CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board of Trade to apply Part II to certain goods.)

HC Deb 30 June 1921 vol 143 cc2373-423

(1) If, on complaint being made to the Board to that effect, it appears to the Board that goods of any class or description (other than articles of food or drink) manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom—

1. (a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter denned; or
2. (b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;

and that by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being or is likely to be seriously affected, the Board may refer the matter for inquiry to a committee constituted for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(2) If the committee report that as respects goods of any class or description manufactured in any country the conditions aforesaid are fulfilled the Board may by order apply this Part of this Act to goods of that class or description if manufactured in that country:

Provided that no such order shall be made which is at variance with any treaty, convention or engagement with any foreign State in force for the time being.

(3) An order made under this Section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made for a period of twenty-one days during which that House has sat, and if that House before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the order His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and thereupon the order shall become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Major BARNES

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "fulfilled" ["are fulfilled the"], to insert the words, "and that the effect of an order made under this Part of this Act will not diminish the aggregate employment in the United Kingdom."

The words proposed to be inserted affect the duties that are to be imposed upon a Committee to be set up. That Committee is to report as to whether certain conditions are fulfilled, and those conditions are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1). They are to report whether goods are being sold

1. "(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined; or
2. (b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;"

We ask that, having reported on these conditions, they should also report as to whether the effect of an Order made under this part of the Act would be to diminish the aggregate employment in the United Kingdom. This Amendment is designed to touch what we believe to be the fundamental fallacy of this part of the Bill, namely, that by making things dearer in this country you can increase employment. The reason for Part II is to increase employment. The reason for Part I is to increase national security. The Government desire to see the largest number of people employed, and they think that they are going to secure that by increasing the price of things that come into the country. That is a theory which has been better expounded in this House by the Minister of Health than by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Secretary for Overseas Trade.

I do not know whether the attack on the Free Trade position will be continued in the same way during this Debate as it has been conducted in the preceding Debates. It has become almost routine. There is an assault, if I may say so without offence, by the comparatively light artillery now in position on the Treasury Bench, and at a certain hour the very heavy gun is brought into action. I congratulate the Protectionists on having captured a very heavy Free Trade gun and on getting it into position on the Treasury Bench. We are subject to bombardment from that weapon. I do not know of anything like it in military warfare except the bombardment of Paris by Big Bertha during the War; a weapon the whereabouts of which could not be discovered during the day, but which reappeared at regular times on certain evenings. So far as my recollection goes, the damage to Paris was not very excessive, and I do not think the Free Trade position is suffering very much even from the attack of the big gun now. The Protectionists are to be congratulated—

The CHAIRMAN

I am waiting to discover at what moment the hon. Member is going to approach the question of unemployment.

Major BARNES

I am sorry if I have left you in any situation of anxiety, and I will come to the point as quickly as may be. My point is that, under the circumstances to which I was referring, the Government and the Protectionists are to be congratulated on the fact not only that they have captured this big gun, but that they are finding that their old ammunition fits the bore. No argument is more familiar to us in dealing with Protection than the argument that Protection is a means of remedying the evils of unemployment. The only argument that has been employed in this Debate in regard to Part II is that by introducing this Measure of Protection and imposing duties of 33½ per cent. we are going to increase the amount of employment and to decrease the amount of unemployment proportionately. It is rather a happy coincidence that this Debate will be followed immediately by a Debate upon a Bill which is being brought in by the Government to deal with unemployment in another way—relieving it by paying a money dole.

We all feel that that is a very unsatisfactory way to deal with unemployment. It is better that people should receive relief and not be exposed to the privations which unemployment brings, but all of us are agreed that it is better for people to be at work earning money than to be out of work receiving assistance from the Imperial Exchequer or the rates; and if this proposal of the Government were a real solution of the problem of unemployment, and would indeed set people to work, to no party would it be more welcome than to those in this quarter. But in this Debate there has already been comment on the significant fact that the party which might be expected to welcome proposals to deal with the problem is the party which is as critical as any other in this House of the present proposals. They have received no approval from the Labour party. A body of men very far removed from the Labour party have been announcing what they consider to be proposals which would improve the trade of this country, and in consequence reduce unemployment. What the bankers have said has been referred to over and over again in this Debate, but their opinion is looked upon as of no value by those upon the Treasury Bench.

The view of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), the Minister of Health, and the occupants of the Treasury Bench is that the bankers know nothing when they suggest that the real way to cure the evil of unemployment is to get back to a sound currency and normal healthy conditions of trade. They scout the Government proposal of curing unemployment by raising prices of certain articles by 4d. in the shilling and making things coming into this country cost 6s. 8d. in the pound more than they did before. We have had no arguments in support of that theory. In pre-War days there was an attempt to support that thesis, but it was a complete failure. We are probably not in so good a position to-day as we were before the War to meet these arguments, because we have not got the statistics to-day that were available in the great controversies in pre-War times. One has to fall back on the figures which were used then. The assumption of the Bill is that if you can stop a certain number of manufactured articles coming into this country you are going to make more work for the people at home. We contest that, at all events in theory at least, by such facts as we know of with regard to the years before the War. I have some figures abstracted from the statistical abstract of the Board of Trade, which give, on the one hand, the net imports of manufactures from 1904 to 1913, and, on the other hand, the rate of unemployment in those same years. If the theory of the Government were correct, the more manufactured articles come into this country the greater would be the unemployment.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

The thing is not so simple.

Major BARNES

That is so, but that is the argument of Part II of the Bill. It is, "Here is a disease—Unemployment. It is caused by goods being sold here at certain prices. The remedy is to put those prices up." The figures show that the very reverse was the case, and that as the imports of manufactures increase the rate of unemployment decreases. From 1909 to 1913 the net imports of manufacturers increased from £123,000,000 to £164,000,000. On the theory of the Bill unemployment should have increased with it. Instead of that unemployment decreased from 7.07 per cent. in 1909 to 2.1 per cent. in 1913. Those figures are Government figures based on a survey of the whole country and not figures brought forward by partisans to support a particular industry. You may say it is theory on one side and theory on the other side, but the figures do support our theory. You cannot cure unemployment by keeping goods out of this country, and by letting goods in cheaper you do the reverse and increase work here.

If the Government view or the view of Protectionists generally be true, that you are going to cure unemployment by putting on tariffs and raising prices, one would expect making a survey of the world at present that you would find unemployment at its lowest in countries which enjoy all the blessings of a tariff. That is not so. The Minister of Health when speaking I think only last night pointed out that in America there are at least 4,000,000 people unemployed. America enjoys all the blessings of a tariff, and a tariff very much greater in intensity and severity than the one proposed in this Bill. There is not the slightest ground for believing that what the Government propose here is a real remedy. I commend to hon. Members who are interested in this matter—of course, nobody would vote who is not interested—a study of the June number of the "Labour Gazette." No doubt both the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department are perfectly familiar with those figures which the Gazette contains—figures of unemployment, not only in this country, but in countries overseas. The latter figures may have been furnished by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department who, no doubt, is thoroughly familiar with them. The figures are given for all the principal countries, including Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and the United States. In all these countries, it does not matter whether they are whole-hog Protectionists or enjoy more or less of a tariff system, you will find that the figures for unemployment are considerable.

Sir F. YOUNG

You do not blame the Coalition here for that.

Major BARNES

It may be that the principles which are represented by the Coalition Government are in general operation throughout the world. What the figures do show is that you are not going to cure this evil by putting on a a tariff. In Belgium the percentage of unemployed was 31.5 on the last working day of March. In Holland there were 22.5 per cent. of the members of trade unions affiliated to insurance funds out of work in March. Wherever you turn you find this state of things. Obviously it cannot be connected with questions of Free Trade or of Tariff. The Free Trade position has never been that by its operation you will eliminate this problem of unemployment. Its position has been that, under the operation of Free Trade, employment was more secure, less uncertain than it could be in this country at least under the operation of a tariff, and under Free Trade you do get such accumulations of wealth as enable you in times of bad trade to make provision to deal with that situation when it arises. Our suggestion is that the Committee, when reporting on this matter, should not consider the effect of any particular import on any particular industry, but should consider what would be the effect of imposing this tariff on the whole of the industries of the country.

It is a simple matter to show that imports do affect some particular industry. There is no need to argue that. If a chair is imported into this country it is obvious that if it is wanted in this country and is not imported it would be made here, and it might be said that its importation would put a chair maker out of work. It is always possible to show, if you are dealing with particular industries, that a certain amount of unemployment would ensue. The Free Trade position is that, taking industries as a whole, imports make exports, and if imports come into the country, after certain adjustments of industry, any loss is far more than compensated for by the conditions of industry brought about by the export trade that is produced. I do not want to rely upon theory but upon facts, and I want to bring before the attention of the Minister two communications that I have received. One is from the paper-using industries of this country, who are concerned at the prospect that under this Bill there may be a protective duty placed upon paper imports. That is being urged, and hon. Members have received appeals from the paper-makers of this country to be in- cluded in this Bill. What do these paper-users say? They are not politicians; I do not know that they are free traders, but they have very sound ideas on this subject, for they say: The natural result of such protective duty would be to restrict the supplies from overseas and to enable British manufacturers to charge a higher price for their productions than they could under the present conditions. They are supported in that by the Minister of Health. They go on to consider the question of unemployment, and they make the point that our Amendment is intended to make, that if by the operation of this Bill you increase employment in one industry, you will diminish it in others, and what we say is that the amount by which you will diminish it in others is greater than the extent to which you will possibly increase it in those who get the benefit of this Bill. They go on to say: When considering the question of unemployment from a national standpoint, it is necessary to consider the number of persons engaged in the respective industries, he principal industries in which paper is the raw material are the printing, bookbinding, manufacturing stationery, and cardboard box trades, and the newspaper and publishing trades. The number employed in these trades is 262,000, omitting boys and girls under 16 years of age. The number of persons employed in the paper and wallpaper making trade is 53,000. In other words, the principal paper using trades employ five times as many people as the paper making trade, and any increase in the cost of paper, although it might benefit the paper makers, only increases the unemployment in the much more important trades that use paper. That is a statement which is not made from any party point of view, but it is made by a number of people who are actually engaged in the businesses that would be affected if paper came under the operation of this Bill. Under Part II of the Bill everything that comes into this country, with the exception of food and raw material, may be affected, and these people have a very real fear of what may happen. They point out, in the paragraph that I have read, what we are pointing out in our Amendment, that by imposing a duty which will benefit one section of people and increase employment in that section, you will be producing a very much larger degree of unemployment in other sections.

