§ (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied and paid on goods of any class or description in respect of which an order has been made under this Part of this Act, if manufactured in any of the countries specified in the order, on the importation thereof into the United Kingdom, in addition to any other duties of customs chargeable thereon, duties of customs equal to one-third of the value of the goods.
§ (2) Where goods are manufactured partly in one country and partly in another, or undergo different processes in different countries, and any one or more of those countries are countries in relation to which an order applying to the goods in question has been made under this Part of this Act, the goods shall be liable to duty under this Part of this Act unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that fifty per cent. or more of the value of the goods at the time of export to the United Kingdom is attributable to processes of manufacture undergone since the goods last left any country in relation to which such an order has been made.
§ (3) An order under this Part of this Act may extend to goods brought back into the United Kingdom after having been exported therefrom for the purpose of undergoing any process out of the United Kingdom, and in such case the goods shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to have been manufactured in the country in which they have undergone such process, but the 2424 importer shall, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of the value of the goods free on board at the time of such exportation, and of the identity thereof, and that no drawback has been allowed thereon on the exportation thereof, be entitled to be repaid by the Commissioners such proportion of the duty paid under this Part of this Act on the goods so brought back after having undergone such process as aforesaid as represents the duty on the value of the goods before exportation.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in addition to any other duties of Customs chargeable thereon."
This Amendment stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Thorn-bury (Mr. Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, W. (Mr. C. White), and I have been asked to move it. The object is to prevent cumulative duties being levied upon any articles which come under this Bill. As the question was discussed last night by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn), I will not debate it further.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 70.
2423| Division No. 212.] | AYES. | [7.12 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral, Thomas B. S. | Gardner, Ernest | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gilbert, James Daniel | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Goff, Sir R. Park | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Neat, Arthur |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Green, Albert (Derby) | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gretton, Colonel John | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Parker, James |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Pearce, Sir William |
| Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Percy, Charles (Tynemouth) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Perring, William George |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlvon W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pratt, John William |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | Reid, D. D |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Bottomley, Horatio W. | Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy | Renwick, Sir George |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hood, Joseph | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,w.) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Hopkins, John W. W | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Casey, T. W. | Hurd, Percy A. | Seager, Sir William |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Seddon, J. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert | Simm, M. T. |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Jephcott, A. R. | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Jesson, C. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cope, Major William | Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | Lewis. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lloyd. George Butler | Taylor, J. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Dean, Commander P. T. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Lynn, R. J. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Elveden, Viscount | McConnell, Thomas Edward | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Manville, Edward | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Mitchell, William Lane | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Forrest, Walter | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E | Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Morrison, Hugh | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Winterton, Earl | Woolcock, William James U. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Wise, Frederick | Worsfold, T. Cato | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Wolmer, Viscount | Young, E. H. (Norwich) | McCurdy. |
| Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) | |
| Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak) | Younger, Sir George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hayday, Arthur | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Hayward, Evan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Hinds, John | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hirst, G. H. | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Irving, Dan | Spoor, B. G. |
| Briant, Frank | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Cairns, John | Johnstone, Joseph | Swan, J. E. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kennedy, Thomas | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) | Kiley, James Daniel | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lunn, William | Wallace, J. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Waterson, A. E. |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Wignall, James |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Mills, John Edmund | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Mosley, Oswald | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Gillis, William | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Wintringham, Thomas |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Myers. Thomas | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | O'Connor, Thomas P. | |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Halls, Walter | Rae, H. Norman | Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. |
| Hogge. |
Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.
| Division No. 213.] | AYES. | [7.23 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Parker, James |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Pearce, Sir William |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Perring, William George |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pratt, John William |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Reid, D. D. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil) | Renwick, Sir George |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hopkins, John W. W. | Seager, Sir William |
| Bottomley, Horatio W. | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G | Simm, M. T. |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Hurd, Percy A. | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Jephcott, A. R. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Casey, T. W. | Jesson, C. | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Stewart. Gershom |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Taylor, J. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Lloyd, George Butler | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Cope, Major William | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lynn, R. J. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Dean, Commander P. T. | McConnell, Thomas Edward | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Manville, Edward | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Mitchell, William Lane | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred Moritz | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Morden, Col. W Grant | Wise, Frederick |
| Forrest, Walter | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morrison, Hugh | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Younger, Sir George |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Neal, Arthur | |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Wilson. |
| Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Kiley, James Daniel |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Grundy, T. W. | Lunn, William |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Halls, Walter | Mallalieu, Frederick William |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hayday, Arthur | Mills, John Edmund |
| Briant, Frank | Hayward, Evan | Morgan, Major D. Watts |
| Cairns, John | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Mosley, Oswald |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hinds, John | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hirst, G. H. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Myers, Thomas |
| Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) | Hogge, James Myles | Newbould, Alfred Ernest |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Holmes, J. Stanley | O'Connor, Thomas P. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Irving, Dan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | John. William (Rhondda, West) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Johnstone, Joseph | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Gillis, William | Kennedy, Thomas | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Spoor, B. G. |
| Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Swan, J. E. | Wignall, James | |
| Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) | Colonel Penry Williams and Major |
| Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wintringham, Thomas | Barnes. |
| Waterson, A. E. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
§ Sir G. COLLINSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "one-third" and to insert instead thereof the word "one-tenth."
The winning personality of the President of the Board of Trade assisted the Government in a very awkward Amendment earlier in the afternoon, though even the supporters of the Government found great difficulty in supporting it in the Debate. This House of Commons is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his anxiety not to disturb trade conditions. Throughout our Debates he has shown readiness to listen to every argument addressed from this side, though up to this moment we have not succeeded in making any improvement in the Bill. We can appeal then to the Government to endeavour to conserve the trade interests of this country by avoiding any sudden levying of duty. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, with his business experience, will agree that if goods are imported in future and are forced to pay a duty of one-third it will upset trade conditions throughout the country. We think a 10 per cent. duty sufficient. If it is proved that 10 per cent. does not secure the object which they have in view, the Government can come at short notice and ask the House to give them increased power. Two or three times during the last few months the Government have asked the House to change legislation which was passed a short time ago.
The Government propose a uniform remedy in this matter. Whether there is a heavily depreciated exchange as in Russia, Poland and Austria, or a much less depreciated exchange as in Belgium and France, the idea in the mind of the Government is to apply a uniform remedy to every one of these varying trade conditions. What is sufficient for one case is insufficient for another. Therefore I appeal to the Government to take a more moderate view and to adopt the view which Tariff Reformers in the old days outlined to this country. We are aware that their proposals were rejected at three general elections after they were submitted to the country, and that at recent bye-elections every candidate, whether a supporter of the Government 2428 or not, was opposed to this Bill. These are strong reasons why the Government should hasten slowly in this matter. Let them adopt 10 per cent. to start with. If the country approves of the policy, and we realise the value of protective duties and high prices in creating employment, then the Government can come forward with a good case and ask the House of Commons to increase these duties.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYLast year an international conference under the auspices of the Supreme Council, and representing 31 nations, met at Brussels. The three British representatives were very distinguished exponents of economics and finance. The whole of the Allied and associated Powers and several neutral countries were represented by gentlemen of very nearly the same calibre. They discussed the whole question of European trade, exchange, etc., and recommended unanimously that every barrier to the restoration of trade should be swept away. They further said that the new States created under the Peace Treaty should immediately withdraw all restrictions on trade.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know how that can be considered relevant to the question of whether the Committee should decide on a duty of one-third or one-tenth.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIf we have got to take poison we should try to take as little as possible. This Bill will not be an encouragement to these new States. How the proposals to levy a duty of one-third the value of the goods can be reconciled with the Government's own policy—because the Supreme Council approved and therefore the British Government were committed to the recommendations of this Conference—I do not know. If they do need any assistance in the way of protection a duty of one-tenth would be high enough.
Mr. T. THOMSONThe President of the Board of Trade in resisting these Amendments admitted that this legislation was an experiment so far as interference with English trade was concerned. That is all the more reason when break- 2429 ing new ground for treading carefully and not going more quickly than is necessary. Therefore I join in the appeal, as it is such an innovation affecting such large trade interests, to move cautiously and consider whether a duty of one-tenth would not be preferable to a duty of one-third. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) gave a striking illustration of the effect which this duty would have on a very large industry in this country, the industry of sheet bars, which are now coming into the country for rolling out into corrugated sheets and galvanised sheets and are at present quoted here at £6 10s. a ton as compared with £13, the present price of the English manufacture. Yet even at the price of £6 10s. it gives the sheet roller all he can do to compete in the world markets. Our trade is largely an export trade to India, the Colonies, America and elsewhere, and to put on a duty of one-third making the price £8 13s. 4d. would make it impossible for our sheet rollers, manufacturers of half finished products, to compete in the world markets and that trade would go. If the duty were one-tenth making the price £13 3s. it might yet leave a margin which would make it possible to carry on this large industry.
Even if this proposed duty were imposed it would not benefit the steel producers of this country, because the orders for these bars will not go to the English manufacturers of steel, as it is impossible for the sheet manufacturer to pay £13 and compete in the world market. It simply means that you prevent the sheet works of this country carrying on at all, and you will do no good to the manufacturer of steel in this country. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of the whole country and of trade to consider whether it is wise to put on this prohibitive duty which will kill this particular trade. It is not a question of raising the price of these bars if they come in, by raising the price of the whole material that is used by manufacturers in this country. Take a country which has a depreciated exchange. It gets the benefit of 33⅓ per cent. Take, then, another country which sends this material which may not have a depreciated exchange at all, and though it does not get the duty on its goods the price of the imported material from the competing country having been raised to this extent the one importer naturally takes the 2430 advantage which is given to the other importer and his price is raised accordingly.
