Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Slums, like Poverty, are still with us.

Mr. Gibson (Labour, Kennington): ". . . There is no excuse whatever for the slightest complacency, for much remains to be done; in addition, there are slums which need to be pulled down; some of us have already made a start on slum clearance. I always thought that I knew something about slum conditions, but last week, when I went into one of the worst slum areas in London, I was appalled at the conditions existing in one part of Islington. The houses themselves are so sound structurally that medical officers of health are dubious about condemning them, but inside they have been allowed to become festering dens of unhealthy life, with walls falling down, floors cracking, no proper convenience, and no water. There are thousands of houses like these, not only in London but in many other large cities, which must be dealt with. There is, therefore, no call for anyone to imagine that there is not still a great deal to be done in the building of new houses.”

(Housing Debate, 4/7/49.)

* * *

Day to Day Struggle—Matches Front.

Mr. W. Gallagher (Communist, East Fife): “ . . . In this particular matter of matches, as a pipe smoker and as one who uses a very considerable amount of matches, I ask the Economic Secretary to discuss the matter again with the Chancellor and see whether they cannot find some other way of assisting the manufacturers to meet the costs of production rather than by way of making an increase of this kind. I ask him very sincerely to withdraw this proposal.”

(Finance Bill, Proposal to raise price of matches by halfpenny a box. 22/6/49.)

* * *

Members of Nationalised Boards.

Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): “… All those who have any responsibility for airline operation are in favour of this Bill; not only that, they ask for it to be given legislative effect at the earliest possible moment. The boards of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. are in favour of the Bill, and those boards are composed of business men—men who prior to coming into association with civil air transport were and in some cases still are associated with successful private enterprise …”

(Airways Corporation Bill, Second Reading, 29/6/49.)

* * *

A Man in an Absolute Muddle

Mr. J. Scollan (Labour, West Renfrew): ". . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us about the dollar crisis. What was the panacea that he had to offer for the problem facing us? Was it not the same as was offered in the 1930’s during the depression: reduce costs and increase production? Did not wages go down in the 1930’s? Had not we a lock-out in 1926 for the miners? Were not the miners locked out for weeks on end, until prices were brought down? Did that bring prosperity? It brought misery, poverty and degradation. I am surprised to hear some of the arguments today. What are the Government going to do to see that we can meet France and other countries in fair competition? It does not seem to occur to anyone that we recently decided upon a European bloc and unity. Now we are deciding to go into competition with the very people with whom we were to be united. We are hoping that instead of unemployment being in Scotland, it will be in France. That is the cure. I say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that if Scotland were a free and independent country—I am not pleading Nationalism— it could stand on its own economy in the world blizzard that is likely to hit us.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Bouquet for American Capitalism—from a Labourite

Mr. J. Carmichael (Labour, Glasgow, Bridgeton): “. . . My only trouble is the attempt on the part of some people to complain about the interference of American capitalism. Does anybody doubt the fact that whatever Government would have been in, there would have been need of American aid? Our complaint all along has been that America might have been more liberal in her aid, recognising the great economic sacrifices made by this country during the war. They were compelled to intervene. I do not complain about American financial intervention. I welcome it, because today in Scotland we have less unemployment than we had in the bad old days.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

Plain Words from a Tory

Major G. Lloyd (Conservative, East Renfrew): “. . . The solution is to be found in a steady courageous determination to bring down costs of production, to make it easier in a buyers’ market for our industrialists, traders and men of commerce to sell the goods, as a result of which alone they can employ the people . . . People can only be employed if our industrialists can sell goods. If they cannot do that, they cannot employ the people. There is no politics in it. It is a matter of plain economic common-sense.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

* * *

A Labour Leader talks Capitalist Economics

Mr. A. Woodburn (Secretary .of State for Scotland): “. . . However, one thing is certain, that the buyers’ market which has obtained since the war is ending. Just as we may have to go without some imports, so other countries may have to do without what we would like to send them. We may have to make both effort and sacrifice to stimulate trade by quality, price and delivery. If then, we are to keep vital trade going, our efforts must be directed to producing goods which the world wants at the prices at which other people are able or ready to pay. We cannot live without imports. This country must trade, or die.”