Lastly, I have a memorial from the British Steel Re-Rollers in this country, who are also afraid of the operation of the Bill. This is a memorial signed by a very large number of firms in different parts of the country, some in Scotland, some in Wolverhampton, some in Birmingham, some in Sheffield, some in Walsall, some on the Tees, some on the Tyne; in every part of this country you have got these people afraid of the operation of this Bill. They say: Free imported semi-raw steel is the life blood of the British re-rolling industry, without which they could not successfully compete with other nations in the world's markets for the more highly finished products in which. British re-rollers have specialised. What are they afraid of? They are afraid of your 33⅓ per cent. duty. They have been told quite plainly in this Debate what to fear, for I think the Minister himself said that semi-raw steel is just the sort of thing that may come under this Bill, and here are these great firms afraid of that and pointing out what the effect of a duty on semi-raw steel is going to be. They say: If semi-raw steel should be brought within the operations of this Bill, the price will be immediately advanced, and consequently our large export trade in finished products will be greatly diminished, if not entirely cut off. This is only an illustration. Here are one or two trades who have realised the dangers of this Bill and who have become vocal, but this Bill threatens every trade in the country. It threatens the whole export trade of this country, and if there is one thing we have learned during the last year or so, it is that upon the maintenance of a great volume of export trade our commercial and industrial prosperity depends. I tell the Minister that what he is getting here are only the first rumblings of the storm and that when the full extent of the possible operations of this Bill is known, and when the manufacturers of this country, who have built up a huge export trade, come to realise that its very foundations are threatened by this Bill, all the specious pleas that under this Bill you are going to reduce unemployment will be of no avail. The facts will discount them, and events will show that, so far from decreasing unemployment by this Bill, the volume of it will be vastly increased.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) has dealt very fully with the broad principles of this question, and I should like briefly to give one or two illustrations in detail of the serious injury which is threatened to the iron and steel industry of this country, and particularly the re-rolling section, by this Bill. I may say that my own business would, if anything, be benefited by the protection which is offered, but I am satisfied, from an experience of some years in the iron and steel trade, that for the benefit of the trade as a whole it is most desirable that there should be no hindrances placed on the import of semi-manufactured productions. What is the position? The Minister of Health said we must keep out these semi-manufactured articles in order to help the iron and steel industry, who have spent a tremendous amount of money during the War in order to provide the steel necessary for this country; but would you really help the iron and steel industry by these duties? Germany, Belgium, France, and the other countries are going to continue manufacturing whether these duties are put on or not. You may, for the sake of argument, prevent some of the products coming into this country, but you would simply drive them into other markets. The English manufacturer of angles, bars, or whatever it may be will have to face the same competition, but will have to face it in the markets to which this cheaper material goes. In my own district we have a works which are rolling out these semi-manufactured products in the shape of billets. The same works re-roll them into wire rods, sheets, etc., for export abroad. They find, as a matter of practical experience, that they can buy these semi-manufactured products, billets, and so forth at a cheaper price abroad than they can manufacture them themselves.

Mr. G. TERRELL

Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMSON

Well, they buy them from abroad. He wants them excluded, but if you exclude them, it will not mean that your mills which make the rods and sheets will be able to buy these goods from the English steelmaker, because he cannot produce these goods cheap enough for competition with the foreign market. It will simply mean that you will close down your re-rolling sections, employing thousands and thousands of men, in many hundreds of works, and you will do no good whatever to the steel manufacturer in this country. During the past 20 or 30 years the manufacturers of rods, sheets, wire, and so on, have built up a new trade for this country, a huge export trade, which is absolutely and entirely dependent upon free access from the Continent of these cheaper goods. I do not say for one moment that they are kept going wholly by the import of these goods. It is unnecessary that they should supply more than a small percentage, but the very fact that these goods come in without these duties keeps down the price of the home product in the same line. An hon. Gentleman opposite yesterday belittled the suggestion that this Bill would play into the hands of trusts and combines. Anyone in the iron and steel industry knows that you have rings and combinations which control prices absolutely and entirely, and if you have not the import of this foreign material, which is outside the rings and the combinations, they will put their prices up to an unheard-of extent and cripple entirely the re-export trade of the country, as well as make the prices of the home market dearer than they are at present.

We want to look at the question from the whole point of view, and not from one particular trade's point of view. It is possible that owing to bars coming into the country some men engaged in that particular trade may be thrown out of work in that trade, but, if they are, work is found for infinitely more men in the re-rolling sections, employing highly skilled labour, which is specialised, with great technical skill, and which has grown up and been developed in this country on this very class of material during the last 20 or 30 years, and if you cut off the supplies of cheap material you will close down hundreds of works and throw out of employment thousands of men. The reason why we press this Amendment is that if you are really concerned, as we are all concerned, with the question of employment, you want to consider what is going to be the net result of your operations, and though you may possibly keep one or two works engaged on fuller time in one class of industry, you are going to throw out infinitely more men and close infinitely more works in another class of industry. We have established in this country a record of skill for bridge-building and engineering work second to none in the world. How is it that we are able to carry that on so successfully? It is because we have free access to the Con- tinent for the cheapest manufactured plates, angles, and sections required in the construction of these bridges and other engineering works. The great advertisement of one big firm in my own part of the country is, "We bridge the world." They have supplied bridges in every section of the Empire and of the world, and that industry is built up entirely by the fact that they can get their semi - manufactured material, plates, angles, sections, and girders in the cheapest market the world can supply, and because of that they can employ infinitely more men on bridge-building and on constructional work than would be employed on rolling out the sections or manufacturing the girders.

5.0 P.M.

The whole point, therefore, is that we, with our skill as manufacturers, want to put our labour on to that which gives the most employment to labour, and infinitely more employment is found for labour, and infinitely more money is paid in wages, when you come to the highly skilled and specialised industries than on the raw material of those industries. Therefore, as a manufacturing nation, it pays us every time to forego, if you will, the manufacture of the semi-manufactured product, on which a comparatively small amount of labour is required, in order to get this cheaper semi-manufactured product from abroad and place our men and our works on the more highly skilled manufactures, which give much more employment and enable us to compete with the trade of the world. What happened before the War? We had in our own district billets sent from Germany to mills in this country. They were rolled out into wire and sections, and that same wire was sent back into Germany and was able to compete with the German wire maker who had his own billets at his own door. That can be exemplified by whichever line you like to take. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that we want to weigh up very carefully what is going to be the full effect of a Clause of this kind. I am satisfied if you canvass the whole position and inquire from manufacturers throughout the length and breadth of the land you will find you are killing industry. Although you may keep this material out of this country you would have to face the same competition in India, Egypt, Australia, Norway, Sweden, whatever part of the world we send our products to, and you will find in the end work will not be provided for workers in this country but rather reduced.

We were told yesterday that industry was being ruined, that there was a flood of goods coming into this country. What evidence have we of that? Can you point to a single industry of any size that is being ruined, or can you point to any case where goods are coming in to anything like the same extent that they did before the War? In my own particular trade, heavy iron and steel, the imports to this country to-day from outside are nothing like what they were in 1913. Yet we are told we have to unsettle the whole trade of the country because of some fear, unfounded at present, which may materialise in the future. If there is one thing that manufacturers in this country require it is stability and certainty, and by proposing, far less carrying out, legislation of this sort you are creating fear and uncertainty in the minds of manufacturers. They do not know whether it is safe to quote for contracts or make business arrangements ahead, and this mere uncertainty is doing more harm and causing more unemployment than any good that can result from this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade was asked the other day if he could give the amount of imports from Germany during this year as compared with last year. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) he said comparative figures were not available for the period for which they were asked, but he would give them for the first quarter of this year. The total imports into this country from Germany during the first quarter of this year were £7,000,000, as compared with, not the first quarter of 1914, but the whole year 1914, £37,000,000. I will not suggest that he intended that we should draw the conclusion that if we multiplied by four we should get the comparative figures, but we must remember that during the year 1914 imports were coming in for seven months only because of the intervention of the War. Therefore you had £37,000,000 worth of imports for seven months, which is equivalent to £65,000,000 in the year. This year you have £7,000,000 worth for the first quarter, which is equivalent to £28,000,000 per year. Then you have to remember that the values are different. When you take that into account your comparative figures would be something like £3,000,000 coming in in the first three months as against £20,000,000 before the War. Yet we talk about our industries being ruined! The whole thing is built up on a superstructure of fear for which there is no foundation in fact, and I urge the Government, if they are really intending to reduce unemployment and provide work, they should accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. They should envisage the whole question, and not look merely at one particular industry, and by that means we may safeguard the trade which is still left to us.

