WAYS AND MEANS.

HC Deb 02 December 1925 vol 188 cc2267-474

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Mr. SNOWDEN

Before the President of the Board of Trade moves the first Resolution which stands in his name, would it be for the convenience of the Committee, Mr. Hope, if you indicated the course you propose to adopt in the discussion of these Resolutions? Do you propose to allow a general discussion now upon the Motion? I think that would be the best course.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

May I raise a further point of Order, which I think comes before that raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). Am I to understand that these Resolutions will be formed into a Finance Bill? If so, is there any precedent for Resolutions which are to be formed into a Finance Bill being put in charge, in Committee of Ways and Means, of any Minister other than a representative of the Treasury?

The CHAIRMAN

That is not a matter in regard to which I have searched precedents. I should imagine that in former days when it was customary to have a Customs Bill and an Inland Revenue Bill, such a precedent would be found. I see nothing in the procedure that is out of order.

Captain BENN

We follow practice here as well as Standing Orders. May I ask whether you rule that it is possible for a Finance Bill in Committee of Ways and Means to be set up, not only in charge of a Minister representing a Department other than the Treasury, but without a single representative of the Treasury being present?

The CHAIRMAN

I have nothing but the Resolutions before me. I do not know what will be the Title of the Bill when it is brought in. It may not be a Finance Bill at all.

Captain BENN

In the event of its being a Finance Bill, will it have to be backed by representatives of the Treasury?

The CHAIRMAN

That seems to me to be entirely hypothetical. I do not know whether it will be a Finance Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), may I be permitted to enforce the suggestion which has come from him as to the desirability of having a full and general discussion? I would suggest that the general discussion could come very well on the first Amendment on the Paper, which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members: in line 1, to leave out all the words from ''That" to the end, and to insert instead thereof the words Before any import duty is charged on the following articles: —

• Knives with one or more blades made wholly or partly of steel or iron, other than surgical knives, or knives for use in machines;
• Scissors, including tailors shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel or iron;
• Safety razors and component parts thereof;
• Razors, other than safety razors;
• Carving forks;
• Knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel;
• Handles, blades, or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles;

a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the necessity for an import duty, and report thereon; and that the said Committee have power to call evidence from interested parties, including consumers, and have powers to call for papers and persons. That Amendment raises the whole general issue. I trust it will be possible within the rules of Order to have a general discussion. It would be impossible to raise the real issues that divide those who take different views upon this matter by discussing a series of sectional Amendments which only raise segments of the general issue. Would it not be desirable to have a full discussion and a general discussion at once? I suggest that that might come on the first Amendment.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT

May I ask whether any general discussion on the general principle of the application of Safeguarding Duties can take place today, in view of the fact that the general principle of the application of Safeguarding Duties has been fully discussed and decided by this House during the present Session, namely, when the Lace Duty Resolutions were discussed?

The CHAIRMAN

With regard to the last point, in regard to the Lace Duties, I imagine that the Committee, and subsequently the House, decided nothing more than that there should be a duty place. That does not prevent us discussing to-day the general question raised by these Resolutions. In regard to the point raised by the right hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I thought it conceivable that such a request might be made, and I have made a little research into precedents. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that such a discussion should take place but, of course, a general discussion could only take place once. If we allow a general discussion on the first Resolution, the same discussion cannot be renewed on every Resolution. In the subsequent cases the Resolution and the consequent Amendments must be discussed in reference only to the specific subjects of the proposed taxation. If it is for the general convenience of the Committee to have a full discussion now, I should be prepared to allow a general discussion, not only on the first class of duties proposed, but on the principle involved in connection with the first Amendment which I should call, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), in line 1, to leave out the words "during the period of five years "and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of 12 months."

Mr. SNOWDEN

Am I to understand that you will allow a general discussion before you call the first Amendment, after the President of the Board of Trade has made his Motion?

The CHAIRMAN

On the first Amendment.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Would it not be much better that we should have a general discussion upon the Motion, before any Amendment be moved? I see no reason why a particular Amendment should be put before the Committee, when we have an opportunity of a general discussion upon the Motion itself.

The CHAIRMAN

There is a practical inconvenience in that course, because an Amendment may be moved at any moment from either side of the House, and the effect of that would be immediately to limit the discussion. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to have a general discussion on the first Amendment.

Mr. AMMON

With regard to the selection of the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), I assume that you rule out the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? May I then ask what are the grounds or the precedents on which you propose to select the Amendment before the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), in line 1, to leave out the words "five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "eighteen months," which is first on the Paper, as it merely substitutes "for" for "during."

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot admit the Amendment standing in the name of the light hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for two reasons. First of all, it is against the practice of this House to allow reasoned Amendments in Committee of Ways and Means; and, in the second place, it proposes the appointment of a Select Committee. The appointment of a Select Committee is a matter for the House and not for Committee of Ways and Means. In regard to the latter point raised by the hon. Member, the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), which comes second on the Paper, will allow of a general discussion.

Mr. AMMON

May I ask on what ground the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury will not be taken first?

The CHAIRMAN

Because it comes at a later point in the Resolution.

Mr. BASIL PETO

You have ruled that there can only be one general discussion allowed. Does your ruling apply only to the Debate in Committee of Ways and Means? Will a second general discussion on exactly the same lines be allowed on the Finance Bill, if the Finance Bill conies before the House?

The CHAIRMAN

We have to pass Resolutions in Ways and Means before we can get the Bill. Whether it is to be a Finance Bill or not I cannot say. Obviously, what kind of discussion will be allowed will be a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Captain BENN

On your ruling that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is out of Order, has your attention been directed to the fact that this is the first time for 60 years that the taxation of the year has been broken up into a separate Bill and the principle of the Budget abolished? Did your researches into the question, on which you have based your ruling that a reasoned Amendment is not permissible in Committee of Ways and Means, cover the period antecedent to 1860, which is the last period when this sort of thing was done?

The CHAIRMAN

I am not prepared to say whether the hon. and gallant Member is right or wrong in his history, but I think that if he will take his researches into the 'eighties he will find a precedent. In any case, the principle is fairly established—if he will direct his attention to the relevant page in Erskine May he will find it there set down—that a reasoned Amendment cannot be moved to a Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I understood you, Sir, to say that a general discussion could only take place by general agreement of the Committee. There could be no agreement on this side, and I therefore respectfully submit to you that for many reasons we should have a general discussion on the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman and then take the Amendments themselves.

The CHAIRMAN

It is quite true I can only allow an extension of the Debate on the Amendment by general consent. That is true, but otherwise, if I am compelled to go on the strict course laid down on the Order Paper, the Amendment would have to be taken first and discussion confined to the particular point at issue, and then, when the Resolution is put, we should have a general discussion. If the Committee does not agree, that is the only course I can take. Unless it is agreed as I propose, I should call the first Amendment which is in order, and then the discussion would have to be confined to that Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

In reference to your ruling regarding the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), have you in mind the precedent of 1909? I think I can refer you to the exact date. You probably have a more intimate knowledge of that precedent than any other Member, since it was an Amendment of your own on the Budget of 1909. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield moved to introduce words into the Resolution taken in Committee of Ways and Means which would have altered the whole nature of the Resolution, turning it into a series of preference Resolutions. That was an entirely new departure and, I believe, since 1860 them has been no precedent for any such thing. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield argued then with great skill that the matter was in order, and, ultimately, the decision was given by the Chair in favour of the view held by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. That was not to be wondered at, since he had had some practice in this matter. That was on the 24th May, and on the 10th May he found himself in conflict with the views not only of the Chair but of some of the most prominent members of his own party. He was then dealing with the Beer Resolution, and he moved an Amendment which he said ha had moved with the object of increasing the accuracy and precision of the Resolution and leading to accurate and precise definition, and in both of those cases the ground which was given by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield was, that although that was a new departure, it was open to the Committee of Ways and Means to embark on a new departure by way of an Amendment to the wording. I submit that the Resolution which is down on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is of the same nature as that with which you were very closely connected in 1909, and I ask that the latitude which was granted by the Chair then should be granted now.

The CHAIRMAN

I am flattered that my efforts for classification and precision in former days should have gained the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, bur. I do not gather that my Amendment was either a reasoned Amendment or involved the appointment of a Select Committee. If there was, I am afraid I should have to take the view that Mr. Emmott, the then Chairman, was wrong in admitting it.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)

I beg to move,

CUTLERY.

That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of Customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:— Knives with one or more blades made wholly or partly of steel or iron, other than surgical knives, or knives for use in machines; Scissors, including tailors' shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel or iron; Safety razors and component parts thereof; Razors, other than safety razors; Carving forks; Knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel; Handles, blades, or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles.

In moving the first Resolution which stands on the Paper I propose to confine myself strictly to matters which are relevant to that proposal. This House on more than one occasion has discussed both the policy of safeguarding and the procedure by which that policy is to be carried out, a procedure which is being followed on the present occasion, and after more than one exhaustive Debate, the House has resolved by no small majority to support both the policy and the procedure. Therefore, on the present occasion I propose to do what I think is the only relevant thing, that is, to examine, in the light of the Report which has been made, whether in the particular circumstances of this case a duty ought to be put on, and whether the rate of duty proposed is in the circumstances a reasonable one. Therefore, I propose to go straight to the Report of the Committee.

I should like in doing so, both as regards this Report and the others, to express again the thanks of the Government to the members of the Committees. Whether Members agree or do not agree as to the way the Committee's findings should be carried out, I think every Member will agree they were most careful, painstaking, exhaustive and clear inquiries. The first point to which this Committee directed their attention was the question whether the cutlery industry was an important industry. As to that, I do not think there is any dispute. Before the War it was employing between 11,000 and 12,000 people, as is to be found in paragraph 8 of the Report, They then go on to consider the next relevant question, and that is the course and rate of imports. They set out tables showing what the rate of those imports is. From those tables it will be seen that, whether you take values or whether you take volume, there has been an enormous increase in imports since 1913, that the rate has been going on increasing, and that in 1925 the rate had exceeded the rate of imports in the year 1924. Therefore, the Committee find as a fact—whether you take value, which is the more conservative estimate and the one which the Committee say they preferred to take in order to be well on the safe side—or whether you take volume, they find as a fact, as is plain from the evidence, that the rates of importation are abnormal.

They then go on to consider whether competition is at prices with which the industry in this country cannot compete, and they find, as will be seen from paragraph 16 of their Report, that the prices at which the competing articles are being sold are in many cases between 7 and 75 per cent. below the British cost of manufacture. Having found that, they then go on to consider a matter germane to it, namely, whether the articles being imported are articles which are competing with the British production. It was alleged on behalf of the opponents—who argued their case at great length and brought forward every argument which could be brought forward—that the importation was not really of a competing character. The Committee dealt with that, and they find as a fact that the importation is of a competing kind and that, article for article, it does in fact compete, and, what is an actual test, that people going into shops to buy these articles buy one or the other. That is the most effective test of whether or not they do compete. The Committee say, in paragraph 18: We are satisfied that, whatever difference there may be in the qualities of the steel or in general durability, the articles have the same appearance and finish, and, from the point of view of the ordinary purchaser, they are equivalent and one is substituted for the other.

In paragraph 20 they say: We are of opinion that the classes of goods referred to in our recommendation below, imported from Germany, are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices which are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom.

They then go on to consider what has been and is being the effect of this com petition upon employment in the industry, and the Committee will see set out in paragraph 21 of the Report a table showing, both in numbers and in hours of work, what was the employment in 1913 and in subsequent years after the War, ending with the year 1924.

Captain BENN

Is that an official statement, or is it an ex-parte statement?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No, it is the finding of the Committee, and I do not think these figures are substantially challenged by anybody. I do not expect that even the hon. and gallant Gentleman would suggest that the cutlery industry-was not suffering severely from unemployment. If he does, he will find himself in conflict with every trade unionist in the industry and the trade unions have given evidence of it. The Committee's findings will be observed on page 9. I am reading from the Report of the Committee, and am giving their findings. Taking into account the reduction in hours, the net reduction in employment between 1913 and 1924 shown by the above figures is 42 per cent. That shows the seriousness of the unemployment. They then go on to refer to the evidence given by witnesses from the trade unions which were concerned in this industry.

Mr. MACKINDER

Why could not we have that evidence?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The evidence was given to the Committee, and in this matter I am following the precedent of previous Governments.

Mr. MACKINDER

Why cannot we have that evidence? I submit that the Minister has no right to give evidence in this House when we cannot corroborate as to whether that evidence has been given or not.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

On that point I say I am not quoting from the evidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] No, I am not. I am quoting from the Report. I have already stated that what I said I would lay in this House were these Reports.

Mr. MACKINDER

On a point of Order. The light hon. Gentleman has stated that the trade unions have given evidence, and I submit he has no right to say they have without this House knowing what was that evidence.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

May I read from the Report, as the hon. Gentleman docs not like my own words?

The CHAIRMAN

There is no point of Order which can arise there. It may be a matter for criticism, well-founded or not, when the right hon. Gentleman made certain statements, but I see no point of Order involved.

Mr. MACKINDER

On another point of Order. Is the Minister entitled to make statements that certain evidence has been given when this House has no opportunity of finding out whether that evidence has or has not been given? Can the Minister make any statement he likes regarding the evidence given when this House has no opportunity whatever of testing whether that evidence has been given?

The CHAIRMAN

That is a matter of criticism, not of Order.

Mr. STEPHEN

If the Minister quotes from document, is the House not entitled to ask that the document should be laid?

The CHAIRMAN

That is quite a different matter. That is so. If he quotes from a document, the document must be laid, but I do not understand that he has been quoting from a document.

5.0 P.M.

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER

The only document from which I have quoted is the White Paper, which I have laid on the Table. I will read the relevant passages. It is true that this Inquiry, like all inquiries, was held in public, except when there was given evidence of a confidential character, which in the opinion of the Committee would have been seriously prejudicial to the industry if it had been given publicly.

Mr. MACKINDER

Why cannot we have that evidence?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It would be more convenient if this Debate were conducted by the process of one speech succeeding another. Let me quote the Report. The Committee say: We received valuable evidence on the subject of employment from the witnesses from trade unions; and they go on: The percentage unemployed in the four cutlery unions is 40 per cent. as compared with 5 per cent. before the War. They take another test, which seems to me to be relevant. As hon. Members know, this is an industry in which there has always been a great deal of apprenticeship. Men have gone in and learned the skilled processes of the industry, generation after generation of a family learning the work. There used to be a recognised rate of apprenticeship. Now that rate has fallen enormously. It is not considered that the industry affords a good enough opportunity for the apprenticeship to be continued. The Committee say, in paragraph 23: We are satisfied that the acuteness of the present unemployment is directly due to the competition which we have found to exist.

Mr. MACLAREN

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Committee were discussing the question of competition, the relative taxation levied in each country was taken into review?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It was taken into review where the question was raised. I am not sure whether it was raised before this Committee, but the hon. Member will see that in one Committee, at any rate, the question of relative taxation is mentioned. I do not think there is any mention of it in this Committee, but the hon. Member will find in a Report of another Committee, dealing also with Germany, I believe, that comment is made upon the lower rate of taxation. I do not think there is any finding of fact on this.

Mr. HARDIE

An emphatic statement has been made about competition and apprenticeship. Did this Committee consider the fact that in one trade where we have no competition the building trade, we have a greater lack of apprentices to-day than in any other trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I have no reason to suppose that they are unwilling to take on apprentices in the cutlery trade. I think we shall probably discuss this subject better if we do not turn to parallels with other trades, which really are not relevant to the subject under consideration.

Mr. HARDIE

Yes, but you know that my statement is true.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am quite content to rest myself on the direct evidence of this Committee, which contained a trade union representative among its members. The Committee considered the comparative wages and hours in this country and in Germany, and they deal with the subject in paragraphs 25 to 29 of the Report. Their finding comes to this—that in Germany the wages are 10|d. an hour for a week of 54 hours, whereas in Sheffield the wages vary from 1s. 1½d. to 1s. 6d. an hour for a week of 47 hours. They then say in paragraph 30: On the evidence before us as to the lower hourly wages and the longer working week in Germany, as compared with this country, we are of opinion that the conditions in Germany are so different as to render the competition unfair. They then proceed to deal with the desirability of bringing this industry under the Merchandise Marks Act, with which it would not be relevant for me to deal at the present time. The Committee then take another point, with regard to German competition, and mention it in paragraph 33. They draw attention to the fact that many German factories have been able to re-equip themselves with capital paid off in depreciated marks, and, therefore, although the German currency is to-day stabilised, yet there remains the advantage to the competing German industry that German manufacturers have their factories fully equipped and have been able in depreciated marks to write off capital costs and to start again with lower overhead charges. [An HON. MEMBER: "Capital levy!"] It was not a result of a capital levy. It was a result of the extreme inflation. The Committee go on to deal with the question whether the industry in this country is efficient, and they find as a fact that it is efficient. They say in paragraph 36: From the evidence that was submitted to us it is clear that Sheffield cutlery manufacturers are desirous of bringing their factories up to date in every possible respect; and they add: but they must be in a position to attract capital in order to do so. I want to give them a chance in every case of coining up to date. That, of course, is the difference between myself and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Committee say that not only do they think the British industry reasonably efficient, but they add that, although suffering from all these handicaps and difficulties, they have taken an active part in the prosecution of research and have earned the commendation of the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The Committee find, as a matter of fact, in paragraph 40— We are satisfied, after a careful review of all the evidence on this point, that the applicant industry is being carried on with reasonable efficiency and economy. They then found that there could be no damage, by the imposition of this duty, to any other industry which uses these cutlery products. On this point, the inquiry appears to have reduced itself in the last resort to a question of whether people who use shoe knives would be prejudiced by this duty. On that the Committee say that they have no hesitation in answering the question in the negative. They, therefore, proceed to recommend the imposition of a duty upon the articles which are set out in paragraph 43 of the Report. Those articles are included in the Resolution which I have moved. I submit that the Report of the Committee justifies the Resolution. I am not going to traverse the ground which we covered in the earlier Debates on the general principle. I will add only this with regard to pledges. A perfectly positive pledge was given that this Government would not introduce a general tariff. We are not going to do so. But an equally positive pledge was given that we were going to safeguard industry, and the only breach of pledge that the Prime Minister and his colleagues and our party could be charged with would be if we were guilty of a breach of the pledge not to do the positive thing which we promised to do.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

As we are about to begin a discussion on the Safeguarding of Industries Duties as a whole, when shall we have an opportunity to discuss the Cutlery Duty by itself? The Resolution before us relates to duties on cutlery. A speech has been made by the right hon. Gentleman which it is not convenient to answer in a general discussion. It would assist us to know on what specific Amendment we can concentrate on cutlery alone?

The CHAIRMAN

The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman will find a good deal to say on the Amendment to leave out "33⅓" and to insert "5." Of course, if the present discussion takes largely a purely cutlery aspect, it will follow that the discussion on a later Amendment might be liable to be shortened.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

The difficulty that the Committee finds itself in is that the Minister has made his speech purely on the subject of cutlery. Are we to understand that when we come, say, to gloves, that he will make a speech on gloves? When we reach gas mantles, are we to have another speech on that subject, and still another speech on paper when that subject is reached? Will it not be open to the rest of the Committee to enter on a general discussion on each one of those subjects? May I ask for a ruling before I move an Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not know what speech the Minister will make on gloves. Of course, it is open to him to make a speech upon gloves, and in that case some time will be required for Debate on the subject.

Mr. HANNON

Would it not be convenient for the Minister to make a statement on each of these Resolutions?

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot compel the Minister to make a speech. He can make such statements as he thinks fit.

Mr. MACKINDER

Was it not understood that there was to be a general discussion on safeguarding? How is it possible to have a general discussion in reply to the Minister's speech on the particular?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will put forward his views upon safeguarding on cutlery or gloves, and the Minister will reply if he thinks a reply necessary.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "during a period of five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of twelve months."

I have no wish whatever to restrict the area of discussion. When we come to each of these specific Resolutions, the Committee should have a full opportunity of dealing with each one separately. Anything that I say now I hope will not be thought to preclude anyone else from dealing with the subject of gloves, or paper, or gas mantles, as the case may be. In that case I join with the hon. Gentleman opposite in suggesting that it is to our convenience that we should have some statement from the Minister on each one of these subjects as it arises. As you, Sir, have given us the right to discuss the general question of safeguarding, the first subject to which I wish to address myself is the method by which these Reports are produced and the procedure which has led up to the introduction of these Resolutions. The old safeguarding scheme was not as simple as this and was more formal. This has the advantage of great informality. The committees set up by the right hon. Gentleman are not responsible to the House of Commons, which is the ultimate taxing authority. It is not the Board of Trade which is the taxing authority, but the House of Commons, and yet these committees are creatures of the Board of Trade and not of the House of Commons. We know nothing whatever about their appointment until a paragraph appears in the newspapers saying they have been selected by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I do not wish to suggest that my right hon. Friend makes his selection improperly and I am not going to criticise the ladies and gentlemen who sit on these committees, but my right hon. Friend is a convinced Protectionist and he, naturally, when selecting three persons to sit on a committee, takes good care that the committee is not weighted heavily on the Free Trade side. He has on one or two of these committees appointed a single Free Trader. I am not making any complaint of that; it is exactly what we might expect from such a convinced and sincere Protectionist as the President of the Board of Trade, but the procedure is peculiar. There is no precedent for it as far as I know in the whole history of British taxation.

The conditions under which the committees are to operate and report were set out in the White Paper which has been circulated, and the various tests to be applied to these industries appear in the instructions to the committees. The first condition is as to whether the applicant industry is of substantial importance. As far as I know there has never been any definition of what is meant by "substantial importance." It has been said, I do not know with what truth, that the President of the Board of Trade regards an industry as substantial, if it has more than 5,000 employés. It would be interesting for this Committee to know whether that is actually the right hon. Gentleman's ruling, and indeed I go further and say this Committee has a right to know what is his ruling. What is meant by "substantial"? Has he defined substantial as applying to an industry which has not less than 5,000 employés and, if so, what justification is there for the figure of 5,000? The right hon. Gentleman has thrown no light upon that matter either in any answer to a question or in the previous discussion. The next thing is that the committee has to satisfy itself that the goods are imported in abnormal quantities. Again, there is no definition from the Board of Trade of "abnormal," and the committees themselves do not agree as to what is abnormal. If that condition is to be complied with, surely the Board of Trade should let us know what is their test of abnormality. The next test is whether these goods made abroad and imported into this country are brought here and sold at prices at which similar goods cannot be manufactured in this country. That depends very largely, not on the economic conditions of the two countries, but on the efficiency of the firms engaged in the industry.

Before I resume my seat I shall have a word to say about the financial provision which has been made by the cutlery firms in Sheffield to meet competition from abroad—financial provision made during the last twelve years. That is another important factor, as the President of the Board of Trade has just stated, in the competitive power of the Sheffield industry against foreign competitors. Then comes the question of severity of unemployment. On that point there is much more general agreement, but whether the severity of that unemployment is due to foreign competition or not is again left to the discretion of the committees with varying standards and, as far as we know, with no guidance whatever from the Board of Trade. Then we come to the question, what is unfair competition? Now, the trouble about unfair competition is that there is such a variety of definitions. A committee was asked to say that competition was unfair if advantage was gained by the foreign manufacturer or importer owing to the depreciation of currency, owing to subsidies or bounties being granted in the competing country, or owing to inferior conditions of employment of labour. Again, the definitions in each one of these cases is left entirely to the committees or to the Board of Trade. The committees are not answerable to the House of Commons, but the President of the Board of Trade is, and I suggest that he should give us a clear definition, before we proceed further with these duties, as to what is meant by "abnormality," "unfairness," and "inferior conditions," every one of these matters having a direct bearing upon the duties which are to be imposed by these resolutions. I believe the Prime Minister regarded unfair competition or abnormal imports as competition or imports which are grave, exceptional and unprecedented. Other conditions which have to be complied with if the applicant industry is to receive the support of an import duty, are set out at due length, and each one of them is examined by the committees in their various reports, according to varying standards.

I take the cutlery case first. Let us consider the first condition which has to be applied. Is the trade of substantial importance? The committee have decided that it is, and I am not disposed to challenge that decision. We could not do without the cutlery industry, and certainly the number of people employed in it exceeds the standard which the President of the Board of Trade appears to have set up, namely, 5,000. The next condition is whether the foreign goods imported are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom. The trouble about the cutlery trade is that the committee as well as the applicant industry have been attempting to compare things which are not similar. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to razors. There is very grave unemployment in that branch of the cutlery industry which devotes itself to the ordinary straightforward hollow-ground razor, and the reason why there is unemployment is not due to foreign competition, but is due to a change in the habits of the people and —except for the great impetus given to the hollow-ground razor industry during the war, when these razors were in large demand—the present depression is entirely due to the fact that the general public have taken to the use of safety razors, and safety razors are now used so largely that it is hardly likely there will ever be any revival in the hollow-ground razor industry with or without a duty. If we turn from the hollow-ground razor to the safety razor what did the Committee find? They did not find that safety razors which were made abroad and imported into this country were sold at lower prices than those made in England. Not at all. They found that the Gillette razor, which apparently has a larger sale than any other imported razor, is actually sold at more than the ordinary English safety razor, and the reason why it has succeeded in gaining its market is that on the whole at its price it is a better article. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. ALBERY

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is an English safety razor blade which is every bit as good as the Gillette blade, sold at the same price.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

And is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that that safety razor company was not one of the applicant companies? Moreover, that company has not anything like the degree of unemployment that is to be found in many other industries. The truth is that the reason why a safety razor sells well in this country is because it is a good article. It does not matter whether it is made abroad or made here. If it is good, the public will buy it. I observe that in discussing the safety-razor question the Committee appeared to overlook the fact —it certainly did not report on the fact— that the steel from which the Gillette blade is made is Sheffield steel. Why was that evidence not admitted before the Committee? Why was the Committee not allowed to take that into account when drawing up its Report? That is only one instance of many of the exclusion from the Committee of interests which have a right to be heard. The rules under which these Committees have been operating have been drawn so narrowly that neither the supplying companies nor the consumers have any chance of being heard.

Let me say a word with regard to the consumer—and this applies to everyone of the categories covered by these Resolutions. It is said that interested parties may appear and "interested parties," according to the Board of Trade, are those who make and sell these commodities of various kinds in this country or they may be importing firms into this country or they may be those who use these various commodities in processes of manufacture. But one class which is universally excluded is the class of people who use these commodities in their ordinary daily lives. They are cut out altogether. The user of the razor is not allowed to appear before the Committee —he is supposed to have no status. The wearer of the gloves is not allowed to appear, the shoemaker who has to use some of the commodities covered by this Report is not allowed to appear, the ordinary householder who will be affected by a rise in the price of these various details of household equipment is not allowed to appear. If this is the way in which the Committees are to be conducted, it means there is only one body which has any opportunity whatever of placing the consumers' case before the House of Commons and that is the Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and it is our duty to press on the Government the fact that the chief sufferer from these duties will be the general consumer. They will all have their cumulative effect and even if they do not affect directly some trade in which these commodities can be called raw material, they will every one, no matter how you may draw the rule, fall with more or less heaviness upon the general consuming classes of the country.

I have taken the safety razor as an example of the way in which Sheffield trade has suffered, quite independent of foreign tariffs, of depreciated currency or of unfair conditions whatever they may be. Now let me turn to one or two of the conditions which the committee regard as sufficient to justify their recommendations. They point out that, as far as unfair competition is concerned, there was no claim made under sub-heading A relating to depreciation of currency—for the obvious reason that the value of the mark is now stabilised. That point has gone by the board and the same remark applies to everyone of these reports. German competition is not now regarded by the Board of Trade as being a serious matter owing to depreciated currency. That has gone, but there are certain advantages which Germany is said to possess over this country. What are they? Preferential railway rates for ox-port of goods. Well, there are preferential railway rates in this country, as the President of the Board of Trade knows. There have been preferential railway rates in this country with regard to imported commodities and that has been a cause of complaint for many years past, especially in the Eastern Counties. What else is there? The remission of the turnover tax of 2½ per cent. on goods exported is said to be giving an unfair advantage to German commodities and the difference in social insurance payable by the employer between the two countries is said to be not less than 10d. per man per week. I do not know how that figure was arrived at, but if you put everyone of these in, the preferential railway rates, the 2½ per cent. on goods exported and the 10d. per man per week difference in insurance cost between Germany and there will remain another difference in the cost of manufacture between Germany and this country of far more importance than all these three added together. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that working capital in Germany to-day for industrial concerns cannot be obtained for less than 12 per cent. to 15 per cent., which more than counterbalances the whole of these trivial little items which are supposed, by their cumulative effect, to define unfair competition.

Now we come to the question of wages. There was no evidence given before the Committee, so far as I know, of what wages were in Solingen, the Sheffield of Germany. Yet without this evidence, the Committee sends in a Report which is accepted by the President of the Board of Trade without any demur, and all that the Committee says is: Although it was suggested by the opponents that the metal workers' wages were not applicable, they were unable to help us as to the wages in Solingen. There is a very good reason for that. By the procedure by which these Committees sit an applicant industry has months in which to prepare its case, but the other interests may have anything from 10 days to a fortnight. Then, when they came to the end of the discussion before this Committee, the President of the Board of Trade was driving the spur into the Chairman and the clerks to hurry up their Report, and that was the reason why the opponents did not give as much information as the Committee required, and should have had, before they entered judgment.

The next thing that is apparent from this Report is that, just as the case of wages has not been proved, for no evidence was laid before it, the Committee itself has come rapidly to the view that the reason why the Sheffield trade is not prospering as well as the Solingen industries is that Germany is so much better organised to supply the demand than is Sheffield. The remedy for bad organisation is good organisation, it is not an import duty, and if the President is going to depend upon an import duty for the better organisation of the industry, I would like to know how. He has given us a hint this afternoon. He says that these duties will enable the Sheffield industries to obtain their capital abundantly and cheaply. I dare say there may be an impetus given, to those who imagine that these duties will be permanent, to put more of their capital into the industry, but why should they not have done so before? During the War they had the advantage of War profits—the Excess Profits Duty did not take away all their wealth—and as we look at the Report we find a very remarkable fact.

We find that during the 12 years, 1913–24, these very applicant industries which are now asking for this artificial assistance devoted to capital expenditure upon new buildings and new plant—I am now leaving out of account war plant—only £65,000; that is to say, an average of £2,950 per firm or about £250 per firm per annum. The President and the Parliamentary Secretary have had some business experience. Would either of them get up and say that during this time of heavy depression, when improved processes were of first necessity for an efficient industry, to apply in these works only £250 per annum on new capital was anything like preparing for a rainy day? No wonder they are not well organised to meet German competition. They have not made the necessary capital expenditure to improve their machinery, to get their processes brought up to date; they have been taking the whole of the profit out of their industries without putting anything like enough capital back into them.

The imported goods of which complaint is made are not comparable to the Sheffield articles. The reason why Sheffield has held its own in competition against the whole world is that the Sheffield articles, on the whole—there are exceptions—are better than are produced anywhere else, and these imported articles, which are sold, say, in the Wool-worth Stores at 6d., the cheap scissors, the cheap manicure sets, the cheap knives, are the articles which are said to be filching away the Sheffield trade. The Sheffield trade requires a good deal more advertisement than it has been getting recently. They ought to make known the virtues of high class steel. They had far better spend their money on advertising the higher quality of their goods than in getting together evidence for this sort of case to put before a Board of Trade Committee. These incomparable competitive articles show a difference in price which no import duty could possibly bridge. Some schedules were put before the Committee, I am informed, to show that the difference between the price of the German articles which came in and those manufactured in Sheffield sometimes worked out at as much as 250 per cent. to 300 per cent. The President of the Board of Trade dare not come down to this House to ask for a 300 per cent. duty. He knows that even his own party would not tolerate it.

You cannot bridge this gap by an import duty when you are dealing with goods of an entirely different nature, and the reason why the Germans sell their goods here is due to the fact that they have satisfied the demand for a cheap and nasty article. They have got their business, and if we want to beat them we must do it with a better article. If the general public demand is to continue for these cheaper articles, our works must adapt themselves to the needs and demands of the general public, who should not be put in the position of having to pay more for the better articles which are made in Sheffield. The truth of the matter is that in the whole of these inquiries the Board of Trade have had no guiding rule by which they could regulate the Committees. They have had a general aspiration, such as was announced by my right hon. Friend just before he sat down, to fulfil an election pledge, a pledge of the vaguest character. It is now being operated in such a way as to touch a great variety of industries; the general consumer is suffering thereby; the machinery is so bad that this House has not complete control over it, and on these grounds I hope the House will hesitate long before it authorises the President of the Board of Trade to take the place of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to impose burdens upon the people of this country which are not justified by the claims that are made.

Mr. SN0WDEN

I think the Committee have a right to complain about the way in which this very important matter is being treated by the Government. Attention was called some time ago to the fact that these Resolutions which propose to impose taxation upon the people have been submitted to the House of Commons in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for such a proceeding as that. It is not treating the House of Commons with respect, it is treating the House of Commons with contempt, that there has not been during the whole of the Debate so far any representative of the Treasury on that bench. I do not know if the Prime Minister be engaged on important business elsewhere, but this is a matter in which the honour of the Prime Minister is very deeply involved. We have, in previous Debates upon this subject, challenged the Prime Minister to reconcile proposals of this character with his repeated pledges not by a back door or by a subterfuge to impose Protection during this Parliament, and we shall demand that the Prime Minister shall attend the House of Commons and give an answer to that challenge.

An hon. Friend of mine interrupted the President of the Board of Trade during his speech and demanded the publication of the evidence upon which the Reports of these Committees profess to be based. It is a most extraordinary position that the House of Commons is expected to take this important step merely upon the words of two or three individuals unsupported by evidence. I see no reason why the President of the Board of Trade should refuse publication of the evidence taken before these Committees, so as to put it at the disposal of the House of Commons. The sittings were not held in camera, except upon occasions when the Committee decided that it was inadvisable that the public should be admitted, an ordinary course adopted by any Committee or Commission in such circumstances. There have been, it is true, very meagre reports in the Press, and, so far as one can gather from these Press reports, I am inclined to think that the reason why the President of the Board of Trade is determined to withhold this evidence from the House of Commons is that it certainly would not go to support the proposals he is now putting forward.

I have never—and I am quite sure that every impartial person who has read and studied these Reports will agree with me—seen Reports where the conclusions are so little justified, even by the statements in the Reports themselves, as in each of these Reports. Why, every final recommendation is a non sequitur. I am afraid that I cannot be so generous as the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who has just sat down, in regard to the members of these Committees. They have been appointed by a Protectionist President of the Board of Trade, and I do not want to be discourteous, but the right hon. Gentleman has in every case taken good care to pack these Committees with persons who are well known to have Protectionist views. But even supposing that that were not the case, is the House of Commons going to abrogate its duties and responsibilities in the matter of changing the fiscal policy of this country to two or three individuals appointed by the Board of Trade? I have never read Reports which were such painful exhibitions of incompetence, of economic fallacies, and of ignorance of the rudimentary conditions of foreign trade.

What is the genesis of these safeguarding of industries proposals? The Prime Minister, two or three General Elections back, appealed to the country for a mandate for Protection, and on that occasion, as on every other occasion when the issue of Protection has been directly submitted to the country, the country gave an overwhelming vote against it. The Prime Minister is convinced, he says, that Protection is necessary for dealing effectively with the problem of unemployment. Though the Prime Minister's panacea for unemployment was not accepted by the country, his interest in that panacea did not disappear, and he substituted, for the time being, for the full Protection programme, proposals for safeguarding industries. I think no tariff-monger in this House will disagree with me when I say that those proposals are put forward as a palliative for unemployment. Their purpose is to deal with unemployment, and, therefore, before the House of Commons extends the safeguarding of industries by means of tariffs any further, it is not only entitled, but it is its duty, to see how far the experiments which have already been made fulfil the expectations of the tariff-mongers, and increase trade, and reduce unemployment.