You raise the whole cost to the manufacturer in this country and make it prohibitive. You are dealing with a trade which has an import of over 1,000,000 tons of steel and iron, half finished products in one form or another, and affects values equivalent to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 at least. You are going to shut that up by this Bill. Proceed cautiously and begin with the duty of one-tenth without endangering the trade which has been built up during the last 20 or 30 years, which employs hundreds of thousands of men, and depends entirely on the cheap products of the country. Not that we get the whole of the material used in our mills from the Continent, but the fact that we have open markets keeps the price of steel bars in this country down to a level which enables our manufacturers to compete in the world market. The instance which I have given shows that the danger to trade involved in this provision of the Bill is so tremendous that the President of the Board of Trade might accept this Amendment, so that at any rate as little harm as possible may be done.
§ Sir R. COOPERThe two last speakers have used an argument which we heard a good many times yesterday, and they referred to this 33⅓ per cent. duty, not only as being a very high duty, but as a new experiment in the fiscal principles of this country. That is absolutely incorrect, because at this present time, and for the last two years at least, a duty of 33⅓ per cent. has been imposed on all motor spare parts and accessories coming into the country. There are many hundreds of firms engaged in this trade and concerned with goods that are imported from France and Germany, but mainly from the United States, and I am personally connected with one firm that imports these parts, and in this particular firm last year over £30,000 was paid to the Treasury in duties alone on the imported goods. It is true that this 33⅓ per cent. duty which is referred to as being so very high has not had the effect of keeping out the American goods, but the Treasury has got the £30,000 from one comparatively small firm. It is open to any hon. Member to get information from British firms who are producing these goods in this country as to the value to them of the 33⅓ per 2431 cent. duty and as to what would have been the value of a 10 per cent. duty such as is advocated in this Amendment. In the case I have instanced hon. Members can ascertain as an absolute fact what has really been the effect on the prices in this country. I am speaking of something of which I have a considerable knowledge, and I can give the Committee my personal assurance that in many of these parts the price would not have been any lower if this duty had not been imposed.
What is really happening is that these importing firms are now finding it exceedingly difficult to continue competing, because the English manufacturers are making at prices that are not so high as to make the full difference of the 33⅓ per cent., and though I cannot profess to know the secrets of the British competing firms, I know they have been well employed, whilst most other firms this last winter have been partly closed or in some cases shut down altogether. I am quite certain that they would give unanimous evidence to any hon. Member that the effect in this particular case of the 33⅓ per cent. duty has been of the greatest benefit to the English trade and to all those employed in their factories. There is an obvious answer to what I am saying, namely, that this is a luxury article. I admit that, but the principle is there, and hon. Members, many of whom do desire to learn the real truth of the operation of the principles involved in this Bill, have here an established fact upon which they can get information, which would be of great guidance to them as to whether the proposals of the Government in this Bill are good or bad. I can only say from my own experience and from actual knowledge that they have been exceedingly good for capital, for the employer, and for the working people in those industries connected with motor cars and motor-car accessories, and I cannot conceive why they should be bad for every other industry.
§ Captain ELLIOTIf we are seeking precedents, there are plenty of others. The main objection that most of us have to these proposals is that the Government wave the magic wand of 33⅓ per cent. over imports coming from foreign countries whether the exchange has depreciated to an enormous degree or whether it has depreciated to a much less 2432 extent. It is very difficult to conceive of anybody who should say that the duty shall be 33⅓ per cent. on cotton goods coming from Lodz, in Poland, where the mark is 2,600 to the £, and from Germany, where it is only about a tenth of that. There is another country which has stumbled into this blind alley and actually applied these duties, and that is Spain. Spain has been up against the depreciated exchanges, and on the 4th June, Spain applied the principle of differentiating against countries with depreciated exchanges; but though we are inclined to run down the Spaniards for their short-sighted views, I think we must admit that they have adopted the common-sense business attitude of going through the countries with depreciated exchanges and classifying them. Consequently you find that dynamos, for instance, pay 150 pesetas a kilogram. "The American and British exchange," they say, "has not depreciated, and we will charge them 150 pesetas; the French and Belgian exchange is fairly depreciated, and we will charge them 192 pesetas; the German exchange is extremely depreciated, and we will charge them 244.5 pesetas." There is some logic about that. It may be a wrong-headed proposal, but at any rate it is a wrong-headed proposal seriously applied and honestly gone into, and it will probably show the fallacy much sooner; but when we find a proposal like this that is in the Bill, and when we know that the depreciated exchanges go over such a wide gap, it raises in our minds the suggestion that this is but another piece of camouflage legislation and that it is not intended to work.
We can imagine the Government saying, "Let there be a duty, and that will please some people, and we will make it 33⅓ per cent., because it is a nice round figure and involves a certain amount of vulgar fractions that make it difficult to calculate." The proposal comes, surely, from the illogical mixing up of dumping and depreciated exchanges. Part I of the Bill has to do with key industries, and we will pass that by. Part II mixes up the two problems of dumping, which is a definite, commercial attack on a definite range of products, carried out with the definite object of crushing out an industry, and of depreciated exchanges, which is a very much wider and more complicated problem and which none of the speakers 2433 from the Government Bench have explained in any way to the satisfaction of the Committee. Simply to say that certain goods are coming in cheaper owing to depreciated exchanges, and not to inquire how much the exchange has depreciated or what are the causes of depreciation, to wave the magic wand and say, "Let there be a duty of 33⅓ per cent.," and then to proceed to argue that that will have the effect in all cases of remedying this extraordinary phenomenon which nobody understands, is straining our credulity a great deal too far. I think the 10 per cent. is impossibly low; the 33⅓ per cent. in many cases may be impossibly high—certainly it is far more in some cases than the amount by which the exchange has depreciated—and in many cases 33⅓ per cent., for a depreciated exchange like the Polish exchange, which has depreciated so far that the nominal value of a shilling is now a farthing, is ridiculous. The thing has gone up 48 times, and we put on a duty of one-third to counteract it. How can such a proposal as that be justified? I beg the Government to explain why the same duty will apply to all classes of depreciated goods, whether they have depreciated a quarter or 48 times, as in the case of Poland, and if they cannot, then let us apply this duty solely to dumped goods and leave the whole problem of depreciated exchanges to be dealt with in a separate Bill, under different conditions, when we can have this extremely difficult problem properly thrashed out.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELFor the very excellent reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot) has just given for voting for the Amendment, I shall vote against it. He is quite right in saying that a 33⅓ per cent. duty will not do very much good in respect of goods coming from a country like Poland. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) on my right and my hon. Friend who represents the National party (Sir R. Cooper) talked about necessities like iron and steel goods, or motor cars, which are quasi-necessities, and they have taken the line of argument that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would raise the cost to the manufacturer in a trade depending on cheap products from the Continent. That may be all very well with regard to necessities, but let us see if there are not other trades 2434 which are not necessities, but purely luxuries, but which are still importing trades. There occurs to me the silk trade, which is not unimportant by any means. We imported last year £40,000,000 worth of manufactured silk, and of that £12,000,000 worth came from four or five countries like France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and Austria, which have depreciated exchanges. We had £40,000,000 worth of goods coming in which are luxuries. It does not matter whether you put a 100 or a 1,000 per cent. on those goods, it will not put up the-price of living to a poor man, because they are pure luxuries, and as far as they give employment to working people, so much the better. If people want luxuries, let them pay whatever they cost and let them be made here. I do not see what good it is proposing to put 10 per cent. rather than 33⅓ per cent. on luxury trades such as silk.
8.0 P.M.
During the War we induced people to put up factories in order to turn out the silk goods which hitherto had been imported, and if you do not now put on a good stiff duty on silk fabrics you, throw silk manufacturing people out of work. The duty on a luxury does not have the effect that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said it would have, namely, of raising the cost to the manufacturer whose trade depends upon cheap production. Therefore I say if any persons want silk goods she or he first must make up their mind whether to indulge a fancy which calls for a large price. It will not put up the price of living to the poor of this country whatever the duty is, nor damage a subsidiary trade. A 10 per cent. duty is no good on a manufactured imported product like silk, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) that 33⅓ per cent. will not go far to help us, but as between the two I am bound to vote for 33⅓ per cent. rather than 10 per cent. What good is 33⅓ per cent to a trade, with depreciated exchanges, of £12,000,000 worth of imported manufactured silk? We will take Germany before the War. There wages were, let us say, £2 or 40 marks a week for making silk goods. The same volume of silk fabric can be made in a week in England as in Germany. In England the worker will get £4 or £5, and in Germany he will get six times what he got before the War. He got 40 2435 marks before the War; now he will get 240 marks. Wages in Germany have gone up six-fold; the mark has gone down 14-fold against sterling. He gets 240 marks now, instead of 40 marks, for the same labour. For these 240 marks the German manufacturer will have produced the same quantity of silk as was produced in this country in the same period for £4 or £5. The foreign manufacturer can bring this same quantity of silk here, and he will be perfectly well paid if he gets £2 for it, which means to say 550 marks in return for 240 marks labour cost. Therefore he can compete over and over again in face of so small a duty as 33⅓ per cent. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Captain Elliot) that 33⅓ per cent. is not much good in such a case, but for that reason I am not going to vote for 10 per cent. An hon. Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says, What about raw silk bought by Germany? Raw silk is produced in Italy, Hungary, and in Greece and the Levant, and Turkey in Asia, and, I think, in the southern part of Bulgaria. The exchange of Germany as against the exchange of the bankrupt Near East is as much in Germany's favour as the sterling value of our sovereign is against the mark in Germany. The consequence is Germany or Italy do not feel the depreciation of the mark and, lira in buying raw silk material in South-Eastern Europe and Asia Minor. I am going to vote for 33⅓ per cent. In these times I only wish it was 133⅓ per cent., so far as it affects luxuries, and, indeed, even prohibition import of manufactured luxuries like manufactured silk is sound on economic lines, let alone 33⅓ per cent.
