HC Deb 03 December 1925 vol 188 cc2658-85
Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to move, to leave out lines 8 to line 10 inclusive.

Broadly, the purpose of this Amendment is to omit the duty upon fabric gloves. This Resolution, as a whole, deals with leather gloves and fabric gloves together. The Amendment which has just lately been moved by my hon. Friend below me was for the purpose of omitting any duty upon leather gloves. That Amendment has now been defeated, and I now move to omit the duty on fabric gloves. The hon. Gentleman who is speaking for the Government is now in his place. I express the hope at the beginning of this discussion that the Amendment from this side of the Committee shall, on this occasion, have some reply from the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that the Debate collapsed rather speedily, but the fact remains that the reason for that was that we were keeping our ammunition in order to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say in reply to my hon. Friend. When he remained silent, as happened on a larger occasion last night, the Debate naturally collapsed. On this occasion I hope he will give a reply to the points I wish to bring before him.

This question of fabric gloves raises a point which opens up the whole principle on which the Government are acting in connection with these Committees, and the instructions that it has been giving to them. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the first essential condition which any industry has to fulfil, according to the statement and the pledges of the Government, before it can obtain a tariff, is not that the industry has simply to prove that there is a large number of imports coming into this country. That would lead to a general tariff which would break the pledge which the Prime Minister has given. The specific condition which must be fulfilled under the safeguarding proposals is that the amount of imports coming into this country now must be abnormal. They must be unprecedented in comparison with previous standards taken before the War. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what the interpretation of this has been. The President of the Board of Trade was asked on the first Debate on this subject, "If you are going to say that imports are at this moment abnormal—abnormal compared to when?" The answer he gave was that in all ordinary cases the meaning of the Government was abnormal as compared to the period of 1913. When these Committees are appointed we find that, as a result of their investigations and the figures put before them, some of those industries cannot obtain a tariff under those conditions. Fabric gloves is one of them. That industry cannot obtain a tariff because, as the Report of the Committee shows, the proportion of imports from abroad coming into this country this year is smaller than the proportion in 1913, therefore, according to the conditions of the Government originally laid down, the whole case breaks down and no tariff ought to be granted.

What has been done? The President of the Board of Trade explained this afternoon in his opening speech what had been done. What has been done is that because 1913 does not give the result, the year 1920 is taken instead, and if it can be proved that imports are greater now than in 1920 that fulfils the condition of unprecedented competition. I wish to take the argument that the President of the Board of Trade used, and see what it means. His argument was this. If you have an industry which was small before the War, in 1913, and which has expanded, then it would be unfair to penalise it on that account, and therefore we will take 1920, a post-War year, as our standard in that particular case. That is the argument. What does that mean? That moans that this condition which practically amounts to a pledge makes the difference between safeguarding and a general tariff. This condition is rendered absolutely meaningless and ridiculous. What does it mean? You have a small industry, an industry which before the War was conducted on a tiny scale, employing people who only fill a corner of Westminster Hall. War breaks out. During the War it has a monopoly of the markets, and all the raw materials which no other country can obtain. The result of that is naturally that a group of new firms arise. Then in 1920 that industry naturally reaches its peak—its maximum production. But the whole thing is forced. It is an artificial incubation, and at the end of it the Government says, "What we are now going to say is that, as the result of this artificial extension leading to the maximum of 1920, the year 1920 is now normal, and any imports which come into this country because trade resumes its usual channel are all abnormal." You are going to calculate industry on this artificial peak for ever. If you are going to juggle with your figures like that, it renders this test meaningless and it turns Safeguarding Duties into duties based upon the principle of a general tariff which the Prime Minister stated he was not going to introduce.

There is one further fact. Hon. Gentlemen speak as if they could do almost anything by means of a tariff. I believe that any business man will recognise that, even if you can get a tariff, there are things that a tariff cannot do. In practice a tariff cannot continue in existence an industry which has been built on an artificial and unreal basis. Moreover, you may injure industry as a whole and you do not assist the trade that you have in mind. Look at this industry of fabric gloves; look at the history of the tariff there. It is all given in this Report; everything I am saying is contained in this Report, which supplies all my knowledge of the subject. In 1913, there were just six rather small firms in this country making fabric gloves. They would not have filled Westminster Hall. The War broke out. They got this industry going under artificial conditions. The industry had a monopoly of Egyptian cotton, and the consequence was that a number of new firms arose. But an industry cannot be maintained on that basis; it has not the genuine foundation.

The Government are now trying to maintain it by means of a duty. Owing to causes beyond my own control, I was not in this House when that duty was imposed, but I read the Debates rather more carefully probably than if I had Been here. This is what happened: In the attempt to maintain the industry the duty was kept in being from August, 1922, to August, 1924. The results of the duty on the industry are shown in this Report. I see that in the year before the duty was imposed, 1921, foreign imports to this country represented 60 per cent. of the total consumption. In 1922, the first year of the duty, foreign imports rose from 60 to 87 per cent. In this last year, for which figures are given, they have risen to 88 per cent. That shows that a tariff cannot do these unnatural things. It shows that in spite of a duty there is a genuine and powerful demand for these foreign goods, which the people must have, and the demand is such that it becomes perfectly clear that the duties cannot counteract natural consequences.