The Minister of Health is not in his place. During the Recess he spoke in the North of England, and he made this statement—something of a platitude in tariff-mongering propaganda. He was entitled, he said, to point to the fact that wherever duties had been put on foreign imports, the results had been effective in increasing employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite true!"] In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, I extend a challenge to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon). I defy either the Minister for Labour or the hon. Member to point to one single case where an import duty has increased the volume of employment or reduced unemployment. The hon. Member is so very fond—and he will excuse me for saying so—of putting questions to the Minister of Labour in regard to the volume of employment in certain trades. Last week the Minister replied to questions in regard to the number of insured persons, and the volume of employment in two industries which were protected by tariffs in the last Finance Bill—the motor trade and the lace trade.

The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), during the Debates on the lace duties, assuming the role of a prophet, said that in a very short time there would not be one unemployed lace-maker in Nottingham. I want to know what the hon. and gallant Baronet meant by that. Let us take the whole of our experience of the tariff. I need not deal with the McKenna Duties now, and the effect they have had in increasing the percentage of unemployment. [Laughter.] It appears that hon. Members were not present last week when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the figures which had been supplied by the Minister, and, therefore, for their edification I will just refer to them. On the 27th July this year, that is the date when the duties were reimposed, or just about a month before that, there were 13,911 persons recorded at Employment Exchanges in connection with the motor trade, and up to the 26th October the number had risen to 15,200. But let me turn to the effect which the imposition of the duty has had upon unemployment. Again, the figures were supplied not a week ago by the Minister of Labour. A year ago, in July, 1924, there were 20,330 insured workpeople in the lace trade. After these duties had been in operation for three months, on the 26th October, the number was 19,406. The number of unemployed on the 27th July was 3,812, and on the 26th October there was a slightly larger number, 3,893.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether ho has the figures for the previous year when the duties were not in operation?

Mr. SNOWDEN

The duties are now in operation, and the percentage was 18.7 in July, 1925. [Interruption.] Hon. Members, I am sure, will take advantage of the opportunity to review the statement of the Minister of Labour. If hon. Members will consult the "Labour Gazette," they will find in a report from Nottingham last month these words: Trade continues bad, with much unemployment and short time. The operatives employed in this industry have evidently noticed the rosy anticipations of tariff-mongers like the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, and the good times they might expect when these tariffs had been imposed, and therefore a few weeks ago they made application for an increase of wages. The employers would not listen to them, and the application was turned down. What effect has the imposition of these duties had upon the lace trade? Has it increased imports? I know the object of the tariff-mongers is to reduce foreign imports, and I can see that the operation of these duties on lace has had that result. They have nearly wiped out the imports from foreign nations. They have done something else. In the month of September last year, goods to the volume of £188,000 were imported. In September this year, the figure had fallen to £36,300. The hon. Member put a rather hoary question a question time this afternoon. He asked how much unemployment in this country was represented by certain imports from abroad. Let us take his test. Imports have fallen from £188,000 to £36,000. Therefore, there ought to have been, according to the theory of the hon. Member, a corresponding increase in employment, but, as a matter of fact, trade was bad and there was unemployment and short time.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the enormous imports of lace-during the two months previously?

The CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that two hon. Members must not stand on their feet at the same time.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Twelve months ago the imports amounted to £188,000, of which £168,000 were re-exports. What has been the effect? A reduction in imports from £188,000 to £36,000, but re-exports have fallen from £168,000 to £5,600. Therefore, we have lost at the rate of £2,000,000 a year in our re-export trade. What does that mean? It means an enormous increase of unemployment. The unemployment which must have been caused by the loss of this re-export trade must be colossal. Exactly the same thing is happening in the silk trades. There is more unemployment in the silk trades since these duties were imposed. In July, according to the official figures the state of unemployment was 6.2. In October it was 7.4. It has also had a very serious effect in reducing employment in other directions. I find, too, that in October of last year the value of the silk exported was £547,000. In October of this year that figure had fallen to £391,000 odd. These figures prove conclusively that the imposition of tariffs do not increase the volume of trade, that they have not. increased employment; that indeed they have had the very opposite effect. They have reduced the volume of trade, and they are fatal to the maintenance of employment. What has been proved in fact has long been known as a theory, and that is that we do not kill the trade of our foreign competitors by excluding their imports to this country. What happens is that they become stronger competitors in the neutral markets. That is the explanation of facts both in the lace and silk trades since the imposition of these duties. In these the volume of our exports has largely declined.

Let us turn now to another aspect of the case. The President of the Board of Trade, very wisely, I think, confined himself in his speech to reading extracts from the Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "But not all!"] An hon. Friend behind me says he did not read them all. That is perfectly true. I am inclined to supplement the omissions of the President of the Board of Trade by reading one or two other paragraphs. I have gone through this Cutlery Report again and again, and I cannot find a single word in it about the Sheffield export trade. What we find in it is this, that whereas in 1924 the net imports amounted to £367,000, the exports amounted to more than £1,000,000. As a matter of fact, the Sheffield export trade at the present time is larger than its home trade, the value of goods retained is over three-quarters of a million pounds. If hon. Members have the Report of the Committee on Cutlery before them, I should like to go back a little, quote a few figures, and compare different years. The year 1921, as everyone knows, was quite an abnormal year. We get something like normal trade if we take the years 1922–3–4, which show better what are the present tendencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take 1913!"] I am not prepared to accept 1913 for the purpose of comparison. What we have to consider is what are the present tendencies. If we look at the figures it will be found that the value of the exports to the proportion retained in each of these years has been increasing. In 1922 the value was £1,400,000; in 1923 it was £1,776,000, and in 1924 it had risen to £1,755,000. The proportion of retained imports to approximate total output had fallen from 32.5 per cent. in 1922 to 20'9 per cent. in 1924. Can anyone doubt, in face of that, that our exports have increased? That is a very interesting and important point, especially in relation to the proposal to put on a uniform duty. I find that the value of foreign imports works out at 4s. 3d. per dozen articles whereas the British is valued at 14s. That appears to establish the fact that these are not competitive articles, but that they are entirely of a different class. It suggests that these superior articles are retained for home consumption.

The President of the Board of Trade called attention to a sentence at the top of page 8, dealing with the wholesale price of the German article which, it is stated, varied from 7 per cent. to 75 per cent. below the cost of manufacture here. The Committee who report make that statement, and then they go on to recommend a uniform duty of 33⅓ per cent. Consider the difference in these percentages and the effect of a uniform duty! In the old days we used to hear about a scientific tariff. I should like to ask any member of the Committee what atom of science is there in a proposal like this? Where the margin is small, it is simply going to increase the profits of the manufacturers. In the case of a protective tariff being effective it is still a 75 per cent. margin, and it will leave those concerned subjected to the severity of foreign competition. If the Committee will turn to page 9, they will there find a table which deals with the approximate number of workpeople employed in the cutlery industry and the hours worked. I say again that this is limited, for the conditions are not merely abnormal, but they have been more abnormal. Take the years 1922–23–24. The number of workpeople have been increasing. The number in 1922 was 6,530; in 1923 it was 7,680; and in 1924 it was 7,697. It has this year gone up by 17. There is no indication at all that trade has declined. The evidence is otherwise, and in the right direction.

Note the statement at the top of page 11, where it is said that among the minor advantages Germany is said to possess over this country, is included a, preferential railway rate for export goods said to amount to 1 per cent. of the value of the goods. I would ask any tariff reformer with an arithmetical turn of mind to work out what 1 per cent. preferential railway rate would mean in the price of, say, 1s. article? Yet this is a statement which is seriously introduced into the Report. Members of the Committee responsible for it expect that their report is going to be taken seriously. Such an exhibition of colossal ignorance one seldom sees. The President of the Board of Trade quoted again a sentence, and we understood that from the Minister of Labour there were no wages data in the German cutlery industry proper, so that comparisons could be made. On page 12, however, of the Report it is admitted that there is little difference in regard to the hours. In the middle of the Report we read that an Order of January, 1924, confirmed the general principle of the 8-hour day or the 48-hour week, but it introduced a number of provisions permitting the extension of hours, under certain conditions, of manual and non-manual workers up to 10 a week. It is much the same thing in this country. Therefore, in the circumstances there is no practical difference in the hours. At the bottom of page 12 reference is made to unfair competition. Then later we get some particulars to the effect that the Committee were impressed by the evidence given by the head of one of the largest manufacturing companies in Sheffield, who was chairman of a Cutlery Mission which investigated German cutlery factories in 1919. That Mission reported that Machinery is used to a greater extern than in Sheffield, and the process of manufacture is very much sub-divided. All laborious work is eliminated where possible, machines being used for many operations done by hand in Sheffield. One very striking feature is the preparation of parts in the most perfect and finished manner to an infinite degree. The Report goes on— It became clear to all of us that a greater application of machinery to the Sheffield cutlery trade would help considerably in meeting German competition in respect both of prices and output. And then at the bottom it says: From the evidence that was submitted to us it is clear that Sheffield cutlery manufacturers are desirous of bringing their factories up to date in every possible respect, but they must be in a position to attract capital in order to do so. Really, that is something like a man having a half-dozen screws and as he does not like to waste them he buys a motor car in order to use them. An enterprising business man puts capital into his enterprise directly he sees the prospect of trade, or he tries to make trade by bringing the equipment of his factory up to date. These people admit that their factories are inefficient, less efficient than those of Germany. Surely their own common sense would dictate that they should make their factories efficient. Instead of that, they say, "Give us Protection, and then we shall be able to attract capital, and we can get our factories more efficient." We get an answer to that in the only sensible report which has emanated from any of the committees set up by the President of the Board of Trade, and that is the Committee on Super phosphates. They say that instead of a tariff having the effect of stimulating enterprise it has the very opposite effect: it acts as a narcotic. A tariff is always a crutch for inefficiency to lean on, and, if Sheffield gets this tariff, then, instead of equipping its factories, it will continue its inefficient methods, relying upon the futile Protection of a tariff. So much for that report. We shall have other opportunities of dealing with it in greater detail during the subsequent course of these proceedings.

I referred just now to the Report of the Super phosphates Committee. None of these reports attach very much importance to the question of depreciated exchanges. That question cannot apply to Germany now, where the exchange has been righted, but still it is of interest and importance to remember what that Committee, to which I have just referred, said, more particularly with reference to the longer hours and lower wages in Germany. That Committee on Super phosphates was not unanimous, the chairman presenting a minority report, but they were agreed upon repudiating the importance which these other committees attached to the difference in labour conditions between this country and other countries. The chairman said, in effect,. "We may admit that the foreign workers work longer hours and that they have lower wages, but we must take into account internal purchasing power and prove that foreign real wages are lower than ours, and I am of opinion that foreign competition does not arise from inferior conditions of labour abroad." The other members of the Committee concurred.

I submit to the Committee that on the evidence of these Reports themselves Parliament is not justified in accepting the proposals which the President of the Board of Trade has just submitted. There is no case on the evidence in the Reports themselves, and I am sure no self-respecting Government who had not already made up their minds to impose Protection would have submitted such Resolutions and asked for their endorsement. The President of the Board of Trade concluded his reading of the Report of the Cutlery Committee this afternoon by anticipating in a few words the criticism which, he knew, was bound to be raised with regard to the pledges of the Government. I have already incidentally referred to that, but I want to show in a few words, as I can prove to the Committee, that these proposals are part of a deliberate and carefully-designed plan to use the huge majority which the Government have at their backs to upset the long-established fiscal system of the country, and to impose upon this land, in violation of the wishes of the people, a system of Protection. Lord Birkenhead made that quite clear in a speech a few weeks ago. He said: The Conservative party definitely advised their fellow-countrymen that the only real alleviation was to be found in a re-arrangement of our economic system. That advice was rejected in consequence of the disingenuous presentation of the opposite side by Socialists no less than by Liberals. After that it was unfair to ask the Government, in the light of those events, why they had not cured unemployment, but they were entitled to say that they had made some considerable progress in the application of the safeguarding of industries scheme, and they proposed to continue that process. Within two or three year she hoped they would have got a muss of economic information which would convince the nation that the course which they had advocated since the days of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was a wise course. The information that will be accumulated between now and the next General Election will be information of the character which has already been provided by the operation of the Lace Duties and the Silk Duties. It is quite clear from this that it is the thin end of the wedge of Protection, that the Government have not had the courage to propose a general tariff, an all-round system of Protection, and from their own point of view I think they are wise. At a General Election they would never prevail upon the people of this country to accept general all-round Protection. They are proceeding by the method of appealing to the selfish interests of particular trades. It has often been said that every man is a Protectionist in his own trade and a Free Trader in every other. There is plenty of evidence of that in the course of the evidence which has been placed before these committees. Men have come before a committee and said: "We are Free Traders, but we think the special circumstances of our industry entitle us to some Protection." There is not a single industry in this country which could not claim a Protective duty on the evidence on which these duties are recommended, not one. If we concede it to one industry, or to half a dozen industries, we cannot withhold it from the rest. But the Prime Minister has said that he would not introduce Protection by a back door. Writing to the Conservative candidate at Ripon a day or two ago, he said: You stand for a policy which has the backing of the majority of the nation, a policy which is developing in accordance with the nation's wishes. As a matter of fact, the Tory candidate at Ripon has, in the course of the campaign, declared himself to be opposed to Protection, and the Prime Minister is not accurate when he says that this policy has an overwhelming backing of the majority of the nation. It is not true. The party opposite have not the overwhelming backing of the nation. They have never had a majority of the nation. They are a minority of the nation, as disclosed by the votes of the last General Election. The Prime Minister's pledge not to introduce Protection gained for Tory candidates the votes of a large number of Free Traders. Had it not been so, the Government's minority of a million would have been a much larger minority. Every bye-election which has taken place since the General Election shows that the Government and the policy for which the Prime Minister says they have the overwhelming support of the country are losing support in the country in every week that passes. There is not a case where the Prime Minister has more flagrantly violated a public pledge than the present Prime Minister has in giving his support to this policy. I wish he had been present to-night.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

He is fulfilling another engagement.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I hope he will be present some time during these Debates. I read with great interest the address which he delivered at Edinburgh a few weeks ago when he was installed as Lord Hector, but the feeling with which I rose from perusing it was not so much admiration for the literary quality of the speech as admiration of the Prime Minister's courage. The text of that speech was, "Let us aim at meaning what we say and saying what we mean. Let us use perspicuous words and sentences and purge them of all ambiguity and make them luminous." I wish the Prime Minister, instead of spending so much time in preparing high-sounding moral platitudes, would give a little more time to the application of those moral principles in his legislation. I wonder if the reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more conspicuous by his absence than his presence this afternoon is due to the fact that he has a tender Free Trade conscience, or has been affected by this latest development of the Protectionist policy of the Government.

We shall oppose these proposals at every stage of this Bill, because they are not merely dishonest, but they are dangerous, and they will have all the disastrous results which I have put forward this afternoon. I know that we can make no impression upon Tariff Reformers opposite, and they will vote for these proposals regardless of arguments or facts. [Laughter.] The only answer to our remarks and our arguments is inane laughter. We shall use every Parliamentary device in opposition to those proposals, and we shall bide our time, knowing that the time will come sooner or later when we shall be able to appeal to a higher tribunal than this, a tribunal which will show that it is not entirely wanting to a sense of decency

Mr. STORRY DEANS

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated in the observations he has made that the policy which the Government are now putting forward is in a minority in the country. In the face of that statement I wonder how it is that there are some 400 of us sitting on the Government benches and only about 150 on the benches opposite. When the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that we are impervious to facts and arguments, I should like to say that we are also impervious to abuse and vituperation. If I may also use a colloquialism, I would say that you get no change out of us by charging the leader of the Conservative party with duplicity, a word which is so much on the verge of being un-parliamentary that I wonder the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with all his audacity in Debate, dared to use it.

I am aware that that is not to the point any more than the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The point is whether, first of all, we ought to propose this duty, and I rise to support it. It does not matter at all to me how the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else on the other side may juggle with figures. I say that I know from my knowledge of Sheffield, which is intimate and of long standing, that there are enormous numbers of Sheffield cutlers and men in the cutlery industry who are thrown out of work, and I say that in my view, and it is also their view, they are largely thrown out of work owing to the peculiar nature of the competition which comes from Germany; and they are of opinion, trade unionists in that trade as well as employers, that if they can be protected against some of this unfair competition with Germany large numbers of them will be put into employment again.

You have now in the cutlery industry in Sheffield almost about half the people out of work as compared with 1913, and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) says there is no evidence that the decline in apprentices is due to this effect of unemployment or the competition which creates the unemployment, I say that I know scores of cutlers who have been cutlers for generations, probably from the time of Chaucer, and they tell me "I am not going to put my lad in this trade because this trade in Sheffield is declining." It is a fact that these people inherit and possess a kind of skill which can never be acquired by anybody but the sons of cutlers, and these people are declining to put their sons into this trade because the business is declining owing to their goods being so severely undersold by the German manufacturers. They know their trade, and they know it as well and even better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea, and I say with the greatest possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), I believe that they know their trade better than he does, and they are unanimously of the opinion that a, 33⅓ per cent. duty will go a long way towards curing unemployment in that trade.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said with great truth that every man is a Protectionist in his own trade, and why? Is this for his benefit or not for his benefit? [An HON. MEMBER: "His benefit!"] I say it is not for his benefit but for the benefit of the country. I am not at all concerned with the orthodox arguments of Free Trade. It seems to me that you can very well say that Free Trade is a system which is a good one for the merchants. It may be good for the entrépôts trade, and it may give a great amount of employment. I would like to point out, however, that we may have a turnover of £1,000,000 a year in that trade, and you might not have more than £100,000 paid in wages. On the other hand, I defy you to find a manufacturing industry in the North of England or the Midlands where, if you take a trade with a turnover of £1,000,000, you do not get at least £500,000 paid in wages. At any rate, it is a much greater percentage than in the case of merchanting. It may be that a form of Protection is a good thing for the industrialists —I do not merely mean the employers, but all the people engaged in the industry for whom I am concerned— although it is not a good thing and does not assist commerce, mere merchanting. I rather think this is one of the problems that statesmen and financiers and future Chancellors of the Exchequer, from whatever side they come, will have to deal with. They will have to try and reconcile those two positions, and give some sort of protection and encouragement and solid foundation to industry, while at the same time doing no harm, or as little harm as possible, to commerce and merchanting. That is a matter for the future consideration of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.

This matter, to me, is one of work and wages, and nothing else. When I go to Sheffield, my own city, I see all these good fellows, who are the finest craftsmen in the world, going to the Employment Exchanges and most reluctantly drawing the dole. I do not mention this with any disrespect to the men. They have to go to the Employment Exchanges. and they go most reluctantly, and most reluctantly draw the dole. I see those men, and I cannot remain unmoved, and I will violate every kind of orthodoxy, from the theological to the financial, if I think I can help those men to obtain what they ask for, that is, employment in their trade. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, I say that, in a discussion of this kind, I think he would do better, instead of casting these winged darts at the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade and the whole lot of us on this side, calling us tariff-mongers and using other genteel epithets, to think of these men walking about the streets unemployed and ask himself this question: "Will this Measure, if passed, conduce to the restoration of the prosperity of their homes and the comfort of their facilites?"

Mr. MACKINDER

It is interesting to me to hear the hon. Member who has just sat down speak of men drawing the dole. Personally, I wish hon. Members of this House would not use that nasty word.

Mr. STORRY DEANS

I most willingly withdraw it, and I will call it unemployment benefit.

Mr. MACKINDER

I hope that that word will not be used again, either in the House of Commons or anywhere else. It is not a fit and proper word to use, and it is a misstatement of the position. I want to protest against the President of the Board of Trade not allowing the House of Commons to have the evidence submitted to the various Committees of Inquiry. I have a particular reason for desiring to have this evidence, because information has been sent to me that a. certain employer, when the Inquiry into the fabric glove industry was taking place, sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee, referring to certain evidence which was given by a fabric glove manufacturer, who stated that the fabric glove industry was the mainstay of Witham, in Essex, and that if the industry were allowed to fall deeper into the slough of unemployment the position of this community would become intolerable. The letter states that the facts of the case are that in the village of Witham there are 70 people employed in the glove industry, and the total wages they take out of the establishment in any one week is £100 when they are fully employed. There is also in the same village another firm, who employ 400 people, taking wages to the extent of £1,000 a week, and it appears, from the evidence given by this gentleman in the fabric glove industry, that, if the fabric glove industry is not assisted, the village of Witham will fall into the slough of despondency, and that the unemployment of 70 people will cause such a bad effect in the village so that everyone will be on the rocks, taking no notice of the 400 people employed there who are receiving an average of £1,000 a, week.

I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade if that is the evidence submitted on behalf of the fabric glove industry, and if it is because that kind of evidence was submitted—untrue evidence, I want to suggest—that he has refused to allow Members of the House of Commons to read the evidence submitted. I want to put it to hon. Members, in whatever quarter of the Committee they may be, that, if the Labour party introduced a Bill of this description, the other side would want to know the reason, the evidence, and the arguments submitted as to why we proposed a certain course of action if an inquiry was held. It is no use suggesting, as an hon. Member has suggested, that we should go to the inquiry and hear the evidence. That suggestion is hopelessly impossible. I want to suggest to this Committee that the only way in which you can really and thoroughly analyse evidence, even when you have sat as a member of the Committee and have heard the evidence, is by going over the written statement after the evidence has been given.

Mr. ERSKINE

What about a jury?

Mr. MACKINDER

The Reports are there, available for the jury.

Mr. ERSKINE

They have to decide before they leave the Court.

Mr. MACKINDER

I want to suggest that it is unfair to the House of Commons that evidence which is necessary for us in making up our minds should be deliberately withheld from us, and I am asking the President of the Board of Trade if it is being withheld from us for the reason that untrue evidence has been submitted by an employer to bolster up his case. It is impossible, in a village where 70 people are employed by one firm and 400 by another, for the unemployment of 70 people to bring about such a state of things as this employer suggests. The most interesting feature, however, is that the employer responsible for the 400 people sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee which was investigating the fabric glove industry, and did not even receive the courtesy of a reply. I want to ask why he did not receive a reply, and if it can be considered that that is fair treatment. The President of the Board of Trade said that he was not reading from the evidence when he was quoting Sheffield, and I want to say in passing that this Committee is put in an exceedingly difficult position. The Chairman has said that the discussion is going to be of a general character, and I suggest that it is almost impossible for this Committee to discuss the general while the President of the Board of Trade refuses to discuss general principles. It was understood that this was going to be a general discussion on the question of the safeguarding of all the industries referred to in the White Paper. I suggest that this Committee cannot at the same time discuss the general and allow the President of the Board of Trade to discuss the particular. He stated that unemployment was bad in the Sheffield trade, and, in order to support his statement, he read a certain paragraph; but I would like to refer the Committee to paragraph 21 on page 9 of the Report, which says definitely: We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment in the cutlery industry. They are unable to obtain the actual figures, and overleaf they say That the industry is suffering from serious unemployment is beyond dispute. They have no evidence as to the actual number of people unemployed, and yet they are quite satisfied that Sheffield is suffering from serious unemployment. I feel that at all events the President of the Board of Trade and the Committee who have been investigating the Sheffield industry ought to give us something more than the fact that they are satisfied. It is not very difficult—

Mr. DIXEY

If the hon. Member will turn to paragraph 23, on page 10, he will see that they do make a definite statement about unemployment.

Mr. MACKINDER

Yes, paragraph 23 is exceedingly interesting: I have it marked. It says: That the industry is suffering from serious unemployment is beyond dispute, and, though it is impossible to express imports in terms of unemployment—

Mr. DIXEY

They are satisfied.

Mr. MACKINDER

Yes, I said earlier that the Committee were satisfied that there was unemployment, and I said afterwards that the Committee had no evidence as to the exact amount of unemployment. In paragraph 21, on page 9, they say: We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment. Yes, although they are unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment, they are satisfied that this industry is suffering from serious unemployment.

Mr. D. HERBERT

1s the hon. Member contending that it is not suffering from unemployment?

Mr. MACKINDER

I am only trying to suggest to the Committee—

Mr. HERBERT

Will you answer?

Mr. MACKINDER

I am trying to put it, to the Committee that it is not proved that there is serious unemployment in the cutlery industry, and that the Report bears out my contention.

Mr. HERBERT

No!

Mr. MACKINDER

May I turn to some more of the evidence submitted? On page 14 one finds the following remark: There will no doubt be a very large demand for cutlery in the future, but we fear Germany is very much better organised at present to supply that demand than Sheffield is. This situation, though, is one that can and should be rectified. Is it the opinion of the hon. Member that it ought to be rectified by Protection? If it is, why was not Protection instituted when the Report which is here quoted was made, as far back as 1919? That Report, made in 1919, said that Germany was better organised than Sheffield. The Sheffield employers have had every opportunity since 1919 to organise their industry, and, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, to introduce machinery where machinery could be introduced; but, although they have had six years in which to organise their industry, at, the end of that period they come to the House of Commons and say, "Please let us have Protection; let us put a fictitious price on our articles, because we have not been able to organise our industry as we were advised to do in the year 1919."

I understand that one of the conditions which has got to be proved is that the industry is of sufficient and substantial importance. The President of the Board of Trade was asked, "What is substantial importance?" Let me ask the Committee if it is considered that an industry with 1,800 employés is of substantial importance? On page 6 of the Report relating to fabric gloves, we have a statement that there are 10,000 people employed in the whole glove industry, but that in the fabric glove industry alone there are only 1,800 employed. It is very easy to lump two industries together, but no one can suggest that there is any relativity between the fabric glove and the leather glove, the chamois glove, or anything like that. You might as well include the woollen glove, and say that it is part of the glove industry. Why separate the woollen glove industry? If it is part of the industry, or if there is a relation between wash-leather gloves and fabric gloves, why should they be put together and the woollen glove left out? Does it not need protection? No evidence was submitted on its behalf. I suggest that an industry employing 1,800 people is not an industry of substantial importance. I might even go further, and say that, if the evidence showing that it employs 1,800 people is accurate, it may be that the statement made to the Chairman of the Committee was accurate, that 70 people are more important than 400 people. I contend that a case has not been made out that the industry is of substantial importance. I want to turn to another part of the Report relating to fabric gloves. It is stated on page 12 that a further handicap to the British manufacturer is the high cost of distribution. We had an instance quoted to us where the retail price was double that of the British manufacturer's selling price. Is that due to imports? Or is it because the English distributor is prepared to put 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. on to the cost price, and make the price of the article as distributed so great that it is beyond the means of the public. Is it for that that we are safeguarding? If it is not. why is that paragraph included? I suggest that a paragraph like that has nothing to do with the question of foreign imports and their effect upon the home producer. Then the Committee say: We are satisfied that those remaining are producing gloves fairly comparable with the imported article. What is "fairly comparable"? If foreigners are producing gloves which are better and cheaper than ours, is it fair to put a tax on the person who buys those gloves because our producers cannot produce them as well or as cheaply, because of antiquated machinery or lack of method in production? I want to put it to the Committee that this statement on page 13 of the Report is not strictly accurate, and is not evidence of which a Committee of the House of Commons should take cognisance that they are satisfied that those remaining, that is to say, the producers remaining, are producing gloves fairly comparable with the imported article. It is quite evident that the. Conservative Government are very anxious to protect manufacturers—

Mr. HANNON

And Labour.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. MACKINDER

I am saying that in my opinion the Government are anxious to protect manufacturers, and, because they are anxious to protect manufacturers, they are going to put a fictitious price on the value of the article which those manufacturers produce. Why is it, I would ask, that the Government are not anxious to protect the consumer? Not a single word has been uttered by either the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Member of the Government, to the effect that there is going to be any protection whatever for the consumer. There is every evidence that, when the protection, or safeguarding, is put into operation, the home producer will be able to charge as much as he possibly can in conformity with the tax which has been put on the foreign producer. He is going to be able to lift his price to within almost a farthing of the price of the foreign goods plus 33⅓ per cent., and the only evidence is that he is going to get thumping big profit out of the opportunity which the Government have given him. This is Protection. There is no doubt about it, and by the number of documents that have been submitted it appears to us that it is a pretty hefty step on the path of general Protection. The Prime Minister says that there is going to be no general tariff. Well, we were dished out last Friday with about half-a-dozen White Papers indicating that at least a pretty important number of industries are going to be put under this Protective scheme. It is Protection. It is going to lead to general Protection. The Prime Minister did tell us that there was going to be no scheme of general Protection, and I protest against prices being put up to the members of the British public. I object to the prices of our people's necessities being increased. I want to suggest that when an article which is cheap to our people is going to be taxed, the result will be that the working classes will have to buy the article at a higher price.

I have an instance in my own industry. The case is sub-judice, but we know for a fact that as soon as, or if ever, there is protection put on the worsted trade— those of us who know the Bradford manufacturers and the spinners—there will be an increase in price put on the home-produced goods, in order that they may be just below the level of the prices of the foreign imported goods, plus the tax. The effect of that is, that there is a reduction in wages for the members of the class to which I belong, as expressed in the prices that they have to pay for the necessities of life. They must use gloves, or, at all events, I think they ought to have some opportunity to use gloves like other people. How can they get them with their wages? Trade is going down, unemployment is increasing. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says: "Supposing there are no wages?" Well, we will all be on the Poor Law, everybody, including Members opposite, and then we shall have to live by taking in one another's washing. The net effect upon the people whom I represent, members of the working class that I am very proud to be associated with, will be, that there will be a reduction in their wages, because there will be an increase in the cost of the goods that they have to get in order to live. That will be the net effect.

I want to put this to the Tory Government, that if the Conservative Government really believe in Protection, if they really believe that Protection is the panacea, that it is the be-all and end-all of the philosophy that they came into this House to express, they ought, at all events, to be honest and say: "Never mind about the pledges we made, and the promises that we will not introduce a general scheme of Protection"; they ought to go right out and say, "We will safeguard, and we will protect every industry there is in this country, but in order that the workers shall not suffer "—because it is only a theory at present in the minds of hon. Members opposite that our people will not suffer because of increased prices—"we will safeguard not only the producer, but we will also safeguard the consumer. We will fix a level of living, of wages, and of the cost of living, below which no person shall go, and for a period we will put Protection into operation, but we will safeguard at the same time the wages, the bread and butter, of the people with whom we live!" With the Members opposite it is a theory. If it does not come off, you are no worse off than you are at present, but this theory, if it comes off disadvantageously to the working class, ours are the people that will suffer, ours are the people who will have to have reduced wages because of the increased cost of living. For this reason, I oppose these Motions and will vote against them.

Sir H. CROFT

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a most interesting, and I am sure a very sincere. speech as his contribution to this Debate. He opened his remarks by painting himself, as I understood it, as a champion of the consumer, but I do suggest that the first consideration of this country, after the pitiable history of the last five years, ought to be the worker, and not the consumer. We have a great deal talked about considering the consumer, but I am surprised at the Socialist party becoming champions of the lilies of the field and not realising that we in this country ought to have very little use for those who are consumers, and who are not engaged in productive industry of some kind or another by doing some kind of service to the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew I would have hon. Gentlemen with me, because I am voicing their views. Therefore, in considering a question of this character, our first object is to consider the producing classes of this country. The hon. Gentleman said: "If you protect these industries, you will lower the wages of the worker." I am very glad to find this conflict of evidence between two parties who are shortly to be married—which will be understood from the Press a few days ago—because up to this date the Liberal party have always maintained that the disastrous results of any form of protection is that it raises the wages of the people.

Mr. MACKINDER

I hope the hon. Member will please not misquote me. I said it would reduce the wages of the workers as expressed in the prices of the articles he has to purchase.

Sir H. CROFT

I quite accept that statement. I did not want to suggest for one moment that the hon. Gentleman said something he did not say. I heard him deliberately say that the result—I hope I am not misquoting him—of Protection was to decrease the real wages of the people. I assume every one of the workers in this country who migrates from this country and goes to a country where there is Protection does so in order to better his condition. I do not want to get away from the subject, but I ask him if he would suggest for one single moment that the real wages in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or in the United States, rather an important country as an industrial concern, are lower than the level in this country.

It seems to me that His Majesty's Government are in rather an unfortunate position this evening. They have had two attacks made on them, one from the Liberal party, which was generally expected. I can assure, any hon. Gentleman who has any doubts on this subject, that on no subject whatever will the Liberal party ever change. I am absolutely convinced of that. We all remember Lord Oxford when he was leading this country during the Great War. I remember he uttered a famous phrase. He said this country was placed in the position where we were dependent upon foreign countries for our necessities, and he said in his most solemn terms: "Never again" must that happen. He is no longer Prime Minister, and he is no longer in a position of responsibility, and he is entertained by those who are practically almost suggesting: "Always again will we place ourselves in that position."

On the other hand, we have the Socialist party. I know why they are opposed to these Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman who was speaking just now from the front Opposition Bench quoted the Prime Minister in his speech where he said: "… moaning what we say, and saying what we mean …" I think I know the real difficulty with regard to the Socialist party, they passed a Resolution. Of course, we know why they oppose the Government this evening; they are Prohibitionists. It is an extraordinary thing to me that, when the unemployment Debate was on, they did not mention their policy. Not one single breath! As a matter of fact, I understand that, as regards any goods which are produced in countries where there is a lower social level, lower wages, sweated goods—and I suppose that means, sweated compared to your own people— they are prepared not only to put on a duty, a trifling thing like that now proposed, but to prohibit the import altogether. I am not sure that they are not more nearly right than His Majesty's Government on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor in the last Government, I must say, apologised for making a personal attack on the Prime Minister in his absence, and I am only sorry that he is not here now, as ho also referred to myself. Ho said one or two words in regard to the honour of the Prime Minister. I do not think that it is very necessary, at any rate in our party, to defend the honour of the Prime Minister.

I must say this, that I do think that the honour of the Prime Minister would have been involved if he had failed to carry on this policy of safeguarding upon which he had the support, and the enthusiastic support, of the whole of his party. I hope I will be exonerated from any flabbiness on this question of safeguarding. I attended a meeting of the Carl-ton Club immediately after the General Election, when we were not "overwhelmingly defeated," as the right hon. Gentleman put it, but when we polled a bigger vote than has ever been polled in this country for Protection since the unfortunate days when we were suffering from a mental aberration from which we have only just recovered. The Prime Minister made a speech at the Carlton Club when he assumed the leadership of the Conservative party, his very first speech after the General Election, and he laid it down that he intended to safeguard these industries which fulfilled the conditions which are clearly laid down. I think it is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have questioned the honourable conduct of the Prime Minister in this connection. Strangely enough, in the speech which he made this evening he informed us that after the General Election the Prime Minister substituted for the policy of general Protection that of safeguarding. Need anything more be said upon this subject? Even if it was necessary, we have had from the right hon. Gentleman himself that it was made clear, and really we must not be accused of breaking our pledges. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway think so much evidence is going to be gained from the result of these duties that the country is going to demand the full policy of Protection. That has nothing to do with the question at all. We pledged ourselves to safeguard these industries, and I congratulate His Majesty's Government upon doing as much as they can.

The right hon. Gentleman in his attack on the Government tried to make great play with the effect upon those industries which have been recently given some small protection. It really seems to me hardly statesmanlike, if I may say so, to quote the results of the safeguarding of the lace industry when we remember the very late date on which that industry was safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman did me the honour to quote some remarks I made in my speech. If my memory be correct, I said that, as a result of the Silk Duties, I believed I was correct in saying that there was not a single silk worker in Macclesfield unemployed. He seemed to think that the silk industry was a case which ought to be quoted in this connection. He stated that I had said that there would be not a single worker in the lace industry unemployed. I think, if he looks up my speech, he will find that I said that in regard to the silk trade, and that I hoped that the same might be said shortly of the lace trade. And so I do. I believe if yon give, confidence and security to the industry of the country we are more capable of production than any country in the world, and if you can achieve these astounding results in America, why cannot you do it in this country, where employers and employed are determined to see that production shall be the first policy of the people of the country?

The right hon. Gentleman also said that wages have not been increased. There, again, that is rather surprising, because it is contrary to the predictions of the Free Traders. He was talking about actual wages. It is a very short period that we have had the operation of these duties to see any great change in industry. The real facts, as everyone knows, are that in the two or three months prior to the imposition of the duties there was such a flood of imports into the country that there was likely to be some temporary unemployment. For instance, in the motor industry I do not expect we shall see the result for many months. It was very unfortunate that we did not ante-date those duties. The fact remains that there was this great flood of motor-cars that camp into the country, I do not think it will appeal to the country, but we realise these facts. I will not labour statistics and figures, but as far as the motor trade and the lace trade and clocks and watches are concerned, there has never been such an importation as there was in those two or three months prior to the imposition of the duties.

