Parliament's Week

COMMONWEALTH

(British Commonwealth of Nations)

House of Commons:

P: Ex-Premier Ramsay MacDonald introduced a motion calling for a vote of censure on the Government for not having done anything to alleviate the growing unemployment evil. Last year, when Mr. MacDonald was Premier, the shoe was on the other foot. Labor came into power, but was unable to do anything. This year, Mr. MacDonald is having his innings. He pointed out that unemployment was increasing and yet the Government did nothing. "What did the Government intend to do?"

Premier Stanley Baldwin rose from his seat on the Government bench, swept the House with his genial eyes, told it "not to get rattled." He explained that part of the increase in unemployment was due to a change in the law, and asked the House to remember that the pre-War average of emigration had fallen from 200,0000 to 130,000. The situation was black, he admitted it, but against the black spots he asked the House to put "the general and, on the whole, progressive improvement in trade that is more related to personal consumption--clothes, boots, shoes and furniture distribution. The importance of that is it shows that up to now, during these difficult times through which we are passing, the purchasing power of the community as a whole had not been seriously impaired." (Loud derisive laughter from the Labor benches.)

What was he going to do about it? Well, he could subsidize industry instead of subsidizing the jobless, which would have the effect of increasing employment. He then catalogued all the forms which subsidies might take: "Either by bounties on production or on export or subsidies of specific contracts or orders mainly for export or subsidies for specially distressed districts, aid in the rates to take the burden off those who manufacture in the district, or a subsidy to bring down freight rates on railways."

He spoke nebulously of scientific research as a possible means of easing the situation and said: "There is no doubt that victory in the long run will go to the nation which can harness most efficiently Science to its industry."

He suggested that the film industry might profitably be protected and subsidized and concluded his speech with a moving appeal for industrial peace. The motion was lost by a majority of 230.

P: Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Home Secretary, answering a question, notice of which was previously given by Miss Ellen Wilkinson (TIME, July 6), said that two detectives did attend a dinner given in the Boulogne Restaurant, as charged by Miss Wilkinson, but did not attend the dinner at which the honorable lady was present and did not attend disguised as waiters. Concluded he:

"Had I known the honorable lady and her friends were dining there these police officers would not have been sent, and I will undertake they won't be sent again."

"Thank you very much," responded the Labor lady M.P.

House of Lords:

P: Their lordships were informed by Earl Stanhope, Civil Lord of the Admiralty, that the Singapore naval base would not be "a great base for concentration," but "comparatively a minor establishment." Lord Balfour (ex-Premier A. J. Balfour), one of the two elder British statesmen (the other is ex-Premier Lord Roseberry), rose to scoff politely at Labor and Liberal opposition to the base. Said he:

"I am perfectly unable to understand the point of view that we are thereby giving natural cause of suspicion, to friendly nations in the Pacific. We ought to assume that other nations who have fleets in the Pacific exercise a little common sense on the problem, and I believe their Governments do, as do the majority of their populations.

"Incidentally, the remark also has been made during the debate that no fortifications are being built at strategic points along the 3,000 miles of the Canadian-American frontier, and this is used as an argument against the Singapore base.

"In America, in Canada and in England nobody believes there is going to be war or counts war of that kind within the bounds of practical possibility. I am very much inclined to think we are at the beginning of a great era of peace.

"The idea, however, that this country can allow its hopes of peace to make it incapable of defending its possessions in the event of those hopes being disappointed is not the way to produce peace, but is the way to lay us open to war which otherwise might never have taken place."