WAYS AND MEANS.

HC Deb 07 December 1925 vol 189 cc69-218

REPORT (2nd December].

Resolution reported,

CUILERY.

"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 read a Second time.

Mr. SNOWDEN

May I respectfully submit that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if you, Sir, were to indicate which of the Amendments on the Paper you propose to call,

Mr. SPEAKER

I have not made up my mind with regard to any of the Amendments. I must be guided by the Debate as it proceeds.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Do you intend, Sir, to allow a fairly full and general discussion on either the first or second Amendment raising the question of the period of the duty?

Mr. SPEAKER

There is no such thing as a general discussion on Report stage. Each Debate on an Amendment must be relevant to the matter before the House.

Mr. GILLETT

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 eighteen months."

The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the duration of the period of the duty, and I desire to place before the House the grounds on which I think it desirable that it should be limited in the manner suggested The first ground relates to the Report of the Committee on which the Resolution is based. Members who have read the reports presented by these Committees must have observed the haphazard and easy way in which the committees became convinced that in almost every case the suggested duty should be imposed, but some of the suggestions in this Report are almo3t ridiculous. In certain financial papers— in one at any rate—criticism has been made of the way in which the Report has been brough forward. In one instance the Committee go so far as to say that while the appearance of German and English knives may not be the same yet for practical purposes, although their quality is quite different, it can be taken that the two kinds of knives are practically the same, Any business house which was run on such lines as that finding indicates would soon find itself in bankruptcy and it is undesirable that we should tie ourselves down to a duty for five years on the strength of a report brought out in such a haphazard manner. I would point out to the House how easily the Committee have been satisfied on the question of the efficiency of the industry. They say they are satisfied that the industry is efficiently-managed, but in another part of the Report they acknowledge that the machinery is not up-to-date. We recently had a Report from a Committee which investigated the position in Germany with regard to the cutlery trade. That Committee stated that there would be a very large demand for cutlery in the near future but we fear Germany is very much better organised at present to supply that demand than Sheffield. 4.0 P.M.

The fact that these three gentlemen have been so easily satisfied, in the face of a condemnation such as I have quoted, from a business committee which visited Germany seems a good reason for asking the House to shorten the period of this duty. The second reason I wish to bring forward why the period ought to be shortened is the extreme difficulty of knowing what the effect is going to be on the various trades of these, shall I say, protective duties. We have had a good deal of argument, and hon. Members opposite have said that they want to have protective duties imposed because they believe they are going to reduce unemployment. I confess that if you could select half-a-dozen industries and give them protective duties and yet prove to my satisfaction that you would leave them and others with all the advantages they enjoy at present under Free Trade, I personally should have no great objection, but, so far as we have gone in certain cases, it does not seem that these duties are even a benefit to the trade itself, and that is one reason why I think we ought to have longer experience before we definitely decide that any trade is to have the benefit of these duties for five years. If it is not going to be an advantage to a trade to have, these protective duties, then surely we had better limit them to 18 months and reserve to ourselves an opportunity of reviewing the whole position at the end of that period.

Certain trades in the past have had the benefit of a duty similar to those now proposed, and we have had figures showing how the motor industry at the end of a protective period had 200,000 insured workers and 16,000 unemployed, whereas, when the duty was removed the, insured workers increased to 213,000 and the unemployed workers decreased. We therefore have to enter into this experiment with a good deal of precaution. If we look at some of the other industries, we find that immediately before the Government imposed a duty upon imported lace the number of unemployed on 27th July this year was 3,800, whereas on 26th October, after three months' experience of the duty, the unemployed had increased to 3,893, according to the figures given by the Minister of Labour at the end of November. There is another case of a protective duty in which the number of unemployed in an industry in the first three months has actually gone up. I am quite prepared to concede the fact that three months is too short a time to test the case well. I know special cases where goods have been rushed into the country because it has been known that a protective duty was going to be put on. Therefore, I am quite prepared to say that it is open to question whether those figures fully represent what will happen in the end. But the point I wish to prove is that the whole of the problem is so uncertain, and the mere fact that after three month6 you have more unemployed makes it necessary to proceed with the utmost caution. Therefore, my second reason for asking the House to shorten the period arises from the actual effect that these protective duties are having upon the trades already concerned, and the fact that we cannot even be certain that they will be any benefit to the industries to which we are going to give protection.

We come now to the third point-what the effect is going to be upon other trades. The committee passes over the whole of this question very lightly. There, I think, lies one of the weaknesses of the whole scheme under which these protective duties are imposed. You take one trade, a substantial trade-and what " substantial " means we have never yet found out, though it seems to cover almost any number-and you say, " Is it going to have any effect on other industries? " I think this Amendment limiting the time ought to be passed, because the cumulative effect of nil these duties upon certain trades has not really been considered at all. If you protect a few industries such as the cutlery trade and the lace industry, it may not seem to have any great effect on the shipping industry, but, if you go on taking first one trade and then another, saying that it has no effect on other trades, it stands to reason that, if you are going to prevent exports from coming into this country, it cannot fail to have some effect on the shipping industry. No one supposes that a number of consignments of knives and so forth coming from Germany and not occupying a great deal of space will have much effect, but, if you go on and include other trades, especially trades like the motor car industry, the cumulative effect of taking all those industries must be very considerable on the transport industry, and I do not see that any consideration has been given to that point.

Hon. Members say that they want the people to be engaged in these different industries, but if they represented the shipping industry or any place where there is shipping I doubt whether they would be so keen about these duties. Yet the shipping industry is suffering among the worst in this country. On 26th October the unemployed in the shipbuilding and repairing was 37 per cent. and in the shipping services of Great Britain it was 20.6 per cent. It seems to me most unsatisfactory that the House should pass these various schemes and no thought be given to the interests of the men employed in shipbuilding or in the shipping industry. We may go on piling industry on industry and find the cumulative effect on other industries very serious. There must be a cumulative effect, and it seems to me that the Government are giving no consideration to this point. Yet it is only fair to the men employed in these other industries that they should have some consideration given to them. It is all the more strange because, while the legislation of the President of the Board of Trade to my mind is having this prejudicial effect upon the shipping industry, his colleague at the Treasury is doing his best to help the shipping industry If anyone will look at the last statement published regarding the Trade Facilities Act, they will see that the credit of this country has recently been given—

Mr. SPEAKER

That is going rather beyond the Amendment, which is a question between five years and 18 months.

Mr. GILLETT

I was only trying to point out that the question of shipping was an exceedingly important one, and that, whereas we were trying to help it in other directions, we were injuring it by the action which the Government proposes here. The other point which I want to bring forward has already been mentioned, but I feel that it is important that it should be again mentioned in view of the fact that on a leading financial journal this week it has been once again referred to. It is the effect that these duties are going to have upon our relationship with Germany. If we are going to have these matters taken out of our hands for five years, and we are going to have no further say is to the effect which these duties may have upon Germany, it seems to me that before we agree to this period we should really consider what effect the duties are going to have upon Germany. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who was President of the Board of Trade in the last Government, did mention that the question had already aroused difficulty between this country and Germany, and that the British Government were being attacked in the German papers on account of the effect that these new duties were going to have upon German industries. It has been pointed out that there is one country, and one country only, that appears to be affected by every one of these duties, and that is Germany. It seems to me most unfortunate that we should propose to impose these duties for five years at the present time when we have been trying to draw closer to Germany

There is one aspect that is very serious and which, I think, justifies us in limiting the time to 18 months, and it is in connection with the effect that the Dawes Report is going to have in the next four or five years. One of the things argued by the Committees was that German industries had benefited because their debentures had been wiped out by inflation; but, if we are are going to consider that, I should like to know whether any regard is going to be paid to the fact that they may have imposed upon them under the Dawes scheme definite charges in regard to reparations, the idea being that an indemnity should be imposed in place of the debentures that have been liquidated in the way I have mentioned. There is no mention here of that aspect of the case, and yet it is a matter that should be considered in regard to these industries, because it weakens the case of the various Committees. It, therefore, seems to me that the matter ought not to pass out of our review for a period of five years. These are the four reasons which it seems to me that the Government have not fully considered. The case has not really been proved, and we do not know what effect the duties are going to have upon the various industries concerned. It is for these reasons that I move to limit the time to 18 months.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to second the Amendment.

May I say I am sure that the House is pleased to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. McNeill) here in his place, and our experience of previous Debates will tell us, I am sure, that the right hon. and hon. Gentleman sitting at his side will equally welcome his reinforcement. The first fact which is made clear by this Report is that there are no reliable figures of the amount of unemployment in the cutlery trade in Sheffield. In fact, so far as we have evidence, it points to the general conclusion that the amount of unemployment in the cutlery trade is rather less than the general unemployment in the heavy industries in Sheffield as a whole. But we do not dispute the fact that there is a degree of depression and unemployment in the cutlery trade. May I explain to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), whom I see in his place, that when we oppose duties of this sort it is not because we do not care for the unemployed in these trades but because we think these duties sidetrack us from the real remedies that have to be applied?

Mr. HANNON

What is the real remedy?

Mr. LANSBURY

Socialism!

Mr. SPEAKER

If that be what hon. Members want to discuss, we had better take the broader question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I am not going to discuss the broad question now, but I think it may be in order to endeavour to show that this Report makes it clear that whatever unemployment there is in the cutlery trade is not due to any abnormal imports into this country and, therefore, will not be cured by the tariff which the Government suggest. That is our point. If you look at the details given in this Report, it is seen that the chief increase in imports from abroad of cutlery into this country consists of safety razors, and that is not causing unemployment, because the witness who came to the Committee on behalf of the safety razor manufacturers himself testified that there is no unemployment amongst the makers of safety razors, and that they are able to sell every razor that they can produce. That being so, I should, first of all, like to ask the President of the Board of Trade why safety razors have been included in these duties at all.

Mr. BASIL PETO

On a point of Order. Have these arguments anything to do with the question of 18 months?

Mr. SPEAKER

The House seems inclined to a wide discussion, which may preclude other Amendments.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

On a point of Order. I presume the usual Question will be put at the end, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," because many hon. Members may wish to speak on the general question and may be reserving themselves for that opportunity.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is my difficulty. Hon. Members have it very much in their own hands.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I am definitely asuming that we shall have a discussion on this particular Amendment of the same broad character as on the similar Amendment in Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER

Then I must apologise to the House. I think the hon. Member was not present at the moment when I reminded the House that there was no such thing as a general discussion on Amendments on the Report stage.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Shall we have an understanding then that on these Amendments hon. Members who speak to them confine themselves strictly within the scope of the Amendments, and that the general discussion will be reserved for the occasion when you put the question, " That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution "?

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that if I said that, I might mislead the House. It rests very much in Members' own hands. I am not averse from allowing this Amendment if the real desire of the House be to discuss it as a whole, but a, lengthy Debate now may preclude one on the other question.

Captain BENN

I presume that when the Question is put, " That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," it will be in order, in point of fact, for hon. Members to offer general considerations on the duty?

Mr. SPEAKER

It will be in order, of course, but not a general discussion on all the duties together.

Mr. B. PETO

May I ask bow it will be possible for me or other hon. Members to vote on a specific Amendment of this kind if the arguments in favour of it are devoted to such matters as the hon. Member is just discussing, which really negative the whole Resolution, and the arguments are not devoted to the specific question before the House, namely, that the operation of this Resolution should be limited to 18 months?

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Member there.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I will endeavour to limit my discussion to reasons why it will be better for this duty to come to an end in 18 months than in five years' time. First of all, in order to explain that, I shall examine the type of goods which are coming into this country at the present moment. I do not know what will be the type of goods that may be coming in five years hence, but if you take the type of articles which are coming in now, and which will becoming in, according to the present tendencies of trade, for the next 18 months, it is clear from this Report that those goods, apart from safety razors, simply consist of cheap bazaar articles of the sixpenny type, which are not in effective competition with Sheffield, and which are not responsible for any unemployment likely to arise in Sheffield within the next 18 months. They are articles with which, in fact, Sheffield does not compete, and with which it is probably wise for Sheffield to avoid competition, because Sheffield has hitherto refrained from entering into the market for these cheap and low-priced products. May I take the kind of article which is coming into this country now, and presumably will come in for 18 months? The Report states that the applicants put forward as types of the articles they wish to be excluded five different kinds of penknives.

I have here the particulars of one of these penknives, and will try to see what the result of excluding them would be. I find that these penknives come here from Germany and fire sold at the price of 6½d. each, and I find that the applicants themselves stated that in order to produce a similar penknife in Sheffield they would need to charge 3s. each. I say that is not effective competition. Suppose you impose this duty on these penknives, you will raise the 6½d. penknife to, say, 9d. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that when the purchaser goes to the shop and finds he cannot obtain a penknife under 9d., he will say: "That being the case, I shall take this 3s. knife, which is by its side "? That will not happen. The position is exactly the same as that which was stated to me last week by a theatrical manager to whom I was speaking. He complained that the difficulty was that he could not fill his stalls. Am I to go back to him and say: " You can get over the difficulty by raising the price of the tickets in the gallery," and, if he asks me how much sense there is in that advice, should I not be able to reply: "The same amount of sense as there is in the Report of this Committee"?

The result is surely perfectly clear. This is the kind of article coming in now and for the next 18 months, and it is evident that if you are simply going to add to the price of that article by 33⅓ per cent. you are not going to give extra employment to a single razor maker in Sheffield. All that you are going to do is to compel a number of people who purchase these cheap articles either to pay a higher price or to go without them altogether. When the President of the Board of Trade was speaking on this subject the other day, he suggested that, if we put this tariff on these articles, Sheffield would immediately, right away, within 18 months, adapt her factories, produce articles of this type, and give employment in that way, but I have been reading the evidence since then, and I find that there was not a single one of the applicants who appeared on behalf of the Sheffield trade who was willing to say that he himself would produce articles of the type that are coming in at this moment, and they gave the reasons. Not only would they not do so, but it would be supremely unwise in any long-sighted view of policy to attempt to do so. Why? Because Sheffield stands for quality. The name of Sheffield is a hall-mark in every corner of the world, and if Sheffield were now to try to flood the world with these low-priced goods, it would damage her reputation at the very moment that her export trade is beginning to revive. For this reason, I say that no proof has been given that to shut out these cheap imports will add to the employment of a single razor maker in Sheffield.

I do not think I can enter into a question I was going to discuss, but I was going to explain that the causes of unemployment in Sheffield were other than those that the Report indicates, and I think I may mention one of them, as it has already been dealt with. Obviously, one of the difficulties in Sheffield is that the manufacturers have not expended sufficient capital on the improvement and the equipment of their plant. To that the President of the Board of Trade answers: "The reason is that they have not got the capital to spend in those directions." If they have not got the capital, the question to which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reply is this: "What did they do with the profits that they made during and after the War, when Sheffield had a monopoly of the home market? " The causes of unemployment in Sheffield at this moment arise from a series of reasons which no import duty can affect. What is going to be, on the other hand, the result of this particular proposal, now, immediately, well within the next 18 months, even within the next three months? It will not affect the pocket of a single rich man, because he does not buy these cheap penknives. It will not affect the pockets of the comfortable class. All that the President of the Board of Trade does is to stretch out his hand over those poorer sections of the people who depend upon these sixpenny bazaars. What he does is to take a few more pennies out of their pockets each time they go to purchase the common necessities of their homes.

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

The specific Amendment proposed here is, of course, a narrow one, and if, in reply to that very narrow point, I answer such points as you, Mr. Speaker, permitted to be put, which travel, perhaps, a little outside it, it may be convenient that I should do that now, and not at a later stage. The specific proposal here is to reduce the period of the duty from five years to 18 months, or, as another Amendment proposes, to a somewhat shorter period. In the first place, the Committee recommend that the duty should be for a period of five years. Whether we agree or whether we do not agree about the desirability of this or any duty, I should have thought one thing about which the whole House would agree, was that chopping and changing, and uncertainty were the worst thing of all. If you are to put on any duty, the last thing in the world you ought to do is to put it on for six months, then dig it up to see how it is growing, and then put it on for another six months, or a. varying period. Over and over again hon. Members above and below the Gangway opposite insist on the importance of letting traders know where they are, and, indeed, we have emphasised at successive conferences the desirability when you are dealing with Customs periods that they should be definite, and not change too much from time to time. Therefore, both in the interest of general trade, and in the particular interest of this trade which it is proposed to safeguard, I submit that nothing could be worse than to put on a duty for one year, and that it would be a reasonable thing to put it on for a period of time like five years. To do less would be to sacrifice the object, right or wrong, which we have in view. That is a complete answer, and I think the one answer to the proposal that the period of the duty should only be for a year.

There were various other points raised to which I should like very briefly to reply. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that the Committee applied an unreasonable test in assessing whether the goods which came in competed. I think they applied an extraordinarily reasonable test. They said, "Would people coming into a shop buy one or the other?" That seems to me the actual test of what does or does not compete. Then he said the Committee have been too easily satisfied about the efficiency. The Committee found that this industry, an old-established industry, conducted its business with reasonable efficiency, having regard to all the circumstances. One of the tests often applied is whether an industry goes in for research. The Department of Scientific Research has been favourably struck with what the industry is doing in that regard. They say, with perfect truth, that all these manufacturers are anxious to get their factories into the beet possible state of efficiency. But they need security in order to get the capital to do this. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that some of them are not as efficient as they might be, are you likely to improve the efficiency by doing what the hon. Member suggests, which is, in time of abnormal distress, to afford to them in their working no sort of assistance at all, or to give them the security of some safeguarding of their own market for the next five years? I submit with confidence that the way to help them to greater efficiency is to give them security, which will give them confidence, and give the public confidence to invest their money in them.

Then there arose the question of the German Treaty. As I stated when we were discussing these duties before, not only is there no sort or kind of breach of our Treaty, but these safeguarding duties are specially provided for, and excepted in the protocol in the words which were written in, in order to maintain for either side this power: In particular, while retaining their right to take appropriate measures to preserve their own industry. Nor do I accept the argument that there are some charges in respect of the Dawes Annuities which could be expected to wipe out our differences of hours and wages, or even the advantage in capital charges having been written off by being repaid in depreciated marks. I think it is quite arguable, as the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, that one of the matters in which Germany enjoyed no advantage, but had perhaps some disadvantage, was the higher rate she had to pay for her money. I think that as you work out the Dawes scheme, it may very well be that you will get a large aggregation of marks collected in Germany, and that something will have to be done with those marks. They will be lent. That, very likely, will have the result of making money cheaper and not dearer in Germany, and if that be so, then the fact that there is a charge upon industry to pay these annuities may have the effect of cancelling out the money rate which the Germans are subject to and to which the right hon. Member for West Swansea referred.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I understood from the right hon. Gentleman's argu- ment the other day that the Germans had made representations to the Board of Trade with regard to this matter, and that a reply had been given. May I ask whether the Germans are satisfied with the reply, or are they renewing their representation on the basis that these reports, on which the duties are to be levied, really set up their main case against German imports?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is much more appropriate on the Second Heading of the Bill. It has been decided to have one discussion.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I feel in this difficulty. There are certain points which have been raised which might, I suppose, have been raised in reference to one or other of the Amendments on the Paper. I do not know whether I should be shortening the Debate if I replied to the points raised, which are, perhaps, more relevant to several further Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to reply to any points I allowed to be raised in moving and seconding the Amendment. Perhaps he had better do that.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Then the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment said it was unreasonable that we should impose this duty for more than a year, because there was not real competition in safety razors, and that was the only element in the question. Safety razors are by no means the only element in the question. It is the cutlery trade as a whole, and you must take that trade as a whole. He also said our safety razors were perfectly able to compete. My information certainly is that they are not able to meet this German competition, and there is an enormous number of blades coming from Germany at the present time.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

£15,000 worth.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

; The hon. Gentleman speaks of volume when it suits him; now it is value. Taking the products of the industry as a whole, there is no doubt there has been a very large increase in the volume of importation against stagnation, and indeed reduction, in the British trade itself. Really, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment comes to this. "Here is an industry which is in a bad way. Competition is severe. What are we to do to make it more healthy and more efficient? Let us give it some more of this unfair competition." He says the trade would welcome that. Certainly not the trade, and I do not think this House would agree that that is the way to help an industry. If this proposal is to be made effective, it must be made effective over a reasonable number of years.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I shall only address the House very briefly on the Amendment now before it, but may I, in the first place, say how glad we are to see the Financial Secretary to-day, and to express the hope that he is fully recovered? The reason why we have additional pleasure in seeing him in his place is that we cannot regard these, proposals as purely protective proposals. They are, I understand, for the purpose of raising revenue. It is on that ground that this Amendment is fully justified. If we are to raise revenue by import duties upon cutlery, it is as well that it should come under review when the Budget is being discussed in this House, and it should find its proper relative place in the financial provisions of the year. This Amendment would make it necessary for the cutlery duties to come before the House again in the year 1927, and make it necessary for the duties to be incorporated in the Finance Act of that year, even if they were not to be dealt with next year.

I submit to the House that this is a fit and proper way to deal with revenue which is to be raised by the imposition of duties to be borne by the consumer. The effect of these duties is quite uncertain. For instance, the President of the Board of Trade has made reference to the probability of the Dawes plan providing Germany with a larger supply of working capital. I am afraid I do not follow his argument. As I understand it, the Dawes plan, when it is in full operation, will not add to the amount of available loose capital in Germany. It will have exactly the opposite effect. At all events, whatever may be its effect, whether the right hon. Gentleman be right or I am right, why should the House not have a chance of seeing what the experience will be during the passage of 12 months, and before the imposition of the duties for a longer period? If there is any doubt as to the operation of the Dawes plan, it can only be settled by the experience of its working during the next 12 or 18 months. That, therefore, is an additional reason for shortening the period.

There is a further point, I am quite sure, present in the minds of the President of the Board of Trade and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, namely, that these duties may be going to bring in no revenue at all. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the point that this is going to add to the employment in the country in the cutlery trade, and other hon. Members are speaking in the same direction. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) repeats over and over again in the House, at every possible stage, and on every possible occasion, that he believes the imports into this country may go down and thus reduce unemployment. I do not accept-that doctrine. I think it is totally and fundamentally wrong. The only way in which employment can be aided is by the exclusion of these articles, by their manufacture here instead of abroad. What possibility is there of that? The Report as it stands seems to me to be weak and ineffective.

That Report makes it quite clear that the competition in the cutlery trade is mainly in the cheapest articles. My hon. Friend brought out that point in the course of his remarks this afternoon, but we do not need the Report to give us that information. It has been given to us by the Sheffield Manufacturers' Association, who handed in a number of exhibits in which they showed under the various categories of articles that the difference in price between the Sheffield article or the article bearing the Sheffield name and that bearing the German name, was between 250 per cent. to 350 per cent. It was never contended in the Committee stage, and I am sure it would not be contended now, that we should have the imposition of a duty on imported cutlery that will be equal to filling up that gap, that would wipe out the difference in this large percentage, and enable the Sheffield people to obtain a monopoly of the home trade to the exclusion of foreign goods! Either the unemployment argument or the revenue argument is wrong. It does not matter which for our purpose. Hence we claim that you ought to have a testing time to prove which of these is correct. Eighteen months is quite long enough for the purpose.

We must have a longer period, said the President of the Board of Trade, in order to stabilise the conditions in the trade, so that those concerned may know where they stand, and may obtain their capital without any doubt as to the period for which they will be busy. Then the suggestion has been put forward that a five years' period of duty should be imposed in order to ensure those concerned in the capital invested. If the security of their capital is to depend entirely upon these import duties five years will not be enough. It has not been found to be enough when the Government was dealing with the sugar beet. They had to give a guarantee for a longer period than five years in order to make sure of getting the necessary capital for the purposes of the industry. Nor will five years be enough for the cutlery industry. The capital which ought to have gone into that industry is the surplus profits made during the War and the boom period. And as we know from the Report of the Committee this was not done. The Report is very striking on this subject. I heard the President of the Board of Trade speak of the efficiency of the industry. He must have been referring to the craftsmanship. He could not have been referring to the finance. The finance of the industry, as disclosed by this Report, is worse almost than any I have ever seen. During a period of 12 years, covering the time of the year they had the monopoly of the home trade, during the period 1919–20–21, when prices were at enormously high level, the total amount set apart, in those 12 years, by no less than 22 firms-so the Committee assert-was only £65,000. I, as a business man, know, and everybody who has been connected with great manufacturing firms knows, that you cannot have, possibly, 22 firms keeping themselves up-to-date when their total investments in their own business only come to about £3,000 a year each. I pointed this out in Committee. I pointed out it ran to about £2,500 per firm per annum. This is the direction in which they ought to have retained in the business a larger amount of the profits they made during these good years when they had the opportunity of doing it. All business men did it in other trades. I cannot for the life of me understand why it was not done in the cutlery trade.

Five years, therefore, is quite unnecessary. The one thing which will induce the cutlery industry to put more money into their business and attract money into it from the outside is increased technical efficiency. That comes, not from tariffs but by improving the material and the class of workmanship. The extension, for instance, of stainless steel has had more to do with improving the Sheffield cutlery trade than any tariff in the world. Everyone knows that one of the reasons why the Sheffield cutlers would not embark upon the manufacture of the cheaper things, duty or no duty, was their desire to eliminate from the Sheffield trade these cheaper things and endeavour to make Sheffield cutlery the finest in the world. It is on that reputation the trade lives. It is on that reputation it can attract capital and maintain itself. The period of 18 months is quite enough to have all the necessary experience. You can test out the European situation well enough in 18 months. You can discover in actual working what is the effect of the Dawes Plan in 18 months. You can find whether or not this industry has to depend upon its own resources, and whether it can do so. If that is done, I believe that this House will have done all that is necessary in order to assist the Sheffield industry holding its own in the competition in the world.

My final point is this, that during a period of 18 months the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will at least have an idea as to what is the amount of revenue likely to be produced. It is usual, as we all know, when taxes are proposed in this House for a representative of the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to give the House an estimate of what he thinks will be the revenue produced. It is an estimate, but he makes it as close as he can. In the discussion so far we have not been given the least idea of how much revenue is likely to be raised by these duties, I should like the Financial Secretary, when he replies on this discussion, to let us know how much he thinks will be raised in the 18th months. What will be the gross revenue raised in this way? I do not know whether it is going to be be 100,000, £120,000, or £220,000, but I have not the least hesitation in saying that even if it is as much as £200,000 it will only be raised at the same time as the price of cutlery is put in proportion to the duty, and that the amount paid by consumers as a whole will be five or six times as much as the amount of the revenue which will come through the Customs into the Exchequer. There has been criticism in the House on these financial points. We are glad that the Financial Secretary has been able to be here this afternoon in person to be able to give us these particulars. My last remark upon the shortening of the period is that five years takes the duty away from the purview of the House, and is far too long. Eighteen months is quite sufficient for all national purposes. If it proves what is urged for it, that it will add to employment, and, therefore, bring in no revenue, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer can act upon that Estimate in 1926-27. If on the; other hand, it does not add to the volume of employment then he can provide for that in his next Estimates of 1926-27. It is quite long enough for the House of Commons to look ahead in a matter of such importance.

