon. Members opposite are not in a fit
condition to legislate any further.
HON. MEMBERS
Share
Withdraw.
Mr. LANSBURY
Share
You are too sleepy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
(Captain Fitzroy)
Share
I do not think the hon. Member meant to use the word in a derogatory sense.
Mr. SHINWELL
Share
I was not referring to the mental fitness, but to the physical fitness of hon. Members opposite. I can understand how my quite
innocent observation regarding the vitality of hon. Members has been misunderstood. Some Members on this side expressed doubt as
to the fitness of hon. Members on other occasions. I do not share that view. I wish to submit that there are cogent reasons for
accepting the proposal made by this side. There has been a paucity of information and I do suggest that this question should be
deferred to a more suitable occasion. If the Government is not inclined to do that, then I submit that the only reason that weighs with
them is that they are afraid that, on a more suitable occasion, they will not be able to impress their views on the House. They may
wish to take advantage of the early hour to press this proposal, well knowing that on another occasion they may not be successful.
As a new Member, I did not anticipate that the hon. Members opposite and the occupants of the Treasury Bench would try to press
through such important proposals as these. We expected that proper methods might be adopted for important matters of this kind.
We are rather disappointed. I am quite sure that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench have no desire to disappoint the
expectations of the new and inexperienced Members on this side, and I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to the
quite harmless proposal which has been made.
Mr LYLE-SAMUEL
Share
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a little more explicit as to the occasion on which we shall have an opportunity of
discussing this question, whether he can give an assurance that this very serious matter of a loan to Austria shall be taken in the
working hours of the day. It seems to me that the amount is so large that that is a reason which we should have from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer the fullest information. We have had the minimum of information. We are told that this is part of a general scheme
outlined by the League of Nations, but the Prime Minister said during the Election that we cannot be the policeman of the world.
Surely also he implied, by his reference to economy, that we cannot be the bankers of the world. Here we are asked, as one of the first
things, to be parties to a scheme which we are told is inspired by a decision of the League of Nations, but a scheme inspired at this
stage of world events by a League of Nations with America left out. How can we hope to assist in the financial rehabilitation of the
world with America left out? We have to pay a hundred million dollars to America and they ask us now to find another six million
pounds. The League of Nations, which was born in the brain of the President of the United States, are asking us to enter this scheme
with America left out. It is a preposterous position that, at half-past one o'clock in the morning, we are asked to approve of this
Resolution of nearly seven million pounds. America is in no sense involved in the general guarantee, the whole scheme is hotch-
potched and nothing is thought out. All the taxpayer knows is that we are to pay America a hundred million dollars and that we have
not a penny ourselves. There is no man to-day who cannot speak with very great earnestness upon the serious way in which we, the
so-called victors of the Great War, have been steadily, by the incompetence and unwillingness of the Government to see the situation
whole, deprived, not of any financial gain, because we do not wish that, but deprived of what is due to use, and at this hour we are
asked to finance a further scheme of over six million pounds. I join in the protest which has been made, and I ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to tell the Committee before we leave when we shall have not only an opportunity but a full opportunity within the
working hours of the day to discuss this matter?
Mr. BARNES
Share
I should like to support the protest that has been made against the proceedings to-night, especially the statement of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer that we shall pass through the same proceedings to-morrow night, namely, that we shall not enter upon the further
consideration of these proposals until half-past eleven. Therefore, instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement being a
proposal that would satisfy the Members on these benches, it is adding insult to injury. In these proposals, thirty-two million pounds
of the taxpayers' money of this country is being used for the purpose of providing the necessary money for the Trade Facilities Act and
for the Loan to the Austrian Government. I consider that this thirty-two and a-half million pounds that the Committee is being asked
to sanction is simply a pretence to cover up what one may legitimately argue is the past blundering of the Government. The seven
and a half million we are asked now to provide in the form of a Loan is the outcome of the lack of foresight with which the Austrian
situation was in the first instance considered. As far as the twenty-five millions proposed under the Trade Facilities Act is concerned,
the object is to provide, I take it, more work for the unemployed in this country—more work in what we might call home industries.
Members on these benches are not disposed to oppose that because we feel that, even if we do not agree in principle with this
bolstering up of private enterprise out of public funds, we are anxious to provide employment.
Mr. REMER
Share
On a point of Order. I would ask if this is in order or not?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Share
I think the hon. Gentleman is quite in order.
Mr. BARNES
Share
The Committee is asked under exceptional conditions, which I consider do not lend themselves to business efficiency, to consider this
matter. Hon. Members on the opposite benches claim to have a specific knowledge and responsibility for the conduct of the business
affairs of this country, and I ask any one of them whether in their own business interests, in their own commercial affairs, they would
deal with millions as this House is attempting to do to-night? No business in this country could conduct its affairs, dealing with vast
sums of this description, as the House of Commons is endeavouring to discuss thirty-two million pounds of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to point; out that it is not a question of thirty-two millions of the taxpayers'
money. The only thing in this Resolution is a guarantee of £25,000,000.
Mr. BARNES
Share
I cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking this House to guarantee a sum of twenty-five million pounds unless there
was a possibility at least of that twenty-five million pounds being called for. I submit that no business in this country would accept a
contingent liability of twenty-five million pounds under the conditions in which we are considering the question to-night.
The point I want to develop is that we are asked to provide twenty-five million pounds—for what? Ostensibly to provide work for the
unemployed, but actually to put the capital of certain business interests in this country in an exceptionally favourable position. I have
been waiting for two or three hours for the purpose of discussing these proposals, and I find the time of the Committee has been
wasted. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay here all night provided you can put one individual in work, but as far as the
proceedings from half-past eleven till twenty minutes to two is concerned, we have wasted our own time and therefore I rise from the
point of view of endeavouring to discuss these questions. If I am out of order I will give way, but with this contention, that the
Government should not have asked the Committee to consider under these conditions a contingent liability of £25,000,000, and a
direct loan to Austria of £7,000,000. I hope the Government will consider before next Session how far they can establish some more
efficient Committee machinery which will enable Members to give detailed consideration to proposals of this sort before they reach
the House of Commons.
Mr. PRINGLE
Share

I do not propose to enter into the merits of the question; I only wish to put forward a few substantial reasons why the Government
should accept this Motion to report Progress. I do not think that any Member would object to the ordinary routine Money Resolution
being taken after eleven o'clock, but on this occasion we are dealing with what is a great deal more than a simple Money Resolution.
It is, indeed, the foundation of a very considerable Bill, including a large question of policy. In the course of the discussion which we
have had since 11.30 there has only been one section of this Resolution that has been at all fairly discussed, and even on that
important question, the guarantee to Austria, the discussion has been confined to a few back bench Members. For example, the
Leader of the Opposition has not been able to make the important contribution to the Debate which undoubtedly he would have
made.
Mr. HOGGE
Share
Where is he?
Mr. PRINGLE
Share
He is sitting next to you. The real opposition has come from this corner. In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a very
inadequate account of the proposals in opening the Debate, and though Amendments have been indicated there has been no
inclination on his part to reply to the general discussion. There are many important points which I should have liked to have raised,
but as I had only really one business point in relation to unemployment, I confined myself to that. As there are many other questions
involved, I think the Government ought to agree to report Progress. I am quite sure that many hon. Gentlemen opposite would have
given very different attention to the proposal which I made if it had been made earlier, when a report could have appeared in the
newspapers, and when the importance of the position could have been appreciated by their constituents. They will have reason to
regret their vote to-night. I know many constituencies where votes will be seriously affected by the votes which hon. Members have
given in the small hours of the morning. I hold that it is not fair that hon. Members opposite should commit themselves simply out of
loyalty to the Government at a time when they are not able to reflect and I am interposing now simply in the interests of the
supporters of the Government. It is true that they are fresh from an election, and that another election is a long way off.
Division No. 14.] AYES. [1.50 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Cobb, Sir Cyril
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Brass, Captain W. Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Brassey, Sir Leonard Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Davidson, J C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Bruford, R. Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Bruton, Sir James Dawson, Sir Philip
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Dixon, c. H. (Rutland)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Burney. Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Edmondson, Major A. J.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Butt, Sir Alfred Ednam, Viscount
Cell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes) Cadogan, Major Edward Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Elveden, Viscount

Berry, Sir George Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Betterton, Henry B. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Churchman, Sir Arthur Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Blundell, F. N. Clayton, G. C. Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
The loyalty of the hon. Gentlemen will be unimpaired for a considerable time.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I do not quite see the relevance of the loyalty of hon. Members to the proposal to report Progress.
Mr. PRINGLE
Share
My point was that in the small hours of the morning hon. Gentlemen opposite are more inclined to give their votes simply on the
ground of loyalty to the Government, rather than on a consideration of the merits. There has been a progressive tendency in this
House to minimise the importance of these financial resolutions. It is one of the oldest forms of the House and gives significance and
importance to the Commons control of finance, that when an appeal is made for the expenditure of public money that appeal must
originate in Committee of this House, and that there should be freedom of discussion. Consequently, it is prejudicial to those
conditions, and to the control of the Commons over finance, that we should be discussing important matters of this kind at this time.
In view of the fact that finance held such an important place in the last Election this is surely a strange way to treat pledges of
economy on the occasion of the first financial proposal brought forward by the Government. The primary stage is being taken in the
small hours of the morning when the interests of the taxpayer cannot be adequately safeguarded.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
Falcon, Captain Michael Lamb, J. Q. Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Ford, Patrick Johnston Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Forestier-Walker, L. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Russell, William (Bolton)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Ganzoni, Sir John Lorimer, H. D. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Gates, Percy Lougher, L, Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Goff, Sir R. Park Lumley, L. R. Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Sandon, Lord
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Shakespeare, G. H.
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Margesson, H. D. R. Shepperson, E. W.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Singleton, J. E.
Grigg, Sir Edward Mercer, Colonel H. Skelton, A. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by) Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Halstead, Major D. Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Stanley, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nall, Major Joseph Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harrison, F. C. Nesbitt, J. C. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Harvey, Major S. E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sutcliffe, T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Titchfield, Marquess of
Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Paget, T. G. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hewett, Sir J. P. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Tubbs, S. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Penny, Frederick George Wallace, Captain E.
Hiley, Sir Ernest Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Peto, Basil E. Wells, S. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Philipson, H. H. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Mood, Sir Joseph Pielou, D. P. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Hopkins, John W. W. Price, E. G. Whitla, Sir William
Houfton, John Plowright Privett, F. J. Windsor, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Raine, W. Winterton, Earl
Hudson, Capt. A. Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Wise, Frederick
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.) Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Wolmer, Viscount
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Remer, J. R. Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Reynolds, W. G. W. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Jarrett, G. W. S. Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.) Lieut.-Col. Gibbs and Major
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Barnston.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas Roundell, Colonel H. F.

NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hill, A. Ritson, J.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hinds, John Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Batey, Joseph Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hogge, James Myles Saklatvala, S.
Bonwick, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Salter, Dr. A.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. John, William (Rhondda, West) Shinwell, Emanuel
Buckle, J. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Burgess, S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Simpson, J. Hope
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Jowett, F. w. (Bradford, East) Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Cape, Thomas Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Chapple, W. A. Kirkwood, D, Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Stephen, Campbell
Collison, Levi Lansbury, George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Darbishire, C. W. Lawson, John James Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Leach, W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lyle-Samuel, Alexander Tout, W. J.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Trevelyan, C. P.
Dunnico, H. M'Entee, V. L. Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Warne, G. H.
Fairbairn, R, R. Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Foot, Isaac Mosley, Oswald Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Muir, John W. Westwood, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murnin, H. Wheatley, J.
Grundy, T. W. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Newbold, J. T. W. Whiteley, W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Nichol, Robert Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hancock, John George Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Harris, Percy A. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hartshorn, Vernon Phillipps, Vivian Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hastings, Patrick Pringle, W. M. R.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Herriotis, J. Riley, Ben Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.
Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Adamson, w. M. (staff., Cannock) Hinds, John Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Barnes, A. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwall)
Batey, Joseph Hogge, James Myles Saklatvala, S.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Salter, Dr. A.
Bonwick, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Shinwell, Emanuel
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Buckle, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Burgess, S. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Simpson, J. Hope
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Sinclair, Sir A.
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, D. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Colilson, evl Lansbury, George Stephen, Campbell
Darbishire, C. W. Lawson, John James Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Leach, W. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lyle-Samuel, Alexander Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Tout, W. J.
Dunnico, H. M'Entee, V. L. Trevelyan, C. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Entwistle, Major C. F. Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Fairbairn, R. R. Maxton, James Warne, G. H.
Foot, Isaac Mosley, Oswald Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Muir, John W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Murnin, H. Westwood, J.
Grundy, T. W. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Wheatley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Newbold, J. T. W. White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Nichol, Robert Whiteley, W.
Hancock, John George Paling, W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Harris, Percy A. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hartshorn, Vernon Phillipps, Vivian Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hastings, Patrick Pringle, W. M. R. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Herriotts, J. Riley, Ben TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hill, A. Ritson, J. Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Davidson, J.C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) Hewett, Sir J. P.
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Hiley, Sir Ernest
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Dawson, Sir Philip Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Edmondson, Major A. J Hood, Sir Joseph
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Ednam, Viscount Hopkins, John W. W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Houfton, John Plowright
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Elveden, viscount Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Hudson, Capt. A.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Berry, Sir George Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Betterton, Henry B. Falcon, Captain Michael Jarrett, G. W. S.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Ford, Patrick Johnston Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Blundell, F. N. Forestier-Walker, L. Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Brass, Captain W. Ganzoni, Sir John Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Brassey, Sir Leonard Gates, Percy King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Lamb, J. Q.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Goff, Sir R. Park Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Bruford, R. Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Bruton, Sir James Greenwood, William (Stockport) Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Lorimer, H. D.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Grigg, Sir Edward Lougher, L.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Butt, Sir Alfred Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by) Lumley, L. R.
Cadogan, Major Edward Halstead, Major D. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Harrison, F. C. Margesson, H. D. R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur Harvey, Major S. E. Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Clayton, G. C. Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Mercer, Colonel H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henn, Sir Sydney H. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Sutcliffe, T.
Nall, Major Joseph Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Nesbitt, J. C. Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Roundell, Colonel R. F. Titchfield, Marquess of
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Tubbs, S. W.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Russell, William (Bolton) Wallace, Captain E.
Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Paget, T. G. Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Parker, Owen (Kettering) Samuel, A. HI. (Surrey, Farnham) Wells, S. R.
Penny, Frederick George Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Whitla, Sir William
Peto, Basil E. Sandon, Lord Windsor, Viscount
Philipson, H. H. Shakespeare, G. H. Winterton, Earl
Pielou, D. P. Shepperson, E. W. Wise, Frederick
Price, E. G. Singleton, J. E. Wolmer, Viscount
Privett, F. J. Skelton, A. N. Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Raine, W. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Remer, J. R. Stanley, Lord TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Reynolds, W. G. W. Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Lieut.-Col. Gibbs and Major
Rhodes, Lieut. Col. J. P. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Barnston.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Original Question again proposed.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I select the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I only select it on the
understanding that, in order to get a separate issue on this particular question, he makes a brief statement. The matter has been
dismissed and I cannot allow further discussion.
Share
I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
I move this Amendment in order to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the
Foreign Office, to answer certain specific points. Before we give credit to Austria we are entitled to ask for certain assurances,
because this loan is not the first, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Colonel L. Ward) has pointed out,
and unless there is a change of policy on the part of the Government it will not be the last. This loan is only a sticking plaster to cover
the ulcer. These are the questions I wish to put. What is His Majesty's Government's attitude towards the question of some means of
inducing the Secession States to lower their tariff barriers? This matter was discussed at Genoa. The President of the Board of Trade
gave expression to very admirable sentiments, but are we pressing this general policy of no more tariff walls with our associated
Allies of Europe to-day? It is of vital importance, and there is no use our lending money—we will for the moment meet the emergency
— unless there is some policy to induce these countries to refrain from further tariff walls. I notice the Government make very
strenuous efforts in reference to dynasties in a certain Balkan country. They can then move quickly and energetically. Are we going to
veto for ever any attempt by Austria to join with the German Reich as one of her means of escape? We should have some
authoritative statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Office representative. Thirdly, are we barring, or taking
steps to promote, the great project of a Danube Confederation, which would give hope and life to Austria? Before we vote this sum of
money we are entitled to some expression of opinion on this question of higher policy which will affect the future credit of Austria and
save us from giving further assistance.
Colonel L. WARD
Share
I rise to say a few words in support of the Amendment. It is 18 months since I found myself in the same Lobby with the Mover of it, but
I agree with him in this case. I should like to have some assurance as to what steps the Austrian Government intend to take with
regard to the reduction of the number of its State officials, and the question of what steps they mean to take to make their railways
pay their way. I also wish to ascertain the Government's view with regard to a possible union, I do not say of Austria with the German
Reich, but with a portion of Austria, The difficulty has always been the junction with Bavaria. That would place Austria in the position
of being a self-supporting entity, which could feed and support itself and would act as a bar to the overweening ambition of Prussia.
Mr. C. ROBERTS
Share
I think it is a matter of regret that there should he any opposition to this loan. The only criticism that should be made is that it has
come far too late. It has been for a long time asked for by Austria. A year ago, at the Assembly of the League of Nations, the Austrian
Government put forward its claim and stated its case for a loan of this kind. They said the loan was absolutely indispensable to save
it from a general debacle. I understand, according to your ruling, Mr. Hope, that we must not discuss it at any great length, but
whatever one may say about the past, whatever one may think of the wisdom of what is proposed now, if the House of Commons—I
am sure they are not going to do it—were to refuse this loan, there would be a financial and economic catastrophe from which this
alone can save us. I do not want to argue the matter further, but I would like to say that a scheme which has been propounded by the
League of Nations, which has been worked out in detail by the responsible statesmen of that body, comes with a force and appeal to
this Committee which I do not think we can resist. Objection has been made from another quarter that the conditions which have
been laid down are too stringent and too strict.
I think this loan is necessary, but the sole condition on which the money can be found is that Austria sets her house in order and
provides the necessary guarantees. When you have a State demoralised, overrun by State officials, with her State industries run at
immense loss, with its exchange hopelessly collapsed, then under these circumstances, if we can be assured that within two years,
as a result of this loan, there is a reasonable chance of putting this State once more upon its feet and preventing an economic
collapse which would not merely affect that State but would affect other surrounding and neighbouring States and the whole of
Europe, then it seems to me that it would be an act of levity and of want of consideration to refuse this loan.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
A number of questions have been asked on the subject of the Austrian loan, and I think this may be a fitting opportunity for me to
reply to them. The first criticism on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) was a complaint
that this was a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is not a waste of the taxpayers' money, because it is only a guarantee of a market
loan. If the loan is not subscribed, there will be no guarantee. He spoke as if this country was compelling the taxpayers to subscribe
to the loan. Nothing of the kind. That is not the case, either in this country or in any of the other guaranteeing countries. This is an
ordinary market loan, and the guarantee is of the principal and interest by the guaranteeing countries in the terms stated in the
White Paper.
Colonel L. WARD
Share
It is the taxpayer who guarantees. He will be compelled to pay if this loan is subscribed privately and if Austria is unable to pay.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
If there is default the guaranteeing countries are responsible, but I am trying to show in my few introductory remarks that the security
is fairly good, and I have one or two things to say that I think will give pleasure to the Committee. The hon. Member for Accrington
(Mr. C. Buxton) spoke with knowledge, as he always does, on the subject of Austria and contiguous countries and he alluded to the
terrible terms inflicted on that country by the League of Nations. Of course the terms are stringent. The terms in a case like this must
be stringent, but, after all, the Austrian Parliament itself has now accepted them fully. They have passed certain necessary laws
already to give effect to what has been proposed. They have approved of control and of the Controller, and they have given an
undertaking to dismiss the army of those officials of whom we have heard to-night, and I have every reason to believe that the efforts
they are making are genuine efforts which will be sustained; but I should like the Committee to bear in mind that the Controller, after
all, is the responsible person, and he will only sanction the issues and advances from the loan so long as he is satisfied that the
Austrian Government is fulfilling its part of the contract and carrying out the necessary measures as they go on for the balancing of
the Budget, and the reduction of the expenditure necessary to attain that end. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hull
(Colonel L. Ward) asked about the money we had already advanced to Austria. I am afraid the chance of seeing a good deal of that
money again is remote, but probably, if money had not been spent as it was spent, in trying to save Austria, the effort which we are
now making with greater hope to save her would have been absolutely impossible. The money we hope will be repaid out of this loan
is £2,250,000, which was the last amount issued to that country.
There were three specific points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
He said he would like to see the removal of the tariff walls in that part of Europe. No one would like to see that better than I. I have
repeatedly stated in various speeches I have made, both inside this House and outside, that one of the greatest difficulties we have
to face at the present day in restoring our trade with Europe is that perverse spirit of nationality which has insisted on erecting
barriers and higher barriers than ever before round their frontiers. Whatever we can do to remove them, the Committee may rest
assured we will do. But, after all, tariffs are a matter of internal politics, and I must say that the economic history of this country does
not afford one very much hope that any endeavours we may make will be successful.
The other points that the hon. and gallant Member raised were points of great interest, but they do not, in my opinion, touch on this
Financial Resolution or on the Bill. The Bill to be founded on this Financial Resolution is to guarantee a loan to Austria, as that term is
at present understood and understood by the League of Nations, and the security to be put up by that country is a security which the
League of Nations, which organised the terms, thought sufficient to meet the claims that would be made by the loan for interest. I
think I have dealt with all the points, and I hope that, so far as Austria is concerned, the Committee may be pleased to sanction this
stage to-night.
Mr. WALLHEAD
Share
It is not my intention to rise for the purpose of opposing the Austrian loan, which I regard as a tardy recognition of the claims of
humanity. I have been rather surprised at some of the criticisms offered to this loan, because when one considers the condition of
Austria at the present moment one has to remember that that condition is largely due to the policy pursued by ourselves and our
Allies at the partition of the Austrian Empire. I do not know how many Members have been in Austria. I was there two years ago.
Colonel L. WARD
Share
I was there three months ago.
Mr. WALLHEAD
Share
I am making no charge against the hon. and gallant Member or anybody else, but when I was there I saw sights that I hope never to
see again. I went to some of the schools set up in Vienna for the purpose of looking after the children who had been crippled badly as
the result of malnutrition that had resulted from the operations of the War, and was contributed to after the War by the policy
pursued by ourselves and our Allies. I saw children from six to seven years of age who were no bigger than children of three years of
age here. I saw them walking with the posture of little apes rather than humans, because of the fact that their hips had been
smashed because they were unable to carry the weight of the bodies. But the point I wish to make is that, at the very moment when
the Austrian Government were making strenuous efforts to deal with the horrible effects of the War, when milk was at a premium,
when we were allowing Hungary to strip Austria of milch cows, there was only an allowance for children of one-fourth of a pint of milk
every two days. That was the position with which the Austrian people had to grapple.
Reference has been made to the number of officials in Vienna. What had we done in Austria and Vienna? We had brought Austria
down until she was a small province with some 6,000,000 of a population. Vienna, the capital, is a city that has been built and
developed for a population of 3,000,000 people. In Vienna there is a very large official population. It was the centre of the economic
life of the Austrian Empire. It was the centre of the financial system and had a large number of people gathered together who, from
the point of view of agriculture, were of no use, and from the point of view of their work in their official capacities they had no work to
do. I discussed the matter with prominent members of the Austrian Government, and I said: "Why have you so many officials?" They
said: "What can we do; these people have no trade; they have no occupation." I know there are large sections of the Viennese people
who do not like the terms upon which this loan is being granted. They have agreed because of force majeure. They have been driven
to it by sheer necessity. It is not wise, therefore, to make a boast of the terms having been accepted. They are accepted almost at the
point of the bayonet.
I would like to know the terms on which the loan is to be issued. Under Article 1, I am told that the capital and interest of the
securities shall be free from all taxes, dues or charges for the benefit of the Austrian State. The gentlemen who lend their money are
to be free of Austrian taxes and charges. They are going out of the country with all the plunder intact. That does not seem to me to be
fair. I do not believe in absentee landlordism or absentee capitalism. Then there is another thing. The expense of the issue will, I
suppose, carry the same rate of interest also free of tax and free of charge. And then you laugh at the charge made by the hon.
Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold).
Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE

Share
All the French loans are free of tax.
Mr. WALLHEAD
Share
Then the terms say:
“"The British and French Governments, which are entitled by the terms of their contracts to complete reimbursement of the amount
of their advances out of the proceeds of the first loan, accept a scale of progressive repayment, charging the larger part of the
repayment on the later instalments of the loan."”
So we are lending them one lot of money in order that they may repay the former lot of money. It is the old game we have played in
Egypt for the benefit of the Rothschilds before. You are putting Austria in pawn in the same way as you put Egypt in pawn, and in the
interests of the same kind of people. I protest against the terms, though I recognise that the loan is essential to Austria. It is just
about time we should back up the plea made by the Chancellor a moment ago. I wish he would take it a little more to heart. He
protested against the growth of acute nationalism in Central Europe. After all, whom are we trying to punish? The people in Austria
as far as the late War was? concerned were absolved from real blame, and as far as responsibility was concerned, the real blame
was charged against the Hapsburg Dynasty, and not against the Austrian people. They were no more responsible than we were. My
opinion is that the people responsible for the War have been punished by exile, by losing their honours and privileges, and it was an
act of grace, of common justice, common mercy and common humanity that as far as we could we should give such terms to the
Austrian people as would help to redeem them from the pit of misery in which they find themselves. By doing that we shall place upon
ourselves a crown of honour and glory which would last for generations to come.
Mr. JOHNSTONE
Share
As a new Member, I am surprised at the absolute lack of information supplied by the Treasury Bench regarding the investments of 3½
millions in the Sudan. I understand, if I am in order, that I may discuss any part of this Resolution.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
No, I am afraid not.
Mr. JOHNSTONE
Share
Only Austria.
Mr. SHINWELL
Share
I am one of those who refuse to join the chorus of praise to the Government for this Bill which provides money for a loan to Austria. It
is not, in my judgment, an act of humanity to the people of Austria or to the Austrian Government. It is a coldblooded commercial
transaction such as one might expect to get from hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. D. HERBERT
Share
It is from the League of Nations.
Mr. SHINWELL
Share
That was an unintelligent interruption, and I think it must be obvious even to such intelligence as that of hon. Members on the other
side, because we have been told the League of Nations has nothing to do with this at all. It is precisely the state to which hon.
Members have got. They will believe anything. I want to submit that this alleged loan to Austria is going to bind the shackles more
firmly on the Austrian people than before. If the people of this country applied the same principles as those for which they fought the
War, the rights of small nations, the people of Austria would now be obtaining justice from this country and the Allies, and would not
be dependent on the charity that is offered to it. It is simply a commercial transaction, and the Austrian people have very little to
gain from such a transaction. I would submit there has been very little information which we are entitled to get, even at this hour of
the morning, which would enable us to judge as to the disirability of a loan of this kind and its advantage to the Austrian people. The
imperturbability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is most alarming on occasions, but I can assure him that even that
imperturbability will be disturbed if Members at this stage do not obtain the information to which they are justly entitled. I repeat
that we have nothing to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury Bench for, and that the Austrian people will find themselves
in precisely the same position. I should like to say one word in conclusion with regard to the statement that has been made with
reference to the desirability of reducing the official staffs of the Austrian Government. If such action were taken in response to any
inducement which the Government of this; country may offer, or any pressure this Government may bring to bear on the Austrian
Government, it would only
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Dawson, Sir Philip Hood, Sir Joseph
Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Hopkins, John W. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Houfton, John Plowright
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Edmondson, Major A. J. Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Ednam, Viscount Hudson, Capt. A.
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Baird, At. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Elveden, viscount Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Jarrett, G. W. S.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Falcon, Captain Michael Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Berry, Sir George Ford, Patrick Johnston Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Betterton, Henry B. Forestier-Walker, L. Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Blundell, f. N. Ganzoni, Sir John Lamb, J. Q.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R
Brass, Captain W. Goff, Sir R. Park Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Lorimer, H. D.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Greenwood, William (Stockport) Lougher, L.

Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Bruford, R, Grigg, Sir Edward Lumley, L. R.
Bruton, Sir James Hacking, Captain Douglas H. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by) Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Halstead, Major D. Margesson, H. D. R.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Butt, Sir Alfred Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mercer, Colonel H.
Cadogan, Major Edward Harrison, F. C. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Harvey, Major S. E. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Churchman, Sir Arthur Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Nall, Major Joseph
Clayton, G. C. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Nesbitt, J. C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hewett, Sir J. P. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Hiley, Sir Ernest Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Kernel Hempstead) Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Paget, T. G.
have the effect of weakening the economic position of the Austrian Government. You will dispossess certain officials in the Austrian
Government and throw them out of their present occupation, compelling them to subsist upon the charity of the Austrian
Government or their own friends. It seems to me an absurd condition of this loan that the Austrian Government should reduce the
number of its officials. I suggest that the Treasury Bench might take this matter up and reduce the number of unnecessary officials
nearer home before they attempt to impose such conditions upon the people of Austria. We have received practically no information
at all. We are entitled to information, and if we do not receive it now we shall raise the subject perhaps to-morrow or before this Bill
has proceeded through all its stages.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Parker, Owen (Kettering) Russell, William (Bolton) Titchfield, Marquess of
Penny, Frederick George Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Peicy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) Tubbs, S. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wallace, Captain E.
Peto, Basil E. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull>