Mr. ASQUITH

I confess I think this is really an important Amendment, and it is to my mind an extreme discredit to the House of Commons that the discussion upon it should be conducted as it is being conducted this afternoon in the presence of less than a quorum of Members. I desire in a very few sentences to suggest to the Government—and I purposely rise before we have heard any declaration from that Bench—that upon their own assumptions, and accepting their own avowed purposes, the introduction of these words would be an enormous practical improvement to their Bill. I am one of those, like my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate, who think that the whole of this Clause is based on misconception, that it provides a vicious remedy for an unreal disease. Let us assume, for the purposes of the argument, and only for the purposes of the argument, that a case can conceivably be made out for intervention on the part of the State, that either through what is called dumping, or through the artificial stimulus given to particular kinds of foreign importations through a depreciated exchange, goods are brought into this market under abnormal conditions, with the result that in certain departments of British industry there is at any rate a prima facie case for inquiry as to whether there is or is not consequential unemployment. That is the inquiry which, as I understand, is to be entrusted to the Committee under this Clause. If that is so, it appears to me that the argument put forward by my two hon. Friends who have spoken is quite irresistible, namely, that this Committee should not and ought not to confine the scope of their vision and the range of their inquiry to the effect upon employment in the particular industry whose production is directly affected by foreign importations, but that they ought, in the interest of the community at large, to have regard to the aggregate employment in all industries. That seems to me to be an elementary proposition which has only to be asserted to commend itself to everybody's common sense. Both my hon. Friends, from their practical knowledge and experience, gave some illustrations of the effect, the disastrous effect, upon general employment which might arise if we were to confine the inquiry in the manner in which it is confined for the purposes of this Clause.

I pointed out some weeks ago, in addressing the Committee on the introductory Financial Resolutions, that of our total importations of what the Board of Trade describe as wholly or mainly or partly manufactured goods, no less than 60 per cent. come here, not as finished products capable of being put on to the market; they come here to receive the finishing processes which British capital and British labour, of all forms of Capital and labour in the world, are best able to supply, and in just as true a sense as cotton or wool are raw materials for the manufacture of goods. It is quite true that in not a few cases these partially finished imported manufactures compete with similar productions here, but the question is, and I put it to the clear intelligence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is not obscured and mystified as some minds are when they approach the consideration of these economic problems—I put it to him, in the interests of the community, if you are going to have intervention of this kind, which I do not think you ought to have, whether you should have regard merely to the possibility of diminution of employment in the particular industry in which the partly manufactured article is produced, and should wholly disregard as irrelevant and immaterial, and as having nothing whatever to do with the case the damage which is being done to the other often much greater and more important industries in which the imported so-called manufactured goods are raw materials. Some illustrations have been given by people with much greater knowledge of the details of trade and manufacture than I have, and my hon. Friend who has just sat down, in particular, has dealt with the very important memorial which was circulated widely among Members of the House in regard to the importation of semi-raw steel.

I will just give in that connection some facts which have been described to me, which I believe to be absolutely verifiable. They are in regard to what is called steel sheets. On the north-east coast the manufacturers of steel sheets are buying at this moment Belgian steel bars at £6 10s. a ton. They export 75 per cent. of their whole production to foreign markets, and they are just able, and only just able, to do so at a profit. The cost of English steel bars is £13, exactly double the cost of the imported Belgian raw material. If this 33⅓ per cent. duty were imposed upon the imported Belgian steel bars, assuming Belgium is selected as one of the countries in regard to which these experiments are to be made, their cost would be raised from £6 10s. per ton to £8 15s., and the effect of that to this very large body of English manufacturers, who supply the finished goods, who now export 75 per cent. of their total production with just a fair margin of profit—the effect will be they will be completely killed as exporters in the neutral markets. All these things hang together.

Mr. KILEY

There is a further 25 per cent.

Mr. ASQUITH

I am not piling up the agony. I am dealing with the case in its simplest and most naked form. The English corresponding raw material costs double what the Belgian raw material costs, and you are going artificially to protect that English trade which for reasons I do not inquire into for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wages and coal."] We have got to deal with things as they are. This is not the way to bring wages down. You are going to erect an artificial ringed fence of protection, and compel your English manufacturer to pay twice what he is at present paying for the essential raw materials of his industry, in order to keep this comparatively small production going. That is the case which has to be answered. Take the illustration of leather. I believe a precisely similar case could be made out there. My attention has been called to it more than once. The diminution in our export trade of manufactured leather is a very serious thing. Let us compare the exports for the first five months of 1913 and those for the first five months of the present year. The exports of boots and shoes in the first five months of 1913 were 586,000 pairs, which were valued, at the prices that then ruled, very much lower prices than those which rule now, at £1,700,000. The exports for the corresponding five months of the present year were fewer than 150,000 pairs, valued, at the present higher prices, at £1,000,000.

At a moment like that you are going to put it in the power of this Committee to impose an import duty upon what in the technical sense are undoubtedly manufactured goods, namely, patent leather, glace kid and calf, which are the materials out of which boots and shoes are made. You will do far more harm to a great, and for the moment depressed, industry, in which this country has in days gone by enjoyed almost supremacy in the markets of the world by handicapping the supply of their raw material, than by permitting the import of the leather without this impost. It is much the same with paper. This is one of the subjects on which I may be regarded as an obscurantist. Paper is one of the things of which I should not be at all sorry to see the price go up. But that is a personal feeling. We are dealing now with the general interests of the community. The point I want to make is, I think, unanswerable. If you are going to have legislation of this kind, and if you are going to set up committees of this kind, and are to give them, with or without the consent of the House of Commons, the power of imposing large import duties upon foreign manufactures, and if the ground upon which you make that claim is the possible deleterious effect of such importation on British employment, look at British employment as a whole, and not at the interests of this or that particular trade, and instruct your committees always to have that in view.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin)

The right hon. Gentleman has said with all the weight of his authority that the case he has put was unanswerable. That makes me very nervous in attempting to reply to him. But, of course, there is another side to the case which the right hon. Gentleman put with his accustomed persuasive skill. I think I appreciate the points which were put by him and by the hon. Members who spoke before him. If I may say so, the hon. Members who spoke before him seemed to be dealing not so much with the words of the Amendment as with the general, question that has been so often discussed, Free Trade versus Protection. A great deal that they said might have been very apposite had we been discussing the question of a general tariff. The hon. Member seemed to me just to miss the point of the special circumstances of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Paisley in his remarks brought the discussion to the much narrower point of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposition he put was elementary. I am sure he will agree that all elementary things are by far the most difficult things to deal with in this world. It is a perfectly obvious thing, I agree, that if it were possible by any form of investigation that human skill can devise to get all the facts in one of these cases, it would be desirable. The task that is laid upon the Committee is a comparatively simple one. They have to decide on what are really questions of fact and questions of comparatively simple fact. If they had to inquire into the question whether or not there is a disturbance of the whole vast reservoir of labour in this country, I believe that the inquiry in each case might be protracted into months and no decision would be reached.

If anything is to be done on the lines of this Bill I should rule out this Amendment as making the working of the Bill absolutely impracticable. Let me illustrate what I mean. I will touch on the case raised by the right hon. Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). With reference to the question of paper, I should say, in passing, that I had the pleasure of meeting a very large and representative deputation of paper users, who put their views before me and pointed out some of the tragic results that might happen if there was any difficulty in obtaining paper. The paper question is a very simple one compared, for instance, with the question of ship-building, and compared with the points raised to-day. What would the difficulties be to investigate further than is provided for in the Bill such questions of trade as have been raised with regard to the bars and billets and girders? The hon. Member for Middlesbrough spoke with enthusiasm of the tens of thousands of men employed in the finishing processes, and from what he said and from what the right hon. Member for Paisley said, the Committee would gather that the men employed in making the goods up to the point where these particular goods are imported are negligible in number. Without going into details, I might remind the Committee that even this is a much less simple matter than appears on the surface.

Take these bars that for the moment are coming from Belgium. Suppose it were true—I do not know whether it be or not—that these particular bars were being sold in this country at something below the cost of production, or owing to the depreciated currency in the country of export they were enjoying a bounty-fed subsidy, and suppose it were true that by their importation employment in the particular industry was being affected. What is that employment? That employment comprises the men who are employed in rolling the bars; it comprises the men who make the raw materials for the bars; it comprises the men who work the blast furnaces; it comprises the men who work the limestone quarries and produce the limestone for the blast furnaces; it comprises the men who mine the ore used in the manufacture of pig-iron; it comprises the men employed in the transport of these articles; it comprises the men who dig the coal that is used in all these processes up to that point; and it comprises the men who are employed in the conversion of so much of that coal as is required for coke, and also the men who are employed in obtaining the byproducts from the coal.