§ Mr. MOSLEYMy hon. Friend who has just sat down is, at any rate, genuine in his intentions. With that sort of speech we know where we are. I am afraid I am one of those who join with the hon. Member for Lanark in deploring these attempts at camouflage rather more than the genuine enthusiast in a cause which he has at heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark adduced certain considerations which have never been answered by the Government, either in the course of the Second Reading discussion or in the course of the discussion in Committee. He put to 2436 the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what seems to me to be a very pertinent question. How does he hope to apply this 33⅓ per cent. duty equally to all the conditions with which we are confronted to-day? We find exchanges all over the world with widely varying differences of depreciation, and we find also that these exchanges affect the internal industries of the country concerned in very varying degrees. The basis of the whole difficulty seems to be that the bounty which the industries of countries possessing a depreciated exchange secure on exports depends entirely on whether or not the raw materials component in those articles are indigenous in the country or are purchased externally. Obviously, if raw materials are purchased externally, the adverse exchange operates against the country concerned, and, in fact, constitutes a prohibitive duty when she comes to export the manufactured goods. It is only in cases where all the raw materials are indigenous in the country concerned that the exchange operates as a bounty in her favour. But even then you cannot quite take it as my hon. Friend took it as a mere question of the extent of depreciation. Although it has failed to work in this particular instance, owing to the utter collapse of the world credit system, we must consider the ancient economic law that internal prices rise in exact proportion to the external depreciation in the value of a country's currency. I agree it has not quite worked out in that way. If it had, the whole hypothesis of this Bill would fall to the ground. I was only trying to point out in passing that you cannot merely take the extent of the depreciation of a country's exchange and work on that, but, at the same time, it is evident that in cases where the raw materials are indigenous an immense bounty is afforded to the exporting countries, a bounty to correct which a duty of 500 or 600 per cent. would be required in the case of countries like Poland or Austria. In the case of such industries possessing indigenous raw materials, it is quite evident that 33⅓ per cent. duty is entirely farcical and must be utterly ineffective.
The President of the Board of Trade, in the small hours of one of our previous discussions, said, "If this part of the Bill does not do much good, it does not do very much harm." I welcome that as 2437 some slight recompense for some of the dangers with which we are threatened by this Measure. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend in the course of today's discussion scarcely could contain his own internal merriment at his advocacy of a proposal which he knows to be an absurdity. Of course, this Measure in the case of countries having collapsed exchanges and indigenous raw materials is an utter farce, a mere piece of camouflage, to console certain persons who were grumbling against conditions which arise from mistaken policy. But in the case of other industries which have to purchase their raw materials outside their own borders, it is quite evident that it is already difficult for those industries in foreign countries to compete successfully in their exports to this country, and in those cases a 33⅓ per cent. duty will act presumably as an entirely prohibitive tariff, and undermine any chance of their competition. In the case of such goods coming into this country it is quite evident that a 10 per cent. duty would be far fairer than a 33⅓ per cent duty. In fact, in some cases a 10 per cent. duty is no more fertile than a 33⅓ per cent. duty, and in the other cases which I have adumbrated the 10 per cent. duty would be far fairer than the 33⅓ per cent. duty, although, in fact, in these cases no duties are necessary at all, for the goods are virtually prohibited from entering into this country at the present time. Therefore, under all these considerations, it seems to me that this Amendment is more than justifiable.
§ Major HAMILTONI have listened with great interest to the hon. Member who has just sat down. He started off by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on his great honesty, and he accused the Government and those who support this Bill of camouflage. Well, he is a good judge of both. He entered this House, as I understand it, as a Conservative Member of the Coalition Government and as a supporter of the Government in the actual proposition which this Bill tries to carry out. The hon. Member has now joined the Wee Frees. He has never consulted his constituents, but he comes here and accuses us of camouflage and dishonesty when we are endeavouring to do our level best to carry into law the promises which he and we made at the last General Election. What does he say? 2438 He says that this Amendment to reduce the 33⅓ per cent. duty to 10 per cent. is in some cases ludicrous because 334 per cent. would do no good, and in other cases 10 per cent. would do less harm. What is really the point? If only the hon. Member would read the Bill which he criticises so freely before he gets up and wastes our time he would find that the proposition put quite simply is this, that first of all those occupied in an industry have got to satisfy the Board of Trade that competition due to dumping, clearly defined in Clause 2, either dumping as we understand it, or dumping made possible by foreign exchanges having depreciated, is causing serious unemployment, or that employment in this country is likely to be seriously affected. Then the Board of Trade refers them to a Committee. In face of all the opposition which will be admitted to that Committee these people have again to satisfy that Committee, and then the object of this particular Clause is that the Government, after the Committee have reported in favour of a tariff on these particular goods, is limited to 33⅓ per cent. and cannot put on more. If only the hon. Member would take the trouble to understand the proposals in the Bill I think he would save the time of the House.
Dr. MURRAYI do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who criticised my hon. Friend below me has read the Bill, because he told us that 33⅓ per cent. was to be the largest duty under this Bill. It is possible to have 44 per cent.
§ Major HAMILTONIt has got to be a key industry in that case. I did not go into those details.
Dr. MURRAYI hope the President of the Board of Trade will support this Amendment. I do not think it is fair to the Parliamentary institutions of this country that we should be discussing a Bill for ten days on which the Government absolutely refuses to accept any Amendment whatever.
§ Mr. BALDWINI beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I have put to my name several Amendments.
Dr. MURRAYI am sorry if my statement was too sweeping, but so far I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has accepted any substantial Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told us last night he was a genial optimist in regard 2439 to trade. Let him prove his optimism; let him show his faith by being content with a 10 per cent. duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) told us a lot about the silk trade, and insisted it was a luxury trade, and that the bulk of the people of this country were not concerned with silk; it was only for the adornment of certain classes.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELI made no such statement.
Dr. MURRAYThe working lad in the factory likes to see his girl dressed up with fine silk ribbons in her hat and wearing a silk dress now and again at a ball. Why should the brightening of life be confined to the War profiteers?
§ Mr. SAMUELOn a point of Order.
§ The CHAIRMANTwo hon. Members cannot be on their legs at the same time. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) is in possession of the House, and if he does not wish to give way the matter does not rest with me.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELMay I not ask for protection? What the hon. Member has stated is entirely contrary to what I said.
Dr. MURRAY: The hon. Member wants to be protected from himself. I am merely giving an interpretation understandable to the Committee of what my hon. Friend said. He did suggest that silk was entirely a luxury trade, and that the lower classes ought not to have their lives brightened by seeing a bit of coloured silk in a girl's hat or anything of that sort. The effect of Free Trade has been to make what were regarded as luxuries available to the many.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that is rather beyond the question before the Committee. We have to assume that there is to be a duty. The question is whether it should be 10 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent.
Dr. MURRAYI support the Amendment because it is the lesser of two evils; 33⅓ per cent. is a great evil, and 10 per cent. is a lesser evil. Dumping has not been proved yet. Dumping is the Mrs. Harris of trade—"There was never no sich a person." So far as dumping is 2440 concerned the tariff reformers were always content with a 10 per cent. duty, and I do not see why 10 per cent. should not be accepted by the Government now. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) told us about motor cars, and said that the duty of 33⅓ per cent. helped the industry. Of course it helps the motorcar industry. I was once the owner of a motor-car—it was a Ford—but I cannot afford to have one to-day, simply because of this 33⅓ per cent. duty. After all, commodities are made for the people who want them, and not for the people who make them. It is certain that this duty has prevented many people from owning motor-cars. With regard to the exchanges, 33⅓ per cent. is really a pill to cure an earthquake. We are told it is only a temporary proposal to meet a temporary difficulty. I wish the President of the Board of Trade would read the views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the permanence of taxes of this kind, once they are imposed. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to speeches in which the Secretary for the Colonies proved to the hilt that once you put on any of these taxes it will be very difficult to get them off. There is an old Scottish saying, "Aince a bailie aye a bailie." As far as the exchanges are concerned, this 33⅓ per cent. is of no use and has no relation to facts. There is no relativity in this whatever.
§ Mr. BALDWINPerhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two now. I always conclude that a subject has been pretty well thrashed out when the hon. Member who has just spoken is put up to address the House. The question was put to me by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), "Why so high a rate as 33⅓ per cent.?" And he suggested that the rate on this dumping should be only 10 per cent. The reason why the rate is what is proposed is that we regard dumping as a bad thing in itself and we want to stop it. Other countries have tried to stop dumping. In Canada they put a duty on over and above their ordinary tariff, which is a very high tariff. A duty on the scale of 33⅓ per cent. should be a real deterrent. I believe it will act as a deterrent where ordinary dumping is concerned, and we cannot see our way to reduce the figure. I would like to say a few words in reply to the argument regarding dumping under Clause 2 (1) (b), the exchange dumping. It was very interesting to me, 2441 who am now getting on in years and perhaps losing my elasticity and courage, to hear Members like the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) talking as if this was a very simple matter to settle. I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow for pointing out one essential fact which the hon. Member for Lanark had overlooked. The hon. Member for Lanark took up the line that the fixed rate of duty on exchange dumping is a mistake. He suggested that we ought to have had a rate of duty calculated very carefully to correspond with the great differences and the great fluctuations that obviously occur.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Harrow knows, the extent of the bounty in this form of dumping is really the difference between the two values, the external and the internal, and the root difficulty in dealing with this matter is that this is a difference, which in the first place it is impossible to measure, and in the second place is a fluctuating difference. These two reasons alone make it perfectly impossible—even if it were possible in other ways—to contemplate dealing with it by any other than a fixed rate. You may with some reason take the line of argument that this bounty differs so much in different countries, and at different times, that it is quite useless to put on a fixed rate because you will never hit it off, and you may have too high a rate at one time and too low a rate at another. Within limits that is true, but we have tried to meet it. I introduced an Amendment yesterday, that no matter involving a question of depreciated currency shall be referred unless the Board are satisfied that the value of the currency of the country in question in relation to sterling is less by 33⅓ per cent. or upwards than the par value of the exchange. That is to meet the point where you have a very small margin in the differences between the values of the currency, and where 33⅓ per cent. duty would be distinctly too much, and it means in effect that cases of small differences will not come before this Committee.
