HC Deb 03 August 1925 vol 187 cc944-5
16. Mr. R. HUDSON

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what was the average price of American cotton for the periods 1904–14 and 1914–24, and what is its price to-day?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

The mean prices in New York of "middling upland" cotton during the years making up the two periods specified were 12.0 cents per lb. and 22.9 cents per lb. The spot price in New York for "middling" cotton on the first of this month was 24.65 cents per lb.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Is there any truth in the statement that America has made a communication to the Foreign Office' suggesting or hinting that unless the Stevenson rubber restriction scheme is stopped they will take similar measures in connection with the sale of cotton to this country?

Mr. SPEAKER

That question should be addressed to the Foreign Office.

17. Mr. HUDSON

also asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what was the average acreage under cotton in the United States of America from 1904 to 1914, in actual acreage for each of the War years, and the average acreage for the five post-War years; and to what cause or causes the restriction of acreage was due?

Mr. SAMUEL

The answer contains a long series of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to its circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HUDSON

Can I have an answer to the last part of my question as to the reasons for the restriction of acreage?

Mr. SAMUEL

I am unable to follow the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but if he will put it down in a more detailed form, I will try to furnish him with a reply when I understand exactly what he means.

The answer promised is as follows:

The following statement shows the acreage under cotton harvested in the United States during the periods specified as reported by the Department of Agriculture:

Period. Acres.
Annual average—
1904–1914 … … 32,727,000
1915 … … 31,412,000
1916 … … 34,985,000
1917 … … 33,841,000
1918 … … 36,008,000
1919–1923 … … 34,022,000

I am unable to follow the last part of my hon. Friend's question.