5.0 P.M

Mr. S. ROBERTS

Speakers have spoken representing the North, East, South, and West, but I think a man from Sheffield, like myself, has a right and an hereditary right, because an ancestor in the male line was apprenticed a cutler in the year 1679, and an ancestor on the female side was the first master of the Cutlers' Company in 1624. As for my own personal experience, for 10 years I had the honour of representing one of the wards on the Sheffield City Council, where a great deal of cutlery is made, and where there axe a largo number of cutlers. During that time I got to know these men. I got to like them. Although I do not now represent Sheffield in this House, and although I have no financial interests whatever in the cutlery trade, it would be churlish on my part if I did not take this opportunity to say a word or two on their behalf. Though I do not represent them directly, my heart is still with them. I am going to try, Mr. Speaker, to keep my remarks strictly within the limits of the Amendment. I want to say to anybody, whether he be Free Trader or Protectionist, whether he believes in these theories or does not believe in them, if he really desires to keep Sheffield trade, this particular Amendment of 18 months is no possible test at all. It would simply allow the inevitable flood of dumping to take place which does take place when there is prospect of duties being put on. No doubt that dumping will be encouraged, and exploited by the Cutlery Import section of the London Chamber of Commerce who will be the opponents of Sheffield in this matter. It may interest the House if I give the names of the Import Section of the London Chamber of Commerce. They are Mr. Barrus, Mr. Friedland, Mr. Guiterman, Mr. Gimson, Mr. Hydle-man, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Petrides and Mr. Sellinger. These are the gentlemen who are opposing the Sheffield applicants in this case and whose views with regard to the effect of these duties on Sheffield seem to be reciprocated by hon. Members opposite. This particular Amendment is the very worst thing that could happen, because no security whatever would be given and no capital whatever could possibly be brought into the trade on an 18 months' basis and that would have a very bad effect. Secondly, it would defeat entirely the opportunity of any improvement in the efficiency and organisation of the trade. The Report states that the industry, under the very difficult conditions from which it has been suffering, is as reasonably efficient as can be expected in the circumstances. I am not for one moment going to say there are not some grinders' shops in Sheffield which need very great improvement. It would be foolish for me to say anything else. But it is dying out very rapidly, and at the same time it is only an infinitesimal part of the whole cutlery trade in Sheffield. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) the other night waxed very eloquent on this matter, in language somewhat violent and seemed to insinuate that the whole cutlery trade in Sheffield, or practically the whole of it, was carried on and conducted in that way. If I may, I will read his words: Simply because there are so many 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 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."-[OFFICIAL REPORT, Wednesday, 2nd December, 1925; col. 2406, Vol. 188.] From that, hon. Members opposite might imagine that was applicable to the industry as a whole, which even now employs 7,600 men, although in 1914 it employed 11,000. The hon. Member for Hills-borough was quoting, as I understood, from the brief of a gentleman whom we know very well in this Parliament, Mr. Pringle, who was the advocate for the import cutlery section of the London Chamber of Commerce. But he did not read the reply made on the other side. I assume that the reply had not been brought to his notice, nor had it been pointed out to him, or else he would certainly have given the reply also. I am certain he would have had no desire to take up small points whereby he could damage the reputation of the great trade which has made the name of the city he has the honour to represent known all the world over. I am perfectly certain, if his attention had been drawn to the answer, that he would have told the House what the answer was. In that answer it was said: Now that the question of the Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield, to which we devoted altogether, I suppose, a couple of hours, is an infinitesimal matter. It only affected one small branch of the trade-grinding-and it only affected a small percentage of the grinders, and only those in tenement factories. In other words, the Medical Officer of Health's Report concerning insanitary conditions in Sheffield did not attach to more than 160 people-absolutely unnoticeable in the whole of the Sheffield trade. Then they say: We say the tenement system in Sheffield represents only a very small percentage of the whole trade. We know that the hon. Member for Hillsborough is a strenuous and excellent advocate for the institutions with which he is so much connected. No doubt he will receive their thanks and the thanks of the import section of the London Chamber of Commerce, but I doubt very much whether he will receive the thanks of either the working men or any people in Sheffield for the remarks he has made rather besmirching the good name of the city which he represents.

With regard to the question of efficiency, we are told that what is needed to get efficiency are machinery, amalgamation, and mass production, and that if you get all these three things then you will be able to get efficiency. But you cannot get these within the period of 18 months. You cannot get anybody to put up money in the trade on such a short period as this. But I want just to say this about one or two things which have been done. A certain gentleman presented a report on the state of machinery of the Sheffield trade, and he and his friends went to Germany and saw the machinery there, bought something like £71,000 worth of that machinery and brought it back and set it up in Sheffield.

Mr. HARRI

S: What, in Germany? Very unpatriotic;

Mr. ROBERTS

I believe it was in Germany.

Lieut.- Commander KENW0RTHY

That is right and it is in the report.

Mr. ROBERTS

This is not really a laughing matter. They were trying the thing from a business point of view.

Mr. HARDIE

You are admitting the inefficiency of capitalism.

Mr. ROBERTS

This machinery was brought here, and the result up to the present time is that in the main it is oiled and wrapped up because, despite the efficiency of the machinery, they were not able to face the unfair foreign competition. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) spoke about profits which had been made in the War. How does he know Sheffield made profits in the War? J.f there is any city in this country which lost money or made no profit whatever out of the War, or has lost it since because of war conditions, that was Sheffield. These cutlery works were not turning out knives and forks and that sort of thing continually during the War; they were making all manner of small munitions, and their profits were controlled, and where they were making cutlery there was a very heavy Excess Profits Duty. Then there was an amalgamation of five or six of the biggest firms, who amalgamated in order to cut down overhead charges and meet the competition coming in, but I am sorry to say that amalgamation did not enable them to meet the. competition with which they were faced. There were some very optimistic people, who said that by mass production they could meet the Germans. I am sorry to say they failed, and most of what is left can be found in the liquidation department of the Companies Registration Office at Somerset House All these things have been tried, and they were not sufficient.

It is my earnest hope that this five years should stand as being the only period that could be of value, and that it will enable this very old and honourable industry to get on to its legs again, and be able to compete with all the world and employ the people of Sheffield The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea said 18 months was long enough. I want five year. I believe that by that time we shall be able to prove one way or another. Up to now it is theory against theory and argument against argument. By this we shall be able to have fact against fact. I cannot help thinking that if the hon. Gentlemen opposite are really thoroughly convinced of the rectitude of their own theories, they should rejoice at the imposition of these duties. There is going to be an opportunity for them to prove that they are right, and an opportunity to prove that the great theories of Free Trade, immutable and unchangeable, are always victorious, but I cannot help thinking that they must have some subconscious doubt or fear which they do not realise themselves- some subconscious fear that this golden image they have set up, which they have put up in honour of Free Trade, and to which they bow down and worship, may after all have feet of clay.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I want, first of all, to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to refer to my speech of last week. While he (has said some strong things, I have no complaint to make of what he has said. I am glad he recognises that, as the representative of the City of Sheffield. I am as keenly interested in the welfare of the city as those who do not agree with me on this particular fiscal policy. I would not dream of saying anything in this House which would have tended to damage the prestige of its industry. He says that I was rather violent in my language. I cannot trace anything which is violent in my reading of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I daresay I may have expressed myself quite forcibly.

Mr. ROBERTS

I withdraw "violent" and say "forcible."

Mr. ALEXANDER

It is not often, except when the Closure is moved rather hurriedly, that one gets inclined to be violent. I certainly did not feel violent, and I was speaking of certain aspects of the case of the hon. Gentleman in regard to his comments on my language on this matter last week, which was that the conditions which I quoted as having existed from the Report of the Medical Officer of Health, applied only to a very small proportion of the cutlery industry. First, let me say this. I have not the advantage of the hon. Member of seeing the detailed evidence which came before the Committee. We have asked for the evidence again and again in this House, and we have been denied that evidence by the President of the Board of Trade. If we had been given the evidence we would perhaps be making somewhat different speeches from those that we are making according to the hon. Member.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to say I have not seen the evidence, but what I have is the speech of Mr. W. Bernard Farraday, barrister-at-law, which I believe has been sent to all Members of the House of Commons.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. ALEXANDER

The hon. Member is particularly fortunate in having access to sources of information which as yet have not been open to us. But we have some means of getting; information. I am going to quote now from a Report of the Committee when it was meeting openly, for these Committees do not always meet openly, and we cannot always find out what happened. Some meetings have been public and, according to a report in the " Sheffield Telegraph" of 24th October, I find this, that the witness, Mr. John Ridyard, in answer to a question by counsel for the opposition, said he had visited several factories belonging to the association, and the conditions were excellent. There were, however, about 200 little firms outside the association where the workers' conditions were far from satisfactory. I can hardly square that statement by the secretary of the association making the application with the suggestion made by the hon. Member this afternoon, that there were only 160 workers affected. There is the newspaper report of the evidence given by the applicant for the tariff, in which he said there were 200 little firms outside the association where the conditions were far from satisfactory.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

Would the hon. Member allow me. According to the "Sheffield Directory" there are now only 221 factories in the city as against 300 formerly. I think his figures must be wrong.

Mr. ALEXANDER

That shows the undesirability of taking the statement that the hon. Member has quoted. Perhaps I may suggest to him that it is because he did not quote the evidence. He quoted from a speech by counsel. That is a very different thing from evidence given before the Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS

I do not think the hon. Member would suggest that learned counsel would incorrectly quote figures. They may present false arguments, but they do not alter figures.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I think it is regarded as one of the accomplishments of those who argue a case that they always present the best case from the point of view of their clients. I will not say more than that. The hon. Member only quoted from the Report of the Medical Officer of Health. If he had read on in the OFFICIAL REPORT he would have found further independent evidence. I will quote it for him. It is from the Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories. 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 workroom, 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 exists or outward opening doors have been difficult to obtain, particularly during the recent years of trade depression."—[OFFCIAL, REPORT, 3rd December, 1925; col. 2406, Vol. 188.] That is the evidence not of the medical officer of health, about a certain section of the industry, it is the evidence of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories. I submit to the Committee that in the light of that evidence, not only of the medical officer but of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, the Committee did not find the case proved according to the tests laid down in the White Paper—that the industry was an efficient industry, and, therefore, ought to be entitled to a tariff under the proposals of the Government. I do not think I can say more in reply to the hon. Member.

Now I would like to say a word in reply to the President of the Board of Trade, who quite fairly suggested that the case of Sheffield's cutlery industry with regard to efficiency had been demonstrated because of the evidence as to research. I do not controvert the claim that most valuable research has been carried on from time to time by leaders in the Sheffield cutlery industry. I am fully conversant of that, but if he will excuse me, that is not the whole of the point made. Research may be a good thing and lead to very good results; but there must be a completely efficient business organisation in order to establish the claim that it is a completely efficient industry, and I notice that the President of the Board of Trade did not address himself to that side of the question. I want to say a word as to why I think the Amendment should be carried and 18 months substituted for the period of five years. I am not going to argue it at length, but I will give one main reason for it, which is that information which the Committee had in coming to their decision to recommend a duty was not complete, that they did not avail themselves of technical evidence as to the conditions in competing countries, and that where such evidence existed in some form—I will not say a complete form—they rejected it without proper examination. I have here a Report issued by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department—the section of it called the Department of Overseas Trade. It is a report on the economic and financial conditions in Germany, and contains a separate section dealing with the Solingen cutlery industry.

Sir FREDRIC WISE

What date?

Mr. ALEXANDER

It was published in 1924 and the conditions are revised up to April, 1924. I will take a few extracts and would like to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to this one: At the beginning of 1923, owing to the inflation of the mark, a boom was being experienced. Prices were low, sales abundant, and factories were fully employed. A great change has, however, set in, and many of the advantages which this industry previously enjoyed have now been removed. For the greater part of last year factories were almost idle, and no material improvement is yet evident. It is estimated"— this is April, 1924— that at the present time the industry is only employed to some 30 per cent. of capacity.

Captain BENN

Was that put before the Committee?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I cannot say. I imagine that as the Committee were appointed by the Board of Trade, and as this is a Board of Trade publication, it was available to them and that they consulted it. I will put the point to the President of the Board of Trade and he will no doubt reply.

Mr. HARRIS

It is a hush-hush Committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER

There is one further section to which I wish to refer. They say: Costs of production are materially higher than those ruling in 1914. At the end of January, 1924, the price of pig iron was 120 per cent. and coke 350 per cent. over pre-War rates, and the cost of an ordinary pair of untempered scissors was 2.88 marks per dozen as compared with the pre-War price of one mark. Capital, moreover, has been severely stressed and credit is difficult to obtain. That is the Board of Trade's own report as to the conditions of the cutlery industry in Germany. I put it to the President of the Board of Trade: "Is it fair to assume that the Committee thoroughly satisfied themselves, from technical evidence in Germany of the position of Germany, as to whether conditions there were such as to set up unfair competition?" If there was no such technical evidence, if they did not have this report before them, I suggest they have made their recommendations without full consideration of the facts, and it is absolutely imperative we should have a reduced period for this duty in order that we may prevent any undue damage being done in another direction.

There are other industries in Sheffield besides the cutlery industry. The hon. Member for Hereford knows that as well as I do, although he did not refer to them this afternoon. One of my hon. Friends said that the import of safety razor blades and blanks from Germany did not exceed at the present time a rate of £15,000 per annum, but I see from the Report of the Committee that the imports from America alone last year were £125,000, and I also know that last year Sheffield manufacturers of the best strip steel sold 1,000,000 dollars' worth of strip steel to the Gillette Razor Company of America. How far is this policy of the Government, by putting 33⅓ per cent. duty on the Gillette razors coming into this country, going to interfere with that and other sections of the cutlery trade and with the steel-productive trade in Sheffield? Another point I would make, and one already referred to, is that in Sheffield we are interested in shipping as well as in cutlery. Anything of this kind, if there be any virtue in the Government's proposals, is likely to restrict the exchange of goods and is likely to interfere with the import and export trade, and that is bound to have a reactionary effect upon the shipping industry. The hon. Member knows better than I do from his intimate knowledge of the subject that if we could get a revival of the demand for steel plates for shipbuilding there would be a far bigger diminution in unemployment than we shall ever get from tinkering about with duties of this kind. I beg to support the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hills-borough Division (Mr. Alexander) on his very clear and, if I may say so, damaging speech. I would like to dot his "i's" and cross his "t's" in addressing myself to the President of the Board of Trade, by asking why that Report of the Committee on the German steel industry in 1924 was not before the Committee that was set up by his Department to hear the case for these duties? I am taking it that they did not have that Report, and my reason is that on page 10, para- graph 24, of their own Report, it is stated: In our inquiry under this heading"— that refers to the conditions of labour in Germany— we have, as might be expected, experienced difficulty in obtaining reliable information as to the conditions obtaining in Germany. Why had the Committee difficulty? The figures are in existence. They are in the pigeon holes of the Board of Trade. Since the Armistice we have had a very efficient staff in Germany. We have had Consular staffs all over Germany. We have a Commercial Councillor with, I think, two assistants—certainly one assistant, who I know personally, a most able man and a devoted public servant— inquiring into all these things. Furthermore, we have had the Reparation Commission and the Disarmament Commission, who made a special point of examining into the German steel factories, the very factories making this class of goods. To my knowledge all those reports have been coming into the Board of Trade. I have had the privilege of seeing some of them for my own information. Why were those suppressed? Why were they hidden? Perhaps this is the reason why the evidence put before this Committee has not been published—we are getting on the track of it now—and why they wish to conceal this unsatisfactory position and to bind us tightly for five years. That, I think, is a very good reason why we should reduce the period to 18 months. They hope that at the end of five years the hiding of evidence may have been forgotten. I see in file final paragraph of the Report a strong and well-deserved tribute to the secretary in which they say: We were able to complete our Report very shortly after the close of the evidence. No wonder, if they had not to study the relevant documents and the information which was in the possession of the Board of Trade. Unless we can get some satisfactory explanation, it looks as though it had been desired at all costs to get a report, if possible, favourable to the imposition of a duty before the end of this year, and the Report of the Committees referred to and the reports of our Consular staffs in Germany were kept carefully in the background or conveniently forgotten. I am sorry the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) has been called out of the House, because we all enjoyed his speech, although he seemed to be playing to the gallery in one respect. He mentioned the names of some foreign merchants settled in London who were giving employment to British ships and dockyard workers by importing goods into this country. He also mentioned the name of an hon. Member of this House in this connection who happens to a member of his own party. It seems to be thought by hon. Members opposite that if a man does not happen to be known by the name of Smith, or Jones, or Roberts, he has no right to be doing business in the City of London. Is it suggested that we ought to go back to the policy of Henry VIII, and clear out all those merchants in their names who are not British.

It is quite necessary for us to have people of many nationalities in order to conduct our trade. Foreigners would not be allowed to do business in this country if some hon. Members opposite had their way. We have let these people come here for generations carrying on their business, and we ought to be very thankful indeed for them coming here. The views expressed by the hon. Member for Hereford on this point are quite unworthy of him, and it is very undesirable that such an appeal should be made to prejudice. An hon. Member opposite referred to his ancestors and said they had been connected with this particular industry for centuries. I would like to point out that to day many of the people working in this particular trade are using the same methods as were adopted in 1624. With all these miserable backyard and tenement factories you cannot expect to compete with those firms using modern plant and modern methods and better organisation, and that is the whole trouble. Under these circumstances how can you expect the manufacturers of this country to compete with America which is a high wage country, or with Germany, which is a low wage country, more especially when America and Germany are noticeable for having brought their plant and methods up to date more particularly in the last few years. The difficulty in this country is that in this industry things have not been brought up to date. Not only do you require efficient plant producing your goods, but you must have up-to-date advertising to push your goods abroad. You have to have trained salesmen possessing high commercial intelligence and painstaking people.

Mr. HANNON

I would like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how all this can be relevant to the Amendment. I would remind you that, just before you took the Chair, Mr. Speaker ruled that the discussion on these Amendments must be kept within the narrow compass of those Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member seems to be now entering upon a general discussion of the whole subject.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)

I know it was the original intention to confine the discussion absolutely to the text of the particular Amendment before the House, but it has been found very difficult to do this on these Amendments.

Mr. HANNON

Then will you exclude discussion on subsequent Amendments?

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL

May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we could not have some limit to the period to be covered? We have already gone back to Henry VIII.

Mr. WALLHEAD

The Report goes back to Julius Cesar.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I was endeavouring to confine my remarks very closely to the Amendment before I was interrupted. The hon. Member for Hereford went back as far as 1624. If the argument is going to be used in favour of five years it would be equally sensible to suggest a longer period. Why does the President of the Board of Trade talk about the necessity of giving confidence to this industry? Why does he not suggest ten years for this purpose? Why has the right hon. Gentleman so very closely followed the recommendation of the Committee in this respect because a period like five years is not sufficient for manufacturers to modernise their plant and bring this industry right up to date. There is a point raised in paragraph 24 which I would like the Financial Secretary—who previously adorned the the office of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to deal with and perhaps the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) will deal with the same point. The paragraph I allude to states that the Committee experienced difficulty in obtaining reliable information as to the condition of things in Germany, but I would like to point out that Germany, by an instrument which has been signed since the Committee's Report was issued is going to be allowed to apply for admission to the League of Nations.

I think that is very important, because it means that by joining the League of Nations Germany also joins the International Labour Office, which deals with statistics and hours of labour. I think the opinion of the International Labour Office would be of great assistance to the Committee, because apparently the main competition is supposed to come from Germany. We shall see at once the effect of so many nations joining the League of Nations and ratifying the various ordinances of the Labour Office. Under these circumstances we ought not to commit ourselves to a long period for the imposition of these duties, and for these reasons I think it would be much better to limit the period to 18 months. I am not optimistic enough to hope that the present Government will be out of office within the next 18 months, because they are serving their friends too well to be in a position at the end of that time to ask for the opinion of the country. So important is this principle that I think it would be much better to limit the period to 18 months.

We do not yet know how the Dawes plan is going to work out because the Dawes Committee has not yet got into its stride. I know they are exploring and collecting figures, and they are going on very carefully, but we do not know what effect that plan will have. Complaint has been made by witnesses before the Committee that there is a preferential railway rate in Germany for export goods, but one of the functions of the Reparation Committee under the Dawes plan is to collect revenues from the German railways. For all we know they may protest against this preferential export tax. There is also the question of the turnover tax of 2½ per cent. on goods for export. I would like to point out also that all taxation in Germany must be approved by the Reparation Commission. I know that that Commission cannot veto such taxation, but such a tax as the turnover tax must come under their consideration from time to time. The Dawes Committee has only just got to work, and we shall have to wait a little longer to see the result of their labour. If we reduce the period to 18 months we shall then be able to see the effect of this duty. I do not want to deal very much with the question of the Treaty, because that has been referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, and I accept what he said on that point. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the following sentence from the Protocol: That the high contracting parties should have the right to preserve their own industries. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—it is relevant because it might be advantageous to drop these duties in 18 months—how we should stand if we could get a very favourable treaty with Russia or any other country, because in that case we should not consider politics at all? Did the President of the Board of Trade or his representatives in these negotiations inform the German plenipotentiaries that we meant to impose an abnormal tariff of 33⅓ per cent. on imports from those countries? Most foreign countries start their tariffs at 10, 15 or 20 per cent., and 33⅓ per cent. for a commencement is a very high duty on such articles as safety razors and other articles which have been singled out for Protection.

There is one other point that affects the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury in his dual capacity of speaking for the Foreign Office and for the Treasury. Since this Committee reported, and since the Government took the unhappy decision to introduce this mischievous Measure, we have had a great event, the effects of which are un-measurable and will be far-reaching. I refer to the signing of the Pact of Locarno. This affects a duty of this kind very closely, and makes it important not to tie our hands for such a long period as five years. Locarno is admittedly only a beginning. Already we are hearing of disarmament conferences, and hand in hand with disarmament conferences go conferences on tariffs—attempts to lower the tariff walls which divide the countries of Europe. There is a very influential school of politicians in Europe who declare that it is impossible to reduce armaments while tariffs walls exist, as actual wars are the outcome of tariff walls, at which I am sorry to say the party opposite are making a commencement in this Measure. If Locarno has the effect that is hoped for by us on these benches, it will not only lead to disarmament in Europe—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I do not think that even the widest interpretation of this Amendment can include disarmament.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I will not, of course, pursue the matter at any length, but I was hoping to be able to show that after Locarno we should have an economic conference, and that it would be necessary for us to have bargaining points in our hands on entering such a conference. I was only going on to say that it would be much better that the period should be 18 months rather than five years, but of course, if it is not strictly relevant, I will not pursue it. There is, however, a much more important objection to the period of five years, and a more important reason why it should be reduced to 18 months. Five years will send an industry to sleep. It will act as a sedative. They will say, "This is all right; for five years all the scissors razors, razor blades, carying forks, and so on, will bear this high duty; we can go on with our old methods, we can go on slacking, we can go on taking Saturdays off for golf, and very often days in the middle of the week as well." The hon. Member for Moseley will know that only too well. I know he is a hard-working man, and I know he will agree with me in this matter. There is not enough hard work being done in the country to-day—among all classes; it spreads from the top downwards—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really getting much too far away from the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Of course, I will not pursue that matter further. I was only saying that, if there is inefficiency, a period of five years will allow them to continue it without mending their ways and restoring the efficiency of the industry. I also think it is not quite cricket on the part of the Government to introduce these duties for five years. It is bad enough to introduce them at all, in the circumstances. They were elected because of the Zinoviev letter and the panic into which they put the country about Communists and Bolshevists. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health laughs, but he would not be here but for that. They were not elected for the purpose of introducing Safeguarding of Industries Measures for five years. It may be that the Prime Minister thinks he is not doing wrong because he talked once or twice about the safeguarding of industries. But was it that these Measures were to be introduced for a period of five years? Would it not have been fairer to introduce them for 18 months or a year at a time, and let the House of Commons decide whether they should be renewed? I think that point should be considered. The Prime Minister's followers were elected by hundreds of thousands of votes that were not Conservative votes, but Free Trade votes, and it is not playing the game in the circumstances of the last Election, especially as they only represent actually the minority of the electors, owing to the unfortunate chances of our electoral system, for them to rivet a mischievous duty of this sort on to the country for five years, and I ask them whether it would not be more statesmanlike and fair to reduce it to 18 months?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill)

In one respect I am afraid I must disappoint the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). Notwithstanding his kind and complimentary allusion to myself, I have no intention of following him in his excursion into foreign affairs—in the first place, because I cannot claim to emulate in any way his unrivalled gift of irrelevancy, and, secondly, because, even if that subject were relevant to the matter we are discussing, I do not think it would come within my province to discuss it. In fact, I should not have intervened at all, but for one or two observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). Perhaps, in alluding to what he said, I ought to offer an apology to the House for not having been in my place when this matter was under discussion in the Committee of Ways and Means. I under- stand that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) raised my unfortunate and involuntary absence into a question of high constitutional usage. All I can say is that I earnestly trust my unfortunate absence will not have inflicted any irreparable injury on the British Constitution.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea, in supporting this Amendment, said that one of his reasons for doing so was that the proper method of raising revenue was to include it in the ordinary Budget of the year, and that, if the period for which this duty is imposed were reduced to 18 months, it would then be necessary to continue it in the Budget of 1927. I do not at all contest the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite true that that is the proper method of imposing duties for revenue purposes. But this is not primarily, or, at all events, is not solely a matter of revenue. If it were a matter of revenue, and revenue only, it would, of course, in the ordinary sequence of events, have been included in the present year's Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the reason is perfectly well known why these Safeguarding Duties are being subjected to this particular procedure, and are being included in a special Finance Bill of their own. Therefore, I think that that is a sufficient and complete answer to the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman that Revenue Duties should have been included in the ordinary Budget of the year. As to the particular reason for imposing the duties for five years, that is a matter which is not strictly speaking a Treasury matter at all. The reason for it has been given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I think his answer on that point has been sufficient.

There was one other thing which the right horn. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea said. He used an argument which is not by any means a novel one, and for which I do not think he would claim originality. He said that, in so far as these duties proved successful in giving employment, they would fail in producing revenue, and that, in so far as they produced revenue, they would fail to give employment. That is an argument which has been trotted out on every platform and in every newspaper in discussions of this never-ending Free Trade argument during the last 20 years. It is a matter almost of amazement to me that the right hon. Gentleman should think it worth while to bring forward such an argument as that. The right hon. Gentleman was arguing as if this were an ordinary Protective duty. Assume it to be so. The right hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward an argument of this sort, is ignoring the experience of practically the whole civilised industrial world except ourselves. Of course, what is really the effect is this: You could, on the one hand, if you wanted to put on duties exclusively with the object of giving employment, put on an absolutely prohibitive duty, which would prohibit all imports. That is a policy which I understand is regarded with favour by some prominent members of the Labour party, and it is a perfectly intelligible policy. On the other hand, you could put on a purely revenue duty, so low that it would not have any effect whatever upon imports, but the whole effect would be the obtaining of revenue. That is the other extreme.