When you get into the cases where the difference is greater, then for a considerable period 33⅓ per cent. will meet those cases. It is quite true that beyond that, you may get some, where even the 33⅓ per cent. will not be enough. It is very 2442 difficult to say, until the cases are brought before the Committee and examined, what the differences will be found to be; as I have said, they fluctuate, they are never constant, and it is difficult to ascertain them without the closest examination, so I am not going to dogmatise upon that point. It may be that 33⅓ per cent. will not be sufficient in some cases, but if it is not sufficient, at any rate it may be useful in going a great part of the way. The consciousness that there is a power to put on this 33⅓ may quite conceivably act as a deterrent in this, just as in the other form of dumping. I should like to say a word on the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) about the Brussels Conference of last year. That is a very interesting point. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that while it is quite true we took part in that Conference, and while I think the Committee will agree with a great many of the conclusions to which the Conference came, it is only fair to remember another point. I have had to say two or three times over that we are not imposing a general tariff in this country. This Bill does not involve a general tariff. I need not enlarge upon that, but so far as a general tariff is concerned, practically all the countries represented at Brussels have increased their tariffs since the beginning of 1920, and, since the Conference itself sat, duties have been increased by Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, Guatemala—
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYTwo blacks do not make a white.
§ Mr. BALDWINI cannot see how anything we did in that Conference at Brussels can prevent us from passing legislation in our own country on such a point as dumping, which is entirely different from a general tariff. If we had gone in for a general tariff, after discussing matters in the terms we did at Brussels, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might fairly have had something to say, but there is nothing which passed at Brussels, that I am aware of, that can, by any stretch of imagination, debar us from dealing at this time with this phenomenon that is facing us at present, namely, the phenomenon of dumping. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) 2443 once more with regard to steel. I think the Committee has had quite enough of that for one day, and with regard to the new candidate for our sympathy, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow, I think I shall leave him where he is.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, but his defence is about the weakest I ever heard in my life. We sent our representatives to Brussels; they met the representatives of 131 other States; they explored the whole situation, and they tried to diagnose the disease afflicting European trade, of which the exchanges were the symptom. They specially dealt with the exchanges and came to the unanimous decision that the best possible policy was to remove all barriers to international trade. In the face of that we produce this Bill, and the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman—who has my sympathy in his efforts to defend a bad case—is that Guatemala, Switzerland, Belgium, and a number of other nations who were also represented there, went back on the recommendations of their own experts. He says, therefore, we are justified in doing the same. What an excuse! Is that to be the attitude of the British Government which has prided itself in the past on keeping its pledges and engagements, and on the consistency of its policy? Even if that were not enough, the right hon. Gentleman has thrown overboard the Prime Minister. I thought that was coming, and it has come. I could understand a moral decline since last year, when the Brussels Conference was held, but on the 17th February of this year the Prime Minister used an argument in this House which so impressed me that I voted for the Government. I was the only Member of the official Oppositions who voted for the Government on that occasion, and I did so as a result of these words from the Prime Minister:
You have undoubtedly as a result of the War an extravagant immoderate nationalism which finds expression in all sorts of ways which are obstructing commerce. … They say that you must build great walls all around and never give a cup to your neighbour. Czecho-Slovakia has it, and Poland has to a certain extent. They say: 'We will look after our own country.' …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1921; col. 419, Vol. 138.]Those were the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman's nominal chief and leader. 2444 Now he is thrown overboard. To Czechoslovakia and Poland you must add Great Britain. I voted for the Government, and I feel I have been betrayed. I supported the Prime Minister, and this is the reward I get! It is iniquitous! An hon. Friend beside me says that the Vote was iniquitous, and really, when I look at the Bill, I begin to think it was. This is the evil returned me for the good I did the Government. I shall not make that mistake to-night. I represent the shipping port of Hull, and unemployment in that port is great amongst seafarers. Every ton of goods we get in is in future to have a tariff of 33⅓ per cent., and that means a ton less to go out to pay for those goods, and every £l's worth of goods kept out of this country will prevent £l's worth coming in, and vice versa, and that will mean more unemployment in one of the greatest of our key industries, our shipping.
§ Major M. WOODSupposing there is dumping or that there are exchanges which have gone down in such a way as to make it necessary to put on some duty. It may be they have not gone down far enough, or that the dumping is not so considerable, as to make it necessary to put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. Is the Government really going to take power to put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. when, on the admission of the Committee appointed for the purpose, 20 per cent. will be quite sufficient to meet the necessities of the case? Will the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department consider—if he cannot give me an answer now—between now and Report stage whether the Government might not accept an Amendment, putting in before the 33⅓ per cent., the words, "not more than," so as to give discretionary power to put on just that duty that will meet the necessities of the case? There should be a limit, but there should also be a discretion by the Committee not to put on a bigger duty than will meet the particular case involved.
§ Mr. KILEYBefore the Committee goes to a Division I think they should realise exactly what the Government mean by these proposals. This matter of depreciated exchanges is really a serious matter and requires serious treatment. The Government want us to believe that they realise this, but consider how they proceed to deal with this very serious 2445 matter? They commence by putting almost every country outside the provisions of this Act on the ground that we have conventions or agreements. They sweep out with one stroke of the pen 98 per cent. of the countries that would be likely to dump goods upon us. They leave in France, which will come under this penalty of 33⅓ per cent., which begins if the depreciation of their exchange exceeds the 33⅓ per cent. Suppose it is only 32⅓ per cent., which is not serious. What stupidity! How can business houses conduct business proceedings in view of these things? Either prohibit the importation altogether or else put on a tariff that will achieve your object. There may be some fear of Germany, but if hon. Members will take the trouble to look at our imports from Germany—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)The hon. Gentleman's remarks would appear to be more relevant to a Second Reading discussion. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the question of the Amendment, which is to leave out "one-third," and to insert "one-tenth."
§ Mr. KILEYI was dealing with the effect this tariff will have on Germany itself, which is supposed to be the country at the present time under this depreciation of 33⅓ per cent. or more, and is dumping vast quantities of goods into this country. If anyone will look at the actual imports into this country in the last figures available for the first three months of the year, they will find that they did not exceed 10 per cent. of the imports in the corresponding three months of any pre-War year. This country then, Germany, is dumping here—or we are led to believe it is—because of their exchanges this vast quantity of goods. The Government are either misleading themselves or misleading the country when they allege that this fearful and calamitous dumping is taking place. If they cannot produce better figures of imports—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have over and over again reminded the hon. Member that while he may be in Order in regard to the Amendment, he is out of Order because of repetition. I have heard over and over again every argument, he is using. He must keep himself to the Question which is before the Committee.
§ Mr. KILEYWhether it should be 33⅓ per cent. or a smaller figure, would it 2446 not be better if the Government really fixed the figure at 10 per cent. which, after all, represents 20 per cent.; then they would possibly be able to see that although they had attempted to do something that it was no cure any more than the larger figure was a cure. They might then be able to say: at all events we have done something to deal with this matter from our point of view.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI was in the Committee when the President was speaking. If I understood him correctly, the Government propose this 33⅓ per cent. duty because of the internal and external difference in the value of the mark. Do I understand that it is because of the internal and external value of the mark that the Government are proposing this duty? I was called out of the Committee, and, as I entered, I thought I gathered that that was the policy of the Government. Is that really the intention of the Government, because it is a really important subject. We are anxious to find out whether this 33⅓ per cent. duty is to be imposed on account of a depreciated currency in all countries, or whether it is simply because of the internal and external value of the mark. Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform me if I am correct?
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEI do not think that I should serve any useful purpose by repeating the speech of my right hon. Friend.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI have taken up this point on more than one occasion, and I think it is perfectly proper for me to ask for an answer. It is a perfectly reasonable question. The traders of this country are anxious to know whether this Clause applies to every country which has a depreciated currency, or whether it applies only to countries where the external and internal value of the mark has depreciated. I wish to enter a protest against the definite refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to answer a perfectly reasonable request dealing with a matter which affects every trade in the country.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEWe have still a good deal to discuss in this Bill. My right hon. Friend spoke for a long time on this question, and I think it is very reasonable that that reply should stand.
§ Sir G. COLLINSIf the hon. and gallant Member will answer my question "Yes" or "No," I will resume my seat. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] I do not think that that is a correct interpretation of the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are here for the definite purpose of considering whether 33⅓ per cent. or 10 per cent. should be the duty, and I do not think that the Government have treated the Committee with that respect which the representatives of the taxpayers, gathered together it may be in small numbers, are entitled to receive from the Government.
Sir W. BARTONAfter the treatment accorded to the last speaker I do not know whether I dare put a further question. Am I right in assuming that in countries where depreciated exchanges exist this provision would not operate unless the depreciation was not less than 33⅓ per cent.?
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEAn Amendment on this point was agreed to yesterday.
§ Question put, "That the word 'one-third' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 67.