But the question is a bigger one than that. It seems to me we ought to make any effort to find a solution of our unemployment. Hon. Members above the Gangway are always complaining that nothing is attempted, and when anything is attempted they form this unholy alliance with a party which is really not worth allying themselves with, and they deliberately come out and support them in their hostility to what may be a small thing, but what is at any rate in the right direction. Does the Socialist party, or does it not, believe it is desirable, when you have over a million unemployed, that employment in industry should fall to the extent that it has fallen in the cutlery industry since 1913? That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman deliberately omitted from his figures the pre-War figures. We were engaged in a great War. We had great difficulties. Are we satisfied that we should not regain at least the pre-War position? If the figures are studied hon. Members will see that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman only quoted the figures for the last three years, the total employed in the industry in 1913 was 11,686 and to-day it has fallen to 7,697. I want to see that figure rectified. This is a small step, and, if we want to make any kind of experiment at all in order to improve the position of the people of the country, even if it may be an experiment, is it not worth doing rather than doing nothing?

Captain BENN

We have had, as always, an extremely interesting speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He has rebuked, or chaffed, hon. Members above the Gangway on their alliance with the small party below the Gangway. I can remember the day when the great Conservative party was content to make an alliance with the very distinguished party of which the hon. Baronet was the leader and the sole member. He used to lead his party undivided and indivisible into the Division Lobby. I was sorry to interrupt him about the Silk Duties. He was explaining the great advantage which the protection afforded by the Silk Duties was going to give to industry, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained most carefully that it was not a protective duty at all. I only interrupted in order to prevent him getting into conflict with one of the leaders of his own party. In this interesting discussion we have heard a great deal as to what the result of these tariffs will be on prices. I will ask any hon. Member if he is prepared to say that a duty imposed upon goods does not raise the price of the article. We contend that it does, and we intend to prove it. I will not take any illustration from this country, because everyone can say, "I know something that was taxed and for one reason or another the price has not varied." We must deal in general terms, and it would be far better to take illustrations from other countries, and then we can find whether or not it is true that these taxes we are imposing will in fact raise the cost of living and thereby create instead of abolishing unemployment. I will take the evidence I propose to put before the Committee from strictly unbiased sources. I take, first, an extract from an article by the New York financial correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," two years ago, speaking of the United States tariff:— The amount of the duty has been added to the imported goods and within a very short time domestic goods of a similar kind were marked up to an equally high figure. Silk goods, cottons and other such manufactured articles are arriving in much smaller quantities than a year ago. This serves as a special subsidy to the particular industries concerned, but it also raises prices all round. I think everyone will agree that that is evidence from a perfectly impartial source. Let me give another example from the United States. Sir Arthur Balfour bears a name of great authority in this country. He was dealing with the United States trade outlook. We are not dealing with domestic issues which excite controversy. We, are. dealing in vacuo, with no preoccupations or party feelings: Undoubtedly the whole situation has been very much aggravated by the Fordney Tariff. I am told the farmers this year, as the result of the Fordney Tariff, will pay about £175,000,000 more for their machinery plant and general farm requirements. That is the second piece of evidence. Now let us take an extract from an article by the Johannesburg correspondent of the "Times": Commercial circles here say that the proposed changes in the Union tariff, are mostly on the lines expected. They will increase the cost of living in the Union. That is South Africa. Now let us take the German case. Here is a further quotation from the "Times": When the Government agreed to purchase the support of the agrarians with a high traiff on food, it told the German workman that high prices did not matter. Because they had a scheme for controlling prices. They admitted that prices would rise. The article concludes: Meanwhile prices rise and wages actually fall in purchasing power. That is the German example. Now we will take an example from Australia. Mr. Pratten, the Minister of Customs, only a month ago admitted that the duty temporarily increased prices in some directions, and the "Times" speaking about that same tariff said: The present charges, while substantially increasing the duties upon certain classes of goods, contain a considerable number of reductions of duty apparently designed to set off any increase in the general cost of living, which the higher duties might otherwise have entailed. The Manchester correspondent of the "Times" in Australia says: Under the new Australian scheme, cotton tweeds are subject to a tax which, it is contended, means an increase in the selling price in Australia of somewhere about 100 per cent. Again, reverting for a moment to Germany, the "Times" says: The Minister for Economic Affairs in Germany admits that the new tariff has had the effect of raising prices at least by the amount of the new duties. These are not illustrations taken from pamphlets and organisations in this country supporting this or that fiscal view. They are impartial observations made by correspondents in foreign countries, and they prove, completely that we are right in saying that what the, right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary are doing is raising the cost of living of the poor in this country and thereby reducing the amount of money they have to spend and creating unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It will be better to see the evidence that is brought forward and to controvert it. "No" in itself does not constitute an argument.

On the point of procedure, I contend that it is an infringement—it is more, it is the destruction—of the practice and custom of Ways and Means Committee that a Finance Bill should be introduced and piloted by people who have nothing whatever to do with the finances of the country. The reply of Mr. Deputy-Speaker was that he did not know whether it was going to be a Finance Bill or not, but the President of the Board of Trade, when he explained the scheme under which these duties were going to be imposed, told us frankly it was going to be a Finance Bill. The Prime Minister has repeated that the scheme, instead of the old Safeguarding Bill that was introduced by the other Government, was to be a scheme under a Finance Bill. This is a point that does not concern one party alone, but every party interested in the procedure and the privileges of the House, and it is one of substance. The finance of the country should be under the control of the Treasury, and it is an improper thing that in Committee of Ways and Means a minor official, such as the President of the Board of Trade, should take the place of a major official, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing taxing. Measures.

I should like to ask supporters of the. Government what they think about these safeguarding proposals. We had an impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Storry Deans), who said, "Here are men out of work. A tariff will put them in work, and I am going to vote for a traiff." In every constituency in the country there are men out of work in many industries. Why do hon. Members hesitate to say they will have a general tariff? Do they say it? They will not say it, because they know they would sacrifice their belief in a general tariff to the chance of sitting on that side of the House instead of on this side. That is all there is to it. They believe that no party can grow, however small it may be, unless it sticks to its convictions. As far as numbers are concerned, we can certainly be derided.

If hon. Members opposite believe that a general tariff will do good, why do not they go into the country and say, "We will have a general tariff, and we will remain out of office until you consent to it?" Instead of that, and in order to keep in office—[Interruption]. Yes, to keep in office. Why was the Prime Minister's very bold step in 1923 retraced, if not in order to gain office? Of course it was retraced. Every hon. Member opposite knows that all the time it is a question of giving a little bit to satisfy pressure from behind, and it is necessary to give this little bit and that little bit in order that the mass of their supporters may feel that they are progressing along the road to a general tariff. I think the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) believes that there should be a general tariff. What does he say about iron and steel? Does he say they should have a tariff? If so, why does not he and his friends make the Government give an inquiry into iron and steel and to propose a duty for iron and steel? They are not very bold in the House of Commons. They could turn out the Government to-morrow if they wanted to force them to do these things, but they will not do it.

There are many hon. Members who represent agriculture. Do they think it is fair to tax everything that the farmer uses, and not give the farmer protection?

Major PRICE

Yes, if it gives employment.

Captain BENN

Will it give employment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] A tariff for agriculture will give employment? Then, are they entitled to have Protection for agriculture?

Major PRICE

The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. I say that if you give general employment by a tariff, it will help agriculture, by increasing the market for agricultural produce by increasing the purchasing power of the working people.

Captain BENN

I am much obliged. Do I gather that the hon. Member is in favour of a general tariff which excludes agriculture?

Major PRICE

Quite.

Captain BENN

Now, the Bury St. Edmunds electors will know.

Major PRICE

We have already explained it to Bury St. Edmunds, and yon have the result.

Captain BENN

It is a very significant thing that the supporters of the Government now avow that they are in favour of a general tariff on everything that the farmer uses and yet they will not give the farmer a tariff to protect his own product. I do not think an opinion of that kind is likely to command very much support in agricultural centres.

I want to ask one or two questions about the proceedings in these Safeguarding Committees. I want hon. Members to dismiss from their minds the idea that there is any authority behind these Safeguarding of Industries Committees. They have no authority at all. The President of the Board of Trade might just as well have called together a committee of the Tariff Reform League or of the Free Trade Union, or a private party in his own house, for all the authority that these Committees are entitled to carry in the House of Commons. I do not like to use such a word as "contemptible," but it is a reprehensible and cowardly act on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, instead of defending these duties and producing his evidence, and saying, "I, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, propose to ask Parliament to tax this, that and the other, and here is the evidence on which I base my proposals," to shelter himself behind private bodies of advisers.

He has no more right to shelter himself behind these so-called Committees than to say, "My permanent secretary advises this," or "My private secretary advises that." He is the man responsible for defending these duties, and it is not enough for him to say, "I have set up a Committee, I have vaguely instructed them in a White Paper, I have corrected the White Paper by supplementary instructions and now, because they have decided this, that or the other"—whether on evidence or not we do not know, because we have not seen the evidence— "it is enough for me to say that this Committee has recommended these Duties." There is no authority whatever behind these Committees. They sitin camera. We do not get the evidence. At any rate, they do not take sworn evidence, and many witnesses are excluded.

I would ask the President of the Board of Trade one or two specific questions. Has he ever written to the Committees to tell them the meaning of the words "substantial importance"? Has he sent to the chairman, or communicated with him, directly or indirectly, because there is this story about "under 5,000 being not substantial" and "over 5,000 being substantial"? Has he himself directed the attention of the Committee to that point? Has he, in addition to the White Paper, given to the Committee any directions whatever as to what is meant by "abnormal competition"? The definitions of abnormal competition vary widely as between one Committee and another. Some think the comparison must be post-War; that if you can find one year in which the import was less than in the present year, you have already established abnormal conditions in the industry. Some think it is a pre-War comparison. This particular committee goes back to the time of Julius Cæsar. If you can show that the import of razor blades was greater this year than the import in the time of Julius Cæsar, you have established your case for abnormal competition.

I would ask the President of the Board of Trade a question about evidence. If he is going to base any claim upon the work of the Committee, the Committee must have been accessible to any party which alleges that it is affected by these duties. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is always most courteous—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I hope I am.

Captain BENN

The right hon. Gentleman is always most courteous, and his Parliamentary Secretary, basing himself on the excellent model of his chief, has always shown the greatest courtesy towards Members of Parliament. In reply to a question, he informed me that any industry that was affected by the duties would have the right to go before the Committee. He said it was the whole basis of the scheme, that a hearing would be given to everybody. What is the fact? The fact is that—I do not know whether they were acting on instructions given by the President of the Board of Trade or on their own initiative—these committees have excluded evidence. Take the case of lace. I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would permit people whose income was going to be affected by the Lace Duties, the people who buy lace and will have to pay more for their lace on account of the duties, would be allowed to go before the Committee, and ho said "certainly not."

Take the question of wage conditions abroad. Is it a fact that any local evidence—that is to say, foreign evidence, because you can only get evidence about foreign wage conditions from foreigners-is discouraged and not permitted to be given? It is a fact that the steel manufacturer in Sheffield cannot be allowed to come forward and give evidence before the Razor Blade Committee? These are very important points. The Committee will not consider that the man who supplies the steel to the Germans to make the razor blades has any locus before the Committee. The Bolton manufacturer who sends his stuff to be made up into fabric gloves got a special Committee because it was said that the taxation on fabric gloves would hit the firms that were supplying the material for the gloves. Why was the Sheffield steel manufacturer not able to come before the Committee? The Committee say that the Germans should not be able to put "Best Sheffield Steel" on a blade, even if true, because they say that that would advertise German knives. It would also advertise Sheffield steel.

What is the rule as to the admissibility of evidence before these committees and what instructions have been given by the right hon. Gentleman? Does he say that he gave no instructions beyond the White Paper? Perhaps he will answer later. He gave us to understand that the White Paper was his final word to the committees. That is not true. I mean that it is not true in a Parliamentary sense. In the case of gas mantles, instead of merely leaving the committee to judge the ease according to the vague and not very intelligible drift of this White Paper, and because it appealed that they could not find a case for a duty on gas mantles, according to the terms of the White Paper, he comes forward and says, "We approved the White Paper and we have approved the procedure," and then he issues a supplementary instruction to the Gas Mantle Committee and says: "You have 1o take into account something quite different from the things mentioned in the White Paper. You have to take into account the fact that in time of war the gas will be stripped and gas mantles will be a national necessity.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

If the hon. and gallant Member will read the White Paper, he will see that it refers either to numbers or character.

Captain BENN

Am I to understand, then, that this is not a question of safeguarding industries, but a question of the new Key Industries Act? That is a very important matter. The argument that all you are going to do is merely to safeguard industries and to help them is now changed, and the right hon. Gentleman, by a very ready and courteous, although, I think, a very unfortunate intervention, has so extended the scope of the matter that it becomes not merely a question of protecting these industries for the purpose of safeguarding them from competition, but on the. ground that he alleges that they are of national importance in time of war and. I suppose, on any other ground. "Number or character!" "Character" is very wide. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I am more than satisfied that this scheme is simply opening the door wide so that the right hon. Gentleman can ask his friends to meet together in the form of a committee, appointed by himself, subject to no control, so that they can recommend tariffs and bring forward reports, behind which, although they have no authority, he shelters himself in this House.

Take the question of the German Trade Treaty. We have been negotiating with the Germans for a trade treaty. It is very interesting that although we have no tariff in a general way—we have little patchwork tariffs —we were able to make better terms with the Germans than the French or the Spaniards, who have tariffs. This is very interesting, because the Protectionist argues that if you have a tariff, you can always make better terms than if you are a Free Trade country. We have been able to make a trade treaty with the Germans, which has been exceedingly helpful to British firms. The Germans, under the protocol of that Treaty, sent a deputation to this country, and they said: "This safeguarding of industries, so far from being a general tariff, is specially aimed at our trade." We know in these Debates how far that contention of the Germans it true. In nearly every speech that is made we are told that it is the Germans that we are aiming at. What is the effect of this British scheme to put a halfpenny on gas mantles and a penny on the shoemaker's knife? It has jeopardised all the advantages which this country has secured through the German trade treaty. It is very unfortunate that, while we here are talking about fabric gloves and other things, the Germans have gone home, the conference having broken down, to consider what retaliatory steps they may take in consequence of this two penny-halfpenny legislation which we are considering to-day. Let us see what that retaliation may be. They may tax our coal, and that is a very serious thins when the export trade in coal is one of our greatest needs to-day. Further than that, they may so alter their general tariff as to hit the textile trade of this country, which had greatly benefited under the terms of that Treaty.

I sincerely hope that, especially on this point of our trade with Germany, which must be restored if the prosperity of this country is to be recovered, the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give a detailed and I hope encouraging reply, because, if not, it will show that in order to placate his supporters and pretend to be Protectionists when they have not the courage to introduce a general tariff, they are bringing in this legislation and thereby imperilling a branch of British export trade which is extremely important and on which the employment of hundreds of people depends. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making a note of some of these points and I hope he will gratify me by giving some answer in the course of his reply.

Mr. HANNON

This House is always edified by the delightfully discursive speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentle man. His long catechism to the President of the Board of Trade was characteristic of his general attitude towards the De-bates in this House. One is not surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got very much support in this country in these days either for his party or himself, because on every occasion on which he has spoken in this House, he has always identified himself with those people who are antagonistic to the interests of British production.

Captain BENN

Rubbish!

Mr. HANNON

He may say in his polite way "rubbish," but all the time I have listened to him in this House he has never lost an opportunity of decrying the interests of British producers. I am not finding fault with him at all, having regard to his traditions in this House as a protagonist of the exploded shibboleths of Free Trade. The hon. Members with whom one has to find fauls are the hon. Gentlemen above the Gang-way, who are so closely identified with the Labour organisations of this country, and who, through some extraordinary obtuseness which it is impossible to understand, always filly themselves with the small wing of Free Trade Liberals below the Gangway.

The test of the real value of these proposals lies in the extent to which they afford opportunity of employment to the people of this country in the respective industries concerned. That is the test, and we had the other day a very striking instance of what has happened in recent years in the United States of America. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who was at one time President of the Board of Trade, is now in the House, and I would respectfully submit to him that he has considerably modified his views with regard to these proposals since the time when he held a responsible post in His Majesty's administration. We look back to those days when, in the grinding necessity of war, speeches were made in this House pointing out how necessary it was that the industries of this country should be placed in a position in which in the national interest we should never be subject to the difficulties experienced in the days of the War. The other day a most interesting report was circulated by a. captain of industry in this country, Colonel Willey, who was a former Mem-of this House, compiled after an exhaustive examination of the economic conditions which now obtain in the United States. What has Colonel Willey set forth in that report? Up to the present moment, notwithstanding the wide publicity given to it, not one single statement in it has been challenged. It says, first of all, that American industry is flourishing on all sides; secondly, that the American working man enjoys high wages and a high standard of living; and, thirdly, that industrial peace prevails throughout the whole country.

Mr. BATEY

Is there not a coal strike just now?

Mr. HANNON

I am giving the statements embodied in the report of a distinguished man in this country, not one single one of which has been challenged since the report was circulated.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Have not. they got their own unemployed?

Mr. HANNON

To what circumstance is that attributed? It is attributed to the fact that the American nation has taken the precaution of preserving its own home market for its own productive Population. Is there any single nation in Europe that is not. taking care to protect the industries of its own people, and are we to be the only nation who can continue to carry this load of unemployment upon the body politic without taking some definite and practical means of relieving that unfortunate state of affairs? We had this afternoon a very remarkable but characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). Of all the speeches I have ever heard from him, always clever speeches, I would most respectfully say in my judgment they are always poisonous against the best interests of the working class of this country. I have never heard him make a speech in this House—and I am sorry he is not in his place—in which he did not attack, by his curious affinity with all Free Trade dogmas with which he has been so long associated, the best interests of his own working people.

The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. P. Croft), referring to the effect of these very small Measures of safeguarding which have been produced recently, proved that the figures of unemployment which were still shown were really due to the abnormal volume of imports into this country since the importers realised the duty was to be imposed. You had a striking example in the case of motor cars after the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and another example in pianos and watches, as we know to our cost and it will take a considerable period of time before the industries now happily receiving some measure of relief under the recent schemes of safeguarding, can really be in a position to show results from the measure of concession which has been made to them.

There is this also, that in some of the industries affected, such as the motor trade, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley quoted the figures of a seasonal period when employment is generally at its lowest. It is a very unfair comparison to take the conditions of employment in the motor trade in July as against the beginning of October. A good deal of the criticism from the other side was made with reference to what they called these irresponsible Committees which made these Reports. I believe that the House ought to be grateful to these Committees for the very valuable work they have done and the time they have given to the investigations, and to getting all the facts upon which they could found a sound and accurate judgment as to what had best be done.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Where is the evidence?

Mr. HANNON

The hon. Member is one of those who is always seeking for further enlightenment. That is a worthy purpose in life, but I am perfectly satisfied that the one lady and two gentlemen who constituted the Committee of Inquiry in the case of cutlery, for example, were just as competent to form a judgment on the evidence they received as the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. WALLHEAD

We have not the evidence. We should like to have it.

Mr. HANNON

I would point out that the Committee was able to form a perfectly clear and reliable opinion on the evidence put before them. The Committee had the assistance on behalf of the importers, of very distinguished counsel, a former Member of this House, and an associate of Members below the Gangway. Docs anybody imagine that our old friend, whom we all respected and admired in this House for so long, Mr. Pringle, whose resource was the admiration of everybody in the Debates in this House, would have lost a single opportunity which he could employ of putting any argument to convince the Committee of the validity of any objection which he raised. No, all this argument of there having been not sufficient opportunity to prepare the case on the part of the importers has not a shred of foundation. The fullest opportunity was given to every interest which could reasonably and properly be considered to state the case in opposition to the application before the Committee. Indeed you had this condition of affairs which could not, I venture to suggest, have taken place in any other community in the world. You had the various committees of the London Chamber of Commerce instructing counsel to appear before the Committee's inquiry and fight against the British manufacturer in asking for reasonable, protection for British industries.

In asking the Committee to agree to the acceptance of this proposal—and indeed as far as I am concerned these proposals are only the fringe of what is necessary—we are only asking for protection, and I am not the least ashamed to use the word, for the working man engaged in productive enterprise. If it is a fit and proper thing for organised labour to protect itself, and nobody objects to the admirable means by which it does so—[An HON. MEMBER: "You do!"] I do not—why should not organised labour itself and above all those who represent it in the House of Commons identify themselves with proposals which make for the improvement of the conditions of the worker himself.

8.0 P.M.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite quoted evidence from some financial editor whose statement had appeared in the "Daily Telegraph." Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman or any Member of his party suggest a single party of any size, not forgetting the magnitude of his own, in the United States, that asks for the modification of the Fordney Tariff? Are the American people so foolish that they suffer increase of prices, as this report quoted by him says, and to sit down without making any protest? Is there a single member of Congress or of the Senate in the United States to-day who calls himself a Free Trader? Not one. There is not a single organisation which has been evolved in recent American politics in the interests of promoting Free Trade or even a modification of the present tariff policy in the United States. There is one reference in this Report to which the attention of this Committee ought to be called. The Committee of Inquiry did not content itself with receiving statements from the manufacturers concerned, but took the opportunity of getting full and ample evidence from representatives of the trade unions whose members were affected. The Committee report: We received valuable evidence on the subject of employment from the witnesses from trade unions. The figures indicate that the trade unions themselves, were only too anxious that some means of this kind should be introduced so as to safeguard employment. The only fault I have to find with the proposals of the Government is that they do not go far enough. The proposals ought to be on a much more comprehensive basis. I suggest to the Minister that these examinations by committees could to some extent be either disposed of altogether or at all events their findings accepted. The Board of Trade has in its own possession all the material evidence necessary to decide whether an industry is entitled to safeguarding or not. There ought to be no possible opportunity given of such leakage of information with regard to any application which comes before the Board of Trade or a committee, as to enable an importer to take advantage of whatever concession might be made. I know that my right hon. Friend has taken every possible precaution. I know that, so far as he can, he has made the consultations of the committee watertight. But, with a committee of that kind, you cannot keep the whole of the information detached from outside interests. The consequence is that there is grave danger from time to time of the trade secrets of manufacturers getting into the hands of other people.

I associate myself very warmly with these proposals. I ask hon. Members who represent labour whether they could go down to their constituencies to meet the workpeople engaged in the industries affected, and ask them whether they would support the rejection of these proposals. I do not believe there is a single constituency where an hon. Member would get such support. I see the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) present. His work for labour is beyond all praise. He has given his whole life to the service of the people. I ask him whether he can identify himself with opposition to proposals which will provide facilities for greater employment, higher wages, and a higher standard of living for the people than could possibly be achieved under the lop-sided conditions under which we live to-day.

Mr. WEBB

I rise, not for the sake of covering the whole field, but to take advantage of this general discussion to put two points not hitherto sufficiently raised. We shall have a discussion of cutlery later. The Committee is now considering, not the application of the Safe-guarding of Industries Act to this or that industry, but the whole policy of the Act. I wish to put before the Committee one consideration which has not been dwelt upon at all. At first sight it may seem to have very little to do with the subject. When I was at the Board of Trade the last thing I had to think about was the renewal of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty. The honour of concluding that Treaty did not fall to me, but to my successor, and I congratulated him at the time on having achieved a Treaty which seemed to me far and away better in its general clauses than any Treaty that this Government has ever been able to conclude. That Treaty included, as usual, the most-favouved-nation Clause, and that Clause has been a most valuable protection of our trade. It secures us against any gross discrimination of duties.

We have had to complain in the past frequently that, while that Clause was not in terms contravened by nations, yet, as a matter of fact, Governments have so altered their tariffs that, while not in so many words contravening the Clause, they have so chosen the duties which they imposed against all comers, as to penalise in particular various articles of our commerce. Many have been the representations made to foreign Governments about that. The right hon. Gentleman was able to secure from the German Government a much better provision. It was an additional Clause, which said, in effect, that, quite irrespective of the most-favoured-nation Clause, which prevents discrimination between nations in Customs duties, both the contracting parties would observe that Clause in the spirit as well as in the. letter. Whilst, of course, each party reserved to itself the fullest rights to alter its Customs tariff in any way it might deem necessary, yet each of the contracting parties undertook not to impose duties or alter tariffs so as to penalise in particular the other contracting party. Provision was made that, if by inadvertence any such thing were done, the other country could make representations and. ultimately, go further in the matter.

That, Treaty was concluded by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in early January of this year. Very shortly after January, what I might call the spiritually Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, as distinguished from the technically Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, was ignored, and we began to have the Safeguarding of Industries proposals. I do not want to dwell too much on history, but when I read this particular batch of proposals I could not help noticing that in every case one country particularly was aimed at, and that that country was Germany. I could not help wondering whether we were quite keeping faith with Germany by altering our Customs tariff—quite within our rights, of course—in such a way as to make it appear to the German people that we were deliberately penalising exports from their country to this country. I do not want to be misunderstood. I shall be told in answer that the Clause carefully reserves to the contracting Governments the fullest possible right to alter their tariffs. So it does. I am not in the least suggesting that it contravenes those words. But I defy anyone to read that Clause, to take the spirit of it, to realise what was in the mind of the contracting parties when it was agreed to, without feeling that, at any rate, it is somewhat unfortunate that in all the months that have passed there has been a series of tariff alterations which somehow nearly always manage to hit Germany more than any other of our competitors. It may be a coincidence, but it is an unfortunate coincidence.

Our object, as it has been the object of the Board of Trade for generations, has been to prevent other Governments introducing Customs' legislation which penalises our export trade. I cannot help regretting that the action which has been taken by the Government will not tend to induce the German Government to carry out in the spirit that additional Clause which it was the great glory and honour of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to have been able to insert in the Anglo-German Treaty. I am exceedingly sorry because of what happened yesterday, on the signature of the Locarno Pact. Whatever that is worth, its worth comes of the spirit of amity with which we hope it is associated. If we are going to embark or; a Customs policy which necessarily treads on the toes of other countries—we are probably entirely justified in doing so from the legal point of view—we shall reduce the spirit of international amity on which a great deal more depends. It is a drawback of all these proposals that they seem to be chosen in such a way that it is Germany in particular, or for the most part, at which they aim.

I pass from that to my other point, and that is that in all the work of these committees under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, there has been almost a total disregard to what is not an unimportant part of the industry of this country—the export trade. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that every interest had been represented before these committees. Not merely was the consumer not represented, but the export trade was not represented. I do not think it ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the export trade should be represented, and by the export trade I mean all the industries which manufacture for export. I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of thinking that it did not occur to him that industries manufacturing for export had any interest in the matter. I suppose I am an old-fashioned person. I have been accustomed all my like to being in a minority, but in this particular matter and in this particular argument, I can claim to be with the majority of those in this country who have dealt with the subject. I urge that every attempt to reduce the volume and value of the imports into this country, whatever effect it may have upon the particular industry concerned, does inevitably tend to reduce the aggregate exports from this country and cannot avoid doing so. Consequently, if you consider solely the state of a particular industry, you lose sight of another consideration which you should take into account. It is not enough to say, "Here are men unemployed in this particular industry; therefore we will put on a protective tariff." The real question is the effect which the tax will have. It is not enough to say, "In the United States everything is flourishing; therefore their protective tariff must be the cause." There are all sorts of causes at work.

This afternoon we have had an extraordinary exhibition of logic. Member after Member has risen to say, "A certain state of things exists; therefore let us put on a protective tariff." But there is a gap in their reasoning. They have not shown that putting on a Customs duty is, in any sense, going to reduce unemployment, and after listening to and reading the arguments on this question, I must say, so far as my knowledge and experience goes, there is not a shadow of validity in the argument. No consideration has been given to the total effect upon unemployment. It has already boon pointed out that the cutlery trade itself produces more for export than for home consumption. Nevertheless. the arguments all through the report of the committee are centred upon home consumption without any regard to the effect which the duty is likely to have upon the export market. If you place a duly on cutlery you are bound to produce a series of effects upon all the export industries of the country. You will have the effect upon the cutlery trade itself. You are going to try to keep out German cutlery which has hitherto been imported into this country. In so far as you succeed in doing so that German cutlery will not cease to be produced; it will not be thrown into the sea, but it will be sent to neutral markets where our cutlery has been filling a large place in the aggregate up to now, and where it will now meet with the competition of that German cutlery. Once in Pekin I wished to buy a pocket knife. I wont to the only available shop, and being shown a knife of unusual shape, asked where it came from, and was told it came from Germany. I discovered that this shop was supplied entirely with cutlery from Germany. That is the sort of thing which you will find increasing if you attempt to divert imports of cutlery now coming into this country to other countries.

That is the more obvious side of the question, but the effect to which I was referring is not the effect on the export trade in cutlery, but the effect of an import duty on cutlery on the export trade in other articles. Some hon. Members seem to find it impossible to imagine how an import duty on cutlery from Germany could have any effect on the total amount of this country's exports in other articles—in coal, for instance, or boots, or garments—but, if they consider the matter further, they must realise that the German, who sends goods to this country and sells them here, has, therefore a credit in this country. As the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) pointed out some months ago, he cannot possibly take away the proceeds of the goods which he has sold in England, in any form other than goods which he buys in England, and that is why this country has had such an enormous export trade. It is because we have, of necessity, been large importers of some kinds of goods that we have been able to export other kinds of goods. The difficulty is that you cannot say which particular export trade is going to suffer if the Sheffield cutlers are protected by an import duty. All you can say is that some export trade will suffer. It may be coal, it may be garments, it may be boots, it may be something else. but if you multiply your import duties and exclude one import after another, or tend or try to exclude one import after another from this country, inevitably you strike a blow at the industries which manufacture for export. Consequently, you must take into account the unemployment which you are causing in those exporting industries simultaneously with your attempt to put Sheffield cutlers into employment.

Various hon. Members have asked why the Labour party should take up the Free Trade position. The Labour party takes up a position against a Customs tariff on imports not because it is in favour of laissez faire, not because of many of the arguments with which the Whigs and the Liberals backed up Free Trade, but because of the economic argument which has been borne out by experience, that for this country to place an import duty on commodities, even if it is confined to manufactured and luxury articles, will inevitably—I do not say raise the price of these articles; I put it more guardedly—but will inevitably make the price to the consumer of those articles higher than it would have been had there been no duty. Consequently the effect of the duty is pro tanto to reduce the real incomes of the people. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) taunted this party with caring for the consumer, and said he was astonished that we should care for those persons who consumed without producing. I confess we do not care very much for those who consume without producing. What matters to us is the interest of the whole community. Nearly all the community are producers. A section are not, and even those who do produce are only producers for a certain number of hours in the 24, and we are all consumers for all the 24 hours. Therefore, the interest of the people as consumers is at least as important to the four-fifths of the population who are weekly wage-earners as the amount of their wages or the amount of their employment—and we think it is even more important.

I remember once, five and twenty years ago, in the time when Protection was first revived in this country after so long a lapse, mooting two or three of its leading exponents at table, and I suddenly said: "If you will guarantee that the real wages of the wage-earning community as a whole shall not be reduced by your protective tariff or preference, shake hands; I am prepared to make a treaty. "But, of course, they would not guarantee that the real wages of the wage receivers would not be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will not guarantee it, and the whole of the Conservative party will not dream of guaranteeing it. On the contrary, many of them say frankly —and many more think and are careful not to say—that the real wages of these four-fifths of the community had better be reduced, that industry would be healthier, trade more prosperous, profits larger, and so on. It is because we are afraid that this policy, largely because of its interference with the industries which manufacture for export, will reduce, not only the volume of employment for the whole of the community on balance, but also the prosperity of the community, and especially the real wages of the community, that we are opposed to it.

The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) wondered why the Labour party should place itself in opposition to a protective tariff, and he attributed it to some recent change in its policy. Surely hon. Members opposite are not quite so ignorant of the Labour party as that; surely they must know, if they take any trouble, that the Labour party has, from the very year of its formation in this country, during the last 20 years or more, repeatedly, almost every year, declared itself opposed to a protective tariff in its conferences, over and over and over again. I do not associate myself in any way with any aspersion on the honour or the honesty of the Prime Minister, but I think we may, without undue presumption, call upon him to explain what he meant when he said he would not introduce a protective tariff by a side wind under cover of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The hon. Member for Moseley wants to extend this long list of Customs duties which have already been imposed. Is there anything in the policy of the Safeguarding of Industries Act which would prevent the extension of these duties, one by one, to practically every manufacturing industry in the land? So far as I can see, there is nothing. Whether or not the limit in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade of an industry of substantial importance is 5,000 employés, there is hardly any industry in this country which can be called an industry which does not have 5,000 employés in the whole of the United Kingdom, and consequently the requirement that it shall be of substantial importance has already been completely whittled away. Any industry can come in under that condition, like that of fabric gloves which has fewer than 2,000 employés.

Secondly, it is to be an industry which is subject to unfair competition. I have passed some years of my life on the Continent of Europe, and I have been interested to hear, in the various countries in which I have lived, of the terribly unfair competition to which they were exposed on the part of England. It was England that they thought was unfairly competing with them. They did not assert that English wages were lower, but that we had such an advantage by our capital, by our commercial organisation, by our machinery, and by our great start that it was quite impossible for their infant industries to compete against the unfair competition in this country, and, of course, the United States of America said the same against us. There is hardly any industry in this country which could not show that in some country or another wages are lower, hours are longer, currency is more crooked, railway favours are given to the export trade, and this, that, and the other, in order to be brought in under that heading, and we are entitled to ask, on the general discussion, how these industries that are picked out for us to vote on to-night are separated and marked off from the other industries of the country. It is only lack of time, as the hon. Member for Moseley pointed out, that prevented them being brought forward.

To the 15 or 20 separate industries which are already the subject of protective duties, there are added these five, and at what point do we approach what could be called a general tariff— the phrase is incorrect, because it means something quite different, but as a matter of fact, as understood in this country now, it is apparently a Customs tariff on all manufactured articles—which, we have it on the authority of the Prime Minister, shall not be undertaken in this Parliament and shall not even be attempted under the guise of the Safeguarding of Industries Act? Certainly those associated with me in this matter will oppose these duties from beginning to end by all the means in our power, not because we are heedless of the miseries of those who are unemployed in these industries, though they are not the worst industries, the industries which have the most unemployed, but because, while we doubt very much whether the enactment of these Customs duties will have any beneficent effect on the unemployed in these particular industries, we say that, even if there may be some slight improvement, it will be far outweighed by the adverse effect which the tax cannot fail to have upon the rest of the community, upon the export trade, not only in the industries concerned, but in all the other industries as well, and particularly upon the shipping trade and, therefore, the shipbuilding trade, and the marine engineering trade, and the other industries which are still so severely suffering.

For that reason, we not only protest against this step as really in violation of the Prime Minister's pledge and in contradiction of the votes of a considerable majority of the people who voted at the last two elections, but also because we think it will have worse consequences. On the other hand, we have the satisfaction that we shall have something to fight on at the next General Election in regard to which we can carry a campaign of instruction throughout the country. I am an economist, and have been ever since I was adult, and in the domain of economics I am not afraid, and I have no doubt that in the constituencies of this country we shall get a majority of votes even if not of Members on a question of this nature.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The Debate has ranged over a very wide field, and I will briefly deal with such of the points as can be treated as at all relevant to either the general principle or its particular application. The first criticism which was advanced was that of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), and also by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and related to procedure. I do not know why procedure, because the procedure which it was announced to the House would be followed, and on which the House voted on a previous occasion, is also the very procedure which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) advocated when the late Safeguarding of Industries Act was in operation. He said it was unprecedented to give to the President of the Board of Trade the power of imposing a duty by an Order, and that you ought to apply it by a Finance Bill. That is what we are doing. It is untrue to say, therefore, that you are leaving it to the President-of the Board of Trade to impose the duties. As I said when we were debating this matter earlier in the year, Reports would be presented, and it would rest with the House of Commons at all stages to pronounce upon the recommendations in those Reports, and those the vote and verdict would be the vote and verdict of the House of Commons. It is perfectly fantastic to suggest that, by this procedure you are vesting an unconstitutional right in the Minister.