(Debate on Scotland [Industry], 7/7/49.)

Stan Hampson

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labourite on Profits

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . I think that to be attacking the profits is to start at the wrong end; I think that we and the trade union movement ought to be gunning for the firms who are not making any profits. That is our problem in connection with prices, and one which arises out of our success at achieving full employment. We are protecting the inefficient. The big gap of prices is the one which has to be closed, and, therefore, we ought to gun for the fellow not making profits." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

And Another on Capitalism

Mr. Chamberlain (Labour, Norwood): ". . . Then the hon. Member said that the Government are pledged to destroy capitalism. So far from that, they have made it clear again and again that whereas a certain proportion of our economy is to be nationalised, yet the major part of it will remain the province of private capital enterprise, and surely nobody suggests that we should destroy that large part of our economy which is recognised as an essential and important section." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Income from Foreign Investments

Mr. Awbery asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of foreign investments and the income from them for the years 1913, 1920, 1938 and 1945.

Sir Stafford Cripps: “The figures are as follows: —In 1913, total value about £4,000 million, income £210 million. In 1920, total value £3,200 million to £3,700 million, income £200 million. In 1938 nominal value £3,692 million. These are all private estimates. Gross income from interest, profits and dividends in 1938 is estimated at £205 million and payments at £30 million making a net income of £175 million. No figures are available or the values of investments in 1945, but proceeds of sales during the war amounted to £1,118 million. Gross income in 1945 was £170 million payments £73 million and net income therefore £97 million. (Question Time, 8.11.49).

Nationalisation—A Tory Viewpoint 

Mr. Raikes (Conservative, Liverpool, Wavertree): “. . . Nationalisation is now a fact, and I say quite frankly, speaking from this side of the house, that it is the duty, of all sides to try to make the National Coal Board work, and to work effectively." (National Coal Board Debate, 10.11.49.)

It’s News to Us

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . The weakness of some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is that they do not realise that much of their propaganda—and it may be some of the legislation—springs from the time when we were dispossessed instead of being the ruling classes as we are at the present time." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Better Than Nothing!—The Standby of all Labour Governments

Mr. Younger (Under Secretary of State, Home Office): “. . . Reverting for a moment to high explosive defence, I believe that in broad terms it is the expert opinion that it is three times better to be in a house than to be in the open; and it is five time better to be in an ordinary brick surface shelter than to be in a house. That is to say, it is 15 times better to be in a shelter than in the street. It is not complete protection, but it is better than nothing . . ."

“. .. The suggestion that the fact of a person being in a shelter would make no difference at all is contrary to the advice I am given. I am advised that there is a radius from an atomic explosion at which these shelters could be helpful, and they are better than nothing."

“. . . I should not want it to be thought that anything I am saying is to be taken as suggesting that the expert view of the Government is that the 1945 standard of protection is either adequate against the atomic bomb or against what could be expected in the matter of high explosives. All I do say is that, pending further provision on a tremendously increased scale to meet the country’s requirements, it is very much better to have what we have got than nothing at all." (Demolition of Air-Raid Shelters, 28.10.49.) 

Stan Hampson

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are the Tories going Syndicalist?

From the Debate on a Conservative Clause to the Coal Industry Bill. (Hansard, 28/3/1949).

Mr. J. G. Foster (Conservative, Northwich). “I should like now to allude to the point of view taken up by the Hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). He says that the House of Commons need not be bothered because there is the miners union and the Government owns the mines, and that therefore everything is quite happy as between the miners’ union and the Government. I do not think the hon. Member has quite appreciated the fact that although things may be all right between the miners’ union and the Government—and of course the top union officials have jobs in the Government and represent the unions in Parliament—things are not all right between the members of the union in the nationalised industry and their union officials in the Government. Things are not all right, as one can see, because there are unofficial strikes and it takes months for disputes and grievances to come up even to the men’s own union officials.

“It is no answer for an hon. Member to get up in this House and say ‘It is all right, the union has said nothing.’ Of course the union have not said anything. They work hand in glove with the Government and disregard the interests of the men. That is the trouble, and we get the same trouble in civil aviation and in the transport industry. That is why some breakaway unions are popular and why there are unofficial strikes; it is because the men are dissatisfied with their own union officials. There is great disquiet among many trade unionists who remember the glorious record of trade unionism that is being thrown away because top union officials prefer to work in harmony with the the Government instead of putting the interests of their men first . . .”

