Sends the script of his recent broadcast to the United States. Asks whether he knows anything of the Monetary Reform League.
(Keynes’s reply is 2/212, dated 12 Dec. 1931.)
Sends the script of his recent broadcast to the United States. Asks whether he knows anything of the Monetary Reform League.
(Keynes’s reply is 2/212, dated 12 Dec. 1931.)
Tilton, Firle, Sussex.—Has only had time to glance through the enclosed (proofs of This Gold Crisis), but finds little to quarrel with. Comments on Pethick-Lawrence’s estimate of the balance of trade.
46 Gordon Square, Bloomsbury.—Declines to write a foreword to his book (This Gold Crisis).
Transcript
Trinity College | Cambridge
22 Oct. 1931
My dear Gerald,
If in these times you find yourself in straits I hope you will apply to me, unless we have a Labour government, in which case I shall be unable to do anything for anyone.
Your affectionate godfather
A. E. Housman.
[Marked in pencil:] 22.10.31
(London.)—Has never heard of the Monetary Reform League (see 2/248). Thanks him for his broadcast.
(Postmarked in London, W.C.)
Harben has sent him Cole’s prospectus of the proposed mission to Russia. Asks for further details.
University College, Oxford.—Hopes that Pethick-Lawrence will be able to join the party going to Russia (see 1/164). The aim is to learn more about the problems of introducing a socialist system, with emphasis on public and industrial finance.
—————
Transcript
University College, Oxford
16/1/32
Dear Pethick Lawrence,
I was very pleased to get your note, and I very much hope you will be able to go with the party to Russia. I am afraid that, for reasons of health, I shall not be able to go myself; {1} but there will be Leslie, Dalton, probably Cuttall, {2} C. M. Lloyd, Leonard Woolf, Susan Lawrence, H. L. Beales, possibly Somerville Hastings, and one or two others, in addition to Harben. The aim is to make a thorough study, over two months or more, with particular relation to the light thrown on the problems of introducing a Socialist system, and with emphasis on public and industrial finance. Starting late June or early July, and splitting up for investigations. I am in touch with the Soviet Embassy & Moscow now about facilities.
I am away in Oxford for the next week; but C. M. Lloyd or Leslie could tell you all about it, or I could, when I get back. You have, however, most of the information, except that, as soon as we get the group together, and can see our way with Moscow and with enough money to ensure the visit, we want to take on a Russian-speaking secretary and start seriously on preliminary work. But for that we are still trying to raise funds here and get Moscow’s agreement to the visit.
Yours sincerely
G. D. H. Cole
—————
{1} Cole had recently been found to be suffering from diabetes.
{2} Reading uncertain.
Is going away for two or three weeks. Will discuss the matter (the proposed mission to Russia) further on his return.
5 Carlisle Mansions, Carlisle Place, S.W.1.—The planned visit to the Soviet Union is taking shape and he expects to be one of the party. Invites Pethick-Lawrence to discuss the matter.
Pethick-Lawrence has gone abroad on holiday, but will discuss the visit to Russia with Cole on his return (see 1/180).
24 Montpelier Crescent, Brighton.—Invites her and Mr Lawrence to lunch.
Confirms her acceptance of an invitation (3/139).
Nagoya Commercial Academy, Gokiso-machi, Naka-ku, Nagoya, Japan.—Has translated This Gold Crisis into Japanese and it has now been published. Apologises for not having obtained permission in advance.
(With an envelope.)
—————
Transcript
Trinity College | Cambridge
6 May 1930
Dear Semple,
So far as I am able to judge, I approve both your rejection of Harvard and your application for Aberystwyth. I think I would rather be a referee than write another testimonial, as one can express oneself with more freedom and ease.
Yours sincerely
A. E. Housman.
[Direction on envelope:] W. H. Semple Esq. | The University | Reading
—————
The envelope, which bears a 1½d. stamp, was postmarked at Cambridge at 10.15(?) p.m. on 6 May.
West Leaze, Aldbourne, Wiltshire.—Is opposed to making a declaration at Leicester (i.e. at the Labour Party conference) in favour of nationalising the joint-stock banks.
(The envelope bears the printed words ‘On His Britannic Majesty’s Service’, and is labelled ‘Bill of Lading | for Lord Byrons Furniture | Ref. F.O. Desp. No 9. (L2523/43/402) | 19/5/32.’ This is presumably the envelope in which the bill was sent from Venice.)
‘As from’ 7 Parsifal Road, London, N.W.6.—Sends, for the consideration of the Policy Sub-Committee, a paper recommending that a Labour Government should immediately nationalise the joint-stock banks (see 1/161).
—————
Transcript
As from 7 Parsifal Road, | London, N.W.6.
1/6/32.