Philipson, H. H. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Pielou, D. P. Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Wells, S. R.
Price, E. G. Sandon, Lord Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Privett, F. J. Shepperson, E. W. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Raine, W. Singleton, J. E. Whitla, Sir William
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Skelton, A. N. Windsor, Viscount
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Winterton, Earl
Remer, J. R. Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) Wise, Frederick
Reynolds, W. G. W. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. Wolmer, Viscount
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. Stanley, Lord Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Sutcliffe, T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Roundell, Colonel R. F. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Thomson, Luke (Sunderland) Barnston.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff,, Cannock) Hinds, John Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Barnes, A. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Saklatvala, S.
Batey, Joseph Hogge, James Myles Salter, Dr. A.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shinwell, Emanuel
Bonwick, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Buckle, J. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Simpson, J. Hope
Burgess, S. Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Sinclair, Sir A.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Kirkwood, D. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, George Spencer, H, H. (Bradford, S.)
Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell
Colilson, Levi Lunn, William Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Darbishire, C. W. Lyle-Samuel, Alexander Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Tout, W. J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) M'Entee, V. L. Trevelyan, C. P.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. March, S. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dunnico, H. Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maxton, James Warne, G. H.
Entwistle, Major C. F. Muir, John W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Murnin, H. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fairbairn, R. R. Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Westwood, J.
Foot, Isaac Newbold, J. T. W. Wheatley, J.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Nichol, Robert White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Whiteley, W.
Grundy, T. W. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Phillipps, Vivian Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pringle, W. M. R. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hartshorn, Vernon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hastings, Patrick Riley, Ben
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Herriotts, J. Roberts, C. H. (Derby) Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan Jones.
Hill, A.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.
Share
I beg to move to leave out paragraph (c).
The previous discussions were on Amendments which I do not think aroused great hostility on this side of the Committee, but I now
come to an Amendment which raises issues of the first importance and on which I feel very deeply indeed. Paragraph (c) deals with
the guaranteeing of the principal and interest of any loan raised, to the amount of 3½ million pounds, for erecting a barrage to the
irrigation works at Gezireh. No doubt this scheme may be said to be very necessary in order to supply long-staple cotton, but the
Sudan is not the only country which has long-staple cotton. We have East Africa, which is much more settled than the Sudan and
much less liable to be troubled. The Sudan is a country which is not a safe field for British investment. I would not put any of my
money there, and I would not advise anyone else to put theirs. Egypt to-day is a smouldering volcano. I do not want to go into details
to-day of the treatment of the inhabitants of that country by the present Egyptian Government. The regime of martial law, which I am
sorry to see is supported by British bayonets, is bound, sooner or later, to lead to trouble in that country. In these circumstances I
regard it as very foolish to guarantee loans in that country. It is perfectly true that we have an outlet from the Sudan into the Indian
Ocean. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Red Sea!"] After all, the Red Sea is only an arm of the Indian Ocean. I suppose it would be possible to
secure our hold on the Sudan even with a hostile Egypt. That is one reason why this proposal is put forward at an inopportune
moment. I repeat, it is not only to the Sudan we can look for supplies of cotton. I could suggest one vast cotton-growing area that
has hardly been touched and which could be easily made available at no expenditure whatsoever, namely, the cotton-growing area
of Turkestan and Bokhara. Very good cotton is grown there, and it can be developed there for the use of our textile industries without
any guaranteed loans and without a penny piece being spent. Therefore, I think that the plea that unless we get the cotton crop in
the Sudan we will have a shortage of cotton is not a valid plea, and it is not fair to ask the British taxpayer to guarantee this large

sum of money. Further, I cannot see that there is much employment coming to the people of this country from this scheme. I do not
suppose a barrage needs very much machinery. I suppose a great number of pumps and so forth will be required, but the
employment supplied in this country will not be at all comparable with the amount of money we are to guarantee. It may and will
provide a great deal of employment for people of the Sudan, but at the present moment one of the grievances that is felt up and
down this country is that our Government has been extremely slow and lax in providing useful work for our own unemployed. I am
going to voice a very-real grievance that I feel in this respect. To-day I had a question on the Paper with regard to a very well-known
scheme of land reclamation in the Humber. I mention this not because it is more important than other schemes, but because I know
the details of it better. This is a proposal to run a sea-wall.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
The Humber is not a tributary of the Nile.
Share
On a point of Order. Would I not be entitled to point out that this money could be better spent by guaranteeing loans for works in our
own country?
The CHAIRMAN
Share
No.
Share
Then I will not pursue the Humber scheme any further. But I do say, speaking generally, that if there are any guarantees to be given
for great construction schemes of this sort, there are many openings for them in our own country, and it is not right, while we have
vast numbers of unemployed workmen in this country, to guarantee schemes in the Sudan, or anywhere else outside the confines of
these islands. (Jet our own people to work at once, and then perhaps we can proceed with schemes of this sort, and I repeat that
little employment will be provided to the people of this country for many years coming from this barrage plan on the Blue Nile or the
White Nile, or wherever it is. I do not go into details, nor is it necessary.
I propose to divide, if I can get a Teller, and I hope the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) will support me and speak in
support of me. I therefore propose my Amendment.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS

(Mr. Ronald McNeill)
Share
I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not take it in any offensive spirit if I say that he has made a typical "three in the morning"
speech.
Share
Whose fault is it that the speech is made at three in the morning?
3.0 p.m.
Mr. McNEILL

Share
But there are two kinds of three-in-the-morning speeches. We on this side of the Committee are quite prepared to carry this on till
any hour in a good-natured spirit, but that is for the Committee to decide. I do not quite know, after listening to the speech of the
hon. and gallant Gentleman, how far the Committee would like me to go into the whole question. I do not believe that at this stage
there is any desire to go into it at any great length. The hon. Member says it is an inopportune moment to raise the question of this
loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing the Resolution, mentioned the importance of this part of the Resolution and of
the Bill to the interests of Lancashire, and I think he, mentioned that only last July a very important deputation on this very point
went to the Foreign Office. The deputation was introduced to the, Secretary of State by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and one of the spokesmen who put the case strongly, as representing Lancashire, was the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). Consequently, the opposite side of the House, through recognised leaders, have intimated that
they are extremely interested in this particular Measure, and it was in answer to the very strong representations made on behalf of a
great many intereste in Lancashire—I am quite sure by the organisations representing both employers and employed in the textile
trade—that a promise was made that this Rill would be introduced at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, when we are told by
the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has a rival scheme for the Humber, that this is an inopportune moment, I think that the
deputation that I have mentioned is relevant at all events to that consideration. I really do not know beyond that, and beyond what
my right hon. Friend said in introducing the Resolution, what it is necessary for me to say.
The fact is that this is a continuation of work that has been going on for a good many years. The scheme for the development of this
part of the Sudan originated, I believe, as long ago as 1900 or 1910. There were Loan Acts passed before the War in 1913 and 1914. The
War came before any great amount of work had been done. For various reasons it was thought not desirable to break off altogether
during the War, and a certain amount of work continued. After the War it was found, as in so many other works, that everything had
gone up, and the scale upon which the scheme had been undertaken in 1913 and 1914 was no longer applicable from a financial point
of view, and a new Measure was brought before this House. Estimates were got out, and in 1919 a Bill was passed. Unfortunately,
even that estimate proved insufficient for the necessary work. In 1921 it was found that the scheme could not be carried out for the
money, and new estimates were prepared. An expert was sent out representing the Treasury, and tenders were invited. The lowest
tender was accepted, and now there is the necessity of coming to this House for sanction to give a guarantee to the Government of
the Sudan for the money necessary to carry out the work upon the new basis. If the Committee desired it—I think it would be more
proper on the Second Reading of the Bill—I could show the principles upon which the economies of the scheme rest; the amount of
cotton that it is expected to grow, and the estimated price, and also that, in the opinion of those who have gone fully into the matter,
even at the very much increased cost the scheme ought to pay.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN
Share
What is the acreage?
Mr. McNEILL
Share
The present acreage is 300,000, but the country which will be open to irrigation is ten times that, and it is important to bear in mind
that the greater part of the present scheme, the plant, etc., will be sufficient for the whole of a very much larger scheme, so that it
does not mean that this proposal is merely proportionate to the area proposed to be irrigated immediately. The dam which it is
proposed to make, and the main canal which is the most important part of the work, will be of use for a very much larger scheme of
irrigation; it will only have to be supplemented from time to time by minor canalisation. It is important, therefore, for the Committee
to bear in mind that there is a very large area which has been proved by experiment to be capable of bearing very fine cotton which
can be brought into cultivation if the demand for cotton should justify it without a corresponding increase of cost. Under the
circumstances, and seeing that all the great textile interests in Lancashire, who have gone into the matter very carefully, have
pressed urgently for this measure, I think if there is any further information on the subject which the Committee would desire, I should
defer it until the Report stage or the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. JOHNSTONE
Share