2449| Division No. 214.] | AYES. | [8.52 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Neal, Arthur |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Parker, James |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Pearce, Sir William |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Perring, William George |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | Pratt, John William |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hills, Major John Waller | Purchase, H. G. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Raeburn, Sir William H. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hope, sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.) | Ramsden, G. T. |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hopkins, John W. W. | Renwick, Sir George |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hurd, Percy A. | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) |
| Casey, T. W. | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Jephcott, A. R. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Jesson, C. | Seager, Sir William |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Simm, M. T. |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lloyd, George Butler | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Dean, Commander P. T. | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Lort-Williams, J. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster) | Thomson, Sir W Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Lynn, R. J. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Edwards. Allen C. (East Ham, S.) | McConnell, Thomas Edward | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Wise, Frederick |
| Forrest, Walter | Manville, Edward | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Mason, Robert | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Matthews, David | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | |
| Gould, James C. | Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Dudley Ward. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Briant, Frank | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Cairns, John | Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Entwistle, Major C. F. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Galbraith, Samuel |
| Gillis, William | Johnstone, Joseph | Swan, J. E. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Kennedy, Thomas | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Kiley, James Daniel | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Lawson, John James | Wallace, J. |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Lunn, William | Waterson, A. E. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Halls, Walter | Mills, John Edmund | Wignall, James |
| Hayday, Arthur | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Hayward, Evan | Myers, Thomas | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Hinds, John | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Hirst, G. H. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprin) | Wintringham, Thomas |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hogge, James Myles | Royce, William Stapleton | |
| Holmes, J. Stanley | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie |
| Irving, Dan | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) | Wood. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Spoor, B. G. |
§ Sir G. COLLINSI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
As the Committee know, Sub-section (2) deals with goods which are partly manufactured in one country and partly in another. On the Order Paper there is an Amendment to Sub-section (2) in the name of several hon. Members to substitute 25 per cent. for 50 per cent. of the value of the goods as the exemption limit attributable to processes of manufacture undergone since the goods last left the country in relation to which an order has been made. I am anxious that the Committee should observe the difference between the Government policy on this Sub-section and the policy they adopted earlier in the afternoon. The Sub-section states that it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners where these goods are manufactured. If 25 per cent. of the manufacture is in one country and 75 per cent. in another the Commissioners have to determine this very important point. Earlier in the afternoon, when Members from this side of the Committee asked the Government to take note, not only of the unemployment created in one trade, but of the general unemployment throughout the country, and to let their policy be determined not by the interest of a part but by the greater interest of the whole, the President of the Board of Trade said that was a superhuman task which the Committee set up under the Bill could not perform. But under this Sub-section the Commissioners are, in the opinion of the Government, possessed of the ability to determine by examination what percentage of production in Germany, Austria, Belgium or France has been put into certain articles. Does not that show that when the Commissioners and Custom House officials at our ports endeavour to decide that problem they must break down in practice? Does it not also show 2450 that the hopes held out by the Government to their supporters that this Bill will not operate are largely founded on fact, and that as a matter of course the Bill will not come into practical operation, because the Commissioners, with the best will in the world and with all the knowledge they will be able to get from able civil servants, who will be asked by the Government to assist them, will not be able to determine this very important problem?
There is a further question I would like to put. Every package of goods that comes into this country in the future from the Continent will have to be opened. If goods come from certain countries they will not be liable to duty, but if they come from other countries they will be subject to a heavy protective duty. To use a local phrase, there will be money in bringing goods into this country from countries not liable to be taxed, and if by the transfer of goods across the frontier from a country whose currency is not depreciated, you allow goods manufactured in a country with a depreciated currency to escape these high protective duties, then you will create a sense of unfairness between importers in this country. This examination cannot be carried out unless the Government employ a large number of officials at every port in the country to examine cases of goods. My right hon. Friend in the Debate last night drew attention to the very greatly increased cost of the officials in the Customs and Excise. If my memory serves me aright, that cost has risen from £2,000,000 in 1914 to £6,750,000 now. What will happen when this Clause comes into operation? All goods coming here will naturally require to be examined, and there will be lacking a sense of equity and justice if they are not thoroughly examined at every 2451 Customs House throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. Whether the country is in a mood to find money for that or not, evidently the Government are not anxious to find money for more officials, because within the last 48 hours they have refused a very reasonable request for some four officials to enable the House of Commons to exercise better control over expenditure. We are now passing legislation which is bound to have the effect of largely increasing the staff of officials at every port in the country. I remember visiting America before the War, and what a painful experience everyone has when landing there, when they have to go through the Customs and have their belongings carefully and minutely examined because of the high protective duties. The same thing will happen at Dover, Portsmouth, London, Hull and every other port in this country. The goods will require to be examined, and these very minute calculations will require to be made and proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in order to examine the exact amount of the duty. The picture I have drawn of this Clause in operation is, I think, a true one. The difficulties are great, and the cost is high: whether the result will be satisfactory to the country and the Government is a matter of opinion.
§ Major ENTWISTLEI should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will give us the benefit of his experience of the working of the provision similar to this which is contained in the Reparation Act. We had a long discussion, when that Measure was before the House, as to the impracticability of any such provision as this. It is very nice to say in theory that you will not let in any goods which include more than 50 per cent. manufactured in a certain country, but we beg to point out that the only result of that would be to hamper trade, so that traders would not know where they are. The thing would break down owing to its being totally impracticable. Before the Parliamentary Secretary asks us to repeat in another Act what is obviously an impracticable proposition, we should at least have the benefit of the experience he has obtained under the preceding Act, We were told by the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and 2452 various other Ministers, that it had been done during the War, that it was perfectly simple, and that we had all the benefit of our war experience. We were venturesome enough to be suspicious of those assurances. I am not myself a trader, and cannot speak from personal knowledge as to the effect of the Reparation Act, but I really am very doubtful whether the provisions of this nature in that Act have been effective. I think we ought to have information as to the total value of the goods which, under these provisions, have been detected. The provision is obviously one which, if it does not work, can result in nothing but hamperng our trade, and I trust that the Committee will not agree to its retention without hearing what has been the experience under the Reparation Act.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI can give the Committee a very good example of the way in which this sort of thing works. It happened in the city which my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Entwistle) and myself have the honour to represent. The Reparation Act has a country of origin Clause very similar to this in form, although the figures are different, and it came into operation just at the season when in Hull we were importing our early fruit and vegetables. I know that food and drink are not included in this Bill, but the difficulty that we had in getting our early fruit and vegetables—it is a very important trade— into Hull will be multiplied dozens of times when we come to complicated manufactured articles. They would not let us bring in our lemons and melons from Spain and from Southern Italy and Sicily because, they said, they might be of German origin. That is literally true, and we had the greatest difficulty. We could get nothing done until my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, with a very representative body of traders from Hull, came as a deputation to the Board of Trade. They received us, as they always do, with the greatest courtesy, and summoned the leading Customs and Excise officials; and eventually we were allowed to get in all sub-tropical fruit of that sort without a certificate of origin. The trade, however, was hampered for weeks.
That is just one example of the difficulty that is caused by a Clause of this kind, once you get into the terrible morass of the country of origin of goods. We had it 2453 during the War in connection with the blockade, and a vast organisation was built up, with a Minister at its head, a vast staff, and a tremendous system of espionage abroad. I do not say that that will be necessary to such an extent now, but there will be that sort of organisation on a smaller scale if you are going to try and differentiate between one country and another. It is all very well to say that certificates of origin can be obtained from the consuls. At many places on the Continent whence important lines of goods are shipped to this country, there is no consul, and we shall again have the same trouble that we had with our fruit and vegetables in Hull. Everyone knows the difficulty of going to a consul. He has not a large staff, he only sees people between certain hours, and it is difficult to see him. It hampers trade, and all these restrictions will injure our people here. Therefore, I hope that this ridiculous Sub-section will be left out. The argument that it would be possible, say, for Holland, with a good rate of exchange, to purchase goods from Germany, which has a bad rate of exchange, and therefore get round the provisions of this Act and ruin the unfortunate manufacturers in England, is quite fallacious, because there would be an extra profit for the Dutch middleman, as well as extra transit expenses and Customs duties, and the game simply would not be worth the candle. From the high Protectionist point of view, it would be better to leave out this Sub-section. If the effect of goods coming into this country is to create unemployment in certain classes of manufactures, it does not matter where they come from. This provision, if retained, will make for friction with other countries and for trouble and expense and worry to English traders, and therefore I hope that the Committee will agree to its deletion.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEI cannot accept the proposal to leave out this Sub-section, because to do so would make the Bill quite inoperative. That, perhaps, is what those who support the proposal desire, but it is not what the Government desires. If we accepted this Amendment, we undoubtedly should render the Bill nugatory, because it would at once become open to any country against which an Order was made to pass its goods through any neighbouring country, either with the camou- 2454 flage of some small additional process, or by direct transhipment. The goods would then come here, and we should have failed in the entire purpose of the Bill. For that reason, as we read the Bill and mean to make it workable and effective in the cases in which these duties are imposed, we must insist on this Subsection being maintained in the Bill. I think hon. Members have exaggerated considerably the inconvenience which would be caused. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pictured that on each occasion the Commissioners of Excise would investigate every consignment that came through and would have to make an inquiry into it, and by the light of their knowledge would have to discover what proportion was German and what proportion was attributable to other sources. That is not the way in which the machinery would work at all. The consignor would obtain a certificate of origin. Certificates of origin are not unknown in other countries. They are being worked in other countries in very large numbers, and it is part of the common machinery of those countries. The consignor would obtain a certificate of origin from the consul. If that certificate stated either that the goods are not of German origin, for example, but 35 per cent. of Dutch origin, or that having come originally from Germany they have had more than 25 per cent. of Dutch value added to them—
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYFifty per cent.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEWe propose to accept an Amendment reducing that 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. The 25 per cent. is enough to keep out cases of what I may call a camouflaged process, and enough to let in those cases where a real amount of work has been added in a third country to the articles. A certificate of origin will be obtained from the consul on the spot, and the goods will pass through the Customs and can be cleared and the duty paid immediately the certificate of origin is produced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) smiles. Naturally he wishes to make out that this will be as difficult a process as possible. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly simple.