What actually happens, however, in nine cases out of ten—practically in all cases, even in protective countries—is that you put on a moderate duty which has neither the full effect in the one direction nor in the other; you put on a duty which, on the one hand, does not prohibit imports, but checks them, and just in so far as it has the effect of checking imports, to that extent it has a tendency to give employment in the home country. On the other hand, in so far as it does not check imports, but allows imports to come through, then to that extent the Exchequer gets revenue. In all countries where these duties are part of the regular system, that is the universal experience. If you check imports, to that extent you give employment; if, on the other hand, you do not prohibit imports, to that extent you obtain revenue.

The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me to give an estimate of the amount of revenue that would be derived from this duty, but it is just precisely because of that very old and stale dilemma, which he has brought out again, that it is impossible, until we have had some experience, to give any estimate that would be of value. We must find out, before we can make an estimate, to what extent the effect of the duty will be to check imports, because, of course, revenue is obtained only on the remainder of the imports which come in, and until we know the proportion between the two it is impossible to give an . estimate that would be of the slightest value to the House. It is simply in order to explain that I have intervened in this Debate, because this duty is really not a revenue duty in the strict sense of the word. It is not a Treasury matter at all, and, while repeating ray apology for not having been here in Committee, I do not think it would have had the slightest real effect. I do not regard myself as of any necessity or importance in this Debate, because the matter under discussion is a Board of Trade matter and not a Treasury matter, but I thought it would only be respectful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had complained of my absence that I should be here to-day and should give this short explanation of the extent to which I consider the Treasury is interested in this matter.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. CECIL WILSON

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) said he was speaking as a Sheffielder. He occupied a position he did not refer to but might have referred to with very great pride, because he was one of the best Chairmen of the Health Committee we ever had in Sheffield. He should have been, and no doubt was, aware when he occupied that position that the ward he referred to was divided into two parts. One part was largely residential, and in the other the cutlery factories were situated. At the time he was chairman of the health committee, so far as infantile mortality, the death rate, and the number of houses to the acre are concerned, the cutlery portion of the ward stood among the highest in the city of Sheffield. Therefore he has emphasised rather than contradicted some of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). The hon. Member referred also to the fact that his family has been long associated with the cutlery industry. I am not sure that he went back quite far enough, but it is well that we should remember, when there is complaint about undesirable aliens and so forth, that there was a time when the London Company of Cutlers complained not so much of aliens as of English foreigners who were caught hawking in the streets and highways with deceivable wares—referring to some of the hon. Member's ancestors. There is one paragraph in this Report that I want specially to refer to. It is paragraph 28, dealing with the question of wage rates, which says: The wage rates current in Sheffield give hourly earnings for skilled workers varying from 1s. 1½d. to 1s. 6d., according to the section of the trade. These are based on fixed price lists, copies of which were provided for our inspection. As a matter of fact that statement is not correct, because I am told the wages referred to in that paragraph are datal wages and are net, while the Report goes on to refer to price lists which are very largely a question of piece work and not datal wages, as made to appear there. When we come to the question of price lists, the Committee say they had an opportunity of inspecting them, but I think the House can scarcely realise what these price lists really mean, I have here a copy of a great list of prices for hafting table, and butcher knives, fish eaters and desserts, etc., printed November, 1922, occupying, for this one trade of hafting alone, 34 pages, the table cutlery portion occupying 13 pages, the butcher knife portion 5 pages, and others in the same sort of way. You get here on each page perhaps something like 30 different prices for the different work that has to be done. You have the best part of probably not less than 800 or 900 different prices which seem to me to suggest that the statement of the Committee that organisation was all that was needed could scarcely be correct if there is all this complication in regard to it.

The question of the position of the operatives has not been in any way dealt with. The operatives suggest that there are two other directions in which the difficulties of the cutlery trade might be met, altogether apart from this question of tariffs. We should do well to remember that something like 75 per cent. of the operatives are uninsured. They are not eligible for insurance in consequence of the way the cutlery trade is carried on. It is true that of those who are insured a number are unemployed at present, but here you have what the Committee has stated is an important industry, which we recognise as having been largely responsible for the good name Sheffield bears in all parts of the world, the organisation of which is such that 75 per cent. of those engaged in it are not insurable.

The comparison has been made in the Report with the year 1913 and subsequent years. Prior to 1913 there was nothing in the way of what the Prime Minister has laid so much stress upon -the desirability of the operatives and the employers coming together. In 1914 was the first serious talk the two sides had, and the result was a very considerable improvement and betterment for the whole trade. But my information from the operatives is that, whilst attempts have been made on their part to have these conversations resumed, they have not taken place. The operatives are perfectly satisfied that if they could take place and an understanding could be come to, in a very great many directions the whole trade could be improved and a great deal done towards meeting the competition which is so serious. From their point of view it would be good for someone to take a lead in that direction, in which they are satisfied that quite as much would be done as could possibly be done by anything in the way of a tariff. The Report also deals with the question of merchandise marks. They tell me that when they were up here for an inquiry they saw in the shops cutlery 75 per cent. of which was not Sheffield, although notices exhibited in the shops stated that best Sheffield cutlery was there. There is cutlery which bears upon it just the words "Sheffield, England," without the slightest indication as to who the makers are or where it has come from, and it is alleged that that, too, is coming from abroad.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I do not want the hon. Member to think I ignored that point. As he knows, I am considering it in another connection. I did not think it right or relevant, on this proposal, to go into the question of marking and so on, but I am very much alive to what he says.

Captain BENN

Do you propose to accept the recommendation?

Mr. WILSON

My suggestion is that that can be done within 18 months. The method of ordering on the part of the merchants does not sufficiently specify that it must be Sheffield, and bear the maker's name. They simply order by a particular number, and therefore it is possible in many cases for stuff to be sent in which really is not what is understood by best Sheffield cutlery. There is no question about it that some German cutlery comes in a finished form into Sheffield. The German blades are not as good as Sheffield blades, and they are taken out from the scales and Sheffield blades put in. That goes out as Sheffield cutlery. So far as the blades are concerned,

cerned, it is true, but so far as the scales are concerned, it is German. I suggest that both in the direction of trying to bring employers and employed together to carry out what the Prime Minister has so fully and repeatedly expressed, and also in regard to the question of merchandise marks, from the operatives' point of view quite as much can be done in either direction as is possible to be done under a tariff.

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 House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 124.

Division No. 462.]	AYES.	[6.10 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Albery, Irving James	Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Haslam, Henry C.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hawke, John Anthony
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Crook, C. W.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Apsley, Lord	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Atholl, Duchess of	Crookshank, Cpt. H (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Herbert, S. (York, N. R-,Scar. & Wh'by)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Dalziel, Sir Davison	Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Davidson, J. (Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)	Holt, Captain H. P.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Bennett, A. J.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Eden, Captain Anthony	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Berry, Sir George	Edmonson, Major A. J.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumherl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Betterton, Henry B.	Elliot. Captain Walter E.	Hume, Sir G. H.
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Elveden, viscount	Hume-Williams, sir W. Ellis
Blundell, F. N.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M)	Huntingfield, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Hurst, Gerald B.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Brass, Captain W.	Fielden, E. B.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Fleming, D. P.	Jacob A. E.
Briscoe, Richard George	Ford, P. J.	Jephcott. A. R.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l' d., Hexham)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Buckingham, Sir H.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clement
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Ganzoni, Sir John	Knox, Sir Alfred
Bullock, Captain M.	Gates, Percy	Lamb, J. Q.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Gault. Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Burman, J. B.	Gee, Captain R.	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Glyn. Major R. G. C.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Gower, Sir Robert	Looker, Herbert William
Caine, Gordon Hall	Grace, John	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Very
Campbell, E. T.	Grant, J. A.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Lumley, L. R.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R.(Pr'smth. S.)	Greene, W. P. Crawford	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Gretton, Colonel John	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Grotrian, H. Brent.	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Gunston, Captain D. W.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Christie, J. A.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	McLean, Major A.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Red.)	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Clarry, Reginald George	Hammersley, S. S.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hanbury, C.	Macqulsten, F. A.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Harland, A.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Colfox, Major Wm Phillips	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Margesson, Captain D.
Cooper, A. Duff	Harrison, G. J. C.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Conner, J. B.	Hartington, Marquess of	Meller, R. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank	Rice, Sir Frederick	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Thornton, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Morrison. H. (Wills, Sallsbury)	Rye, F. G.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Murchison. C. K.	Salmon, Major I.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hall)
Nelson, Sir Frank	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Neville, R. J.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Watts, Dr. T.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)	Sandon, Lord	Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Williams, A M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Oakley, T.	Savery, S. S.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Pease, William Edwin	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wills, Westb'y)	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Penny, Frederick George	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Peto, Basli E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Skelton, A. N.	Wolmer, Viscount
Philipson, Mabel	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Womersley, W. J.
Pielou, D. P.	Smithers, Waldron	Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)
Power, Sir John Cecil	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyds)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Ramsden, E.	Sprot, Sir Alexander	Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Remer, J. R.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Remnant, Sir James	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Rentoul, G. S.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.	Major Cope and Lord Stanley.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N )	Ritson, J.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Baker, J, (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hardie, George D.	Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, Walter	Harney, E. A.	Scurr, John
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Harris, Percy A.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burniey)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hirst, G. H.	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Briant, Frank	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Broad, F. A.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bromfield, William	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Snell, Harry
Bromley, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Buchanan, G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Stamford. T. W.
Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Clowes, S.	Kennedy, T.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Cluse, W. S.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Thurtle, E.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lanabury, George	Townend, A. E.
Connolly, M.	Lawson, John James	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G.	Lee, F.	Viant, S. P.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Livingstone, A. M.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lowth, T.	Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry	Lunn, William	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dennison, R.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Duncan, C.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Weir, L. M.
Dunnico, H.	Mackinder, W.	Westwood, J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	MacLaren, Andrew	Whiteley, W.
Fenby, T. D.	March, S.	Wiggins, William Martin
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Wilkinson. Ellen C.
Forrest, W.	Montague, Frederick	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Morris, R. H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Gosling, Harry	Naylor, T. E.	Wright, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)	Paling, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	TELLER'S FOR THE NOES.—
Groves, T.	Potts, John S.	Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.
Grundy, T. W.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 132.

Division No. 463.]	AYES.	[6.20 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Albery, Irving James	Gates, Percy	Morrison. H. (Wills, Sallsbury)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Murchison, C. K.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Gee, Captain R.	Nelson, Sir Frank
Apsley, Lord	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Neville, R. J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Atholl, Duchess of	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Gower, Sir Robert	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Grace, John	Oakley, T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Grant, J. A.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Pease, William Edwin
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Gretton, Colonel John	Penny, Frederick George
Bennett, A. J.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon Barnstaple)
Berry, Sir George	Hall. Lieut.-Col, Sir F. (Dulwich)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Betterton, Henry B.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Philipson, Mabel
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Hammersley, S. S.	Pielou, D. p.
Blundell, F. N.	Hanbury, C.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Boothby, R. J. G.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Harland, A.	Ramsden, E
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive	Harrison, G. J. C.	Remer, J. R.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hartington, Marquess of	Remnant Sir James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Rentoul, G. S.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R, I.	Haslam, Henry C.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hawke, John Anthony	Rice, Sir Frederick
Buckingham, Sir H.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Bullock, Captain M.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Burman, J. B.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Rye, F. G.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.	Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)	salmon, Major I.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey Farnham)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Holt, Captain H. P.	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Sanders Sir Robert A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Caine, Gordon Hall	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Sandon, Lord
Campbell, E. T.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberind, Whiteh'n)	Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Savery, S. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prismth, S.)	Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis	Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Huntingfield, Lord	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Hurst. Gerald B.	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Sheffield Sir Berkeley
Christie, J. A.	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.	Simms, Dr. John M. (CO. Down)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Clarry, Reginald George	Jacob, A. E.	Skalton, A. N.
Clayton, G. C.	Jephcott, A. R.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Smithers Waldron
Cookerill, Brigadier-General G.K.	Kennedy, A . R. (Preston)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Cooper, A. Duff	King. Captain Henry Douglas	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Couper, J. B.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stanley, col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Knox, Sir Alfred	Stanley Lord (Fylde)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Lamb, J. O.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Crook, C. W.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)	Sykes Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Locker-Lampson, e. (Wood Green)	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Looker, Herbert William	Thomson F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Lord, Walter Greaves-	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Dalziel, Sir Davison	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Lumley, L. B.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davies, Dr. Vernon	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Ward Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Macdonald, R, (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Waterhouse, captain Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Watson, Rt. Hon . W. (Carlisle)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.	McLean. Major A.	Watts, Dr. T.
Elveden, Viscount	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Wheler Major Sir Granville C. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Erskine James Malcolm Monieth	Macquisten, F. A.	Williams, Com. G. (Devan, Torquay)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.	Williams, Herbert G, (Reading)
Falls, Sir Bertram G.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Fielden, E. B.	Margesson, Captain, D.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Fleming, D. P.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Ford, P. J.	Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Meller, R. J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Wise, Sir Fredric
Foxcrott Captain C. T.	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.-	Wolmer, Viscount
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Womersley, W. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. S. M.	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.	Captain Hacking and Major Cope.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Potts, John S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, G H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Ritson, J.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hardie, George D.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Baker, Walter	Harney, E. A.	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Harris, Percy A.	Scrymgeour, E.
Barnes, A.	Kayday, Arthur	Scurr, John
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henn, Sir Sydney H.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hirst, G. H.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Briant, Frank	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Broad, F. A.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, William	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Bromley, J	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Snell, Harry
Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Buchanan, G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stamford, T. w.
Charleton, H. C.	Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Stephen, Campbell
Clowes, S.	Kelly, W. T.	Stewart. J. (St Rollox)
Cluse, W. S.	Kennedy, T.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lansbury, George	Thurtle, E.
Connolly, M.	Lawson, John James	Townend, A. E.
Cove, W. G.	Lee, F.	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lindley, F. W.	Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Livingstone, A. M.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Day, Colonel Harry	Lowth, T.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dennison, R.	Lunn, William	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Duncan, C.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dunnico, H.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Weir. L. M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Mackinder, W.	Westwood, J.
Fenby, T. D.	MacLaren, Andrew	Whiteley, W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	March, S.	Wiggins, William Martin
Forrest, W.	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Montague, Frederick	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Morris. R. H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gillett, George M.	Morrison, B. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gosling, Harry	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Naylor, T. E.	Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Newman, sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Groves, T.	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.

Mr. SPEAKER

Captain Wedgwood Benn.

Mr. HANNON

Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman moves his Amendment, may I ask, on a point of Order, whether it would be possible to keep the discussion on subsequent Amendments within reasonable limits? After you left the Chair, the discussion on the former Amendment roamed over a very wide field and embraced practically the whole substance of the Resolution before the House. Would it be possible, in dealing with further Amendments, to keep the discussion within limits?

Mr. SPEAKER

Before I left the Chair I was conscious that hon. Members found great difficulty in not embarking on wider issues than those which were raised in a particular Amendment. If it were the desire of the House that that should be done, I did not wish to interfere, but, of course, it endangers debate later, on the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ALEXANDER

I gathered, when the question was put to you, that it was the general wish that we should confine ourselves as far as possible to the scope of the Amendment proposed in order that we might get a general discussion later That is all the more important now, so that we may get from the Government replies which they are not giving us on these Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am doing my best to help the House in the matter, and, if hon. Members will follow good advice, it will be much easier for the House.

Captain BENN

On the point of Order, it may be that the just will suffer with the unjust. Suppose that a Member confines himself strictly to matter relevant to an Amendment, when the main Question is put he may wish to speak, but in view of the fact that the general aspect of the subject has been dealt with you may consider it your duty to curtail the debate on the general Question. Then the just man who has waited may suffer.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that that is a thing which happens to humanity in general.

Captain BENN

I beg to move, in line 3, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words from any country the rate of exchange of whose currency is depreciated by more than fifty per cent. below par. The effect of this Amendment would be to confine these new duties to goods which come from a country where the rate of exchange is depreciated by a definite sum. I have named 50 per cent., but I am not wedded to the figure, and if the President of the Board of Trade would suggest any other reasonable figure I would accept it. The fiscal system of this country, the Free Trade system, was first definitely attacked in peace time, immediately after the War, by the first Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921. The case made out for that Act, which had the support of many who were previously Free Traders, was that inflation in the currencies of other countries and the enormous diminution in their exchange value gave those countries adventitious aid in their export trade, with which it was not fair to ask our manufacturers to compete. The spokesman of that Act predicted that we should have floods of imports, particularly from Germany, where inflation was much greater than elsewhere. What those who feared that had overlooked, was some of the collateral effects, such as the high price of money and the general dislocation of industry in the country which inflation involves.

We now know that, so far from the bankruptcy of Germany having strengthened her export power, it has very much diminished it. The published figures show that she has an enormous surplus of imports, and up to date there is no sign that the surplus of exports will be forthcoming for some time to come. I have said that I thought there was no case for the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It may be, in view of the very widespread belief on the benches opposite that this depreciated exchange does give an export bounty, that the Government still hold that view. As the general principle has been accepted, the most that we can do now is to suggest modifications of it. The first modification I suggest is embodied in this Amendment. If hon. Gentlemen really believe that it is depreciation of exchange which gives an export bounty, let them accept this Amendment. There is another argument. In the White Paper a large number of hints are given as to how the Committee are to determine whether the competition from foreign sources is unfair. There is one thing that the Committee can easily determine; they can easily determine the late of exchange, which is a matter of day to day quotation in authoritative quarters. When they are asked to compare wage rates, they are on very much more difficult ground, because it is to good taking just the money wage; you have to consider the real wage, and until you go into the conditions in a country and find out what is the value of the real wage you cannot base yourself securely on that ground.

There is a further point. Is the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade aware that this afternoon, a very serious charge has been made against his Department, namely, that while they were in possession of information on these matters they withheld it from the Committee? My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) mentioned the Report on economic and financial conditions in Germany, and said it was not clear that it had been placed before the Committee. The public outside, so far as they read the reports of our Debates, are in the position that they know a very serious charge has been made against the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, namely, that they had information and that they did not supply it to the Committee or bring it to the notice of the Committee. It is quite open to the right hon. Gentleman to treat that charge either with silence or merely with a simper, but that does not meet the case. If he does not answer the charge, people outside will ask why was not an answer made to a statement of so grave a character?

As regards the other conditions, here again we are on very difficult ground. We ask roughly three things: (1) the value of currency; (2) wage and labour conditions; (3) conditions as to taxation, and so on. It is quite obvious that the currency is the only solid basis. With the wage test I have dealt. Take the taxation condition. In this country we are in a very peculiar position. We have very heavy rates and taxes on industry. On the other hand, every industry is insensibly assisted by bounties, because coal enters into the cost of almost every article. If you go to Germany you find that they have indeed wiped off their debenture charges because of the inflation, but that they have to meet the other charges, such as the high cost of money. It is extremely difficult for the Committee to assess what is the relative burden of taxation. If the Government want to apply a test, the plain test is, what is the relative value of the two currencies? Because I want to make them face that issue and explain what their views are on that issue, I move the Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I hope that the House will reject this Amendment and reject it on three grounds. In the first place, it would not comply with the conditions in the White Paper. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has always been most anxious that I should abide strictly by those conditions. One of the conditions is a bounty through depreciation of exchange; but another condition, to which we attach at least as much importance, is the condition as to hours and wages being so different as to amount to unfair competition. Of course, if I accepted the Amendment I should at once be abandoning a pledge given to the country that we would safeguard industries against unfair conditions of hours and wages. That alone would be sufficient to cause us to oppose the Amendment. In the second place, the Amendment is not effective, even for the purpose for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman designed it. He wants to limit the unfair conditions to depreciation of exchange.

The measure of the unfairness there would be, whether and to what extent there was a bounty by reason of depreciation of the exchange. The bounty does not exist to the extent of, or necessarily at all in relation to, the percentage by which the exchange has depreciated. You might have an exchange which has (depreciated 99 per cent. but that depreciation has been constant and stable for a number of years. It might well be that, although it was 99 per cent. below par, there was no bounty at all, because external and internal prices had reached an equilibrium. On the other hand, you might get an exchange which fluctuated only ten, fifteen or twenty points. but because it was in process of flux it would create an export bounty. There are other reasons why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should not press the Amendment. He believes, as I believe, in the effect of the most-favoured-nation clause. He is always warning me to pursue the path which I am pursuing, by getting most-favoured-nation treatment and by doing nothing to prejudice it. It would be a breach of all our most-favoured-nation treaties to put these duties on only against countries where the exchange was 50 per cent. depreciated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks otherwise. I tell him advisedly and after consultation with those who have to advise me that it would. That was the reason why it was necessary to proceed by general duties and not by differential duties against particular countries. If you proceed by differential duties you cannot put them on against the nations with whom you have a most-favoured-nation clause in your Treaty unless you put the same duty on against all the other countries. Therefore, this proposal would defeat what is so dear to the hon. and gallant Member's heart and to mine, namely, the most-favoured-nation treatment. For these three reasons, I hope the House will disagree with the Amendment.

The Mover raised one other point as to a Report not having been before this Committee. The committees are always supplied by the Board of Trade with any information which we can supply and for which they ask. I do not know whether this Report was before them or not, but I do not think it is in the least relevant to their inquiry. I have a great admiration for Mr. Thelwall, but this is a very old Report, as conditions are. It is a Report written in April, 1924, and there is only one short paragraph dealing with the cutlery industry, and it relates to conditions from the beginning of 1923, the latest reference being to January, 1924. All through 1923 the exchange was fluctuating, and there is nothing in the document which deals either with conditions of labour or hours of labour, these being the relevant things to which this committee had to direct their attention. Therefore, while I was anxious that the committee should receive any information from the Board of Trade which was relevant, and while all information which we had was readily at the disposal of the committee, yet it seems that had we gone out of our way to present them with this Report, we should have been drawing their attention to something which was irrelevant and hopelessly out of date. I should have misled the committee had I told them that the right information about the Solingen industry to-day was to be found in a cursory reference in a Report relating to conditions a year and a half or two years ago. The committee had information dealing with much more recent conditions, and in paragraph 12 of their Report they say: Striking confirmation of the deductions made from the British import figures is obtained by a study of the German figures of exports to this and other countries given in Appendix III. While the total weight both of coarse and fine cutlery exported has diminished as compared with pre-War, the quantities of coarse cutlery exported to the United Kingdom have been trebled in 1924, and are likely to be quadrupled in 1925, while those of fine cutlery also show substantial increases. They could not have had more up-to-date or better information to go upon than German official statistics. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, while anxious to make any play with this suggestion which might occur to his ingenious—or ingenuous—mind, has not taken up a very strong point when he suggests that anything was withheld from the Committees which might have been relevant or useful.

Mr. MONTAGUE

If this Amendment be pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government, and I hope Members of the Labour party will do the same. The Amendment strikes me as indicating pretty clearly the attitude of the typical Liberal Free Trader as distinct from that attachment to Free Trade principles which the Labour party professes. The Liberal Free Trader believes in commercial freedom. I, as a Socialist, do not believe in commercial freedom. I do not believe in Protection, but if we are to have Protection in any form, even in the modified form of safeguarding industries, I prefer that the motives on which such safeguarding is based should include conditions of labour and wages as well as depreciated currencies. For that reason I hold that the Labour point of view is not the same as the official Liberal point of view upon this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not propose to call any of the other Amendments on the Paper relating to this particular Resolution, and the Question for the House now is, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain BENN

May I submit, Sir, that the issue in my further Amendment which proposes to insert the words except from such countries as have ratified any International Labour Convention agreed upon under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, raises a point of first-rate importance which was never mentioned during the discussion in the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. SPEAKER

I have told the hon. and gallant Member that I hope to find an opportunity for raising that point on the next Resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ALEXANDER

We now have an opportunity of raising the general aspect of this Resolution, and I desire to put some facts before the House concerning this duty and how it is affected by the procedure laid down in the White Paper. According to the President of the Board of Trade in his explanation of the White Paper it lays down the conditions which have to be fulfilled before an industry can obtain a tariff, and one of those conditions is that there shall be abnormal imports. In this case, we have had no real evi- dence that the imports of cutlery are, in fact, abnormal, especially from those countries from which there is a danger of unfair competition because of labour conditions. The right hon. Gentleman just now pooh-poohed the idea of paying any attention to a paragraph in a Report issued by the Department of Overseas Trade which indicated economic conditions in Germany in this connection. May I give a continuation of the paragraph from which I quoted earlier: Costs of production are materially higher than those ruling in 1914. At the end of January, 1924, the price of pig iron was 120 per cent. and of coke 350 per cent. of pre-War rates, and the cost of an ordinary pair of untempered scissors was 2.88 marks per dozen as compared with a pre-War price of 1 mark. The Report goes on to make reference to the difficulty and the expense of raising capital as compared with the conditions previously existing in this respect. That is the country against which it ,is desired to impose this tax, and yet we have had no information to show that the imports from that country are abnormal. Let us take the information given in Appendix II of the Report of the Committee. In 1922 it is stated we imported 621,000 dozens of knives other than machine knives, and in 1924 that had fallen to 448,000, or a drop of 33⅓ per cent. The import during nine months of 1925 was 367,000, and on an estimate for the whole period it does not seem that the import will be materially higher that, last year's. That hardly bears out the conditions laid down in the White Paper as to abnormal imports. Let us take the question of razors, including blades and blanks. In 1922 the import was 1,022,000 dozen, and there was a drop in 1924 to 740,000, a decrease roughly of 30 per cent., and it is difficult to understand how this indicates abnormal imports or satisfies the condition set out in the White Paper. We have not yet had any explanation of this point from the President of the Board of Trade.

7.0 P.M.

There is another reason for calling attention to the procedure under the White Paper in relation to this industry. The evidence given before the Committee was very largely of an ex parte mature. I suggest we have had no technical evidence, at least no independent evidence, as to the position of the cutlery industry in Germany. The committee which recommended this duty apparently accepted the ex parte statements of the applicant industry with regard to German conditions. It is a very serious situation if we are going to begin the establishment of what may yet be a general tariff simply upon the acceptance by a Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman of the evidence given by interested parties. Apparently, there-is no effective means of checking the evidence. How serious that may become is indicated by what happened in the case of another application. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the Report concerning the phosphate industries the Committee said that their industry employed 17,000 hands. Upon examination it was discovered that only 2,640 were actually employed. If that was the finding of the Committee in the phosphate industry, I have no doubt it will be equally found in the cutlery or any other industry that you could drive a coach and six through all these cases made by any of these industries applying for a tariff, and for which there is no actual support in practice. From that point of view, I think we ought to have more information from the Committee before we pass at this stage, an important stage, a Resolution authorising the raising of money and the taxation of the subjects of this country. I believe the actual procedure laid down is such as to lead to unfair taxation of our people without this House having proper means for checking the position.