We are told there is to be an expenditure of £3,500,000 in addition to unstated and undefined expenses which have already been
incurred. What these total expenditures are we do not know, and the Under-Secretary is very careful indeed not to inform us.
Secondly, he does not inform us of the name of the successful contractors. He told us there were six tenders and that the lowest
tender was accepted but he stopped there. Further, he has not told us, and so far as I know the Committee is not in possession of the
information from any other source, whether the scheme, if it be a success, is to be developed under State or under private enterprise.
If it is to be an expenditure of public money for the purposes of increasing the wealth of particular people who get in the Sudan, and
the scheme is to be financed by the British public for that purpose, it is necessary to have a full and frank statement to that effect
now, but if the scheme is to be the financing of a State cotton-growing enterprise, a form of enterprise we have been told on every
other platform in the recent Election is antagonistic to the fundamental principle for which the present Government stands, I think we
ought to have that fact fully and frankly explained too. If the Sudanese cotton-growing experiment is to be effected under State
management, under State control and for the benefit of the Sudanese Government, we ought to have an explanation of why it is, in
the opinion of His Majesty's Ministers, that a State enterprise could be, in their opinion, successful, and why they are prepared to risk
3½ million pounds upon the State enterprise in the far Sudan, over which they have no means of direct control, when they continually
object to financing similar enterprises in this country on the ground that such enterprise is inimical to the benefit and well-being of
the British people. If this enterprise should be a failure, if there should be money lost, who is to make this good? Is the guarantee or
provision made so that certain favoured cotton interests in this country can get a cheap subsidised supply of cotton at the expense of
the British taxpayer? The Under-Secretary told us that he and the Government were impressed by the unanimity of the varied interests
of a great deputation which went to the Government about a year ago. He said the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was
there. I quite understand him being present; he is a Member for a Lancashire cotton Division. The right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was also present. What particular interest he had in this I do not know, unless he was there acting in the
interest of the great Coats Thread Trust. We are entitled to be told, if it be the case, that the great cotton interests in this country,
whether it be Lancashire cotton or Paisley cotton, are going to have, or have been promised or are in expectation of getting, any
cheap subsidised supply of raw material for their future operations. We have already a trust in Scotland in sewing-cotton. It controls
the market. They may raise or lower the prices of sewing-cotton as they choose. Are we now in this position, that the British taxpayer
is going to subsidise a supply of raw material necessary for the operations of this Trust? I put it to the Under-Secretary that if it is right
and proper that the British public should raise as a State enterprise a raw material for this industry, it is equally right and proper that
they should run as a State enterprise the enormous cotton operating cotton trusts that exists. I think before the Closure is moved
upon the Clause, the Under-Secretary should give us answers to the very pertinent questions asked, and not simply to the questions
which are immaterial.
Mr. SAKLATVALA
Share
I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the dangerous principle underlying the proposals put forward to-night, and I strongly
take the view which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has put to the Committee
regarding this Sudanese scheme. There was a time when there were two parties in the House, both of which were interested in
making loans and monetary grants. One was interested in taking up one group, and the other was interested in taking up another
group. There is now a third party, and it has come to analyse the fundamental principle of these enterprises. We want to know
something more than the people in the past wanted to know. It is very curious. We have sat here to-day a round of the clock and we
have not had one word about the glories of private enterprise. Private enterprise has a wonderful power of abrogating rights. It puts
forward schemes for the benefit of humanity, but ask the unemployed to strive and fight when it is a question of really being
enterprising and adventurous and taking risks. Then private enterprise is gone. From Plymouth to Pimlico there is not a word of
private enterprise. I submit that the plan as put forward by the Government to-day in the shape of a guarantee is a worse burden
upon the taxpayer and, if I may be allowed to say so, a more dishonest burden than if it were one thing or another. [An HON.
MEMBER: "You pay your money and you take your choice."] If it were private enterprise and the private enterprise was asking the
sanction of this House to invest money, and if we were merely feeling angry at them at securing in this House a share of future profits,
that would be one way of getting the profit. If we are placing the burden upon the taxpayer and telling the taxpayer to take the profit,
or lose out of it, that is another thing; but this clever device of a guarantee means that if profit ensues, private enterprise will get it,
and if it is a loss the taxpayer will pay it. We are not so simple. We see through the scheme. It is a very unsound looking scheme of
guaranteeing. It means the profits are mine and the losses are yours.
There is another point in regard to the former part of this Resolution. We were not told if any unconstitutional guarantee was exacted
from the borrower, from the Sudan. We were told that if this House guaranteed 3½ million pounds to begin with, and subsequently
went further into it, this country required 70,000 bales to begin with of long stapled Egyptian cotton. Why, may I ask, do we we feel
so certain that cotton grown in somebody else's country, by the people of Sudan, shall for ever fall into our lap as our own property.

We have not even got a Parliament in Sudan to smother and blackmail, and this is an unconstitutional law just as in the case of
Vienna. We shall be told, perhaps, three years hence in this House to sanction an expedition to Sudan to save our guarantee. That
instrument of blackmail upon any Parliament in the Sudan does not exist. The only weapon that does exist in the hands of the loam
controllers is the British Army and the British Navy, and we shall one day be told that we have pledged our honour, we have granted
the loan, we have promised safety to the investors, and we shall want to sink a few hundred millions to butcher the Sudanese to get
our wretched money. We are engaged in a new departure of human butchery. That is, again, history repeating itself. What right has
this House to take it for granted that the poor Sudanese shall bond their necks and backs and go on growing cotton year after year?
There is one very serious point. In the midst of starvation, hunger, distress, and death, many of the unemployed in this country heard
the hollow talk of sympathy. Where is that sympathy to-night? It is all very well to give us misleading speeches when introducing new
schemes, but we have got before us our past history. Let us know how in the past this country has been misled into the cultivation of
raw material abroad, and how the workers of this country have been cheated out of the little work they had. Take jute. The workers of
this country were always told that by the production of jute in Bengal, and by the British Government possessing it, the work of the
workers in the Dundee works would be guaranteed for ever. At no time have the workers been so cheated by those who have the
militaristic control. They were told that the people of India would never use for their own consumption more than 500,000 bales of
jute. The people of Dundee used to work about five to six times that quantity of jute in the Dundee mills. But in 1921 the Dundee mills
were compelled to do their work on only about 600,000 bales, while the jute mills in Bengal, where the jute grows, worked upon
4,300,0000 bales, or seven times as much as the Dundee workers. The workers in India were overworking, and the workers in Dundee
had to shut up their shop. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not say why not, but when you were talking about jute production in
India, did you tell the workers of Dundee it was to stop their work and start it in India. I am not asking whether yes, or whether no. I
am asking you something more difficult than that. I am asking you to be honest. I am asking you to take the full history of finer cotton
in India. You started the cultivation of finer cotton in India, and what happened? To-day, with the larger quantities of cotton, the
Indian mills not only want to extend their industry, but demand that a prohibitive duty shall be placed upon their goods. You might
again ask, "Why not?" That is not the question we are discussing to-night. Do you, then, tell the workers of Lancashire that one of the
possibilities of growing finer cotton in India would be to curtail their work and increase their unemployment?
I ask you to-day—I am not indulging in larger questions, but taking this matter by itself—I am asking you to-day as men of the
world, why do you not realise that this very cotton, this long-staple cotton growing in the Sudan, will be a temptation to some of you,
which in the past you never had the strength of character to resist, to take Sudanese slave labour and start your spinning milk in the
Sudan? You will do it as you have done it all over the world. You will grow long-staple cotton, and then when you come to grips with
the operatives of Lancashire, you, as you have done in the past, will be the people who will start cotton mills in the Sudan and shut
up Lancashire. That is your history, which you cannot deny. You want to cover it up by talking of guarantees and investments and so
on. I have heard of a gentle scheme where a paper was read by a Government expert sent out by the Manchester University, about a
detailed plan of improving the staple of cotton in India, and one part of it was that the Indian farmer, the ryot, does not count. He is
of no account, and one of the clauses of that scheme is that if the farmer fails to mix his seeds and spoils the profit of some
Lancashire "boss," there shall be imprisonment for him up to six months.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I cannot see the relevancy of this.
Mr. SAKLATVALA
Share
I was just showing the possibilities of what will happen in the Sudan. I am now coming directly to the point. In performing these two
enterprises, you will have to fall back on human beings in the Sudan. You will have to rely upon their labour to grow cotton out of
Nature. You will fall back on your methods of exacting toil out of human beings to suit your profits, and you will then introduce similar
Clauses of imprisonment for the farmers of the Sudan and everything to secure you long-staple cotton. If you succeed you will pocket
the profits. If you fail you will not only throw the burden on the taxpayers, but, out of revenge for your failure, you will lead this
country into another murderous expedition against the Sudanese. That is the history of private enterprise guaranteed by
Governments. The guarantee to the Sudan means the guarantee and nothing else. You will then come to the House, if we permit you,
with long-drawn faces one day and say, "The position is critical, but our High Commissioner is taking the situation in hand and he
wants a few battleships and a few battalions." We know that behind the thin end of this wedge of guarantees lies the same old

miserable seeking of profits, not in an enterprising spirit, but in an unenterprising spirit, so that if you succeed in the gamble the
profit and the money and the glory and everything is yours, and, if you fail, woe and death to those poor fellows in the country you
tried to get, and the taxpayer who has to pay, not only for your loss, but for your expeditions of revenge.
Not only that, but as sure as the sun rises you will in process of time go further into the Sudan and you yourselves will be the bosses
and the owners of the raw material. You will put factories there, you will exploit the labour with the positive design of ill-treating and
degrading labour in this country. [Laughter.] I can see when the smiles are falsely put on. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer answered many questions of triviality, but when he was touching on certain principles he forgot them, or perhaps he
was asked to forget them by his colleagues. The hon. Member for Mother-well (Mr. Newbold) put forward two glaring instances
which, apart from any possible emotion in them, are certainly an underlying principle which generally, in outward life, you seem to
discourage and discountenance, but which, in this very favourite appeal of the Government, you seem not only to encourage and
tolerate, but even to patronise and practice. The Member for Motherwell pointed out that here, in the name of the League of Nations,
a gentleman who is going to be a beneficiary himself recommends a loan, and in the case of the Sudan, in the case of this contract, a
gentleman who, directly and indirectly, is going to be a beneficiary, as a contractor, whether his tender was lowest or highest or
"middlest," that does not matter—one who in principle was to be the beneficiary by a contract is himself the inspirer of the whole
scheme of giving a nice little guarantee. We do not want your money we only want your guarantee! Day after day this slow
degradation goes on. It is the demoralisation of public institutions which has brought down all nations. In the Sudan scheme the
Government ought to have taken precautions that those who are connected with reporting on the scheme, recommending it, or
having anything to do with it, had no connection with the profits. The Government has failed to see to that. Why did the enterprising
private enterprise suddenly collapse in its spirit of enterprise, and make it necessary for us to sit here since Eleven o'clock? Why did
not the Government call on their favourite cry of "private enterprise"? Did the Government make an attempt in the easy style of
Governmental parliamentary attempts of asking their friends what their wishes and desires were in this matter? Were they told by
private enterprise that it saw a great future in it and a great risk, and that it would be clever to shift the risk on to the taxpayer who is
generally a mug. That part requires to be explained by the Government, not only explicitly, but even candidly, and having no regard
to any secrecy between any negotiators and themselves.
This House has a right to know the nature of any consultations, and the persons with whom those consultations were carried on. If no
consultations took place, then the supporters of the Government are bound in duty to tell their constituents, now that the General
Election is over and the votes have been secured, that they forgot to go to the private enterprisers. There must be something in it.
Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so far as I am aware, is either by
education or association a cotton expert. I do not believe that if a bale of Sudanese cotton were placed in the hands of either of
those Gentlemen they would be able to say it was Sudanese cotton, or a piece of wool or anything else. I do not believe either of
them would be able to test the long staple or short staple article. I do not, therefore, believe that the whole scheme originated in
their heads. They told us there was a deputation, but that was last year. They are a new Government, and they tell us that, by some
divine inspiration, not financial investigation, they came to the conclusion that long staple cotton was grown in the Sudan. Never
mind about the methods of growing it, unemployment in Lancashire is going to be less. But the Government cannot make us accept
such a doctrine unless they take us into their confidence and tell us the full psychological evolution.
We have heard of a deputation last year, and we see suddenly in this Session a Bill. We see two different and separate things in front
of us. We have a very incomplete and undigested Bill about fine staple cotton in the Sudan, but without any information or any
explanation. We heard of the deputation, but how the present occupants of office took up suddenly, in the midst of the difficulties of
the Irish Constitution, this question of Sudanese cotton, and what experts they consulted in the matter I hardly know. What promise
did they get from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and from the Plymouth private enterprises as to how much money they were
prepared to put in. There are schemes put forward by the public, by private companies and corporations, and these private
companies and corporations came to Parliament to ask for sanction, they apply for guarantees, and for security of interest, but
nothing of that sort seems to have happened in the case of Sudanese cotton. We have not heard to-day that the private enterprisers
of Britain are so dead that they are not able to stump up 3½ millions. We have not heard yet that the right hon. Members who
support the Government, and who only last week were burning with zeal about the agriculturists and farmers, have undertaken to
take some of the unemployed farmers of this country and send them to Sudan. We have not heard from the Government that the
present unemployment in Lancashire has been due to a want of long staple cotton and the market for the yarn made out of the long
staple cotton. We have heard from the Government, only a week ago, that stocks of cotton yarn made out of long staple are still lying
in the warehouses of Manchester, Birkenhead and Liverpool. What do you want a further 70,000 bales of long staple cotton for if you
have not been able to spin that which you have, and the cotton you did spin you are not willing to sell because you do not get your
pound of flesh? How the Government, as the impartial arbiter between the workers and the financiers, between the State and private
enterprise, suddenly came to this conclusion will remain a miracle and a mystery unless they explain it more fully than they have
done. It may be a miracle and a mystery to their friends, but it shall not be so to their opponents. When we saw the mere whispers of