I mention that to show how extraordinarily difficult it is to say what the labour displaced on the one side would be as against the labour displaced on the other, even assuming—here is the biggest hypothesis of the lot—that the man who bought the goods which for the time being were being dumped was unable to secure orders if he could not get the dumped article. I do not believe that any tribunal on earth could follow out those two chains in those two directions and give any satisfactory answer. The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) laid great stress on a point that I have never used. He said that this was a Bill to increase employment. It is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill to prevent unemployment when caused by a certain course of action which is described in the first Sub-section of the second Clause of the Bill. It is something that is temporary and sporadic. It is no general tariff. The Bill is devised to meet a contingency, and a contingency that we hope and believe is a temporary contingency. Other countries are attempting, with what success we shall see later on, to do the same thing. I think that probably before long a great many countries will make the attempt.

I have been ridiculed for telling the Committee quite frankly that it is impossible to say whether this attempt will be successful or not. It is an attempt that has never been made before, because the circumstances in which it is being made have never before existed. A great deal of the criticism levelled against us fails because it never recognises that fact. Our whole case is that the circumstances are entirely new, and that we are attempting to do something to meet dangers which we believe are inherent in those circumstances. The time for our Debate is short, and it is with great reluctance that I stand at all in the way of Members who desire to express their views. I have said all I have to say on this point. I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I have given. I have considered the matter very carefully because I can quite see the possibility of cases in which there might be some temporary dumping under the exchange part of the Bill, that might have the very effect which hon. Members dread. I do not think it is likely, but I think it is possible, and I am trying before the Bill passes out our hands to find some means by which the Committee may be enabled to take cognisance of some facts other than those directly concerned with the one industry. I do not know whether I shall be able to do what I have in my mind, but so far as this Amendment goes it would open the door to so much investigation that it would paralyse any action under this Bill.

Sir W. BARTON

I am sure the Committee is very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for his interesting speech, and especially for the closing sentences, because I am quite sure if he sets his practical mind to this point he will realise that the proposal of the Bill is impracticable and unworkable. He has informed us that his objection to the criticism passed in connection with this Amendment is that it fails to realise that this is a Bill dealing with temporary circumstances—with new circumstances, and with new conditions. I submit to him that, after all, the novelty is only a question of degree. We had dumping before now, and we have had some experience of depreciated exchanges. I am not sure that the fact of an extension of degree necessarily alters the principle by which we must try to meet a particular difficulty. Examining the paragraph with which this Amendment deals, I think it provides a very strong case for the Amendment. I find the words, applying to certain eventualities, if by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being, or is likely to be, affected. Who shall decide whether employment is likely to be affected? I never knew an unenterprising manufacturer yet, who, confronted with severe competition, was not ready to go to a Government Department and ask for help on the assurance that his business was likely to be affected. The inefficient trader is always sure that his business is likely to be affected. He is always dreading that the whole business of the country is likely to be affected. He always sees black.

One of the most dangerous features of what you are proposing to do now is that instead of looking at trade and industry whole, as this House and as British Governments have always done in the past, you are now going to look at it in sections. I feel very strongly that you are thinking of pianos and toys and opera glasses when you should be thinking of our great staple industries, and lying behind your proposals I see a great danger to those industries. The President of the Board of Trade, following up an illustration given by one of my hon. Friends, dealt with steel, and he said the displacement of employment caused by the importation of steel went much further than the actual productive processes in connection with steel in this country. He went on to tell us of all the other different processes in which employment would be displaced. I wonder he did not get down to the baker, the butcher, and the shoemaker. It was a regular "house that Jack built." I am not complaining of that, because, as a matter of fact, I think the President of the Board of Trade was right on that particular ground, but the point is this, that by putting on a duty and not allowing the steel to come in, it does not necessarily follow you will remedy that. You will only cut off possibilities from shipbuilding and other industries. I will give you an instance. A shipbuilding firm has the offer of a contract, say, from the Chilian Government, to build ships. They will not buy Belgian or German steel. They are highly principled people, who think the British workman must be maintained whatever happens, and as a result they lose that business. Not only is the shipbuilding lost, but it does not follow that the steel is then made in this country. As a matter of fact, employment is lost in both ways. The assumption behind this proposal is that, under its operation, steel would be manufactured in this country. It does not follow at all, but in fact the contrary follows. I come back, however, to the point that it is not the business of the Government to concern themselves with sections. The business of the Government is to concern themselves with trade as a whole. Now that we are going to become a Protectionist country—and that is what seems to be happening—you will have all sorts of trades and sections coming forward and asking to be included in Bills of this kind. It is exceedingly desirable that there should be someone who will regard the proposals of these Committees set up by the Board of Trade, from the point of view not of a section but of the whole. I gather that the President of the Board of Trade accepts the Amendment in principle. If he desires, as I am sure he does, to make this Bill as little harmful as possible, I strongly urge him to come forward at a later stage with some proposal in the direction indicated by this Amendment.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS

Had the President of the Board of Trade really been in possession of the whole of the facts he would have seen that his speech proves the case for the Amendment. It is quite true at the present moment steel bars are coming in and are being sold to the roll sheet makers, and these roll sheet makers are just enabled to carry on by reason of the cheap bars which they are getting from Belgium and Northern France. That is well known to everybody acquainted with the trade. In Middles- brough we are shipping large quantities of pig iron to Belgium and Northern France for the purpose of making these bars. If you stop the importation of the bars you will stop the exportation of the pig iron, and displace all the labour in connection with the latter.

Major HAMILTON

Can the hon. Member say when the last consignment was sent to Belgium?

Colonel WILLIAMS

It is going to-day. I heard it over the telephone this morning. I can state from my own personal experience that quite recently there were hundreds of tons for delivery and a large and profitable business is being done in that respect. Not only Middlesbrough, but other centres on the north-eastern coast are shipping this iron to Belgium for the manufacture of steel bars. It is used to mix with battlefield scrap and is coming back very cheaply in the form of sheet bars. It is enabling our industries here to get going again. If you put a duty on these bars, you are not going to start the steel works here. They cannot possibly start on that class of material. You are simply going to drive the trade into the hands of the Belgians, who will manufacture cheaply and ship to India. They are well able to do it, because to-day there is a large quantity of freight going from Germany to India shipped through Rotterdam. They are enabled to send their sheets to the Indian market very cheaply and very conveniently. I press upon the Government to consider this question further than they have considered it. The Committee may be interested to know that just this time last year I had a long interview with a gentleman who wanted to buy a large, quantity of iron over the enduing year, that of 1921–22, for making castings for two very large firms of motor manufacturers and makers of similar things in this country. The slump came early in the autumn of last year. All these orders were cancelled, and we lost the orders for pig-iron. That is what will happen if you put a tax on. The whole question needs more consideration. Any Committee that is dealing with this matter should have instructions to take the whole case into consideration, otherwise you will do infinite harm by interfering with trade about which you do not know anything.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN

I should like to speak as one of those unfortunate people who is interested in the making of these very billets. There is, I think, a great deal of talk about nothing. Out of all the iron and steel makers in England and Scotland I have not received a single letter from one who wishes to have a tariff put on steel billets—not a single one. Why, then, all this talk! This is not being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is being done by the Bill."] They will not do it without the steel makers ask them to do it, and it is, therefore, only waste of time to talk about it. When the Bill is passed the particular article to have the duty put on is going to be selected by a Committee of the Board of Trade. If such representations are made to the Board of Trade and they think it necessary to put on the duty, they will do it. Otherwise it will not be done. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right. There will be this reference to the Committee, as he says.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN

I do not believe anyone in the iron and steel industry will ask for a tariff.

Mr. DAVISON

They have asked for it.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN

They have not asked me.

Mr. J. DAVISON

I can prove what I say.

Brigadier-General HICKMAN

There is not much substance in this Amendment, and the Board of Trade might just as well accept it. After all is said and done, the only objection I can see to it is the way a judge in Court might interpret the words. If it is possible for him to interpret them as meaning that if one man was to be thrown out of employment by putting on a particular tariff, that, therefore, there should be a tariff, then it would bring the whole thing into ridicule.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON

The answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is that if the Bill be passed as it stands it will be open to any tin-pot, twopenny firm making steel billets to make an application to the Board of Trade, although the industry as a whole, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, has no intention whatever of putting in for this tariff. Anyone may apply. He may be an agent selling for a foreign firm which is manufacturing billets, and he may put in for the 33⅓ per cent. and prove his case, and upset the whole industry of this country doing so. I should like to give one further and possibly even more striking example of a concern already feeling the effects of this. I have had a communication only this week from the managing director of one of the steel firms in the country. It is a firm owning collieries and steel works, and making ingots, billets, sections, and plates. They also have a tremendous trade in corrugated galvanised iron. I am informed by this gentleman that all their departments are shut down, except the corrugated iron one, the market for which is largely colonial and foreign.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS

South American and Indian.

Mr. HOPKINSON

Yes. South American and Indian, and foreign countries, generally speaking, not involved in the War. The market is open now, and it is the best market there is, but at the moment people will not buy goods, what with wages and coal coming down. Therefore they must leave their orders over for the moment until they see how things will turn out. It seems to me that until this firm can do as before, and be certain of getting their billets from time to time and as the necessity arises, they will not hold the corrugated market abroad. In default of this the whole place is shut down—the steel works, the rolling mills, and the corrugated iron works and galvanizing works—simply because the unfortunate manufacturer is not allowed to buy in the cheapest market while his competitors abroad may buy as they choose. The President of the Board of Trade suffers from the fact that he is not a lawyer, because I must say that every speech he makes on this Bill, whether it be on Second Beading or Amendments in Committee shows to me conclusively that so far as he is concerned—well, to say the least, he does not think much of the Bill. The speech to which we have just listened was to me a good example of faithful dealing; and the reason why he does not think much of the Bill is that he is not a lawyer. He has some knowledge of the industries of the country.

