The Week in Parliament
A WEEK largely of recriminations between men who have been associated during the whole life of the most powerful party in Parliament. Most of the debate on the Economy Bill has been taken up with the question of how far the late Cabinet really went in agreeing to economies. Nine-tenths of the items, said Mr. Snowden, and the whole of the total sum involved. This assent was, the late Ministers argued, conditional, and reserved certain details. There seems to have been no definite agreement by the Ministers actually to cut the scale of unemployment benefit, though there was, it would seem, an agreement to reduce the period of transitional benefit. And on the question of teachers' salaries it is evident, as Lord Eustace Percy insisted, that a cut of 15 per cent. was at least under serious discussion. This squabble was not very edifying. Yet it is difficult to see how it could be avoided in an attempt, on the one side, of Ministers who remained in the National Government to justify their remaining, and on the other, of the resigning Ministers to justify their resignations.
Friday's debate was perhaps the bitterest. The mild Mr. Clynes, who twice in his career has yielded leadership of his Party and so his reversion of the Premiership, attacked the man who but a week or two since was his chief with a cold intensity much more effective than the noisier demonstrations of other ex-Ministers—and more effective than the charges of personal avarice thrown by back-benchers on the Opposition side at the heads of the Labour members of the present Government.
The debate throughout has revealed the failure on the part of many members of the Opposition to grasp the nature of a " crisis of confidence." They have kept asking for proofs of a crisis, of a catastrophic flight from the pound, whereas, of course, essence of a crisis of confidence is the state of mind of those who might withdraw funds, and an estimate of a state of mind is a matter of judgement, - not something concerning which you can give statistics. If the Government in August had waited for " full proof of a crisis " it would have meant waiting for the crisis to do its damage. Mr. Tom Johnston, who wound up the first day's debate on the Economy Bill, himself, however, gave unwitting testimony to the crisis in quoting a letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Governor of the Bank of France. " Unless dramatic measures are taken to save it," wrote Mr. Norman, " the capitalist system throughout the civilized world will be wrecked within a year. I should like this prediction to be filed for future reference."
In opening Monday's debate for the Government, Sir Herbert Samuel faced frankly the fact that the measures of economy would still further aggravate unemployment. When Mr. Thirtle suggested that Sir Herbert was speaking from the wrong side of the House, he (Sir Herbert) retorted : " We have not the resources to go on with these expenditures." (A Member later suggested that " resources " was not quite the right word, since we had labour, raw material, machinery, ships, all unem- ployed. The better word, he suggested, would have been " money.") " It is for that reason," concluded Sir Herbert, " that many of us who for forty years have taken an active part in social reform will go into the Lobby with heavy hearts it is true, but not, as has been suggested, with uneasy consciences, because we see that there is no alternative."
As the debate progressed day by day two elements began to emerge as by-products of the Budget proposals properly speaking : Monetary reform and the tariff. Mr. Churchill, curiously enough in view of the part he took in the return to gold, took the line that our troubles were merely monetary. He wanted this Parliament at least to declare for tariffs and clarify issues for the general election. His new recruit for tariffs was Sir
Previous page