Dear Pethick Lawrence,
Dalton suggested to me that I should see you in order to put before you, with an eye to the L. P. Policy Committee, my view about the Joint Stock Banks; but, as I shall be out of London till next Wednesday, it seems I had better write. I have tried to put down, on a couple of sheets, my reasons for thinking that the new Labour policy, if it is to be effective, must include provision for the immediate taking over of the joint stock banks as well as the Bank of England. I gather privately from Dalton that the Policy Sub-Committee is at present inclined not to take this view. If that is so, I should very much like a chance of backing my own opinion before it if that is possible. I feel so strongly that this is the key question, and that it cannot be bucked at the present stage. For, if I am right in thinking we shall have to tackle the joint stock banks at the start, I think it follows we ought to make our intentions clear at once. It will take us a long time to get our own people to the point of intelligent propaganda on this issue; and it will also take time to combat the fears which the policy will arouse in the minds of certain large sections of the electorate. We want the longest possible time before an election for intelligent putting of our case before the public.
I shall be back in town next Wednesday. Till Monday, my address is Bradfields, Topperfield, Great Yeldham, Essex. Sorry to bother you; but it’s all in the hope of getting the best possible policy for Leicester.
Yours sincerely
G. D. H. Cole
Explains his objections to Cole’s plan of nationalising the joint-stock banks (see 1/160–1 and cf. 5/43–4 and 5/47–8).
—————
Transcript
7th. June, 1932.
Dear Cole,
Many thanks for your letter and enclosure. Dalton had already told me that you were going to get into touch with me and I have been looking forward to hearing from you.
Let me begin with the last paragraph in your enclosure. I am in entire agreement with this. I do not think we shall get anywhere at all if we pot† out the Bank of England to some committee or other, and do not leave it under the direct immediate control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whatever Cabinet Finance Minister is in control of the banking and credit policy of the country.
Now let us see what this involves. The Bank of England is a gigantic institution whose policy is interwoven with the whole finance of the world, and by long experience there has been built up a tradition of which the Governor of the Bank is the servant and the exponent. His court to a lesser extent has together traditional knowledge which enables them to modify his judgment in carrying out this policy.
According to the ideas which you and I share the Government Finance Minister will have to get on top of all this. He will have no existing civil servants to help him for at the Treasury at the present time there is practically no direct knowledge of banking, either of central banking or joint stock banking; and unless therefore the Minister can himself understand the larger details of central banking he will be merely a tool in the hands of the bankers whom he takes over to do the day to day work. It seems to me to be unquestionable that this is therefore a whole time job and that the bank officials will (however they may be called) have to become in effect civil servants.
Now you want to nationalise simultaneously all the Joint Stock Banks in the country. How is the actual work of governing them going to be done? There are at present as I have already said no civil servants who know practically anything about it. To-day, in the Head Offices alone there are a great number of highly trained bankers who have done this business for years and who handle all the larger detail. Apart from them, there are an immense number of smaller fry who have quite important functions to perform in the different branches up and down the country. If the Government is going to nationalise all the Joint Stock Banks all these officials are going, in effect, to become civil servants; and all the work that they do is going to become government work; and all the major directions of policy in all these things will have to be government business.
I cannot envisage the minister who is controlling the Bank of England having any time or brain left to perform this colossal task for the Joint Stock Banks. You may say perhaps that an additional Minister could be appointed to do this. But this will not really meet the case because however many Ministers be appointed, many of the intricate details will really have to be Cabinet business. You may perhaps alternatively say that only a few really large issues will have to be decided by the Minister, and of course it is true that under no circumstances will every detailed transaction of every individual branch bank have to come before the Minister. Nevertheless I am quite sure that the number of decisions which would have to be taken at the top would be far too numerous to be made a part time job for an already occupied Minister.
My main objection therefore to attempting to nationalise both the Bank of England and the Joint Stock Banks in the first year or two of a Socialist Administration is that it is essential that the work of directing shall be well done. I cannot conceive of a Socialist Government performing effectively the double untried task of managing both the Bank of England and the Joint Stock Banks.
Compared with this major objection other objections are of minor importance: and yet I think they should be stated. However much we short-circuit the procedure, the Bill to nationalise the Bank of England will take a considerable amount of parliamentary time; and there is bound to be a demand for parliamentary time to be available for other measures which the Socialist Government will want to carry. I believe that the inclusion of the Joint Stock Banks will need a further very large part of parliamentary time which the Government would have a difficulty in providing.