I have given the case of corrugated and galvanised iron. The same thing applies to one of our most profitable foreign trades, and that is the trade of enamelled iron hollow-ware. These are two points which I hope the Committee will bear in mind. First of all, that any little tin-pot firm can upset the whole industry unless this Amendment is passed. Such an agent as I have mentioned can go to the Committee and say, "If this duty is not put on the imported billets out will go ten or a hundred men in my employ engaged at present making these steel billets." Unless some provision is made such as is suggested in this Amendment whereby industry must be regarded as a whole instead of in little bits as the Bill lays down, we shall simply be in the hands of foreign competitors again in this matter as we have been in the past.

Mr. PERRING

So far as I can judge, the majority of the arguments that have been used this evening are entirely foreign to the question before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has suggested that some tin-pot firm could upset an industry and cause a lot of trouble. He well knows that by one of the Clauses of the Bill the whole question will be referred to a Committee and hon. Members who suggest that those who are engaged in an extensive way in an industry will not have a voice before the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Do hon. Members suggest that one tin-pot firm are going to have a paramount influence in an industry; that either the Government or the Committee will adopt something detrimental to the major portion of the industry?

Mr. HOPKINSON

If they come and prove that there is unemployment and that their men are affected!

Mr. PERRING

It has been suggested by other speakers that if such a policy was brought about it would ruin a large number of people. Are we to suppose that these self-same people will not come forward to put their case before the Committee if this matter is going to ruin them?

Mr. HOPKINSON

They would know nothing about it!

Mr. PERRING

Reference was made just now to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite said that they had made out their case. The Mover of the Amendment—this was one of his strongest arguments—referred to trade and unemployment between the years 1905–15, and argued that as the import trade went up so unemployment went down. If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion it would be desirable to import everything, and then we should have no unemployment! Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that it would be well to go to the coal industry and tell the miners that if we import all our coal they would be in full work, or to go to the pianoforte makers and tell them that the more we import German pianos the busier they will be? I fail to see the logic of the argument at all. It has no bearing upon the subject. We have heard about steel. It has been suggested that by getting steel bars cheaply certain firms referred to would be able to export 75 per cent. of their wares. The hon. Gentleman who suggested that must know that we are engaged in Middlesbrough in the steel trade, and that we have very keen competitors in all branches of the steel trade in America, and even in Canada. Only yesterday I myself saw a quotation of steel-drawn wire at £30 a ton in New York. At Warrington to-day it is £55 per ton, and that with all the advantages which we have in regard to buying cheap bars from Belgian or cheap steel. Warrington has a much higher price, notwithstanding all these advantages, and cannot compete against Canada and America. It goes to show that there is something else that is influencing prices quite apart from what this Bill can or cannot do.

Some hon. Members seem to forget the difference in the price of coal in this country and in America, and also that an important factor is the amount of work turned out in these other countries, where they are producing cheap steel, as against what we turn out. I suggest that if hon. Members were to direct their minds more in that direction than in raising bogies about this question they would be doing far greater service, not only in the matter of unemployment, but to the community generally. It is the height of folly to raise arguments which are either foreign or misleading, and to suggest that something is going to happen which cannot happen. There is a large amount of unemployment from which we are suffering from to-day, notwithstanding that you can buy your cheap billets or bars from Belgium at £6 10s., while the English price is £15—and the right hon. Gentleman told us that it is £30. We can be beaten in our own markets and the foreign markets. Reference has been made to Germany. She is not the only competitor we have to consider. There are other competitors even more vital to our industries than even Germany. The small amount of imports from Germany during the first three months of the year compared with other periods was also referred to, as if they were an important argument against this Bill. They are not of the least value whatever against this Bill. There are other countries sending in goods—

Mr. KILEY

They are outside the Bill.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. PERRING

These arguments are not worth the time spent on them. It would be well if hon. Members would direct their attention to root causes. Then we should not have anything to fear from this Bill because the result would be that the people would be employed and we should be in a better position to compete in the world market than to-day. Fears have been expressed about what this Bill is going to do. In a large degree these fears are ill-founded. What will this Bill do? It merely sets up machinery which can be put into use at a moment's notice under a certain set of circumstances. Those set of circumstances must arise in certain industries. Hon. Members have great fear about them if they do arise. There is the fear of unemployment due to dumping, and to collapsed exchanges; but I should have thought hon. Members would have been equally anxious to prevent the unemployment of the people. The arguments which have been used seem to me to be entirely false. One would assume that hon. Members opposite wish to see people unemployed because they argue that we should keep on importing and importing, and then the people would not be employed. It is so illogical that it does not seem necessary to answer such arguments.

Mr. FRANCE

The proceedings on this Bill are rapidly developing from comedy into farce. We have heard one hon. Member telling the House with great conviction that this Measure is going to be absolutely futile, that the causes of un- employment has very little to do with collapsed exchanges, and that we should look for other reasons. We have also been told that the steel manufacturers of this country are not asking for any protection, or at any rate they have not asked the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Brigadier-General Hickman) to urge that the 33⅓ per cent. should be put on steel. Why should they? This Bill will be an Act, and it must become an Act, and no amount of argument will affect the vote which hon. Members opposite will give. The majority of this House will turn this Bill into an Act of Parliament.

The steel manufacturers know that there is going to be a duty of 33⅓ per cent. put into this Act which they may avail themselves of if they desire to do so. If they find that goods are coming here which come under the definition of dumping or that the collapsed exchanges are adversely affecting their trade and they can show that unemployment is affected thereby, they have a right to come and ask the Government to put on this 33⅓ per cent. Under these circumstances why should the steel manufacturers come to the hon. Member opposite who is in that particular trade and give the show away? They know it is possible to obtain the imposition of this duty if they can prove that in their trade there is any temporary unemployment caused. The President of the Board of Trade, with whom I sympathise very deeply, said just now that we wish to ridicule him, but we do not wish to do anything of the sort because our hearts bleed for him, and our sympathies are with him. The Minister of Health, to use the metaphor used by the President of the Board of Trade, is a trumpeting elephant sent out to bring in adherents. The President of the Board of Trade has been speaking in doleful accents like one who is seeking salvation and at last is finding out the truth. He speaks every time more in the direction of saying, "After all, this is not going to do very much good and it is not going to help very much, but something must be done as the position is very serious."

The hon. and gallant Member opposite said the steel manufacturers did not ask for this. What was the burden of the speech of the Minister of Health last night? Surely it is not toys or small trade that this great Measure is going to affect. The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill was to save this country from ruin and save the great staple industries, and he referred to the steel trade. It does not influence me at all when the hon. and gallant Member opposite admits that he has not yet received any request for protection from his friends in the steel trade. The President of the Board of Trade said this was only a temporary Measure, and therefore it was not necessary to have this Amendment. I do ask him, however, if he would be good enough to consider what is the effect of rejecting an Amendment of this kind. What does he say? Those who support this Amendment say, "We know perfectly well that you can improve and help a particular trade by protection temporarily." Everyone knows that. Nobody is stupid enough to deny that you can bring temporary benefits to a trade by keeping some goods out which compete with that particular trade.

Let us look at this question from a wider point of view. Let us consider whether you are not going to do something which is going to benefit or injure in the broader sense the trade of the country. In order to prevent that injury we want you to take into consideration whether the articles you are keeping out might not by a process of further employment give more employment. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot have that Amendment. I think he must admit that he is prepared to help a particular trade and benefit that trade, and safeguard the employment, and by his own admission he says that must be done even if thousands are going to be unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches show that he is learning those elementary principles which are very difficult and sometimes very awkward, and I hope he will believe that we are not saying these things with a desire to obstruct, but with a general desire that this question should be looked upon more from a national point of view and not from the point of view of any particular trade. The steel trade apparently does not want this protection, and, if so, why have a Bill to protect the steel trade? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to see that this narrow aspect of one trade will not be taken in the provisions of this Bill when it finally emerges as an Act, and I hope that wider considerations will have play.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

I have been connected with the steel trade, the galvanis- ing sheet trade, and the tin plate trade for the past 30 years, and if it were possible for the steel trade of this country to be wiped out of existence as a result of foreign competition, a thing I never believe can happen, my bread and butter is at stake, and, therefore, if anybody ought to support the Government I ought to do so. But I take a broader view of this question than the question of how this Bill affects the steel trade. I look at this matter from the standpoint of how it will affect the volume of employment in this country, and if we look at it from that standpoint I think we shall be able to examine this Measure and find out whether it is going to be an advantage to the country or not.

The President of the Board of Trade, in addressing the House recently, tried to compare the advantage that this Bill would give to the men who were producing the iron ore, the limestone, the men at the blast furnaces, the men at the steel furnaces, and so on. I want to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that if he will make a careful calculation of the average number of men employed in producing a ton of steel he will discover that the number is only about five men, while the average number of men employed to convert that ton of steel into galvanised sheets is about 20. I have had a circular to-day, and I have gone over the names in that circular, and it has astonished me to find in it the name of a gentleman who lives only three miles from my own constituency, and who, up to a short time ago, was one of the biggest Tariff Reformers in this country, and when he finds that raw steel is going to be taxed he signs this circular urging hon. Members to vote against the Key Industries Bill. He was one of the biggest Tariff Reformers I ever came across in South Wales.

