The Week at Westminster
MARIFFS have continued to be the subject of the I week in Parliament, and once again the provision under Parliamentary procedure for hashing and rehashing the same material has proved its value. In the case of a Money Bill, there are six stages of examination of princi- ples and details in the House of Commons alone, and not one of them is superfluous, for every one of them brings out some new point of defence or attack. The Imports Duties Bill is a case in point. The debates began with little more exciting than a revival of the old fiscal contro- versy ; they developed into a currency controversy under the influence of the speeches of Mr. Runeiman and Major Elliot ; and this. week they have become a controversy between those who think the crisis over and those who think it may recur. This change was well illustrated by Monday's debate on the second reading. Major Nathan, a portentous and punctilious Liberal back bencher, really put the whole of the Opposition case. In his view the balance of trade is all right ; and even if it were not tariffs would put it wrong because they must decrease invisible exports. Again, the balance of the Budget is all right ; or, if it is not, there will be time to put it right later. Finally, sterling is safe ; or, if it is not, the danger will be a financial panic such as tariffs cannot prevent. This case differs considerably from that made by Sir Herbert Samuel, who challenged the virtues of tariffs rather than the existence of an emergency ; and his challenge, as he appeared to admit on Monday, has lost some of its force by the unexpectedly wide range of the free list under the Bill. * * * * Major Elliot put the opposite view equally well. It is at least improbable that the balance of trade has been rectified, and in any case, a policy of planning trade along more sure and promising channels is a wise insurance. The Budget of 1931-32 may be balanced ; but again the opening of new sources of revenue is a wise insurance. Sterling may be safe, but again its fortification is a wise insurance. And finally, this House of Commons was elected to act—not to hold a watching brief. The maiden speeches this week have been much better. Lord Dun- glass in particular scored a great success ; and this was due to his expression of exactly the same feeling that this House of Commons must act. It found an echo among the vast mass of members new and old. The majori- ties in favour of the principles of the Bill were 452 to 76 last week, and 451 to 78 this week, the National Labour and Simonite groups being almost solidly for it. One wonders, however, how many members in this curious House, which is not unintelligent so much as inexperienced, fully realize two certain consequences of the Government's policy. The first is that their own troubles, begin rather than end with the enactment of tariffs, which, whatever their other advantages, are not simple either to frame or to administer. The second is that, when the object of policy is to secure a currency stable in terms of commodities, the inevitable consequence of policy is some control of commodities. That is the essence of the elastic machinery proposed by the Bill.
* * * * The point is even more evident in the Government's agricultural policy outlined on Thursday by Sir John Gilmour in answer to a question. The free list under the Import Duties Bill contains most essential foodstuffs and only some of the ingredients of feeding stuffs. The obvious criticism is that the farmer is taxed on what he uses and unprotected in what he produces. This point reflects the inevitable difficulty of dealing with an industry which combines many separate industries with conflicting interests, but an attempt is made to meet it by an offer of " quantitative control of imports " of several other commodities provided that the British producers thereof will submit to reorganization com- missions. Lord Wolmer, who improves out of office, saw the meaning of these provisions. They are nothing less than an invitation to the industry to co-operate with the Government in controlling commodities, and that may be the proper answer of the agricultural industry to the problem of glut from which it has suffered more than any other. There was at least very little substance in Mr. Lambert's vague appeal for more drastic and immed- iate action, which was founded on the untenable conten- tion that the industry had done all that could be expected for itself.
The second day's debate on the second reading of the Import Duties Bill was chiefly notable for a brilliant speech by Sir Archibald Sinclair, who showed much better than Sir Herbert Samuel what was the way in which to agree to differ, if agreement to differ there must be. His tone and substance were so good that it was remarkable how little impression he made. The explanation is, of course, that his whole argument led to the conclusion that nothing immediate need be done to fortify either the Budget, or the balance of trade, or sterling ; and a House determined on immediate action of some kind would have none of it. Moreover, the House refused to be harrowed by his catalogue of the problematical horrors which are to follow tariffs, because the moderate majority feel their mastery over the high protectionists in whose views alone, as they think, danger lies. Mr. Kingsley Griffith and Mr. Mallalieu were as good in their way as Sir A. Sinclair, and both testified to their desire that the Bill should contradict their forebodings. It seems, therefore, likely that dog- matic opposition and its corollary dangers are temporarily suspended, and that the House will have as useful Com- mittee stage. Fears concerning the composition and powers of the Tariff Committee and concerning the character of the free list are by no means confined to one party.
• * *
The House had an interval from tariffs on Friday, when it passed the second reading of the Children Bill. The measure proposed to amend the law concerning the punishment and employment of juveniles. The debate gave Mr. Oliver Stanley his first chance to make his light shine out from beneath the bushel of a minor post, and it threw its beams far. There was also a chance for the Women members to show their quality, and Mrs. Tate took it. She seems likely to prove an exception to the rule that women do better on platforms than in Parliament.
CUSTOS.
Previous page