With regard to the hours and conditions of labour, the President of the Board of Trade said just now, in replying to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), that one of the things that the Committee had to satisfy itself about was that there were actually conditions in operation in other countries which would lead to unfair competition. Here, again, we are most seriously handicapped by the fact that we have not got a full report of the evidence before the Committee, very seriously handicapped. Again, I have to rely upon reports in the Press. I find in the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph" report of the inquiry on 3rd November, that the Chairman of the Committee himself remarked that the "Labour Gazette" stated that although the forty-eight hour week order in Germany lapsed in 1923, it was renewed on 21st December, 1923, and came into force on 1st January, 1924, and was still in force. The Act permitted, of course, the Hours of working in certain cases to be extended to 10 per day. As a matter of fact, there was nothing in that statement made by the chairman of the Committee which places Germany on a basis very much different from the workers in our own industry. We also have the 48-hour week, or in some cases a 44-hour week, and it is perfectly permissible to arrange for extra hours of work under certain conditions as is done in Germany. In this case, it extends to 10, and exactly the same thing happens in this country. The 48-hour week is actually re-established in Ger many, according to the testimony of the chairman of this Committee of Inquiry, and, although he said it is permissible to work extra hours under certain conditions, yet these conditions are very similar to the conditions under which our workers may remain on duty outside 48 hours. Therefore, I do not think the Committee has proved its case in regard to that matter.

Another point I want to address myself to at this stage—I mentioned it pre viously—is with regard to the proposal to include in this duty the safety-razor blades and blanks. I hope we shall have the opportunity of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion. Why is it that safety-razor blades and blanks are included at all? There is nothing in the Report of the Committee, at any rate so far as we can find in the evidence given in the newspapers of the reports of the inquiry, which establishes a case for a protection of the British production of safety-razors. As a matter of fact, the total value of the imports in that connection from Germany is £15,000 a year, and from the United States of America the value is £125,000. So it would seem that in this particular case, if a tariff is imposed, it would operate principally against the country in which hours and conditions are not at all challenged by any Member of this House. It would operate against imports from a country where they are efficiently organised, and it would operate, what is more serious still, against the imports of a commodity manufactured in the main from actual Sheffield steel, produced in Sheffield, in order that America may manufacture razor blades and return them to this country. Not only will it injure the trade in that direction, but it is also going to injure the trade in those American razors which at present are made up in this country and distributed, as a matter of fact, to our Colonies abroad. I believe that there is no place at all for a protective duty in regard in safety-razors. I shall be glad if the President of the Board of Trade will reply—and I might say to him that I have addressed many questions to him in the last two or three Debates and, as a rule, he has generally ignored them.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER

I hope the hon. Member will excuse me. He says I did not answer the specific point that he made. I answered it in replying to the hon. Gentleman behind him, who moved the Amendment, and who repeated exactly the same argument.

Mr. ALEXANDER

It may apply to that particular point, but there were other points, mentioned last week in Committee. That is why I ask that he will, if possible in this case, make a reply. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will ultimately reject the proposal that it should agree with the Committee in this Resolution. I hope so for another and larger reason, which I wanted to develop the other night, but for the discussion of which I was ruled out of order. The attitude of the Government in introducing this proposal to tax the country, but principally introduced to prevent an import coming from Germany, is a curious commentary on their steps in other directions towards peace. Not many weeks ago the German Ambassador and the Foreign Secretary drank at the Guildhall out of the same loving-cup, and a few days later the Government proposed to introduce a new duty against Germany. I notice it is said that the Germans have little cause to complain from that point of view, because they have so many duties operating already against imports from this country, and I have no doubt that there is some ground for taking that point of view. But I am pressing my point from the point of view of the development of international relationships, and the point I want to make is that, if there is anything at all in the spirit of Locarno which is worthy of development, and likely to lead to fruition, then, instead of making new grounds of economic strife, we ought to be looking for some means of doing away with economic strife.

I believe that we may have our League of Nations, we may have limited agreements such as the Locarno Pact between groups of nations, which will help to develop the spirit of peace and amity in the future, but I believe still further, that as long as nations set up barriers between themselves of a fiscal character, anything likely to prevent a free exchange of goods and services between themselves, leading to economic strife, so long shall we not be able to get a permanent basis of peace in the world. It is, I think, common knowledge, how often in the past disagreements in regard to tariffs between the goods and services of various countries have actually led to physical war, and, while I am not at all suggesting that these proposals of the Government are going to lead to blood shed of that kind, what I do say is that it is not going to lead along the right road towards peaces by raising further barriers between the nations of the world. What we want to do is to break down these barriers. I put that point of view for this specific reason. The President of the Board of Trade knows that in the last Assembly of the League of Nations it was decided to arrange for an inter national world economic conference. Does he not think it might have been perhaps wiser if the Government had waited until the early meetings of the conference had taken place in order to see if we could not have discussed with the nations of the world some other means of settling economic differences than of imposing a new lot of duties? I believe that would have been far preferable than adopting the course which the Government have pursued.

Sir HARRY FOSTER

Whom are we to negotiate with?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I do not think it is a question of negotiating on the point that I have raised. So far as my argument is concerned, it is simply that we object strongly to every additional, artificial barrier, that is raised between the nations of the earth. If you want two nations to come together, you have got to seek to do away with the barriers that make for economic strife rather than to set up new obstacles and barriers between them. I believe that the ultimate economic salvation of the world will depend upon whether the world is sane enough to move eventually to a system which will allow of the free exchange of goods and services, in the most economical way, between all the nations of the earth. I believe that to be the solution. I deprecate therefore, very much, that the Government, instead of accepting that, and working from our present position towards that end, should be imposing new duties, and getting the House to impose new duties, to make these difficulties more intense.

Mr. STORRY DEANS

I should like to answer, if I can, one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander). When he talks about economic barriers leading to strife, I will put to him one example. I would ask him which nation in the world puts up more barriers against us than any other? Surely the answer is the United States of America; and with what country have we less international strife than with the United States of America? So I think that my hon. Friend, in his desire for peace, has allowed his eloquence a little bit to run away with him. Just let me say one other word or two about his arguments on the conditions of Germany, as com pared with the conditions in this country in the cutlery trade. My hon. Friend himself knows that in Germany, with the extended hours of work, they work at ordinary rates of pay. When extended hours are worked in Sheffield in the cutlery trade they are not worked at ordinary rates of pay, but at overtime rates, which are time-and-a-half, and sometimes even double time. If the hon. Member makes inquiries in his constituency or in mine, he will find that this is so; so that, quite apart from the difference between a 48-hour week and a 44-hour week, which is what prevails in Sheffield in the cutlery trade, he will find that the Sheffield cutlery manufacturer is severely handicapped owing to the fact that the German working cutler accepts ordinary pay for overtime work, as, of course, he is quite entitled to do.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Are they working overtime in Sheffield now?

Mr. DEANS

Occasionally in Sheffield a man will have a big "rush" order, as in all trades, and in such a case, when time is of the essence of the matter, in order to get his goods out quickly he will induce his men to work overtime.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Their wages do not increase the price.

Mr. DEANS

I have tried to answer the hon. Member fairly. I know, be cause I am considerably acquainted with this industry, that sometimes a cutlery manufacturer, especially a small manufacturer, will have to employ his men overtime for a short time, and I know that the expense of it is very heavy. Then there is this other point about conditions and wages in Germany. There can be no doubt that the German work man works at a much less rate per hour. I have not the absolutely accurate figures with me, but I believe the difference is one of 10½d. to 11d. and 1s. 5d. That, again, is an extraordinary handicap to the manufacturer in Sheffield, and I suggest that the cutlers in Sheffield have made cut their case before this Committee under that head. When my hon. Friend talks about the evidence being ex parte, has he forgotten that the opposition was represented by a very skilful counsel, instructed by importers whose interest it was to supply him with material from which he could cross-examine witnesses? I know that learned counsel very well, I know him to be a gentleman of very great ability, and I do not think that any statement would pass him unchallenged upon which cross-examination could well be put, nor do I think, after some experience, that it very much matters whether a man is on oath or not, if you can test his statements by cross-examination conducted by an able man. I ask the House to pass this Resolution, feeling convinced that, if and when they pass it, they will do very great good to one of the oldest and best industries in this country.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I beg to apologise to the hon. and learned Member for the Park division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry Deans) for my interruption, but it seems to me that his argument is scarcely relevant to the case. If there is extended time being worked in the cutlery trade, then the case presented falls to the ground; it shows an extent of business not borne out by the actual statements made in the Report. On the other hand, the question of the "rush" order does not affect the contract price at all. The contract is made. The competitive price is quoted before the job is started, and if the contractor finds himself obliged to employ his men at overtime rates, it does not affect the competitive price at which the order was taken, while, if he wants to avoid the overtime rates, he can sublet part of his contract to those contractors who are not working full-time and whose works may be standing idle. There are plenty of grounds for asking the House to reject this proposal, one of which is the inadequacy of the evidence which the House has had placed before it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), in quoting from the Board of Trade Report this afternoon, administered a very nasty smack at the whole of the evidence placed before us, and he proved conclusively—and the curious thing is that no reply came to his contention from the President of the Board of Trade—that the evidence placed before us as a House does not in any sense justify the House in taking the decision it is called upon to do.

The course that we are embarking upon now is a course that may have very far flung results, for it is clear that if the Government, so early in its career, embarks upon this policy, we are likely to have more of it before the Government concludes its term of office, and if this is merely the beginning and we have four or five trades presented now under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it may be that in the next two or three years we shall find that the number of cases is being multiplied out of all proportion. I am prepared to admit that it is possible that you could, by means of this description, prove in the course of a year or two that a certain amount of employment had been found in these specific trades. Any body would admit that you could make out a case for a single trade, and that any single trade could be made to benefit by a measure of protection, but the question is as to what will be the effect upon other trades. Is the general condition improved because of the measure of protection afforded to one or two specific trades which may show an improvement? As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough showed that there was a question whether you would not, by protecting razor blades, affect the production of steel manufactured for the manufacture of those same blades, and, by giving a small measure of protection to the manufacturer of razor blades, prevent employment so far as the steel manufacturer himself was concerned.

It is rather interesting to note that, on the question of competition, the value of imported razor blades, in so far as Germany was concerned, in 1924 was £15,600, covering 740,000 odd dozens, but the amount coming from the United States of America was £125,446, but for half the quantity, namely, 379,500 dozens, and I think it must be borne in mind that out of the full total that came to this country, £163,000 worth, over half were re-exported. To ask this House to embark upon a policy of this description on such meagre evidence as this is to turn the whole thing into a farce, and to ask the House to act upon a volume of evidence that does not support the Government's main contention, that this Measure can give adequate protection so far as the mass of our workpeople are concerned.

I do not accept altogether the Free Trade point of view of my hon. Friends below the Gangway on this side. I believe that neither Protection nor Free Trade can protect the worker, and my contention is that these proposals are directly less in the interests of the work men than they are in the interests of the manufacturers themselves. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) gave, in eloquent language, some experiences coming from Sheffield. I do not come from Sheffield, and I can assure the hon. Member that I do not go there on purpose us a rule.

Mr. DEANS

Why not? It is a very good place to go.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Parts of Sheffield are very good places to be out of, and I do not go there any more than I am compelled.

Mr. DEANS

It would do the hon. Member a world of good to go there.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I have been round Brightside, and it is none too bright.

Mr. DEANS

At any rate, Sheffield is obliged to the hon.. Member for avoiding it.

Mr. WALLHEAD

It is not my opinion that a person should live in a city in order to make himself acquainted with some of the worst features of that city. I have known persons who have lived in cities and have known comparatively little about them, and I have known men who have gone there in order to learn something, who have learned more in a couple of days than those who have lived there all their lives. The hon. Member for Hereford chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough this afternoon severely, but it was proved afterwards that he knew but little about the subject matter that he was discussing and, in my opinion, he got rather more than he bargained for as the result of the exchange of argument. The statement made by the President of the Board of Trade that this trade could be regarded as efficient is not exactly borne out. If there are 200 small factories which cannot be said to be efficient, they are doing a very large part of the cutlery trade of Sheffield, and there is the inefficiency exposed. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Hereford him self admitted that, although the manufacturers of Sheffield had been to Germany for the purpose of buying up-to-date machinery, that machinery, curiously enough, was not put into use, but was still under oiled paper and canvas, care fully safeguarded for the boom in the trade that may be expected or is expected.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

It had been put into use and had to be wrapped up afterwards.

Mr. WALLHEAD

It is a curious way of bearing down your efficient competitor to wrap up your own effective machinery, equal to the best he has got, and maintain in use less efficient machinery. It seems to me that the evidence is not sufficient to induce us to embark upon this departure. It may be that the evidence placed before the Committee might convince the House but we have asked for that evidence time and time again, and no evidence whatever has been produced. Arguments have come unsupported by anything more than statements. We have received no evidence of any value whatever, although there have been constant requests from this side for the production of such evidence. Until such evidence is produced, we are not justified in embarking on this fiscal change. Therefore, I sincerely hope that when the question is put, there will be enough Members of an independent frame of mind who will refuse to be bludgeoned into assenting to a change of this kind at the bidding of the Government. After all, the Government was not sent here to pass this specific kind of Measure. It came in with the aid of all kinds of votes. As a matter of fact, it is a minority party; it is sup ported by minority votes in the country, and came in here with the aid of Free Trade votes, simply, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, because old ladies were frightened that the Bolsheviks might get here. On these grounds, this House ought to reject this Measure and those Measures which follow it, until we have evidence: brought before us to convince is. Up to the present, we are compelled to say the evidence we have received from the Board of Trade's re presentatives here leaves us exactly where we were before the Debate began.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

I hope the House will pause before it passes these Resolutions, because if these duties are granted I submit there is no industry in the country which cannot make out a case for equal treatment. If that be so, the whole thing degenerates into a general tariff, which we were told by the Prime Minister was what he was not going to introduce. May I refer to the words of the Prime Minister in this House on the 17th December last as to the conditions under which these safeguarding duties would be granted? He said: Any industry which might desire to be safeguarded must be subject to exceptional competition arising from such things as depreciated exchanges, bounties or subsidies, and lower wages in foreign countries or longer hours."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1924; col. 1064, Vol. 179.] I ask the President of the Board of Trade to say in what way razor Wades, especially from America, comply with these conditions; and, as an hon. Member pointed out, the great bulk of the imports of razor blades which are to be safeguarded come from America. Do these American razor blades fulfil the condition as to depreciated exchanges? Of course, the contrary is the case. Are there bounties or subsidies in their favour? We have no evidence of that. Are the wages lower than at home? We know that exactly the opposite is the case. Not one of those conditions laid down by the Prime Minister is fulfilled in the duty we are asked to put on razor blades from America. I submit there is not a single industry which cannot make out as good a case. If razor blades, why not the steel out of which they are made; and if steel, why not iron? In fact, you can bring in the whole of the industries of the country on the same lines if we pass these duties to-day. You cannot stop at razors. Why not steel plates? Why not the whole of the iron trade? No doubt that is what hon. Members opposite want, but then you get a general tariff, and what good would that do? How can you increase your foreign trade by raising prices all round? What good will it do to those industries which are most depressed at the present time? Take shipbuilding or coal. How is shipbuilding going to be helped by putting a duty on steel plates or sections? It is going to handicap shipbuilding and hurt the coal trade by reducing the carrying trade.

Tariffs interfere with and restrict trade, as we have seen already in the small experiment we have had in regard to the lace trade. Figures were quoted in the House the other day of the unemployed in the lace trade. In June, 1925, before the duties were put on, the figure was 3,378, and on the 26th October it was 3,893. The result of your safeguarding increased unemployment by 500, or over 15 per cent. You may restrict imports to a certain extent, but you are going to restrict exports very much more. That has been brought out very clearly by the experiment in regard to the lace trade. The lace exports in October, 1924, amounted to £205,000, and fell in October, 1925, to £155,000, and re-exports—in which safeguarding hits all industries most severely—fell from £167,000 to £4,000, a serious handicap to our export and re-export trade. Twelve months ago imports amounted to £189,000, of which £168,000 was in respect of re-exports. What, then, has been the effect of these duties? They have simply meant a reduction of imports at the expense of re exports. Therefore, the whole effect, so far as the safeguarding of the lace trade is concerned, has been, not to reduce unemployment, not to reduce the amount of retained imports, but to reduce our export and re-export trade, and that is going to be the effect of all the duties handicapping our trade, especially our export and re-export trade. Therefore, we protest against these duties.

It is a curious and somewhat significant thing that the two sections of the community who have not been allowed to appear before the Committees are those affected by these changes, namely, exporters and re-exporters, while consumers, who will also have to pay, are also excluded. Seeing that this procedure of safeguarding is developing into a general tariff, we have a right to object most strongly against the devious and back-stair way of accomplishing that which they cannot achieve in a straight forward manner. When the question of Protection has been put to the country straightforwardly, it has always been beaten, and, as the hon. Member who last spoke pointed out, even at the last election, when a pledge was given not to introduce a. general tariff, the Government got a minority of votes. Therefore, they have no right and no authority to propose by a back-stair and devious manner these duties which are going to lead to a general tariff, because if you give it to the razor-blade trade, there is no trade which cannot make as strong a case. Therefore, we have a right to protest against this insidious way of accomplishing an end which the Prime Minister said, at the General Election, he would not do.

Mr. J. BAKER

This is a question on which I do not like to give a silent vote. To me it is not a political question: it is a question of economics. I am much more likely to lose votes than to gain votes for what I intend saying. I hope the. Resolution will not be carried, because the actions of this Government are not logical so far as the trade of the country is concerned. It is only a few months ago that we were discussing a question of restoring the gold standard, when we were told that the policy of the Government was to restore the gold standard so that we might purchase goods more cheaply in every market of the world. It that were their policy then, where is the logic in wanting to pass a Resolution to exclude these cheap goods? If Members on the other side are really concerned about workmen, and really believe what they say, that the standard of life of the British workman has been forced down by this foreign competition to such a point that it is not reasonable, and if they really believe the arguments that are placed before the House that the conditions in competing countries are sweated conditions, why do they not take their courage in both hands, and set up a standard of living here which they think is a reasonable one, and refuse to admit goods made in other countries under conditions of a lower standard as regards wages and hours than those which they believe to be reasonable for British work men?

I am taking the view that our action to-night in carrying this Resolution— because it will be carried—will be injurious to this country and injurious to the workmen of this country. At the same time, I am opposed to the competition of sweated labour. I never forget that the Indian steel works are owned in Britain, and I, as one of those interested in the steel trade of this country on the workmen's side, have to listen to arguments that the Indian coolie works for 6d. a day. If this House is concerned about the welfare of the workpeople, let it declare that 6d. a day is not sufficient, and say that it is not going to have goods coming here which are made at 6d. a day either in India, Germany or elsewhere. But that means something more than a mere superficial discussion of whether we are going to tax razors or razor-blades, or pocket knives, or material of that description. The President of the Board of Trade and I have chatted this matter over occasionally, and neither of us can see the other's viewpoint. He tells us that the action he is taking now is a corollary on getting back to gold. I say he is a most illogical person. I have asked him a question privately, and I am going to ask it in this House. I have asked this question a score or more of times from people who are advocating tariffs. How do you propose that we shall be paid for the goods we send abroad, if we are not going to permit other goods to come into this country? There is certainly not gold enough in the world to pay us for more than a fortnight's work.

The world at the present time is engaged in passing two types of legislation—(1) demanding that every country which owes money to-day shall pay its debts; and (2) passing tariffs, such as we are engaged on to-night, to keep out the very goods that would have to be used to pay those debts. That is not logic. I do not think this is a solution of the position. I do not think we are attempting to understand the position by discussing it superficially. I believe many hon. Members on the other side are sincere when they say they desire the British workman to have a higher standard of life than he has got now. I know that in the iron and steel trade employers are not making profits, but last year they raised the wages of the lower-paid men. The lower grade of men were advanced 1s. 2d. per shift, because the employers in the trade recognised that the wages are being forced so low that these men could not enjoy a reasonable standard of living. We are not going to remedy this sort of thing by taxation, least of all by a tariff wall, By this means we are merely going to complicate the matter. The better solution is to set up a standard of living, try to live up to it, and refuse to live on the starvation line.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

There are certain objections to the course urged by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I do not think there is anything inconsistent in doing what we are doing now. The great thing, whether we are endeavouring to set up the gold standard, or a standard of living, is to take steps to maintain both. To carry the matter a stage further, it is not altogether whether you can make your exports pay for your imports or the opposite; what has been exercising my mind has been how I can correct the enormously increasing adverse balance of trade. When I find, speaking from memory, something like £340,000,000 of apparent adverse trade balance of excess of imports over exports, really I am not the least anxious as to how the exports are to be paid for, but how we can export more than we are exporting at the present time. The two things to be done to meet this condition of affairs is to alter the character of our imports which would not be at all a bad thing— and to get a better trade balance. By doing this we shall have more money to invest, and we do need that money to invest in the development of new markets. Therefore there is nothing in the least inconsistent either with the gold standard or with the proper balance of trade in the measures I am now proposing to the House.

What does the hon. Gentleman opposite do when he conies down to the House? Judging from what he has said, he leaves his academic theories behind, and says: "I want to get a higher standard of living in this country." How does he say we can do this? He would do it not by the modest duty that we propose; he would do it by the complete exclusion of all goods which are not made under conditions as good as in this country. I quite appreciate that point. But the hon. Gentleman would find that if he attempted either to put on prohibition against sweated goods or to put on a duty, whichever he chose, against this or that country because the conditions there were unfair, and to let in goods from the other countries where the conditions were fair, that with many of these countries there is a commercial treaty with the most-favoured-nation pro vision in it to be preserved. He would find that he would have to denounce the treaty, and that he could not put on a discriminatory duty or prohibition against this or that particular country. That is the reason, then, why, as I have explained to the House before, we are proceeding by a general duty and not by a protective duty discriminating against a particular country. Therefore, I hope that he will think better of the logical position I have adopted in this connection.

Now I come to what was said by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). But I do not think he likes the self-denying ordinance. I am not quite sure whether he did not appear to accept prohibition against British goods. In this case he said there is no abnormality, for he could not find it. Perhaps I might suggest to him to mark, learn, and inwardly digest the figures. I have not been challenged and, I think, cannot be challenged about these figures. If the hon. Gentleman turns to Para graph 14 of the Report, he will find in the table there that the proportion of retained imports to approximate output, on quantity, was 7.2 per cent. and on value, 6.2 per cent. in 1913. He will find that in 1924 this 6.2 per cent. had become nearly 21.0 per cent. If you take the volume of the trade, you find that the proportion of retained imports to approximate output was 71.6; therefore, the imports have gone up at the rate of 300 per cent., which is pretty strong proof of abnormality.

Captain BENN

What about 1913?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Really the hon. and gallant Gentleman stultifies him self in his argument when to show an improvement he takes the industry as a whole, and when he desires to pick out one particular section of industry to show something different he picks it out. The retained importation is now three times the size that it was.

Mr. ALEXANDER

But if you take the figures for 1921 and 1922 and 1924 and 1925 appearing in another part of the Report, you will see there a difference in the percentage which suggests that the application need not have been made.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It was no good making that application when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. If the industry has been sustaining com petition for a period, not only for a few months, but for several years that is surely the strongest evidence that is required? If I had put forward a case where I could point out that there was no competition between 1921 and 1922, or no competition in 1923 and 1924 the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to challenge me. He would have said: "Look at this industry. It needs no duty. It has only just begun to deteriorate." Then if we turn to Paragraph 21 and see what is the position set out there you will find an answer to another point as to employment. We would, according to the hon. Gentleman opposite, expect to find the same rate of employment, yet what is the position? The position set out in the paragraph shows that the figure of the employed in the trade in 1913 was 11,600. while the figures for 1924 was 7,600. Taking into account the reduction in hours between 1915 and 1924 the percentage of unemployment works out at 42 per cent.

Captain BENN

That is an ex parte statement.

8.0 P.M.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about ex parte statements! He comes here and roads to us long extracts and statements prepared by the opponents of the applicants. These are Divinely inspired.

When the applicant comes forward and gives his evidence he is pilloried, and reminded that he is not giving his evidence on oath. He has to sustain a keen and active cross-examination by one of those active members of the Liberal party who are among the pillars of Free Trade; then, when he emerges unscathed, it is said: "See what a liar the applicant is!" The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The question of hours in Ger-many is worked out here. I get the figures from the "Labour Gazette." They have the eight hours' day and the forty-eight hours' week, but two hours a day, without payment, are allowed in addition, so that not only are the hours worked longer, but there is no payment for overtime.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Can the right hon. Gentleman make that clear? Does he suggest that 10 hours are worked for nothing?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No, it is not so bad as that, but they are worked without any extra overtime payment. Next the right hon. Gentleman suggests that one ought not to give any credence to this Report because there was no rebutting evidence. If there was no rebutting evidence, it was not because of any unwillingness to find it, but because there was none. All those gentlemen, whose names have been read out, would have been able to produce evidence between them to rebut it if there had been any. When they wanted to bring forward rebutting evidence they did so. When they did not do it here, under the able guidance of the Free Trade Union and the others, it was because there was no one they could produce. It has also been said that you must not take the industry as a whole. I say that you are certainly entitled, when you find an industry of this homogeneous character is severely handicapped by this competition, to take a broad view of the whole. If I did not take that broad view, the Opposition would have been the first to say that it was an un reasonable way of looking at it.

The final objection that was taken was that, by taxing German imports in common with imports of all other countries, we were not going to help the path to peace. Some hon. Members have a passion for sacrificing the interests of this country. They are not in the least respected by those countries for sacrificing the interests of their own nation. It is ludicrous to tell me that, by putting on a duty here and there against all countries, we are doing an unfriendly act to a country which imposes large duties on everything which this country produces. Not only is it an unreasonable proposition, but our rights are fully safe guarded under our Treaty, by which we reserve our rights to do this. Let me say, in conclusion, that I have heard views expressed in all quarters of this House, and especially some interesting views from the Labour Benches. Some of them, of course, indicated the old passion for an unchangeable creed. Well, you may experiment in that way when your time comes, if you think it the better way. Is it not worth while trying this way in the meantime?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I cannot allow the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to pass without some comment. He has indulged in a very wide discussion on the whole of our fiscal system, a system by which, let me remind him, this country became the greatest exporting country in the world. Whatever he may do with his new collection of tariffs, he will certainly not give any stimulus whatever to the export trade. The right hon. Gentleman has given us reasons— not reasons why we should have import duties on cutlery which he defines in his own way to suit his own purpose, but reasons which will apply equally well to anything. There is no reason whatever why you should not extend the same principle to forks, which are not included here. There is no reason why forks should not be included. They do not appear on the list as far as I can see, and it is very doubtful whether they are included in the Resolution. If these are good arguments for knives, why not extend the duty to forks, to spoons, to all the other articles we use, to our crockery, to the linen of our tables, to our clothes? Every one of the arguments he has produced will apply equally as well to them as to the cutlery we are discussing here to-night.

The whole theory of the right hon. Gentleman is based on the notion that he will perform the best service to his country by preventing those who live here from buying where they like, when they like, from whom they like. It is a direct interference with the freedom of the citizens of this country. The sole excuse on which he bases his duties is that there are some countries with an advantage over us, yet the excuse of a depreciated currency has gone by the board. He knows it would not apply to Germany or to the United States of America. When he comes to subsidies and bounties, he is equally gravelled for material. He cannot say a word to justify his duty on those grounds, and he comes back to wages and hours.