I read the Debates, and every hon. Member is familiar with the facts. The facts are that this industry of the manufacture of fabric gloves, insignificant though it is in this country, has been planted for generations in Chemnitz. There were six little firms in this country. In Chemnitz there are 500 that have been there for generations, working under massed production and with relations with each other. A duty of this sort cannot and ought not to be able to exclude goods which are coming into this country and which we are buying, not because of low wages or anything unfair, but simply because of the fact that by generations of acquired experience, this industry is conducted in Saxony with a skill which almost amounts to a science. In the circumstances, this duty merely injures the general public. It cannot work against these natural forces and is bound to fail.

Sir B. CHADWICK

I rise at once this time, for fear of missing my opportunity. I assure the hon. Gentleman who proposed the last Amendment that it was out of no disrespect to him that I did not reply. As a matter of fact I saw the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) get up to contribute to the Debate, and I felt that that would be an opportunity for me to absorb for a few morn moments what had been said by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and before I knew it the hon. Member for Shoreditch had concluded, the Question had been put, and I was rather caught. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) speaks of the establishment of this old industry of glove making in Chemnitz and of the firm foundation on which the industry stands by reason of its age, the experience gained, and the fact that it has passed on from generation to generation. Almost in the words of the Report he would indicate that it is practically hopeless for an Englishman to try to compete with these people. If that be in his mind, it is a doctrine which does not carry any kind of weight with me.

The hon. Member may recall a speech made earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), who traced the industry through the ages in Worcester. He may recall that the hon. Member spoke of the industry as employing over 30,000 people in Worcester over 100 years ago, before we dropped a, duty which had been imposed on foreign gloves. Then, during some negotiations with France, we gave away our duty, in the hope that we would get some reciprocity, which was not forthcoming. When we gave away our duty we gave away the Worcester glove trade, and we have never got it back again. May not that explain the position of the industry in Chemnitz? What is the duty on gloves going from Germany into France? I think it is about 190 francs per kilo—at any rate it is an enormous duty. The hon. Member opposite argued against a tariff in any form, but I think he will find it difficult to establish the argument now put forward that because a trade is so firmly established in Germany, we are not entitled to make an effort on behalf of our own people at home to whom this trade is not by any means a new one, but to whom it belonged many generations before we were here dealing with those matters.

Captain BENN

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us more details of this duty of 190 francs per kilo.?

Sir B. CHADWICK

I have already said I am not quite sure what the duty is, but I know it is a big duty. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the fabric glove industry as an artificial innovation and a War production which came into being when we had no foreign goods and he seemed to ask, why should we maintain an industry which came into being in those circumstances. In effect, he asked, "Why should we maintain it? It has no right here. It is not our trade. It is true that at the end of the War instead of 1,800 people it was employing 10,000 or 11,000, but it is only an artificial War-time product and let us do away with it." I do not understand the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. I stand here as a representative of Labour—like most of my hon. Friends on this side—and trying to divest myself of my political views just for a moment and trying to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite on common ground in this matter, I fail to understand why even if this proposal were not as sound as I think it is, they should resist an opportunity of trying to do something to foster these trades. I cannot understand why they should object to such an effort, knowing in their own minds that there can be no harm to anybody in doing so—even putting it on that low level. How can the hon. Member opposite stand up and say "Let this industry and go and let these 10,000 or 11,000 people go," simply because from his own political point of view entirely, and without any experience, he believes that certain harm may be done in other directions? We have enough of the attitude which is expressed in the words "It cannot be done." We are going to see if it can be done and I am sure that hon. Members on this side intend that at any rate it will not be possible to say later on that there was any want of trying to do it. I think I have dealt with the points put forward on this Amendment and also the points which were raised on the previous Amendment.

Captain BENN

The speech of the hon. Gentleman does credit to his heart but does not carry us much further. Let me put a few questions to him. His speech amounts to this "You say it cannot be done. I say it can be done and we are going to try to do it." How is he going to try to do it. Does he mean sincerely that he has found something which will save these fabric glove people from unemployment?

Sir B. CHADWICK

indicated assent.

Captain BENN

Then if it is to be applied to the fabric glove industry, why not apply it to every other industry? The hon. Gentleman will not answer that question, and we can quite understand his reluctance. I can understand that he does not relish the zeal with which we have been asking these questions. The hon. Gentleman would have it appear that he has a specific which is going to save these people; that we are the heartless wretches who will not save them, but that he is determined to strike out and do something for these workers. I do not like to say that his professions are not sincere, but I say that, judged by all the political actions of the Government, that plea on their behalf is not sincere. If they believed in it, they would say, "This is going to rid the country of unemployment, and we will preach it in the country until we convert the country to it, and thus render a great national service."

Mr. ALBERY

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in order in referring to the general question of tariffs?