The right hon. Member for West Swansea also said it was a departure from precedent for the President of the Board of Trade to appoint the Committees. He must settle that with his leader or colleague the right hot.. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), because when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was Prime Minister be introduced the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and under that Act it was the President of the Board of Trade who was to set up the Committees.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY rose—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is at once a leader and follower, but I am not sure whether he leads or follows. But the right hon. Member for West Swansea must settle that constitutional point with those who, at any rate for the time being, provide both the leadership and the sinews of war for his party. Then I was asked whether I had given any instructions to committees. I have given instructions to committees which are laid down in the White Paper, and I have given no other instructions of any sort or kind to any committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you give any instructions to the Gas Mantle Committee?"] The only instructions to the Gas Mantle Committee were those set out in the White Paper. One of the things they have to find out is whether the applicant industry is of substantial importance by reason of the volume of employment engaged in the production of goods or by reason of the nature of the goods produced. All that I said when moving the gas mantle inquiry was that it was referred to the Committee because it was argued that there was a prima facie case on account of the character of the industry. That was the ground on which I found, as I am entitled to find under the. White Paper, a prima facie case, and that was the case referred to that Committee. Then the question was raised, I think by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, as to whether there would be publication of evidence. No. Sir, and I cannot understand why there is all this amount of talk about it, except, of course, that I realise that the more material for obstruction there is provided the longer hon. Members who oppose these duties can prevent people getting to work.

I am asked why I do not provide more material. I have provided more printed and published material than has ever before been provided for discussion under a Finance Bill. I am following exactly the precedent laid down by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in the original Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I propose to adhere to it. When duties have been proposed in a Budget, whether upon land values or on anything else, never has any White Paper relating to evidence and so on been laid. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes counsel with various interests and makes inquiries before he introduces taxation, but it has never been suggested that he should lay papers dealing with every discussion he has had. These are duties founded on Ways and Means Resolutions, and, go far from withholding information from the House, we are giving far more information than it has ever had before in any Finance Bill.

Then there were various specific points raised which were more relevant to the-particular question we are discussing to-night, as to whether there should be a duty on cutlery. It was said it would injure the Sheffield steel industry if you put this duty on Gillette blades. Of course, it will do nothing of the kind. So far as steel blades are made in America, that steel will still be exported to America. Insofar as they are made in this country instead of being made in America, exactly the same amount would be used in this country.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Has the right hon. Gentleman not overlooked the fact that Sheffield steel used to work up Gillette blades in America is not only used for the supply of blades here, but all over the world?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Not in the least. Then it was said there was no unfair competition by Germany, because the rate of interest, at which Germans can borrow money to-day, is high. But that single factor is more than counterbalanced by the advantage which German firms have obtained by equipping factories on borrowed money repaid in heavily depreciated marks; so that these assets stand in their balance sheet to-day practically at a nominal charge, and if you have the advantage of having your fixed capital written down to nothing you get so great a reduction in your overhead charges that you can afford to pay a little more for your money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley referred to the lack of data about German wages in the Report, and subsequently pointed out that no one came forward with rebutting evidence against some of the statements made in the Report. I am not going to make again the speech I made in opening this Debate, but I think it may be assumed that if there was no rebutting evidence brought forward then that which was put forward was true. If there had been rebutting evidence in respect of foreign competition it would have been brought forward. Where there was a case there was no hesitation on the part of opponents in bringing evidence forward, as the Committee will see from the Gas Mantles Report. In these circumstances I think we may agree that if wrong evidence, or incorrect evidence, had been given by the advocates for Protection, the opponents would have been present with rebutting evidence.

When the right hon. Gentleman dealt with another argument which I shall deal with in a single sentence, the right hon. Gentleman accused the British industry of inefficiency. He said a tariff-created inefficiency. But the examples of efficiency he cited in contrast were all places where tariffs are in operation. Next, he said: "Do not let us take 1913 as the standard of comparison to start from." That is very interesting. Generally it is said by the other side when comparisons are made, "You are taking post-War industry, but what about 1913?" I am content in this particular case to take both pre-War and post-War and see the general trend of the years, and to base my case upon either. Of course as regards cutlery I am entitled to take 1913, because this industry was one of the earliest established industries in this country; but I shall remember and recall the right hon. Gentleman's dictum that the 1913 production is not a thing upon which a comparison ought to be based when we discuss the case of gas mantles. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) raised the question of the German Treaty.

No question whatever arises under the Treaty. Let us be perfectly clear upon that. In the first place, as I explained to the House when we first discussed the way in which safeguarding of industries should be carried out, we proposed to abandon discriminating duties, and to go for general duties, and for the very reason that if we were to go in for discriminatory duties, as distinct from general duties, we should be breaking the pro-visions of the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties. Therefore, I say there is no possible breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties in putting on a general duty. Let me carry the matter a step further, because the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman show that he has not read the whole of the Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) is, of course, an omnivorous reader, but I do not think he has quite mastered the provisions in the Protocol.

When we were negotiating the Treaty and the Protocol it was made abundantly clear that we stood by the policy of safeguarding, otherwise we should be false to our election pledges, and, of course. we were not going to negotiate a Treaty which put it out of our power to do one of the things we were returned to office to do. We did not negotiate the Treaty under false pretences. We made it abundantly clear to the German negotiators exactly what we were going to do when we were negotiating the Treaty. But we do not rest merely upon such a statement, explicit though it may have been; we set it out in the Protocol. In Article I of the Protocol the principle of the Most-Favoured Nation Treaty is set out, and reaffirmed. We also put in these words: While maintaining their right to take appropriate measures to preserve their own industries. These words were put in specifically, reserving in terms our right to safeguard. It is fantastic to suggest, therefore, that there is any breach of the letter of the Treaty or of the spirit in which that Treaty was negotiated. Observe, too, the relative position of the two countries. We have here and there a duty, but there is nothing like a general tariff or approaching it. They have a general tariff; and so has nearly every other of the countries with whom we have Treaties. No foreign country is going to like us less or respect us less or be less willing to do business with us because we preserve, where necessary, our own industries.

Captain BENN

Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that may I ask him whether there is contemplated in the negotiations with Germany any modification of the McKenna Duties?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That does not in the least arise on the present issue.

Captain BENN

No?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No, but so far as those duties may be discussed, it is a matter that is in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I certainly am not going to answer a question across the Floor of the House about the McKenna Duties. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to have information and he puts a question down he can do so. He has been quite long enough in the House to know that.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the General Treaty, will he say whether the Germans have made representation on the Protocol arising out of this proposal indicating that they accept the view of the Protocol which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to us now?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Yes, Sir, certainly. I think so. What they wished was that we should refrain from doing something under the Protocol which was contemplated by the Protocol. There were only two other points put to mo. One was directed to the balance of trade. The trade balance is far more adverse now than before the War. We are doing a vastly larger import trade than before the War. We can very well afford to reduce the balance of our imports, and we shall not in the least suffer by doing so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said that if we restrict imports we lessen trade. Is that the reason why the Labour party to-day stand for complete prohibition of a large number of imports when they are produced under sweated conditions? I exclude the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham, of course, because he has dissociated himself from the so of his party.

Mr. WEBB

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. The only point of my objection has reference to "a large number of imports." No one has proposed prohibition of a large number.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The right hon. Gentleman has not read the document which his party have prepared. recommending, not a duty here and there, but recommending prohibition of every article that is made under sweated conditions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

That is the Socialist position.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I quite appreciate it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

What is wrong with it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I think it is a bit extreme, but if I am more modest in my demands, if I am not yet going the whole way, then come with me into the Lobby to-night. I am but a timid adventurer in this matter, where others are gay buccaneers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

You come with us, and we will do you good.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I say in conclusion, as I said in opening, with respect to challenges as to pledges, that our pledges were perfectly plain, and they were that we would not introduce a general tariff, but that we would safeguard industries. In the last General Election a number of people were going about saying we could introduce a general tariff by safeguarding—so apparently the electors were warned—but the Prime Minister has not the least intention of doing it. The pledge is positive as well as negative, and he means to keep it on the positive side as well as on the negative.

Major CRAWFURD

The speech to which he have just listened more than justifies the full discussion that has taken place on the general principle of these duties. A few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman was a little impatient because I was on the point of making an interruption with regard to the evidence respecting conditions in the cutlery trade in Germany. I hope he will not regard it as offensive language if I say that what he said then is typical of the kind of way in which this case has been produced—with slipshod argument, evasive language, and an entire absence of relevant facts. The right hon. Gentleman was saying at that moment that the Committee had had knowledge of the conditions of the cutlery trade in Germany. In the Report of the Committee I find a statement about the wages of the Metal Workers' Union of Cologne and district, but the Committee go on to say: We endeavoured to ascertain whether wages in the cutlery industry in Solingen were, in fact, the same as those for the metal industry. The only wages that matter in this inquiry are the wages in the industry in Germany, which is similar to the industry in Sheffield, and that industry is carried on in the very district where the Committee say: We endeavoured to ascertain. In other words, they did not ascertain.

Mr. REMER

Read on.

9.0 P.M.

Major CRAWFURD

I have read on, and I shall have more to say on this matter. They were unable to obtain the only figures which would enable them to say whether this industry was suffering from such competition as, by the definition of the White Paper, is unfair. This brings me to one question which, I think, needs to be ventilated. The right hon. Gentleman said he has given us more evidence, more facts, more data than has ever been given during the discussion of a Finance Bill. I entirely sympathise with the objection which was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that we were being asked to take this decision in the dark. Take this very case. How is anybody opposing one of these applications to give the truth with regard to the conditions in, say, German factories. Clearly it is only by producing somebody who knows those conditions and who can give the facts, and he must inevitably be a foreigner. Those who have had anything to do with these applications know the amount of prejudice that would be created by introducing a foreign witness to give evidence before one of these Committees. If there be any doubt about that, let me quote a passage from another of these Reports, that of the Committee on Wrapping Paper. On page 12 it says: A leading witness for the opponents belonging to a firm of agents for foreign mills"— not a foreigner, but a British agent for foreign mills— gave us what purported to be"— what purported to be— exact details regarding establishment, machines, quantity of output, and so on. They go on to say: Apart from this, the particulars given did not admit of check either by this Committee or by the witness himself; and they were ultimately, of course, supplied by foreign manufacturers deeply interested in the result of this inquiry. Are hon. Members opposite satisfied with that? Does the hon. Member for Maccles- field (Mr. Remer) believe that is a proper thing to put in the Report?

Mr. REMER

Yes, certainly.

Major CRAWFURD

What the hon. Member says is that any evidence given by an Englishman who happens to be an agent for a foreign mill and carrying on commercial work in this country is to be discounted because the figures are ultimately supplied by foreign manufacturers deeply interested in the result of the inquiry. If the hon. Member is dissatisfied with that, how can he or any Committee ever get the only figures which will tell them the truth about the conditions in foreign mills? Let us turn to the Report of the Cutlery Committee. On page 9 figures are given dealing with employment. This is a case very much to the point on this question of evidence. There you have figures which purport—I am copying the language of the other Report—to give the figures of employment. There is a table giving the record for six-years. The members of the Committee say in that Report: We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment. Why have they been unable to obtain them? Surely the right hon. Gentleman could have communicated with the Minister of Labour, and surely inquiries could have been made so that official figures could have been given.

Mr. D. HERBERT

The reason is stated, if the hon. and gallant Member will read a little further on.

Major CRAWFURD

The hon. Member draws my attention to the language of the Report. I am merely contrasting the treatment of the figures given on one side in one Report with the figures given on another side in another Report. Here because they are figures which may ultimately have been supplied by foreign people the language of the Report says that these figures "purport" to come.

Mr. HERBERT

The hon. and gallant Member quoted (he Report as saying that we had been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment, and he asked why they did not go to the Ministry of Labour. May I point out that they give the reason, which is that they are included in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette."

Major CRAWFURD

I only suggest that as these figures are obviously vital to the argument, it would not have been too much for the Ministry of Labour to have assisted by having a special inquiry. Is there anything unreasonable in that?

Mr. HERBERT

Was it possible?

Major CRAWFURD

If it is impossible to get the accurate figures for unemployment it is most improper to print in the Report an ex parte statement put in by the applicant. My information is that before the Committee concluded its sittings another table was handed in showing a declining figure for unemployment, and that table has not been printed. Take that case alone. How is the Committee to make up its mind? How are hon. Members who are anxious to know the facts to make up their minds if they do not get the evidence? I know the President of the Board of Trade said that more information was given in these Reports than had ever been given before in a Finance Act. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not go into the details, and he simply repeated statements made by the Committee. We can only come to a conclusion if we are really given the full facts upon which these Reports have been based.

Take cutlery again. The figures in the Cutlery Report dealing with imports quote the number of dozens of these articles of cutlery imported. The retained imports are put down as 1,770,000 dozens. On that principle the 740,000 dozen blades from the German company are valued at £15,000. I would like to point out, however, that 1,500,000 dozen are American blades, and they are valued at £125,000, and I believe the White Paper says that the unfair competition comes from the country where the bulk of the importation comes from. As a matter of fact, this figure, if it had been brought out, proved with regard to that part of the country that German competition has nothing to do with it, because it is American competition. I think my right hon. Friend showed earlier in the Debate that American competition is carried on under conditions exactly the opposite of the conditions laid down in the White Paper as being unfair competition.

The President of the Board of Trade, in his reply to the Debate, made some remarks about the irrelevance of some of the criticisms. May I put to the right hon. Gentleman's colleague one or two simple questions that we would like answered? Will the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade ask the President if, during the course of the next general discussion on these duties, he will remember that he has been asked definitely to say what he means by an industry of substantial importance, because that is most vital to all these reports. [An HON. MEMBER: "The question answers itself!"] It does not answer itself. The hon. Member who has interrupted me may have the right answer, but we have not got it. If the question answers itself, it would not be asking too much to ask the President of the Board of Trade to enlighten us, who do not see these things so clearly. Will the Parliamentary Secretary also ask his colleague to give us a perfectly clear answer as to what is meant by "normal competition?" During the Debate earlier in the year the President of the Board of Trade used the word "unprecedented." What does he mean by that? To what standard is he referring? Are we to compare the year 1913 with the year 1920? I know many hon. Members would like us to do that, because 1920 was an abnormal year. We should also like to know what "abnormal" means?

What is the standard by which the Committees are expected to proceed by, and how are they to decide whether competition is abnormal or not? What is the definition of "unfair competition"? I know there will be other occasions for raising this issue, but I think we ought to have a perfectly clear idea now of what is meant by unfair competition. These Committees are set up with the specific duty of inquiring into the necessity or desirability of placing the duty on a specific article. Are they entitled to recommend a duty upon any other article besides the one to which their reference relates? Take the Committee dealing with wrapping papers. They are asked whether, in their opinion, there should be a duty placed upon wrapping paper. In considering their reply, they have to-consider the effect of such a duty upon other industries such as the paper bag industry. Another set of people may be adversely affected, and they have to be heard, and if this kind of thing is allowed to go on, the inquiries might go on to an. almost unlimited extent.

In conclusion, I want to refer to one or two things that were said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon)—I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment —with reference to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). He began by saying he did not wonder that my hon. and gallant Friend had found no support in the country for the principles which he advocated on this matter. Let me remind hon. Members opposite that, the last time their party went to the country with a policy of the nature of the one they are now pursuing, they were thoroughly well beaten, and we on this side believe that, if they go to the country again with the same policy, they will be beaten again. That may or may not be an accurate forecast, but at any rate it is untrue to say that the policy of Free Trade which we urge from these benches has not received plenty of support in the country in recent years. In 1923 it received the support of the vast majority of the electorate. I want to take exception to the statement that we who argue in favour of Free Trade are antagonistic to productive industry. We are nothing of the sort. Our position is that industry will be more efficient and more productive under a policy of Free Trade than under a policy of Protection.

Mr. SANDEMAN

Tell that to the unemployed.

Major CRAWFURD

I am perfectly willing to tell it to anyone who is unemployed. Hon. Members on the other side, and the Government, during the course of this year, have taken measures to reduce the amount of the payments for unemployment benefit—what is called the dole—and they support that course of action with arguments to the effect that the existence of these payments encourages people to apply for them without giving a fair measure of return for the money and support that they gave I think that that is not a misstatement of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. Our contention is that the giving of a tariff to any set of manufacturers is in principle exactly the same as giving a. dole, but with this difference, that, when you give a dole to men who are out of work, it is done through the House of Commons. The money is raised from the general taxpayer, and the House of Commons has the responsibility of giving it. When you give a manufacturer a tariff, you simply give him permission to put his hand into the pocket of someone else and take a certain amount out of it. On these grounds we on these benches will certainly do all we can to defeat these proposals.

Mr. REMER

The hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat apparently regards a menace to Free Trade as being on a far higher level than a menace to those unfortunate people who are unemployed at the present time.

Major CRAWFURD

No!

Mr. REMER

He has put a number of conundrums to the Front Government Bench about these duties. I wonder if he will answer a question which I will put to him? Can he give us some definition of the position of the Liberal party in the country at the present time? It would seem to me that their policy of undiluted Free Trade, judging from the various elections which have taken place, does not lead them very far as regards support in the country. Furthermore, I cannot understand the hon. and gallant Member's reference to-night to the position in Germany and in other parts of the world. It seems to me that he was standing here in this House of Commons, not merely as representing a constituency in this country, but as representing a set of people in foreign countries.

Major CRAWFURD

I will let the hon. Member's first statement go by, but I really cannot allow a perfectly offensive statement like his second one to pass. May I be allowed to say that what the hon. Member has just said is typical of the kind of prejudice which, as I said a few minutes ago, is created if you try to get foreign evidence? The whole of my argument on that point was directed to the difficulty that is caused by people like the hon. Member, because, the moment you bring any foreigner into the question, prejudice is immediately raised.

Mr. REMER

I did not wish to be offensive to the hon. Member, but when one reads the reports of the evidence which was given before these various Committees, and finds that almost everyone of those who opposed these applications come from the same source, and that the opposition is very largely financed by the importers in this country—

Major CRAWFURD

The London Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. REMER

The importing section of the London Chamber of Commerce.

Major CRAWFURD

It is an insult to the Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. REMER

—and that in every case the counsel briefed in these cases has been either Mr. Pringle or Mr. Entwistle, who are both very well known in this House as Members of the Liberal party, I think we can dismiss the Liberal party as being of no account in this controversy.

The CHAIRMAN

It was agreed that this should be a general discussion, but not a universal one.

Mr. REMER

I have no wish to transgress, but I was tempted to do so by some remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member, and I do not intend to refer to his speech again. I am concerned about the attitude which has been adopted by the Socialist party, because they are the party which is supposed to represent the protection of the working man's wages and the prevention of sweating in this country. How can they come here to-night and say they are going to vote against the duties on cutlery, to name only one instance, when it is shown quite clearly that the wages in the competing country of Germany—[An Hon MEMBER: "And America!"]—-I am talking about the competing country of Germany, which is a very serious item in any case. In the competing country of Germany the wages in that trade are from 8½d. to 9d. or l0d. —I will make the hon. Member a present of the l½d.—while the wages in this country are very considerably higher than that, namely, from Is. l½d. to Is. 6d. in Sheffield. We find, also, that the hours in Germany are 56 per week, as against 47 here. How can hon. Gentlemen opposite come to this House and go to the country and state that they are the people who are obtaining shorter hours and higher wages for the people of this country when they are opposing duties on cutlery imported into this country which are going to be of considerable advantage to the workers of this country? One could go at great length into the same kind of effect which is going to be produced in every one of these trades. In every one of them the competition which the British worker has to meet is that of lower wages and longer hours, and yet here are these so-called champions of the British working man saying that they are in favour of this competition still going on, which will drive the British working man into a state of still lower wages and longer hours and into a state of unemployment.

It is my belief that not one of these duties will do one man, woman or child in this country any harm whatever, and that they are going to do a great many people a great deal of good. We have the examples before us. The same out. cry is raised about these duties that was raised about the Silk Duties, and we know what the effect of these duties has been. [HON. MEMBERS: "More unemployment!"] The effect on a great many workers in my constituency has been of such a character, as the clerk to the board of guardians told me a few days ago, that the destitution in that town has now been reduced to its normal state, instead of the very serious state in which it was before the duties were imposed. I do not propose to go on to discuss them, and I do not think you, Mr. Chairman, would allow me to do so, nor do I propose to deal with the other taxes that have already been put on. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of those people who say that this is simply a jumping-off ground in order to have further taxes put on. I am not, quite rightly, prepared to accept this as a final step. It is only because I believe absolutely and firmly in the efficacy of the general tariff—I believe in the whole thing. Quite frankly I want to say to the Committee that I believe in the whole thing—and because I believe that the results of these taxes is going to be that they are going to show an advantage to this country that I am prepared to take my chance to see how they turn out. [Interruption.] Apparently hon. Members opposite are not prepared, simply for the sake of some theories, to take the risk, fearing that these duties may be of advantage. If they are of advantage they will lead to other duties, no doubt. But if they are not of advantage they will result in the duties themselves eventually being repealed in this country.

As I said, I want to see these duties put on to other things, and, speaking for myself, I want to say to my hon. Friends on the Treasury bench that I am not satisfied with the Board of Trade in the slow way in which they have moved in this matter. So far they have listened too much to the conundrums which have been delivered to the Department by such hon. Members as those who have spoken this evening. I should like to see this matter pushed forward instead of being held back; there has been far too much of a restraining influence. So far from criticising the Board of Trade for going ahead, my criticism is that they have not gone forward quickly enough. For those reasons, I for one, if I had two votes in this House, I would give them every time in support of these duties. I would give them because I believe that the duties are going to be of considerable benefit to the working people of this country. They are going to find employment for people who are at present starving and out of work, and give them the opportunity by which they will eventually live happier and better lives. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members do not want them to lead happier lives. Of this I am certain, that I am not afraid of a fight, and I am certain of this fact, that, when the case comes to be heard, as the result of actual experience, of these duties that have been put on, we will see that the country, with no uncertain voice, will say that they are going to have not merely these duties, but something in the nature of a general tariff.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I wish, if I can, to avoid covering the ground which has already been dealt with in this Debate, but I should like to endeavour to reply to such arguments as have been used, and particularly to certain arguments used by the President of the Board of Trade, to which, up to the present, at any rate while I have been in the House, no reference has been made. One fact to which he referred in his speech is this: There were committees set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in 1922 which reported in favour of tariffs in some of the industries which are now to be granted that treatment. But the peculiar feature of these Reports that have been presented to us is that none of the reasons which were enforced in 1922 are any longer applicable, and that a series of fresh reasons have had to be found.

In 1922 the one reason that in this case a tariff was imposed was that there was a depreciated currency in Germany, and that that was the reason that Germany was obtaining an unfair advantage. The President of the Board of Trade, in his opening speech, and in both his speeches, attempted to deal with that position, and I wish to examine the argument which he placed before the Committee. His argument is that, although there is no longer any depreciation in Germany, although, as the Committee knows, the German mark at the present moment stands, I believe, as a slight premium as against 1913, Germany is still obtaining an unfair advantage as a result of the inflation which she achieved, and through which she went two or three years ago. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade was this, that owing to that inflation—and this argument is used, I think, in some of the Reports—German industry was able to wipe out all its mortgages, all its debentures, and all its fixed interest charges, and that that gives it an advantage against our manufacturers. Hon. Members will recognise that that is a fair statement of the argument. I am not denying that, but I think it does show, to my mind, the fact that there was a bias in these committees when one realises that, while they put these arguments on the one side, they mentioned not one single word of the corresponding effect, on the other side, which inflation in Germany has now left in its train. Nor did the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) knows what these effects are. He knows that the result of inflation in Germany is that there is a lack of capital in every industry in Germany. He knows that it is almost impossible to get credit on any reasonable terms, and he knows that the rate of interest is rising to heights which would appear impossible in this country. I believe at the present moment the bank rate in Germany is 2 per cent. per month. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The bank rate is 2 per cent. per month, and he knows in addition—

Sir F. WISE

Nine per cent. per annum.

Mr. ROY WILSON

May I interrupt the hon. Member. I think he means the rate of interest on commercial advances, not the bank rate of the Reich Bank. That is not 2 per cent. per month, but 9 per cent. The rate for commercial advances in Germany is 12 per cent. per annum.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

The hon. Member evidently speaks with authority. If it is 12 per cent. per annum it shows that in that matter we, in this country, as the result of having escaped inflation, have an enormous advantage over Germany. In addition, the very fact that the class that lived on these debentures and mortgages has disappeared means that the whole weight of taxation has to be, borne by German industry alone, and that again is a disadvantage as compared with the position in this country. The fact that the Reports mention nothing of these counteracting circumstances, although in the opinion of many persons of much greater authority than I possess in this country they have entirely wiped out the advantages of having dispensed with mortgages and debentures, and that they have come to their conclusion without taking them into their reckoning, indicates that they are biased in favour of the applicants, which is to be seen, not only in this, but in all the other paragraphs the Reports contain.

May I examine the statement the President of the Board of Trade made with regard to the actual conditions under which the cutlery trade is carried on in Sheffield. It is perfectly evident, if you read this Report, that the Committee itself was most dubious, not as to the quality of the Sheffield production, but as to the efficiency of their system of mass production as compared with other countries. So dubious were they that they made up their minds to visit Sheffield before they came to their conclusions, and it was only because at the last moment they were hustled to produce their Report in time for this Debate that their visit to Sheffield never took place, and they gave Sheffield this testimonial without having carried out the investigation they originally intended. That is not in the Report, but it is well known, and it will not be contradicted. The Report refers to the Committee that went from Sheffield to Germany and reported that in the matter of plant, equipment, machinery, specialisation and facilities for massed production, Sheffield was not keeping her place in comparison with her competitors in Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was in 1919!"] I have been able to read the evidence that was given, and I find the chairman of that Committee was examined and he was not willing to say that the conditions in Sheffield had improved since that Report was issued. The President of the Board of Trade in reply to these criticisms in the Report made this defence. He said the Sheffield manufacturers have not the cash with which to improve their equipment and plant. If that is so, the question I should like to have answered is, what did they do with the profits Whey made during and immediately after the War, when Sheffield had a monopoly of the home market? The fact is that you get the most extraordinary impression of a Report which is leading up to one conclusion and then goes on to a recommendation opposite to what the paragraphs would lead you to expect.

May I make some explanation of the position that we take on these benches with regard to the question of low wages in other countries? That has been put to us again and again, and the Report on sweated imports and international labour standards, for which we are responsible, has been quoted against as. The position has really been entirely misrepresented by the three speakers who have referred to it. These Reports do not say that if you can find that wages are lower in Germany or Czechoslovakia or Italy or France that is a reason for imposing tariffs. If you take that attitude, that is a reason for imposing tariffs practically on all goods that come into this country from every nation except the United States, and it is a reason why the United States should impose a tariff against us. Coal is a sweated industry from the standpoint of the United States, and, under those circumstances the right action for them to take is to exclude our coal from their markets. That, as a matter of fact, is not the attitude we on these benches take with regard to sweating. We recognise, and the report recognises, that you cannot take wages by themselves. You have to reckon with the cost of living, climate, physical necessities and taxation. The definition of sweating we gave in this report was, as a matter of fact, taken from the Versailles Treaty. It is not the definition hon. Members have quoted. The definition of sweating in this report is a standard of wages lower than those that are recognised in the customary conditions of the country, and that is not the definition that is stated by the Reports of the Committee upon which these duties are founded. Moreover, the attitude we take in that Report is that we are only willing to take action against these goods produced under these conditions in other countries if all other countries do so at the same time. Nothing in our Report justifies individual isolated action by this country alone.

Finally may I explain why we do not accept the argument used by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). Hon. Members continually quote to us the case of the United States and argue that if Protection is good for the United States why should we reject it in this country? The reason we reject it is not a doctrinal or theoretical reason. The reason is that we say the actual commercial and economic conditions of this country are different from the United States and necessitate a different treatment of the problems they present. They are stated in every debate in which we deal with unemployment. It is generally agreed in this country that about half the population are directly or indirectly dependent upon our export trade and can therefore not he assisted, but are only likely to be injured, by any tariff upon imports. Look at the position of employment. At this moment, as every Debate in this House reveals, three-quarters of the unemployed are concentrated in a few industries—iron and steel, shipbuilding, coal, engineering, and so on, industries which are mainly depending for their prosperity upon the export trade.

The question that we put with regard to these proposals is, what benefit are they going to be to the industries which at the present time are bearing the heaviest burden of distress? None at all. They do not touch one of them. All that they do is to impose a burden upon the workers in those industries, to increase their cost of living, and to compel them to pay tribute to these selected industries, practically all of which are in a more fortunate position than themselves. That is why we say these proposals are inapplicable to our conditions, and are a mere mockery when they are offered to the unemployed in this country.

Mr. DIXEY

It is a great privilege to me to take part in this Debate. I had hoped to hear a few better arguments from the Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite in support of their extraordinary conduct in not supporting these Duties. As far as the Liberal party is concerned, I do not know whether there is going to be an arrangement, more or less, in the future between Gentlemen like the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)—whose very moderate opinions on Socialism are well-known—and Gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) who, I have no doubt, has probably more in common with the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer than many of the hon. Members who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that all the speeches made to-day from the Opposition benches have been made by moderate Labour men, and have been more or less in accord with the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and his friends.

Speaking for myself as a whole-hogger Protectionist, I am not ashamed of it. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. It is a mutter that many hon. Gentleman opposite, in years to come, will have to face. There is no question about it, that the people of this country to-day desire to see something done to create fresh employment, and the only way that they see is to give opportunities for fresh work in our industries. These taxes, whether they be big or little, go to show that the Government is taking seriously in hand the, pledge which was definitely given to the people of the country at the last Election. There was nothing more definite than the Prime Minister's pledge. If I may say so, quite frankly, many Conservative candidates at the last. Election would never have supported the Conservative party if there had not been that pledge. There may be hon. Members on this side of the House who do not hold very strong views on this matter, but many loyal supporters of the. Prime Minister do think that the future trade of this country is embraced in the policy of safeguarding industries. We believe that, and no matter how we are laughed at by eloquent theorists— those wonderful business men, many of whom do not get down to the facis and realise that we are losing our trade—we are determined to do the best we can to put our principles into practice and to safeguard our industries.

I was very much amused at the action of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in reading portions of the Report on Cutlery. He read the Report in so far as it suggested that our manufacturers at Sheffield did not adopt the most improved methods, and that they could learn something from their German competitors. He read that paragraph, but he did not read the other paragraphs which more or lees explain the preliminary paragraph. He read the paragraph which says: Machinery is used to a greater extent than in Sheffield, and the processes of manufacture very much sub-divided. All laborious work is eliminated where possible, machines being used for many operations done by hand in Sheffield. It proceeds: The Chairman of the Mission further stated that he had made purchases of machinery in Germany and brought them to England with a view to installing them in some of the Sheffield factories, which had since been done, but with very little advantage to the trade, as he alleged that the use of expensive machinery in Sheffield fac- tories had proved of no avail without an assured home market. That makes all the difference. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer is a theorist in business. I do not think he has ever been engaged in the direction of any big commercial enterprise. I have been very deeply interested in running commercial enterprises [Laughter]. This is no laughing matter; it is common sense. I like these sneers from hon. Members opposite. I cannot believe that they care as much about this question of unemployment that they would have us believe, because they are only too ready to sneer at any remedy that we bring forward. You cannot have an improvement in the trade of this country and you cannot attract capital into the big industries until in some of these hard-hit industries you give some guarantee for future markets. I would far sooner—I am speaking quite candidly—have had a really strong tariff on iron and steel imports than I would have these duties in regard to these small industries. A great deal can come from very small beginnings. [Laughter.] Yes, and I wish I could say the same cheery words to my Friends below the Gangway opposite. This is a start which we welcome. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) said he could not understand on what evidence the Committee had reported. What better evidence could he have than the evidence of trade unionists employed in the cutlery trade, who went for the inquiry and were keenly in favour of these duties as were the employers.

Mr. MACKINDER

I asked the President of the Board of Trade, repeatedly, to lay the evidence so that we could see it. We do not know what evidence has been given.

Mr. DIXEY

May I refer the hon. Member to page 10 of the Report? I take it that this is a true record of what took place. The Committee say: We received valuable evidence on the subject of employment from the witnesses from trade unions. One realises that statements made by trade union witnesses would carry a great deal of truth and would be statements upon which the Committee could rely. The Committee go on to say that there has been a tremendous depletion in this industry, owing to bad competition. When you get evidence of that sort in comparatively small industries such as this, it proves our contention that industry must be protected in this country. To the Government I would say that I shall walk into the Lobby with great pleasure to-night, because these Resolutions show that the Government have realised that they must take this matter in hand. I hope ft is only a small beginning from this point of view.

Dr. HADEN GUEST

We have all listened to-night with very great interest to a large number of speeches from Members on the opposite side who take the greatest interest, as one hon. Member phrased it, in the unemployment and starvation of a large number of men in this country, but I have waited in vain to hear from the other side, and from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whose two speeches I followed very carefully indeed, anything which would really clinch the matter from our point of view. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—it is perhaps within his memory—that on the occasion when the Safeguarding of Industries was discussed in this House in February last, I put certain questions to him and laid especial stress on the importance of raising the standard of life of the worker. I have got a copy of the Report of that discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough, in reply to what I said, to say that all the reasoning of my speech was at the base of the object of this policy.

I have listened to-night, and I have listened in vain, for one single definite reference to any attempt whatsoever to raise the standard of life of the worker. There has not been one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who was formerly President of the Board of Trade, put it across the Table to the right hon. Gentleman some little time ago that, if hon. Members on the other side of the House would propose definitely a high standard of living or a minimum, wage—I forget his precise words—then there might be a basis for some kind of a bargain. But this matter is approached in quite a different way. As far as I can judge, the whole thing is approached almost entirely from the standpoint of the manufacturer and not of the worker. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope he will be able to give some kind of an assurance that what has not been said by one speaker up to the present has only been accidentally forgotten.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

May I say at once that the best thing you can do to raise the standard of living of the worker is to find him work.

Dr. GUEST

We want undoubtedly to find the worker work and on the previous occasion when this matter was debated in the House I think I gave very convincing proof indeed of my sincerity in a desire to discuss any method by which this desirable object could be approached. But I do not think on this occasion that the Government have made out their case. I do not think that they have answered or even attempted to answer the argument from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) with reference to the lace industry, which seemed to me a very convincing argument indeed.

10.0 P.M.

It was asked from the other side tonight why we on this side are opposed to this policy at the present time. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman very plainly why. Because we do not think that your policy will attain the object that you think it will. We do not think it will increase enough the amount of employment and we do not think that it will improve the standard of life. I venture to say that this matter is being approached in the wrong way. You ought, if you are going to make any real progress in this matter, first of all to approach it from the point of view of a guaranteed standard of life for the worker. If the right hon. Gentleman will get up in his place tonight and say he is prepared to guarantee to the workman in any industry the employers of which receive such a very substantial advantage as would be given by a duty imposed under the safeguarding of industries, and if he is prepared to say that he will add to the Bill a provision to guarantee the workers a minimum standard of life, then I think a good many of us on this side would reconsider our attitude towards the matter, but there is no guarantee of that kind whatsoever, [An HON. MEMBER: "What is a minimum standard of life? "] It is as defined by the trade unions in the trades concerned. There are many minimum standards of life already defined, and there is no difficulty about that. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that the President of the Board of Trade is, of course, quite familiar with that particular procedure. We on this side side are not doctrinaire Free Traders, but we are not going to take any kind of suggestion put forward for a change merely because it is a change. It was asked earlier in the course of the Debate by hon. Gentlemen on this side and others: "What is going to be done if these taxes are put on to control a rise of prices?" How are prices going to be dealt with? How is industry really going to be helped? I could not help being very struck indeed on reading the Report of the Cutlery Committee with the paragraph on page 14 dealing with machinery, and I venture to think and I believe all Members of the House who read these Reports, not only that on cutlery but other reports, carefully, will come to the same conclusion, that what a large number of these industries want is a thorough reorganisation not only as regards their machinery but also as regards the organisation of their management. It is in that way that I for my own part would be prepared to attempt to give assistance to industries at the present time. I do not believe at the present moment you are going to achieve anything more than the creation of a series of difficulties by these rather foolish little batches of plasters on our industrial system. You have got a lot of obsolete machinery both in management and actual machinery. You want new machinery, up-to-date machinery, in the organisation and in the management. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know? "] You are not going to—

Mr. LLOYD

How do you know that is so?