I do not think it is his own theory that low wages enable manufacturers to produce good stuffs cheaply and abundantly. I hold myself that the best way is to pay full wages for the labour and to give men a reasonable opportunity for refreshing themselves after their day's work is over. That is the argument for shorter hours. They come back fresher, having enjoyed some of the good things of life, and in some of the higher crafts, such as the making of cutlery, I think they are all the better for working short hours. The disadvantages of the low wages under which the Germans suffer are gradually being overcome. The Germans themselves have realised that a low-wage basis is a bad basis on which to organise labour. It is apparent that, as time goes on, week after week, month after month, the German standard will approximate more and more to our own. I hope it will then be possible for all manufacturing countries under inter national regulations to advance simultaneously.

Mr. C. LLOYD

Meanwhile?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Meanwhile those who pay the higher wages get the best returns. I challenge the Hon. Member to name a single industry where wages are high and there is not a good return.

Mr. LLOYD

I do not desire to challenge that, but whether we can pay wages nearly three times as large as Continental wages and hope to get an equal level of work.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I cannot answer such a hypothetical argument. There is no evidence in this Report that the wages in Germany are one-third of what they are here. The hon. Gentleman must have the Report read to him: 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 in the Cologne area, but, 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. We ascertained from the Ministry of Labour that, so far as they were aware, no wages paper' regarding the German cutlery industry proper were published. That, no doubt, is what the hon. Gentleman is relying on, but the preceding words show that the amount which the German worker is paid is equivalent to 8½d. per hour in English money. If the hon. Member turns over to the following page, he will see that it deals with the limitation of hours. It is true that for the extra two hours overtime rate is not payable, but the ordinary rate is paid. But, after all, the difference is not 33⅓ per cent., while as to the 300 per cent. that he suggests, that figure bears no relation whatever to the real facts. Even supposing that to be the case, the proper way to deal with these wages is through the International Labour Convention. If you want to be drastic, take the right step. A miserable duty of 33⅓ per cent. is not going to alter the wages in the whole metal industry. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the difference in price between the articles manufactured here and those coming here is so great that he cannot bridge it with the duty. He has given up the 33⅓ per cent. It is totally inadequate. If he wants to do the thing properly, let him go the whole hog and ask this House to ratify the International Labour Convention. Then he can go to his German confrere and say, "We are ratifying the International

Hours Convention. We want you to do the same and we will then advance with you on the question of wages." Those are the lines on which he should proceed in the future. He does not do that. He takes out one or two industries, picks them out on no principle, no rule, he gives no guidance as to the way in which the trades are to be selected.

It seems to me that if you can bring the necessary amount of political pressure to bear the President of the Board of Trade will grant a Committee. [Interruption.] Yes, any amount of political pressure. I need only remind him of the meeting of the Union of Conservative Associations in Brighton. They asked him to hurry up—political pressure at once. He hurries up. He sends a message to the Committees and says he must have his reports quickly. They hurry up, curtail their inquiries and close them down. That is political pressure. Along come some of the hon. Members for Sheffield, not the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division (Mr. Alexander), but some of his colleagues on the other side of the House. They press the Sheffield case on the President of the Board of Trade. Then come the employers and they press it. On what grounds did he grant the inquiry? He never told us. He never told us that the case was made out of abnormal imports or of unfair competition. He has done nothing of the kind. He has read a few extracts from the reports and has said: "You must take it that there are three or four separate industries, the boundaries of which I define myself." Some things cut out, some left in—the whole thing apparently haphazard. Next year he will set up another half-dozen committees, because the organisations have got busy to put pressure on him. That is the ground on which he has put it. This is not a scientific tariff. It is a tariff which is brought about by personal pressure. Personal organisations have been efficient, and because they have been efficient he has granted an inquiry. He welcomes this process. He says: "I am going along the right road." He has got a very long journey before he gets everything in, but meanwhile he is giving privileges to special trades and special manufactures. That is the point. This is not a question of giving Protection to a special industry. We talk about these industries as though they wore purely impersonal, but the fact is this advantage is given to a group of manufacturers. They are given the right to charge artificially high prices on grounds which are, in many cases, purely illusory, and the consumers of this country have to pay.

Lieut. - Commander BURNEY

The right hon. Gentleman says the manufacturers are given (he chance to charge prices which are very much too high. Just before that he was saying that in the case of many of these imports the gulf between the prices which the Germans are charging and the prices at which our manufacturers are producing is quite unbridgeable by this duty, in fact, that the duty will be insufficient. I do not quite understand it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I will explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We cannot impose and import duty of 33⅓ per cent. on goods which come into this country without increasing the price by 33⅓ per cent., and more than that, for the merchants' capital will not go so far, and there will be interest charged on that, there will be the handling of the goods and there will be delay in the warehousing. All those things tend to run up the 33⅓ per cent. to a higher percentage. Those who manufacture and sell in this country know that perfectly well; and if, in fact, these goods are in any degree similar to those which are produced in this country, they can raise their price rate by 33J per cent. plus something else without foreign competition keeping them in check. The only thing that keeps prices in check in this country is the competition which comes from abroad. Of course there is a certain amount of competition in this country, but here we have a trade which has so organised itself that it will raise all its prices simultaneously right up to the level of these import duties. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman now understands what is meant by tariffs raising prices. I am quite ready to give him a long list of authorities on the subject, and no one can do that with greater force and eloquence than his own Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY

I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that his contentions are not borne out in practice, because we have it on record that the manufacturers of artificial silk abroad, when the duty was put on, were glad to pay, and do, in fact, to-day pay, the import duty in order to sell in this country in competition with our own factories.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I am rather interested to hear that, because we were always assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the silk duties were not Protective.

Mr. LANSBURY

Where is this Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN

The Chancellor of the Exchequer quite confirms the view which I have been putting to the House— not by what he said in the old days, long ago, when he used to be a Free Trader, but said only two years ago when he was discussing the whole subject at Leicester, and I know he is so consistent that he still holds the same view. He said: Under Protection everything would cost you more. In another sentence: Under Protection in everything the cost will be up, and undoubtedly there will be a diminution in the consuming power and a falling-off in the demand. I could take sentence after sentence out of his speeches to show that. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not do such a disservice to his own Protectionist colleagues as to suggest that when we put on an import duty it does not raise the price of the article. That is the sole object of putting it on. Fancy him going down to the Sheffield Cutlers' Feast and saying to them, "The President of the Board of Trade is such a humbug that he has actually put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent., but it is not going to raise the cost of anything a single penny." They would thank him for nothing, because the President of the Board of Trade means that it should raise the price of things. That is the object of the duty. He wants to raise the price to such a level that goods which come in from outside will not have a chance of competing on equal terms.

Now I wish to return to the main point. Where is it going to stop? Are we going to have a duty on textiles next, because one can make out a case for it on exactly the same grounds? Are we going to say that the abnormal imports into this country justify an import duty on cloth? I want to know what the President of the Board of Trade will say about it, because there will be lots of people shouting it in his ears during the next few months, and we may wake up some morning to find that he has appointed a Committee— composed in the usual way. I believe he has already got a Committee sitting, but that is only for one branch of the textile trade, for the worsted trade only. I suppose he may turn to the whole range of woollens before very long. Perhaps he will try the cotton trade. The Government have done what they could for silk, but I am not certain they have succeeded in their object even there. When he has done with clothes, why not turn to everything else?—to wooden articles. I am sure he can make out a case for furniture —and he could come down with a complete list of all trades in this country and deal with them one by one. The thing is haphazard, it is unlimited, it is based on wrong principles, and so far as it is applied to the conditions of labour it is fundamentally unsound, and I strongly urge him to abandon this retrograde, old-fashioned, out-of-date method of trying to foster the trade of this country, and turn his attention to the international agreements which he negotiates with such skill and put all on an equal footing.

Lieut. - Commander BURNEY

The right hon. Gentleman always presents his arguments so attractively and so plausibly that one needs to listen to his speeches with the very greatest care. But it does seem to me that sometimes one has rather to listen to him not so much as a great business man as the heavenly twin of his political counterpart, because I am quite sure he does not carry out any of his theories in his own business. Let us just see what he has said in his speech. Towards the end of it he said he did not think the President of the Board of Trade was putting on this duty with the idea of keeping prices down in this country, but for the sole purpose of raising prices. Does not that represent the fundamental difference of opinion between the manufacturers and the shipper? If in this country our overhead charges can be reduced we can reduce the price of our goods. The right hon. Gentleman has never once addressed himself to that point. He has always assumed, as is always assumed by hon. Members opposite, that if a duty is put on the price will be forced up. But the contention of those of us who are engaged in any form of manufacture is that if a duty is put on it will be the first step towards reducing the price of the goods in this country. Another point is that it is the first step towards increasing wages, and that is the only way in which you will get wages higher, because you must put a tariff on in order to give you the closed market which will enable you to run your machinery at full production, and this process will reduce your overhead charges, and also reduce the price of the article and increase the wages which you are able to pay. In paragraph 7 it is laid down that, under present conditions, machinery cannot be economically employed because no continuous output is assured. That is the main reason and contention of all of those who wish to put tariffs upon all articles manufactured under modern conditions.

I want to see the same principle applied to all industries which are organised in such a manner that this economic reason holds good. It is only in that manner that we shall be able to increase wages and prices, and thus maintain our export trade. I remember that during the war we were making maxim guns at a cost of £140, but at a later date, although wages were doubled, the increased output had allowed the cost to be reduced to about £43. That same argument applies to all these articles. If you want cheaper things in this country you have to put on these protective tariffs to obtain your dosed market while you are building up the trade. In this way we shall obtain more export trade. How does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) think Mr. Ford is able to send his cars all over the world?

Mr. DUNCAN

He gets over the tariffs.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY

Yes, he can jump the freight charges by reason of his low costs based on huge output. He also runs his own ships, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea will give his attention to that point by reducing his freights, so as to compete.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

They are not worth having.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY

The right Hon. Gentleman has said in this Debate that these tariffs are a direct interference with the freedom of purchase. Nobody wishes to restrict the freedom of purchase by the people of this country, but we do want to give to our manufacturers that same service by State aid which is given by every country in the world, and which will enable them to avail themselves of these new methods of manufacture. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea said that our greatness was built up on Free Trade principles. I would like to suggest to the House that then we were really working under a system of taxation which operated in the reverse direction, because we were preventing the export of our machinery and plant in order that other nations should not be able to set up factories in their own countries in order to produce articles which would compete with our own industries. Surely that position has been swept aside long ago, because other nations now possess all the same advantages as ourselves, and each nation is endeavouring to support its own people by means of tariffs of this description.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been speaking a great deal in reference to hours of work and wages and labour conditions generally, and those who have been considering those questions must come to the conclusion that they must assist the manufacturer to enable him to work under similar conditions and not worse conditions than those under which the foreign manufacturer works. It is a fact that once a great industry becomes established it becomes a very powerful organisation and sets, and is enabled to set up a reserve fund. When that has been done we find it almost impossible to catch them up. It is very difficult to compete with a trade which has established itself in this way with the advantage of a closed market, and this has been done in America. Take for example the cash register machine. If by these protective duties within a closed market the manufacturer can build up this great organisation, and so are able to obtain an output with which it is impossible for us to compete, because they can command the market for this particular article in any part of the world.

I wish with the greatest emphasis ask hon. Members of the Labour party to really consider whether they cannot work with us in so far as to protect those industries to which the principles of mass production can be applied. I do not suggest that we should put tariffs on our raw materials, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Runciman), who has the prestige of a past President of the Board of Trade and who is a great and respected business man, should not attempt to mislead the House in the plausible manner he does by leaving out of consideration those main facts which he never once touched upon in his speech, by which he endeavoured to take in hon. Members of the Labour party who are not so experienced in directing industrial enterprises. I think we might expect that the right hon. Gentleman would not indulge in that type of misrepresentation at a time when we are suffering so severely from unemployment in this country.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Twice during these Debates the President of the Board of Trade has called our attention to the necessity of respecting most-favoured-nation treaties, and he has pointed out to the House that a certain proposal made from these benches or on our left would be impossible without violating those treaties. I should certainly be the last person to want to do anything which would violate a treaty of that kind, but I should like to remind the President of the Board of Trade that a treaty ought to be kept in the spirit as well as in the letter, and I do suggest that the duties which the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to impose are in fact breaking the spirit of our treaties while preserving them in the letter. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that it is largely Germany that is aimed at in these proposals, and it is Germany that is aimed at in nearly all the proposals which have been brought forward in the shape of these tariffs. It is quite possible to keep the letter of a most-favoured-nation treaty while at the same time breaking its spirit if you select particular article upon which to place a duty, but if you take those articles mainly imported from it particular country you will in fact break the treaty, because you will be imposing a duty upon articles from that country while you will not be imposing duties upon those same articles that come from another country.

Why is it that Germany has been selected for this particular treatment? It is not, I think, because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have any animus against Germany to-day. I do not think that that is in any way the case. Why is it, then, that they have selected Germany? The reason is perfectly obvious, namely, that Germany is a country which has to pay to us a large sum in reparation. I do not think we have received a great deal of it yet, but some has been paid, and more and more will be paid if the conditions of the Dawes Report are fulfilled. It is for that reason, therefore, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are finding an increasing quantity of imports coming from Germany into this country, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeds in making an arrangement with France for the payment of her debt to us, and a similar arrangement with Italy, the President of the Board of Trade will find coming in from France and from Italy streams of goods—in which alone a reparation debt, or a debt of any kind, can be paid—because of these agreements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The President of the Board of Trade attempted to dismiss that argument by bringing forward a statement of facts which I do not think will really bear the light of day. He said, "I am not afraid of the argument that we cannot sell exports unless we also buy imports. I am not afraid of the argument that we must have imports from Germany, because of the debt which she is paying to us in this way. I am not afraid of it because on paper there is a visible excess of imports over exports of something like £350,000,000." Of course, the President of the Board of Trade knew perfectly well when he gave us those figures that he was not really putting the picture fully before this House. I do not mean to suggest that he deliberately misled the House; on the contrary, I am willing to admit that he stated quite clearly that he was only referring to visible exports; but what are the real and complete facts? The real and complete facts are that the visible exports are only one part of the total exports, and that, when you take into account all the exports, including shipping and all the other things which are part of the general exports, you get an entirely different picture.

It may be that the President of the Board of Trade would go so far as to say that, even taking all that into account, the real balance was worse than it had been in years gone by, and to that there is a very good answer, namely, that it is the natural and inevitable result of the policy adopted, with the consent at any rate of the right hon. Gentleman, by the financial authorities in this country. So long as you put an embargo on the export of capital, you are by that very act limiting the amount of exports that you will have, and you are turning your savings into other channels. That is a subject which it is quite unnecessary to go into now; it would take us far away from the point; but that does entirely meet the argument which the President of the Board of Trade put forward on this occasion. I do not wish to go into the question in greater detail; the point I have tried to make is that these proposals, in effect, will do the very thing the President of the Board of Trade says he does not wish to do; it will be breaking the spirit, though not breaking the letter, of these most-favoured-nation treaties. It is being done against Germany because Germany is a country which has to pay us money at the present time. If German goods are kept out of this country, the Germans will be forced to beat us in the neutral markets of the world, because there is no other way whatever in which Germany can pay us her debt; and, if agreements are made with France and Italy for the payment of their debts, there will be no other way in which they can pay them—either they must come here and bring their goods into this country, or they must beat us in neutral markets.

The result of this procedure is that we are getting an unscientific tariff. There is something to be said, though it does not convince me, in favour of a scientific tariff, in which you take all the factors into consideration at the same time, and build up a tariff after having made that investigation. As far as I can judge today, I should be against a tariff, even if scientifically put forward in that way. But there is a far greater argument against this utterly unscientific tariff which is being put on piecemeal at the present time. Here you have a Committee which investigates this one question, without relation to all the other factors in the situation, and on this piecemeal investigation you have this peacemeal and unscientific tariff proposed. Why has that been done? We all know. It is because a scientific tariff is opposed by the country as a whole. The country has on many occasions been asked its opinion on the question whether it is desirable or not desirable to have a scientific tariff, and it has returned on every occasion an emphatic negative. Therefore, because tie country will not tolerate a scientific tariff, we are having put upon us this unscientific tariff which this safeguarding of industries excuse enables hon. Gentlemen opposite to carry through.

Mr. MONTAGUIE

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, in the course of his very plausible remarks, that the policy of free imports had made this country an exporting nation. I believe that to be true, and I believe that the fact is one of the greatest calamities in the history of this country. The discussion, since the last Amendment was disposed of, has ranged rather freely round the fundamental questions involved in this matter of safeguarding the cutlery industry, and those questions are of vital importance and interest in this Debate. I want to say a word or two with regard to the fundamental question of the policy, not merely of free imports, but of regarding this nation as essentially and necessarily a highly exporting country. As I said a moment ago, it was a calamity that we were forced into that position by the industrial revolution, and I want to say that the real basis of exports and imports1, of exchange altogether between countries, is completely lost in the attitude of commercialism towards the question of what this country ought to be in regard to foreign trade and home development and cultivation.

The only justification for foreign trade at all is the exchange of surpluses. The nation which can produce, by reason of particular advantages, and especially by reason of craftmanship of a particular character, and so forth, specil kinds of commodities in a favourable manner over and above the provision for its own necessities, which must come first of all, has the right to seek foreign markets for that surplus; and another nation which buys that surplus must, in order to buy it, export its surplus production of special articles for the production of which it is more favourably situated. That is the natural function of foreign trade, and, if nations depart from that function the status of the common people of the nation that departs from it is going to be reduced. I want to endeavour to show that, if I may be allowed to do so without being called to order for, perhaps, taking rather a larger view of the scope of this Debate than is desirable—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) to say that a duty of this kind would restrict exports. So far as the hon. Member is answering that, he is in order, but he seems to be embarking upon a very wide sea indeed at present. I should like him to answer that argument before J stop him, but I must warn him that there must toe limits of some sort.

Captain BENN

On that point of Order. May I inform you that, when you were not in the Chair, the President of the Board of Trade himself opened the subject in the very widest possible manner, dealing with the effects of the gold standard, and so forth?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

There must be some limit to what it is possible to include.

Mr. MONTAGUE

The point I wanted to bring out, I think, is germane to the question we are discussing, because it involves fundamental principles. What is wrong in the whole basis of foreign exchange, as understood by Liberals and Tories alike, is the idea that it is our business to go on manufacturing an end-loss number of commodities irrespective of whether they are surplus to our normal production or whether other nations can or cannot manufacture them for themselves, and practically to compete with those other nations in order to sell them so that we may have the glory of being as nearly as possible the market of the world. What does that lead to—and this is where I think I come germane to the subject. It is true that Protection means high prices, and I am not at all convinced by the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite who endeavoured to show that if Protection was fully in vogue in all industries it would not result in a rise in prices, I do not believe anything of the kind. Protection means an increase of prices, because that is the only value of Protection to those who desire to have their industries safeguarded. While Protection means an increase of prices, Free Trade inevitably means the lowering of wages, and high prices and low wages are precisely one and the same thing to the workers of the country. That is why I say, to use a rather hackneyed phrase, "a plague upon both your houses." The reason why the policy of free imports means low wages for the workers is that you are inevitably faced with the common denominator of all the markets you are in contact with—the common denominator of labour conditions, of wages, and of sweating and the rest of it. If you are standing by the ideal of this nation being mainly an exporting country and not a country which has colonised itself and is practically self-contained, as we ought to be, not only have you to face the economic conditions of the world, but you also have to face the financial conditions of the markets of the world in a way inevitably disastrous to the status of life of the common folk and the working folk of the country. That is why I am as much opposed to Free Trade as to Protection.

We must not forget that there is the vast Asiatic world to contend with now in a way you did not have to contend with it before the War. The Asiatic world is coming to adopt the methods of modern civilisation and industry, and they are doing it upon a basis of economic life that is infinitely below the economic life of this country. What we have got to do is not to tinker with putting 33⅓ per cent. upon razor blades and pocket knives. We have to set our minds firmly to the question of making this country primarily a country producing for its own use and exporting, in a natural way, the surplus it produces. Once you have done that, once you have made the basis of your nation the production of the food and the necessary supplies of the nation, you can do what you like with your foreign exports, you can play the foreign market as much as you please, but you will do it in a natural and normal way which will not reflect harmfully upon the economic conditions of the workers at home. So far as the question of prohibition versus Protection is concerned, the President of the Board of Trade suggested that if you adopted either discriminating Protection, or, on the other hand, discriminating prohibition, against those countries which have a particularly lower standard of economic conditions competing with us, you will be doing something to interfere with the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in commercial treaties. That statement rather surprises me, because the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of his party believe in discrimination. They believe in discrimination in favour of the Colonies. They are in favour of Colonial Preference. But the whole question surely is this, that all your questions of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses, all your petty interferences by way of duties, and so forth, are simply the result of the Protectionists, on the Tory side as well as the Liberal side, basing their whole economic conception upon the idea that it is the right of this country to produce at; unlimited number of manufactured commodities in order to pay for its food, irrespective of what the rest of the world can produce.

You have got to get away from that, or else you are going to have economic chaos sooner or later, not only in this country, but throughout the civilised world. You have got to have an economic arrangement between the countries of the world, finding but what the people want and seeing that they are supplied by mutual arrangement between the various countries organising their resources and productive power for the purpose of producing and distributing those things on a scientific basis. That is the only way in which you will get efficient and scientific Protection. In the same way it is the only way in which you will get a natural and rational Free Trade. I am neither in favour of Free Trade in commodities nor in labour, so far as it is capitalistic in its origin and in its incidence. I am prepared to support Protection if it is the protection of my own class—protection of those who produce the wealth of the world—but I do not believe tariffs are going to protect the worker in that way. After all, whatever economic system you have, the worker, by the economic laws pertaining to the capitalistic system, is only going to get—tariff or no tariff, taxation or no taxation—in the long run enough to live upon in the standard of life which is moderately efficient for him to go on producing at a profit for another class in society. That is going to be the case whatever economic; system you live under. That is why I am not concerned about these abstract doctrinal questions as between Free Trade and Tariff Reform. Let us have the organisation of our resources in order to produce for the use of the people. Abolish poverty and then organise your foreign relationships upon a scientific basis—not a scramble one against the other but a mutual arrangement for mutual benefit.

Mr. FENBY

I should like to ask the representative of the Board of Trade if he can tell me what is the importation into this country in volume and value of the farrier's knife. I should also like to ask why there is a preference in the Resolution for the medical man. I entirely agree that when he is doing anything to relieve human pain the instrument by which he does it should not be subject to any undue interference in the way of duty, but I should like to know why the Government are not extending the same consideration to the man who tries to relieve pain in the animal by the skill with which he uses the humble farrier's knife. I should also like to ask whether the words "other than surgical knives" means the knife the veterinary surgeon uses. Does "surgeon" cover the instrument of the veterinary surgeon? I should like to point out what is the function of the man who uses the farriers knife. There are hunting gentlemen in this House. I have sympathy with the horse. A horse may have been out with the hounds, and in taking a fence, as very often happens, he gets a thorn in the coronary band. The thorn becomes embedded in the coronary band, and unless it is removed it leads very often to the jaw-locking of the horse. In order to remove the thorn, the farrier's knife has to be used, not only to relieve the animal from pain but, perhaps, to save its life. If the knife of the medical man which is brought into this country is to be free from the 33⅓ per cent. duty, I want to know why the knife which I have to use in relieving the animal of pain, and perhaps in saving its life, is not to have the same relief.

May I take another illustration? My hade is not my politics, but I am anxious that the man who does hard work for small pay in my trade should not have even the smallest hardship imposed upon him by the British House of Commons in the proposals of the Government under these Safeguarding Resolutions, May I give a personal experience? The other night, after leaving the House and getting home, I was knocked up at midnight. When I opened the door, I found there a man with a horse. The shoe had been loose, and in travelling the clip, which is a pointed instrument, had become embedded in the centre of the horse's foot, and had gone right into the flesh. I had to go to the forge and to pull the shoe off. In order to get at the grip, I had to use the farrier's knife and cut right to the bottom in order to relieve the animal's pain, and perhaps save it from the danger of lockjaw. I want to know what difference there is between a medical man and a humble farrier, so far as the saving of life is concerned? The amount I charged for being knocked up at midnight and doing this work was 2s. Even though the amount which may be put on is small, why should I have to pay 33⅓ per cent. duty on my farrier's knife, when the medical man is relieved altogether in respect of surgical instruments? The farrier's knife has to be used for the dressing of corns.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The farrier's knife may be used for many useful purposes, but the question is the knife rather than the corn.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. FENBY

What I desire to impress upon the representative of the Board of Trade is the many uses to which this instrument is put, and I want to convince him, if I can, that its operations are so numerous that it is as equally entitled to exemption from this Duty, as is the knife of the surgeon. The interesting thing about corns is that as far as the human being is concerned they are always upon the hind foot; you never have them upon the hand. In the case of the animal, the corns are always on the front foot and never on the hind foot, and if they are not attended to by this humble instrument, for which I am pleading for exemption—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The argument which the hon. Gentleman is raising might be extended by some medical gentlemen in the House, and might be made to apply to all surgical instruments. [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is!"] The hon. Member must confine his argument to the instrument and not to all its possible uses.

Mr. FENBY

If any hon. Members on this side or on the benches opposite or any medical man will argue for the exemption of my humble instrument, I shall be glad. However, I submit to your ruling. I would point out that the Government are imposing an additional charge upon a section of their 8up-porters by this proposed duty upon the farrier's knife, although they are supposed to be the special guardians of that section. Apart from the farrier's knife, they are going to impose a duty on steel blades imported into this country. Various industries and trades use those particular blades. I use one. There is an American instrument called the Bliss hoof parer. This is the first instrument which made it a little easier for the foot of the horse when it has grown long to be pared. I have one of these instruments, and when the knife gets worn out I have to get another blade. That blade comes from America, and it is made to fit this particular American instrument. Under the proposals of the Government, that blade will be subject to 334 per cent. duty. The farmer in these hard times wants to pay as little as possible, and he lets the foot of the horse grow as long as he can possibly and safely do so. Then instead of the foot being cut down by hand work, it is got down to its normal condition by the use of one of these American hoof parers. Now, the Government is proposing to put a 33⅓ per cent. duty on these instruments. If the farrier is to pay more for these instruments he will have to charge more to the farmer, and the result will be that the farmer, without getting any protection under the Safeguarding Resolutions, will have to pay more for the work that is done for him in various directions.

It may be said that the duty will mean a very little extra charge upon the farrier. but if one has to pay a little bit here and a little more there under these Safeguarding proposals, it means a good deal in the long run. The proposals of the Government, so far as they have been before us up to now, are pettifogging and piffling right through. Among the men in my own profession these duties of 33⅓ per cent. upon the implements of the farrier will become known as "Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister's Blisters." They may not be fatal, but they are certainly irritating. Here you have a Government which is always saying that it wants to assist the worker. I argue that the Government has no right to impose even a small hardship of thin kind upon the poorly paid worker who earns his living by the sweat of his brow and the skill of his hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members opposite who shout "Hear, hear!" were addressing a meeting of their own constituents, and I happened to be one of them and a smith, and I put this question to them, I guarantee that they would promise to relieve me as far as possible from this particular duty. Let us be consistent. If we want to support the worker and relieve him of unnecessarily interfering legislation, do not put a duty on the things that he has to use every day. The representative of the Board of Trade did not find it convenient to answer me on Wednesday night last, but I hope that he will answer me now.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE

I hope that the hon. Member who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in his highly interesting and sound discussion of horses' hoofs. I intervene only because of one or two remarks that fell from the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). Perhaps the most striking of his remarks was that he was equally opposed to Free Trade and to Protection. One of the problems with which we on this side are faced is, what really is the attitude of the Opposition as represented by the Labour party? We do not understand it. If it is purely obstructive, we can understand it; but, on the other hand, the problem of to-day surely resolves itself into this: If we find, as the result of certain conditions arising from the War, arising from the lack of stability in the exchanges throughout Europe, and from a variety of other causes, that our industries in this country are flagging, it is up to all of us, irrespective of party, to do our best to find a proper medium for meeting the case.