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): “I am anxious to confine my remarks as far as possible to the Bill and to the new Clause, but I cannot let tho comments of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) pass without making some reply to what seemed to me to be a disgraceful attack on the leaders of the trade union movement. He appeared to be criticising them for the moderating influence which they exercise upon their members, so as to help the country through its present economic difficulties. I am astonished that a prominent member of the Conservative Party should now be descending to a syndicalist policy. 1 should hope that if any Member on the Front Bench opposite is to speak he will repudiate the hon. Member for Northwich, because he made a most scandalous suggestion.”

#    #    #    #

Mr. Shinwell among the Brass-hats.

“ . . . I have had experience of working with the so-called brass hats for the past eighteen months and I had some experience of working with them in 1929. I have also had the experience of working with other people, and I would rather work with the brass hats at the War Office than with some of the brass faces in other spheres of life.”

(Hansard, 29/3/1949.)

#    #    #    #

And another one-time “ Revolutionary.”

"Is the Prime Minister aware that forty years ago the Oath of Allegiance was even exacted from junior civil servants, the lower ranges of civil servants; and can he say why it has fallen into disuse since then? Does he not think it would be a good plan to re-impose it?”

(Mr. W. J. Brown, Hansard, 29/3/1949) 

#    #    #    #

We Wonder.

"Private enterprise has been aided more by this Government than by any Tory Government, and the result of the General Election will show that the people like it”

(Mr. A. Robens, Parliamentary Secretary to the Min. of Fuel and Power. Hansard, 29/3/1949.)

#    #    #    #

Troubles of a Labour Leader.

Captain Hewitson (Labour M.P. for Hull, Central) in the Debate on the Budget proposals. (Hansard, 7/4/1949).

"I have in my hand a list of industries numbering 151; in 122 of these 95s. or less is the average weekly basic wage. During last year trade union leaders, in spite of all the things that have been said against them about lost leadership, not being able to control their members, and so on, have been able to persuade their followers to increase production. At the same time they have prevented inuation by holding back demands for increased wages. We have accomplished that during the last year. We have reached the stage today when we cannot hold that safety valve any longer."

"I want to strike a note of warning . . . Can I go to my membership, who have a wage of 95s. or less, and justify to them and convince them that that wage is adequate to keep body and soul within them and their homes, and to give them decent shelter? We cannot do it any longer. If the Chancellor or the Government in the Budget which was issued yesterday had given concessions in Purchase Tax, and concessions that would have made life for the ordinary working class home easier, we trade union leaders could have held that safety valve for months and months ahead and so helped the country to get through its economic crisis . . .”

"There was a cartoon in the Evening Standard on the subject of the 'Old white horse, Old Faithful, the old T.U.C.' Let me say this to the Government. Their pace is determined by that old white horse. The last straw can break that old white horse's back, but, so far as we are concerned, we are not going to allow the old white horse’s back to be broken. If it comes to a last final resort, we shall fight. We say to this Government, or to any other, 'You can’t afford to fight against us who represent the organised workers in the country . . .”

Stan Hampson

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the July 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Day to Day Struggle—Meat Sandwich Front

Mr. Piratin (Communist, Mile End): “While I agree with the right hon. lady [Dr. Edith Summerskill] that it is important to fix the price for meat sandwiches, a meat sandwich might be as thin as a wafer or as thick as a coin. Is not the fact, as the hon. Member has said, that a sandwich may be 6d. one day and 8d. for exactly the same kind the next, something which the Minister could look into?” (Motion to annul Meat [Retail Prices] Order, 25/5/49.)

Workers! Advice from a Conservative

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Conservative, Skipton): “. . . The present danger to workers in this country is not that they are likely to produce themselves out of work. If one looks around at the devastation caused in our cities by war, one is amazed that the building industry still indulges in certain practices which hamper production. Surely there is enough work for generations of builders. When it is realised what a tremendous demand there is for goods: not only to re-equip our homes but also to supply markets overseas, there should be no fear that they can produce themselves out of work. What they can do is to price themselves out of work, by making the cost of our goods overseas so high that no one will be prepared to buy them.” (On the motion for the Adjournment, 13/5/49.)