The President of the Board of Trade, in comparing the number of men, forgot one important point. Assume for a moment that the steel worker is thrown out of employment as a result of this semi-raw steel being imported into this country. The President forgets that there is another steel worker employed in another steel works producing steel to make ship plates to build ships, which are required to bring material into this country and to ship out the finished articles produced with this semi-raw steel, and also another steel worker employed to produce steel rails for the purpose of carrying the raw and finished article to the port. You will have a greater volume of employment under Free Trade and under the free exchange of commodities between nations, because it is to the advantage of people of all nations, and you will have a greater volume of employment as a result of importing this semi-raw steel into this country, and producing or manufacturing from it tin plates and galvanised sheets, than if you protected and prevented this steel coming into the country. Let me deal with the tin plate trade in South Wales. This is an export trade. I should think we export 80 per cent. of the tin plates that we produce in South Wales to foreign countries. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that we should get cheap steel in order to produce these tin plates. What is the result going to be if we are going to have a protective tariff?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)

I should like the hon. Member to connect his arguments with the Amendment before us. I am not saying that he is out of order, but we cannot have a general discussion on the Bill on this Amendment.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

I was going to show-how tinplaters will be thrown out of employment as a result of steel being protected in this country. On an average you have about five men employed in producing a ton of steel, but you have 20 men employed in the tinplate trade converting that steel. These plates are exported and unless we can produce tin-plates cheaper and put them on to neutral markets the Americans are going to capture all the neutral markets. Therefore Protection is not good. If your tinplate trade goes down your foundries go down too, and instead of throwing one body of men out of employment you will throw lots of others also out of employment, and in so far as the foundries are concerned, in so far as the engineering trade and the transport trade are concerned, this is going to land us into no end of difficulty. I venture to assert the Government have not grasped the elementary position in so far as this question is concerned. This is my frank opinion. I have said plainly what my position in the steel trade is. If it goes down my bread and butter go as well. Inasmuch as when you shut the door of this Chamber in the face of Black Rod you also close yourselves in, so that when you shut other people out in this matter of trade you equally close yourselves in and we become little Englanders straight off the reel.

I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade and to those who are trying to establish Protection in this country to try and understand international trade and economics. Let them see how it will affect them. Trade is an exchange of goods for goods. No one will deny that, and, least of all, will the President of the Board of Trade do so. For every pound's worth of foreign goods imported into this country a pound's worth of English goods is exported and consumed in other countries. If we adopt this insular policy of absolute Protection, we can have no external trade whatever, and we shall be shut out from every market in the world. Therefore, I say to the President of the Board of Trade and to those supporting this Bill, let us look at this question from a national standpoint. Let us view it as it will affect the volume of unemployment in this country. I want to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. We have steel manufacturers in this country to-day who are building steel works in Canada. If they are able to produce steel there more cheaply than is done by the steel workers in this country, are we going to prevent that steel coming into England? If not, what is the difference between English steel workers suffering as a result of Belgian steel being shut out and suffering by the shutting out of steel obtained from our Canadian steel works?

Mr. BALDWIN

There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anything, whether it be steel or any other article, coming into this country unless it is sold at a price below the cost of production.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

I accept that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But I know something about this business, and I want to put this question to him. There are some combines in this country which own their collieries, their blast furnaces, and their steel works. There are other steel firms which possess steel works alone. The combines will be able to produce a ton of steel at 5s. or 7s. 6d. per ton cheaper than can be done by the firm which simply owns its steel works. If this firm with one steel works is going to the Board of Trade to make out a case that the foreigner is sending steel here under the cost of production, how will the President of the Board of Trade deal with that question?

Mr. BALDWIN

The Board of Trade does not deal with it at all. It is referred to a Committee.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

When that Committee sits and allow these people to appear before them—people, I mean, whose men are going to be thrown out of employment as a result of cheap steel which has been imported—will they listen to a deputation from the representatives of the firms who own collieries, blast furnaces, and steel works, as well as from the people who complain that the steel is sent in under cost of production and also see a deputation of those who use the semi-raw steel? The more I go into this matter the more puzzled I am. I really cannot get at the bottom of it, but I do ask the President of the Board of Trade and those who support him to study both economics and international trade. If they do that I am sure the Bill will be dropped.

Sir H. MACKINDER

This is not in the ordinary sense a question of Free Trade or Protection. If the hon. Member who recommended the President of the Board of Trade to go in for the study of economics will refer, to his Adam Smith be will find that Adam Smith discusses the relative natural facilities of different countries to produce, and advocates that those countries should interchange the products which they have natural facilities to produce. I do not say that that exhausts the argument in this 20th Century, but that kind of argument is not involved here. We are dealing purely with a temporary condition of things, or a condition of things which may be temporary at any given time. The only goods involved are goods which are being sold below the cost of production, or which are specially reduced in price owing to the working of the present very abnormal condition of the exchange. I think the amendment now before the Committee raises very fairly the broad issue between the supporters of this Bill and the opponents of it. An hon. Member just now asked us to take a broad view of the question. The broad view that appears to me quite justified when we come to examine the meaning of this Amendment is that the Amendment takes the short view, and that the Bill takes the long view. It is perfectly possible under present conditions that you may momentarily get greater employment at the cost of less employment a little later on.

I take it that Germany is not the only country involved in the working of this Bill. I will deal with her case because there at the present time you have a very artificial condition of affairs which cannot last for more than a certain number of years. The condition of things in Germany is this: that she is bound, as far as possible, to go on manufacturing those lines for which she has the raw material in her own country, because for any other raw material she must pay enormous prices owing to the state of the exchange. She has a population which is crowded on relatively sterile ground. They have a certain skill, and therefore you have a condition of things at the present moment in which that skill is cheap in Germany and will be applied to those particular lines of trade for which Germany happens to have the raw material within her own borders. Given these conditions it is perfectly possible that you will have a development of certain lines of trade. There is in a country of the magnitude of Germany a considerable home consumption, and you will have a temporary temptation to Germany to dump in those particular lines in order that she may produce that which she can produce, consuming her own raw material and consuming skill which at the present moment is superfluous among her own people. That is a temporary condition of things. But see what may happen here. Owing to the dumping there will be thrown out of employment here not merely certain labour, but certain skill and certain fixed capital in particular lines, for where you are throwing out of employment people engaged in particular lines you are definitely scrapping skill and fixed capital—plant, for instance—in those particular lines. The result is that Germany is speicialising in one particular kind of work and you are driven to specialise in another kind of work. That would not matter so very much if there were no war in the world, but it is because of the lessons of the War that we cannot afford this kind of specialising. If you merely wanted to get cheap guns it would have been cheaper perhaps to have allowed Krupp to grow into a world producer of guns.

Apart from the question of war and from the views of those who believe there will be no war in the future, I want to point to the purely commercial condition of affairs. You have a temporary condition of things in Germany which is forcing upon us also a temporary condition of things. You have specialising in Germany on those particular things in which she happens to have the raw materials cheap, because they are within her own borders, and you have, too, specialising here, to which we are driven, because Germany can dump her specialised goods here. That would not matter if the conditions were to be permanent and if there were no war. But they will not be permanent, and gradually the exchanges will right themselves and, accordingly, the condition of affairs will become such that Germany will be able to afford to buy raw materials from outside. Her whole policy has always been to equip herself as a complete economic unit, and the result will be that she will put out of action a certain amount of your skill and plant in those things which temporarily she was monopolising. Having done that, and having injured you to the extent that you will not be able to restore that skill and that plant, except after the lapse of a certain number of years, she will then return to the position she had before the War, and will attract to herself every trade which will enable her to work upon you a second time. The hon. Members in their Amendment and in their arguments seemed to forget the action of time. It is assumed that two nations are both producing that which they can produce best, and that they will interchange, but it is forgotten altogether that we are no longer in Adam Smith's condition. It takes years to equip a country in order to produce in any given line, and especially in skilled lines, and, if you allow, under temporary conditions, your plant and skill to be broken by dumping, you will not be able to restore your productive power under a certain number of years and without very great capital expenditure, which, temporarily, is not remunerative. Therefore Germany, or any other nation, will have acquired during those years a monopoly so far as you are concerned, and can, upon the wealth of that monopoly, proceed to erect, if she has a national policy and not a laissez faire policy, the remaining trades which temporarily she has lost because of the conditions prevailing at the present time.

What we ask to-day is not that we shall go into the whole question of Protection and Free Trade, not that we shall attempt to do impossibilities—to grow sugar cane or other impossible things that are not wanted in this country. This Bill is simply to meet the temporary condition of things which exists to-day, and which is such that certain countries, and notably Germany, are in a highly artificial condition, impelling them to such a policy of dumping and the use of exchanges as will temporarily injure your trade and enable them to scrap your skill and your machinery, so that it will only be after a number of years that you will be able to restore the position. The Bill takes the longer view; this Amendment takes the shorter view. The Amendment asks you to judge of the immediate effect; the Bill says, "Do not be tempted to accept the gifts coming from the Greeks, but look a little further. You are being tempted to your own damage and loss, and not in the direction of greater employment. Do not allow dumping or exchanges to break your industrial organisation, which you will need a little later." That is the sole object of this Bill as far as I can see it, and it seems to me that the arguments against it do not really face the position. It seems to me that this Amendment does fairly raise the issue between the Bill and its opponents. It is a question of short sight and long sight. The long sight is on the side of the Bill, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not accept the Amendment.