What has struck me about the speeches to which I have listened is the fact that they have shown too much partiality either on the side of tariffs or Free Trade in their academic senses. We do not want to deal with the question from that standpoint. If in this country we find that there are certain industries which have gone down, and in which the number of men formerly employed is bit by bit being reduced, we have to look around to discover the right way of dealing with the problem. Does it matter whether it be by Protection or otherwise, so long as we save our industry? Surely it is not enough merely to say that Protection is wrong. Let ns assume that in five years' time it is shown that all the industries which are now protected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act are advancing by leaps and bounds and are employing more men, will hon. Members then come forward, if either the Liberals opposite or the Labour party are in power, and sweep away Protection? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] You will do so, but what will the people say? I have in my constituency one of these small industries. I dare not refer to it now, but I feel confident that if that particular industry comes under the Safeguarding of Industries Act next session, and remains under it, prospering thereunder for five years, and then, following out his pledge, a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer removes the Safeguarding of Industries Act, there will not be a single man in that town—it is a big town noted in Buckinghamshire as perhaps the most Socialist if all the towns there—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon and gallant Member is now getting a little hypothetical.

Sir A. BURGOYNE

It is not so hypothetical as it may seem. You will appreciate that it is astonishingly difficult to keep within the rulings in matters of this sort. I need hardly say, however, that I bow to your decision. I turn now to another feature of the Debate. An hon. Member opposite said that these taxes were aimed particularly at Germany. What worries me is that that sort of statement goes out to the public Press. Do hon. Members opposite believe that any party in this State is actually directing any feature of its policy at any specific country? If so, it is not true. What we are out for on this side is to do our best to get work back to this country. If you get every thing that could be made here manufactured abroad, and manufactured more cheaply than you can make it yourself, you will require no factories in England. I ask hon. Members opposite what they are going to do to get back our export trade, to maintain our home trade, when every department of our home trade is undermined and undersold by cheap articles from abroad?

Mr. MONTAGUE

My answer is that I do not believe you will ever get back your export trade, and I do not think it would be desirable to worry about it, when you have millions of acres of land in this country going out of cultivation.

Sir A. BURGOYNE

To an interruption like that I frankly admit that I am entirely at a loss to reply. The hon. Member says that we are to go out of business as manufacturers. That is the end of the Empire—obviously so. We can never live on trade within our own country. I think hon. Members opposite are probably referring in their speeches to what has been stated in their own organ of the Press—that whilst they are not in favour of Protection—I am a wholehearted Protectionist and I have never disguised my views in this House or on the platform—nor are they in favour of Free Trade—we have not got it and are never likely to have it—what they desire is to keep out entirely, to put an absolutely blank wall against, all articles manufactured abroad which in their view are manufactured under sweated conditions.

What are sweated conditions? Are they not conditions where the hours are longer than those in this country and whole the wages paid ore less than those paid in this country? Then where do hon. Members differ from us on this side of the House? If they are as wholehearted Protectionists as we are, why do they vote against us?. We are going at least half way towards the very goal for which they themselves are making. I am with hon. Members opposite all the way in one criticism which they make of these duties. If there is one fault with these duties it is that they are piffling. They are small, but at all events they are on earnest of what we will do when in due course we have seen the value of these duties, and have seen to what an extent they are going to bring work to this country. I ask hon. Members opposite, what will they say when the Election comes—and I know they agree with me that it will not come for many years.

Mr. HARDIE

We. will say, "Vote Socialist."

Sir A. BURGOYNE

That is not going to help you. What will you say to the questions which will be put to you when these industries are going ahead, when there are more people employed in them as a result of the duties, and when you are asked: "Are you still going to follow the ex-Chancellor who has pledged himself twice in this House that if ever his party comes into office again, off will come these taxes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear" now, but will they say it when tens of thousands of men are getting employment as a result of the imposition of these taxes'?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member should deal with the position as it is at present and not with the position as it may be after certain events. He is indulging in various hypotheses.

Sir A. BURGOYNE

I admit that in the enthusiasm of my argument I have gone a little wide. In the course of this Debate two features have been referred to. One is the necessity for constant stability, and the other is the exaggeration which is used on both sides of this dispute. I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) when he urged that we should not continue this tax for more than a year. I am interested in trade and I do not hide the fact, but I wonder how many hon. Gentlemen on the other side are concerned in trade or have any practical knowledge of it. I say that in trade the first thing you want is stability.

Mr. STEPHEN

; The first thing you want is profit.

Sir A. BURGOYNE

How would we get on without profit? We were told that in the event of the McKenna Duties being removed the industries affected would go out of work altogether and close down. They did nothing of the sort. On the other hand, we were assured by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if the taxes were taken off, these industries would go ahead, but as a matter of fact some of them went "bust." What it comes to is this—that we want to devise a means of bringing employment back to this country, and I believe if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were to keep that line in view and were to forget all the old platitudes, they would support us. If Protection is good for the rest of the world, why not for us? If Free Trade is good for us why not for the rest of the world? Why do hon. Members not ask themselves those questions, and stick to the facts? If they took that attitude I feel confident the House would not see the opposition which we are experiencing now to this practical proposal to bring back employment to our people and prosperity to our land.

Mr. KELLY

We on this side have been challenged by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken as to what we know about trade. Many hon. Members on these benches have had a great deal to do with trade and commerce all their lives. Their advice has not been taken by those who control a great deal of the industry of this country, and our answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be, that if we could make no better job of trade than has been made by the people who control it now, we should have little to be thankful for. The only proposals brought forward by those who claim to control and to know all about business are proposals which hon. Members opposite themselves are compelled to describe as "piffling." "Piffling" indeed they are. People outside are being led to believe that as a result of these proposals more and more employment will be secured. Yet we have heard more than once that it is not the intention to keep out all these goods; indeed, it is the intention to look to them for some revenue. If so, they are not going to provide that work which hon. Members have promised. We were asked for a definition of "sweating." The hon. and gallant Member might have looked to the industry with which we are now dealing. He will find as much sweating in this country as in many other countries of the world. The wages paid in the cutlery trade and in some ancillary trades can be described as little less than sweating. We are told that these proposals will help that industry; but not once in these discussions have we been told how the trade is to be improved by the imposition of this tariff.

Sir A. BURGOYNE

The hon. Member was about to tell us what sweating meant. I refer to the point because in the organ of the Labour party it has been stated that the intention of the Labour party is to keep out all sweated goods. What are sweated goods?

Mr. KELLY

Sweated goods are goods made under conditions which do not give a reasonable standard of life and security to those who are engaged in their manufacture. If the hon. and gallant Member takes that definition he will find that not only in the cutlery trade but even in the wine trade there is some sweating.

Sir A. BURGOYNE

Which wine trade?

Mr. KELLY

The Empire wine trade if you like. The proposals before the House are of no advantage to the cutlery trade, and as was well said by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) they are not such as this House should waste our time upon at a moment when we should be dealing with wider and bigger problems affecting unemployment.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 233: Noes, 124.

Division No. 464.]	AYES.	[9.27 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Edmondson, Major A. J.	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Elveden, Viscount	Lamb, J. Q.
Allen, J. Sandemarr (L'pool, W. Derby)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Apsley, Lord	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Atkinson, C.	Fielden, E. B.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fleming, D. P.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Ford, P. J.	Looker, Herbert William
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Lord, Walter Greaves-
Barnston, Major Sir Harry	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Bennett, A. J.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Lumley, L. R.
Berry, Sir George	Gates, Percy	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Betterton, Henry B.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Gee, Captain R.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	McLean, Major A.
Bourne, captain Robert Croft	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Gower, Sir Robert	Macquisten, F. A.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Grace, John	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Grant, J. A.	Malone, Major P. B.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Buckingham, Sir H.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Margesson, Capt. D
Bullock, Captain M.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel sir Alan	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Meller, R. J.
Burman, J. B.	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Meyer, Sir Frank
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.	Hammersley, S. S.	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hanbury, C.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Harland, A.	Monsel, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon, B. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Moore Sir Newton J.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Harrison, G. J. C.	Morrison, H, (wilts, Salisbury)
Campbell, E. T.	Hartington, Marquess of	Murchison, C. K.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Nelson, Sir Frank
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Haslam, Henry C.	Neville, R. J.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hawke, John Anthony	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'd.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Oakley, T.
Christie, J. A.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Clarry, Reginald George	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Clayton, G. C.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Pease, William Edwin
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Penny, Frederick George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Cope, Major William	Holt, Captain H. P.	Philipson, Mabel
Couper, J. B.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Pielou, D. P.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Crook, C. W.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Radford, E. A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis	Ramsdan, E.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Borwick)	Hurst, Gerald B.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Remer, J. R.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Dalziel, Sir Davison	Jacob, A. E.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Jephcott, A. R.	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Kidd, J. (Liniithgow)	Rye, F. G.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Salmon, Major I.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Starry Deans, R.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Sandon, Lord	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Winby, Colonel L. P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Qustave D.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Savery, S. S.	Tasker, Major R. Inigo	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Shaw, ft. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Thompson, Luke (Sutherland)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Womersley, W. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Shepperson, E. W.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ. ,Belf'st.)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Skelton, A. N.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Wragg, Herbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Watts, Dr. T.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sprot, Sir Alexander	Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)	Captain Viscount Curzon and
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sdon E.)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)	Major Hennessy.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Grundy, T. W.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Scurr, John
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, G. H, (Merthyr Tydvil)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)	Hardie, George D.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Baker, Walter	Harris, Percy A.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abetillery)	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Snell, Harry
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hirst, G, H.	Stamford, T. W.
Briant, Frank	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Stephen. Campbell
Broad, F. A.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Bromfield. William	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Sutton, J E.
Bromley, J.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Taylor, R. A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Buchanan. G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thurtle, E.
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Tinker, John Joseph
Clowes, S.	Kennedy, T.	Townend, A. E.
Cluse, W. S.	Lansbury, George	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)	Lawson, John James	Varley, Frank B,
Connolly, M.	Lee, F.	Viant, S. P.
Cove, W. G.	Lindley, F. W.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lowth, T.	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Crawfurd, H. E.	Lunn, William	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry	Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. Ft. (Aberavon)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Dennison, R.	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Duncan, C.	Mackinder, W.	Westwood, J.
Dunnico, H.	MacLaren, Andrew	Whiteley, W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	March, S.	Wiggins. William Martin
England, Colonel A.	Montague, Frederick	Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Fenby, T. D.	Murnin, H.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	Owen, Major G.	Windsor, Walter
Forrest, W.	Paling, W.	Wright, W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M.	Potts, John S.
Gosling, Harry	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colonel	Ritson, J.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	Warne.
Groves, T.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

First Resolution read a Second time.

REPORT [3rd December],

Resolutions reported,

GLOVES.

(1) "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."

MAVNTLES FOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.

(2) "That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution the following duties of customs shall be charged on the importa- tion into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following articles, that is to say:

		s.	d.
Mantles for incandescent lighting, whether collodionised or not (the gross)	…	6	0
Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of such mantles (the 1b.)	…	4	6."

Captain BENN

I beg to move, in line 3, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words except from any country which has ratified any international labour convention agreed upon in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I will explain briefly to the House what this Amendment is. It recognises that the duty is to be imposed, but says that it should not be imposed upon any cutlery which is produced in any country which has ratified the International Labour Conventions agreed upon under the Treaty of Versailles. We are going to have an opportunity under this Amendment of testing some of the arguments put forward in this Debate by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have explained that what they want is to safeguard the standard of living of the worker. Of course, we take, as we are bound to take, their assertions as convincing, that what they want to do is to raise the standard of living of the worker. Now here is a chance, and if they believe in what they have said in the many speeches to-night, they cannot possibly refuse to vote for the Amendment I am now moving, because it would draw a distinction between manufacturers in those countries that are willing to bring up that standard of living to something which the public sense and feeling of the members of the League of Nations consider reasonable, and the countries which refuse to raise their standard of living to some agreed level. That is the whole of the Amendment. On this question of wages and standard of living, we believe, in the first place, that, generally speaking, although no doubt it is not universal, cheap labour does not mean low prices. It is a very strange thing that the countries which have had higher standards of living for their workers have very often succeeded in the export market against countries which have had a lower standard, because in the main we know that sweated conditions do not produce good work or work that can command good prices. The standing example of that, of course, is America, where wages and conditions of living are high. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman who cheers has just voted for a tax on tailors' shears made by men whose wages were three times as high as the wages of men in Sheffield. It shows that high wages may mean competitive goods for export.

That is our general view about that, but we hold also that among the few features of the Treaty of Versailles which command assent, the institution of the International Labour Office is one of the best, because it brings together the representatives of the different nations, and tends to save our people, both employers and employed, from unfair competition from other countries. We think that the Government has not shown, either by example or by diplomatic pressure, the energy that it might have shown in persuading other countries to ratify these Conventions. We feel, ourselves, that if we took the lead in doing so, other people would follow suit. We feel, moreover, that if the right hon. Gentleman himself, in his negotiations, say, with Germany, or the Foreign Office, in their constant negotiations with Germany, or in their negotiations with France or Italy—because, after all, this country has a position of enormous power in Europe to-day, whether by credit or for other reasons—had done more to persuade those countries to adopt these Conventions, and to raise the standard of living in their countries, they would have relieved us of unfair competition by increasing the consuming power of their own workers.

Here is a new way. The Government is determined to put these duties on. We are opposed to the whole scheme, but, since the Government is determined to put them on, we say: "Why not, by making an exception in the case of goods which come from countries which are operating under labour conditions equal to our own, give that freedom, at any rate, to nations which are prepared to level up their standard of living?" I have great hopes that on examination of this Amendment hon. Members, not only on this side but on the other side of the House as well, will see their way to give it their support.

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to second the Amendment.

Unfortunately, from the Report, it is not very clear exactly what the labour conditions are in the other countries that are concerned. Apparently, the Committee did not take the trouble to have a thorough investigation made. It seems to me that the Committee should have gone abroad, or sent investigators, or obtained reports from the Board of Trade as to the actual labour conditions in the countries where these goods were being manufactured in competition with OUT own, but apparently the Committee did not think that was their duty. They were prepared only to take information from anybody who would go to the expense of employing counsel, and they did not make any independent investigation. They were not an ordinary committee inquiring into the whole conditions of the industry of this country as compared with industry abroad, and, therefore, it has been impossible, on the information obtained, to come to a satisfactory conclusion. It was a hurried, hasty, and inadequate investigation.

If our desire is to use these duties in order to raise the standard of labour throughout Europe, and to get a common standard of hours and conditions of labour and wages, here is an instrument that can be used effectively for that purpose. On the whole, I think it is better for other countries to manage their own affairs, but if we are going to have tariffs that will raise prices to the consumer, if we are going to ask the people of this country to pay more for their goods in order to single out special industries for protection, it can only be justified by saying that we are protecting our labour from competition in countries where the standard of living is lower. Here is an instrument ready made at our disposal. One of the biggest things that the League of Nations has done through its Labour Department is to attempt generally to raise the standard of labour throughout Europe. That has been one of its objects that we seem to be getting nearer to every day. If hon. Members will support our Amendment, it will facilitate largely the passage of these taxes through this House, and it will be a proof of good faith and sincerity on the part of the Government in their statements that they desire to improve conditions of labour.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I really dealt with this Amendment, inferentially, in my reply on the last Debate, because it was involved indirectly in the remarks thrown out by an hon. Member, but I should like to deal with it now a little more in detail. To start with, may I observe that I think in practice we lead Europe in all labour conditions. We are by no means satisfied with them in many cases, but, after all, one has to remember that in nine cases out of 10—and I might put it higher—this country has taken the lead, and it has maintained the lead. Whereas we have only an occasional duty, other countries have general tariffs, which we do not propose to adopt. Therefore, it is not a case of making some proposal which is novel. Let me come to the specific reasons which make this Amendment quite impossible, because, if it were accepted, the whole of these proposals would necessarily go by the board. That is a result which would be very acceptable, to the hon. Member, but not acceptable to hon. Members who sit-behind me. In the first place, the hon. and gallant Member proposes that this should not apply to any country which has ratified any international labour convention agreed upon in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Because somebody has ratified a convention, following the example of this country, as to wages to be paid to seamen, we should be prevented from safeguarding the glove industry or the cutlery industry. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that the Amendment would not even achieve the purpose he has in view.

Captain BENN

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the assistance of his Department and his ability to draft an Amendment in the best possible form?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

If the Amendment were in the least possible. I would gladly do that, but I am going to show why it is quite impossible. The next point was this. The only labour convention which, I think, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in mind, is a convention dealing with hours, but as he knows—I do not want to engage now in prolonged controversy upon it—it is so loosely drawn that while one country, apparently, can work up to 60 hours, other countries, if they accepted, would be restricted to 48 hours. Even if conventions could toe drawn up in the future much more specific in their application, much more limited in the industries to which they apply, so that if accepted they could be accepted with every rigidity by all countries—unhappily that time is not yet, but we certainly shall not be backward in bringing that about—but even if we were able to arrive at that—and we are far from it— there would be a further difficulty. It would have nothing to do with depreciated exchanges, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested in an earlier Amendment, ought to be the point of view from which we put on these duties, whereas he is now moving an Amendment which would prevent us from dealing with depreciated exchanges. Supposing you could get any satisfactory convention with regard to hours, that would not necessarily meet the case of wages, and am I to be told that if you could get a convention in one of those industries dealing with hours, and the wages paid were only half the wages paid in this country, that would not be regarded as unfair competition? There fore, it could only be if you got a convention which dealt completely and universally with wages, hours and depreciated exchanges, and equalised those, that then we could bring this into effect.

As to all that is being said about this being a general tariff by back-door methods, no one even in the hon. Gentleman's own party believes it. These duties are only to meet an exceptional and abnormal time. If we came to a time when wage conditions and conditions of hours were equal the whole world over, I would join with him in saying that safeguarding is not needed. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about America!''] I am not dealing with America, I am dealing with countries that are paying half the wages we are and working hours and hours longer. If we come to a time when wages, hours and exchanges, and all other-conditions are equal in every country which competes with us, then, indeed, we may be able to review the need of any policy of safeguarding, but what we have got to deal with to-day is the practical situation in which this country finds itself.

There, is a further objection which makes the adoption of any such pro- posal as that in this Amendment impossible. Even assuming you could get a convention which would produce equality in a particular trade as regards not only hours, but wages and other conditions of labour and depreciated exchanges, you could not impose a discriminating duty—and this would be a discriminating duty—against any country with whom you have the Most-Favour-Nation Treaty. So the result would be that if we put this into the Bill, we should be bound to lot off a particular country. We might have half-a-dozen countries which had unequal and unfair conditions operating against us which had not ratified such a convention, but with whom we had, as we have with the majority of countries, commercial treaties affording us and them Most-Favoured-Nation treatment. Yet if we let off the one country whore conditions were no worse than ours, we should have to let off under the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty everyone of those countries which the hon. Gentleman himself said under this Amendment ought not to be let off. That is, as I have more than once said, why it is necessary to avoid discriminating duties. Because we are most anxious not only to raise and maintain the standard of living here, but to bring other countries up to our level, it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. SHAW

I am not at all impressed by the fact that we might find ourselves in a difficulty with some nations for ratifying a Labour Convention. So far as my party is concerned, we are quite prepared to face eventualities in dealing with nations whose conditions are such as to make the workers' lives in those countries unbearable. We do think that a preference should be given in trade— not in the shape of a duty—but in the shape of friendly and free, dealing with those nations who are prepared to ratify conventions that have been arrived at under the Treaty of Versailles. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that we are leading in industry. We certainly do not lead in wages so far as the United States and Canada are concerned. This Amendment will apply to America as well as to Europe. We have got to deal with the situation all round.

I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two very pertinent questions in relation to the Continent of Europe in this matter. Which of the countries, will he tell me, in Europe belonging to the League of Nations is in a worse competitive condition than in 1914 so far as we are concerned? Without hesitation I venture to say that so far as reduction of hours and increases of wages goes we have made less progress since 1914 than any of these, and that the position of any other of the nations in Europe, which is a member of the League of Nations, is in comparison with ourselves comparatively better than it was in 1914, I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us some details—if he can—to show that the statement I am making is not correct. We are told that it might be expected that other countries would ratify the Convention following the example of England. Unfortunately, it is this country which has shown the worst example in regard to refusing to ratify the Convention. It is this country which was more responsible than any country for the Washington Convention, more responsible than any other country for the idea of the Convention, which has shown the worst example in Europe so far as ratification of the Convention is concerned. That is a fact which cannot be questioned.

Then we have heard a statement about the countries which have accepted the Washington Convention—which I take it means ratification—that are working 60 hours a week. Where? Where is the country that has ratified the Convention of Washington where the people working in the trades covered by this Clause are working 60 hours a week? I assert that there is no country in Europe, which has ratified the Washington Convention, where workers are making these goods, which is working 60 hours a wee? No one, nor anything like 60 hours. I go further, and say that the countries which have ratified

the Convention of Washington are working no longer in those trades than the people in our country. We have been told about hours and wages, and the comparison has been made of the higher wages in this country than in the majority of the countries of Europe. But that was always the case. It is our efficiency and the efficiency of our workers, and of our employers, which makes it economically possible to pay a higher wage and get a better return. Where you have inefficient workers and a bad organisation you can pay as low wages as you like and you only get the inefficient organisation. It is no argument to say that because wages are lower elsewhere that the competition there is unfair. If that were the case then I am afraid we would not send a single article into America, for every article would be immediately shut out. If we are prepared to face the eventuality of the basis of wages determining whether or not the article shall be imported, then God help us with our own Colonies, and with America and with many of the South American Republics.

The position, as I see it—and I speak with a certain amount of knowledge, and after making inquiry—is that on the Continent of Europe there is no question whatever that comparatively to our position every country n Europe is better than in 1914. Under these circumstances what necessity is there for a duty of this sort? Where a nation shows a genuine and clear desire, and not only shows that desire, but shows by actual practice that they not only possess the desire but that that desire has been realised, that nation ought to have conditions given to it as suggested in this Amendment. I should certainly vote for it, and advise my hon. Friends on this side of the House to do so also.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 130: Noes, 240.

Division No. 465.]	AYES.	[10.3 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Beckett, John (Gateshead)	Charleton, H, C.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Clowes, S.
Ammon, Charles George	Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Cluse, W. S.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Broad, F. A.	Connolly, M.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilson)	Bromfield, William	Cove, W. G.
Baker, Walter	Bromley, J	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Crawfurd, H. E.
Barnes, A.	Buchanan, G,	Dalton, Hugh
Batey, Joseph	Cape, Thomas	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lansbury, George	Snell, Harry
Duncan, C	Lawson, John James	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dunnico, H	Lee, F.	Stamford, T. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)	Lindley, F. W	Stephen, Campbell
England, Colonel A.	Lowth, T.	Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)
Fenby, T. D.	Lunn, William	Sutton, J. E.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)	Taylor, R. A.
Forrest, W.	Mackinder, W.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	MacLaren, Andrew	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Gibbins, Joseph	March, S.	Thurtle, E.
Gillett, George M	Montague, Frederick	Tinker, John Joseph
Gosling, Harry	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Townend, A. E.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Murnin, H	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Naylor, T. E.	Varley, Frank B.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Owen, Major G.	Viant, S. p.
Groves, T.	Paling, W	Wallhead, Richard C.
Grundy. T. W.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Guest, Dr L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Warne, G. H.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Potts, John S.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hardie, George D.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Harris, Percy A.	Ritson, J.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	Westwood, J.
Hayday, Arthur	Rose, Frank H	Whiteley, W.
Hayes, John Henry	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wiggins, William Martin
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hirst, G. H.	Scrymgeour, E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hirst, w. (Bradford, South)	Scurr, John	Windsor, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Wright, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Short, Alfred (Wednesburyl)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir
Kelly, W. T.	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)	Robert Hutchison.
Kennedy, T.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Cope, Major William	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Couper, J. B	Hammersley, S. S.
Apsley, Lord	Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Hanbury, C.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Atkinson, C.	Crook, C. W.	Harland, A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Crooke. J. Smedley (Deritend)	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Balfour, George (Hampstead).	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Harrison, G. J. C.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro)	Hartington, Marquess of
Barnston. Major Sir Harry	Curzon, Captain viscount	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Haslam, Henry C.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hawke, John Anthony
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Davies, Or. Vernon	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Betterton. Henry B.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Dixey, A. C.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Blundell, F. N.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Herbort, S.(York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Elveden, Viscount.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.{St. Marylebone)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)	Holt, Capt. H. P.
Brocklebank. C. E. R.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Fanshawe, Commander G, D.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Fielden, E. B.	Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Bullock, Captain M.	Fleming, D. P.	Hume, Sir G. H.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Hurst, Gerald B.
Burman, J. B.	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Hutchison. G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E	Jacob, A. E.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Jephcott, A. R.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Ganzoni, Sir John	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Gates, Percy	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Caine, Gordon Hall	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Campbell, E. q.	Gee, Captain R.	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Cazalet. Captain Victor A.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Gower, Sir Robert	Lamb, J. Q
Charteris, Brigadier-General J,	Grace, John	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Christie, J, A.	Grant, J. A.	Leigh, Sir John (Ctapham)
Churchman. Sir Arthur C.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Clarry, Reginald George	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Clayton, G. C.	Gretton, Colonel John	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Grotrian, H. Brent	Looker, Herbert William

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Philipson, Mabel	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lumley, L. R.	Pielou, D. P.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Power, Sir John Cecil	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Radford, E. A.	Thomson, F. C, (Aberdeen, South)
McLean, Major A.	Ramsden, E.	Thornton, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Macmillan, Captain H.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Remer, J. R.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Ward, Lt. Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Macquisten, F. A.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Malone, Major P. B.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.	Watson, Rt. Hon, W. (Carlisle)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Watts, Dr. T.
Margesson, Captain D.	Rye, F. G.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.	Salmon, Major I.	Williams, A, M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Meller, R. J.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Meyer, Sir Frank	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Sandon, Lord	Wilson, M S. (York, N. B., Richm'd)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Wilson, R, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Savery, S. S.	Winby. Colonel L. P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	wise, Sir Fredric
Murchison, C. K.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Wolmer, Viscount
Nelson, sir Frank	Shepperson, E. W.	Womersley, W. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Skelton, A. N.	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Oakley, T.	Smith Carington, Neville W.	Wood, Sir S. High- (High Peak)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wragg, Herbert
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Yerburgh Major Robert D. T
Pease, William Edwin	Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sdan, E.)
Penny, Frederick George	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Steel, Major Samuel Strang	Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Storry Deans, R.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to move to leave out lines 5 to 7, inclusive.