There is an argument for taking a bold comprehensive course (this has been metaphorically referred to as not taking two bites at a cherry or not blunting our spearhead). On the other hand there is political wisdom in dividing our enemies. We should get much support to-day for nationalising the Bank of England which would be lost to us if we proposed also to nationalise the Joint Stock Banks. We can afford to take a lesson out of the notebook of our opponents, recollecting the Derby Scheme for Conscription during the War. (Metaphorically, not taking two bites at a cherry does not necessitate eating the whole bag of cherries at once.) We are also entitled to take into account the opposition of the Co-operative Party to nationalising the Co-operative Wholesale Bank, which would of course share the fate of the Joint Stock Banks.
You fear that ownership of the Bank of England alone will not give us the necessary power to cause an expansion in industry because you say that open market transactions alone are not sufficient for this purpose. The real question is however whether all the instruments in the hands of the Bank of England plus all the instruments in the hand of the Government would be sufficient. You do not forget I am sure, that the Government has power to engage in Capital Enterprises on borrowed money. What has prevented the effect of this policy in the past has been that while the Government was pulling this way the Bank of England was pulling the opposite way and deflating, or at any rate, was neutralising the Government’s action owing to its desire either to return to the Gold Standard or to stay on it when it was there. Quite clearly a Government freed from the Gold Standard and with the Bank of England in its control could inflate if it wished to. (Because if it were not so, the Government could win universal popularity by remitting all taxation and borrowing and spend lavishly.) Of course I do not want inflation but stability of the price level.
Finally, you are afraid of an attempt by the Joint Stock Banks to sabotage the credit policy of a Labour Government by not expanding credit when they have the chance. I do not regard this as very likely because all these years some of them have been complaining against the Bank of England and calling upon it to enlarge its basis of credit. But it might happen. I am more afraid that the Joint Stock Banks might misuse the credit provided for them. You suggest that the vague power of control which the Bank of England possesses over the Joint Stock Banks will not be adequate. That is probably true, but this will be augmented by 1—the general power of a Government to get its view enforced and 2) as I envisage it, the special powers of control over the whole finance of the country which I think the Government ought to obtain at the outset. You will perhaps ask what form this general power of control is going to take? My view is that we ought to enact a kind of financial D.O.R.A. But I do not think this is a thing which we should talk about openly. Of course if the worst came to the very worst and we were resisted on all sides, we might be compelled to put D.O.R.A. into operation in the shape of nationalising the Joint Stock Banks. But I think this is very unlikely as the financial magnates of the country really do come to heel to a Government which is determined and which has public opinion behind it: and quite clearly we could not nationalise the Banks unless we had these prerequisites.
Yours sincerely,
[blank]
G. D. H. Cole Esq.,
7, Parsifal Road,
London, N.W.6.
—————
† Sic.
7 Parsifal Road, Hampstead, N.W.6.—Defends his plan of nationalising the joint-stock banks, but acknowledges that, as the Policy Sub-Committee has now reported, the controversy must be turned elsewhere.
—————
Transcript
7 Parsifal Road, Hampstead, N.W.6
10/6/32
Dear Pethick Lawrence,
I don’t expect you expected to convince me: at any rate you have not. I should propose to take over the ownership of the J.S.B’s, without for the time disturbing their separate existence, or necessarily changing their managerial personnel, except at the very top. I don’t see any insuperable difficulty in controlling their operations, provided the banks pass as going concerns under public ownership; but I do see quite appalling difficulties in running a Socialist plan for industry in face of the independence and possible hostility of the Joint Stock Banks. However, I understand that your Sub-Committee has now done its report: so that the controversy has now to be transferred elsewhere. I shall hope yet to have a chance of convincing you that I am right—if we mean real Socialism now. Of course, if the Party does not mean that, but only another Government pretty much like the last, that alters the whole thing. In that event, I am afraid I shall not be the only person who will lose interest.
Yours sincerely
G. D. H. Cole
West Leaze, Aldbourne, Wiltshire.—Advises him of the arrangements for their visit to the Soviet Embassy.
It is precisely because he wants the next Labour Government to begin socialism in earnest that he opposes a scheme of nationalisation (see 1/162) ‘which looks well on paper but … will not amount to very much in practice’.
Sends a copy of a speech by Bogomoloff. Miss Goddard has recommended a male guide at Leningrad.
House of Commons.—Thanks him for a donation to the ‘Mr Harlstone’(?) fund.
Foreign Office, S.W.1.—Presents to Trinity College a bill of lading for the shipping of Lord Byron’s furniture, discovered among the archives of the British Consul at Venice.
—————
Transcript
FOREIGN OFFICE, S.W.1.
21st July, 1932.
L 3720/43/402.
My dear Gow,
Our Consul at Venice has recently been engaged in sorting out old archives, and has been sending home to us a mass of expired passports, ships’ articles or crew lists, and a collection of copies of Bills of Lading dated between 1817 and 1823.
Among these latter there is one of some historical interest, as it covers the furniture sent by Byron from Venice to Ravenna in January, 1820. I think he had himself returned to Ravenna shortly before Christmas, 1819, and had these things sent after him.