§ Mr. WALLACEHow long does it take? Four weeks.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMENothing of the kind. It takes no longer to present a certificate of origin than to present any other shipping document. The certificate of origin comes forward with the bill of lading and the other shipping documents in the ordinary way, and takes precisely the same time to come forward and clear. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) asks me what has been the experience under the working of the Reparation Act.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEThe hon. Member cannot have got his shipping documents in order.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEThe hon. Member will find it will take no longer to pass through, and will be as simple a process as to conduct a count in this House. Under the Reparation Act there were certificates. I made inquiries whether there was a difficulty in obtaining them, and I found there was not. I quite agree that the only case in which there was difficulty, which practical experience led us to meet at once, was the case of perishable goods. In dealing with the German Reparation Act all exports from Germany of all kinds were subject to a levy. That is not the case here. There are only articles which are included in the Schedule and such articles as Part II may be applied to by Order. The real difficulty was the question of these perishable foodstuffs. That cannot possibly arise under this Bill, and even if it could, as my hon. and gallant Friend explained, as soon as that difficulty was foreseen it was promptly met, and, as he will agree, thereafter they came through with great speed. The difficulties attendant upon this have been very greatly exaggerated, and if this provision were not here the working of the Bill would be perfectly impossible.
§ Mr. WALLACEThat would be a much desired result. The more I consider this Bill and the more frequently I hear it debated, the more convinced I am that it is one of the most ridiculous and one of the most ill-starred Measures which has been introduced by the Government. The 2456 hon. Gentleman has told us he expects no appreciable delay in the future regarding the working out of the provisions that we are now considering, and he bases that belief upon what has happened under the Reparation Act. Does he know anything at all about the commercial aspect of the Reparation Act? Let me give a case in point to show the difficulties which will arise under ths Bill if this Amendment is not accepted. What is the modus operandi of the customs when fiscal matters have to be considered? Let me give the sort of case which will occur under the present Bill. A consignment of goods was sent from Germany on 11th April. That is the date of the invoice and the date of despatch. They reached the consignee in this country on 11th June—and this will take place again. The goods arrived at the Custom House 12 days after despatch from Germany. The Custom House after receiving the goods allowed not a day or two to elapse, but their advice that the goods were received was dated 12th May—23rd April to 12th May. The bond was sent to the Custom House by the consignee in this country on 12th May. In an ordinary commercial transaction with a business house in this country, that bond would have been sent back by return of post. It was not returned by the Custom House until the 27th May. The cheque was sent on the same day as it was received, and the goods reached the consignee in this country on 11th June—23rd April to 11th June—and my hon. Friend has such confidence in this Measure that he ventured to get up here, before responsible business men, and tell us that the working of the Custom House part of the system under the Reparation Act has been so satisfactory that he has absolute confidence regarding the future under the Bill we are considering. I think a responsible Minister of the Crown should have more exact information to give to the Committee, and certainly on a basis of fact, which he has not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee.
I suggest that as little as possible should take place on the part of the Committee in the way of interference with the ordinary channels of trade. It is elementary that a whole lot of the goods which we get in this country, to which this Clause refers, are partly manufactured goods—they may be partly manufactured in Germany and partly 2457 elsewhere. They are, however, absolutely necessary if we in this country are going to continue our export trade. If obstacles of this nature are to be put in the way by this Government, I can assure them that there will be in this country a feeling of dissatisfaction which will be shown in a most unmistakable form against the present Administration. I am a Coalition Liberal. I am extremely anxious to discover any means in a matter of this sort by which I can support the Government, but I say frankly that it cannot be done. I do claim to know something about how business is conducted in this country. I do know that to-day in London and in many commercial centres all over the country business is already upset by the introduction of this Measure. The ordinary business community to-day does not know where it stands. Several firms have come to me and have told me that they are quite unaware how to make contracts to-day on account of the prevailing uncertainty. In this Bill the Government are rendering a very ill service to the commercial interests of this country. I firmly believe that if the Government were to let this matter alone and to allow this Bill to become—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now making a Second Beading speech. He must direct his observations to the Amendment.
§ Mr. WALLACEI apologise for having become irrelevant for a single moment. I shall confine myself entirely to the Sub-section now before the Committee. Considering the many issues involved in this Sub-section, my hon. Friend would do very well to accept the Amendment, and to remove this Subsection altogether from the Bill.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI do not wonder that my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill had very considerable difficulty in maintaining his gravity a little while ago when he was defending this Sub-section of the Clause. I am glad to recognise in a fellow Member who has some connection, at any rate, north of the Tweed, the element of humour, and that he understands the supposition that we are not able to appreciate a joke. He evidently does appreciate the joke in this Sub-section. If hon. Members will listen for a moment while I read two or three lines of it, they 2458 will appreciate what the extraordinary difficulties are—
Where goods are manufactured partly in one country and partly in another, or undergo different processes in different countries, and any one or more of those countries are countries in relation to which an order applying to the goods in question has been made under this Part of this Act, the goods shall be liable—unless, under the proposed Amendment, in another country, to which the Order does not apply, 25 per cent. of that value has been added. Let us see how it is going to work under this part of the Bill. If hon. Members will turn their minds back to the part of Sub-section (2), which, under the guillotine, we did not discuss at all, and therefore we can now make reference to, as it directly relates to this, they will see, first of all, that it saysat prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined.Let us see what the Customs officials have to look at. What does "cost of production" mean? Clause 8 says it is:That is the first thing. What is the next thing under this part of the Bill? We now come to the part on which we had something approaching a Debate last night:
- "(a) the wholesale price at the works charged for goods of the class or description for consumption in the country of manufacture; or
- (b) if no such goods are sold for consumption in that country, the price which, having regard to the prices charged for goods as near as may be similar when so sold or when sold for exportation to other countries, would be so charged if the goods were sold in that country;"
(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;That is the collapsed exchange. Let me try and apply that to a concrete instance of which I happen to have some personal knowledge. Some clients of mine, a very large firm in South Wales, last February or March ordered electrical machinery for work in one of their great collieries. That electrical machinery was partly made in Germany and the other part had been manufactured in Switzerland. Under the Reparation Act they were in great difficulties about it, and the whole order was cancelled because they could not carry it through, and they were not going to be bothered with it. What 2459 happens under this Bill, supposing they attempt once again to do business and to get electrical machinery. First of all, it is quite easy to prove that the industry here which manufactures electrical machinery is in a depressed condition. Then they have, first of all, to ascertain under Part II either "prices below the cost of production" as defined in Clause 8, or the question of the collapsed exchange. Both these factors, no doubt, are easily ascertainable in Germany. Having found out what is the wholesale price in Germany—
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEI do not quite follow. The gentlemen who are going to buy electrical machinery will not have to ascertain anything except the cost of the machinery until an order has been made.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThat is the whole point. If they bought this machinery, all this has got to be done by our officials to ascertain whether these goods can be brought into this country. Everyone of these things has to be ascertained before the goods will be delivered. Of course, that must be so, else what is the good of this thing at all? That is the process which must be gone through. It is what the Bill says that our officials have to ascertain. These are two factors you must find out with regard to that particular machinery before it is admitted here, namely, what is the cost of production in Germany, and—
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEMy right hon. Friend has not read the Clause aright. The Customs officials will not have to find out anything about that particular machinery. If a collapsed exchange order has been made under the Bill in regard to that particular class of goods it will be effective in regard to all goods of that class. If the order has not been made, then there will be no duty on any goods in that class.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThis gets, "curiouser and curiouser" as we go along. If you have your collapsed exchange ascertained that is a condition, but on the other point you will also have to find the "prices below the cost of production." Either of those factors have got to be ascertained. What happens again? One part of that machine is in Switzerland. The dumping part may 2460 apply, but the collapsed exchange part does not apply. The value of 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. is added in Switzerland and it comes through without any trouble. Suppose the other part of the machine is made in Belgium, our ally, our friend in the War for whom we entered the War. What happens there? Immediately this Act comes into operation, and either the thing is shut out altogether or there are three or four or six months' delay. Was there ever a more farcical business? If it comes from Switzerland, a country which very largely benefited by the War, it is all right, but if it comes from an ally, whose sacrifices in the War have been beyond words, every obstacle is put against it. It is not so much a farce as a tragedy that it is possible for a Government to pledge its credit to so insane a Measure as this. Take these words and attempt to understand them and assume that you are going to get Customs officers to work them and apply them. What the world wants to-day is business to be reestablished and not prevented. This is a Sub-section of a Bill for the prevention of trade. A more clear example of the tragical folly of the whole performance could not be produced than this Subsection.
§ Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMSI frankly admit that up to the time when we came to this rather complicated Subsection I have supported the Government all the way through; but when I heard one of that miscellaneous collection of ex-Liberals on my right talking about officials and arguing that under this Subsection we should have a larger number of Customs officials than before, I was rather inclined to believe that there was something that we might lose in economy under this Sub-section. After a little while, I heard the hon. and Gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) enthusiastically supporting his leader, and I remembered that it was only a few nights ago that he deliberately talked out a Measure to enable this House to have fuller financial control. I am referring to the occasion when he became very loquacious about two minutes to eleven two nights ago on the question of the Estimates Committee. One minute these hon. Members are economists and the next minute they are in favour of expenditure of the widest character. There are one or two points in connection with this Sub-section which I do not 2461 understand. The business position is quite easy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that there are no business men on my right, so we need not worry about them. What is meant by these words?
unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners.I am not a lawyer, but I see the Lord Advocate of Scotland present, and I wonder if he would be kind enough to give us a clear definition of how he would interpret in a Law Court the word "satisfaction" as laid down in this Subsection. The definition, possibly, would not be as good as if we had a really first-class English lawyer here to give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] There are certain Scotsmen here who know nothing about their own country. Scottish law is entirely different from English law. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us his definition from the Scottish law point of view, and later on we might get one of the English Law Officers to give us his definition. The Sub-section proceeds:that fifty per cent. or more of the value of the goods.There is an Amendment down in the name of the Government to alter the 50 to 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is our Amendment, also!"] I admit that according to the names attached to the Amendment, it is a Coalition Amendment. I would like to ask some of the eminent Free Traders, the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Sir H. Mackinder) or the Minister of Health, to explain to us precisely which would be the best, 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. If my questions could be answered satisfactorily, I should know on which side to vote.