This Resolution deals with both leather gloves and fabric gloves and the Amendment I am moving is to omit the duty upon leather gloves. This subject was discussed at some length on the Committee stage, therefore I shall endeavour to state briefly the objections that we entertain to this particular duty. To begin with, the Report gives no figures as to the amount of unemployment in the manufacture of leather gloves and gives us no reason to believe that the unemployment in this industry is as great as in the staple export, trades whose workers will be penalised for the sake of this selected industry. I do not deny that there is a certain degree of depression in the manufacture of leather gloves, but what we say is that the Report which has been issued makes it quite plain that that depression is not due to any abnormal amount of goods coming in from other countries and that, therefore, it cannot be in any way assisted by this tariff that is proposed. This is clear from the Report itself.

So far as foreign countries are concerned, if they are throwing our workers out of employment, it would be because they are diminishing the hold of our manufacturers upon the homo market. But, as a matter of fact, it is quite clear from this Report that the hold of our manufacturers upon the home market is not only satisfactory but is surprising. I find that in 1913, just before the War, our manufacturers produced for home consumption 440,000 dozen pairs of gloves, and that in 1924 they are producing 410,000 dozen pairs of gloves. When one comes to consider what has happened one must remember there has been a loss in purchasing power since 1913. There has been a change in fashion, as could be seen by watching Members coming into this House and calculating the number who carry gloves in their hands to-day as compared with the number who used to carry gloves before the War. When we are, despite the loss of purchasing power and the change in fashion, producing for the home market 96 per cent. of the quantity produced before the War, it cannot be said that any depression is due to the fact that our people are buying foreign gloves in abnormal and unprecedented quantities. That is why I say that it is not because of the lack of a tariff that the trade is depressed.

The explanation is made quite clear by the figures upon which this Report is based. The explanation is not that we are losing our hold on the home market, but that we are losing our hold on the foreign market, where a tariff cannot assist us at all. This Report shows that our export of leather gloves has fallen from 230,000 dozen pairs before the War to 40,000 dozen pairs last year; it is, therefore, only one-sixth of the volume. That is a complete explanation of all the depression that exists, and it is no use coming to the House and asking for a tariff when our home trade has been well maintained and our foreign trade has fallen to one-sixth. A tariff can do nothing to assist us in foreign trade.

The last main point I would like to make in connection with this Report is this. The Report speaks of the imports of gloves from Europe into this country. The figures show that Germany is sending us far fewer gloves than before the War, that France is sending fewer, Belgium fewer, and Austria and Czechoslovakia, taking them together, fewer. The only European country which has increased its imports, and it has done so to a very large extent, is Italy, which has captured the cheap trade that Germany and Austria used to hold. These Italian gloves represent the very cheapest and most inferior gloves that are introduced, the gloves farthest removed from the heavier and more expensive gloves made in this country. They are not in effective competition with the heavy English gloves. A gentleman whom, I think, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene) will probably know, Mr. Fownes Rigdon, in giving evidence, said he could not produce these cheap gloves, and that if he attempted to do so it would take him years to train workers for the purpose. What does this mean? If you exclude these cheap Italian gloves, they are not going to be made in this country, and they are not going to increase the demand in this country for ordinary English gloves. The mere fact that you take Italian gloves and raise their price by 33⅓ per cent. does not mean that working women, because the price of the Italian gloves has gone up, is going to buy English gloves at 7s. 6d. per pair, but it will mean that they will pay a little more for the Italian gloves or else economise on gloves. Our case against this duty is that there is no proof that it is going to add to the volume of employment in this country; it is not going to touch the export trade, where a fall in sales has arisen; and all it is going to do is to add a little to the price to be paid by the people who buy cheap gloves, or compel a certain number to do without them, and add a little more discomfort and cold, which are already more than poor people ought to be called upon to bear.

Mr. G. HALL

I beg to second the Amendment.

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

As I listened to the hon. Member who has just spoken I was moved to refer to page 3 of the Report and to refresh my memory as to who is asking for this assistance. It would be well if the House kept in mind the fact that the Joint Industrial Council of the glove-making industry is one of the chief advocates of this duty, and the main opponents are a group of London and Manchester wholesale distributing houses represented by Mr. Entwistle. It is well for the House to keep these facts before it because otherwise one might be drawn away, and suppose that the whole of the people engaged in this industry were trying to resist this imposition which the Government is trying to inflict. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been quoting figures for imports of 1913 and 1924 and he spoke of the percentage of 1924 imports in relation to the 1913 imports. He is able to produce a figure of 96 per cent. by that process. My concern is not so much the percentage of the 1913 imports that we are employed in making to-day; my concern is the amount of the total consumption in this country which is in our hands and the amount which is in the hands of the foreigner; and I find that, whereas the foreigner has 67 per cent. of our trade, we have 33 per cent. and that is the point which concerns me.

The hon. Gentleman has also contrasted the imports that we are bringing from France, Belgium, Italy and so forth, and he quite truly says that the Italians are sending us immensely greater quantities of gloves than they have been sending previously, but he also says this—and it is so often used and so falsely used in these arguments—"The Italians are sending you trash, and it does not compete with your British gloves." Can that possibly be true? Is it not true that, if the Italians are sending you gloves, someone is purchasing the gloves? They are sending them because someone is buying them and someone is wearing them, and, if they are wearing Italian gloves, they will not buy British gloves to wear over the top of them. Therefore, whether you call them trash or not, they are excluding the use of British gloves. I think that that is quite a fair estimate to make of this large import of so-called cheap Italian gloves. They undoubtedly do compete with the people who are occupied in our industry of glove-making. Therefore, following on that, I can answer the hon. Gentleman's statement that, if you exclude these Italian gloves, they will not be made by our own people. I disagree with him, and say you will find that, if you are able to check the flow of these Italian gloves into this country, some portion of that work will find its way into our own glove industry, which is in such sore straits at present. Beyond that I need not deal with the question.

I now want, if I may, to refer to a matter which was mentioned to me just now by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). The other night in the Debate I referred to him. He spoke of himself as being one of the principal officers of the Glovers' Union, which has never been in favour of a tariff on gloves, and I said: The view I take of it is that the sooner the hon. Member's union gets rid of him as one of its representatives, the better."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd December. 1925: col. 2611, Vol. 188.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned that to mo just now, and I say at once that, if my remark caused the slightest offence or pain, I, of course, withdraw is unreservedly. I did not mean, in that particular allusion, to cast any aspersion upon the hon. Member, but was merely expressing my own tariff views as against those of a great trade union leader. I hope the House will resist this Amendment.

Major CRAWFURD

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and always a privilege to follow him in Debate. In obedience to the suggestion which he threw out, I duly turn my attention to page 3 on the Report. There I find it stated that the case for the applicants was conducted by Mr. W. Barnard Faraday, who—and I think this is the passage the hon. Gentleman meant me to read— called evidence from the following bodies in support of the claim for a duty: (a) Joint Industrial Council for the Glove-making Industry. That is exactly my point. If the hon. Gentleman's argument has any substance, on this evidence with regard to this tariff, I would only say once again that, if the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend would only let us see the evidence given by the Joint Industrial Council, we could much better make up our minds whether that evidence was of such a character, whether from the employers or the employed, as would induce us to cast our votes in the direction he wishes. But so long as he withholds that evidence it is idle for him to adduce the fact that evidence of this kind was given. In fact I am reminded of a phrase thrown out earlier in the Debate by an hon. Member opposite that we who argue the case for Free Trade would be only too willing to consent to experiments of this kind if it were not that somewhere in our minds, perhaps subconsciously, we fear that a test of that kind would dispose of our case. I cannot help thinking that in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. colleague there is somewhere, perhaps subconsciously, deep down in their consciousness, a feeling that if this evidence were produced it would not back up their case but would give strength to the case we are arguing, and that is the reason it is not produced. I want to make one additional comment to the argument of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). Not only did he point out that British manufacturers were producing for the home market 90 per cent. of what they were producing in 1913, but it is also true that the foreigner is only producing 67 per cent. That is to say, that as compared with 1913 the British producer of leather gloves is relatively better off than the foreigner. It is in those circumstances that the industry comes and asks for assistance. Of all the cases brought forward under the Safeguarding Resolutions this for a duty on leather gloves is the weakest.

Now I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's concluding argument when he was trying to suggest that if you do not keep out Italian gloves you will be depriving British workmen of employment. Has he never thought of this? Exactly the same applied in the case of cheap cutlery. You have cheap gloves coming in which a certain class of people can afford to buy. It is quite possible that they cannot afford to buy the more expensive British gloves. You put a duty on the cheap gloves, making them more expensive. [Interruption.] If you do not, what is the use of the duty? You must make it more expensive. By doing that you very likely prevent the poorer class of people from buying foreign gloves, but you do not necessarily enable them to buy British gloves. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) the other night who said, "Why should not a British boy scout buy a British knife?" I daresay hon. Members opposite will say, "Why should not the British people buy British gloves?" If the British article is considerably more expensive than the foreign article, it may be that it is quite impossible for the poorer person to buy the British article. Hon. Members opposite seem to forget that it is one of the penalties of being poor that you cannot buy economically. It is often said it is more economical in the long run to buy the more expensive and better article. If the hon. Member wants to buy a pair of shoes he would rather buy one pair for three guineas than three pairs at one guinea, because the pair at three guineas would last three times as long as the others, but if a person is poor he cannot afford to do that. That is the reason why rates are compounded, because the poor family never has enough ready cash at one moment with which to pay a large sum, and because they never have enough ready cash to pay for the most expensive article. If they could buy their coal by the ton instead of the hundredweight or less they would get it much cheaper and better. They are compelled to lay out their money in small sums. Because that is true, and these Duties will have a cumulative effect in increasing the price of cutlery, gas mantles, gloves and so on, it means that you are gradually increasing the burden upon the poor people. When hon. Members cheer the theory that they are going to give increased employment if they increase the burden upon poor people, I would remind them that they are diminishing their purchasing power and not increasing it and, in the long run, they will decrease employment and not increase it.

Major GLYN

After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), I thought he might like to have from one Member on this side of the House a statement that in his own constituency this duty is giving employment, not merely in assisting an industry already established, but in starting an industry, with the help of French enterprise which came over when it knew there was a likelihood of this duty being imposed. The manager of this new industry told me that he proposes to make in Oxford, from leather which is tanned and prepared in Abingdon, gloves of the kind which he used to send into this country in direct competition with the British article. I think the House would also like to know that, as a result of only three months' working, the French supervisors say that the skilled English workman is in every way superior or, at any rate, as good as the French workers at Chaumont.

I am sure there is not a single hon. Member opposite who does not wish to increase employment, and who will not agree that British labour, if given a chance, can turn out an article as good, if not better, than our foreign competitors.

In the town of Abingdon we have this large leather works. Then came the slump in trade, and men were discharged. When I met the men, the cutters and the tanners, some of the most skilled workmen in the country, I found that they are no longer bringing their sons into the business. Some, of these boys have asked me to help them to get employment outside their trade. We ought all of us, of whatever party, to do all we can to help our own industries, and, if we can, to get these men who, from father to son, have gone on making gloves, to realise that we are out to help them and to give them and their own sons employment instead of talking academic stuff.

In all these arguments we do not hear so much of economics as we do of psychology. Psychology will not keep people who are hard up. We have to study the psychology of our workpeople, and I would like to assure hon. Members opposite that there is not a single man, be he a glove cutter or a tanner, who has not said to me that he is out for trying this duty. This duty is not permanent. It is only for five years. Why not give it a chance? Is it because hon. Members opposite are afraid of the success of it and are afraid that it would smash their theories into a thousand fragments? We have 100 persons working in this glove factory at Oxford, and in a few weeks I hope there will be 200 employed. There is no reason why we should not turn out 1,000 dozen pairs of gloves per week, and when we do that, we shall be able to take on more and more people at the leather dressing factory at Abingdon.

There has been reference to-night to cheap Continental gloves. I wish hon. Members had been watching these French men working. They know what they are up against—the competition of gloves coming from Italy, which are being sold at from 27s. to 30s. a dozen. We cannot compete with them. But you may rest assured that when we get the factories working—new factories, and the old factories working up to their capacity—we will turn out gloves more cheaply than we can to-day, by British workmen with British leather, to be sold to British people. Surely that is something for which it is worth while striving. I know that in all these debates there is a certain amount of give-and-take across the Floor of the House, and each of us tries to make out that the other is not anxious to help trade. We are all anxious to help trade. I. therefore, hope that my small testimony in regard to one constituency may be taken to heart, and may make hon. Members realise that by supporting this proposal they may possibly be straining their economic theories, but that they are undoubtedly helping many women, children and men who have been out of work and want work, in the old constituency of Abingdon where, near Woodstock, since the days of the Saxons, gloves have been made. We want to see that industry continued and to see it flourish.

Mr. KELLY

I want, first of all, to express my appreciation of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. But in expressing that appreciation I can assure him that His remark caused no inconvenience. I only wish I had been in the House at the moment it was made. It did seem curious that exception should be taken in this House to anyone who was an officer of a trade union expressing an opinion which seemed to hon. Members opposite to be opposed to that of many of the members of the trade union concerned in a particular industry. I was the more surprised, in view of the fact that it is not many weeks since hon. Members were suggesting through their Press as well as by voice, that it was time for trade union leaders to tell their members that they were wrong in some of the actions which they were taking, and that they were fighting their employers. I suppose it is right for us to express opinions contrary to our members whether those opinions square or do not square with the opinions of hon. Members opposite. I think my members will be able to treat the matter for what it is worth, and when I am no longer useful to them they can dispense with my services immediately, and there is one man who will not whine about it.

We have listened to suggestions once again that this demand for what is called safeguarding, but is not safeguarding at all, this demand for a tariff, was presented by the workpeople, and the name of the Joint Industrial Council has been used for that purpose. I do not deny, and did not deny last Thursday, that the Joint Industrial Council took part in the inquiry which was held. I am told by an hon. Member, I think it was the right hon. Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) that there is some misunderstanding as to a statement I made last Thursday, when I referred to the matter of expenses. In order to make that clear let me say that I was under the impression that every Member of this House understood what a Joint Industrial Council was and how it conducted its work. It is evident I must say a word about that point, because it is thought that I suggested that the employers were responsible for the unions paying part of the expenses. On the Joint Industrial Council a conclusion can only be acted upon if both sides of the Council, by a majority on each side, agree to a particular point, and it was the majority on the workpeople's side who agreed to the payment of that sum for the expenses. I hope that will satisfy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). I do not wish to have any misunderstanding, and the statement I made was that the executive of this particular union—which is not named the Glovers' Union—have never agreed to safeguard it. It is suggested that the unions are favourable to this proposal, why there are 11 Members of this House connected with the unions organising the glove industry, and not one of the 11 went into the Lobby in favour of this tariff.

Mr. PENNY

On a Whip?

Mr. KELLY

There was no party Whip at all, because if we felt for a moment that this proposal was going to create employment and help industry, there would be no question as to the attitude of the party on this side of the House. It is because we know that it is not going to help the industry, and that the imposition of a duty is not the way out of these difficulties, that we oppose the operation of this tariff. We heard something from the hon. and gallant Member for the Abingdon Division (Major Glyn), and I was glad that he referred to the prosperous conditions of the glove industry in Oxfordshire. It happens that I am concerned with these factories in various parts of Oxfordshire and Essex, and they have not been other than prosperous any time during the last two years. I have a report, dated 3rd December, 1925, in which it is stated that there has been only such a state of affairs as would result from post-War conditions, that they have not been placed on short time, that they have been working full time and overtime, and that having had a good year in 1925 they are looking forward to 1926 with a great measure of satisfaction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But they add "that this is provided they have not to taste this bitter pill of experience that the Government is trying to force upon them in the 33⅓ per cent. duty."

Major GLYN

The factory which I mentioned is associated with the leather works at Abingdon, but is situated in Oxford. It had not been working for many years and has been opened up in the last two months. If the hon. Member knows all about these factories he will be able to support my word that this factory, which before the War was not working, is now working and giving employment.

Mr. KELLY

The hon. and gallant Member did not allow me to finish. I was going to prove the prosperity of the industry and show the wonderful developments that are taking place at this time without a 33⅓ per cent. tariff. [An Hon. MEMBER: "A threat!"] I am glad to hear it referred to as a threat. It is a threat to the industry.

Major GLYN

To the foreigner.

Mr. KELLY

; In mentioning the old factory that is newly opened, he goes on to say: There is not a factory in this area on short time, and in one factory overtime has been worked, and all we have to complain of is that the Worcester people have been advertising in the 'Worcester Times' for non-union labour and in the 'Oxford Times ' for glove-cutters in order to engage upon the work.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT

Will the hon. Member say who is "he" who wrote this Report?

Mr. KELLY

He is one of the representatives for the glove industry in this country.

HON. MEMBERS: "Name!" and laughter,

Mr. KELLY

Sufficient for mo to say that he is a representative of the trade -—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and " No! "] I am not in this House, in the state of industry in this country at the present time, to ask that any man or woman should place himself in the position to contest with the whole of the employers by my having to use his name in this House.

Mr. HARDIE

They would victimise him!

Mr. KELLY

A representative of the unions in the gloving industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "A packer!"] He is not a packer: even if he were, he would still be considered as engaged in the glove industry. Take the case with regard to Devon. Even in Devonshire we find down in Torrington, which was referred to by one hon. Member in the previous discussion, even in this part of the country, so far as the trade is concerned, it is better than it was a year ago. We were told, that in Worcester they had but one apprentice. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), speaking last Thursday, said there would be one apprentice to 20 workmen. I wish he had gone closer into it, because he would have found there was a reason why there is one apprentice in the glove trade at Worcester. It is because those engaged in it have such a fear of having additional apprentices that they have been prevented from having these young people in the industry at this particular time.

We were told, with regard to Italian gloves, that other countries have 67 per cent. of the trade, while we have but 32 or 33 per cent. Is the suggestion from the Government that this 33⅓ per cent. is going to help us to that 67 per cent. that is held by people in other countries? If so, I would like them to show us how that is going to take place. We find that the gloves that we make in Somersetshire and in Oxfordshire, when they are placed on sale in London, are

sold at twice the price that we sell them for in Yeovil, in Oxfordshire, or in any-other part of the country. It is not a tariff that you require; you want to bring these gloves down to a reasonable price for the people to purchase them. You need to tackle the retailers who have done so well out of the sale of gloves during these last few years. As in cutlery, so in gloves. The people in the glove industry believe that your promises for greater trade are going to come true. I believe they are not going to come true at all, and that this is not the way out of the difficulty. If it is unemployment that the Government is thinking of, it ought to tackle unemployment, and not fool with it in the way it is fooling with it by this tariff proposal.

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

The House divided: Ayes. 253: Noes. 127.

Division No. 466.]	AYES.	[10.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Christie, J. A.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Clarry, Reginald George	Gower, Sir Robert
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Clayton, G. C.	Grace, John
Apsley, Lord	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Grant, J. A.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Atholl, Duchess of	Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Atkinson, C.	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Gretton, Colonel John
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cooper, A. Duff	Grotrian, H. Brent
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Couper, J. B.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)	Hall, Caps. W, D'A, (Brecon & Rad.)
Barnston, Major sir Harry	Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Hammersley, S. S.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hanbury, C.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Crook, C. W.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bennett, A. J.	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Harland, A.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Bethell, A.	Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Harrison, G. J. C.
Betterton, Henry B.	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hartington, Marquess of
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Blades. Sir George Rowland	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Haslam, Henry C
Blundell, F. N.	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Hawke, John Anthony
Boothby, R. J. G.	Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Dixey, A. C.	Hendersor, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Eden, Captain Anthony	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Briscoe, Richard George	Edmondson, Major A. J	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Elliot, Walter E.	Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.	Elveden, Viscount	Hoare, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Buckingham, Sir H.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Holt, Capt. H. P.
Bullock, Captain M.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Fielden, E. S.	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Burman, J. B.	Fleming, D. P.	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Foresiler-Walker, Sir L.	Howard, Capt. Hon, D. (Cumb., N.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Foster, Sir Harry S.	Hume, Sir G. h.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Huntingfield, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Fraser, Captain Ian	Hurst, Gerald B.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Campbell, E. T.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Ganzoni, Sir John	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Gates. Percy	Jackson Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Jacob, A. E.
Chadwisk, Sir Robert Burton	Gee, Captain R.	Jephcott, A. R
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Kennedy, A. R, (Preston).	Nelson, Sir Frank	Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Neville, R. J.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Knox, sir Alfred	Oakley, T.	Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Lamb, J. Q.	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Storry Deans, R
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Penny, Frederick George	Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Locker Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Philipson, Mabel	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Looker, Herbert William	Pielou, D. P.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Power, Sir John Cecil	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lumley, L. R.	Radford, E. A.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Ramsden, E.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Remer, J. R.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
McLean, Major A.	Rice, sir Frederick	Watts, Dr. T.
Macmillan, Captain H.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)	Wells, S. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Macquisten, F. A.	Rye, F. G.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel	Salmon, Major I.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Malone, Major P. B.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Margesson, Captain D,	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.	Sandon, Lord	Wise, Sir Fredric
Meyer, Sir Frank	Sassdon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Wolmer, Viscount
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw	Savery, S. S.	Womersley, W. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Mitchell, W. Fool (Saffron Walden)	Shaw. Capt. w. w. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.	Shepperson, E. W.	Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Skelton, A. N.
Murchison, C. K.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Major Hennessy and Major Cope.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Grundy, T. W,	Ponsonby, Arthur
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)	Potts, John S.
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Ritson, J.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.H., Elland)
Baker, Walter	Hardie, George D.	Rose, Frank H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Harris, Percy A.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Barnes, A.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph	Hayday, Arthur	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hayes, John Henry	Scrymgeour, E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scurr, John
Broad, F. A.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bromfield, William	Hirst, G. H.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bromley, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Short, Alfred (Wednasbury)
Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Buchanan, G.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cape, Thomas	Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Snell, Harry
Clowes, S,	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Stamford, T. w.
Connolly, M.	Kelly, W. T.	Stephen, Campbell
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Kennedy, T.	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Lansbury, George	Sutton, J. E.
Dalton, Hugh	Lawson, John James	Taylor, R. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lee, F.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lindley. F. W.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Duncan, C.	Lowth, T.	Thurtle, E.
Dunnico, H.	Lunn, William	Tinker, John Joseph
England, Colonel A.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Aberavon)	Townend, A. E.
Fenby, T. D.	Mackinder, W.	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.	MacLaren, Andrew	Varley, Frank B.
Forrest, W.	March, S.	Viant, S. P.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Montague, Frederick	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Gibbins, Joseph	Morris, R. H.	Warne, G. H.
Gillett, George M.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gosling, Harry	Murnin, H.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Naylor, T. E.	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Owen, Major G.	Westwood, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Paling, W.	Whiteley, W.
Groves, T.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Wiggins, William Martin

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)	Windsor, Walter	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)	Wright, W.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and M
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)	Charles Edwards.
Wilson, B. J. (Jarrow)

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain BENN

I want to ask a question of the President of the Board of Trade about the effect of these Resolutions upon the German Treaty. I have put the question several times, but I should still like to have a clear answer to the question whether or not any of these measures endanger the concessions that we get under the German Trade Treaty? I have raised the point again to-night because I observe that the German representative, Herr Trendelenburg, in Paris spoke about this matter on Saturday. He said that he was negotiating with the right hon. Gentleman for a reduction of duties. I am sure that the supporters of the light hon. Gentleman behind will be glad to know exactly what offers he has made to the German representatives for the reduction of other duties in order to prevent them retaliating upon us. An answer to that question will, I am certain, be of interest.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think that question had better be put on Wednesday.

Captain BENN

On a point of Order. Inasmuch as the German commercial representative has stated that this duty, among others, is going to cause them to retaliate, am I not entitled to ask, in the House passing this Resolution and imposing this tax. what steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking to prevent us being retaliated upon?

Mr. SPEAKER

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealing with the duties in general?

Captain BENN

; No, Sir. I found it was impossible to do that except on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a question which relates solely to these duties. This particular duty is one of the duties complained of by the German representative in reference to retaliation, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman what arrangements he is making in order to avoid the retaliation.

Mr. SPEAKER

I thought the hon and gallant Gentleman was referring to the duties in general

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

On more than one occasion I Lave replied to this. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that this duty or any other duty to be imposed is in any way a breach of the Treaty.

Captain BENN

I did not say the Treaty.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me to reply, and I am trying to do so. The Treaty in general terms is the ordinary most-favoured-nation Treaty, and, as is well known, the duties are against all countries and there is no breach of the most-favoured-nation Treaty.

Captain BENN

Oh!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE- LISTER

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to answer when he puts a point, I shall be glad. If the argument put forward by him were right, every single one of the hundreds of duties in the German general tariff would be a breach of their Treaty with us. Moreover, not only is it not a breach of the Treaty, but, as I said before, it was made abundantly clear that we, when we were negotiating this Treaty, were going to pursue a policy of safeguarding industry and do is by general duties and not by discriminatory duties. When the Protocol was made, that specific right was inserted in the Protocol in these words in the first line: Will retain their right to take appropriate measures in preserve their own industry. These are the measures which we are taking to preserve our own industries. In regard to the other point, I have not proposed to reduce any duties.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I do not. want to cover the ground already covered, but would the right hon. Gentleman say, before we part from this Resolution, whether the negotiations between the German Government and the Foreign Office have been completed, whether they have accepted the interpretation which he has given to the House, or whether there are actually negotiations on a new basis, and whether they are still communicating with the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office and trying to get the position eased?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Certain representations were made and conversations took place. Those conversations are now at an end. It is open at any time to any party under this Treaty to

make any representations which they think fit. There are no negotiations going on at the present time.

Captain BENN

Then we may take it that the German commercial representative in Paris was wrong in what he said?

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 233: Noes, 114.