Are You Convinced Now?

Mr. Ness Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour): “In the old days men felt that if they worked hard they would work themselves out of a job. Today they have full employment. By and large, there are jobs for everybody. If they work hard they do not necessarily become unemployed . . . Workers in industry have the assurance that if in their employment they play the game by the country, they will not, as a consequence, become unemployed . . . .” (On the motion for the Adjournment. Productivity. 13/5/49.)

Irresponsible Workers

Mr. F. Messer (Labour, Tottenham South): “. . . It may be—one never knows what the people of this country are going to do, because sometimes they are most irresponsible—that at some future time there will be a Tory government . . .” (National Health Service Amendment BUI, 24/5/49.)

A Tory on the Next Depression

Mr. Brendan Bracken (Conservative, Bournemouth): “. . . I aver with sorrow that we are entering into times of depression. How deep that depression, I know not... ” (Debate on Fuel and Power, 19/5/49.)

Nationalisation—Before and After

Sir F. Sanderson (Conservative, Ealing East) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the profits of the Bank of England have been since nationalisation; and whether they show an increase or decrease on the last pre-nationalisation figures.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Financial Secretary to the Treasury): “Since the Bank of England Act, 1946, came into force, the Bank have paid to the Treasury £873,180 half-yearly in lieu of dividend, as provided in Section .1(4) of the Act. This is the same amount as the half-yearly dividend previously paid on Bank of England Stock. The balance of profit after provision for the half-yearly payment is carried to the Rest, to which was previously carried any balance of profits after provision for the half-yearly dividend ; these movements are shown in the Bank Return.” (Written Questions).

Capitalist Economies—from a Labour Party Capitalist

Mr. R. R. Stokes (Labour, Ipswich): “. . . In regard to export business, people ought to be encouraged to make more profit on their goods, and the stigma on making profits ought to be removed. The stigma ought to be put, and ought to be emphasised, on how the profits ought to be distributed. I see no harm whatever in making larger and wider margins. I would sack any managing director who was not making twice as much profit today as he did before the war . . .” (Second Reading of Finance Bill, 18/5/49.)

Tory Support for Trade Unions 

Mr. W. Shepherd (Conservative, Bucklow): “I think that any attack upon the unions at the present time in this country would be most improper. I know the difficulties which the union leaders have today in carrying their own supporters with them .... I sympathise with the attitude that the unions have to take up, and I say that there are no better industrial organisations anywhere than the trade unions in this country. I think that our union leaders today are an example to the whole world, and I wish them well in the task which they have to fulfil. (On the motion for the Adjournment. Productivity. 13/5/49.)

Fair Play for Industry—says a Labourite

Mr. W. R. Williams (Labour, Heston and Isleworth): “. . . Some of us connected with industry have all our lives been saying that the basic principle in industry must be a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. It was not until we came within a reasonable distance of a decent day’s pay and decent conditions of work and welfare that we had any time left over to deal with the converse side of industry. After having convinced our people of their rights and what is a proper return for their labour, we are now quite rightly asking them to do the right thing by industry in return.” (On the motion for the Adjournment. Productivity. 13/5/49.) 

Three Cheers for Labour Government—from the Workers ?

Mr. J. Diamond (Labour, Blackley): “. . . The Government have been most helpful in encouraging private enterprise to play its proper part, and private enterprise has decided, although somewhat belatedly, to swim with the current instead of against it, and, as a result, while using the same energy to produce more, has achieved, with the help of the Government, extraordinarily satisfactory results for which the thanks of everybody in all quarters of the House ought to go out . . . ” (On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, 17/5/49.)

Nasty Foreigners!

Mr. R. R. Stokes (Labour, Ipswich): “. . . I must say that I am in some doubt about this question of bulk buying unless we are bulk buying with people who play the same game. It seems to me that bulk buying is O.K. in the Commonwealth and certain other countries, but when we are dealing with a lot of foreigners who cheat, it is extremely difficult to conduct it successfully ...” (On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, 17/5/49.)