Dr. GUEST

The hon. Gentleman asks how I know this. Firstly, by a study of these Reports, and, secondly, by a fairly continuous study on the conditions of industry in this country, not only while I am sitting in this House. We on this side of the House are always endeavouring to increase our knowledge of the industries of this country, and it does seem to me rather ridiculous for any Member in this House to get up and suggest, as an hon. Member has suggested, that there are not industries in this country with obsolete machinery and that there are not industries whose management is completely out of date. That is a matter of common knowledge on these benches and in many other quarters. [An HON. MEMBER: "The General Medical Council."] I hear a reference to the General Medical Council. I do not claim, like the last hon. Gentleman who spoke from the other side and who is a solicitor to be an industrial magnate, but I do claim to have been for many years a student of the industries and economics of this country, and the fact that I am in the House of Commons at the present time shows at any rate that I have a certain amount of interest in these subjects and have given them a certain amount of attention, probably as much as any other hon. Member in this House, [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] What I do suggest is that in this matter the Government have not made out their case.

If they are to get the assent of Members on this side of the Committee to any changes in the direction of the safeguarding of industries, they have to begin not in this way, but by guaranteeing an improved standard of life to the workers One of the reasons why America is so prosperous is that America pays very high wages. When I hear the industrialists on the other side campaigning for higher wages, when I hear them say that there must be no people in misery and destitution in this country, when they realise the elementary fact that the best and the chief market of this country is the home market, and that if that market has not the money to circulate, and if the people living in this country have not the money with which to buy goods, then industry is in a bad way—when I hear them saying that, I shall be readier than I am at the present time to support some of these proposals. I do not believe that these proposals are calculated to help industry seriously, and I do not

think that they really carry out what the President of the Board of Trade said in his speech on 16th February in answer to myself. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the object of safeguarding was to try to maintain higher standards of life in our works. That, indeed, he said, was the very justification for taking as one of the reasons the unfair competition. I regret that this question of getting a higher standard of life has not up to the present been mentioned from the opposite side of the House.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. SNOWDEN

A distinct violation of the bargain made!

Mr. ALEXANDER

It is a perfect scandal!

Mr. HARRIS

We have had a very interesting discussion—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

On a point of Order. I understood that you put the Motion which I ventured to submit to the Chair?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)

I put the Question, "That the Question be now put," and I was proceeding to gather the voices.

Captain BENN (seated and covered)

On a point of Order. Is there anything in the Standing Orders to prevent an hon. Member addressing the House during the course of a Division?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It can be done only on a point of Order.

Mr. MacLAREN

It is a scandalous business!

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 134.

Division No. 436.]	AYES.	[10.8 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James R.	Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Albery, Irving James	Atkinson, C.	Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Blades, Sir George Rowland
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Boothby, R. J. G.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Gretton, Colonel John	Philipson, Mabel
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Grotrian, H. Brent	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Preston, William
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Price, Major C. W. M.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Radford, E. A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Raine, W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hammersley, S. S.	Ramsden, E.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Rees, Sir Beddoe
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Harrison, G. J. C.	Remer, J. R.
Bullock, Captain M.	Haslam, Henry C.	Remnant, Sir James
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hawke, John Anthony	Rentoul, G. S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Rice, Sir Frederick
Butt, Sir Alfred	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Caine, Gordon Hall	Hilton, Cecil	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Campbell, E. T.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cassels, J. D.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Rye, F. G.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Salmon, Major I.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Huntingfield, Lord	Savery, S. S.
Chilcott, Sir Warden	Hurd, Percy A.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Christie, J. A.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew. W.)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Clarry, Reginald George	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Clayton, G. C.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Jephcott, A. R.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Colfox, Major Wm Phillips	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	smith, R. W.(Aberdn & Kinc'dine. C.)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cope, Major William	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Smithers, Waldron
Couper, J. B.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Lamb, J. Q.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Crook, C. W.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	steel, Major Samuel Strang
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Loder, J. de V.	Storry Deans, R.
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Looker, Herbert William	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Lougher, L.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dalziel, Sir Davison	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Davidson, J.(Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Templeton, W. P.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Dixey, A. C.	MacIntyre, Ian	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Drewe, C.	McLean, Major A.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Eden, Captain Anthony	Macmillan, Captain H.	Tinne, J. A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Malone, Major P. B.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Elveden, Viscount	Margesson, Captain D.	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Meller, R. J.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Merriman, F. B.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Fielden, E. B.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Finburgh, S.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Fleming, D. P.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Watts, Dr. T.
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Wells, s. R.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Murchison, C. K.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Nelson, Sir Frank	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Galbraith. J. F. W.	Neville, R. J.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Ganzonl, Sir John	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Gates, Percy.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Wise, Sir Fredric
Gee, Captain R.	Nuttall, Ellis	Wolmer, Viscount
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Oakley, T.	Womersley, W. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Gower, Sir Robert	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Grace, John	Pennefather, Sir John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Penny, Frederick George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Perring, William George	Major Hennessy and Major Sir
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Harry Barnston.

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Sexton, James
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hardle, George D.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Harris, Percy A.	Sitch, Charles H.
Barnes, A.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J.	Hayday, Arthur	Smillie, Robert
Batey, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Briant, Frank	Hirst, G. H.	Snell, Harry
Bromfield, William	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Stamford, T. W.
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhonda's, West)	Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S.	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon James H. (Derby)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Kirkwood, D.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lansbury, George	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Compton, Joseph	Lawson, John James	Thurtle, E.
Connolly, M.	Lowth, T.	Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, W. G.	Lunn, William	Townend, A. E.
Crawfurd, H. E.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dalton, Hugh	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Varley, Frank B.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Mackinder, W.	Viant, S. P.
Day, Colonel Harry	MacLaren, Andrew	Wallhead, Richard C.
Duckworth, John	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Duncan, C.	March, S.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H.	Montague, Frederick	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)	Murnin, H.	Weir, L. M.
Fenby, T. D.	Naylor, T. E.	Westwood, J.
Forrest, W.	Owen, Major G.	Whiteley, W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Palln, John Henry	Wiggins, William Martin
Gillett, George M.	Paling, W.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gosling, Harry	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Potts, John S.	Windsor, Walter
Greenall, T.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wright, W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Ritson, J.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Groves, T.	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Scrymgeour, E.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 143.

Division No. 437.]	AYES.	[10.18 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bullock, Captain M.	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Albery, Irving James	Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Crook, C. W.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Butt, Sir Alfred	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Cane, Gordon Hall	Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Campbell, E. T.	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Atholl, Duchess of	Cassels, J. D.	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Atkinson, C.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Dalziel Sir Davison
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R (Prtsmth. S)	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Davidson, Major-General sir John H.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Ashton)	Davies, Dr. Vernon
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Chapman, Sir S.	Dixey. A. C.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Drewe, C.
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Eden, Captain Anthony
Boothby, R. J. G.	Christie, J. A.	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Clarry, Reginald George	Elveden, Viscount
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Clayton, G. C.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Cockerill, Brigadier-General	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Briscoe, Richard George	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Everard, W. Lindsay
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Cope, Major William	Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Couper, J. B.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Fielden, E. B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Finburgh, S.
Fleming, D. P.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Savery, S. S.
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Foxcroft, Captain c. T.	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew. W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macintyre. Ian	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony	McLean, Major A.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Gabraith, J. F. W.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Ganzoni, Sir John	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Gates, Percy	Malone, Major P. B.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Margesson, Captain D.	Smithers, Waldron
Gee, Captain R.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Meller, R. J.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Gower, Sir Robert	Merriman, F. B.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Grace, John	Meyer, Sir Frank	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Storry Deans, R.
Gretton, Colonel John	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hall, Capt. W A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hammersley, S. S.	Murchison, C. K.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nelson, Sir Frank	Templeton, W. P.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Neville, R. J.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Harrison, G. J. C.	Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Haslam, Henry C.	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Hawke, John Anthony	Nuttall, Ellis	Tinne, J. A.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Oakley, T.	Tichfield, Major the Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Hilton, Cecil	Pennefather, Sir John	Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.
Holland, Sir Arthur	Penny, Frederick George	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Perring, William George	Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Philipson, Mabel	Warrender, Sir Victor
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb,, N.)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Preston, William	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Price, Major C. W. M.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hume, Sir G. H.	Radford, E. A.	Watts, Dr. T.
Huntingfield, Lord	Raine, W.	Wells, S. R.
Hurd, Percy A.	Ramsden, E.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hurst, Gerald B.	Rees. Sir Beddoe	White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Remer, J. R.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Remnant, Sir James	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Jephcott, A. R.	Rentoul, G. S.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Rice, Sir Frederick	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Wolmer, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Womersley, W. J.
Lamb, J. Q.	Rye. F. G.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Salmon, Major I.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Locker-Lampson, G (Wood Green)	Sandeman, A. Stewart	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Looker, Herbert William	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Captain Hacking and Major
Lougher, L.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Hennessy.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Charleton, H. C.	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Clowes, S.	Gillett, George M.
Ammon, Charles George	Cluse, W. S.	Gosling, Harry
Attlee, Clement Richard	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Compton, Joseph	Graham, Rt. Hon- Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Baker, Waiter	Connolly, M.	Greenall, T.
Barnes, A.	Cove, W. G.	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Barr, J.	Crawfurd, H. E.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Batey, Joseph	Dalton, Hugh	Groves, T.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Grundy, T. W.
Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Day, Colonel Harry	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Briant, Frank	Duckworth, John	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Broad. F. A.	Duncan, C.	Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Bromfield, William	Dunnico, H.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bromley, J.	Edwards, U. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hardie, George D.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Edwards, John H. (Accrington)	Harris, Percy A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	England, Colonel A.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Buchanan. G.	Fenby, T. D.	Hayday, Arthur
Cape, Thomas	Forrest, W.	Hayes, John Henry

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Palin, John Henry	Taylor, R. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Paling, W.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Hirst, G. H.	Ponsonby, Arthur	Thomson Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Potts, John S.	Thurtie, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Tinker, John Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Ritson, J	Townend, A. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Eland)	Varley, Frank B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Viant, S. P.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wallhead, Richard C.
Kelly, W. T.	Scrymgeour, E.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Kennedy, T.	Scurr, John	Warne, G. H.
Kirkwood, D.	Sexton, James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lansbury, George	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Lawson, John James	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Lowth, T.	Sitch, Charles H.	Weir, L. M.
Lunn, William	Slesser, Sir Henry H.	Westwood, J
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Smillie, Robert	Whiteley, W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Wiggins, William Martin
Mackinder, W.	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
MacLaren, Andrew	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Snell, Harry	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
March, S.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip	Windsor, Walter
Montague, Frederick	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)	Wright, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Murnin, H.	Stamford, T. W.
Naylor, T. E.	Stephen, Campbell	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)	Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert
Owen, Major G.	Sutton, J. E.	Hutchison.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I want to move this Motion to draw the attention of the Committee to the very unfair way in which this business is being arranged by the Government. I do not at all want to get away from the decision which you, Mr. Hope, gave in the Chair for the convenience of the Committee that we should proceed to the first Amendment on the Cutlery Resolution, and have our general discussion on the first Amendment. But there were none of us who imagined that, when we agreed to that, the Government would move the Closure on such an important Debate as was taking place at 10 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN

It has been ruled by Mr. Speaker, and by previous Speakers, that once a Closure Motion has been passed, it is not in order to comment upon it. It is the act of the House, and no comment either upon it or the action of the Chair can be made except by formal Resolution.

Captain BENN

Although, of course, I recognise that your ruling is supported by many precedents, may I draw attention to a very recent precedent in a ruling given by your Deputy in the Chair, Captain FitzRoy, to the effect that while you cannot discuss the conduct of the Chair in giving the Closure, you may discuss the propriety of the Government's action in moving it.

The CHAIRMAN

I have not in mind the ruling in question, but the bulk of the precedents is against that view, and certainly I am bound by them.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I fail to see how we can make any real progress in order to maintain the rights and privileges of the House, unless after such action we can comment on the propriety of the Government's action.

The CHAIRMAN

The only protest that can be made is to put down a Motion of Censure against the Chair, as was done recently.

Mr. THOMAS

Surely the action of the Government is not only most unfair, but it reflects, or rather suggests that the Opposition is reflecting upon the Chair. But our complaint is not upon the conduct of the Chair. Your duty was to accept the Motion. You have no alternative but to accept the Motion made by the Government. Our protest is not against you, but against the Government. We are merely, by way of suggestion, asking what means are open to us, not to protest against your conduct, Sir, but the conduct of those who have deliberately—

The CHAIRMAN

The Speaker has ruled that anybody can move the Closure at any time, and that it is entirely within the responsibility of the Chair as to whether or not it should be granted. I am only now stating what has happened throughout the course of my Parliamentary life from time to time and probably will happen in the future.

Mr. THOMAS

We quite appreciate the magnanimous way in which you are saving the Government, Sir, but your magnanimity does not in the least—

The CHAIRMAN

My duty is not from motives of magnanimity or otherwise to carry out a certain line of action, but to carry out the Rules of the House. Mr. Speaker has laid down again and again that any censure on the Chair can only be by formal resolution.

Mr. ALEXANDER

We have no desire to comment upon the action of the Chair, and I have, no desire to prolong what I have to say from that point of view, but certain of us, especially those of us who represent Sheffield, wanted to speak upon the points that relate to the trade of Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman opposite allows one Member of his own side to be called on, and then the Closure is moved before the Opposition can make any reply to the points raised. I think it is a perfectly unfair action.

The CHAIRMAN

It has been held over and over again that it is entirely in the responsibility of the Chair as to the acceptance or otherwise of the Closure.

An HON. MEMBER

And they know it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I do so on quite different grounds to those already stated. We are now deal-

ing with proposals for adding to the revenue of the year, and for imposing charges on the subjects. That is not a matter which concerns the Board of Trade alone. It is primarily the concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be engaged elsewhere on important duty, but it is contrary to the custom of this House-I should say for at least three generations-that a matter of this sort should be discussed in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not been here since the beginning of the sitting to-day. If he could not attend owing to the pressure of other duties, he has at all events the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is specially charged with the duty of introducing Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. We have been labouring under the disadvantage of no guidance whatever from the Treasury, and the revenue which will be raised by these duties, if they go through, will tend to disturb the balance of the year. No statement has been made. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade cannot make a statement on the subject, as it does not come within his province. He cannot be expected to do it. The only man capable of doing that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in his absence and in the absence of any other representative of the Treasury, I beg to move.

The CHAIRMAN

Under Standing Order No. 3, I will now put the Question to the Committee.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137: Noes, 259.

Division No. 438.]	AYES.	[10.35 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Edwards, John H. (Accringion)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Buchanan, G.	England, Colonel A.
Ammon, Charles George	Cape, Thomas	Fenby, T. D.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Charleton, H. C.	Forrest, W.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)	Clowes, S.	Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Baker, Walter	Cluse, W. S.	Gillett. George M.
Barnes, A.	Compton. Joseph	Gosling, Harry
Barr, J.	Connolly, M.	Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Batey, Joseph	Dalton, Hugh	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Greenall, T.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Day, Colonel Harry	Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Briant, Frank	Duckworth, John	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Broad, F. A.	Duncan, C.	Groves, T.
Bromfield, William	Dunnico, H.	Grundy, T. W.
Bromley, J.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)	Stephen, Campbell
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Murnin, H.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Naylor, T. E.	Sutton, J. E.
Hardie, George D.	Owen, Major G.	Taylor, R. A.
Harris, Percy A.	Palin, John Henry	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Paling, W.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Hayday, Arthur	Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Hayes, John Henry	Ponsonby, Arthur	Thurtie, E.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Potts, John S.	Tinker, John Joseph
He person, T. (Glasgow)	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Townend, A. E.
Henn, sir Sydney H.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Hirst, G. H.	Ritson, J.	Varley, Frank B.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Viant, S. P.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter	Warne, G. H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Scrymgoour, E.	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Kelly, W. T.	Scurr, John	Weir, L. M.
Kennedy, T.	Sexton, James	Westwood, J.
Kirkwood, D.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Whiteley, W.
Lansbury, George	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Wiggins, William Martin
Lawson, John James	Sitch, Charles H.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lowth, T.	Slesser, Sir Henry H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lunn. William	Smillie, Robert	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Windsor, Walter
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)	Wright, W.
Mackinder, W.	Snell, Harry	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
MacLaren. Andrew	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
March, S.	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles	Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert
Montague, Frederick	Stamford, T. W.	Hutchison.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Couper, J. B.	Gretton, Colonel John
Albery, Irving James	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Grotrian, H. Brent
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Atholl, Duchess of	Crook, C. W.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Atkinson, C.	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hammersley, S. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Harrison, G. J. C.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Haslam, Henry C.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Dalziel, Sir Davison	Hawke, John Anthony
Bethell, A.	Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Betterton, Henry B.	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Hilton, Cecil
Boothby, R. J. G.	Dixey, A. C.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Drewe, C.	Holland, Sir Arthur
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Briscoe, Richard George	Elveden, Viscount	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hume, Sir G. H.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Huntingfield, Lord
Bullock, Captain M.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hurst, Gerald B.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Fielden, E. B.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Finburgh, S.	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Fleming, D. P.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Jephcott, A. R.
Cane, Gordon Hall	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Campbell, E. T.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Cassels, J. D.	Fraser, Captain Ian	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)	Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Knox, Sir Alfred
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Ganzoni, Sir John	Lamb, J. O.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Gates, Percy	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Chapman, Sir S.	Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Gee, Captain R.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Chilcott, Sir Warden	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Christie, J. A.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Loder, J. de V.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Looker, Herbert William
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Gower, Sir Robert	Lougher, L
Clarry, Reginald George	Grace, John	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Clayton, G. C.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Lumley, L. R.

Mac Andrew, Charles Glen	Radford, E. A.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart)	Raine, W.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Ramsden, E.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Macintyre, Ian	Reid, Capt. A. S.C.(Warrington)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
McLean, Major A.	Remer, J. R.	Templeton, W. P.
Macmillan, Captain H.	Remnant, Sir James	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Rentoul, G. S.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Rice, Sir Frederick	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Malone, Major P. B.	Roberts, E. H. G.(Flint)	Tinne, J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E.A.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Meller, R. J.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Turton, Edmund Russborough
Merriman, F. B.	Salmon, Major I.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Meyer, Sir Frank	Samuel, A.M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J.T.C.	Savery, S. S.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W.(Carlisle)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Watts, Dr. T.
Murchison, C. K.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)	Wells, S. R.
Nelson, Sir Frank	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Neville, R.J.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Williams, Com. C.(Devon, Torquay)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Nuttall, Ellis	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Oakley, T.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Winby, Colonel L. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.- Colonel George
Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Pennefather, Sir John	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Wolmer, Viscount
Penny, Frederick George	Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)	Womersley, W. J.
Perring, William George	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Philipson, Mabel	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Pilcher, G.	Storry Deans, R.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Preston, William	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Major Cope and Major Hennessy.
Price, Major C. W. M.

Mr. DALTON

I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the words "thirty-three and one-third," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."

The whole basis of this extraordinary White Paper is an increase in German imports. I hope the representatives of the Government, who have so speedily brought the general discussion to a, conclusion, will tell us, when they reply on this Amendment, what else they expected to happen as a result of the Dawes plan -whether it is not to be expected, if reparations are paid by Germany, that German imports into this and other countries, of cutlery as well as other articles, will increase. I submit that this increase of German imports is no ground for putting on this duty. Further, looking at page 6 of this document, I find that figures are quoted regarding the increase of German imports, in the first place during the years of the depreciation of the mark. It has, however, become known to the Committee of three wise persons who drew up this Report that the German mark has become stabilised, and attention is drawn to the fact that the stabilization of the German mark— I am now quoting from the White Paper—has—

At this point Mr. Churchill left the Chamber.—[Interruption.]

Mr. LANSBURY

On a point of Order. Is it in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give the working classes such an exhibition of ca' canny as this?

Mr. DALTON

I quite sympathise with the painful feelings which this discussion must arouse in the breast of the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his past utterances upon this topic. I was observing, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer left the Front Bench-[Interruption]-I shall speak in my own time, and not in the time of hon. Members opposite. Interruptions from the other side will merely prolong my remarks. I am quite prepared to speak in the intervals of hon. Members' interruptions, until such time as the Government shall again move the Closure on the discussion, instead of making a reasoned reply. I was saying-[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]

Mr. BUCHANAN

The House is bad enough, but they are not daft enough to make you speak up!

Mr. DALTON

I was pointing out, when the hon. Member enlivened our proceedings, that the stabilisation of the mark has come to the knowledge of the three persons who signed this Report. I believe it came to their knowledge after they had the Report in draft. They observe on page 6 that The stabilisation of the mark has been too recent to permit the testing of the course of imports under these new conditions. If this be so, I submit that this Report should not have been issued at all until we had had some opportunity of testing the course of imports under the new conditions. That admission itself is quite enough to knock the bottom out of the case for a 33⅓ per cent. duty. Continuing on the same page, we find certain figures set out which are supposed to show the proportion of the home production of cutlery to the export trade. The Committee practically admit that they were unable to obtain any reliable figures on this point. The utmost they could do was to obtain a few of what they called sample figures from one or two. firms, eight firms in all, and they admit that this is not an ideal method of obtaining the figures of production of an industry, with which I entirely agree. They say that in the absence of an official census of production since 1907 they could not do any better. I believe the President of the Board of Trade has been arranging for a census of production to be issued before long, and it might have been better to postpone this Report, until the accurate figures were obtainable. On the figures, such as they are put in here, I submit that no proper case can be made out for this 33⅓ duty.

Turn to page 8 of the White Paper. It appears that a number of the goods imported from Germany in the cutlery line belong to a class altogether inferior to those manufactured in this country. The argument was quoted here to show that these goods are not supplementary to Sheffield goods at all, but that they satisfy a new market which has only been brought into existence since the War. It therefore follows that the result of putting on this duty, so far as that line of argument is correct, will not be to give any assistance to the British cutlery industry at all, but will simply be to knock on the head a market in cheap cutlery established since the War for the benefit of poorer purchasers. The effect of this duty, in other words, will not be to benefit the industry, but to penalise a number of working-class purchasers who have been able to buy a number of these cheap foreign goods although they were not able to buy the Sheffield product. Farther than that, we have always been told that it is not the object of the Government to give protection to any industries which were not efficient. We should have looked therefore in this Report for some evidence of the efficiency of the Sheffield industry. The utmost we get in this direction is an admission at the bottom of page 8 that under present conditions "much of the machinery is modern and highly efficient." What about the rest? What have the great captains of industry been doing in Sheffield, whose machinery is, according to this Report, neither modern nor highly efficient? They are to share the benefit of this duty with others, when they have not been doing their duty by keeping their machinery and processes up to the mark of modern requirements.

If we turn further to page nine, we get an argument based upon unemployment— or I will not say an argument based upon employment but an argument supposed to have some connection with unemployment. This Committee of wise men, or of two wise men and one wise woman, who have drawn up this Report, say: We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment in the cutlery industry. They give reasons why not, and they say further that there are difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics at the present time. On the basis of that very flimsy argument, they say that they are satisfied that the acuteness of the present unemployment is directly due to the competition which we have found to exist. I submit that a case which is so loosely argued as that is not deserving of any consideration from this House.

I think that I shall be within the Rules of Order in adding this observation that, in so far as there is unemployment, and admittedly there is great unemployment in Sheffield at the present time, one of the main reasons for that has not anything to do with this German competition at all. One of the main reasons is the very high rates which are being charged in Sheffield, as in other necessitous areas, and Sir Arthur Balfour has continually stated that the industry of Sheffield is being depressed at this moment more by this factor of high rates than by anything else. It is in the relief of those rates that the relief of unemployment is to be found.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think it would be in order to suggest any such method as affecting the cutlery trade.

Mr. ALEXANDER

On a point of Order. I am concerned with your ruling, because of the specific case of Sheffield. Are we to understand that in discussing what is put forward as the specific remedy of the Government for the great unemployment so prevalent in the city I represent, we are not entitled to comment on alternative methods of curing unemployment?

The CHAIRMAN

That would not be in Order.

Mr. DALTON

The sole point I was desirous of making was that in so far as this duty which I am proposing to modify, is put forward on behalf of the Government as a remedy for unemployment in Sheffield, it is not a remedy which will touch the spot. That was as far as I proposed to proceed in developing that particular line of argument. But there is a very remarkable passage on page 11 of the White Paper, in which attempts have been made to develop the supposed advantages which Germany possesses at present in competition in the cutlery industry. Reference is again made to the depreciation of currency.

Mr. G. BALFOUR

On a point of Order. Is it not the case that the only matter before the Committee is the effect on any portion of the country, including Sheffield, of the difference between 5 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent.?

The CHAIRMAN

Obviously, as I understand the hon. Member's arguments, they were directed to showing that there was no need for a protective duty. I do not know whether he is going to proceed to argue that it would be a good thing to put on a revenue duty.

Mr. DALTON

Do I understand you to say it would or would not be in order to ask for a revenue duty?

The CHAIRMAN

I would not shut the hon. Member out if he wishes to argue in favour of a revenue duty.

Mr. DALTON

Although it was not clear to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), it was clear to most other Members that what I was arguing was that there was no case made in this White Paper that a protective duty of 33⅓ per cent. is going to be any cure for unemployment or for the ills from which Sheffield is suffering under a Tory Government. I was drawing attention, when the hon. Member interrupted the Debate, to a statement on page 11 which purported to show certain advantages that Germany possesses in competition with this country. In order to make it clear to the hon. Member, who did not understand the trend of my argument before, I hasten to say the purpose of the argument I am going to address to the Committee is to show that the alleged German advantages on page 11 in competition with the Sheffield cutlery trade are not advantages which justify a protective duty such as is now proposed. One of the points here mentioned relates to social insurance. This is given as an argument in favour of a protective duty. "The difference in social insurance payable by the employer between the two countries of 10d. per man per week, a difference shortly to be increased by the payments under the new Pensions Act." That is a most extraordinary argument to produce in this connection. It is one in no way peculiar to the Sheffield cutlery industry. It might be used for the protection of any "British industry whatever, regardless of any other circumstances, against any imports from Germany.

11.0 P.M.

I can only suppose that one of the purposes behind the introduction of the Pensions Act, if this argument were followed, is to justify the safeguarding of every industry on the ground that the new Pensions Act, passed by this Government, imposes so heavy a burden upon employers that they are no longer able to maintain their markets under Free Trade. I have no doubt that that argument, if used in future oases, will enable the Government to safeguard every industry in the country without bringing in a Measure of general Protection. In the opinion of one of its supporters, it would justify the Government in safeguarding every industry. The Prime Minister has just entered the House. He will be glad to hear the interpretation placed upon the pledge given by him in good faith at the last General Election, which implied an admission that there was a great difference between Safeguarding and Protection. This argument has no reference whatever to the Sheffield cutlery trade as distinct from other industries, but refers equally to the whole of the industries in the country.

The last point I will submit to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear! "] I am encouraged by hon. Members opposite to proceed to deal with one or two more points. In view of the appreciation shown on the benches opposite, I venture to expand the argument suggested by the Chair, that a Revenue Duty on cutlery might be a legitimate weapon for raising money for public services. That is a point which may commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary. I can well understand that after the last Budget, in which very large remissions of taxation were given to the Super-tax and the Income Tax payers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now searching for other means of imposing Duties upon articles consumed by the poorest people. That is very intelligible,. particularly when we look at the state of the revenue accounts, in which the deficit up to date is somewhere in the neighbourhood of between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN

That point is not relevant to this Amendment.

Captain BENN

May I respectfully submit that the character of the duty levied will govern the amount of the tax collected and has a direct relation to the deficit.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot take the occasion of the discussion on this Amendment to go into the question as to whether there will be a probable deficit or surplus at the end of the financial year.

Mr. DALTON

With great respect, the argument I was endeavouring to put was that in the very critical circumstances of the moment, which have been growing more critical in recent weeks when the deficit has been increasing owing to the bad estimating of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in contrast with the very accurate estimating which we enjoyed last year under the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is very natural that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look more favourably than he might have done a little while ago at the possibility of raising revenue by a duty of this character, in order that he might make up the very large and growing deficit which every week expands, and horrifies the readers of the financial Press. I am hopeful that we may yet hear from the Chancellor himself his own view upon this very grave matter. The final point to which I was coming a little while ago, when hon. Gentlemen opposite encouraged me to proceed further—and if they wish me to introduce further points I shall be delighted to take up any case— was to draw attention to the "Times'' report issued the day before it was announced that this protective duty was going to be imposed, in which a number of Sheffield manufacturers loudly proclaimed that this duty would be no use to them at all. That is a point which we should surely bear in mind in considering this. The Sheffield manufacturers are not at all agreed that the 33⅓ per cent. duty is what they want. They say it is not nearly enough, and that in order to safeguard them against the troubles from which they suffer the duty should be far more than 33⅓ per cent., and in view of that I venture to submit that the Government should reconsider the whole matter.

In the meantime the Amendment I am proposing gives them an opportunity to accept 5 per cent. in order to reconsider the whole matter in consultation with their friends the Sheffield manufacturers, and of bringing in at a later date a much better thought out and carefully prepared plan. For these reasons I have much pleasure in moving the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)

May I at once say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For one reason and another 33⅓ per cent. has been advised by the Committee. I want to say in reply to the reference made by the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), as to the effect of the Dawes scheme on German reparations, that under the Treaty provision is made to pay ourselves and others some part of the reparation payments stipulated for by the Treaty, and if we are to receive such payment it will either add to the excess of our imports over our exports, or we can acquire titles to property abroad, and should that property be remunerative it will in due course involve actual payments.

Mr. BARNES

On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Dawes Report or the question of the 33i per cent. duty?

The CHAIRMAN

It has been contended that a duty of this kind was contrary to the policy of the Dawes Report.

Sir B. CHADWICK

I am replying to the question put to me by the Member for Peckham. These additional imports need not come here direct from Germany. Germany may develop her exports in other countries and she would in turn receive the equivalent value in goods. I am not going to make a long speech, but will only say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE

I was hoping that there was one thing which the hon. Gentleman would have given, and that was some reason for the 33⅓ per cent. The remarkable thing about the two reports that we are getting is the curious non sequitur between the arguments and the conclusions. We have a mass of writing produced, and then at the end the paper. But I have not seen any suggestions relating that figure to anything that we find in this document. I want to apply my mind and the mind of the House to this important question of the amount of duty. I turn first to page 11: The main evidence advanced by the applicants was under sub-heading (c) in respect of wages and hours of work, and it is on the basis of the difference in wages between the British worker and the German worker that 33⅓ per cent. is put forward. Let us see the evidence. The Report says: We endeavoured to ascertain whether the wages in the cutlery industry in Solingen were, in fact, the same as those for the metal industry generally. We ascertain from the Ministry of Labour that, so far as they were aware, no wages data regarding the German cutlery industry proper were published. We had to assume, therefore, that the metal workers' rates applied to cutlery workers. There is not as much evidence in this Report as would serve the Home Secretary to charge the Communists with high treason. What we have here is some vague reference to the wages of certain workmen in Germany, who are not the workers concerned in the cutlery trade. We are not given anything relating those figures to the figures of the workers in this country. We are not shown what the workers' conditions are, and in the wage contract, after all, you have to consider conditions as well as money. The Report is very vague on the subject of hours; there is no information at all as to how many workers get this wage and how many get that wage. Then at the end the Report says that the conditions in Germany are so different as to render the competition unfair. That is one of the most remarkable conclusions that any Committee has ever reached on such extraordinarily scanty evidence.

Let me take a further point with regard to the condition of the Sheffield industry. I do not happen to come from Sheffield, but I am accustomed to trying to appreciate evidence, and I see no evidence here to show whether the Sheffield industry is efficient or inefficient. I do know that Sheffield is in a bad way to-day. I also know that the Sheffield capitalists are people who did uncommonly well out of the War. I want to know something about the overhead charges in the Sheffield industry. There is not a word from beginning to end of this Report as to the financing of the Sheffield industry. After all, what is the conclusion to which the Report came? It is Chat without this duty they cannot carry on their industry at a profit. What do they mean by profit? Does profit mean the remuneration of the people who are actually working in the trade, or a profit on the capital invested? If so, we are entitled to have here something with regard to the capitalisation of the industry.

Everyone knows that in other industries that are hard hit, notably the coal, iron and steel industries, over and over again the capital has been watered and watered. Then these manufacturers and capitalists came crying out: "We cannot make a profit on our enormous watered capital.'' There is not a word as to that here. Therefore, when we come to look at the figure of 33⅓ per cent. it has to stand by itself as some kind of blessed number. I suppose it must be some number that is particularly dear to the Tariff Reformer's heart. There is no evidence here in support of 33⅓ per cent. The Committee say; We consider a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would be reasonably sufficient to countervail the unfair competition, and we recommend that such duty should be imposed for a period of at least five years. There are no figures to show the difference in the prices charged. There is no evidence to show that 33⅓ per cent. will exactly countervail the difference in wages. There is no evidence to show that these wages are stabilised; there is no evidence to show that prices are going to be stabilised. We have got nothing from the Parliamentary Secretary. He made no attempt to defend the duty, and we had not the pleasure of hearing the President of the Board of Trade. I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary was extremely wise because we got nothing from the President of the Board of Trade. This Committee is asked to put on this heavy duty, on the strength of this extraordinarily flimsy Report. I am not blaming the people who were called upon to do this job, but I do say that if hon. Members opposite wanted a Report on an indutry as to how it was carried on, and if they put an employé on to the job of making such a Report and he produced a thing like this, they would give him "the sack" at once.

Captain BENN

The Parliamentary Secretary has made one of his very willing and helpful speeches and has told us what, in his opinion, would be the effect of this new duty on the Dawes annuities. That point is worth examination because a great many issues hang upon the punctual fulfilment of the payments due under the Dawes scheme. As the Committee will remember, after the London Conference of last year, a new Scheme was instituted for the extraction of reparations from Germany. In place of the old scheme by which Germany paid one sum in respect of reparations through a Commission and paid separately for Commissions, armies of occupation, sundry charges for private debts and so on, the whole indebtedness of Germany was consolidated and made payable to an Agent-General for reparations, who himself has to transmit the reparations collected to the various creditors of the German Reich. That was the situation in 1924, and a certain figure was fixed, rising ultimately on the basis of an increase in prosperity to £165,000,000 a year, in which we participated—

The CHAIRMAN

I presume the hon. and gallant Member intends to show the bearing of this upon the question of whether the duty should be 33⅓ per cent.

Captain BENN

I am coming to the point. Of the total annuity, which at present runs to about £50,000,000—I have not the exact figure—we are to get under the Spa percentages, 22 per cent., and the remainder is to be distributed among our Allies, France getting the major share. The hon. gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. If they want reparations they must have German goods. If they do not want German goods, they cannot have reparations—and that is the bearing of the Dawes Scheme upon this proposed duty of 33⅓ per cent. What does the Board of Trade want? Is it desired that these goods should come in, but in less quantities? I put that question to the President of the Board of Trade—or perhaps I should address it to the Parliamentary Secretary who seems to be less pre-occupied. Is it, in his view, right that German goods should come in to the same extent? Does he anticipate the same flow of German goods? If he wants the reparations, he must have the same flow of German goods, and then he cannot assist the Sheffield makers. If he is going to prevent the inflow of German goods by imposing this heavy, this primitive duty of 33J per cent., he is himself destroying the efficacy of the very Dawes plan to which so many people attach importance and with which indeed the future peace of Europe is very much wrapped up, because if there is default in the Dawes annuities, there is great likelihood of disputes between the Allies, so that the bearing of the Dawes annuities, as the Parliamentary Secretary rightly apprehended, is very close to the application of such duties as these to Gentian goods.