Captain ELLIOT

It seems only fitting, as the last speaker is a Scottish Conservative Member, that the next speaker should be a Scottish Conservative also, especially as my views are in every way diametrically opposed to his. It seems very strange that he should make a long speech about an Amendment, and leave out of account any discussion of the Amendment whatsoever, except to make the extraordinary general statement that the Amendment took the short view and the Bill took the long view. The Amendment does take the short view—the shortest of all. It says, "Hear the other side." Is there anyone in the Committee who will say that the Protectionist case, which has been argued with such fluency, is incapable of meeting the argu- ments against it? Is there anyone who says that it is so weak that only one side of the case must be presented to the Committee? Here is an Amendment which takes the common-sense, old-fashioned English view that if you hear one side of the case it is almost inevitaable—at any rate it has always been considered as only courteous, even if you have made up your mind beforehand—that you should hear the other side as well. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade is rather like that of the Irish lynch judge who, on hearing the case for the prosecution, said, "The case is now closed." "No," said the defending counsel, "I want to speak." "Oh," said the judge, "I never like to hear argument on the other side; it has a tendency to confuse the court."

That is the position in which we are just now. The President of the Board of Trade used the extraordinary argument that this is a difficult and complicated matter. Of course it is a difficult and complicated matter. At this very moment, at the other end of the Lobby, a case in point is being heard. The agricultural interest has for some years past had the advantage of an embargo on Canadian cattle coming into this country, and, as a matter of fact, I am in favour of that myself, but hon. and right hon. Members have raised a discussion as to whether it should be continued or not. Is there any vestige there of this revolutionary doctrine that only one side of the case should be heard? I myself, and all the agricultural Members, would be only too pleased if the Royal Commission were only to hear the evidence of those people who claim that employment in their industry is being or is likely to be seriously affected by the admission of Canadian cattle. If only those witnesses were to be called, we could make out a very strong case indeed. But the agricultural interests in this country have taken the revolutionary step, according to the Government, of actually admitting evidence on the other side, and at this moment the Commission is hearing evidence on both sides. Let us do away with that. Let us scrap it. Let us say, "It is a ridiculous idea to hear evidence on both sides; it makes it still more complicated." Let us ask the Commission only to hear arguments in favour of retaining the embargo, and none of the arguments in favour of taking it off, and then none of us will have any doubt as to the issue.

The President of the Board of Trade, less zealous and ardent than his supporters, admitted that there was something to be said for this, and that, between now and the Report stage, he would do his best to see whether it was not possible that the other side of the case should have a chance of being put. His supporters will have none of that. They say, "Oh, no; we want the Act immediately. We want to go straight into this; we want something which can be set immediately in operation. It will be delayed if you hear evidence on the other side." And then the hon. Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder) actually said that this was taking the long view. Of course, it is taking the long view if you are to say that evidence against one's own views delays a verdict in one's favour. Of course it does, but that is a revolutionary doctrine to bring into the proceedings of the British Parliament. The speeches delivered and the oases made out to-day have grown, as the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. France) said, from comedy into farce, and there could be nothing more farcical than the latest suggestion. I do not think I should have been moved to make these few remarks if it had not been for the extraordinary pretensions, not so much of the President of the Board of Trade, as of his supporters. We have a perfectly definite Amendment here, which says that the evidence on the other side should be heard as well as the evidence on the Protectionist side. Surely that is a simple and common-sense Amendment. It is additionally necessary in that we are not merely discussing now the question of dumping, that is to say, selling here below the cost of production. That is a matter upon which we are all agreed. But we have here the question of selling at a lower price than can be attained in this country by reason of the depreciated exchange.

That brings in an entirely different set of circumstances. Depreciated exchanges, says the hon. Member for Camlachie, will right themselves—as if they were some mysterious thing that moved like the wind, blowing where it listeth. The mysterious thing about the exchanges is that they are a symbol, and not a thing in themselves. The exchanges are like a thermometer. If the thermometer shows that the room is too hot, you do not take the thermometer outside and wait until it goes down; you open the window and cool the room. If it seems that the Germans, owing to the pressure of the indemnity and of recovering their position, are trying to export goods into this country, the only way in which the exchange will come right is by releasing those goods and letting them pass between the two countries. If you maintain a prohibition against German goods, you automatically retain the depreciated exchange. It is not then a temporary thing, but becomes permanent, and, instead of taking temporary measures against exceptional conditions arising out of the War, we shall have to adopt a new permanent commercial policy in this country. Many of us are quite willing to take special measures in favour of key industries, or against the warlike commercial operation known as dumping; but a general Protectionist policy in this country as a permanent feature of our industrial polity is not a thing that we are proposing to adopt if we are not compelled to do so, and we thoroughly resent the attempt that is being made to foist that system on the country and smuggle it through under, the pretext that this is merely a Bill—

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is now getting very wide in his remarks, and I would ask him to keep more closely to the Amendment before the Committee.

Captain ELLIOT

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Hope, for calling me to order. I was getting rather wide of the point, but not, as hon. Members below the Gangway have said, merely through a desire to obstruct, although the new view seems to be that any evidence against the Bill is obstruction. On that general ground it is, perhaps, obstruction, but I simply want to say that here we have an Amendment asking that both sides should be allowed to place evidence before the Committee which is going to give its verdict. We have had a promise from the President of the Board of Trade that he would at least examine the possibility of this being done, and I beg of him, if he will not accept this Amendment—for which personally I intend to vote—that he will at least accept some Amend- ment which will have the effect of allowing, not only one side, but both sides who are going to be affected by the decision of this Committee to have the honest, old-fashioned, English chance of pleading their case, and then, if you like, of taking the verdict at which the Committee arrive.

Mr. SEDDON

We have listened with interest to a facetious speech, which gave a good deal of amusement but threw very little light on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member started by gibing at the previous speaker for delivering a speech in which nothing was said about the Amendment; and then he began to build up a case which, as far as I can see, has no substance in it at all. I can see nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent any person coming before that Committee and giving evidence either for or against. I want to go back and support the hon. Member for Camlachie in the line that he took. We have been talking about steel, but there are other trades. Some of them are small and some are great, but I do not think you ought to take a mean advantage of those who are engaged in a small trade simply because it happens to be small. This Bill is the fulfilment of pledges, and those pledges were largely based upon the activities and the proposals of the party that now is bitterly opposing the Bill.

Mr. KILEY

We are talking about depreciation.

Mr. SEDDON

I can go on without the help of the hon. Member. I know where he is, and I know that we are diametrically opposed. This discussion has rambled from subject to subject, and I want to bring it back to the Amendment itself. The hon. Member for Camlachie has said that this Bill takes the long view, and the Amendment takes the short view. What is the position of some of the smaller trades? I want to deal with that of ceramic printing. It is a very small trade. Up to the outbreak of the War we allowed it to be a German trade almost entirely. When the necessity arose they were told, under definite pledges and promises emanating from the Paris economic resolutions, that if they put their capital into the industry when the War was over they would not suffer the same penalties that were inflicted upon them before the War took place. Thousands and thousands of capital have been put into that form of printing. Owing to the depleted exchanges Germany is flooding the markets. That capital is practically gone. If you do not have this protection the people who put their money into that industry will have been misled, not only by this House, but by the promises that were made, and it will be a breach of faith and honesty to those who have put their capital in it. So far as this Amendment is concerned, as I read it the discussion has had nothing to do with the rights of either side. Either of those who are for or against have an opportunity of going to this Committee if it is set up, and any discussion on this Amendment is waste of time.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST

The Mover of the Amendment used military metaphors and compared the Minister of Health with Big Bertha. Following that line, he himself, and others on his side, have been putting up a smoke screen, because they have done all they possibly could to obscure the real issues raised by this Amendment. Speech after speech has been made to meet the specific case of steel billets, apparently under the impression that the Bill had some reference to steel billets. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that under this Clause any trader need only show that in his business some of his employés would be thrown out of employment and he would then get protection. It would not be at all a bad thing if hon. Members before making speeches of this type in support of Amendments would read the Clause they are trying to amend, and try to understand what their own Amendments amount to. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) told us that the effect of defeating the Amendment would be to shut out all evidence against the application before the Committee. That is an entire misreading of what it effects. When the Committee meets there is nothing in the Bill to prevent witnesses giving their evidence, either for or against the application. Some hon. Members have really forgotten that the House has already sanctioned a considerable portion of Clause 2. It has already authorised the Board of Trade to set up a committee to deal with these applications, and this Sub-section really deals with what is the best method to carry out the provisions which are set forth in Sub-section (1).

It must be obvious to everyone that if we really want to get this committee doing its work well, we want its members to be detached from all political pre-dispositions, and from all theoretical predispositions, men who will simply address themselves to the specific issues which are included in the reference which is given to them. The reference is stated already in Sub-section (1). The issue they have to decide is whether these goods are sold at prices below the cost of production, or at prices which, by reason of the depreciation in values, are likely to cause unemployment in the particular industry. Those are broad issues of fact, and if you are going to get this Committee doing good work it has to address itself surely to facts and to facts alone. It is no good dealing with large questions of political or economic theory. We do not want to have the Committee disturbed in its adjudication of what is the only object of its coming into being, namely, a decision as to whether or not those conditions exist.