this Bill in the air, when we heard the gentle hints given to us to-night by the Prime Minister that it was something about which the
least said the soonest mended, and that we should sit up after eleven, the whole cat jumped out of the bag at once. Two issues
spring out of the Sudanese cotton. Number one issue is that the Government has been made to think about this scheme, and the
second is that either they are unable to explain the details of the business or they thought it was a matter about which a long talk
must not be permitted and that it might be got through in half an hour. But as I have said, this House is entirely a new House. In this
House you have not only human ears, but you have an intellectual microscope, and those little invisible germs—I do not mean the
members of the Opposition—
The CHAIRMAN
Share
The hon. Member must approach the question of this loan.
Mr. SAKLATVALA
Share
The germs are now becoming visible in their whole alarming view to the public gaze. I submit, that the whole idea underlying this
Sudan scheme and to push this Bill through at this time, when we were least expecting to push it through, is to establish, what every
Government generally desires to do, a precedent and a pledge, so that throughout the coming Sessions this little nest will come up. I
still sub-
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Brass, Captain W. Clayton, C. C.
Amery Bt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Brassey. Sir Leonard Cobb, Sir Cyril
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Brown, Major D, C. (Hexham) Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Bruford, R. Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bruton, Sir James Davles, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Davles, Thomas (Cirencester)
Barnett, Major Richard W. Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Dawson, Sir Philip
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North) Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Berry, Sir George Butt, Sir Alfred Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Betterton, Henry B. Cadogan, Major Edward Edmondson, Major A. J.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Ednam, Viscount
Blundell, F. N. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
mit that the scheme as propounded by the Government is a scheme barren of the fundamental elements of justice. The scheme is
based upon one fact, as if it was a truism, that it is going to produce 70,000 bales of long-staple cotton.
The CHAIRMAN
Share

It is not in order to repeat the same argument.
Mr. SAKLATVALA
Share
I am submitting, Mr. Hope, that from parallel examples of similar hopefulness of the growing of long-staple cotton in other parts of
the world, thousands of pounds have been wasted, and the cotton that has been ultimately grown has been neither long-staple or
short-staple.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
rose in Ms place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Mr. SHINWELL
Share
(seated and covered): I submit that the proposal contained in the Chancellor's submission to the Committee is incompetent, in virtue
of the Statute. Section 1 of the Statute reads as follows:
“"Provided that the application of the loan in such manner is calculated to promote employment in the United Kingdom."”
Since there is no reference to the promotion of employment in the United Kingdom in the proposal, I submit that it is incompetent.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
It is a question of the Division taking place—that the Question be now put. It is not relative to the Resolution.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes 88.
Elveden, viscount King, Capt. Henry Douglas Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Lamb, J. Q. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Russell, William (Bolton)
Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Falcon, Captain Michael Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir p. Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Lorimer, H. D. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Forestler-Walker, L. Lougher, L. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Lumley, L. R. Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Goff, Sir R. Park Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sandon, Lord
Gray, Harold (Cambridge) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Shepperson, E. w.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Singleton, j. E.

Greenwood, William (Stockport) Margesson, H. D. R. Skelton, A. N.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Mercer, Colonel H. Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.O'by) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Halstead, Major D. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nail, Major Joseph Stanley, Lord
Harrison, F. C. Nesbitt, J. c. Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Major S. E. Newman, Sir R, H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murrey Fraser
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Sutcliffe, T.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Titchfield, Marquess of
Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Paget, T. G. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hewett, Sir J. P. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Tubbs, S. W.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Penny, Frederick George Wallace, Captain E.
Hiley, Sir Ernest Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wells, S. R.
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Peto, Basil E. Wheler, Col. Granville C, H.
Hohler, Gerald Fltzroy Phllipson, H. H. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Hood, Sir Joseph Pielou, D. P. Whitla, Sir William
Hopkins, John W. w. Privett, F. J. Windsor, Viscount
Houfton, John Plowright Raine, W. Wlnterton, Earl
Howard-Bury, Lieut. Col. C. K. Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Wise, Frederick
Hudson, Capt. A, Held, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Wolmer, Viscount
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.) Renter. J. R. Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Reynolds, W. G. W. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Jarrett, G. W. S. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Roberts. Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.) Robertson, J. D. (Islington, w.) Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Barnston.
Kennedy, Captain M. s. Nigel Roundell, Colonel R. F.
NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Herriotts, J. Riley. Ben
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hill, A. Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Batey, Joseph Hodge, Lieut.-Coi. J. P. (Preston) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Both well)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hogge, James Myles Saklatvala S
Bonwick, A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shinwell, Emanuel
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Buckle, J. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Simpson, J. Hope
Burgess, S. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Sinclair, Sir A
Burnle, Major J. (Bootle) Jowett, F. W. (Bradford. East) Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, D. Stephen, Campbell
Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lansbury, George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Collison. Levi Lawson, John James Tout, W. J.
Darbishire, C. W. Lunn, William Wallhead, Richard C.
Davles, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lylc-Samuel, Alexander Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Warne, G. H.
Dudgeon, Major c. R. M'Entee, V. L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H. March, S. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Westwood. J.
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Maxton, James Wheatley, J.
Fairbairn, R. R. Muir, John W. White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Foot, Isaac Murnin, H. Whiteley, w.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Murray, R. (Renfrew. Western) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Newbold, J. T. W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atterliffe)
Grundy, T. W. Nichol, Robert Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Paling, W. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Hartshorn, Vernon Phillipps, Vivian TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hastings, Patrick Pringle, W. M. R. Mr. Amman and Mr. Morgan Jones.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.
Mr. WALLHEAD
Share

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I cannot accept that Motion.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
I beg to move, in paragraph (e), to leave out the words "such bonds," and to insert instead thereof the words "securities to be issued
by the Treasury."
Mr. LANSBURY
Share
On a point of Order. Does this rule out any general discussion on any other part of the Resolution I What I mean is that your title reads
"Austrian Loan and Sudan." I want to raise something on the first part.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
Mr. SHINWELL
Share
Does it rule out my point of Order '.
This CHAIRMAN
Share
It is too late now.
Share
I understand that Government securities are to be issued by the Treasury.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
The words are, "Government securities to be issued by the Treasury."
Share
Are "bonds" to be left out?
Mr. BALDWIN

Share
They take the place of those bonds.
Share
They are Government securities. I think we should have some word of explanation making it clearer.
Mr. PRINGLE
Share
I do not know the purpose of bringing paragraph (c) into agreement with the second heading of paragraph (b). In that second
heading we have the words
“"To guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any securities hereafter issued by the Austrian Government."”
Now, apparently, an Amendment is proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert "securities to be issued by the British
Treasury." In the former it is securities to be issued by the Austrian Government.
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
The hon. Member will remember that I said that under paragraph (iii) it would be necessary for each of the contracting parties to
deposit collateral securities—bonds or some other form of security—which would be held by the Board of Control, and that these
would not add to the amount we guaranteed. They are merely collateral, and this paragraph refers to such securities, and not to the
original bonds or loan of such securities as may be deposited.
Share
Is there any precedent for double bonds being issued?
Mr. BALDWIN
Share
There is no precedent, I understand, but this is the first example of such an international scheme.
Amendment agreed to.
Original Question, as amended, proposed.
Mr. LANSBURY
Share
The Committee has been discussing at great length matters concerning Austria, the Sudan and so on, but I understood that this Bill
was a Bill to provide trade facilities in order to permit employment within the United Kingdom, and that the major part of the money
was guarantees for that purpose. I noticed that the Government issued White Papers at various stages while the previous guarantees
were in vogue, and I thought we might have been told the number of applications received and rejected, and how much of this money
has actually been spent. I know there are guarantees, and I am told that the guarantees are never spent. But it appears as if
something over £20,000,000 has been used, for you have guaranteed the expenditure of something over £20,000,000. Looking
through these papers it is extremely difficult to discover whether any of it has been spent. They tell me that we are going to do certain
things, but there is no evidence in the papers that the works have been started. It is an injustice to the unemployed to flaunt great
figures before them, as was done on Friday last, as to the great sums allocated to alleviate their condition, all the time knowing that