This duty is one of the same amount as is levied on a great number of other articles which come from abroad. Under what used to be called the McKenna Duties and under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, 33⅓ per cent. was the normal duty. I have heard it stated that the right hon. Gentleman is using these duties for the purpose of bargaining with the Germans in connection with the Commercial Treaty. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) made a very eloquent speech earlier in the evening, in which he said that there was a great improvement in the piano trade because of the 33⅓ per cent. duty imposed upon foreign pianos by the McKenna Duties. Is the hon. Member aware that it is said that his leader, the President of the Board of Trade, is at this moment negotiating in order to get over the harm which this proposal is doing to Anglo-German commercial relations, to lower the duty on pianos, and when I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is true he is not prepared to get up and give us any information or even to deny the rumour.

The CHAIRMAN

I should have to stop the right hon. Gentleman if he attempted to make any such statement.

Captain BENN

I am sure he would be very grateful for your protection. Now, I come to a further point, and that is whether or not this 33⅓ per cent. duty can be supposed to effect in any way the purpose which the President of the Board of Trade desires, and whether it would not be wiser to adopt the suggestion in the Amendment, and, if you must impose a duty, impose a Revenue duty of 5 per cent. I will take some of the articles mentioned in the Resolution, and tell the Committee what the cost of production of these articles is in Sheffield and what the wholesale price is of the articles coming from Germany. I say that the articles are not the same. I say that there is no comparison between a first-class pair of Sheffield scissors and the cheap scissors you can buy at a 6d. bazaar. The President and the Committee say they look the same, and therefore they are the same, but that is not a sound argument, of course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may look like a Protectionist and be a Free Trader. That is one of the problems which hon. Members opposite have to face, and the hardship of his absence, though it bears very heavily on us, must be far more disquieting to those hon. Members who see in his retreat a definite dissociation of himself from this scheme of duties proposed by the President of the Board of Trade.

Let me take some of these articles. Take a razor. If it is manufactured in Sheffield, £l 9s. 11d. a dozen is the wholesale selling price in London, and the wholesale price of a German razor is 9s. a dozen. A 33⅓ per cent. duty on a 9s. razor would bring it up to 12s., and how can the President argue that by raising that price to 12s., which he admits that you do, it is going to help a Sheffield manufacturer? I will take, for the special benefit of the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine), another similar case. Let me take another case— a German razor. Here, again, the figures are similar. The wholesale selling price for the article supplied by Sheffield manufacturers is £2, whereas that of the German article is 15s. 9d. With the 33⅓ per cent., the price is brought up to £1. How can the President of the Board of Trade say that the 33⅓ per cent. is going to do anything for the Sheffield firms? It is going to do nothing for them. What it is going to do is to raise the price of the razor to the poor man who buys a cheap razor. It is not going to be of the least assistance to Sheffield firms who are making a different razor of a much higher class, which people who have the means would far rather buy than the cheap German article.

Take the case of manicure scissors. Here, again, we have the Sheffield people telling us that the price before the War was 22s. 8d. a dozen. Since the War it is 36s. 8d. The German scissors, which are described as being the same, but are in reality different, are 7s. 9d. a dozen. We may think it is very wrong for the Germans to supply our poor people with cheap scissors, but, really, are we going to assist the Sheffield manufacturers by asking poor girls who buy these manicure scissors to pay 10s. instead of 7s. 9d.? The Sheffield firm cannot possibly compete, as the price there is 36s. 8d. What you are doing is not assisting Sheffield, but taxing the poor. Hon. Members have never really faced the issue that Germany is supplying something really different from the British article. There is as much difference between the best Sheffield cutlery and German cutlery of this cheap sort as there is between a Titan and an olio. They look alike, and hon. Members may say they are alike, but they are different articles, and you do not improve the position of the Sheffield manufacturer by putting on a tax, while, at the same time, you make it very much harder for the poor people who have to buy these goods.

I have just one further word upon the rate of duty. How much is going to be raised? Here we are going to have a revenue duty imposed without a single man on the opposite front bench who can tell us how it is going to be collected! What is the yield going to be? The matter of these various duties is one of importance for the House of Commons. It must be remembered that in 1860 all these pettifogging revenue and finance duties were brought together by Mr. Gladstone. We are now witnessing the breaking-up of the system by a number of separate and small Bills. It is going to be a serious thing for the House of Commons if to-day the President of the Board of Trade, to-morrow the Minister of Transport, and the next day the Minister of Agriculture is to be permitted to come to a Committee of Ways and Means, the most solemn assembly of all our assemblies in the House of Commons, and is going to ask us to impose taxes, and we are going to have the transient appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to desire to show his contempt for the whole of the scheme! How much is this going to yield? Does the President of the Board of Trade know? He cannot answer! It is not his business to answer! All I do know is that if the result is going to work out on the basis of the imports of last year, valued at £367,000, against £1,750,000 exports—the figures of the White Paper—a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will give a revenue of, roughly, £100,000. If it is to be effective it will mean a rise in the cost of the home production. What does that mean? That means that this Resolution may be putting £100,000 into the pockets of the Treasury, and that a proportionate sum will be taken out of the pockets of the Consumer.

Mr. GEORGE BALF0UR

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has given us, in his usual engaging manner, some of the old arguments. What are the real facts of the case? Is it true what he said as to the poor girl that went into a shop to buy a pair of scissors? Certainly not! She goes into the shop, quite innocently, to purchase, what she believes the article she requires, and probably imagines that it is of British workmanship. I know many cases of hardworking girls who would scorn to buy if they knew the article came from a German workshop. I would forgive them if, in fact, they obtained the benefit of the difference between 10s. a dozen and 20s. or 30s. a dozen. Do they? They get a paltry few pence difference in price, and are deceived between the British and the German article. When the plea is made from the Radical Benches opposite that they wish to give the consumer a cheap article, let me ask these honourable enthusiasts where the people obtain the money which they pay across the counter? It comes from their wages. Where do their wages come from? [Interruption.] Hon. Members above the Gangway opposite are not responsible for the provision of the employment on which wages depend. We have to see that industry is maintained that money may be put into the pockets of the people with which to purchase these articles.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is pursuing a general argument. We are on the subject of cutlery.

Mr. BALFOUR

I am profoundly sorry that I have strayed from the subject. The arguments which I submitted relate to the maintenance of a duty of 33⅓ per cent., which has been arrived at, it is quite true, in a very rough and ready fashion—as a trial—to see whether or not it will meet the case—whether by the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. or some such duty, we shall be able so to sustain our industries that our workers can get wages to pay across the counter the price of a good, honest British article made by British workers in British workshops. That, I trust, is an argument well within the scope of the Amendment before the Committee. The real business before the Committee is the Amendment to the Government Motion. The object of the Government Motion is to give support to British industry in order that workers may be kept in our workshops and have wages which will allow them to buy something, preferably British goods.

There is one other thing, and it is the last word, for I have no intention of making a speech. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Go on"]. I have not the slightest intention of responding to the desires of hon. Members opposite. In these concluding observations I simply wish to say that I hope every working man in the country will pay strict attention to the levity on the Socialist benches. I challenge hon. Members on those benches to produce one solid, reasoned argument to which we can respond. In all seriousness, have they put up in opposition to our view one single reasoned argument as to what we could say that we were entitled to reflect upon it and change our views? They have not submitted one. A final word. Where, on the benches opposite, is there a single hon. Member who has been responsible by his own energy for the provision of employment in this country?

The CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member again that we are dealing with a duty on cutlery.

Mr. BALFOUR

I will conclude with this simple observation, that hon. Members who are putting forward a plea for the introduction of these articles should have regard to the opinions of those men, whose probity is unchallenged, and who carry the burden and responsibility of giving employment in this country, and who are entitled, in advancing their arguments, to have attention paid to them by reason of the burden of responsibility they have carried in the past.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

The hon. Member who has just sat down did not tell us what was going to be done with the people who were in the habit of selling to girls German articles as English goods. No Government in this country has ever had any consideration for the consumer, and we certainly do not expect any from a Government which is now engaged in tariff-mongering. The main result of the Resolution we are now considering, and the other Resolutions to follow, will be that the great mass of the consumers will have to pay almost double for certain articles without having any effect whatsoever upon the industries which the Government have set out to protect. I that advisedly from the point of view of Sheffield. That is a point which I should have made if we had not been so promptly "gagged" by the moving of the Closure, and that is the very case upon which the Committee based their recommendation for this tariff. There-is a variation in price of 7s. 6d. and 36s. in regard to the article which competes with the German article. Under these circumstances, is there any reason for believing that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will be a cure? In those shops where such goods are stocked they will have to charge the consumer the exact amount of the duty charged by the Government, and there will not be a single incentive to buy one of the Sheffield goods, and consequently not one single bit of help will be given to trade in Sheffield.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

Sheffield can make those goods.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I should be glad to to see the evidence that this particular class of goods can be made in Sheffield.

Mr. ROBERTS

You will get it when the duty is put on

Mr. ALEXANDER

Again, with regard to the amount of the duty, the President of the Board of Trade, apparently with the consent of the Prime Minister, denied the House the right of examining the evidence put before this Committee, but we have some means of finding out the kind of thing that was stated before them. There is the case of a witness in favour of 'he duty being examined as reported in the "Sheffield Telegraph." He was asked what he regarded as a necessary import duty. He replied that he considered a duty of 150 per cent. was necessary. What earthly reason can there be for fixing an arbitratory figure of 33⅓ per cent. with regard to this industry? The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there is going to be no remedy in this duty for any part of the unemployment in the country. He has had considerable experience at the Board of Trade. He has had experience of the working of the old duties under the previous Safeguarding of Industries Act. Can he reply—he did not attempt to do it just now—and the specific challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)? Can he give us a case in which he has had experience of the operation of one of these duties where there has been any gain to the industry that has been safeguarded under the measure? I will give way to him if he will give me a case. He does not attempt it. He knows he has not a case in his experience under the Safeguarding of Industries Act where the operation of a duty of this kind has had any effect upon the trade or the employment in the particular industry.

Then I say with very great regret, as a Member for the City of Sheffield, that, in spite of what the Report says, the Committee have not satisfied the test laid down in the Government's White Paper as to the industry being efficient. I know dozens of men in Sheffield who are really expert cutlers. They work under the most vile and hampering conditions one could possibly imagine. It is all very well for the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Storry Deans) to make the kind of speech he made to-night. I agree with him that there are lots of our cutlers in Sheffield who have to take unemployment pay and take it reluctantly and want work, but one of the main reasons why the work is not there is that the industry is so badly organised and inefficient. Do not take my word alone for that. I quote here from the last report of the medical officer of health. He says: The conditions under which many of the men in the cutlery trade are employed are still profoundly unsatisfactory. They will never, in my opinion, be as they should be until the present antiquated system of this trade is reformed and the system of giving out work to lessees of little, dark, insanitary 'wheels' is abandoned in favour of large and economically organised factories, where proper equipment for ventilation, etc., would be provided and adequate supervision made possible. It is at present impossible to prevent the practice of spitting in these places. Ventilation ducts for the removal of dust are not infrequently blocked up to prevent 'draughts,' and 'dry-racing' of grindstones is sometimes practised in con- travention of the regulations. The system of having three stones run 'tandem-fashion' means that men employed on the hindermost stones are often working in the dark, which promotes uncleanliness, lowers the individual's resistance to respiratory and other diseases. Anyone interested in the welfare of the working men employed in the cutlery trade in Sheffield knows from his study of the statistics how thoroughly inefficient the industry is by the result on the health of the men in the industry, who are not by any means unanimous in supporting the evidence given by certain trade unionists before this Committee. The medical officer says: The large amount of unemployment which still prevails in these trades, although in other respects so regrettable"— What a comment this is upon an industry that wants Protection! has probably had some effect in reducing tuberculosis, as a large number of grinders and others, employed in the dangerous sections of these trades, are not at present exposed to the risk of damage to the lungs which occurs while they are at work. Simply because there are so many of the factories in Sheffield that are absolutely unfit, not only badly organised from the point of view of production, but filthy from the point of view of the health of the workers. You will never get an efficient production in any industry under conditions like that, and it is not the type of industry that ought to apply for protection in circumstances like these.

Let me give one other piece of evidence, not my evidence, on the same point. I take this from the last Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, concerning Sheffield. What did the Inspector of Factories say? Many of the older factories have grown from dwelling houses. Starting with the front room downstairs as a warehouse and the back room as a work room, the whole house has been taken over as the business flourished. Then the houses on each side have been absorbed, and so on, until the building contains perhaps 30 or 40 wooden-partitioned small rooms crowded together and leading to narrow ill-lit passages. The original houses were not always of the same size or on the same level, hence structural alterations to provide emergency exits or outward opening doors have been difficult to obtain, particularly during the recent years of trade depression. There is the evidence of the Government Inspector himself as to the inefficient organisation of the industry. We say that from that point of view the President of the Board of Trade ought not to accept an application for the 33⅓ per cent. duty on the test, laid down in his own White Paper, that any industry which comes along for a tariff must be an efficient industry.

In putting these facts before the Committee to-night, I am not reflecting in any way upon the craftsmanship of large numbers of cutlers in Sheffield, I am reflecting upon the organisation of those who are so often at the head of industry in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, speaking last week upon the Rating and Valuation Bill, said that we were far behind countries like America, because employers of that class in the past had been content to take out of the surplus of the year what they regarded as profit, but which ought to have been used in the development and re-organisation of the business to keep it up-to-date. That has been the case in this industry, and it has resulted in the inefficiency which is absolutely a mark of the industry to-day.

I want to say some other things at later stages in the debate; I shall have another opportunity to. In regard to the amount of this duty, I want to say a general word with regard to the relation of production to consumption. Some of the hon. Members on the other side of the House have taunted us once or twice to-night about our attitude on this matter, but some of us take quite a large view of it. We do not necessarily become wholehearted free-traders, as I am, simply from the old propaganda basis that went on through the Free Trade Union 30 years ago. From the cooperative consumers' point of view I take the free trade platform to-day, because I view the whole problem of industry and of employment—

The CHAIRMAN

Like his predecessor, the hon. Member is embarking on a general discussion of economic conditions.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, but I am bound to say it seems to me to be rather a narrow one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I am trying to show the Committee why we object to the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. duty, which this Amendment seeks to reduce to 5 per cent. It seems to me, with great respect, that we are entitled to show what we think the effect of it will be.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine his remarks to cutlery, and must not adduce arguments that can be applied to any of the other duties or to any duty whatsoever.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member, in discussing this point, not entitled to bring forward a point that applies to other industries as well, if it affects this one?

The CHAIRMAN

We are now discussing cutlery, and if the hon. Member's point affects cutlery he is entitled to put it.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I will confine myself to cutlery. I had cutlery in mind when I mentioned the problem, but I must remind the Committee that the Government are bringing forward this proposal with a view to curing unemployment in a Sheffield industry, and the point we want to put is that we stand for freedom from a tax of this kind because we believe the problem that faces the Cutlery industry and every other industry is how to relate consumption to the increasing powers of production. There is apparently, no problem in the cutlery industry with regard to production; their problem is to find a market for their goods. Our case is that to put a 33⅓ per cent. duty on this or any similar article means a further handicap to our being able to adjust consumption to the industry's increasing powers of production, and that point of view, in view of your ruling, I hope to elaborate at a later stage. I stand absolutely against the policy of the Government in putting on this 33⅓ per cent. duty.

If there had been any efficacy at all in the argument, we should have seen the dire results of 1909–13, which were prophesied by tariff mongers, who are coming again to the House for help. The cutlery industry is part of a far greater staple industry, the iron and steel industry, and I remember, that we were asked, in 1908, 1909 and 1910 to put a duty on iron and steel. It is a little significant, if I may say so, that, although this cutlery industry is so intimate a part of the great staple industry of iron and steel, the Government seem to be rather afraid of dealing with the larger industry. It has been suggested—I do not know whether it is true or not—that the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the Government to deal in a similar way with the iron and steel.

The CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that, while his remarks might be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill, they are certainly not in order on this Amendment, which is a very limited one.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I will repeat my remarks on the Second Reading. I will only say now, that, if there is any effect at all in the arguments that have been used in favour of this duty, we ought to have seen, in the years 1909–13, the dire results we are told to-day will happen if these duties are not put on. What are the facts? Without a duty, in 1909, the imports of iron and steel were £1,226,000, and the trade union percentage of unemployment was 7.7. In 1913, four years after, imports were up, being £2,343,106—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

On a point of Order. How is it relevant in a discussion limited to whether there should be a duty on cutlery of 5 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent., to cite what were the general imports of iron and steel in the year 1909.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)

The hon. Member has already been told that the speech he is making is more in keeping with a Second Reading Debate. I must ask him kindly to confine his remarks to the Amendment, which is a narrow one.

12 M.

Mr. ALEXANDER

That is the reason why I protested on another matter earlier in the evening, and perhaps that is why the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to raise points of order of that kind. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman knew that he would be able to raise a point of Order like that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to answer in that way.

Mr. ALEXANDER

If it is thought to be a reflection upon the Chair I withdraw it at once. Here is a proposal to levy a duty of 33⅓ per cent. for a specific purpose. Are we not entitled to show that the results in a similar industry, iron and steel, under Free Trade, have disproved the reasons given for imposing this duty? I am quoting the fact that for 1909–1913, without a duty, the imports of iron and steel increased from 1¼ million tons to more than 2½ million tons, and the percentage of trade union unemployment went down in those years from 7.7 to 22 per cent. Corresponding with the increase of imports, again, without a tariff, in the same period the exports of iron and steel went up from 4,300,000 tons to over 5,000,000 tons, with a proportionate decrease in the trade union percentage of unemployment.

The real fact is that the Government have no case for coming to the House of Commons and asking for a duty on this particular industry. We did not get from the President of the Board of Trade much of an answer to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley on the question of procedure in these Committees. Some of us think that there was a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the dice being loaded against the opponents of this duty when they sought to put their case. Where will this policy of asking for 33⅓ per cent. duty lead us? It is cutlery now; any day we may awake to find a new notice in the Press of another inquiry into—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Is not this relevant to the general discussion which we have had?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has been warned several times to confine his remarks to cutlery and the particular Amendment now before the Committee. We have had a general discussion.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am keeping cutlery in mind all the time. The procedure in regard to the imposition of this 33⅓ per cent. duty is such as to prevent any organised consumers, such as the people I have the honour to represent in this House, 4½ millions of them, who met in open conference at Southport last June, over 2,000 delegates—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member continues to discuss a question that has already been disposed of. The question now is. whether it should be a 33⅓ per cent. duty or a 5 per cent. duty on cutlery.

Mr. ALEXANDER

What I was going to say was this. The thing is done without us being able to protest effectively against the Government putting a 33⅓ per cent. duty on cutlery, and against the protests of a great body of consumers made last June against such duties. Under this procedure we are unable to protest effectively. I will reserve the other remarks I have to make until later on.

Mr. HARRIS

The Committee will agree that the hon. Member who has just spoken has made a remarkable and courageous speech when they realise that he represents a Sheffield Division, and therefore if there are vested interests with axes to grind by getting this duty they will very naturally try to prejudice his position. But I believe his constituents will support the very strong case he has made out against this duty. If we have to have a tariff because it is necessary to discourage imports, then I would say that 33⅓ per cent. is quite out of reason and not a duty this Committee should counsel. Even in the wildest days of the tariff reform agitation never was it put forward that 33⅓ per cent. was a reasonable duty. In the interests of the consumer, if a duty is necessary it should be brought to a reasonable figure that will not needlessly raise the price of cutlery to the consumer. I am not one of those who are prepared to give unqualified criticism to the efficiency of Sheffield industries. Sheffield cutlery still has the reputation of being the finest that can be produced. The guarantee of a good knife is the Sheffield standard and that still remains good, but where Sheffield fails is in producing articles by mass production, cheap articles produced by machinery. They are the kind of articles that this duty aims at. It seems to me that if we propose a duty we should propose it on a different scale. The rich people who can afford to buy a good Sheffield knife will not be affected by this duty because the article does not compete with the German knife. The cheap article that is required in the poorer districts of our towns will be affected and the price increased to our consumers. In the east end of London you see cheap scissors and knives sold in large quantities. It is often a mystery to me how the house-wife makes ends meet in these difficult times of unemployment and short time. Somehow or other they manage to pull through and grave discontent has been prevented. The extraordinary patience of the people can best be explained by the cheapness of all those articles necessary to carry on the home. I know it is sometimes suggested that some articles of cutlery are a luxury. You are going to raise the price of knives and scissors, which are necessities and not luxuries, by one-third.

Sir H. CROFT

Is that what happened in the motor trade?

Mr. HARRIS

I am talking now of the cutlery trade. British manufacturers say that they cannot produce these cutlery articles at a competitive price. They ask for a duty, not of 33⅓ per cent., but of 200 per cent. They say that the difference in price between the foreign article and the British article is 200 per cent., and that nothing less than 33⅓ per cent. duty can be of any use. They want to charge higher prices to the consumer, and that is the whole purpose of these duties. For anything less the manufacturers will not thank the Government. Their whole case is that present prices are too low for the Sheffield manufacturer. The history of this trade is that while Sheffield produces the good knife of ground steel, manufacturers abroad specialise in mass production, just as in the United States the Ford car is produced. You cannot compare a Ford with a Rolls-Royce, and in the same way you cannot compare the cheap foreign knife, or razor, or scissors, with the highly finished Sheffield article. The last speaker showed what was really wrong with the industry in Sheffield. It is organised on the wrong basis for mass production. It is largely an industry of small manufacturers. The old-fashioned Sheffield worker has been rather slow to adapt himself to new conditions. The right way to keep this new industry for the production of cheap cutlery is not to give artificial protection, but to recognise that re-organisation is necessary, to make cheap electricity available, so that the factories can get cheap power, and to provide the conditions that the German manufacturer gets in that direction. That would be far better than this clumsy, discredited, old-fashioned blunderbuss of a high tariff.

Mr. KELLY

In supporting this Amendment I must say that I had hoped that by this time we would have had some reason from the Minister for the choice of the figure of 33⅓ per cent. We have had no justification of that figure. The nearest approach to it was the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), and I am surprised that one who is connected with civil engineering, like the hon. Member, should be prepared, at this time of day, to support the adoption of a figure which he can only describe as a suggestion and as a rough and ready figure. The hon. Member said we might experiment with it and see what would happen to the industry. If that be the sole reason for proposing it, if we are simply taking a leap in the dark, would not a 5 per cent. duty suffice at present? Personally I would prefer to see the figure of 33⅓ reduced by 33⅓, and I do not believe the cutlery trade unions of Sheffield have made a request for this safeguarding scheme. That members of trade unions have appeared before the committee, I am not prepared to deny, but as I will be able to show when other industries are under consideration, the trade unions have not asked for it despite the statements in the White Paper.

We are told that a 33⅓ per cent. duty will help the industry. How is it going to do so? The hon. Member for Hamp-stead said he and his friends wanted to find more work and better conditions for those employed in the industry. Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to state that if this duty is put into operation the position of those engaged in certain branches of the cutlery industry the position of those engaged in the manufacture of edged tools—is going to be improved? Why, I find that in taking this leap in the dark, the Government are leaving out of account the manufacture of knives used in machines. Why are they doing so? The people engaged in this branch of the industry have been suffering from lack of employment any time this last few years:. they have been and they are receiving wages below the subsistence level—somewhere from 30s. to 40s. per week. Why have they been left out? I would expect the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to make a stirring appeal for them but he is supporting a proposal that these people who are under-paid and under-employed should be excluded from these safeguards. Surely if it is good for one section employed in the cutlery industry it is also good for this section?

Sir H. CROFT

Will the hon. Member put down an Amendment to include them? I will support him if he does.

Mr. KELLY

The hon. Member seems prepared to support any proposal to which people attach the label "Safeguarding of industries." Yet I venture to say he does not understand this particular industry. I imagine that up to a few moments ago he did not know that the people in the cutlery industry to whom I have been referring were in such a bad way. Even at this late hour we should hear from the President of the Board of Trade some justification for this 33⅓ per cent. duty, and some justification as to why he is operating this in the case of one section and leaving another section out; as to why, as this is only an experiment, he is not prepared to experiment with 5 per cent. rather than play with this 33⅓ per cent. Something has been said about the people who prepared this Report. They may have endeavoured to sift the evidence that came before them, but I suggest that they cannot find anything in the evidence to justify them in making the suggestion that such a figure should come into operation so far as this particular industry is concerned. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment for all the reasons that have been given from hon. Members on the other side, and, if you are going to make an experiment, experiment with 5 per cent., and not 33⅓ per cent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I should like to put to the President of the Board of Trade one or two questions on this Report, and if he does not intend to answer the Debate on this Amendment I hope he will consider these questions, because I shall raise them in connection with a later Amendment on this Resolution. What puzzles me about this Report is the extraordinary position which the Government have taken, and I wish for information as to the reason that they have included in these duties a proposal for a duty on safety razors. I find, in looking at the figures and at the Appendix on page 20, that about half the imports into this country, measured in value, come from safety razors.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the exclusion of different articles, and if that other Amendment is to be taken and dealt with, it seems to me it would be more appropriate to discuss then whether or not the particular item should be included.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

If you happened to be in the House at the moment, Captain Fitzroy, you will recollect what took place at the beginning of this Debate with reference to the general arrangement for it. It was well known that there would be detailed Amendments moved with regard to different items of cutlery, but by an arrangement with the Chairman of Committees, which was agreed to by the President of the Board of Trade, it was arranged that we should have a general discussion on the Safeguarding Duties as a whole on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), and that on this Amendment we should be permitted a general discussion on the Cutlery Duties. That arrangement was made in the full understanding that there were further Amendments dealing with details. I therefore suggest that we are entitled to discuss cutlery in general now, although we are going to discuss details at greater length in connection with further Amendments.

Captain BENN

I would like to ask whether there is any ruling of the House which prevents the President of the Board of Trade from limiting his contributions to the Debate to three points of Order and moving the "Gag."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think I need make any reply to the last point. With regard to the other points, it is quite true that at the commencement of the Debate the Chairman of Ways and Means did come to some arrangement with the Committee as to the course that the Debate should take, and it is obvious that we cannot have a Debate bringing in all the different articles separately as well as have Debates on separate Amendments which deal with separate articles. On this particular Amendment the whole question of the 33⅓ per cent. and the amount of Duty that is to be imposed on the import of cutlery can be discussed, but if hon. Members choose to specialise in particular items they cannot do so again on subsequent Amendments.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

If I do not in my remarks at present make reference to safety razors, may I understand that the Amendment dealing with them will be subsequently called?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do intend to call subsequent Amendments on specific articles, but a limited debate should take place upon them.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Under these circumstances I will not make remarks upon safety razors. I will ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can reply to certain questions put by myself when he was absent. He has in his speech justified the manufacturers of Sheffield against criticisms that their business is not being conducted with the efficiency which this White Paper ought to require. The argument he used has been, not they lack quality in their production, but that they lack the efficiency of mass production. We notice in this report that the reason given was that they had not sufficient capital to spend for this purpose. That is said in the paragraph which seeks to justify the manufacturers, and it appears at the same time to condemn them. There is in paragraph 39 set up in defence of the manufacturers the amount of money they have spent upon the equipment of their factories in the last 12 years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

In the earlier discussion the hon. Member made a speech on the whole matter, and members must not make again the same speeches which they made on the previous Amendment, but must confine themselves to the duties to be imposed.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Surely it is in order to advance reasons whether the duty should be 33⅓ per cent. or 5 per cent. or should not be imposed? Those who took part in the general discussion are surely entitled to deal with cutlery. I submit that the purpose of this Amendment is to fix the amount of the duty, and speakers are in order in advancing reasons why 5 per cent. should be imposed in preference to 33⅓ per cent., or even why no duty should be imposed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No. A speaker is not entitled to argue whether a, duty should be imposed at all. That has already been decided. The particular Amendment we are now discussing is whether it should be 33⅓ or 5 per cent.; not whether a duty should be imposed, but the amount of the duty.

Captain BENN

May I ask what words have been passed by the Committee deciding that a duty shall be imposed? The only words agreed to by the Committee are, "during a period of five years." That is as far as the Committee has agreed. I was not aware the Committee had agreed beyond this point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The wording of the Resolution is— That during the period at five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this resolution there shall be charged on the importation of certain articles a duty. This duty has already been passed by the Committee and we cannot discuss it again.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

On that point of Order, Mr. Chairman. On the general discussion it was arranged by the Chair that on this particular Amendment we should be entitled to raise the questions connected with the Cutlery Duty as a whole and particularly the question of the efficiency with which the industry was conducted. That is the subject I am dealing with and not the subject I dealt with in the previous debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

As I understand it, the arrangement was that in the earlier discussion cutlery as well as other articles might be discussed, but that discussion on the subsequent Amendments, this one among them, should be confined to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I can only state that it was in reply to a question from myself by arrangement with the Chair, in order to make it quite clear to Members who were to take part in the debate, said they were at liberty to say anything about cutlery when it was raised on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). The point I am making now in connection with the efficiency of the industry was discussed on this Amendment when your predecessor was in the Chair, and if it was discussed by others I presume it is in order for me to discuss it. In order to prove whether this industry has been conducted—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have already said that I cannot permit another debate on the subject. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Am I to understand you rule it is not possible on this Amendment to discuss the efficiency of the industry in Sheffield?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Only in so far as it is affected by the 33⅓ per cent. duty.

Mr. N. MACLEAN

The subject has already been discussed by a previous speaker for 25 minutes. Your predecessor was in the Chair, yet that speaker was permitted to deal with the efficiency of the industry and he was only called to order by the Chairman when he went into other matters. I submit that if it was permitted to that speaker to traverse that ground, then it is in order for any succeeding speaker to relate the effect of this duty, whether 33⅓ per cent. or 5 per cent., to the efficiency of the industry or the increasing efficiency of the workshops that will be manufacturing the articles affected on the imposition of the duty in this Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The only thing that is in Order on this Amendment is to discuss whether 5 per cent. is better for the industry than 33⅓ per cent.

Mr. MACLEAN

If it is to be for the betterment of the industry, is it not for the better efficiency of the industry? Does the betterment of the industry not include the better efficiency of the industry?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is not under discussion in the Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN

It must be under discussion. My point of Order is this. I have not abondoned hope like some hon. Members. My point of Order is that the question of putting a tariff or duty upon the industry to be safeguarded is bound up with the fact that it is to be fostered and bettered. That I take it is the object of the Government in putting forward their proposal for this particular industry. I want to ask whether we are to discuss the merely relative figure that is down in the Amendment to the resolution—whether it is to be 5 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent.—or whether we are not to be allowed to say how far the application of the duty will be calculated to benefit the industry by giving better efficiency.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I cannot go on arguing this point of Order to an unlimited extent. I have laid down my ruling that the efficiency of the industry was discussed on the previous Amendment, as well as the necessity for the duty at all. That was decided by the Committee. The question now is that in the Amendment, and we cannot discuss anything beyond it.

Mr. MACLEAN

May we take it that your ruling is different from that of your predecessor?

Mr. LEES-SMITH

In view of what you, Sir, have said, I shall not pursue the question whether your ruling is in accordance with precedent. I will reserve my remarks to a later stage, especially in view of the fact that this discussion on the point of Order has taken ten times as long as it would have taken the Committee to discuss the point I was raising.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

I submit that the Committee has had no evidence given to it from the Government Benches to show why the 33⅓ per cent. duty is desirable or why it is preferable to a duty of 5 per cent., and I submit there is nothing in the reply to show that one duty is better than another. Before the Committee comes to a decision on this point, we should have some statement from the Government Benches, seeing this is the first of a new series of duties. You are establishing a precedent which we ought to consider very carefully from the public point of view.

Sir B. CHADWICK

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I made it clear that the duty was recommended by the Committee and that the precedent of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was followed.

Mr. THOMSON

We want some guidance on the matter. With regard to this Report, we have no evidence such as the. Committee had to guide them to a conclusion. No doubt the Committee was a most excellent one, but surely this House will not abrogate its discretion and judgment to a Committee set up by the President of the Board of Trade for a particular purpose. The President of the Board of Trade is an avowed protectionist, and will see that the Committee is not weighted against his own avowed principles and beliefs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"] This Committee surely ought to be charged with the protection of the consumer, and the consumer was not allowed to appear before it. The consumer's point of view was not apparently considered by the Committee. Surely we are charged with the protection of the consumer in this matter, and I submit that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will be a very serious effect upon the great majority of the people in this country who are consumers and not producers. We have to face the fact that we are going to raise the cost of the goods that are bought and also the cost of the goods that are made in this country two or three times. The Treasury may gain £100,000, but it would-be at the expenditure of over £700,000 out of the public pocket, and that is rather a hard bargain for the public to pay.

It would have been interesting to have had some particulars of the export trade. That surely is a vital point in considering how far this industry requires safeguarding. We have no figures to show how far the export trade has increased of recent years. We have heard a great deal about a scientific tariff. Surely this was a case where the ingenuity of the President of the Board of Trade might have been brought to bear in order to produce a scientific tariff and deal with goods brought in from America, where the conditions of employment are very different from those in Germany. Surely you could have graduated your duty in order to meet the competition of countries where the hours are longer and the wages lower, and countries where the hours are shorter and the wages higher. We want a scientific tariff which will meet these varying conditions. Before the Committee can come to a proper judgment I submit that we should have a further statement from the Government on the question.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I can say, in a few sentences, though I am afraid it will be a repetition, why we prefer a duty of 33⅓ per cent. to a duty of 5 per cent. The object of the duty is to safeguard the industry, and we are asked to substitute for 33⅓ per cent. a duty of 5 per cent. If 33⅓ per cent. is not adequate as a safeguard, certainly 5 per cent. would be far less adequate. If that is the object of the Resolution, and it has been already decided by the Committee, then I submit that we shall safeguard this industry much more effectively by adopting the recommendation of the Committee that the duty shall be 33⅓ per cent.

Mr. GILLETT

I desire to support the Amendment, but on rather different grounds to those which have been mentioned so far. An hon. Member has said that these Resolutions are a stalking-horse for Protection; that he looked upon them as a "test" in order to see how Protection would work. I do not believe in Protection, and I say that we should have as small a duty as possible. It is quite a fallacy to maintain that these duties are in any sense a test of Protection. Hon. Members say that if this is proved to be a success then that all Protection would be a success. One hon. Member suggested that we should go down to Sheffield and ask representatives of a particular firm whether they wanted Protection or not. It is just as if you went to one industry and inquired whether they would like to have a subsidy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is a repetition, of the debate this afternoon.

Mr. GILLETT

I had not arrived at my conclusion. My point is this. The hon. Member suggested that this was a test of Protection. I say that if this is a test, then it is better we should have a 5 per cent. duty rather than 33⅓ per cent. Five per cent. will answer this purpose as a test just as well, and from my standpoint would be far less injurious to the trade of the country. If we have 5 per cent. and it proves a failure, then less harm will have been done. That is the line on which I was trying to argue, and it seems to me that it is germane to the question. But if you rule that I am out of Order, I will pass on to another point. I desire to ask what effect this proposal is likely to have on opinion in Germany. It will be very unfortunate, if at a moment when better feeling has been created by the Locarno Treaty, when the Foreign Secretary has said that a new friend has been found, the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt quite unintentionally, should the next day propose to erect barriers against German trade.

My suggestion is that Germany has already made objections on this point, and as the "Times" newspaper reported a few days ago a conference between the German and English representatives was being held and the Germans had raised objections on the difficulties that the Safeguarding of Industries Act had brought between the two countries. It is on these grounds that I am anxious that we should have 5 per cent. and not the 33⅓ per cent., because 5 per cent. is less likely to create difficulties with Germany than the 33⅓ per cent. which, as I understand from the "Times" newspaper, has already created difficulty. As the "Times" said, the Committee that had met broke up because they could come to no agreement, on account of the Germans having complained of the Acts that were already in existence. Finally, they withdrew, I understand, on some undertaking being given with regard to any future proposals. If that is the difficulty that has arisen in the past, it seems to me to be the wisest thing, at any rate, that we should only have a 5 per cent. Duty in this case. There is another important point with regard to Germany that I do not think has been mentioned, and it is this. How is the President of the Board of Trade going to get his reparations from Germany which it is hoped to get within the next five years if he is going to erect these—?