Mr. HOPKINSONSome people appear to think that this Clause can easily be worked, but it is not so simple as has been made out. This question as to the certificate of the country of origin is not an easy matter to work. I am at the present time in the midst of discussion with the Customs authorities over this particular point in respect to reparation. Before the War I was conducting experiments in Germany with certain machinery, but this machinery had to be abandoned in Germany when the War broke out. Recently I decided to send for this machinery. It was duly forwarded by my German friends. In due course it arrived 2462 in Hull. When it arrived in Hull, under the Reparations Act, a claim was made on me for 26 per cent. of the value of the machinery. I explained to the Custom House officials that that machinery was never paid for by the Germans and never belonged to them, but belonged to me for the whole time of the War, and it was simply being returned to its rightful owner. I showed them my name on the castings, but that was not sufficient for the Customs, and I am obliged now before I get hold of that machinery to sign a bond amounting to 26 per cent. of the value of the goods, representing the duty, in case that at some subsequent period it may appear that this machinery originated in Germany, in spite of the fact that it has my name on it. I mention that case simply because it is such a good example of the process of making Germany pay.
Dr. MURRAYI desire to support this Amendment. The Sub-section which I wish to have omitted shows the entire folly of this Bill. The fact that even the Custom House officers find it difficult to understand provisions of this sort has been illustrated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with regard to fruit. Evidently the Custom House officers do regard fruit as a sort of a composite, one part being grown in Spain and the other part in Germany. We all know that the pip is made in Germany and the pulp is grown in Spain. Therefore the Custom House officers would have solemnly to declare how much should be put down to pip and how much to pulp, and all these oranges were delayed several weeks before they were cleared out of the Custom House. That is a caricature of the whole business, but it illustrates in a forcible way what will occur when this is put in force. What grieves me so far as I understand this Sub-section is, that it will make the smuggling of these things much more easy. It would therefore require the fitting up of a large number of ships as revenue cutters to prevent the smuggling that must take place from some of these countries. Thus this Sub-section will be the means of creating a big horde of officials by land and sea. Of course, I will get no thanks from my own constituents for objecting to anything that will produce smuggling. But one must do one's duty, no matter what his constituents think. I hope that this Sub-section will be deleted.
§ Mr. ACLANDI have been trying to understand this Clause. One thing which strikes me is that it is a very good thing that it does not apply to food, because if it did we should have all sorts of questions about eggs. For instance, if a Swiss cock and a French hen were concerned, all sorts of questions would arise.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not see how the manufacture of an egg can take place in more than one country.
§ Mr. ACLANDThe words of the Bill are "the processes of manufacture." [Laughter, and HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I am speaking up, but if hon. Members will laugh while I am speaking they cannot hear me. If goods are made mainly in Germany, and the finishing touches are put upon them in Switzerland to the extent of 25 per cent., they come in free of duty. I am not talking of dumping. That means that the main work has been done in Germany, and only a little more than a quarter in Switzerland; but if the main work has been done in Switzerland, and the goods pass in an almost completed state into Germany, so that only 10 per cent. of the work is done in Germany, those goods are liable to duty because Germany was the last country from which they came. Which goods are likely to compete more as having been made in a country with collapsed exchanges? Surely the goods which were mostly made in Germany with regard to which no. duties will be payable, and not the goods mostly made in Switzerland with regard to which duty will be payable. If you said that wherever 75 per cent. of the value had been put into the goods in a country with a collapsed exchange you would hit that with your duty, that, although foolish, would be logical; but you are saying, if you are going on the last country from which they came, if that was a country with a collapsed exchange, however little was done to them there, you are going to hit the goods; but if the final process of more than 25 per cent. was done in a country without a collapsed exchange, then, however much they compete, because the bulk of the manufacture, 75 per cent., was done in another country, you cannot hit those goods at all. That is a loophole in the Bill, and we ought to have some explanation why it is that the Swiss goods are to be hit, even if only 10 per cent. is done on them in Germany, but that 2464 German goods are to be free if 25 per cent. of the work has been done in Switzerland.
§ Mr. KILEYI listened with amazement to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that there was no delay caused at the ports, and I suggest to him that when a convenient opportunity arises he should go to some of these ports and learn the position on the spot. If goods coming in from abroad are not dutiable, they are loaded immediately into the wagons and carted away, but when goods are subject to duty, they must be seized by the Customs officials and taken into a bonded store and documented, and that incurs a delay of from 3 to 33 days on each consignment of goods. Therefore, when the Minister says there is no delay at all, he is very wide of the mark indeed. I will undertake to drive a torpedo through this Sub-section unless the Minister in charge will alter the wording, and I will tell him how it can be done. We have excluded quite a large number of countries from the operation of this Bill. London is a market for a great many raw materials, and in my own district we have a large industry in furs, brought from all parts of the world. They are dressed and dyed, and a large number of the skins are dyed in Germany. If they come back from Germany, they will be subject to the reparation charge, but suppose instead of sending them to Germany you send them to Belgium, you cannot prevent the Belgians from sending them to Germany to be dyed and getting them back again. That applies to something like 26 different countries with whom we have got Treaties. Therefore, as far as the effect of this Sub-section is concerned, a torpedo can be driven through it quite easily, and I suggest to the Minister that if he wants it to be effective he should make it so, or else withdraw it altogether.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. FRANCEThe hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Williams) who is anxious to support the Government and who is halting between two opinions and cannot understand Subsection (2) appeals to the Government to put up a lawyer or some person of intelligence on the Front Bench to explain it, and there is no response. May I appeal to the Government to send for the Minister of Education, or the Home Secre- 2465 tary, or the Minister of Labour, or some other Minister to explain the Clause, for there are many hon. Members who do not in the least understand it.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEI did not deal with the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut. - Commander Williams), because I gathered that the gravamen of his charge was directed at hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I can assure him that he need be under no hesitation as to voting for the Government on this as on all occasions. As to the appeal addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), if it were to carry weight with me at all it would be to withdraw the 25 per cent. concession in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and propose the full 50 per cent. I am not sure he is serious in making the appeal. He really suggests that we should follow these goods through all the countries, and, when goods came into Germany and came out from Germany again, that we should make an analysis of what the constituent parts of those goods were and whether they came from within Germany or from within other countries. That would be quite impracti-
§ cable, and I suggest that the practical course is, as we propose, to take the goods as they come out of the country which is subject to the duty.
§ Mr. HAYWARDI would like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if any Consular certificate has been drafted such as will be required, because, if so, it would be interesting to have a copy of it laid on the Table of the House. A great many inquiries would have to be made in the case of these goods, and it would impose a very great burden upon somebody to do that. We should either have to increase our Consular staff very largely, in which case we should see great increases in the Foreign Office Vote, or, if the work was done by the Customs authorities, we should see a large increase in the Vote for the Custom House officers here, as we did, in fact, see two years ago after the Government's first experiment with the fiscal system of this country.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'fifty' ["the Commissioners that fifty"], stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 67.
2467| Division No. 215.] | AYES. | [10.7 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Dean, Commander P. T. | Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Atkey, A. R. | Doyle, N. Grattan | Hood, Joseph |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Edgar, Clifford B. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Falcon, Captain Michael | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Forrest, Walter | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Blair, Sir Reginald | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Lindsay, William Arthur |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Gould, James C. | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Grant, James Augustus | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Green, Albert (Derby) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Lort-Williams, J. |
| Casey, T. W. | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Lynn, R. J. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | McConnell, Thomas Edward |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Manville, Edward |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome |
| Mason, Robert | Ramsden, G. T. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Matthews, David | Renwick, Sir George | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Mitchell, William Lane | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Morden, Col. W. Grant | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Neal, Arthur | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Seager, Sir William | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Seddon, J. A. | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Parker, James | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Pearce, Sir William | Simm, M. T. | Wise, Frederick |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Perring, William George | Stanier, Captain Sir Seville | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, Otty) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Stanton, Charles Butt | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Steel, Major S. Strang | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Pratt, John William | Stewart, Gershom | |
| Prescott, Major W. H. | Sturrock, J. Leng | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Purchase, H. G. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Dudley Ward. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Halls, Walter | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Armitage, Robert | Hayday, Arthur | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayward, Evan | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hinds, John | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hirst, G. H. | Swan, J. E. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Briant, Frank | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cairns, John | Irving, Dan | Wallace, J. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Johnstone, Joseph | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Kennedy, Thomas | Wignall, James |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty, | Kiley, James Daniel | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Lawson, John James | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Lunn, William | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wintringham, Thomas |
| Gillis, William | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Mallalieu, Frederick William | |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Mills, John Edmund | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie |
| Grundy, T. W. | Mosley, Oswald | Wood. |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Myers, Thomas |
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), I leave out the word "fifty" ["fifty per cent. or more"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
§ Mr. KILEYhad given notice of an Amendment, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "value" ["the value of the goods"], and to insert instead thereof the word "cost."
§ The CHAIRMANThe effect of this Amendment might be to increase the charge, and in any case to put in the word "cost" without definition makes it incomplete.