a very large amount of that money is not going to be spent at all. What I would like to ask someone on the Treasury Bench, before the
Debate closes, is that we may know how much money has been spent on work within the United Kingdom during the past year, and
also if they can tell us how many schemes have been submitted to them and have been approved? I ask that for several reasons.
I happen to know one scheme which was rejected and may come up again. It was as a scheme by a utility society. Private enterprise,
so that there is no question of Socialism. It is a society formed to create the Eltham Garden Suburb. This was a scheme which would
ultimately provide many thousand houses and shops in the district of Eltham, and it was to be so conducted that in many cases ex-
service men would not only have been provided with homes but also provided with employment as it was proposed, so far as
possible, to take the joinery work and what other work could be obtained from the Lord Roberts' workshops. Now the sum which was
asked from this Committee was £130,000, or a guarantee rather, jn order to start the scheme. The scheme would have run into
something over £1,000,000. They wanted £130,000 to start, because that would be the only amount required as they hoped to sell
the houses, or let them, as completed, and so raise money to carry on. I would have thought that was just the sort of scheme to
provide work within the United Kingdom. I cannot understand why a scheme of that kind was not given support. I would also like to
raise the broader question of whether it was not possible to do more under this Guarantee Bill, or those other measures of guarantee,
to enable other societies in other parts of the country to put up houses. It seems to me that the Government has gone out of its way
to offer to provide money or guarantees for concerns that can raise money without their guarantees. What does the Underground
Railway want with their guarantee? They can raise as much money as they want. It seems to me that it only simply wanted a person
to put that in the Bill to help the unemployed. The Underground Railway Company, and several others, are quite capable of raising
their money, and also the work they are going to do is work that would have had to be done under any circumstances. I hope before
the Debate closes we shall have an answer. The South Eastern and Chatham Company are down for £6,000.000. That was done in
the early part of this year, and no turf has yet born cut to employ that £6,000,000. What I complain about is that these figures are
thrown at the public and put out with great headlines in the newspapers as if work was being found for the unemployed, and the
Government are finding the money. You are only finding a guarantee, and the work is not started.
Mr. WALLHEAD
Share
With all due respect to hon. Members who displayed some hilarity a moment or two ago when the hon. Member for North Battersea
(Mr. Saklatvala) was speaking with reference to the question of private enterprise, I say that to come along at this hour and ask for
guarantees for huge loans is to my mind something in the nature of a scandal. My mind goes back to the raising of loans during the
War and the question of taxes. I remember when the Excess Profits Tax was fixed first at 60 per cent, and afterwards at 80 per cent.,
leaving in the first case 40 per cent. and in the second case 20 per cent, in the. hands of the manufacturers and merchant class
generally, and the reason given for leaving that amount in their hands was that, when the lean years came after the War, they would
have a resarve fund set aside for meeting dilapidations and difficulties that would arise industrially. That was the reason why it was
given. Instead of that, not only has the money been pocketed, but at the present moment we are so busy handing back the money the
nation had received that we were told the other day that we really had paid back more than had been received in Excess Profits Duty.
It does seem to me now to be rather an excess to ask for a Government guaranteed loan.
I want to refer to the question of raising loans for cotton growing. A day or two ago I listened to Members on the opposite benches
pleading that we should do something from the Government point of view with regard to subsidising agencies in Brazil to encourage
cotton growing in that country. We were told it is an eminently suitable- country for growing long-staple cotton, and we were told
that if the Government would only build some more palatial consulates and send out officials of a superior type to those districts, it
might be expected that there would be some great developments in Brazil that might lead to production of long-staple cotton. It
seems to me we are rather in danger of overdoing this cotton business. [Laughter.] I think it is a very serious question, because I
should not like the cotton-growers to be in the position the rubber-growers find themselves in. The rubber-growers have been
approaching the Government to use their influence to keep down rubber production, to keep it dear and make it costly to all
concerned. If we go on with this exploitation of various areas, we shall have the same thing from the point of view of the cotton-
growers, and the Government will be asked to use its influence to keep up the1 price of cotton, Already in the Nile Valley there is
cotton production, and I would like to know from hon. Members opposite who are interested in this cotton-growing industry whether
it is not a fact that those areas are exhausted, having been exploited to a degree that is decreasing the output because of the
exhaustion of the soil which is not being treated adequately, and the crop and output is running down. If that is the case—and I am
told on very good authority that it is so—then it is a scandal to come to this House for money to exploit another region simply
because private enterprise in the cotton trade has exhausted the areas already planted. That is a mattr we should get some
enlightenment on. I can quite understand that you can make out a very good case for the loaning of monies for trade facilities or
building of pumps and irrigation works and what-not in the Nile Valley. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Sir
A. Mond) told us in debate that he knew of lots of money lying idle waiting for investment if only the opportunity offered. If there is
money waiting for investment it should be forthcoming without being guaranteed by this House and the Treasury. These are questions
well worthy of some little discussion, and I think we should know a little more than we know about them at the present time.
Mr. BARNES
Share
I should like to develop a point which I introduced earlier in the evening as to whether this expenditure of 25 million pounds is the
best way of relieving unemployment at the present moment. I think these proposals! are subject to criticism, from the point of view
that if any of this money is called for from the taxpayers the community gets nothing in return. Twenty-five million pounds is being
used for the purpose of safeguarding the capital mainly of railway companies and other businesses which are eligible under the
Government scheme. On the Other hand, I think it should be the central principle of the finance of this House, in using public funds
for tht1 purpose of relieving unemployment, of ensuring as far as possible that the community shall have some asset as a result of
the expenditure. The Government has not given the Committee any argument to the effect that, if this money is not forthcoming, this
work on the part of the railway companies or other businesses would not proceed. It is a well-known fact that during the post four
years companies, owning to the uncertainty of prices generally, have not embarked upon the capital expenditure for renewals and
replacements which they would have done in the ordinary course of business. Now prices are more stable, and they are compelled to
take action owing to the natural wear and tear of their plant and machinery. They want, however, the guarantee of State funds. I
consider that is fundamentally wrong as a principle to relieve unemployment. I do not consider that, if this guarantee was not
forthcoming, railway companies and other firms would not proceed with their work, and this would secure just as much relief of
unemployment as the Government scheme proposes to do. On the other hand, I claim that there are many public utility schemes
which could be carried out if the Government would approach local authorities; schemes which would not only provide work for the
relief of unemployment or be for the benefit of one section of industry, but would improve the commercial organisation of the whole
country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate the fact that transport in industry to-day is one of the most costly factors in the
price of commodities. Take, for instance, the entrance to London from the docks; you find immense congestion of traffic.
The CHAIRMAN
Share
I understand the hon. Gentleman is suggesting alternative schemes; he would not be in order in doing so.
Mr. BARNES
Share
What I am endeavouring to suggest is that we are being asked to vote away the taxpayers' money, and surely it is desirable to draw
the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to other means for the relief of unemployment which might be more profitable to the
State, and more effective for the purpose for which the expenditure is being undertaken. I do not intend to vote against the proposal
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I was endeavouring to show that this is not the wisest way of spending the nation's funds, and
not the most effective way of relieving unemployment. The point I was developing was that a similar expenditure of funds, carried out
under reasonable guarantees through local authorities, would improve the efficiency of the machinery of commerce, and would
benefit not only a group of traders, but the whole of the trading interests of the country. When one passes through London and
realises the enormous losses to the business and commerce of London by the congestion of the streets, I submit that a well-
organised scheme of arterial road development would improve business in every respect. My argument can beet be illustrated by
giving an example. In the Aldwych and Southampton Row an improvement carried through some years ago has resulted in one of the
most important thoroughfares in the Metropolis, and I believe that the revenue which the London County Council derives from ground
rent;; has more than paid the interest on capital expenditure.
The whole point is that the people of London who made that expenditure have a distinct asset, and the results of the improvement go
back to the people of London. There are many slum areas to be removed, and the improvement of many of our suburban areas would
be an asset not only to the mental and physical standard of the people, but to the capital value of the districts. The framing of
schemes on the lines I am suggesting would be public utility schemes and would not bolster up private capitalism, which this
particular trade guarantee scheme does. In the East of London we have the Wanstead Flats, and great barren areas. Why should not
these be developed for social and recreational purposes? While providing employment for the unemployed, why should not the
House, in spending national funds, endeavour to direct that expenditure along lines that would improve the standard of life and the
capacity for enjoyment of the millions of people in the district. How many Members opposite realise that in the East End of London

there are hundreds of thousands of people who never get the opportunity to develop the capacity for enjoyment and the capacity for
enjoying games' The expenditure of public funds along these lines need not necessarily mean expenditure with no revenue in return, if
organised efficiently and run in conjunction with the local authorities. We could get more relief for unemployment by schemes of that
description. A further principle would be safeguarded, namely, the expenditure of national funds would provide ultimately a
communal asset retained by the people at large. Therefore, I do wish again, in my closing remarks, to exphasise the fact that in any
further consideration of this relief of unemployment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government should bear in mind that
public funds used for the purpose of bolstering private enterprises is not money expended to assist the community as a whole.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE

(Sir P. Lloyd-Greame)
Share
The hon. Member who has just spoken has rather forgotten that this is only one of several schemes for dealing with unemployment,
and that several of the points which ho has raised are already covered by other schemes. There is that of Lord St. Davids Committee,
under which a large amount of money has been set aside for exactly those undertakings by public authorities to which he has
referred. As to roads, there is a large sum set aside out of the Road Fund, which was enlarged upon in the Unemployment Debate.
Moreover, this Act is open to the local authorities just as much as to a public company, or to anyone else. [Ax HON. MEMBER: "Would
it be for Housing?"] I have not got the precise words o' the Act, but any public body or public company may apply. As a matter of fact,
under schemes which I think have already been authorised, several public authorities have applied: for instance, the Lee
Conservancy Board. A guarantee was given them, but whether they are. proceeding with the work. I do nor know.
Mr. MARCH
Share
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Port of London Authority is in the scheme for the improvement of docks?
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share
The Port of London Authority, most certainly, can come within the scheme, but each local authority has to make its own application.
The question is put: Is this the best way of relieving unemployment? I do not think really the proposal is seriously challenged from the
other side. I should not expect it to be, because when we introduced this Bill a year ago it was most warmly welcomed by the Labour
party as a very genuine and effective contribution. I think it is quite one of the best ways of relieving unemployment you can have,
because it sets going schemes which are in themselves economic schemes, which ought to be carried out, which would be carried
out, and it anticipates the date on which they are brought into effect. There are schemes which give immediate employment. There
are schemes which are already of a producing character and which lead to further development-Let me take one example—the
Underground Railway extension. That scheme means the employment of a very large number of men upon excavation and
constructional work and it means contracts placed all over the country for rails, rolling stock, etc. It also happens to be a new area
and that leads to houses being built for that area, increasing as it does the travelling facilities for those who move out. An enormous
proportion of that goes in wages. The hon. Member was really wrong when he said that these kinds of work would have been done
without Government guarantee. Experience shows that a large number of undertakings were held back because they could not raise
money sufficiently cheaply.
Mr. BARNES
Share
My assumption was that these particular developments were being held back because of the uncertainty of prices. Now that prices
are stabilised, they would come into operation.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share