Mr. ERSKINE

On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman straying altogether wide of the mark to talk about German reparations?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

If I thought the hon. Member was out of order, I should have told him so.

Mr. GILLETT

I think the hon. Member had better leave the duty of chairmanship to the occupant of the Chair. [Interruption.] If we are to have reparations from Germany, they will be in one of two forms; one form is goods, and the other gold. And if the President of the Board of Trade erects barriers of Duties of 33⅓ per cent. against all the German trade, taking this as a beginning-and every one of the proposals largely affects Germany-if he proposes as high a Duty as this, so as to attempt to shut out German goods, how is he going to get the reparations from Germany? We know perfectly well that that is the difficulty that is before the United States of America at the present time. It is being watched most carefully, but the United States will not lower their tariffs in order to allow goods from other parts of the world to come in in the form of the payment of their debt, and they are getting more gold than they want to have. Yet they refuse to lower their tariff wall. If the President of the Board of Trade is going to follow the American policy, he will sooner or later be faced

with the same difficulty, and therefore although the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) cannot see it, I am attempting to save the President of the Board of Trade from the impasse into which the American people are getting at the present time. If the President of the Board will accept this Amendment it will, undoubtedly, allow more of the German goods to come in. After all, we are settling this question for five years, and during those five years the Dawes Report comes into much more active force than it is at present.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes,71.

Division No. 439.]	AYES.	[12.58 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	England, Colonel A.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Albery, Irving James	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Lumley, L. R.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Everard, W. Lindsay	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Fairfax. Captain J. G.	Macdonald, Capt. P, D. (I. of W.)
Ashmead-Bartlett. E.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Macintyre, Ian
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fielden, E. B.	McLean Major A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Finburgh, S.	Macmillan, Captain H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fleming, D. P.	Malone, Major P. B.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Margesson, Captain D.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Fraser, Captain Ian	Merriman, F. B.
Betterton, Henry B.	Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.	Meyer, Sir Frank
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Monsell, Eyres, Hon. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Gee, Captain R.	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Goff, sir Park	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Grace, John	Nelson, Sir Frank
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Grant, J. A.	Neville, R. J.
Broun-Lindsay. Major H.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Grotrian, H. Brent	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Nuttall, Ellis
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Oakley. T.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hammersley, S. S.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Campbell, E. T.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Pennefather, Sir John
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Haslam, Henry C.	Penny. Frederick George
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hawke. John Anthony	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Chapman, Sir S.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Perring, William George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Chilcott, Sir Warden	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Preston, William
Christie, J. A.	Hong. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Radford. E. A.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Holland, Sir Arthur	Raine, W.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Ramsden, E.
Clayton, G. C.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Reid. Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Remer, J R.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Remnant, Sir James
Cove, Major William	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Rentoul, G. S.
Cuper, J. B.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Roberts, E, H. G. (Flint)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Ruggles-Brise. Major E. A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Knox, Sir Alfred	Salmon, Major I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Lamb, J. Q.	Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putne)
Drewe C.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Duckworth, John	Loder, J. de V.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Looker, Herbert William	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lougher, L.	Sandon, Lord
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Storry, Deans, R	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Shaw, U.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Walls, S. R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Wtstb'y)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Skelton, A. N.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Templeton, W. P.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Smith-Caring ton, Neville W.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Smithers, Waldron	Tinne, J. A.	Womersley, W. J.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Wallace, Captain D. E	Yerburgh, Major Robert O. T.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	ward, U.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Hon. O F. G. (Westm'eland)	Warrender, Sir Victor	Colonel Gibbs and Captain
Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Hacking.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hirst, G. H.	Scurr, John
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Batsy, Joseph	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sutton, J. E.
Dalton, Hugh.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A.
Day, Colonel Harry	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Kirkwood, D.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Fenby, T. D.	Lansbury, George	Varley, Frank B.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lawson, John James	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Gillett, George M.	Lunn, William	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Grundy, T. w.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Westwood, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Murnin, H.	Wiggins, William Martin
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Paling, W.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Harris, Percy A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.	Windsor, Walter
Hayes, John Henry	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 72.

Division No. 440.]	AYES.	[1.5 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Chilcott, Sir Warden	Gee, Captain R.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Christie, J. A.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Albery, Irving James	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Clarry, Reginald George	Goff, Sir Park
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Clayton, G. C.	Grace, John
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Grant, J. A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cope, Major William	Grotrian, H. Brent
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Couper, J. B.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Betterten, Henry B.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hammersley, S. S.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Harrison, G. J. C.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Haslam, Henry C.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Drewe, C.	Hawke, John Anthony
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Eden, Captain Anthony	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Brown, Brig.-Gen-H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Holland. Sir Arthur
Buckingham, Sir H.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Fielden, E. B.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Finburgh, S.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Campbell, E. T.	Fleming, D. P.	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Kenyon, Barnet
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Chapman, Sir S.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Charter is, Brigadier-General I.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Knox, Sir Alfred
Lamb, J. Q.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Perring, William George	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Loder, J. de V.	Preston, William	Storry Deans, R.
Looker, Herbert William	Radford, E. A.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Lougher, L.	Raine, W.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Ramsden, E.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Lumley, L R.	Remer, J. R.	Templeton, W. p.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Remnant, Sir James	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Rantoul, G. S.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Macintyre. Ian	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Tinne, J. A.
McLean, Major A.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Macmillan, Captain H.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Malone, Major P. B.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Merriman, F. B.	Salmon, Major I.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Wells, S. R.
Morden, Col. W. Grant	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Sandon, Lord	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Nelson, Sir Frank	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Neville, R. J.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Wise, Sir Fredric
Nuttall, Ellis	Skelton, A. N.	Womersley, w. J.
Oakley, T.	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Smithers, Waldron
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Pennefather, Sir John	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Captain Margesson and Captain
Penny, Frederick George	Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)	Hacking.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hirst, G. H.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J.	Hudson, j. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Sutton, J. E.
Charleton, H. C	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Taylor, R. A.
Dalton, Hugh	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Day, Colonel Harry	Kelly, W. T.	Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Duckworth, John	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
England, Colonel A.	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Fenby, T. D.	Lansbury, George	Warne, G. H.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gillett, George M.	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Westwood, J.
Grundy, T. W.	Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Wiggins, William Martin
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)	Murnin, H.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Paling, W.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Harris, Percy A.	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Potts, John S.	Windsor, Walter
Hayday, Arthur	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Hayes, John Henry	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
		Charles Edwards

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, to leave out lines 5 and 6.

I should like to say that, while I have sat listening to practically all the speeches in this Debate, I am still convinced that the necessity for this import duty has not yet been shown. It seems to me that not only is it rendering no assistance to the unemployed people in Sheffield, but it is calculated to mislead them into a, false belief that they are going to secure some real benefits from the safeguarding proposals. The Report itself proves at all events that comparative inefficiency does exist in the cutlery trade of Sheffield. If we examine the Report closely-every paragraph of the Report- we can see that there has been no real attempt on the part of the cutlery manufacturers of Sheffield to bring their factories up-to-date and up to 20th century standards.

The CHAIRMAN

The Deputy-Chairman has already informed the Committee that discussion on these items has been confined to the particular articles on which it is proposed to impose a tax. General discussion on the Report or the inefficiency of the trade in general will not now be in Order. The particular item under discussion is knives of various classes as set out in lines 5 and 6.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD

May I raise this point for your guidance? How is it possible to discuss knives without considering the question of increased production of knives and the effect of that increased production on unemployment?

The CHAIRMAN

The only argument here permissible is to show some reasons why knives should be exempted.

Mr. MacDONALD

Is it not a germane argument that if knives are not exempted it will increase the number of people employed in making knives, and similarly to rebut that argument?

The CHAIRMAN

The discussion must be confined to showing why knives should be exempted.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Might I submit that the Report now under review, giving the figures in Appendix 2, particularly indicates that knives of various kinds are the largest proportion of the commodities referred to in this particular proposal. It seems to me that if knives were excluded the whole of the Report would be futile, since the other articles are minor as compared with knives, and that any question of the efficiency or inefficiency of the particular factory where knives are produced must be relevant to this particular argument. I want to submit that in justification for opposing the inclusion of these two lines. The output of knives in 1920 was equivalent in value to the output in 1913, and the output in 1924 was equivalent in value to the output in 1920 or any succeeding year, and it seems to me that there is real hope for the. Sheffield knife manufacturers without this artificial restoration that the right hon. Gentleman is intending to give. I read in one of the Sheffield papers a few days ago an article which rather controverts the submissions made by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly with regard to Sheffield, that said that, were it not for the coal, steel and iron, shipbuilding, and cotton trades, unemployment had reached its pre-War proportion. In other words, were it not for the absence of beefsteaks and spending, people receiving low wages would not know they were in poverty.

The CHAIRMAN

That has no connection with knives, which is the subject of this duty.

Mr. WILLIAMS

That may be so. But, after all, beefsteaks involve bringing along with them knives, and if there were no knives there would be no beefsteaks.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is trifling with the Committee. He must confine himself to the matter under discussion.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I want to submit a particular point arising from page 7 of the Report; the proposal is to place a tariff on pocket knives and all other kinds of knives. In the Report on page 7 at the bottom, we learn in support of their case under this head: The Applicants originally submitted samples of three razors, three pairs of scissors, and five pocket knives, but they did not apparently submit any other kind of knife, although for the purpose of this 33⅓ per cent. tariff in all kinds of knives are included. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the knives that are about to be taxed if this proposal is permitted to go through. I do not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman has noticed that putty knives are to be taxed. The hop knife is to be taxed. We have already placed a tax upon hops. Now you are going to place a tax upon the knife with which the hops are cut. It seems to me another indirect tax upon beer. The right hon. Gentleman is going to place a tax upon the knives used by Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. Does he wish to destroy the only bit of glory the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides have? Then, again, I see he is going to place a tax upon Army and Navy knives and to that extent is going to decrease the efficiency of those great services. Then I notice that grafting knives and castrating knives are to be taxed. Manicure knives are to be taxed; pruning knives are to be taxed, which are used in our orchards and will affect indirectly the trade of preserves. This is a very serious proposal, and without attempting to traverse unduly the arguments that have already been used, it does seem to me that the factory owners at Sheffield have not attempted to place themselves in a position whereby they can compete with either Germany or any other nation. The report tells us that they have spent in a period of 11 years £61,000 on machinery and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment, and is reverting to the general discussion.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Since knives, which are a very large proportion of the articles on which a tariff is to be placed, come within the purview of the factories at Sheffield, and the quantity and quality of machinery used in their production, how is it possible to adopt the validity or otherwise of an imposition of this kind without referring to the machinery by which these articles are produced?

The CHAIRMAN

That is part of the discussion which took place this afternoon. The Committee has agreed to place a duty on cutlery The hon. Member has to show why knives should be exempt.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I want to suggest that knives, being as they are, ought not to be taxed in any conceivable direction. The Committee of Inquiry tells us, referring to one individual case, that if a particular knife is taxed the individual who uses this knife in carrying on his own employment is only going to be put to the expense of possibly a shilling or so per year. We have been listening to similar stories in this House during the past week, but it does affect very adversely the man who is already earning a very low wage. It seems to me that the question of purchasing a cheap, nasty German knife and the purchasing of a decent Sheffield-made knife is largely determined by the low wages that millions of people in this country are receiving. If you are going to depress further their already small incomes it is obvious that they will continue to purchase the nasty, cheap article instead of purchasing the better-quality article that is made in our own factories. I want to suggest that no case has been made out for the placing of a tariff upon knives at all. Bearing in mind the tremendous injury you are bound to inflict upon diverse individuals who use these knives for various purposes. I contend that both table knives and pocket knives ought to be excluded from this list. Wherever one looks at whatever proposal that happens to be before the House, the intention is to relieve a certain few individuals at the expense of a large number, and this proposal is another of that kind. It is said that the wholesale price is 7 per cent. below the cost of production in Britain. If we are going to change the situation and put this 33⅓ per cent. tariff upon knives, the obvious result is bound to be an increase in the price of the article, and to that extent a decrease in the real value of the wages of these people who are compelled to use knives. For this and many other reasons I am bound to oppose any tariff being placed upon knives.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I might almost leave the Committee to form their opinion as to whether this Amendment should be accepted or not, judging on its merits the seriousness of the objections put forward. In so far as any argument in his speech was really relevant, the Mover supplied practically all the arguments why the Amendment should be rejected. He said if you take a Boy Scout's knife you were going to take from him his chief glory. I see no earthly reason why a Boy Scout should not have a British knife. But he advanced a further reason, which was that this duty would injure other industries which used knives. Now, the Committee have gone into that very carefully. As the Committee will see, there is excluded from the duty knives for use for machines. Those are excluded by the Committee for the reason that the knives are used by other industries in further processes. I am not concerned to say whether that was right or wrong, but it is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's argument that serious injury will be done to the industry. The Committee went into the question whether any other industry would be affected. In paragraph 41 of the report they find that there is no conceivable evidence which would justify them in coming to the conclusion that any industry would suffer. Therefore they answered that in the negative. For all these reasons I think we should follow the Committee recommendations in respect of the industry for which they consider a case has been made out. I submit no case to refute the Report has been made out by the hon. Member.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I should like to draw attention of the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 41 where the Committee states that the knife used by a shoemaker was only one out of thousands of similar knives used by similar people who must have knives for their work. That knife is going to be taxed by this particular Clause.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

If the hon. Member will read paragraph 41 be will see the conclusion to which they have come.

Captain BENN

It is hard to understand the tactics adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, because every contribution he makes to the Debate exposes the poverty of his case. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that it is his duty here and now to make a case for the taxation of the knives? It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refuse to father the scheme, but it is really too much that the President of the Board of Trade also declines to father the tax and passes it on to the Committee. As far as I am concerned, I shall never cease to protest against the action of the President of the Board of Trade in transferring his powers to this Committee, whether it is one of his public or private Committees appointed or dismissed according to his own will. He must make a case for the duty if the House of Commons is to be convinced.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member must make a case against including the knives.

Captain BENN

I beg your pardon, Mr. Hope. I have to demand that the President of the Board of Trade shall make out that case.

The CHAIRMAN

The Motion before the House is to leave out lines 5 and 6. It is for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to argue why these lines should be left out.

Captain BENN

It is for the President of the Board of Trade to make out his case.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

How will you put the question from the Chair, Mr. Chairman? Will you not put it, "That the knives and forks stand part"?

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment proposed is that the knives should be excluded from the Resolution, and that is the question to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman must speak.

Captain BENN

With very great respect, I venture to submit a consideration in opposition to your ruling. I will lead what the Committee has presently agreed upon: That during a period of live years from the passing of an Act giving effect to this resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article. That is all we have agreed on, that is to say, knives. We are only discussing knives and I submit this House has not decided to touch cutlery. The Committee has agreed to a general resolution and we are now discussing the items. I submit it is for the President of the Board of Trade to make a case for taxing knives and not to throw the onus on us, though we are capable of making the case against it. It is his business and we are entitled to ask him to perform his task. Why does he say that knives for machines are not to be taxed? Why not? If you are going to have a duty on, it should it be against production for they would be producted at a lower price. Why should you deprive these people of the advantage you are going to give the consumers in this country? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It is said that the duty would lead to additional men being employed, that there would be greater production and cheaper knives, so why does the right hon. Gentleman explain that the user of the machine knife is going to have a good time because he is being exempted from a duty. There is no case for the taxation of knives at all. If hon. Members will look at the Appendix on page 20 they will see that the import of these knives into this country is not increasing but decreasing. Therefore one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper is not fulfilled. This Committee is sovereign and can do what it likes, but if hon. Members are pretending that they are proceeding under the terms of the White Paper, I say that the evidence given by the Committee is no evidence for putting a tax on knives. In 1920 the total net import was 19,909, and the total net import in 1924, the last completed year, was 79,600. As a matter of fact, the figure is 300 down, and there is no case, therefore, for the taxation of knives. If you take the figures you will find that the best figures are in 1920, when imports were restricted. Let me take one or two cases of the articles it is proposed to tax. Take knives with two blades. Sheffield can produce them for 25s. a dozen. Germany produces them for 8s.; and the 33⅓ per cent. duty will make the German article 10s. 6d. wholesale, and the Sheffield knife 25s. wholesale. Why not admit that you are merely raising the price of the cheap knife, and not pretend that you are helping the Sheffield manufacturer with his much more expensive article. It is the same in many other classes of article. All that happens is to impose a high price on the consumer. When the President of the Board of Trade said he was anxious to assist the working classes by the imposition of these taxes, I was tempted when I saw this reference to knives to turn up a passage from "The Friend of Humanity and the Knife-Grinder." But for my part. I never love to meddle With politics, Sir. I give thee sixpence! I will see thee damn'd first. I think that these friends of humanity with their tariffs will receive the same answer from the working classes they are intending to dupe. They may perhaps be driven to make the same stern retort.

Mr. KELLY

I trust we shall have some statement or explanation, if not a justification, for the demand that is made by the Government, and that the President of the Board of Trade will explain what are the knives that are made of iron. I should like to know why there is a differentiation between knives that are to be used in a machine as against knives that are to be used by hand. I do not see the hon. Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) present. I should like him to have told us something about the difference between knives used in a machine and knives used by hand. He is a member of an establishment in which many knives are used in the many restaurants of his concern in London and the Provinces. I understand steel knives which are made by people in various parts of the country, not only in Sheffield, but in other places as well. Those who are responsible for the people engaged in the industry had no part whatever in the investigations that have been made. But knives which are placed in machines are to be excluded. Those which are used for cutting bread by machinery are outside; but -a knife used for cutting bread by hand is included. If the knife is placed in a machine for the purpose of assisting the butcher it is excluded, but if the butcher uses it by hand it is included. It seems to me that those who have presented the White Paper have given very little consideration to the problem. I hope we shall have some explanation for this difference. The statement made by the Minister in charge of the Bill does not help us to understand the problem in the least. The whole proposition is stupid, and I hope the House will turn it down.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I want to say one or two things about this Amendment. I have been looking at the actual figures of the import of knives and I find them really interesting. In 1920 we imported 202,383 dozen knives. In 1921 they went up a little, and in 1922 they went as high as 668,648 dozen. Rut in 1924 these imports had fallen to 444,000 dozen, and for the first nine months of this year they were 374,000 dozen. It seems to me it is for the President of the Hoard of Trade to show to the Committee that the present figure of importation is in fact abnormal. That is the ground upon which the White Paper lays it down that they will be entitled to put a tariff upon knives, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly tell us, before we divide upon this particular Amendment, what are the grounds for his accepting the view here that the importation of knives at the present time is abnormal. That does not seem to be borne out by the quantity of knives which I have given. Then I would say just a word or two with regard to his remark just now concerning shoe knives. I do not need to dwell upon the paragraph in the Report which he quoted, but I would refer him to paragraph 42. There I find the Committee desires specially to refer to shoe knives, and they say they were asked to exclude these from the classes of cutlery under consideration on the ground that Swedish knives are consistently preferred by shoemakers to the Sheffield knives because of their superior quality, and it was stated that they are actually dearer than the home-produced article. Both these allegations were, as a matter of fact, disputed by the applicants, and we come to the conclusion, from the contradictory nature of the evidence from both sides, that the question of superiority was largely a matter of personal preference. Therefore, the Committee is asked to place a tariff upon knives when it is admitted by the Committee that there is a question of personal preference, and because a knife is preferred for use in a productive industry which comes from abroad you ask these particular people to pay more for that knife than the knife that is produced at home. That seems to me perfectly unreasonable, and I should be glad to hear from the President of the Board of Trade if that is the basis of his general policy with regard to safeguarding.

Another thing I should like to mention is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said in moving the Amendment, knives form a very important part of the cutlery trade, and I notice, in taking the general figures—and unfortunately we cannot get these figures separated—but in taking the general figures for German export of cutlery I find that at the time the German currency was depreciating rapidly, the German export figures for cutlery showed that during that period 15,800 cwt. were exported to the United Kingdom, against 12,000 in 1924 and 14,000 in 1925. But the German currency is now stabilised, and I cannot understand what groat danger there is to fear from the export of German knives, having regard to those figures. It seems quite unreasonable that we should be asked to include these knives under these circumstances. For these reasons I support the Amendment, and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to reply to me on these points.

Mr. BECKETT

The President of the Board of Trade in his explanation indicated the precise lines of difference between the two sides of this Committee on this Amendment. The Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in moving the Amendment, suggested that, because there was a very large sale of these imported knives in this country, that was a reason why they should be relieved from taxation. The President of the Board of Trade took the opposite view, and pointed out that because there was a very large sale, that was the reason why they should be taxed. Why is there a large importation of these knives? Simply because, although there are many things which the people of this country are obliged to go without owing to lack of money, a pocket knife of some kind is a thing which our boys demand as soon as they get to a knowledgable age. That is substantiated on page 4 of the Report: We were reminded that Sir Walter Scott in 'Ivanhoe' mentions that even in the reign of King John, Sheffield was celebrated for making knives and whittles, and Mr. Faraday informed us that researches have established the fact that knives were made at Sheffield when Julius Cæsar landed in Kent, and that ever since that time the trade has been carried on in the town with unexampled success. 2.0 A.M

It is no fault of people in this country who are obliged to purchase foreign knives because of the inadequate remuneration they receive that they should be deprived of that particular tool which has always been the possession of all classes of this country. This is just an instance where the unfortunate fact that the President of the Board of Trade refuses to allow the House of Commons to see the evidence upon which their verdicts are expected to be delivered handicaps us so severely. The knife is needed in every form, for every kind of odd job, and every kind of handy job. Many kinds of general workers, labourers and casual workers, whose pay is exceedingly small, who have very little money to buy the more expensive Sheffield knives which hon. Members on the opposite side recommend, need these knives in almost every stage of their labours from the time they start their work till the time they have to use their knives to get rid of their dinner. I know hon. Members on the other side are not used to eating meals with knives, but unfortunately all the people in the community are not in that position, and they have to use knives for many purposes which hon. Members, perhaps very properly, do not consider they should be used for. Then we find in paragraph 41 of the Report the most amazing statement that, just because some poor practical shoemaker will possibly only use four knives a year that will only cost him 9d. each, he will only pay 1s. per annum in taxation. We object very strongly to the practical shoemaker being taxed even 1s. on his knives in order to balance a Budget which is giving remissions in taxation to people who are much better able to afford to pay the taxation than by the indirect and, if I may venture with all respect to use the word, the profiteering methods which are being recommended this evening. There is not the slightest justification for this. The right hon.. Gentleman expressed the opinion in his reply that Boy Scouts should buy English knives instead of German knives. So they would if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends would pay the fathers of these boys sufficient to keep their families in decency. Those who have acted as scout masters and assistant scout masters in such areas as the East End know that it is only by extreme self denial that these lads are able to get any kind of uniform at all. I am surprised to hear

that a foundation is to be obtained for the British Empire by taxing the knives of the Friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are Boy Scouts in their youth and British Fascisti in their more mature years. I hope, in the interests of their young friends, that the gentlemen who have imported this latter valuable weapon into England, will not raise this tax to meet foolish, uneconomical extravagance. If this is to be balanced by taxation it should not be by indirect, unfair and profiteering methods on the vital tools and necessities of the poor; they should look for their revenue in sources nearer home.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 62.

Division No. 441.]	AYES.	[2.4 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Malone, Major P. B.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Merriman, F. B.
Albery, Irving James	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Meyer, Sir Frank
Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Gee, Captain R.	Morden, Col. W. Grant
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Nelson, Sir Frank
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Goff, Sir Park	Neville, R. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Grant, J. A.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Nuttall, Ellis
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Grotrian, H. Brent	Oakley, T.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.I.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Pennefather, Sir John
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Penny, Frederick George
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Haslam, Henry C.	Perring, William George
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hawke, John Anthony	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Preston. William
Campbell, E. T.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Radford, E. A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Raine, W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Ramsden, E.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Holland, Sir Arthur	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Remer, J. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Remnant, Sir James
Christie, J. A.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Clayton, G. C.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. a.
Cochrane Commander Hon. A. D.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Couper, J. B.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lamb, J. Q.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Lane-Fox. Lieut.-Col. George R.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sandon, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Loder, J. de V.	Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Davidson J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Looker, Herbert William	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Drewe, C.	Lougher, L.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman	Skelton A. N.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Lumley. L. R	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Everard W Lindsay	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Macintyre, Ian	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Fielden E. B.	McLean, Major A.	Smithers, Waldron
Fleming, D. P.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Tinne, J. A.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Storry Deans, R.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Womersley, W. J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H,	Warrender, Sir Victor	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Wells, S. R.	TELLERS FOR THE SYES.—
Templeton, W. P.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.	Major Cope and Captain Margesson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hirst, G. H.	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Batey, Joseph	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Taylor, R. A.
Dalton, Hugh	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Day, Colonel Harry	Kelly, W. T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Fenby, T. D.	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gillett, George M.	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Grundy, T. W.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Murnin, H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Harris, Percy A.	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Hayday, Arthur	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES ℄
Hayes, John Henry	Potts, John S.	Mr. Warne and Mr. A. Barnes.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 62.

Division No. 442.]	AYES.	[2.50 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Drewe, C.	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Albery, Irving James	Eden, Captain Anthony	Knox, Sir Alfred
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Elliot, Walter E.	Lamb, J. Q.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Everard, W, Lindsay	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Loder, J. de V.
Barnett, Major sir Richard	Fielden, E. B.	Looker, Herbert William
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Fleming, D. P.	Lougher, L.
Betterton, Henry B.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Boothby, R. J. G.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lumley, L. R.
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart	Gadie, Lieut.-Cot. Anthony	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macintyre, I.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Gee, Captain R.	McLean, Major A.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Macmillan, Captain H.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Malone, Major P. B.
Brown-Lindsay, Major H.	Goff, Sir Park	Margesson, Captain D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Grant, J. A.	Merriman, F. B.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Meyer, Sir Frank
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Grotrian, H. Brent	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Campbell, E. T.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Morden, Col. W. Grant
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nelson, Sir Frank
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Harrison, G. J. C.	Neville. R. J.
Chapman, Sir S.	Haslam, Henry C.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hawke, John Anthony	Nuttall, Ellis
Christie, J. A.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Oakley, T.
Clayton, G. C.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Couper, J. B.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Pennefather. Sir John
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Penny, Frederick George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Perring, William George
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Preston, William
Radford, E. A.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Raine, W.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C,)	Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.
Ramsden, E.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Smithers, Waldron	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Remer, J. R.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Remnant, Sir James	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Wells, S. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Storry Deans, R.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfeld)
Sandeman A. Stewart	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Womersley, W. J.
Sanderson. Sir Frank	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sandon, Lord	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Templeton, W. P.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Major Cope and Captain
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Tinne, J. A.	Hacking.
Skelton, A. N.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
NOES
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Henderson, Right Hen. A. (Burney)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waite
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)	Hirst, G. H.	Scurr, John
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Slesser, sir Henry H.
Batey, Joseph	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer. George A. (Broxtowe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Lute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Taylor, R. A.
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Morgan Caerphilly	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Dalton, Hugh	Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Day, Colone. Harry	Kelly W, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Kennedy, T.	Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen
Fenby, T. D.	Kirkwood, D.	Warne, G. H.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lansbery, George	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gillett, George M.	Lawson. John James	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)	Linn, William	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Grundy, T. W.	MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Harris, Percy A.	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon	Paling W.
Hayday, Arthur	Ponsonby. Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hayes John Henry	Potts, John S.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I beg to move, in line 6 at the end, to insert the words "or for trade purposes."

It is rather fortunate for me in rising to move this Amendment, that the President of the Hoard of Trade is not here. Had he been present, he would probably not have listened, but, instead, before I had an opportunity of moving the Amendment, he would have proposed the Closure. The only argument the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in his armory in support of these proposals is to gag the discussion. The Amendment that I move is one which would. I think receive the support of the Government had they been capable of understanding the effect of tariffs. If they did accept this Amendment it would be quite consistent with a number of things which have been done recently by are intelligent Ministers than those who are conducting these proposals. This Amendment proposes to exclude from the operation of the duties knives which are used for trade purposes. The object of that is to some extent to lighten the burden on industry. The few lines which we have just been discussing took exception in the ease of knives used in machines. If it would be a burden on industry to tax a knife used in machines, if cannot be less than a burden on industry to tax hand knives which are used for trade purposes. Last week, under the Rating and Valuation Bill, a Clause, was carried exempting the rating if machinery. That was done because the rating of machinery was considered to be a burden on industry. Cannot the Government be consistent at least for once? If it was a good thing and calculated to lighten the burden on industry and stimulate trade to relieve machinery from the burden of taxation, why cannot the Government accept this Amendment and to some extent relieve the industry which would otherwise be burdened by the imposition of a tax? We are hearing ad nauseum from representatives of the employing classes of the great harden upon industry, and the difficulty with which British trade has to meet foreign competition, if there be anything in that—and I think there is something in it—then the last thing the House of Commons might to do is to increase the burden on industry by putting a tax upon the implements of industry. It may be said in the case of hand knives the burden would not be large. There is a reference to that point in the Report of the Committee and they say that the imposition of the proposed duty would only involve increased expenditure in the case of shoe knives by an additional charge of 1s. a year. But the cost would be very much higher. A Customs duty always raises the cost of the article. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was that so in the case of the McKenna Duties?"] The question of the McKenna Duties in this discussion is irrelevant and I am anxious to economise time. My Amendment suggests that you should exclude, not merely knives used in machines but all those that are used for industrial purposes. A great deal has been said in the course of the Debate about the Committee having come to conclusions either without sufficient evidence or with no evidence at all. But there is no part of the Committee's Report which is more grotesque than that part which deals with the suggested imposition of a duty upon knives. Although I am anxious to save time, may I venture to read just one or two sentences from that paragraph dealing with shoe knives. My quotation begins just above the middle of page 16 dealing with the opinion that Swedish knives are regarded in various trades as being superior to the knives that are produced in Sheffield. The Committee go on to say: The whole question was irrelevant "— that is, the question whether Swedish knives were better than Sheffield ones unless it could be proved that the main importation came from Sweden and not from Germany. Why in the name of common sense should it have been left for the opponents to prove whether the knives came from Sweden or Germany? Surely that was the duty of the applicants, but this biased Committee, having the two most incompetent persons that were ever given the duty of considering these, matters, put the task on the opponents.

Mr. HANNON

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in making a reflection of this character on people who cannot defend themselves in this House?

The CHAIRMAN

It is more a matter of taste than of order.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I am quite prepared to leave the question of taste to those to whose opinion I attach some value and some importance.

Mr. MACLEAN

The bad taste is in the Chairman.

Mr. SNOWDEN

The Report goes on to say: In the absence of any separate statistics regarding the importation of shoe knives, we are bound to assume that the trade in them follows that in the general class of knives to which they belong. Why had they no statistics? Surely the statistics could have been obtained? But in this case, as in every other, they pave the benefit of the doubt to the applicants. Surely if it were a question of giving the advantage to one side, it was the duty of the Committee to assume that the applicants had not proved their case. Therefore the benefit of the doubt should have been given to those who opposed the demand. There never has been such a collection of flapdoodle before the House of Commons since this institution was founded than this and the other reports. The Report proceeds: We were satisfied from the evidence given by the Applicants that German shoe knives are being sold in this country at prices below those at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured here. Now, what is the proportion and the value of the knives which are used for hand purposes or used by hand, and what is the value of the knives used in machines? This is a Finance Bill and we ought at least to have an idea of the amount of revenue that is expected under this tax. For some reason, for the first time in many generations, the Treasury have not considered it to be their duty, or considered it to be a duty which they owe to the House of Commons, to be present to defend these proposals. These are some of the reasons on which I submit this Amendment to the House. There is nothing in the Report to prove whether these imported knives are competing unfairly with the products of Sheffield. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume what the Committee themselves admitted, that the hand knives which are used are quite as fine as those obtained in Sheffield. I do not submit my Amendment with any confidence that it will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. FENBY

I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not in his place, because I should like him to hear the appeal I want to make to the Committee. It will prove the right hon. Gentleman's geographical relationship with me and our very close connection in a matter which concerns a trade which is an ancient one, and I am proud to say a romantic one also. I notice that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. is to be imposed on the shoeing knife, but there is a knife which comes before the shoeing knife. Nobody has mentioned the farrier's knife. The Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, are spending a considerable sum of money on having demonstration vans up and down the country endeavouring to improve the trade of the village smith, who will be hit by the recommendations of the Committee to a considerable extent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snow-den), in moving his Amendment said that the knife which was to be used for trade purposes should not be subject to the duty. I happen to be a member of a very honourable profession which uses the farrier's knife and I would remind those who know nothing about the art of shoeing horses that, whatever could be done in other industries by machinery, you cannot shoe horses by machinery. Some people say it is a trade which is dying out. It certainly has serious difficulties, and I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade by his Resolution should to-night have put another difficulty in its way.

There is not a firm in England that has ever made a speciality of manufacturing the tools of the farrier. The knife which the farrier uses, and which is included in this duty, has a competitor which is neither German nor Scandinavian. Most of the things a farrier uses, the raw material and sometimes the finished article, are not to be obtained in this country. Take the nail which he uses. The raw material is Swedish charcoal iron, which has to be imported. The latest and improved type of knife comes from America. The farrier's knife made in Sheffield has a horn handle, and those who know anything of the farrier's trade know that when the smith wants to fit the heated shoe on the surface of the foot of the horse he has to carry it with an iron catch in his left hand, and he has to steady and keep in its place and the heat of the shoe burns the handle away long before the blade itself goes; and the personal touch of the farrier's hand, what is known as the sweep of the handle of the blade goes too. When a farrier wants a new knife he does not order it. He goes and looks at it, and feels it. He purchases one that comes to his grip. The American firm which makes farriers' tools a speciality has made an adjustable handle of malleable iron, in two parts, and when the blade is used the malleable iron handle is as complete and whole as before, because hot iron will not burn cold malleable iron, and therefore all the farrier has to do is to fit a new blade into the old handle; and so he goes on.

The President of the Board of Trade suggests that knives for surgical purposes shall not be subject to the 33⅓ per cent. duty, and I should like to point out that there is a service which is not medical but which is known as veterinary. If a horse's foot is damaged, the only way to get to the seat of the trouble and relieve the pain is by the farrier's knife. No surgeon, no medical man has any instrument for the relief of horses. Yet the farrier, who uses the knife for the relief of horses, his knife is to be subject to this duty. Knowing the difficulties of this romantic and ancient trade, I want to urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. At the moment the Minister of Agriculture is sending demonstration vans all over the country endeavouring to encourage the industry. The knife which his forefathers have used, and which his sons will have to use, the farrier still has in use. You cannot treat the feet of horses by machinery. I make a special appeal on behalf of this industry, and hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic ear to the claims of an industry that you cannot do without if you keep hunters, that you cannot do without if you are farmers, and that you cannot do without if you are brewers.

Sir B. CHADWICK

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) lashed himself into a fury and has treated us to a crescendo of vituperation, but the hon. Member who has just spoken has relieved the situation by a most interesting and affecting speech about the use of the farrier's knife. What is it all about? [HON. MEMBERS: "Knives!"] The reason why there is to be no duty on knives for machinery is that the applicants did not ask for the duty. That is all there is to that. The only case where the opponents of the proposal have made out any real case is that of the shoemaker's knife which has been referred to already. The Committee found that the shoemaker may be expected to use possibly 4s. worth of knife every year, and they thought that the imposition of The taxation would not be a very great infliction in an expenditure of that sum, whereas it would encourage the manufacture of the knife in the British market. Having listened to this Debate all night, I would like to hear somebody on the other side of the Committee refer to the home market; they have not said a single useful word in regard to home production.