The CHAIRMAN

I must say that my ear was occupied otherwise at the moment, but I will follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with greater interest and attention henceforth.

Captain BENN

I thank you, Sir, and if you desire I will give you a slight sketch 01 outline of my remarks up to this point. I was trying to reply to the earnest speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I say that the test is whether he and his friends are prepared to apply this specific, not only to facric gloves, but elsewhere. I judge that they are not prepared to do so, and that, I submit, is a complete answer to the plea of sentiment. If his specific is all he claims it to be, why does he not apply it all round? He will not do it because ho knows, and the Government know, that the thing is economically unsound. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of the industry in Worcester 100 years ago before the commercial treaty with Prance. May I ask, does he regard those as "the good old days," because he spoke as though he regarded the treaty negotiated with France as a disaster? He said that the French promised to give us something which they did not give. Does he think that the French commercial treaty was a mistake? Can he tell us if it is intended to turn backward to those golden days when we had some thousand of duties —before they were abolished in the middle of last century. It is important that we should know that, because while there may be nothing much in a decision as regards fabric gloves, there is a great deal in knowing the road on which the Government is determined to direct the country.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the position of the industry in Chemnitz was the result of generation after generation of operatives having practised it. Therefore, does he wish to copy the Saxon model in this country? Undoubtedly he does, and in that case he does not wish to have this as a five years' duty. Why does he not say it is to be permanent? When you test this, it shows that the Government programme is a sham. They are professing not to do the thing that all their supporters would like them to do. Their supporters in their hearts would like them to do it, but they would not have their supporters in their constituencies with them if they attempted to do it. As we said before in this issue, we are not operating in vacuo here. We are dealing with a case which has been tried, and I think there would have been more logic—I hope not at the expense of the sentiment in the hon. Gentleman's speech—if he had explained some of the grave defects in the working of this duty when it existed. In 1921 there was a Committee which went into this case, and at that time the plea v as that the German exchange was so inflated that a duty was necessary. In 1924 another Committee sits, and although the German exchange is no longer inflated, but stabilised, they still recommend a duty.

I ask the Committee to consider whether it is not really necessary for the hon. Gentleman, before he requests us to put on a duty which he pretends is for five years, but which his plea is that it should be for ever, to tell us why it was that such a duty when it existed had no effect whatever in reviving the industry. We have got his own figures. He will not challenge the figures, even if from time to time we do. Why was it that, whereas the foreigners had 87 per cent. of that trade before there was a duty, after the duty had been in operation for two years the foreigners had 88 per cent.? When ho tells us, "Here are the men unemployed; let us do something for them," he appeals to our hearts. But the thing has been tried, and so far from diminishing the foreigners' share of the trade, it has actually increased it by 1 per cent.

Sir B. CHADWICK

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that during that period of which he is speaking the mark had depreciated from I do not know how many hundreds to millions of millions?

10.0 P.M.

Captain BENN

But does the hon. Gentleman say that this tariff device did protect this market, or does he say the foreign share of the trade increased in that period? [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not able to!"] That the duty was not able to achieve its end? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not against such a depreciation!"] The hon. Member knows that that was the year when the increase was 88 per cent. That was the year when stabilisation had begun—namely, 1924. If anyone looks at the figures of German exports, the depreciation of the mark did not at all act as a bounty on German export. Their exports were constantly declining while their marks were sinking. That was the year when stabilisation took place, and, in spite of the tariff, there was an increase in the share of this trade of 1 per cent. We cannot, much as we should like to do so, agree with his warm and sympathetic appeal, until he has explained why this same device at the same rate of duty spread over two years had exactly the reverse effect that he said it is going to have. That must be explained by someone; if not by himself, perhaps by one of his ardent supporters. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

"Why not let us try this scheme? Why stand in the way?" He considers there is some petty or academic doctrine which stands in the way. We have practical humanitarian reasons. It is a very unfortunate thing that the Glove Tax happens to synchronise with the very cold spell of weather. Hon. Members after the late sitting might have seen hundreds and hundreds of poor people marching over the bridges like an army going into the city to their work. How do those people keep their hands from the cold? They cannot afford expensive gloves, but have to buy the cheapest form of gloves, and they walk because it is cheaper than to take the omnibus. I know, having represented one of these East End divisions many years in this House, and although we do not realise it, it is a fact that to many people there is a choice of taking an omnibus or having the money actually for some necessary. The hon. Member is putting a tax of 33⅓ per cent. on a pair of gloves which, I believe, you can now get for 7d. or 8d. Why should you tax these poor people? Why put a bounty on chilblains? This is a small example. There are many examples, but let hon. Members understand this. We believe economically these taxes are unsound, and that from a humanitarian standpoint they are cruel, because they tax the very necessities of the poor people.

