THE WEEK IN PARLIAMENT
BY NEW MEMBER.
THE debate on the Pact revealed the House at its highest level. All the speeches were statesmanlike and constructive, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain impressed both sides by his straightforwardness and sincerity. Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George were clearly anxious not to be obstructive, but rather to strengthen the Foreign Secretary's hands in the forthcoming negotia- tions, and in this they succeeded admirably. It is, never- theless, necessary to emphasize one aspect of the debate. The " isolationists " deemed it wise to hold their hand, and therefore the views of those who dislike European commitments on principle were not heard. There are more of them than is generally supposed. And Mr. Chamberlain should bear in mind that he will have considerable difficulty in persuading the House to accept a treaty of guarantee which commits us to a greater extent than we are already committed under the covenant of the League of Nations. From the speeches the concensus of opinion seemed to be that it is in the Polish frontiers as they exist at present that the greatest potential menace to the peace of Europe lies. It is towards a solution of this problem that the efforts of all European statesmen ;should be bent.
If the foreign affairs debate was eminently satisfactory, as far as it went, the debate on the Labour motion of censure on the unemployment issue was a wretched business from start to finish. Mr. Rimsay MacDonald, !who opened for the opposition, was almost inconceivably ;bad. His speech consisted for the most part of irrelevant quotations from the speeches of ministers and others, 'delivered not later than 1923. The Prime Minister, except for a burst of overwhelming sincerity at the end, had little to contribute, although he spoke at considerable length. Most of the Government schemes are necessarily incomplete. And until they are complete, it is best to say nothing, and certainly unwise to talk about subsidies.
Mr. Wheatley indulged in his usual general attack on capitalism, but his arguments were purely academic. Mr. Lloyd George's speech differed in no respect from the three he has already delivered on the subject in this Parliament. The situation, he declared, was most serious ; and he repeated this assertion with slight variations for nearly half-an-hour. Of suggestions, practical or other- wise, the speech was totally devoid. There were, however, two speeches worth listening to. Sir Alfred Mond demon- strated with remorseless lucidity that a policy of consistent and solitary deflation pursued with grim determination over a period of four years must mean a decrease in the ;volume of export trade, and a consequent increase in unemployment. The situation, therefore, should cause ,us anxiety, but no surprise. And he further defended his own scheme to a House which was both interested and impressed. Mr. Oliver Stanley advocated a voluntary !conversion of War Stock. If only half the stock was :converted, and the rate of conversion was only per cent. lower than the existing rate, we should, he pointed out, have an annual saving of 25 millions. " It is time," he said, " to re-create the atmosphere of sacrifice."
But these were the only two bright spots in an arid and futile debate, which proved once again the total inability of politicians to deal effectively with the industrial !problem en bloc. I think everyone was quite glad when 'Mr. Maxton, suddenly tiring of the whole affair, brought matters to a conclusion by shouting at the top of his voice 'for twelve minutes.
Previous page