Mr. MACLEAN

The hon. Member, who has just made such a magnificent reply only asked about shoemakers' knives. It seems to me that the only knife with which the hon. Member is acquainted is the knife that he reads about in this particular Report. I want to draw his attention and the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a rather curious anomaly that will arise if the Amendment is not accepted. He knows perfectly well, as President of the Board of Trade, that there are many factories in the country where cloth fabric for various purposes is cut up by machinery, in which there is something similar to the band knife in a wood factory, running round and cutting many thicknesses of cloth. In these factories there are also cutters employed, using knives to cut through smaller numbers of thicknesses, and you are going to have a wonderful contradiction. The power-cutting machine is going to escape the duty, but the knife that is need in the hands of the cutter who is operating a hand-cutting knife is going to be subject to the 33⅓ per cent. duty. That is a very strange way of helping industry. The very fact that the Report states that those who made the application for this duty showed that this particular duty would increase the price of these knives, gives away the whole of the case of the Government in bringing this particular tariff before the House of Commons. They admit that it is going to increase the price of the commodity. In addition to that, you are going to have these curious inconsistencies arising. I want to take the hon. Member a stage further—take him into a butcher's shop on a tour of inspection. You will find there a mincing machine with a knife used for mincing up the meat. You will also find an away of band knives along the counter. The mincing knife is to escape the tax, but all the knives that the butcher uses by hand are to be taxed. Really for a Government, of all the intellects— Well, I see some of them look up sharply as though I were insulting them, so I at once withdraw the allegation. They are not of all the intellects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty-three and a third per cent."] I think our own Amendment put them at their proper level, 5 per cent. I suggest to the Government that they ought to accept this Amendment for trade purposes. They want to assist industry. They claim that they are going to help trade by putting on this Duty, but let me put this point. I have only cited two particular trades, but I am certain the number could be increased. I could take, for example, the joinery trade, where you have a band saw which will escape taxation because it is a machine. But you also have hand tools which have blades inserted in them, and all these hand tools will be taxed. If your argument is correct, you are going to help one particular industry, but you are going to put an injury and a very severe handicap upon many others by the relief which you claim you are going to give to one.

3.0 A.M.

I submit that that is a curious way of lightening the burden on industry. It is a strange way of helping industry by imposing a tax upon almost every industry in the country. Other industries are to be handicapped because suddenly this Government have come to the conclusion that to help out one small industry they are going to impose a tax upon band knives brought into this country. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member who has just replied that they might give this matter further consideration. I am convinced that they would then see that the case of the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) is unanswerable. Cases could be multiplied, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues will give a little further consideration to this matter, and if they apply themselves strictly to the task of assisting other industries they will accept the Amendment.

Major CRAWFURD

I think the Committee will be very grateful to the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) for having raised this question in (he form of an Amendment. The widespread effect of this tax is indicated by the list of articles which are to be taxed, which is given on page 18 of this Report. I think the Committee will realise that it brings to light one of the great drawbacks to the particular method which is being adopted in these safeguarding proposals. This Amendment brings out very clearly the hardship which is inflicted during the course of these inquiries by the fact that the consumers' outlook and evidence is not considered at all. I remember that earlier in the Sitting the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) criticised my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Bonn) in this sense— that he complained, unconsciously untruly, that my hon. and gallant Friend showed that he had no interest in the producing industries of this country. We all know that the hon. Member has a very particular interest in industry and represents a Division of a city which produces many different kinds of goods and many different qualities. I have the honour to represent a constituency the members of which are not largely concerned in any producing industry, but they are largely concerned as consumers, and as I look down this list—taking only those articles that the right hon. Gentleman has included in his Amendment—it is perfectly obvious that it will have widespread effects. Neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor his colleague, have explained the effect of this tax. The hon. Gentleman who replied to this Amendment was perhaps a little more equitable and general than his colleague. He enjoys a joke—none so much as his own, and I think I would make a special appeal to the hon. Gentleman. There are cooks' knives, butchers' knives, plumbers' knives, ham and beef knives, pruning knives and even hacking knives —that might have made a warm appeal to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—farriers' knives, oilcloth knives and linoleum knives. The hon. Gentleman says it has been calculated that the shoemaker will only pay 4s. per year for knives. If that is 4s. altogether a small proportion of that will be additional owing to this tax.

Sir H. CROFT

Butchers' knives! [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)

The hon. and gallant Member must not be so easily led away to other subjects not the subject of the Amendment.

Major CRAWFURD

I was trying to elucidate what was exactly meant by the 4s.—whether it was per shoemaker per year. If 1s. is the additional price owing to this tax, the conclusion of the argument is this, that the amount of knife value per year per shoemaker is 4s., and that at the outside 1s. is represented by the additional price. How much employment is that going to give? Is it going to be worth the disturbance and extra cost which is going to be created and borne by numerous classes of persons? If it is in order, I would like to quote a few lines from another Report. In the Report which deals with wrapping paper——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can only deal with the particular question under discussion.

Major CRAWFURD

With all due respect, I was only going to deal with the point under discussion. I was going to say that the observations made with regard to the widespread effects of a tax on a certain material—paper—which enters into other industries are equally applicable to a tax on knives which also enter into other industries When they say in another Report that the effects of this tax will be very widespread, exactly the same is applicable in the case of the knife. As in every other case this evening, we seem to have bad no adequate explanation of why this is being done.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

rose in his place, and, claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put," That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 57.

Division No. 443.]	AYES.	[3.12 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Grotrian, H. Brent	Raine, W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Ramsden, E.
Albery, Irving James	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Remer, J. R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford}
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Rug Bios-Brise, Major E. A.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Haslam, Henry C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Hawke, John Anthony	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Betterton, Henry B.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Holland, Sir Arthur	Sandon, Lord
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C (Berks, Newb'y)	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westby)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Skelton, A. N.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Kennedy, A. ft. (Preston).	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Campbell, E. T.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Smithers, Waldron
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Lamb. J. Q	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Chapman, Sir S.	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Christie, J. A.	Loder, J. de V.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Clayton, G. C.	Looker, Herbert William	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lougher, L.	Storry Deans, R.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cope, Major William	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Couper, J. B.	Lumley, L. R.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Macintyre, Ian	Templeton, W. P.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	McLean, Major A.	Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)
Creokshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Macmillan, Captain H.	Tinne, J. A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Malone, Major P. B.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davidson, J (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Margesson, Captain D.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Drewe, C.	Merriman, F. B.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Meyer, Sir Frank.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Wells, S. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Nelson, Sir Frank	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Neville. R. J.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fielden, E. B.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fleming, D. P.	Nuttall, Ellis	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Oakley, T.	Wilson, B. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fraser, Captain Ian	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Franks E.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Womersley, W. J.
Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Gee, Captain R.	Pennefather, Sir John	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Penny, Frederick George
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goff, Sir Park	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Captain Hacking and Lord
Grant, J. A.	Preston, William	Stanley.
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Radford, E. A.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lawson, John James
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Harris, Percy A.	Lunn, William
Barnes, A.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Barr, J.	Hayday, Arthur	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry	Murnin, H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Paling, W.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Ponsonby, Arthur
Charleton, H. C.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Potts, John S.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Scurr, John
Dalton, Hugh	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Day, Colonel Harry	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Fenby, T. D.	Kelly, W. T.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Kennedy, T.	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Gillett, George M.	Kirkwood, D.	Taylor, R. A.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)	Windsor, Walter
Varley, Frank B.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen	William, T. (York, Don Valley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOSE.—
Watson W. M.(Dunfermline)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)	Mr. B. Smith And Mr. Warne.

Question Put accordingly, those words be there inserted."

"That The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 161

Division No. 444.]	AYES.	[3.18 a.m.
Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barnes, A.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr, J.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Kelly, W. T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Charleton, H. C.	Kennedy. T.	Varley, Frank B.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh	Lawson, John James	Warne, G. H.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lunn, William	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Harris, Percy A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Windsor, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scurr, John	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony	Nelson, Sir Frank
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Gee, Captain R.	Neville, R. J.
Albery, Irving James	Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Nuttall, Ellis
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Goff, Sir Park	Oakley, T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Grant, J. A.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Greene, W. P. Crawford	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Grotrian, H. Brent	Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Betterton, Henry B.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Pennefather, Sir John
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Penny, Frederick George
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Harrison, G. J. C.	Preston, William
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J	Haslam, Henry C.	Radford, E. A.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hawks, John Anthony	Raine, W.
Brown, Brig Gen. H. C (Berks, Newb'y)	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Ramsden, E.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Remer, J. R.
Campbell, E. T.	Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir O.(St. Marylebone)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)	Holland, Sir Arthur	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Chapman, Sir S.	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Christie. J. A.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Clayton, G. C.	Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sandon, Lord
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Cope, Major William	Lamb, J. Q-	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mel. (Renfrew. W)
Couper, J. B	Lane-Fox Lieut.-Col. George R.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)
Courtauld. Major J. S.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hot.. Sir Philip	Skelton. A. N.
Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.	Loder. J de V.	Slaney, Major P Kenyon
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Looker, Herbert William	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbre)	Lougher, L.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Curzon Captain Viscount	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Smithers, Waldron
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Drewe, C.	Lumley. L. R.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Eden Captain Anthony	MacAndrew, Chares Glen	Stanley, Col Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Edmondson. Major A. J	Macintyre, Ian	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Elliot. Captain Walter E.	McLean, Major A.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Erskine James Malcolm Monteith	Macmillan, Captain H.	Storry Deans, R.
Everard W Lindsay	Malone, Major P. B.	Stott, Lieut. Colonel W H.
Fairfax Captain J. G.	Margesson, Captain D.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Fielden E. B.	Merriman, F. B.	Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fleming D. P.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Foxcroft Captain C. T.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)	Templeton, W. P
Fraser Captain Ian	Monsell, Eyres, Com Rt. Hon. B. M.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Fremantle Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Tinne, J. A.	Wells, S. R.	Womersley, W. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Warrender, Sir Victor	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)	Captain Hacking and Lord Stanley.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)	Wise, Sir Fredric

Mr. SNOWDEN

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The grounds on which I put forward this proposal are two. I want the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary to have an opportunity of getting to understand these Resolutions. From the opening of this Debate, and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, who confined his opening remarks to reading a few extracts from the Report of the Committee, it has been quite clear that neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Parliamentary Secretary is capable of giving any reply to the arguments that are put before the Committee, and I am asking that this Debate be adjourned in order that the President of the Board of Trade may consult his advisers, and that there may be some interval during which his advisers can write out and have typed for the use of the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary the replies to the Amendments which will be moved. The second reason why I move this Motion is that the House of Commons, or such Members of the House of Commons as are now present, are engaged on important business. We are engaged in levying taxation upon His Majesty's subjects. I submit that it is nothing short of a scandal that, with only one-third of the Members of the House, of Commons present, the House is voting taxation upon the people of this country. In the last Division the fact was disclosed that just a little more than one-third of the Members of the Tory party were present in the House and, indeed, there are only two of the higher Members of the Government present. Where is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I think it is not merely a scandal but an insult to the House of Commons that there should be carried on for 12 hours a Debate of this character and a proposal for imposing taxation upon the people in the absence of the Minister who is primarily responsible. For these few reasons I beg to make the proposal I mentioned.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The right hon. Gentleman has proposed this Motion with characteristic courtesy.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Did you think you were the only one that could be courteous?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The right hon. Gentleman forgets the short time when he and his colleagues were in office. It is perfectly patent to the Committee why this Motion was moved. It is not because there is something more than a quorum present or because a quarter of his own followers have not taken the trouble to sit up. It is not because His Majesty's Government, who want to impose these duties on the exhaustive findings of the Committee, have been challenged in any respect. It is proposed for one reason only, which the right hon. Gentleman gave very early in the Debate, when he said he would exhaust every Parliamentary device in order to delay the passing of the Resolutions. We were charged with violating election pledges. It is said we are slow in helping unemployment. The. fact is that we are anxious by these Resolutions to expedite it.

Captain BENN

There never was a more reasonable Motion than that moved by my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a curious thing we never get these fine rhetorical displays from the President of the Board of Trade on any matter of substance. When we get to a formal and proper Motion for the Adjournment he declares an attack and talks about election pledges. The plain fact is that, if you allow this sort of thing to go on, we are going to lose the power that the Ways and Means Committee has over Finance Bills. That cannot be said too often. If we allow this to go on too long and the President of the Board of Trade is put in charge of the tax on knives, why should he not be put in charge of the tax on tea or coffee or a tax on incomes? To-night we are setting a new precedent.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Ha, ha!

Captain BENN

The hon. Gentleman who has been in the House 12 months must not laugh in derision. It is a perfectly serious point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to hang about the purlieus of the House of Commons, but he will have nothing to do with the whole business. Therefore he leaves the President of the Board of Trade, who is a keen man for that sort of thing, to move the Resolutions and carry them in defiance of all precedent. In these circumstances the best the Committee can do is to adjourn the Debate which is being carried on in quite novel and unprecedented conditions. We know that by the orders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the standing practices in the House of Commons is being flouted. Let me say what I mean by that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Manual of Procedure, on page 222. they will see It is the fluty of every Member of the House of Commons to attend the service of the House.

HON. MEMBERS: Where is your party?

Captain BENN

As you know, Mr. Hope, we may have to revert to the practice of calling the House over. It may be necessary to ask the Chair to consent to a call of the House if the present procedure goes on. It is not only that hon. Members are absent through the call of duty. They are absent through an organised system of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] In view of the wilful absenteeism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who should be here on a Finance Bill discussion, I beg to support the Motion.

Mr. J. HUDSON

I think it is not fair to the House that we should let the opportunity go by without protest. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is engaged in a plot. He knows very well he has had no mandate whatever to go forward with a scheme which in the long run means the institution of Protection for which he and his party are pledged.

The CHAIRMAN

That is not a reason why I should leave the Chair. If there is a plot about, there is a reason why I should remain.

Mr. HUDSON

With the idea of helping to prevent a plot I want to suggest that this Motion should be agreed to by the Committee in order that the responsible authority in these matters might be here to explain upon what principles they can justify the proposals now put forward. I entirely agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, above all other persons, should be present. Every part of this Debate has required his presence, and it is a perfectly scandalous thing that the institution of all sorts of taxes, which it will be extremely difficult to get rid of in the future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] —should be proceeded with in Ms absence. Yes, and those cheers are a confession from all the benches opposite of the nature of the plot to which I have referred. Their concern is to rivet upon this country a system which, if they had acted honourably, they would have known they could never consider during this Parliament. We are out to fight with all the means in our power against the game that is being played, and played in the interests of the profits of the classes. There is no concern for the working classes. Their needs could have been dealt with more directly, and in a much better way. They might have been dealt with by an effective scheme of unemployment. This is not in the interests of the working classes; it is not in the interests of unemployment. What actually is taking place is that having been defeated in election after election in an attempt to impose on this country a system which their great leader in the past described as "Dead and damned!" they now prefer to work by subterfuge, and the one man amongst them who knows all the facts slinks into holes and corners while the President of the Board of Trade goes into tantrums because he has no argument to meet the case put forward.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 56.

Division No. 445.]	AYES.	[3.45 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Agn-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Remer, J. R.
Albery, Irving James	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Bussed, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M	Haslam, Henry C.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Hawke, John Anthony	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Boothby, R. J. G.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Sandon, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Comb., N.)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Skelton, A. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Campbell, E. T.	Kirkwood. D.	Smithers, Waldron
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Knox, Sir Alfred	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Lamb, J. Q.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Chapman, Sir S.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Loder, J. de V.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Christie, J. A.	Looker, Herbert William	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Clayton, G. C.	Lougher, L.	Storry Deans, R
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Cope, Major William	Lumley, L. R.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Couper, J. B.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Macintyre, Ian	Templeton, W. P.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	McLean, Major A.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Macmillan, Captain H.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Malone, Major P. B.	Tinne, J. A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Merriman, F. B.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Meryer, Sir Frank	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Drewe, C.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Nelson, Sir Frank	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Neville R. J.	Wells, S. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Nuttall, Ellis	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fielden, E. B.	Oakley, T.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fleming, D. P.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fraser, Captain Ian	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wise, Sir Fredric
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Pennefather, Sir John	Womersley, W. J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Penny, Frederick George	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Gee, Captain R.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Preston, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goff, Sir Park	Radford, E. A.	Captain Margesson and Captain
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Raine, W	Hacking.
Grotrian, H. Brent.	Ramsden, E.

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hayes, John Henry	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilliy)	Taylor, R. A.
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kelly, W. T.	Varley, Frank B.
Dalton, Hugh	Kennedy, T.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry	Kirkwood, D.	Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmonth, Bedwellty)	Lawson, John James	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T. D.	Lunn, William	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Windsor, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Murnin, H.
Harris, Percy A.	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.	Warne.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 157.

Division No. 446.]	AYES.	[3.53 a.m.
Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barnes, A.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr, J.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)	Kelly, W. T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Charleton, H. C.	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh	Lawson, John James	Warns, G. H.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lunn, William	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J,R.(Aberaven)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Harris, Percy A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hayday, Arthur	Petts, John S.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scurr, John	Hayes.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Remer, J. A.
Albery, Irving James	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecen & Rad.)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Barlow, George (Hampstead)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Haslam, Henry C.	Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Barnett, Major Sir R.	Hawke, John Anthony	Samuel, Samuel (W'dswerth, Putney)
Barnsten, Major Sir Harry	Hennessy, Major J- R. G.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Boethby, R. J. G.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watferd)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebene)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Sandon, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Brown-Lindsay, Major H	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.)	Skelton, A. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)	Staney, Major P. Kenyon
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Campbell, E. T.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)	Knox, Sir Alfred	Smithers, Waldron
Captain Victor A.	Lamb, J. Q.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Chapman, Sir S.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Loder, J. de V.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Christie, J. A.	Looker, Herbert William	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Clayton, G. C.	Lougher, L.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Storry Deans, R
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Couper, J. B.	Lumley. L. R.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Macintyre, Ian	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	McLean, Major A.	Templeton, W. P.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Macmillan Captain H.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Malone, Major P. B.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Merriman, F. B.	Tinne, J. A.
Drewe, C	Meyer, Sir Frank	Wallace. Captain D. E.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Warrender, Sir Victor
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Nelson, Sir Frank	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay	Neville, R. J.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Nicholson. O. (Westminster)	Wells, S. R.
Fielden, E. B.	Nuttall, Ellis	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Fleming, D. P.	Oakley, T.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fraser, Captain Ian	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Pennefather, Sir John	Wise, Sir Fredric
Gee, Captain R.	Fenny, Frederick George	Womersley, W. J.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Goff, Sir Park	Preston, William
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Radford, E. A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grotrian, H. Brent	Raine, W.	Major Cope and Captain
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Ramsden, E.	Margesson.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Field, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

4.0 A.M.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

May I call attention under the Rules of Procedure of the House to the fact that I notice there are strangers present? I call upon you, Mr. Chairman, to take proceedings under the rule.

The CHAIRMAN

I observe no strangers.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN

There are: I see them now. Under Rule 272, if there are strangers present, I think it is open to any Member to call your attention, and take steps in connection therewith.

The CHAIRMAN

I observe no strangers; perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will indicate where they are.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

Under the Gallery.

The CHAIRMAN

That does not, for this purpose, form part of the House.

Mr. CHARLETON

I beg to move to leave out lines 7 and 8.

This Amendment deals with scissors, including tailors' shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel of iron. During the course of this evening's Debate the Labour party have repeatedly been told that they have no interest in the state of trade or employment at home. I desire to say that my chief motive for moving the deletion of these two lines is my anxiety to keep trade going in this country. I notice that there has been a number of things excluded from this tax, such as circular knives and knives for use in machines. I also notice that manufacturers of ironworkers' shears did not ask for Protection. I can only conclude that it was considered that it would add to the cost of these instruments, and that the tax would make their use prohibitive and seriously affect industry. I am strengthened in the view when I find that the Sheffield Cutlery Association did not ask that tin-men's snips should be taxed. They are not included because they are a tool in general use; because they are used so frequently that the cost would have gone up. I remember that when the Safeguarding of Industries Bill was first brought in and discussed in this House it was admitted on all sides and the prices of the articles proposed to be taxed would rise. It was said that was the object of the Measure, and I am bound to conclude that that will operate in this case. I want to deal with one or two of these articles which are being taxed. I would say, in passing, that the unemployed are mostly friends of Members on these benches—fathers, uncles, brothers and friends generally.

I would remind hon. Members opposite who shout so loudly about buying British goods, that if the cars which are stored it Star Chamber Court and New Palace Yard are examined, it will be found that a large percentage of them were made outside these shores. Barbers' hair scissors should be exempted from duty. If they go up in price barbers will not want them ground so often for fear of wearing them away. The price of shingling may go up, as well as the Eton crop which so many ladies are having. Ladies ribbons of silk are also taxed and I can see they are in for a rough time. If there is one industry hon. Members opposite take under their wing it is agriculture. But cattle-marking scissors, poultry scissors, and pruning scissors are to be taxed. The farmers may state that as pruning scissors and fruit scissors are taxed it should increase the price of fruit. Following that, up would go the price of jam. In a further schedule the jam labels will be taxed. To increase the price of jam is against the best interests for the unemployed. If the price of food goes up it is certain that. what the unemployed spent on jam they cannot spend on other things. What they do not spend on other things will cause unemployment in other industries. I see that nail scissors are going up. So far as we are concerned our nails will have to go into mourning. Then I see that poultry scissors are going up. I suppose the Kitchen Committee will charge more for a wing of chicken. Tailors' shears and scissors are to be taxed, and I suppose we may assume that tailors will charge more. You will see what Henry George pointed out long ago —that if you, tax and protect one article it is bound to be done at the expense of other articles. That is why we support this deletion. As to whether cigarmaking scissors should be left out we on these benches are not much concerned. I have not found many of our men, smoking cigars except when they have met some of the hon. Members opposite. I am going to suggest that perhaps your cigars will cost you more and our men will not get one so frequently from you. Then there are paperhangers' scissors. We are having great difficulty in housing. We have a scarcity of bricklayers and we have a scarcity of carpenters. Now, not only shall we have a scarcity of paper-hangers, but I can see two or three paper-hangers working in a house with one pair of scissors between them in order to economise. Then I see buttonhole scissors are to be taxed. That means that the poor seamstress who makes the cheap garments for the working classes will have to pay more. Your buttonholes will cost you more, and we shall not he able to have so many buttonholes. I am not suggesting that that is a blessing or a curse As many of our friends have been called to Order,] will say no more, but move that these lines be deleted.

Mr. MACLEAN

On a point of Order. Your attention, Mr. Hope, was called some time ago to the fact that strangers were present, and you gave a ruling to the effect that the Gallery was not part of the House. I want to call your attention to Standing Order 88, which says: The serjeant-at-arms attending this house shall, from time to time, take into his custody any stranger whom he may sue, or who may be reported to him to be, in any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this; House, and also any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery, shall misconduct himself, or shall not withdraw, when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting; and no person so taken into custody shall he discharged out of custody without the special order of this House Standing Order on, which also deals with this question, says: If at any sitting of the House, or in Committee, any Member shall take notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the Question, 'That strangers be ordered to withdraw,' without permitting any Debate or Amendment: provided that the. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, whenever he thinks fit, order the withdrawal of strangers from any part of the House. Provided that any order made under this Standing Order shall rot apply to members of the House of Lords. In face of the ruling you gave a little earlier in the evening, according to those two Standing Orders, the ruling you gave was not in order regarding the part to which your attention had been drawn.

The CHAIRMAN

Regarding the first Standing Order, it really has no application to the present occasion. Neither has any stranger misconducted himself, nor has any stranger been observed in any part of the House. Regarding the second Standing Order, the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland raised a similar question during the Budget Debate of 1909, and it was then held that the Gallery to which the hon. Member referred did not constitute part of the House. That is within my own recollection, and I therefore ruled that no action was necessary.

Mr. MACLEAN

If you look at Standing Order 88 again, you will see that the first part says any stranger who may be seen in any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this House, but the other part says any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member has not finished the sentence. It goes on to say shall misconduct himself.

Mr. MACLEAN

No. May I road on? and also any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery, shall misconduct himself, or "— not "and," but "or"— ' or shall not withdraw, when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting. Standing Order 90 lays it down that the Chairman, shall forthwith ask strangers to withdraw who, according to Standing Order 88. are seated in any other part of the House or Gallery.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) raised this question, and directed my attention to the presence of strangers in the Gallery. If the hon. Member wishes to move that this be converted into a secret sitting, and to include all the Galleries, which will include the Press Gallery, he will then be in order. That does not apply to the Galleries on the floor only, but to all the Galleries in which the newspapers are represented. If he wishes to move that, I can accept it.

Mr. MACLEAN

Oh! no. Standing Order 90 gives the form of words in which the attention of the Chairman is directed to strangers being present.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member formally directs my attention, I shall put the Question, with the result that all strangers, including the representatives of the Press, will retire. That Motion cannot be debated.

Captain BENN

Is it not a fact that if you put the Motion, and the Question that strangers do withdraw is challenged, a Division will have to take place?

Mr. MACLEAN

In order to carry it out, I move, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."

The CHAIRMAN

Notice having been taken that strangers are present, the Question I have to put is, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."

The CHAIRMAN

I call upon all strangers to withdraw.

HON. MEMBERS

And the Press?

The CHAIRMAN

Including the Press.

Strangers accordingly withdrew [at 4.20 a.m.]

The following record of the subsequent business is taken from the Votes and Proceedings:—

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate arising.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That, the Question be now put."

The Committee Divided: Ayes 153: Noes, 56.

Division No. 447.]	AYES.	[4.27 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Albery, Irving James	Fielden, E. B.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Fleming, D. P.	Lumley, L. R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Macintyre, I.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	McLean, Major A.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Macmillan, Captain H.
Betterton, Henry B.	Gee, Captain H.	Malone, Major P. B.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Margesson, Captain D.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Merriman, F. B
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Goff, Sir Park	Meyer, Sir Frank
Brown-Lindsay, Major H.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Grotrian, H. Brent.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hacking. Captain Douglas H.	Nelson, Sir Frank
Campbell, E. T.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Neville, R. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nuttall, Ellis
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Harrison, G. J. C.	Oakley, T.
Chapman, Sir S.	Haslam, Henry c.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugn
Christie, J. A.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Clayton, G. C.	Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Penny, Frederick George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Holland, Sir Arthur	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Couper, J. B.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Preston, William
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Radford, E. A.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)	Raine, W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Kennedy, A. B. (Preston)	Ramsden, E.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Remer, J. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Drewe, C.	Lamb, J. Q.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Loder, J. de V.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Looker. Herbert Williams	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Everarn, W. Lindsay	Lougher, L.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Sandon, Lord	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Storry Deans, R.	Wells, S. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Skelton, A. N.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Templeton, W. P.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	Womersley, W. J.
Smithers, Waldron	Tinne, J. A.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Warrender, Sir Victor	Major Cope and Mr. F. C.
		Thompson
NOES
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barnes, A.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Barr, J.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Batey, Joseph	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pentypridd)	Thomson, Travelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Varley, Frank B.
Crawford, H. E.	Kennedy, T.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh	Kirkwood, D.	Warne, G. H.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D.	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Harris, Percy A.	Paling, W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Hayes, John Henry	Scurr, John	Charles Edwards.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Question put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 56.

Division No. 448.]	AYES.	[4.55 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Everard, W. Lindsay	Looker, Herbert William
Albery, Irving James	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Lougher, L.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Fielden, E. B.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Fleming, D. P.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Lumley, L. R.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Fraser, Captain Ian	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Betterton, Henry B.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macintyre, Ian
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	McLean, Major A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gee, Captain R.	Macmillan, Captain H.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Malone, Major P. B.
Brown-Lindsay, Major H.	Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John	Margesson, Captain D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Goff, Sir Park	Merriman, F. B.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Meyer, Sir Frank
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Grotrian, H. Brent	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Campbell, E. T.	Guntston, Captain D. W.	Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Nelson, Sir Frank
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Nuttall, Ellis
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Oakley, T.
Christie, J. A.	Haslam, Henry C.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Clayton, G. C.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Penny, Frederick George
Cope, Major William	Holland, Sir Arthur	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Couper, J. B.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Preston, William
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Radford, E. A.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Raine, W.
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Ramsden, E.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Remer, J. R.
Drewe, C.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Lamb, J. Q.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Eliot, Captain Walter E.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Loder, J. de V.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sandeman, A. Stewart	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Wells, S. R.
Sandon, Lord	Storry Deans, R.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Skelton, A. N.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Templeton, W. P.	Womersley, W. J.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Tinne, J. A.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Smithers, Waldron	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Major Sir H. Barnston and Mr.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Warrender, Sir Victor	F. C. Thomson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Varley, Frank B.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kennedy, T.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh	Kirkwood, D.	Warne, G- H.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T. D.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.
Harris, Percy A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.

Another Amendment proposed, to 9.—[Mr. Lees Smith.]

Question put, "That the words pro-

Posed to be left out stand part of Question.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 53.

Division No. 449.]	AYES.	[5.40 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Edmonson, Major A. J.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Albery, Irving James	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Lamb, J. Q
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fielden, E. B.	Loder, J. de V.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Fleming, D. P.	Looker, Herbert William
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Lougher, L.
Betterton, Henry B.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Lumley. L. R.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Gee, Captain R	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Macintyre, I.
Brown, Brig.-Gen H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McLean, Major A.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Goff, Sir Park	Macmillan, Captain H.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Malone, Major P. B.
Campbell, E. T.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Margesson, Capt. D
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Merriman, F. B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Meyer, Sir Frank
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Charteris, Brigadier General J.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Christie, J. A.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Nelson, Sir Frank
Clayton, G. C.	Haslam, Henry C.	Neville, R. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Nuttall, Ellis
Cope, Major William	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Oakley, T.
Couper, J. B.	Holland, Sir Arthur	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)	penny, Frederick George
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Drewe, C.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Preston, William
Eden, Captain Anthony	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Radford, E. A.
Raine, W.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Ramsden, E.	Smithers, Waldron	Warrender, Sir Victor
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Remer, J. R.	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Wells, S. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. Q. (Westm'eland)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Storry Deans, R.	Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)
Sandeman, A. Stewart	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Wise, Sir Fredric
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Womersley, W. J.
Sandon, Lord	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Templeton, W. P.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Skelton, A. N.	Tinne, J. A.	Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Stanley.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.
Alexander, A., V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scurr, John
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph	Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A
Charleton. H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Dalton, Hugh	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bodwellty)	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T.O.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.
Harris, Percy A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne

Another Amendment proposed to leave out. — [Mr. Taylor.]

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question"

Debate arising—

Sir PHLIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put"

Question put, "that the question be now put."

The committee divided: Ayes, 149: Noes, 54

Division No. 450.]	AYES.	[6.15 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Croskshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Haslam, Henry C.
Albery, Irving James	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Barclay-Harvey. C. M.	Drewe, C.	Holland, Sir Arthur
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Edmondson. Major A. J.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Kennedy, A. A. (Preston)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Fielden, E. B.	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Fleming, D. P.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Lamb. J. Q.
Campbell, E. T.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R,
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Gee, Captain R.	Loder, J. de V.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Looker, Herbert William
Chapman, Sir S.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Lougher, L.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Goff, Sir Park	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Christie, J. A.	Greene. W. P. Crawford	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Clayton, G. C.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Lumley, L. R.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G.K.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Macintyre, I.
Cope, Major William	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	McLean, Major A.
Couper, J. B.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	MacMillan, Captain H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Malone, Major P. B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Margesson, Captain D.
Merriman, F. B.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Meyer, Sir Frank	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Templeton, W. P.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Tinne, J. A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Nelson, Sir Frank	Sandon, Lord	Ward, Lt,-Col A. L. (Kingston -on-Hull)
Neville, R. J.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Nuttall, Ellis	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts., Westb'y)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Oakley, T.	Skelton, A. N.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wells, S. R.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Wilder, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Penny, Frederick George	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Smithers, Waldron	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Preston, William	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Wise, Sir Fredric
Radford, E. A.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)	Womersley, W. J.
Raine, W.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Ramsden, E.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Storry Deans., R.
Remer, J. R.	Stoft, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Stanley.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hayes, John Henry	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Henderson, Right Han. A. (Burnley)	Slesser, sir Henry H.
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr. J	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keignley)
Batey, Joseph	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W)
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Varley, Frank B.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh	Lawson, John James	Watson, W, M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Paling, W.
Harris, Percy A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.
Hayday, Arthur	Potts, John S.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 54.

Division No. 451.	AYES.	[6.20 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Holland, Sir Arthur
Albery, Irving James	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Drewe, C.	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Barclay-Harvey. C. M.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Barnston, Major sir Harry	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Bowyer, Captnin G. E. W.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Knox, Sir Alfred
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Lamb, J. Q.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Fielden. E. B.	Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Fleming, D. P.	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Loder, J. de V.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Looker, Herbert William
Campbell, E. T.	Gee, Captain R.	Lougher, L.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Goff, Sir Park	Lumley, L. R.
Chapman, Sir S.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Macintyre. Ian
Christie, J. A.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	McLean, Major A.
Clayton, G. C.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Macmillan, Captain H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Malone, Major P. B.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Margesson, Captain D.
Cope, Major William	Harrison, G. J. C.	Merriman, F. B.
Couper, J. B.	Haslam, Henry C.	Meyer, Sir Frank
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Nelson, Sir Frank	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Sandon, Lord	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Nuttall, Ellis	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Tinne, J. A.
Oakley, T.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)	Wallace, Captain D. E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Skelton, A. N.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Penny, Frederick George	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Warrender, Sir Victor
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Smith Carington, Neville W.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Preston, William	Smithers, Waldron	Wells, S. R.
Radford, E. A.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Raine, W.	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Ramsden, E.	Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Remer, J. R.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Wise, Sir Fredric
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)	Storry Deans, R.	Womersley, W. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Sandeman, A. Stewart	Sykes. Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Templeton, W. P.	Captain Hacking and Lord Stanley.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hayday, Arthur	Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hayes, John Henry	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barnes, A.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barr, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Batey, Joseph	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Varley, Frank B.
Crawfurd. H. E.	Kelly, W. T.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dalton, Hugh	Kirkwood. D.	Warne. G. H.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T. D.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H	Windsor, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)	Paling, W.
Harris, Percy A.	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Potts, John S.	Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.]

The Question having been raised as to whether, after strangers had been ordered to withdraw, a Motion for their re-

admission could be made, the Chairman ruled that the Standing Orders provided no means for their re-admission.

Question put, and negatived.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 54.

Division No. 452.]	AYES.	[7.5 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Albery, Irving James	Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Cope, Major William	Goff, Sir Park
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Couper, J. B.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Grotrian, H. Brent
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Betterton, Henry B.	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey. Gainsbro)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Drewe, C.	Harrison, G. J. C.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Haslam, Henry C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Holland, Sir Arthur
Campbell, E. T.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Cayrer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Cazalet. Captain Victor A.	Fielden, E. B.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Fleming, D. P.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Chapman, Sir S.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Charters, Brigadier-General J.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Christie, J. A.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Clayton, G. C.	Gee, Captain R.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Storry Deans, R.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Preston, William	Stett, Lieut.-Colonel W H.
Loder, J. de V.	Radford, E. A.	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Looker, Herbert William	Raine, W.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lougher, L.	Ramsden, E.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Templeton, W. P.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Remer, J. R.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Lumley, L. B.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Mac Andrew, Charles Glen	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Tinne, J. A.
Macintyre, I.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wallace, Captain D. E.
McLean, Major A.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Macmillan, Captain H.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Warner, Brigadier-General W, W.
Malone, Major P. B.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Margesson, Captain D.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Merriman, F. B.	Sandon, Lord	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Meyer, Sir Frank	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	wells, S. R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Skelton, A. N.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Nelson, Sir Frank	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Neville, R. J.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)	Wise. Sir Fredric
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Womersley, W. J.
Nuttall, Ellis	Smithers, Waldron	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Oakley, T.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Penny, Frederick George	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hayes, John Henry	Potts, John S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scurr, John
Barnes, A.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor, R. A.
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kennedy, T.	Varley, Frank B.
Dalton, Hugh	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D.	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Harris, Percy A.	Paling, W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hayday, Arthur	Ponsonby, Arthur	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.

Resolved, That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:

• Knives with one or more blades made wholly or partly of steel or iron, other than surgical knives, or knives for use in machines;
• Scissors, including tailors' shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel or iron;
• Safety razors and component parts thereof;
• Razors, other than safety razors;
• Carving forks;
• Knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel;

Handles, blades, or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles.

Resolution to be reported this day.

Committee to sit again this day.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after Seven o'Clock, a.m., Thursday, 3rd December.