Mr. J. HUDSON

It is somewhat difficult for us to resist the attitude that was adopted throughout, at any rate, this part of the Debate. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Government (Sir B. Chad-wick) made a very earnest appeal, in which he assured us that he had taken off his political coat, and was standing on the same ground as ourselves in an effort to secure more employment. I accept the earnestness of his desire, but I would remind him that you do not get employment by desires of that kind. Indeed if the hon. Gentleman had been more careful in his study of recent history—

Mr. ALBERY

On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member has not said a single word on the Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself more strictly to the point under discussion.

Mr. HUDSON

Coming directly to the point of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, if he had studied the two years of history during which the duties were levied on fabric gloves, he would have seen that although at the beginning, when a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was imposed there were 25 manufacturers in this country, on the confession of the manufacturers, who are appealing for this protection, at the end of the two years, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) made the arrangement by which that tax came to an end, the number of employers in this industry had been reduced to 13. The hon. Gentleman, it is true, made the point that there were difficulties in regard to foreign exchange in that period. But are there not likely to be difficulties in regard to foreign exchange in the future? Considering the position in France we can understand what may be likely to happen in France, and what is likely to happen is a reaction in other countries. It is more than likely that we may repeat, with regard to general European trade, exactly the conditions which we experienced a little while ago. Therefore the proposals which are now being made are not more likely to guarantee employment than were the proposals which were acted upon from 1922 to 1924.

The desire of employers for a return to the tax which was adopted some years ago has nothing to do with the earnest desire of the hon. Gentleman for more employment for the workers. The period during which they had these taxes was a period of swollen profits. It was a period during which they exercised their greed to the utmost, and bled the people of this country with high prices for the commodities which were sold, and now they are looking again for an opportunity to secure prices which are beyond what is justified by the cost of producing the article. We are not prepared, even though the hon. Gentleman's desires for employment are absolutely sincere, to embark on a policy which, it is plain from the figures which are given, will not guarantee employment, but is likely to guarantee higher profits for those who do not deserve them, and to place on the consumers a burden that the consumers should not bear.

I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that what is going to happen is that the people who to-day can buy gloves, however defective they may be, however much they may be prevented from getting fur gloves or leather gloves or other types of gloves, will have no gloves if there be a repetition of the powers which operated from 1922 to 1924. And I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman will again take off his political coat, and will try to stand with us and will consider the interests of all the working classes, he will not risk embarking upon this scheme on the flimsy protest that a little employment might be obtained, when at the same time a very heavy burden would be placed upon large numbers of workers throughout the country. It is for this reason that I support the Motion before the Chair.

Mr. DREWE

Coming from a county which makes fabric gloves, the first, I think, in this country in which fabric gloves were made, I think it only right to express my views in favour of these Resolutions which the Government are putting forward.

I want to bring this issue down to what I believe is exactly the one and only reason why the Government have brought forward these proposals. It is simply and solely to help relieve unemployment in the different industries to be covered by these duties. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has made considerable fun of the fabric glove industry. He told us, in his earlier speech, that this industry was not an efficient one in this country. I am perfectly prepared to say that the fabric gloves produced in this country are second to none anywhere in the world, and if the hon. and gallant Member is taking a holiday at any time, and likes to come to North Devon, I will conduct him over a fabric glove industry where they make the finest fabric gloves in the world.

Captain BENN

I do not know whether the hon. Member is making his first speech in this House, in which case it would not be in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette to interrupt him, but, with his permission, I would like to ask him whether this flourishing and efficient industry is in this flourishing and efficient condition without the aid of a duty.

Mr. DREWE

That was the point I was trying to make to the Committee. We are bringing forward these Resolutions because we want to improve employment, and that is the one and only reason, in my opinion, why they are being brought forward. We are told that there is not very much difference between the number of men employed in 1913 and the number of men employed to-day. There is practically only a difference of 600. It has (been pointed out that in 1920 there were some 10,000 men employed in the industry, whereas, to-day, there are only 1,800. I say there are 8,000 trained men and women in the glove-making industry who are out on the streets to-day, on the dole, or earning their living in some other way for which they were not trained, and if this industry is given the necessary encouragement and help to meet the grossly unfair foreign competition, there is not the smallest reason why we should not get these people absorbed in the fabric-glove industry again at the present time.

Hon. Members opposite have made some play with the fact that the duties in 1921 did not do the industry any permanent good, but I thought that point was answered by the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. It is certainly a fact that, when the duties were put on in 1921, the German mark stood at about 900 to the £. Within a few weeks of those duties being imposed, the mark collapsed and went down to some millions to the £, and that is the reason why those duties did not have any far-reaching results. There was for a few months, possibly for the first year, some reaction in favour of better trade, but immediately the results of the depreciation of the mark were felt the whole of the benefit went away from the industry. I am quite prepared to expect hon. Members of the Liberal party to oppose Resolutions like these every time they come up, but, as a new Member of this House, I fail absolutely to understand how hon. Members of the Socialist party, who never hesitate to tell us, inside and outside this House, that they, and they alone, represent the true interests of the working people, can come down here and oppose these duties, which must have the effect of getting a larger number of men absorbed in the various industries which are suffering at the present time, and suffering only because of the grossly unfair foreign competition. During the speeches on the Locarno Conference, the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) referred to the conditions of the German workers, and that is where we are suffering in the fabric glove industry to-day. It is from Germany, and from Germany alone practically. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech: We are actually now being told that the hours of the British workers must be increased and their standards lowered to the level that has been reached in Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November 1925; col. 530, Vol. 188.] I would like to ask hon. Members opposite what they think is going to happen to the standard of workers in this country, in the various industries which are suffering as they are from this unfair foreign competition, unless they are given some safeguards, and that is what we on this side of the House are asking for. I am not for one moment prepared to argue the merits of Protection or Free Trade as they existed before the War. What I do say is this: that I am perfectly prepared to say, and those who are responsible for the conduct of this industry are prepared to say, that the industry is practically to-day at a standstill simply and solely because of the lower standard of living and the greater number of hours worked by our competitors who make fabric gloves in Germany.