I was addressing my remarks more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). As a matter of
fact, schemes were being held up because of high prices. If you could give a Government guarantee, it made the raising of money
cheaper than it would have been in the open market and the result of that was that a company, by getting money cheaper, was able
to incur rather greater expenditure than it would have incurred in the ordinary course of events. There is, I think, no risk to the State,
and the work would not have been put in hand but for the Government guarantee. It was quite open to public utility societies or to a
local authority to ask for a guarantee of a loan for a housing scheme, and I should hope that building companies would go forward.
But I should say this. The House insisted, when this Bill was before it previously—and I think rightly —the House pressed very strongly
that in dealing with these schemes the Committee should be left absolutely free and unfettered to test the finances of the schemes on
their merit. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that they should have a free hand, and no doubt my right hon. Friend would
wish to adhere to that. Some of the schemes on which guarantees have been given have held fire for a time. Others proceeded
immediately the guarantee was given. The Committee have had as their first consideration that they would give preference to
schemes which would go ahead immediately. The first question asked, I understand, is, "If you get a guarantee, are you prepared to
proceed immediately with the scheme," and the, second consideration is that all materials and plant required should be purchased
in this country. In these circumstances, I think it is very practicable.
Mr. LANSBURY
Share
Would it be possible to give us a White. Paper stating what number of applications have been made, what number have been
accepted, and how many men have been found employment during the period? In this very important matter these facts should be
got out.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share
I understand that 22½ millions, roughly, has been sanctioned. I cannot say the number of schemes that have been turned down,
because a number of quite impossible schemes would always be put forward to a Committee like this. I know the difficulties with the
electrical schemes, but I can assure hon. Members that anything I can do to help them forward I will certainly do. An estimate was
made that these schemes on the Underground Railway were likely to employ about 20,000 men and I have been given an estimate—
it must be a very rough one—that these schemes directly and indirectly employed something like 100,000 men. But this does not give
a complete' picture, because you have to take, in addition, all the men employed in works such as making bridges, rails and so on.
But the general estimate is given to me as 100,000 men.
Mr. LANSBURY
Share
The greater part of the schemes are not started yet. What I want to get at is what is going on now. Perhaps ultimately you will give
work to these men, but what are we doing just now?
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share
I am trying to get the whole of the 100,000 to work as quickly as we can.
Share
I see there is an item down of £120,000 to a colliery company to build houses for workers. I think it is very improper to give money to
any colliery company which should be responsible for the housing of its own workers. There was a very good principle laid down by
the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), the Minister of Health in the last Parliament, that where persons are going into these
schemes they should supply buildings for their men. However, this precedent has been established, and money has been guaranteed
to a colliery company to supply houses for the working people. That being the case, I would like to know very much whether the
Government has considered extending the Trade Facilities Scheme to housing purposes, and, in particular, whether the decent, law-

abiding citizens can apply for a guarantee if he wants to build his own house. Why should not a man who is in regular employment,
and who can get a house, apply for a guarantee with which he might go to a building society and get a house built. The house would
act as a security, and it would finally become his own property. I believe such a scheme might do something to start house building
again. There are plenty of small builders who would be willing to do the work for them. I want also to ask a question about a very
peculiar item in White Paper 62, if I may draw the attention of the Chancellor to this, namely, the guarantee of an amount of no less
than £600,000 to Beardmore and Company, of all people, one of the wealthiest shipping companies in the world, to complete one
vessel for the Societa Anomina per Azione Lloyd Sabaudo, Is it a British company or a South American company? Why should
Beardmore's have this guarantee for a ship I Up and down the country, in shipbuilding centres, there were recently scores of ships in
various stages of completion where the original people who ordered them could not guarantee to pay for them. They were left on the
builder's hands, and the shipbuilding yards have lost tremendously in consequence. Why was Beardmore's picked out for one vessel
and given this enormous guarantee I If the owners, the society with the unpronounceable name, could not pay for a ship, it was not a
very good venture to guarantee the money. I went through the other items very carefully, and with the exception of the colliery
company the cases in which money was guaranteed seem to have been very fair ones and very proper, and I must say that the
Committee which is dealing with these cases., from all I hear, has done its work extremely well. But that has nothing to do with the
Government.
Mr. DARBISHIRE
Share
What is the position with regard to the Overseas Trade credit facilities? How does the old account stand? Are there any bad debts
outstanding? As I understand it, this fund is to provide for export credits if they cannot got the facilities at the banks.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share
I am not quite sure if this is strictly within the purview of this Debate. All we ask to do to-night is to make the general credit date from
the time the actual guarantee is given. The general system under which the export credits department proceeds is this: In all cases
that are approved by the Advisory Committee a premium is charged, the premium varying in every transaction. I am hopeful that the
premium fund may be able to see us through, but it is obviously not possible to give figures with certainty where we have about 16
millions of credit outstanding. We may tell within about three or four years what the total may be.
Mr. DARBISHIRE
Share
Did I understand you to say you gave them four years' credit?
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share
Yes, in some cases four years' credit has been given.
5.0 A.M.
Share
Can any answer be given about the point I raised about the ship and the other point about building houses; will it be explained
whether a responsible citizen can borrow money to build a house?
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Share

I think it would be practicable for the Committee to deal with individual applications by individual men for small loans. It would not
be practicable within the terms of the Act. I am rather surprised that, when, unemployment is so bad in the shipbuilding trade, it is a
matter of regret that this money has been guaranteed for this ship.
Share
It is not a question of regret. I was asking for information. As that contract has been secured and carried through, is it open for any
shipbuilding firm to come forward, as I presume Messrs. Beardmore did, with a proposition which the committee thought was sound?
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
“"That it is expedient—
(a) to amend Section one of The Trade Facilities Act, 1921–
(i) by increasing to fifty million pounds the limit on the agro-gate capital amount of the loans the principal or interest of which
may be guaranteed thereunder; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which guarantees may be given thereunder; and
(iii) by providing for the charging of fees in connection with matters arising thereunder;
(b) to authorise the Treasury—
(i) to guarantee to the extent set out in Protocol No, II, signed at Geneva on the 4th day of October, 1922, and the Annexes
thereto, a loan to be raised by the Austrian Government of such an amount as, after payment of the expenses of issue, will produce
the equivalent of a sum not exceeding six hundred and fifty million gold crowns; and
(ii) to guarantee the payment of the principal of and the interest on any securities hereafter issued by the Austrian Government
which are to be repayable out of the proceeds of the loan aforesaid; and
(iii) to make an issue of securities for the purpose of rendering more readily effective any guarantee which may be given by the
Treasury as aforesaid and to provide for the redemption of any such securities;
(c)to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, any loan raised by the Government
of the Soudan for, or in connection with, works for the purpose of irrigating the Gezirch Plain not exceeding in the aggregate an
amount sufficient to raise three million five hundred thousand pounds;
(d) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 and 1921, by providing that for the purposes of the provisions of these Acts relating to
the period within which the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the giving of guarantees in connection with export
transactions may be exercised, the date on which the Board enter into an agreement to give guarantees shall be treated as the date
on which the guarantees are given;
(e) to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantees as aforesaid or required for meeting the
principal of, or the interest on, any securities to be issued by the Treasury, as aforesaid, and to provide for the laying before
Parliament of statements and accounts with respect to the matters aforesaid.
”
Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Tuesday)."
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at two minutes after Five o'clock a.m.
© UK Parliament 2023 Cookie policy Cookie settings Privacy notice Accessibility statement

1922 Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Money - Hansard - UK Parliament

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1922 Trade Facilities and Loans Guarantee Money - Hansard - UK Parliament

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/12/23, 10:02 AM Trade Facilities And Loans Guarantee Money - Hansard - UK Parliament

Trade Facilities And Loans Guarantee Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 2/55

Captain Viscount CURZON

It is not in order to read a newspaper.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 3/55

The League of Nations suggested it.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 4/55

They are all guarantees amounting in the aggregate to about 34 millions.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 5/55

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON

Yes, including a Soviet Government—

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 6/55

I omit non-essential words—

The Parliament in those terms completely abdicates its functions.

That would be beyond the scope of the Resolution.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD

That question is not congruous to the present proposal.

These are not the Gentlemen of England.

On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the matter before the Committee?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 9/55

What about paying America our debt?

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a… 10/55

I must ask the hon. Member to return to the point.

I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out sub-paragraph (iii).

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a-… 11/55

I fully accept that there was opposition

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a… 12/55

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a… 13/55

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Division 13.] AYES. [1.4 a.m.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hill, A. Ritson, J.

Ammon, Charles George Hinds, John Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hirst, G. H. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Barnes, A. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Saklatvala, S.

Batey, Joseph Hogge, James Myles Salter, Dr. A.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shinwell, Emanuel

Bonwick, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bowdler, W. A. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1922-12-04/debates/34b0cb65-1b99-4fa4-a9a5-577bf86e9b73/TradeFacilitiesAndLoansGuaranteeMoney?highlight="national loans"#contribution-25310efc-63db-4e5f-824a… 15/55

Buckle, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simpson, J. Hope

Burgess, S. Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, D. Stephen, Campbell

Chapple, W. A. Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lansbury, George Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Collison, Levi Lawson, John James Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Darbishire, C. W. Leach, W Thornton, M.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Lunn, William Tout, W. J.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Trevelyan, C. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) M'Entee, V. L. Wallhead, Richard C.

Dudgeon, Major C. R. March, S. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Dunnico, H. Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Warne, G. H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Entwistle, Major C. F. Morel, E. D. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)