POPULATING THE EMPIRE

Evening Star, Issue 19801, 27 February 1928, Page 4

POPULATING THE EMPIRE

QUESTION OF MIGRATION BILL BEFORE COMMONS POLICY OF CO-OPERATION URGED LONDON, February 24. Introducing the Empire Settlement Bill in the House of Commons, Mr A. A. Somerville said we ought to bo enugrating 200,000 to 300,000 yearly. In >he four years preceding the war SUo,#l3 people emigrated to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and duuug the four years from 1922 to 1926 the emigrants numbered 402,911. One hindrance to emigration was the lack of the spirit of adventure, and another was the cost of the, passage. He suggested the formation of a board consisting of men with knowledge of the dominions and managers of great railways and shipping lines. The Bill would give the Government power to establish centres for an intensive course of training migrants, during which they could ascertain whether they were fit for farm life and acquire the rudiments ,of agricultural skill. There .'ere G,000,’OOO acres of land near the great Southern Railway in Australia awaiting development where the experiment might • be tried. Ho asked Mr Amery to use part of the £3,000,000 a year voted in 1923 for emigration purposes as a guarantee for interest on a loan that would finance such training schemes. Thera was a growing conviction that this great question needed a steady and great national and Imperial effort. Mr Wardlaw Milne, in seconding, said regarding the money question that under the present 50-50 system Urn ■ dominions must be, as wo must be, very limited in the amount they could find; but was it necessary that we •hould always be bopnd by this 50-50 . siMml

Mr W. Lunn promised the Labor Party support, but said ho hoped that tho 50-50 basis would bo maintained in the agreements with the dominions. On behalf of the Government Mr Amery said that, while agreeing to tho second reading, ho had some ipisgivings as to how far the machinery suggested was really best for tho purpose. It was decidedly attractive for tho promoters of the Bill to say that they contemplated training people for overseas, but we were also seeking a better chance for settling our people in the Old Country.

It was not a case of the Government only spending money to settle men overseas; some 30,00 U people had been settled on the land in Britain since 1907—a very considerable number compared with those settled in the dominions. He considered it entirely wrong to link overseas set;lenient with unemployment. The idea that overseas set tlement was an easy way of relieving ourselves of unemployment was calculated to produce a wrong reaction here and in the dominions. The main object of overseas tettlomeiit was the better distribution of the Empire’s population, and giving a better opportunity to every individual of strengthening the Empire’s whole economic fabric, which indirectly would have the most potent influence on the whole future course of unemployment in Britain. Much of the hesitation in some of the dtiminions towards Empire settlement was due to the idea that we were trying to get rid of people we did not want, and let them have the chance of sinking or swimming overseas. As ho bad pointed out in speeches in Australia and New' Zealand, Britain was not encouraging a single man to go overseas if lie was likely to be a failure. Unemployment was her own domestic problem, and she must solve it on her own lines; she was not asking the dominions to help with her problems, but was asking lor co-operation in Empire matters, in order to make a success of the movements of people from one part of the Empire to another. This was a policy of co-operation, and not a policy in which Britain got the major advantage.

Air Amery concluded by suggesting that if w'e could stop tho economic rot we would find the true policy of Empire development, and the better distribution of our population would become far easier. Ho objected to any unemployment insurance funds being used for training migrants. Mr J. Wheatley congratulated Mr Amery on pulling tho Bill to shreds. Instead of sending, the poor overseas we should begin with the rich, who would come to the top in the competitive struggle for existence. They were ideal Empire pioneers. We had a political but not an economic Empire, and the only Empire policy which could avail was real national trade. Sir Newtou Moore said that tho Bill did uot hold much. If the Empire did not get British migrants other _ nations would. There seemed some sinister influence against the present scheme, and difficulties and regulations constantly barred the way. Sir Evelyn Cecil said that the debate had shown the desire of tho House to get a move ou with migration. If they were unable to get a suitable board the alternative was drastic reorganisation of the Overseas Settlement Committee, which in some matters lacked grip and motive power, and was concentrating too much ou trivialities. Dr Shiels said that Australia, having built up tho standard of life 25 per cent, higher than ours, labor .here vms naturally tearful of anything which might bring it down,. Britain’s terrible post-war distress was probably exaggerated in the minds of Australians, supplying a terrified prospect of wholesale dumping of unemployed, who would reduce them to the same standard. These fears were largely unjustified, but any transference ot workers needed careful consideration.

Miss Bondfield declared that those who had tire greatest educational opportunities should be the first to take off their coats and justify themselves in the dominions.

Mr E. T. Campbell said: “We are not asking Australia for charity; she must realise that. But for the British Fleet she would be populated by yellow people. Wo have as much right to our way as Australia has to hers. It is a dual problem, but Australia does not seem to realise she is dependent upon us to a certain extent.” The Bill was read a second time without a division.