All that those occupied in the industry are asking for is fair play. They do not want any privileges. They do not want to be put into any special position of favour above other industries. They want to be given the opportunity to compete on perfectly fair terms. I have always maintained in the country, as I am now prepared to maintain here—I am perfectly confident of it—that the very large majority of British workers are prepared to do an honest day's work to earn an honest day's wage rather than eke out their living by means of unemployment relief. I have ample evidence from the little town of Torrington, in North Devon, where this industry began. I can give ample evidence that there are men there who have been trained all their lives as cutters in the fabric glove industry, and now find that there is no more work for them to do. They have had to accept work as navvies on recent new railway construction and accept work at breaking stones at the road side. These are skilled cutters in the fabric glove industry.

Are the Committee, I ask, going to sit here with folded arms and tell these men that they will have to wait until something better turns up? Hon. Members opposite, Members of the Socialist party, may be prepared to do that. So far as we on this side are concerned we stand by and support the policy of this Government which says: "We want to do everything possible to improve the standard of life of the workpeople of this country." We honestly do believe that a Measure such as this for safeguarding industry is to the good. We believe that in the case of an industry which can prove that it is suffering from grossly unfair foreign competition this is a very practical way of dealing with the matter. I only want to make a reference to what was said earlier by a right hon. Gentleman. This industry is very much, as he said, a rural industry. A very large number of workers have been employed, and I think that is possibly lost sight of. I just want to quote one or two figures. In the old days when this industry was prosperous, outwork was taken into cottage homes over a radius of 30 miles from the town where the factory was situated. At the present time in Torring- ton itself there are some 40 men and women getting employment as outworkers. Throughout the whole of the district, where before as many as 200 women were employed in outwork, there are only two.

There is not the slightest reason why this state of things should not be altered. Anyone who has any knowledge of rural areas at the present time knows that the labourers, under present conditions, do not earn very much. If it is possible to do anything to bring work again into the cottage homes of the women and so help their livelihood I will support it. These are practical reasons why we are asking the House to accept these proposals which have been brought forward by the Government. I do not want to give other figures from the Report. That has been already done; but to substantiate the point as to extreme foreign competition I would point out that whereas during the whole of last year some 954,000 dozen pairs of fabric gloves were sent into this country, in the first four months of this year more than 1,000,000 dozen pairs of fabric gloves came in. I would ask the Committee to get on with the work and pass these duties. If I might make an appeal to the patriotism of the Members of the Committee, why not give our own British workers a chance of a decent day's work instead of allowing the Germans to get the work and our own men to walk the streets? To my mind, that is putting the whole thing in a nutshell. I ask the Committee to support these duties.

Mr. HARNEY

I do not intend to keep the Committee for many minutes, and a part of those minutes I shall devote to congratulating the last speaker upon what seemed to me to be a very excellent maiden speech, which I hope is only the precursor of many more speeches we may hear from him. Being a very innocent man, I have been looking through this Report. It seemed to me that the idea of the Report was to inform the President of the Board of Trade. In the Report I find this: We have considered the question of glove fabric, and are of opinion that the Applicants have not established a claim for a duty. The Report goes on to say that the reason why the Committee consider that the claim for a duty upon the material has not been established is that, as they have found in favour of a duty on the finished article, more employment would be given by allowing the raw material to come in free. That is what the Committee find, and in obedience to their suggestion a Resolution is moved by the President of the Board of Trade that a duty be imposed upon Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and that the duty is also to be imposed upon material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing. The Committee, having reported that there should be no duty upon the material for such gloves cut out and ready for sewing, I want to know what is the justification of the President of the Board of Trade for giving a blank negative to the suggestion of the Committee which he set up himself? Another point I have observed in the Report is this: The Committee had to deal with several questions set out in the circular. The first question they deal with is whether the applicant industry is, by reason of the volume of unemployment, one of substantial importance. The favourable way to answer that question was to say that the volume of employment was small. Accordingly, they say that the volume of employment is 10,000 persons employed in the manufacture of leather goods, and 1,800 employed in the manufacture of fabric gloves. The answer to the question is intended to be more favourable in order to show that there were many employed. They make the number 11,800, and at a later stage they ask whether by reason of the severity of such competition, employment is being seriously affected. Therefore it would be in the interests of those who favour the duty to show that employment was seriously affected, and accordingly the numbers that were given as 11,800 were reduced to 7,032, when the answer would be favourable to the other side the number was made smaller.