Division No. 467.]	AYES.	[11.12 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Eden, Captain Anthony	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Edmonson, Major A. J.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Albery, Irving James	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Knox, Sir Alfred
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Lamb, J. Q.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lane-Fox, Colonel George H.
Applin, colonel R. V. K.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Fielden, E. B.	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Atholl, Duchess of	Fleming, D. P.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Looker, Herbert William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fraser, Captain Ian	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Barnett, Major sir Richard	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Beckett, Sir Gervase	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Lumley, L. R.
Bennett, A. J.	Ganzoni, Sir John	MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Bethell, A.	Gates, Percy	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Betterton, Henry B.	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Gee, Captain R.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Blades, Sir George Rowland	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	McLean, Major A.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Macmillan, Captain H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Gower, Sir Robert	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Grace, John	Macquisten, F. A.
Briscoe, Richard George	Grant, J. A.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Malone, Major P. B.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Gretton, Colonel John	Margesson, Captain D.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Bullock, Captain M.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Burgoyne, Lieut. Colonel Sir Alan	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Meyer, Sir Frank.
Burman, J. B.	Hall, Capt. W, D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hammersley, S. S.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hanbury, C.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Butt. Sir Alfred	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Harland, A.	Moore, Sir Newton J.
Campbell, E. T.	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Murchison, C. K.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hartington, Marquess of	Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Nelson, Sir Frank
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Haslam, Henry C.	Neville, R. J.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hawke, John Anthony	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Christie, J. A.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Oakley, T.
Clarry, Reginald George	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Clayton, G. C.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Penny, Frederick George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Philipson, Mabel
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Hubert, S. (York, N.R-,Scar. Wh'by)	Pielou, D. P.
Cooper, A. Duff	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Couper, J. B.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Holt, Captain H. p.	Radford, E. A,
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crews)	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Ramsden, E.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Remer, J. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Huntingfield, Lord	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Rice, Sir Frederick
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S	Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Jephcott, A. R.	Rye, F. G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)	Salmon, Major I.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Dixey, A. C.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Storry Deans, R.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Sanderson, Sir Frank	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.	Wilson, M, J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Sandon, Lord	Stuart, Han. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Sugden, Sir Willrid	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Savery, S. S.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, B.)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-	Wolmer, Viscount
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Womersley, W. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley	Wallace, Captain D. E.	Wood, B. c. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Shepperson, E. W.	Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)	Wood. E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.	Wood, Sit Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)
Skelton, A. N.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)	Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Watts, Dr. T.	Wragg, Herbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Wells, S. R.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will 'sden, E.)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)	Major Sir Harry Barnston and
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)	Major Cope.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hardie, George D.	Salter, Or. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Harris, Percy A.	Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Scurr, John
Attlee Clement Richard	Hayday, Arthur	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Baker, Walter	Hayes, John Henry	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rother'h the:,
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, H B. Lees (Keighley)
Broad, F. A.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Snell, Harry
Bromfield, William	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Bromley, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Stamford, T. W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stephen Campbell
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sutton, J E.
Cape, Thomas	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Taylor. R. A.
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Clowes, S.	Kennedy, T.	Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Cluse, W. S.	Lansbury, George	Thurtle, E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lawson, John James	Tinker. John Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.	Lindley, F. W.	Townend, A. E.
Dalton, Hugh	Lunn, William	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry	Mackinder, W.	Viant, S. P.
Duncan, C.	MacLaren, Andrew	Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Dunnico, H.	March, S.	Warne, G. H.
England, Colonel A.	Morris, R. H.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Forrest, W.	Murnin, H.	Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Naylor, T. E.	Whiteley, W.
Gibbins, Joseph	Owen, Major G.	Wiggins, William Martin
Gillett, George M.	Paling, W.	Williams. David (Swansea, E.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wilson, Ft. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Potts, John S.	Windsor, Walter
Groves, T.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W.	Ritson, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Southwark, N.)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Saklatvala, Shapurji	Charles Edwards.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. J. HUDSON

I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out "6s." and to insert instead thereof "1s."

Now that we have got rid of the gloves I suppose we can approach this matter with bare knuckles. The matters we have discussed have provided us with experience and should assist us in considering this Resolution. This industry connected with the manufacture of gas mantles applied for safeguarding under the 1921 Act, and a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was ultimately imposed in the years 1922 and 1924. In connection with the administration of the Act a Committee was set up which consisted of the following Members:—Mr. B. Mallins, Mr. J. A. Alton (who is a Member of the Committee which considered the present proposal), Sir J. N. Barran (who is also a Member of the Committee who has dealt with this proposal), Mr. Moore and Mr. A. Pugh (also a Member of another Committee). Among other recommendations which they made will be found the following statement: We are not convinced that the imposition of a duty on gas mantles would have any appreciable effect upon employment in the gas mantle industry. They further said: We are further of opinion that the gas mantle industry is over-capitalised. Two of the gentlemen responsible for these statements now sit on the further Committee whose Report has led the President to make the proposals we are now discussing. There is, indeed, every reason for the publication of all the evidence of the Committees that we have considered during the last few days, but in particular there is a claim that we should know all the facts that led to the Committee's arriving at the present proposal I noticed, during the discussions on this matter recently, that the President of the Board of Trade attached considerable importance to industries that were dependent upon the manufacture of gas mantles, particularly the industries concerned with the manufacture of cerium and thorium. [Interruption.] I observe that these industries are treated with general derision on all sides of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I am speaking from the evidence of my own ears. The very great seriousness of cerium is not shared by hon. Members in other quarters of the House.

I would suggest that, if it be so important that the manufacture of these two articles should be guaranteed by the method proposed, the President of the Board of Trade ought to be able to give us some sort of guarantee, from the evidence his Committee has collected for him, that the production of gas mantles really will increase during the next few years. I want to submit to him that the general production of gas mantles is dependent mainly upon the British public being able to get them more cheaply than substitute articles that could be readily used in place of incandescent mantles. It is well known that during the last few years, particularly in the building of new houses and with the development of public electricity schemes, electric lighting, at any rate for domestic purposes, is being much more used now than gas lighting. If any step is taken to make gas mantles dearer than they are now, that step will lead to the consumers of gas being more ready to try electricity instead, and it is highly likely that, by the proposal which the President of the Board of Trade is putting forward, instead of guaranteeing this industry, out of which it is said it is desired, for purposes of war, to obtain cerium and thorium, in the long run a considerable diminution of the industry will take place, and it will not be possible to obtain from it these chemicals upon which it is said we are so much dependent.

In all these Debates the Members of the party opposite have failed to realise that it is not merely on the productive side that finally we have to look if a satisfactory judgment is to be arrived at, but on the consuming side of the articles with which we are dealing. Unless you can be satisfied from evidence —I do not care what the Committees may be, or whether the evidence can be collected through the other agencies which the Board of Trade can control—that the consumption of the article with which you are dealing will actually increase, in the long run you cannot find any satisfactory solution for the unemployment problem, nor any solution regarding such commodities as those to which I have referred. In this Amendment I suggest that, if there can be a radical alteration of the tax proposed, and by that radical alteration the continuance of the consumption of gas mantles could be in any way safeguarded, it might be possible thereby to safeguard those ancilliary industries to which reference has been, made.

Mr. HARDIE

I beg to second the Amendment.

Once more I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade two questions which, up to now, he has refused to answer. It may be due to two reasons. It may be that he has something to hide or that he. does not understand the question. I want to ask him quite plainly what makes up the monopoly the Government is building up in the control of monozite? I should not have troubled the House to-night, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be getting into a habit that is getting him a name he docs not deserve, of being supercilious. Here we have, under the guise of what you call a safeguarding of industry, the creation of a monopoly. But you do not stop at creating a monopoly. You put through the House by your 200 majority what is going to give something more than a monopoly. For instance, if you take the figures of mantles for incandescent light under the two categories, no statement has been made whether the same deduction of charge is to be made upon the full size mantle, or is there to be a difference on the bijou or quarter-size mantle? Is there a basis of candle power in relation to this Revenue duty that is being put on mantles? It seems strange that one has to repeat simple but obvious questions like that so often and fail to get an answer. An hon. Member opposite in 1922, talking without knowledge, said that because Germany had within its own borders all the raw materials, it could make mantles cheaper. If he had had any knowledge at all, he would have known that the materials were not inside Germany at all. Now we have a report, written by someone who has the knowledge, but he has had to write from dictation. That is quite plain throughout the report. Someone had the knowledge but he has been compelled to prostitute that knowledge in order to earn his living. I again appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to stand up and be a man and answer the question.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

This Amendment, which is in terms a proposal to reduce the rate of duty, really resolves itself into a proposal that you should not put a duty on gas mantles at all. Has the hon. Member any reason why, if you want to safeguard this industry at all, the rate of duty he suggests should be preferred to the rate recommended by the Committee, after inquiry? If we are to have a duty at all, I ask the House to accept the considered view of the Committee rather than a rate of duty which would do neither one thing nor the other. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment raised two objections. His first objection was personal to the Committee: that the Committee contained Members who had reviewed this industry some years ago. I should have thought that they were just the people to review the industry again. They have their original knowledge and their present knowledge of the position of the industry. I do not think we could have got a better body than that. The hon. Member also said that prices will go up under the duty—I am not sure of that—and that therefore we shall reduce the gas mantle industry. I do not accept for a moment the argument that prices necessarily will rise, because the factories will be working fuller time. The alternative is to do nothing for this industry, and if we do nothing for it, then, as the Committee find, that is a sure way of putting the gas mantle industry out of business. We should be unwise, because of the contingency to which the hon. Member refers, we left ourselves open to the certainty of smashing up this industry which, for reasons of defence. is so vital to us,

The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) put two questions which he wishes me to answer. I shall be delighted to answer. The whole history of our getting possession of the great Travancore deposit is well known to hon. Members. Prior to the outbreak of the War, that deposit was entirely in the hands of the Germans. That gave the Germans the possession of the gas mantle industry before the War. It was regarded as vital—and the view was confirmed by the Balfour of Burleigh Committee that this deposit should pass into English hands. The deposit passed into English hands during the War.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

You mean British hands.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

British hands. They are at present owned by two companies. One is the Travancore Mineral Company, Limited. I am not sure of the name of the other company. [An HON. MEMBER: Monopoly!"] Monopoly to some extent there must be, because there are not unlimited quantities of this sand. There are deposits, in Brazil which are in the hands of United States companies and one in the hands of a French company. Would the hon. Member rather have these deposits in Travancore in our hands or in foreign hands?

Mr. HARDIE

Why did not you keep them in the Government's hands?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. Member wants all industry in the hands of the State.

Mr. HARDIE

The right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the British Government were desirous of having these beds under British control. If the Government want them under British control for the purpose of war it is a national responsibility. Why do you not keep the nation's interest in these things?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

For the excellent reason, first of all, that the nation did not want to buy them; and, secondly, because, if things are to be efficiently worked, I would rather see them worked by private enterprise. I think we are much more likely to get a plentiful supply by private enterprise than by national enterprise

Mr. MacLAREN

Will the capital value of these deposits increase by reason of this Protection?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Not in the least, I should think. They can sell from the, Travancore Company to any company which makes gas mantles. The deposit will not be made more valuable because more mantles are made in Great Britain, unless more mantles are made somewhere else also. Another question was asked about the different sizes of gas mantles. My reply is, "No." It is proposed that the duty of 6s. per gross shall be charged on mantles, whatever their size.

Mr. HARDIE

Some of the mantles used in lighthouses are up to nine inches in diameter. If you are going to play fair with the public, so far as the consumer is concerned, you cannot have a uniform charge. You are putting swindling into the business if you have the same taxation for the nine-inch mantle as for the quarter-inch mantle.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

There is treat virtue in simplicity in these matters. That is a canon which I have heard from the purest quarter.

Captain BENN

Primarily, apart from the scientific and national defence argument, we object to this duty because it is a tax on the poor man's light. To the working man who uses gas the mantle is a considerable item. Just as. the Government took the coldest day of the year to tax gloves, so they took the darkest clay of the year to tax gas mantles. That is the complete answer, the damaging answer which we will make to all the pleas for private enterprise. Apart from that, let us take the other aspect. Here is an industry engaged in the production of thorium and cerium that has never applied for a duty. It has not, like the iron and steel industry, asked for a duty.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

May I correct the hon. and gallant Member? His leader protected them.

Mr. LANSBURY

Which one?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's temporary leader appointed the Committee which recommended the protection, and his other leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), carried it out.

Captain BENN

The right hon. Gentleman is now saying what does him no credit. During the War a great many people who held very strong views on these questions, voluntarily put those views aside and co-operated willingly in certain Measures, in order to prevent internal discord at a time when we had the enemy at our gates. Now, hon. and light hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to exploit that voluntary putting aside of our views and would make it appear that there is some inconsistency in bringing those views forward again, when the danger is past and the enemy has been disposed of, but, as I say, it docs them no credit. It will not make for national unity in times of danger if hon. Members opposite attempt to exploit patriotism in that manner. So much for the question of leaders. Here are two industries which have never asked for a duty, but a duty has fallen upon them—as manna fell upon the Hebrews in the desert-without application, inquiry or anything else. Although the White Paper lays it down that the Committee is to decide whether or not certain things are to be, yet the President of the Board of Trade did not wait for their decision in this matter, but told them that this was a matter of national importance. I do not care twopence what those committees decide; I am perfectly certain they have no authority with this House or the public, but the right hon. Gentleman sets great store by their decisions. Yet having asked a committee to decide in this case, he himself announces in advance-that it is a matter of national importance.

The news that the Safeguarding of Industries Act can be used, not only for so-called safeguarding, but for the setting up of industries in view of national needs, will take the public by surprise. What most people understood by the Prime Minister's speech was that when small industries were in difficulties he would come to their aid with a tariff. Even hon. Members of this House will be surprised to learn that the Safeguarding of Industries Act can be used and was intended to be used for the setting up of what are called "key" industries. I have sat in this House for a long time; I have very attentively followed the Debates since the War, and I have heard the argument used time after time, "We must prepare for the next war, and it is therefore necessary to do so much for this class of manufacture and for that private corporation." I was greatly struck by that argument when it was first introduced. I remember that when Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, was before the House, those who opposed the Measure were told. "' You are anti-British, you are traitors, you are friends of the enemy. We are preparing for the next war, and if you oppose this Measure you are going against the interests of your country." Now, Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act protected fine chemicals, apart from the heterogeneous collection of other articles which received protection. But many of these fine chemicals are not produced here. The things are not being made. What, then, about the "next war?" What about the object for which we were told the Act was passed? The right hon. Gentleman says callously he does not care if they are not being made here, but these people have the tariff and have the right to exploit the consumer, not because of "the next war," but because it is putting money into their pockets, and it is not protecting the national interests at all. The dye industry is another instance of the same kind of thing. Take the case of the Dyestuffs Corporation. We were told that in the next war it was-necessary we should have a dye industry of our own.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

The hon. and gallant Member has not made clear how he connects these matters with the question of the rate of duty on gas mantles.

Captain BENN

It is my oversight. I should have made quite clear that the line I am pursuing is that this duty is based upon the claim that these chemicals or metals, or whatever they are, are necessary in the national interest. It is not like the other duties protecting industry; it is in the national interest. I am pointing out that other arguments have been used for tariffs in the so-called national interest, which have proved to be none other than devices for the exploitation of the consumer by the manufacturers. I say that this is in the same category. In the case of dyes, first we pay £1,500,000 for shares in the industry; then the Government sell the shares for from half to a third of their value, and then we find that the Dyestuffs Corporation, so far from being a national organisation, producing something to save us in the next war, is making arrangements or preparing to make arrangements for an interchange, of secrets with Germany.

Mr. HARDIE

At the expense of the British nation!

Captain BENN

Of course, at the expense of the British nation. It is the ugliest form of exploitation that can exist. We can understand people who come forward frankly and say: "I want a duty to protect my industry,' and perhaps, "I am going to raise the wages of the workers if I get a protection." But for people to come forward and say: "I am acting as a patriot; I am doing this to save my country," when example after example proves that: the thing is not other than a device to exploit people in the interest of private corporations. I say it is the worst form of exploitation that it is possible to conceive. That is all I have to say about this duty. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman, or someone on his behalf, to prove that these things are necessary. My own view is that if you want a measure of defence, then it should be a measure of defence under Government control, paid for by the taxpayer direct; but these inferential secondary methods of defence are a grave danger, as I believe this shows a tendency to substitute for the defence of the country the private gain of certain interested and fortunate individuals.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I just want to draw the attention of the House to page 11 of the Report, paragraphs 34 and 36, on the question of the hourly rates of wages. In paragraph 36, the Committee say: We are inclined, therefore, on a review of this conflicting evidence, to accept the facts laid before us on both sides, (the best available to us in the time and by the methods at our disposal) with a considerable measure of reserve. That is to say, that they had no data to go upon in regard to whether this was an industry either efficient, on the one hand, or subject to unfair conditions of competition from abroad, on the other. Again, in paragraph 44, of the same Report, I notice it is said: It is to be presumed, that if the home industry were concentrated in its production and its capital outlay, it might, as was hoped of it in 1920, stand on its own feet, though we think that the lower priced mantle will always be very much a 'cut' article. On those two paragraphs of the Report it seems to me that there is not a case established even by the people themselves for a duty. As has been pointed out by a previous speaker, that is already recognised, as, indeed, I think was recognised by the President of the Board of Trade in his presentation of the case to the House. That being so, we come down to the point whether this House is entitled to tax the subjects of the Crown in regard to this industry in the way proposed by the Government for the purpose of national defence. It is not a very long time ago that this House would have made a stand at any time at the prospect of a subsidy for any particular industry. In this case it is neither more nor less than a subsidy to the gas mantle industry to provide against the possibility of a war. We took a definite line on a previous occasion, which was that if a subsidy were given to an industry there ought to be a share to the State of any assets created as the result of the subsidy. In this case that cannot be done, because the Government gives a subsidy by a tax on the great mass of consumers in the country, and not a direct subsidy from the Exchequer. Therefore, we cannot claim a share for the State in the capital assets created. Moreover, it does not matter what the income of the users of gas mantles may be. Each is to be taxed at the same rate on the same mantles used, not because the industry requires protection itself, but in order to provide against danger of a future war. We submit that is an absolutely unsound case for the Government to bring to the House, and, having regard to some previous experience of this particular industry, we submit that, if they really want to provide against the danger of war in the future, and against a shortage of these particular substances, they ought to give subsidy and get a share for the State.

I want to point out the way this kind of thing is used when a. monopoly is set up. The shares of the Welsbach Light Company in July, 1914, stood at 7s. (6d., but by 1919, as the result of monopoly, the price had risen to 75s. 4d. I have no doubt the desire of these companies is to have once more the chance to exploit the public, in order that the shares may be rehabilitated for their owners. I remember last year, when the Government decided to drop the safeguarding of industries a company with works alongside the railway beyond Clapham Junction exhibited a great notice board stating that no workers were required because of the action of the Labour Government in refusing to continue the Safeguarding of Industries Act They took that down after a month or two. Now we have got the Report of the Committee, and we find that the decision of the Labour Government last year not to continue the Safeguarding of Industries Act had no adverse effect upon that factory or similar factories, and, indeed the Report of the Committee shows that there were a larger number of hour? worked last year than in the previous year. Altogether the case is absurd and unsound, and I trust the House will see that this Amendment is carried.

12 M.

Mr. LANSBURY

I wish, first of all. to emphasise the point that if this particular Measure is necessary to safeguard the nation in the next war, it is quite evident that the nation ought never to have parted with the property at all. We apparently took it away from the Germans and sold it to these monopolist companies that are making a very good thing out of it. I should like very much to see printed in the records of the House the names of the directors and shareholders who have interests in these particular companies.

But I rose to say that this is another instance of what is called "greasing the fat sow." You are continually passing legislation to benefit people who really do not want any more benefiting. If it be true what the hon. Member said just now about the Welsbach Company, you need not worry any more about them; they are doing very well. I am perfectly certain the workmen of Wandsworth, for whom on occasions the hon. Member for Wandsworth speaks up, are not getting anything approaching their share out of this particular industry. This is the third or fourth day we have been fooling around on these duties. Not one of them will do the least bit of good to the workpeople of this country. Every hon. and right hon. Member within sound of my voice knows that is perfectly true. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Everyone who has any intelligence at all knows that these supposed safeguarding Measures are safeguarding Measures for profits and dividends, and nothing else.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I would remind the hon. Member we are only dealing with one specific duty.

Mr. LANSBURY

We cannot prevent the Government altogether doing it, but we are trying to reduce it to a minimum, and I think it is a gross waste of Parliamentary time that on the score of pretending to benefit the workers, you are only benefiting those who are already well provided for. and you are helping to make a monopoly stronger, helping to

make those who are rich, richer, and at the same time, you will not spend a single hour of your time in trying to deal with the starvation and misery that are absolutely rife throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is no use hon. Members opposite shaking their heads. If they came down to South Wales, and—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of gas mantles.

Mr. LANSBURY

As I understand, these proposals are for the purpose of helping the working people of this country. I deny thru. I deny altogether that, taken as a whole, a single man, woman, or child more of the total unemployed will be employed when these particular Measures are carried into effect. What I want to point out, and I shall point it out on every possible occasion, is that this House, instead of fooling with these futile duties that only help the rich to grew richer, should be devoting its time to find a real remedy for the tremendous distress that prevails in districts like the South Wales coalfields and other similar places throughout the country.

Question put, "That '6s.' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 79.

Division No. 468.]	AYES.	[12.5 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Fielder, E. B.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Fleming, D. P.
Albery, Irving James	Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sip Evelyn (Aston)	Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Fraser, Captain Ian
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ashley, Rt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Christie, J. A.	Galbraitn, J. F. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Clarry, Reginald George	Ganzoni, Sir John
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Clayton, G. C.	Gates, Percy
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Gee, Captain R.
Bethell, A.	Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Betterton, Henry B.	Conway, Sir W. Martin	Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Cope, Major William	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Blundell, F N.	Couper, J. B.	Grace, John
Boothby, R. J. G.	Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Grant, J. A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Gretton, Colonel John
Briscoe, Richard George	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Grotrian, H. Brent
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Bullock, Captain M.	Dixey, A. C.	Hammesley, S. S.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hanbury, C.
Burman, J. B.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Elliot, Captain Walter E.	Harland, A.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Everard, W. Lindsay	Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Harrison, G. J. C.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hartington, Marquess of
Campbell, E. T.	Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Haslam, Henry C.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Hawke, John Anthony	Margesson, Captain D.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Shepperson, E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.	Skelton, A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)	Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph	Storry Deans, R.
Holt, Captain H. P.	Nelson, Sir Frank	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Oakley, T.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Huntingfield, Lord	Penny, Frederick George	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F S.	Pielou, D. P.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	power, Sir John Cecil	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Radford, E. A.	Wells, S. R.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Ramsden, E.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Knox, Sir Alfred	Remer, J. R.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Lamb, J. O.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Rice, Sir Frederick	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)	Roberts, E. H. G, (Flint)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Locker Lampson, Com. O.(Hands W'th)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Looker, Herbert William	Rye, F. G.	Wolmer, Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Salmon, Major I.	Womersley, W, J,
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Macdonald, Capt. P, D. (I. of W.)	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Wragg, Herbert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
McLean, Major A.	Sandon, Lord
Macumillan Captain H.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Savery, S. S.	Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.
Macquisten, F. A.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Frederick Thomson.
Malone, Major P. B.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Potts. John S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hardie, George D.	Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ammon, Charles George	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon	Ritson, J.
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry	Scurr, John
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bromfield, William	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Stamford, T. W.
Cape, Thomas	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Stephen, Campbell
Clowes, S.	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Taylor, R. A.
Crawfurd, H. E.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Dalton. Hugh	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Varley, Frank B.
Duncan, C.	Kelly, W. T.	Viant, S. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Budwellty)	Lansbury, George	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
England, Colonel A.	Lawson, John James	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T. D.	Lindley, F. W.	Westwood, J.
Carro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lunn, William	Whiteley, W.
Gibbins, Joseph	Mackinder, W.	Wiggins, William Martin
Gillett, George M.	MacLaren, Andrew	Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Morris, R. H.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Murnin, H.	Windsor, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Owen, Major G.
Groves, T.	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Mr. Warne and Mr. Parkinson.
Hall, F. (York, W. R-, Normanton)

Questions put "That this House doth agree with the committee in the said Resolution.

The House divided Ayes, 190; Noes, 72.

Division No. 469.]	AYES.	[12.12 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Barclay-Harvey, C. M	Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T,	Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Albery, Irving James	Bethell, A.	Briscoe, Richard George
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)	Betterton, Henry B.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Blundell, F. N.	Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Boothby, R. J, G.	Bullock, Captain M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Burman, J. B.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Power, Sir John Cecil
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Harland, A.	Radford, E. A.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Harrison, G. J. C.	Ramsden, E.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hartington, Marquess of	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kenninaton)	Remer, J. R.
Campbell, E. T.	Haslam, Henry C.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)	Hawke, John Anthony	Rice, Sir Frederick
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)	Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Rye. F. G.
Christie, J. A.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Salmon, Major I.
Clarry, Reginald George	Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Samuel, A.M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Clayton, G. C.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Holt, Captain H. P.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Sanderson. Sir Frank
Cope, Major William	Howard, Captain Hon. Donald	Sandon, Lord
Couper, J. B.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Huntingfield, Lord	Savery, S. S.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Shepperson, E. W.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Skelton, A. N.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Lamb, J. O	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Dixey, A. C.	Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.	Stanley, Co. Hon, G. F. (Will'sden. E.)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Han. Sir Philip	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Edmonson, Major A. J.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Storry Deans, B.
Elliot, Captain Walter E	Looker, Herbert William	Streatfelid, Captain S. R.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Luce, Major. Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.	MacAndrew, Charles Glen	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Fielden, E. B.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of w.)	Titehfield, Major the Marquess of
Fleming, D, P.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	McLean, Major A.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Macmillan, Captain H.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Wells, S. R.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Macquisten, F. A.	Wheler, major Sir Granville C. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Malone, Major P. B.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Gates, Percy	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Margesson, Captain D.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Gee, Captain R,	Marriott, Sir J, A. R.	Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham	Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Meyer, sir Frank	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Grace, John	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Wolmer, Viscount
Grant, J. A.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Womersley, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Nail, Lieut.-Colonel sir Joseph	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Nelson, Sir Frank	Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge S Hyde)
Gretton, Colonel John	Neville, R. J.	Wragg, Herbert
Grotrian, H. Brent	Nicholson, O. (Westminster)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gunston, Captain D, W.	Oakley, T.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)	Penny, Frederick George	Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.
Hammersley, S. S.	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Frederick Thomson.
Hanbury, C.	Pielou, D. P.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)	Hardie, George D.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ritson, J
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Saklatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry	Scurr, John
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bromfield, William	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas	Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)	Taylor, R. A.
Clowes, S.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Thomson Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Crawfurd, H. E.	Jones, Henry Haydn I Merioneth)	Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh	Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)	Townend A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry	Kelly. W. T,	Viant, S. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lansbury, George	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
England, Colonel A.	Lawson, John James	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col, D. (Rhondda)
Fenby, T. D.	Lindley, F.W.	Westwood. J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Lunn, William	Whiteley W.
Gibbins, Joseph	MacLaren, Andrew	Wiggins, William Martin
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Morris, R. H.	Williams David (Swansea, E.)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Murnin, H.	Wilson, R J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Owen, Major G.	Windsor, Walter
Groves, T.	Paling, w.
Hall, F. (York, W, R., Normanton)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Potts, John S,	Mr. Warne and Mr. Parkinson.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Ronald McNeill, and Sir Burton Chadwick.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER proceeded to the Bar to present the Bill.

Captain BENN

I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any precedent for a Finance Bill being presented at the Bar of the House by any other than an official of the Treasury?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think that that is a point of order with which I have to deal. The Government are supposed to be one.

Captain BENN

For the past 60 years the practice has been that the finance of the year should be under the charge of the Treasury. This House is governed, not only by Standing Orders, but by practice and custom, and I submit that it is a very serious deviation from precedents and contrary to the long-established practice of this House that any Cabinet Minister other than a representative of the Treasury should appear at the Bar of the House to present a Finance Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is nothing irregular that I can call to mind at present.