Major BARNESI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
This Sub-section is one under which goods manufactured in the United Kingdom and sent abroad in order to undergo a finishing process are regarded 2468 as goods wholly manufactured in the country to which they are sent, and are therefore liable under this Bill to the imposition of the duty laid down. But in order to meet what is an obvious hardship, it is enacted that after these duties have been levied and paid the person receiving the goods on their return may bring before the Commissioners proof of the fact that they were originally manufactured in this country, and that therefore a great part of their value is value arising in this country, and that they ought not to be charged under this Bill. Having established this fact he is then entitled to receive a drawback, which is calculated on the basis of the value of the goods before exportation and the value of the goods on their return. We submit that that is putting the traders and manufacturers in this country under disabilities to which they ought not to be subjected. The advantage to this country 2469 in the way of revenue can be very trifling and the danger to this country in the direction in which danger is supposed to come, must be of the slightest kind. Imagine what Part II of this Bill is intended to avert. It is the danger of goods manufactured in another country being sold in this country at prices below their cost, and in consequence putting-certain industries in this country out of action. In this particular case the main value of the goods must arise in this country and from the employment of labour in this country, and the value which accrues to them on account of the finishing process in another country can only be of the slightest kind.
It is not our view that cheapness is a danger, but, if cheapness be a danger, that danger can arise only in a very slight degree on the finishing process. What must happen? It is obvious that it is desirable not to choke up the channels of trade any more than is absolutely necessary. Trade consists in the passage of commodities from one person to another. Every delay and obstacle in that passage makes trade more difficult. Could a more cumbersome procedure be imagined than that under this Clause, where all kinds of proof have to be furnished? The President of the Board of Trade could at least give us the small concession that goods manufactured in this country, whatever processes may be applied to them in other countries, should not come under the provisions of this Bill. Let the Bill make it clear that the provisions apply only to goods manufactured abroad. In the Subsection we have just dealt with the President of the Board of Trade has introduced an Amendment which minimises some of our objections to the Sub-section. Twenty-five per cent. has been substituted for 50 per cent. We ask him to go on with that good work and to give manufacturers the relief now sought.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAMEI think the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment has rather misconceived the purpose of the Sub-section, and has not considered what the position would be if the Sub-section were not there. The position is that an order would be made against certain classes of commodities coming from certain countries, and therefore all manufactured goods of such classes coming from those countries would undoubtedly be liable to the full amount of the duty. Therefore 2470 if no more was said, the semi-manufactured articles sent abroad from this country to undergo a finishing process and re-imported afterwards, would be subject to the duty of 33⅓ per cent. This Sub-section enables a person who exports goods in this way for the finishing process to obtain a rebate which otherwise he would not obtain under that Clause. I do not think it would be fair to go any further. If it has been proved that there is in respect of a particular commodity an advantage as to export by reason of the depreciated exchange, it is held that the duty ought to apply. If a person exports from this country in order to have a finishing process carried out, say, in Germany, then pro tanto he is taking advantage of the bounty in that country, and to that extent the duty ought to apply. That is perfectly reasonable, but if the course suggested is carried out, it would make these goods liable to the whole amount of the duty.
Captain BENNThis Sub-section will impose a duty on British shipping. I shall explain that. When a man exports an article for a finishing process abroad, and the process is completed and he re-imports, he is allowed a certain drawback in duty, but he has to pay the entire cost of transport both to the country in which the process is carried on and on the return of the goods from that country. Therefore the Board of Trade in their efforts to correct the depreciated exchanges are imposing a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on the British shipping which carries the goods abroad and back again.
§ Sir W. LANE-MITCHELLWhy British?
Captain BENNWell, hitherto, under Free Trade we did maintain a shipping service. The policy of the hon. Gentle man, whose views I know well, would possibly very soon destroy British shipping. I cannot but think that this point has been overlooked by the Government, The value that will be taken of the goods when they come back, is the value after paying the cost of transport, insurance, and freight, and, therefore, a tax is levied upon the shipping service. I would be glad to know if the Government intends to deal with what must obviously have been an oversight on their part.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSI ask the Committee to consider what kind of trade will really be hit by this Clause as it stands. We assume that there is some process which can be done in a foreign country so much cheaper, that it actually pays to send English semi-manufactured goods to that country to have that process performed there, and then to bring them back, having paid the double freight and the cost of the process abroad. That indicates that the process abroad is in some way superior to what could be done in this country. Every country has special facilities and special aptitudes, and there are certain processes which are so much better done in foreign countries, that it pays to send goods there to have it done. Where there are processes so much better in England it is better to send them to be done here. If you are going to interfere with these processes you are going to interfere with the economical production and finishing of goods, not only in this, but in other countries. I suggest to the Government that this is a bad interference with economical production, and that they should either by the acceptance of this Amendment, or, if this is not applicable to the purpose, by introducing some other Amendment, allow British goods to go to these countries where there are special processes, special skill, and special knowledge of chemistry, and so get the benefit of these processes; otherwise we shall be interfering with our export trade. If we send abroad goods to get the very latest processes and the most advantageous treatment then we can afterwards re-export those goods to the whole world. If we are prevented from doing that our goods become inferior, and we will be placed at a disadvantage with our competitors in other parts of the world, and our people will be thrown out of employment.
§ where many commodities are imported and exported, but there is a growing industry in the East End that has not been much heard of, and that is the fur trade. Furs are imported from all parts of the world in their raw state, cleaned and dyed, and subsequently sold in their finished state for clothing. Some countries do this dyeing and cleaning with more skill than we do, or have better facilities, and these furs are sent abroad, subsequently brought back, and made into garments here, and then re-shipped to all parts of the world. These processes enable us to do a very large and profitable business. Every obstacle, every tax, every interference with that procedure prevents the expansion of that business. Had we the necessary skill and appliances no one would have anything to say to our doing it; but it so happens that we have to send these goods hundreds of miles away to other countries. Those concerned do not do this for amusement, but from sheer-necessity, and to enable them to carry on their business. To get these goods back from foreign countries you must have a Consular certificate, as we have been told to-night, but the Consul may be, and very often is, hundreds of miles away from the place where the work is performed, and I suggest that when after much trouble his signature is obtained, on payment of 5s. or 10s., it is not worth the paper it is on, seeing he is not in the district where the work is done. All this is hampering to trade, and, indeed, can have no other result.
§ It being half-past Ten 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 the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'after' ['after having been exported'], stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 65.
2473| Division No. 216.] | AYES. | [10.30 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Blair, Sir Reginald |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Barlow, Sir Montague | Borwick, Major G. O. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Barnston, Major Harry | Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) | Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive |
| Bagiey, Captain E. Ashton | Betterton, Henry B. | Broad, Thomas Tucker |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Brown, T. W. (Down, North) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Bruton, Sir James |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Blades, Sir George Rowland | Carr, W. Theodore |
| Casey, T. W. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hood, Joseph | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Hopkins, John W. W. | Pratt, John William |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. | Ramsden, G. T |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hurd, Percy A. | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Reid, D. D. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Renwick, Sir George |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Jephcott, A. R. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Dean, Commander P. T. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Seager, Sir William |
| Doyle. N. Grattan | Lloyd, George Butler | Seddon, J. A. |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Simm, M. T. |
| Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Lort-Williams, J. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lynn, R. J. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | McConnell, Thomas Edward | Stewart, Gershom |
| Forrest, Walter | Mackinder. Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Manville, Edward | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) | Mason, Robert | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Mitchell, William Lane | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Neal, Arthur | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wise, Frederick |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Parker, James | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Pearce, Sir William | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Younger, Sir George |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Perkins, Walter Frank | |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Perring, William George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| McCurdy. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Grundy, T. W. | Mosley, Oswald |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Myers, Thomas |
| Armitage, Robert | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Halls, Walter | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hayday, Arthur | Rose, Frank H. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayward, Evan | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Cairns, John | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Holmes, J. Stanley | Swan, J. E. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Irving, Dan | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Wignall, James |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Johnstone, Joseph | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Kennedy, Thomas | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Kiley, James Daniel | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Lawson, John James | Wintringham, Thomas |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Lunn, William | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gillis, William | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| Glanville, Harold James | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Mills, John Edmund | Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wood. |
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at 2474 half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
2475§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
2476§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 194, Noes, 69.
2477| Division No. 217.] | AYES. | [10.40 p.m. |
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Parker, James |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) | Pearce, Sir William |
| Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Perring, William George |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pratt, John William |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ramsden, G. T. |
| Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Reid, D. D. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | Renwick, Sir George |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hood, Joseph | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hurd, Percy A. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Brown, T. W. (Down, North) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Seager, Sir William |
| Bruton, Sir James | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Seddon, J. A. |
| Carr, W. Theodore | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Casey, T. W. | Jephcott, A. R. | Simm, M. T. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lindsay, William Arthur | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Lloyd, George Butler | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lort-Williams, J. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Dean, Commander P. T. | Lyle, C. E. Leonard | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Lynn, R. J. | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | McConnell, Thomas Edward | Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley) |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Elveden, Viscount | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Manville, Edward | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Mason, Robert | Wise, Frederick |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Mitchell, William Lane | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Forrest. Walter | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Neal, Arthur | Younger, Sir George |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grant, James Augustus | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | McCurdy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Glanville, Harold James |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Armitage, Robert | Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Grundy, T. W. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Entwistle, Major C. F. | Halls, Walter |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | France, Gerald Ashburner | Hayday, Arthur |
| Briant, Frank | Galbraith, Samuel | Hayward, Evan |
| Cairns, John | Gillis, William | Hinds, John |
| Hirst, G. H. | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Mills, John Edmund | Swan, J. E. |
| Holmes, J. Stanley | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wallace, J. |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Mosley, Oswald | Waterson, A. E. |
| Irving, Dan | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wignall, James |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Johnstone, Joseph | Myers, Thomas | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J W. (Stourbridge) |
| Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Kiley, James Daniel | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Lawson, John James | Rose, Frank H. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Lunn, William | Royce, William Stapleton | |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) | Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. G. |
| Thorne. |