Here you get a committee supposed to be perfectly imparital when the answer is one that would be favourable to the President of the Board of Trade's view they make the number large, and so they put it as 11,800. Then you have the same body at a later stage asking whether it would favour the views of the President of the Board of Trade to make it smaller and then they reduce it to 7,032. When you see this kind of thing going on one is a little sceptical as to their impartiality. When I was in the House a few minutes before dinner I heard an hon. Member state with great indignation that it was very improper for hon. Members on this side to cast imputations upon the absolute impartiality of this tribunal because it was a judicial body. I understand a judicial body to be one where you have the views upon both sides stated without any impediment and where you have a decision given upon sworn evidence. What is the fact here? You have a body selected not because of its impartiality but because of its presumed partiality. The President of the Board of Trade does not go out of his way—

Mr. ALBERY

I would like to ask you, Captain FitzRoy, if all this has anything at all to do with the Question before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. and learned Member might confine himself a little more closely to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. HARNEY

I think I am doing so. The reply I am giving is that this is in no sense a judicial body. It is appointed politically by the President of the Board of Trade, who selects those whom he considers to be suitable from his point of view. There is no sworn evidence: those who put forward the ease of the applicant can put it forward in full; those who can be heard on the other side—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that all this was gone into very fully yesterday, and that he need not go into it again.

Mr. HARNEY

I am sorry; I was not here yesterday. At all events, I only rose to put before the President of the Board of Trade these two points that I have mentioned—firstly, how he can reconcile with the Report of his Committee a Resolution which goes quite in the teeth of it; and, secondly, how he can reconcile with impartiality two figures in the Report, the one enlarged when it would suit his side that they should be enlarged, and the other minimised when it would suit his view of the case that it should be minimised.

Major CRAWFURD

I only want to raise one brief point in answer to the speech of an hon. Member on the other side, I think the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Drewe), who raised sympathetic cheers from the hon. Members near him, who found in their appreciation of the lot of the agricultural labourer a little relief from the tedium of the speeches on this side. The hon. Member raised sympathetic cheers by pointing out the condition of the agricultural labourer, and suggesting that these Resolutions are being brought in in order to give increased employment to the people of this country; and he adopted, quite rightly, of course, a very serious attitude on that matter. We give him every credit for being sincere in the matter and for believing what he says, and I hope hon. Members opposite will give us the same credit of being perfectly sincere when we say we believe these proposals will lead to increased unemployment, or to retardation of employment, and to economic disaster. The hon. Member was referring, I presume, to his own constituency, and, with your permission, Captain FitzRoy, I am going to refer for two or three minutes to mine.

I have been this afternoon in the middle of one of the poorest districts in London at a sale of work, organised by a body which consistently caters for the very poor—the people who are, above all, users of fabric gloves. In that sale of work people are coming, as we sit here, to spend to the best possible advantage in no case more than a few shillings, and to get the very best possible value they can for those few shillings. I would ask hon. Members opposite not to disregard this question of the poverty of the people on whom the effect of these Resolutions is going to press hardly, and the argument with which I would follow up my statement is this: If by means of the duties which these Resolutions, if carried into effect, will impose, the cost of these articles is increased—and they are all articles which affect the poor—then the purchasing power of the poor people of this country will be diminished, and the result of a diminution of that purchasing power is going to be to diminish the employment which their money otherwise would have produced.

If that is our belief, we are bound to examine, and we are right to examine, the proposals which are brought before us on behalf of these industries, and, with regard to this particular one, I am only going to say this: The hon. Member to whom I have previously referred said that he would not refer to the table of figures in the Report, because they had already been discussed. I will follow him in not referring to them, but will simply say that the figures given for employment show that this particular industry, immediately after the War, increased enormously. It grew very rapidly; it was in effect, at that time, what is called a mushroom industry. The figures in these tables prove that the imposition of the duty which was put on before completely failed to bring about the results which were expected of it; and the figures also prove that that industry is now, as regards the proportion of imported gloves to home-made gloves, merely returning to the normal position. I say, in view of that, that this Committee will be right to pause very seriously before they put an increased burden on the poor people whom not only I but very many other Members of the House represent.

Mr. RYE

It appears to be the fashion to-night to refer to one's constituency, and I should like in turn to refer to mine. I do so in connection with the statement that has been made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that these duties, if imposed, would only benefit the employers and would not benefit the working classes engaged in the fabric glove industry. I should like to give an instance of what took place in my own constituency before the last Election. A manufacturer had installed, at very considerable cost, two machines for the express purpose of making fabric for the manufacture of fabric gloves,

and when Protection ran off, he found it quite impossible to carry on that business in consequence of the unfair competition from abroad, with the result that the whole of the employés who had been specially engaged to work in connection with those two machines— they had cost about £4,000—had to be dismissed. I saw myself the empty factory, I saw two expensive machines lying idle. I was told those men and women had to be dismissed, and I was told that other employés who derived benefit from their working of those machines had had to go on short time. I think the Committee, knowing those facts, will appreciate that the imposition of these duties will be a benefit, not merely to the employers, but to others who are engaged in that industry.