I have been authorised to dispose this document where it will be appreciated and preserved with care, and after considering the British Museum, Harrow and Trinity, I think that you are the most suitable people to {1} have it, if you want it.
I enclose a translation of it so that you may see its nature {3}. I think the last item the “small child’s bed” is rather pathetic as it doubtless belonged to little Allegra, who had been ill just before they left Venice.
I do not know whether you will find it necessary to consult anybody else before accepting this offer. I presume your Council does not meet in the long vacation, nor your Library Committee, but you can doubtless speak to the Master or Vice-Master about it, and if you tell me that you would like it, I will send it by registered post or bring it with me some week-end when I come to Cambridge.
Yours ever,
Stephen Gaselee
Andrew Gow, Esq. {2}
I feel that if it went to Harrow it might set the boys asking “But why did the poet go from Venice to Ravenna?”
—————
Typed, except the signature and the postscript.
{1} Typed as a catchword at the foot of the first page and repeated at the beginning of the next.
{2} Typed at the foot of the first page.
{3} It is unclear whether the translation accompanied the bill from Venice, or whether it was made in England by Gaselee himself or someone else.
(With an envelope.)
—————
Transcript
Trinity College | Cambridge
27 July 1932
Dear Semple,
Thanks for sending me the news, though I wish it had been different. I am glad that you are satisfied with Wood, to whose name I do not myself attach any clear recollection, though I am told he was at this college {1}.
So far as I can forsee† I shall now be here, where I have just returned, till October, so you would probably find me if you came.
Yours sincerely
A. E. Housman.
[Direction on envelope:] W. H. Semple Esq. | 23 Eastern Avenue | Reading
—————
The envelope, which bears a 1½d. stamp, was postmarked at Cambridge at 12.15 p.m. on 27 July.
{1} The reference is to E. J. Wood, Professor of Latin at Aberystwyth, whom Semple had probably met in connection with his application to that university.
† Sic.
(It is unclear whether this accompanied the bill of lading from Venice, or whether it was made in England by Gaselee himself or someone else.)
—————
Transcript
Venice, January 26th, 1820.
Embarked, in the name of God and under good auspices, one {1} and for all in this port of Venice by Mr. Richard Belgrave Hoppner, His Britannic Majesty’s Consul for account of Signor Milord Bajron, in the hold of the sailing ship named Divina Provvidenza, owner Francesco Ceolin, Austrian, to convey and consign in this present voyage, to the said Signor Milord Bajron the undermentioned and numbered goods, dry, entire, and well conditioned and of the numbers stated: and so the said Master promises to consign them on his safe arrival; and as freight there shall be paid to him in all eighteen Roman crowns, Crowns 18, and in proof thereof this, together with other similar (copies) shall be signed by the said Master, and if he shall be unable to write, a third person shall write for him, and only drawn up, the others being of no value.
No. 4 Mattresses, with 3 pillows and bolster.
” 1 Small padded bed cover.
(a) 2 Empty mattress cases.
(b) 4 Comodes—packed in matting
2 Footstools
1 Basket with various effects, covered in cloth.
1 Valise.
1 Bundle containing a bracket and other effects packed in matting.
1 Dining-room table.
1 Small table.
1 Filter.
4 Cases of printed books.
1 Case containing a plaster Statue.
(c) 1 Sofa of cherry wood.
4 Cushions for the above.
(d) 16 Small walnut chairs.
6 Small straw-seated arm chairs.
1 Caldron containing various effects.
2 Small wooden dog-kennels.
1 Bath tub.
(e) 1 Package containing a double bed and a small child’s bed, taken to pieces.
Lodovico Barbaglia,
for the Master Franco Ceolin as witness.
Notes:—
(a). It was usual at that time to stuff mattress cases with straw—hence the word “Pagliazzo”—(paglia—straw)—presumably the servants’ mattresses.
(b). Como stiorati—the latter word is probably derived from stiora or mat, and possibly they were cov-ered in matting. “Stiorati” a term which is used locally for “inlaid”.
(c). Sofa di Cevesar—this word is evidently Cereser—or the local dialect for cherrywood.
(d). “Careghe”, diminutive “Careghino”—Venetian for a chair.
(e). “Cocchietta”—mispelt† for “cocetta”—double bed. “Putello”—Venetian for child.
—————
1 single sheet.
{1} A slip for ‘once’?
{2} ‘aj’ possibly typed over other letters.
† Sic.
Sends an account of his time in Russia. He was with her husband till he (Dalton) left for Magnetogorsk.
West Leaze, Aldbourne, Wiltshire.—Thanks him for the account of his Russian trip (see 1/199). Hugh expects to return to Moscow some time this week.