We have had appeal after appeal that the Committee must look to broad principles, that it must take the long view, and that it has to look at the matter as widely as possible, and no doubt hon. Members who have spoken in support of it hope to see this Committee not dealing with the specific issues which are referred to it, but go altogether outside the orbit of the reference which is made to them and to deal instead with these large questions of political economy, to bandy quotas lions from learned writers or orators on political economy from Adam Smith to John Bright and from Cobden to the hon. Member for Whitechapel, and to hear theoretical economists who have always been interested in persuading the country that it is a. good thing to have foreign imports to the greatest possible extent. I contend that discussions of that sort, discussions of broad issues, are discussions for the House. They are not discussions for this Committee at all. The reference to the Committee is already framed, and it is ridiculous to expect the Committee to go outside the orbit of the reference. In the reference there is not a word about these potential results of the measures which are advocated by the Committee, and therefore it is absurd to expect them to go into matters altogether alien to the reference. The object of the Committee is to act as a judicial body on specific facts. It is not its object to act as a debating society. When the results of the Committee's deliberations are submitted to Parliament, Parliament can deal with these larger questions of political and economic speculation. That is not the job of any Committee. It is only common sense that the Committee should stick to its job, which is the adjudication on certain actual phenomena, and not speculation as to future remote and hypothetic consequences.

Captain W. BENN

I quite understand why the President of the Board of Trade does not answer. He wants a limited time for consideration. But really the Government suffers from its supporters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst) has given the whole case away, and he correctly interprets the Subsection. It says, "by reason thereof employment," etc. That is to say, the man who has a locus standi before the Committee is the man who alleges that employment in his particular industry is suffering. No one else has any locus standi at all. The President of the Board of Trade does not attempt to deny it. All he says is, "Once you start on these large questions of general employment it is beyond the grasp of any man." That is what we believe. The less the Board of Trade attempt to grasp it, the better. The more they leave it to people who have made it their life study, the better. Trade is not a matter which can be controlled by young gentlemen in Whitehall. It is a thing that is built up in a complicated way by one man specialising in searching for some produce over the world and another specialising in how to sell it, and they do not want a young gentleman to go and poke his ringer into the wheels of industry and decide whether he should put an embargo on tungsten and before lunch decide whether he will put a swinging duty on paper. What is wanted is freedom for these wheels to revolve without interference from Government Departments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the only people who can go before the Committee are people whose trade is affected.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST

No, I did not say that at all. I said those people will go before the Committee and any persons who wish to raise objections can go too.

Captain BENN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman expressly ruled out what he called the speculative question. Let me take a simple case that I know well. Take paper. A man comes before the Committee and says, "My paper mills are being affected by the import of foreign paper." What about the publisher? He cannot come before the Committee. His employment is not being affected by the import of cheap paper. It is being helped. Consequently you will have a paper manufacturer applying for a duty on his article regardless of the disastrous effect on the newspapers of the country. The President of the Board of Trade dealt in a very tentative and apologetic way with the Bill. His supporters do not do that. They go in for the whole hog, and they want little interests to bring pressure on a small committee in the hope of getting their interest protected by a tariff. That is the thing we object to. That is the thing that really renders this Amendment one of the most important we have discussed and one which certainly the Government ought to accept.

Mr. KILEY

I am not interested in steel bars, but I have a little interest in a town known as Northampton, which is noted for the manufacture of boots. In order to manufacture the best boots in the world they require patent leather. Patent leather is best obtainable from a country other than our country. We are already trying to make that patent leather in this country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

May I ask you, Sir, whether this discussion is in order?

The CHAIRMAN

It is necessary to allow a certain exordium to an hon. Member. The hon. Member will doubtless connect his exordium with his argument.

Mr. KILEY

I was leading up to the fact that we are trying to make that patent leather to enable the bootmakers to keep their people in employment. We have done our best to prevent that being done because, under the key industries part of the Bill, we have prevented the importation of the material to make that leather to the best advantage. That is the reason the hon. Member (Mr. Samuel) told the Committee that he was unable, perhaps for the first time, to support the Government, and he would not vote against them and so would not vote at all. The Committee will realise the position. The manufacturers of Northampton were bound to provide the materials to keep their bootmakers employed. If they paid this 33⅓ per cent., which the patent leather makers would have to pay, it places them at a disadvantage in first of all having to get inferior leather and then they have to pay a very much bigger price than they would otherwise pay, and it does not place them in a position to retain their overseas trade. With regard to the Committee, I have served on a Board of Trade Committee and I know the procedure. The President is urged to prohibit or restrict imports. On one occasion a proposal was brought to us that a certain commodity, which had been imported into this country at 9s. 3d., could not be made here for less than 15s. The Committee there and then passed a recommendation to the President that he was not to allow any more of that commodity to come in. Those who are concerned have no opportunity of coming

before the Committee. We on the Committee have no opportunity of testing the accuracy or otherwise of the statements. It is absolutely essential that if the Act is desired to be properly administered, precautions should be taken to see that all points of view are considered. If that is not done there will be very serious disadvantages accruing to all concerned, and although it may tend to create some employment for those who are trying to make this patent leather—

It being Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 222.

Division No. 211.]	AYES.	[7.2 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	O'Connor, Thomas P.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Halls, Walter	O'Grady, James
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Hayday, Arthur	Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hayward, Evan	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)	Rae, H. Norman
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)	Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hinds, John	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Hirst, G. H.	Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hodge, Rt. Hon. John	Royce, William Stapleton
Briant, Frank	Holmes, J. Stanley	Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Cairns, John	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)	Irving, Dan	Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spoor, B. G.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Johnstone, Joseph	Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Swan, J. E.
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)	Kennedy, Thomas	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)	Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.	Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)	Kiley, James Daniel	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Wallace, J.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)	Lunn, William	Waterson, A. E.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)	Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray	Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)	Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)	Wignall, James
Entwistle, Major C. F.	McMicking, Major Gilbert	Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
France, Gerald Ashburner	Mallalieu, Frederick William	Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Galbraith, Samuel	Mills, John Edmund	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)
Gillis, William	Morgan, Major D. Watts	Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Glanville, Harold James	Mosley, Oswald	Wintringham, Thomas
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)	Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Murray, John (Leeds, West)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W.	Myers, Thomas
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)	Newbould, Alfred Ernest	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.	Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)	Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.
NOES.
Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.	Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Borwick, Major G. O.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-	Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Barlow, Sir Montague	Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Amery, Leopold C. M. S.	Barnston, Major Harry	Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Armstrong, Henry Bruce	Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Broad, Thomas Tucker
Atkey, A. R.	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Brown, Major D. C.
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton	Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)	Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Baird, Sir John Lawrence	Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell	Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Betterton, Henry B.	Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Carr, W. Theodore
Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)	Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)	Casey, T. W.
Cautley, Henry Strother	Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)	Raeburn, Sir William H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)	Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)	Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)	Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G	Reid, D. D.
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill	Hurd, Percy A.	Remnant, Sir James
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender	Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.	Renwick, Sir George
Coats, Sir Stuart	Inskip, Thomas Walker H.	Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)'
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale	Jephcott, A. R.	Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)	Jesson, C.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)	Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)	Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Dean, Commander P. T.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Seager, Sir William
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)	Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)	Seddon, J. A.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Doyle, N. Grattan	Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)	Simm, M. T.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring	Lindsay, William Arthur	Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Edgar, Clifford B.	Lloyd, George Butler	Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Elveden, Viscount	Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.	Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Stanton, Charles Butt
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray	Lyle, C. E. Leonard	Steel, Major S. Strang
Farquharson, Major A. C.	Lynn, R. J.	Stevens, Marshall
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.	McConnell, Thomas Edward	Stewart, Gershom
Ford, Patrick Johnston	Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)	Sturrock, J. Leng
Forestier-Walker, L.	McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)	Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Forrest, Walter	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Sutherland, Sir William
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)	Taylor, J.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Ganzoni, Sir John	Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gardner, Ernest	Manville, Edward	Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John	Marriott, John Arthur Ransome	Tickler, Thomas George
Goff, Sir R. Park	Mitchell, William Lane	Townley, Maximilian G.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz	Tryon, Major George Clement
Green, Albert (Derby)	Morden, Col. W. Grant	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)	Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash	Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William	Morrison, Hugh	Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Gretton, Colonel John	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.	Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert	Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.	Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)	White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Murray, Major William (Dumfries)	Williams, C. (Tavistock)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Neal, Arthur	Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)	Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Wilson-Fox, Henry
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Winterton, Earl
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)	Parker, James	Wise, Frederick
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)	Pearce, Sir William	Wolmer, Viscount
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike	Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)	Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)	Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon	Pennefather, De Fonblanque	Woolcock, William James U.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.	Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)	Worsfold, T. Cato
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Perring, William George	Young, E. H. (Norwich)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray	Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
Hood, Joseph	Pratt, John William	Younger, Sir George
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)	Prescott, Major W. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.	Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)	Purchase, H. G.	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
		McCurdy.

The Chairman then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment proposed by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment proposed: Leave out Subsection (3), and insert instead thereof: (3) If at the time when it is proposed to make any such orders the Commons House of Parliament is sitting or is separated by such an adjournment or prorogation as will expire within one month, the drafts of the proposed orders shall be laid before that House and the orders shall not be made unless and until a resolution is passed by that House approving of the drafts either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution, and upon such approval being given the orders may be made in the form in which the drafts have been approved. In any other case an order may be made forthwith, but all orders so made shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after its next meeting, and shall not continue in force for more than one month after such meeting unless a resolution is passed by that House declaring that the orders shall continue in force, either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution; and, if any modifications are so made as respects any order, the order shall thenceforth nave effect subject to such modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Any order approved or continued under this Sub-section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 78.