New Ways of Spelling SLUMP

Mr. Brendan Bracken (Conservative, Bournemouth): “ Some hon. Members opposite seem to doubt my statement that our export industries must soon face a depression. Now, 'depression’ is an unfashionable word. When I was very young I had an opportunity of witnessing the great slump in the United States, and nobody objected to that being called a depression. But in the middle ’thirties America was afflicted by another great weakening in sales, and the politicians, who had to win elections, declared that this sad development could not be called a depression. They said, ‘ Anyone who calls this new development, the falling-off of sales, a depression is foolish. He is the sort of man who will neither believe in Moses nor the prophets.’ Then, of course, Americans had to invent a new name, and they called the depression of the middle ’thirties a ‘recession.’ Today the Americans have found a new name for the decline in sales—and, let me remind the Minister, a heavy decline in oil sales. They are not willing to call it a depression, and I must say that their new name is a very attractive one: they call it ‘a slide' . . .  ” (Debate on Fuel and Power, 19/5/49.)

Stan Hampson

The meaning of the Pensions Bill (1925)

From the September 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I submit that this scheme is a social insurance scheme in more than one sense. It is a good scheme of insurance for the poor, and it safeguards them against some of the risks and anxieties of life, but it is also a good insurance scheme for the rich. The rich should pay up and so avoid the dangers of the social revolution.” Speech of Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck (Hansard, 19/5/25, Column 354).

Secret Political Funds. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Twenty Labour members voted in the division on Secret Political Funds; ten for the motion and ten against. Thus was “ Labour’s Unity ” demonstrated.

Are there too many houses? (1970)

From the October 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard

They are now trying to tell us that there will be too many houses by 1973. Listen to this extraordinary exchange that took place in the House of Commons last March under the Labour government:

Mr. Rossi asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the number of surplus houses which will be available in 1973.
Mr. Greenwood: The overall numerical surplus of houses over households in 1973 is still expected to be of the order of 1 million, but I cannot stress too emphatically that this surplus will not be evenly spread throughout the country and that shortages and bad housing, as I have repeatedly said, will persist in some areas. (Hansard, 3 March 1970).

One million too many houses by 1973! Can they be serious when there are now a few million people living in houses even the government admits are unfit?

What the Ministry experts have done is to compare trends in “potential” demand for housing with trends in housebuilding capacity. Under capitalism this is a pretty pointless exercise since what decides how many houses are actually built is not “potential” demand (what people need) but “effective” demand (what they can afford). The only way of measuring whether there are too many houses on the market is to compare supply and demand; a “surplus” would arise if there were more houses for sale or rent than could be sold or let profitably. As the Lloyds Bank Review (April 1970) puts it:

 a ‘real’ surplus of houses can co-exist with hundreds of thousands of people either without homes or living in inadequate dwellings, if the price of the surplus accommodation is too expensive for it to clear itself.

In practice what would happen is that, anticipating such a situation, building firms would cut back on the number of houses they were going to build. The usual capitalist absurdity of curtailing production despite people's needs would again arise. Indeed stockbrokers are already predicting this and warning capitalists not to invest in house-building companies since profit prospects there are bad. For instance, early in 1968 Cazenove and Co. commented:

  The outlook for house building is particularly serious with the indication that there will be a genuine surplus of houses by 1973. The indicated annual requirement of new dwellings by then is put at only 270,000, as compared to the 400,000 expected to be built this year. These projections may be over-pessimistic, but it is evident that the house building industry is one without growth prospects.

One of the inevitable consequences of production for sale is that output goes up and down in accordance with changing market conditions. In some industries, like brickmaking, these cycles are fairly short. In house-building, because of the existence of old houses, the cycle is very much longer. The last major depression in house-building was in the 1930’s; the next one is due, the experts guess, in the 1970’s. No doubt those who think capitalism can be reformed to serve human interests will be bringing forward all sorts of futile proposals as to how “accommodation can be made available to poorer people at a price they can afford to pay” (Lloyds Bank Review). Will they never learn?