Mr. HARRIS

This proposal deliberately goes out of its way, after very careful consideration, to exclude the duty on the fabric itself. Of course there is a minority report, but we understand that the minority report is to be ignored. It is unreasonable to give the manufacturer of gloves a free market to buy where he likes and then put on a tariff to protect him in the article. I could understand an honest, sincere Protectionist who believes that if you put on a tariff it means more employment and more prosperity. If that is the view of hon. Members opposite and of the President of the Board of Trade, it is most unfair, unreasonable and improper to deny to the hon. Member's constituents the protection they are giving to gloves. The whole thing is illogical and absurd. We object to it because it is illogical and absurd. The more you study and explore and experiment with these duties, the more proof you will have that they will be unfair and unreasonable in their incidence.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 128.

Division No. 457. AYES. [10.45 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Atkinson, C. Betterton, Henry B.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Albery, Irving James Balfour, George (Hampstead) Baldes, Sir George Rowland
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Balniel, Lord Blundell, F. N.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Boothby, R. J. G.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Barnston, Major Sir Harry Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Apsley, Lord Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive-
Atholl, Duchess of Bethell, A. Briscoe, Richard George
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hartington, Marquess of Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harvey, C. (Lambeth, Kennington) Pennefather, Sir John
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Haslam, Henry C. Perring, William George
Buckingham, Sir H. Hawke, John Anthony Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Bullock, Captain M. Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Pielou, D. P.
Butt, Sir Alfred Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Preston, William
Caine, Gordon Hall Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Price, Major C. W. M.
Campbell, E. T. Holt, Capt. H. P. Radford, E. A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Ramsden, E.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hopkins, J. W. W. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Remer, J. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rice, Sir Frederick
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Huntingfield, Lord Rye, F. G.
Clarry, Reginald George Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Salmon, Major I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cope, Major William Jacob, A. E. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Jephcott, A. R. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Savery, S. S.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew. W.)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) King, Captain Henry Douglas Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lamb, J. Q. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lane-Fox, Colonel George R. Skelton, A. N.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Smithers, Waldron
Drewe, C. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E)
Eden, Captain Anthony Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Loder, J. de V. Storry Deans, R.
Elliot, Captain Walter E Looker, Herbert William Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Elveden, Viscount Lord, Walter Greaves- Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Lougher, L. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase
Everard, W. Lindsay Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Lumley, L. R. Templeton, w. P.
Fade, Sir Bertram G. Mac Andrew, Charles Glen Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Fermoy, Lord Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Fielden, E. B. Macintyre, I. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Finburgh, S. McLean, Major A. Turton, Edmund Russborough
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Macquisten, F. A. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wallace, Captain D. E.
Frece, Sir Walter de Malone, Major P. B. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Margesson, Captain D. Warrender, Sir Victor
Galbraith. J. F. W. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ganzoni, Sir John Merriman, F. B. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Gates, Percy Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Wells, S. R.
Gee, Captain R, Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Gower, Sir Robert Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Grace, John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wilson, R, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Moore, Sir Newton J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Grotrian, H. Brent Morden, Col. W. Grant Wise, Sir Fredric
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Womersley, W. J.
Gunston, Captain D. W, Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W).
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Murchison, C. K. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Nelson, Sir Frank Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hammersley, S. S. Neville, R. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nuttall, Ellis TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harrison, G. J. C. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.
NOES.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro) Bromley, J. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Ammon, Charles George Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Day, Colonel Harry
Attlee, Clement Richard Buchanan, G. Dennison, R.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Cape, Thomas Duckworth, John
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Charleton, H. C. Duncan, C.
Barnes, A. Clowes, S. Dunnico, H.
Barr, J. Cluse, W. S. Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Batey, Joseph Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Fenby, T. D.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Compton, Joseph Forrest, W.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Connolly, M, Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Cove, W. G. Gillett, George M.
Broad, F. A. Crawfurd, H. E. Gosling, Harry
Bromfield, William Dalton, Hugh Greenall, T.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Lunn, William Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Snail, Harry
Groves, T. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Grundy, T. W. Mackinder, W. Stamford, T. W.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) MacLaren, Andrew Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark N.) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Sutton, J. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) March, S. Taylor, R. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Thurtle, E.
Hardie, George D. Montague, Frederick Tinker, John Joseph
Harney, E. A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Townend, A. E.
Harris, Percy A. Murnin, H. Trevalyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Naylor, T. E. Varley, Frank B.
Hayday, Arthur Palin, John Henry Viant, S. P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Paling, W. Wallhead, Richard C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Hirst, G. H. Ponsonby, Arthur Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Potts, John S. Weir, L. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Westwood, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Ritson, J. Whiteley, W.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) Wiggins, William Martin
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Kelly, W. T Saklatvala, Shapurji Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Kennedy, T. Salter, Dr. Alfred Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Kirkwood, D. Scrymgeour, E. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Lansbury, George Scurr, John Windsor, Walter
Lawson, John James Sexton, James Wright, W.
Lee, F. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Lindley, F. W. Smillie, Robert
Livingstone, A. M. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lowth, T. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Mr. Charles Edwards and
Mr. Warne.

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 129.

Division No. 458.] AYES. [10.54 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Courtauld, Major J. S. Hartington, Marquess of
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Albery, Irving James Craik, Rt. Hen. Sir Henry Haslam, Henry C.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hawke, John Anthony
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Curzon, Captain Viscount Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Apsley, Lord Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Atholl, Duchess of Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Holt, Captain H. P.
Atkinson, c. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Drewe, C. Hopkins, J. W. W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Eden, Captain Anthony Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Balniel, Lord Edmondson, Major A. J. Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Elliot, Captain Walter E. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Elveden, Viscount Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Barnston, Major sir Harry Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Hume, Sir G. H.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Huntingfield, Lord
Betterton, Henry B. Everard, W. Lindsay Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bls)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Fairfax, Captain J. G. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Fade, Sir Bertram G. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Boothby, R. J. G. Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Jacob, A. E.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fielden, E. B. Jephcott, A. R.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Finburgh, S. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Briscoe, Richard George Foxcroft, Captain C. T. King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Frece, Sir Walter de Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lamb, J. O.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Buckingham, Sir H. Galbraith, J. F. W. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Bullock, Captain M. Ganzoni, Sir John Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Butt, Sir Alfred Gates, Percy Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Gee, Captain R. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Caine, Gordon Hall Glyn, Major R. G. C. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Campbell, E. T. Gower, Sir Robert Loder, J. de V.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Prtsmth. S.) Grace, John Looker, Herbert William
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Lord, Walter Greaves-
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Greene, W. P. Crawford Lougher, L.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Grotrian, H. Brent Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harmamn
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Gunston, Captain D. W. Lumley, L. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hacking, Captain Douglas H. MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Clarry, Reginald George Hammersley. S. S. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Macintyre, Ian
Cope, Major William Harrison, G. J. C. McLean, Major A.
Macquisten, F. A. Radford, E. A. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel- Ramsden, E. Templeton, W. P.
Malone, Major P. B. Rees, Sir Beddoe Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Margesson, Captain D. Remer, J. R. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Rice, Sir Frederick Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Merriman. F. B. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Turton, Edmund Russborough
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Rye, F. G. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Salmon, Major I. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Sandeman, A. Stewart Warrender, Sir Victor
Moore, Sir Newton J. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Morden, Col. W. Grant Sanderson, Sir Frank Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Morrison. H. (Wilts. Salisbury) Savery, S. S. Wells, S. R.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Murchison, C. K. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Nelson, Sir Frank Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Neville. R. J. Skelton, A. N. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Nuttall, Ellis Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wise, Sir Fredric
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Smithers, Waldron Womersley, W. J.
Pennefather, Sir John Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Perring, William George Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Storry Deans, R. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Pielou, D. P. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Streatfeild, Captain S. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Preston, William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.
Price, Major C. W. M. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
NOES.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ammon, Charles George Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Ritson, J.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Barnes, A. Hardie, George D. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barr, J. Harney, E. A. Scrymgeour, E.
Batey, Joseph Harris, Percy A. Scurr, John
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Sexton, James
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hayday, Arthur Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hayes, John Henry Smillie, Robert
Broad, F. A. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Bromfield, William Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)
Bromley, J. Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Buchanan, G. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Stamford, T. W.
Cape. Thomas Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S. Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Kennedy, T. Thurtle, E.
Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kirkwood, D. Tinker. John Joseph
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, George Townend, A. E.
Connolly, M. Lawson, John James Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Varley, Frank B.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lindley, F. W. Viant, S. P.
Dalton, Hugh Livingstone, A. M. Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lowth, T. Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Lunn, William Warne, G. H.
Day, Colonel Harry MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dennison, R. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Weir, L. M.
Duckworth, John Mackinder, W. Westwood, J.
Duncan. C. MacLaren, Andrew Whiteley, W.
Dunnico, H. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wiggins, William Martin
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Fenby, T. D. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Forrest, W. Montague, Frederick Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Garro-Jones. Captain G. M. Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Windsor, Walter
Gillett, George M. Murnin, H. Wright, W.
Greenall, T. Naylor, T. E. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Palin, John Henry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Groves, T. Ponsonby, Arthur Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B.
Grundy, T. W. Potts. John S. Smith.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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: Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding; Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I rise to put a question to the Government. I think Members of the House—except those who slept last night comfortably in bed—will not be anxious for a late sitting to-night. I desire to ask if the Government have any announcement to make now as to how far they hope or expect to go?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I have a fellow-feeling with the right hon. Gentleman, and what I would ask the Committee to do is to dispose of the next Resolution upon the Paper, and I hope that, with brevity in the speeches, we may do so within a reasonable time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,