Adam Buick

A Parliamentary Joke. (1929)

From the August 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Captain D. W. Gunston is Tory M.P. for Thornbury and also a humorist. It is the aim of those who combine these two features to try to trap unsuspecting ministers with questions which are only seemingly innocent. It will be remembered that immediately after the General Election Sir W. Jowitt, K.C., M.P. for Preston, who had been elected as a Liberal, accepted the office of Attorney-General and joined the Labour Party. Below is Captain Gunston’s question and Mr. Clynes’ reply (Hansard, July 11, ’29):—.

Captain Gunston asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the introduction of legislation to prohibit the practice of the payment of sums of money on the transfer of professional football players from one club to another?

Mr. Clynes: The answer is in the negative.

Captain Gunston: While appreciating that the Government do not want to interfere with the transfer of talent, may I ask the right hon. gentleman if he is in a position to inform the House of the transfer fee, if any, in the case of the Attorney-General?

Pot Calls Kettle Black (1973)

From the August 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Benn Accuses Tories of ‘State Capitalism'

Speaking in the House of Commons on 5 March in a debate about the Government’s Green Paper on the price and pay code, Mr. Wedgwood Benn declared:

   “This code, if it comes into effect under this legislation, will mark the end of free enterprise as we know it and will usher in an era, not of Socialism— I entirely acquit the Government of any interest in that direction —but at least of State capitalism or something like it which is totally contrary to the principles upon which they presented themselves to the electorate in 1970” (Hansard, 5 March 1973, Col 52).

The Tory member who is supposed to have been overheard saying at a recent party that ‘the Labour Party made fifty promises at the last election and we’ve implemented forty-eight of them’ was not available for comment.

Urban myth or Trotskyist fabrication (2010)

From the March 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

Londoners and visitors to London may have noticed last year a big poster of Engels on the Underground next to a quote, allegedly from him, that “An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory”. No source is given. Which is not surprising since this is not a quote from Engels but a long-standing English-language proverb that has been mistakenly attributed to him. It has also been attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Lenin and Gandhi.

It's first recorded use dates from 1748 when Jared Eliot, a New England clergyman, wrote in Essays upon Field Husbandry that “It used to be the Saying of an old Man, That an Ounce of Experience is better than a Pound of Science.” (See link here.)

But it is all over the internet as something Engels said, usually without a source. The more serious collections of quotes give the source as a book published in 1975 by Reg Groves entitled The Strange Case of Victor Grayson, which presumably is the earliest attribution their researchers have found. Groves was a pioneer British Trotskyist, expelled from the Communist Party for Trotskyism in 1932.

In fact Groves does not actually say that Engels said this but is even slightly interrogative and rhetorical. What he wrote was “and did not wise old Frederick Engels once say: An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory ?” (chapter II, p, 115). He gave no source for his supposition.

Another Trotskyist, Terry Fields, who managed to become a Labour MP, also used this proverb, only he attributed it to Lenin. “The Red Russian leader, Vladimir Hitch [sic!] Lenin, said that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.” (Hansard House of Commons Debates, 29 April 1987 vol115 cols 314-8) “An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory, as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin once said.” (Hansard 27 November 1989 col 489)

It probably wasn’t said by Lenin either but it does appear in an article in the Weekly Worker, the paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, on 13 February 1925 by T. A, Jackson as “An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory“ (See link here.)

Jackson (incidentally an SPGB renegade) didn’t attribute it to anyone. He was well read and was probably just using an old proverb he felt appropriate to his argument (summed up in the next following sentence: “A successful stand of the workers in any given factory will prepare them more for a united stand of all the factories in an industry than years of theoretical preaching”.)

Groves joined the Communist Party in 1927, so this would be where he would have picked up the phrase. Attributing it to Engels would be his own mistake just as attributing it to Lenin was Field‘s.

It is not surprising that Trotskyists like this saying as it well expresses their theory and tactic that it is not worth trying to put the straight socialist case before the working class (as we do) as this is too theoretical for them; workers, according to the Trotskyist theory of ‘transitional demands’, can only learn by experience, the experience of fighting for reforms within capitalism and learning that capitalism cannot grant these reforms; at which point they are supposed to turn to the Trotskyist vanguard party and follow it in an armed uprising against the capitalist state. Hence their conclusion that what socialists should be doing is not putting the case for socialism, but proposing attractive reforms for the working class to follow. It is an argument for a reformist practice.