CLAUSE 2.—(Power to require indication of origin in, the case of certain imported goods.)

HC Deb 23 November 1926 vol 200 cc231-90

Which Amendment was: In page 4, line 6, at the end, to insert the words (5) This Section shall not apply to goods imported for the purpose of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods, or for the purposes of replacement, repair, or maintenance, and winch goods so imported are—

1. (a) of so small a size as to render marking impracticable; or
2. (b) of such a nature that marking would impair their efficiency; or
3. (c) of such a nature that it would not be practically possible to apply either at all or effectively an indication of origin."—[Mr. R. Morrison.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. BARNES

This Amendment raises the question whether these Committees are to have full power of settling these matters without any direction from the House. We feel that it would be a distinct advantage for Parliament to indicate at least one or two guiding rules which should govern their deliberations. Obviously, there will be many categories of goods, which may involve considerable time and considerable expense in bringing various interests together to submit their case for and against. We all realise that when any particular proposal of this description is advanced, a variety of interests are affected which would wish their particular claims to be considered. That means bringing experts and representatives, involving a good deal of cost, to the Departmental Committee to submit their evidence, and possibly when all this procedure and machinery has been gone through eventually some technical difficulty may make it entirely unnecessary So the purpose of this Amendment is to lay down certain governing rules with regard to various categories of goods, which we feel will save a good deal of expense and a good deal of the time of the Committee. The Amendment is self-explanatory. It covers a large range of articles which are necessary for the purposes of replacement, repairs, and maintenance, and not only does it first of all limit the consideration of the Amendment to these classes of goods, but it inserts other provisos which make the Amendment additioNaily reasonable. It does not even ask that replacements or parts of machines or toofs necessary for repairs shall be excluded unless there are other definite disadvantages also, and it proceeds under the heading of (a), (b) and (c) to further make clear the purpose of the Amendment.

Under paragraph (a) an item of replacement or a piece of machinery that represents a replacement or a repair or a maintenance part must not only be in that category, but it must be of so small a size as to render marking impracticable. Surely it would be far better for these committees, before they proceed to decide whether a certain class of goods or articles or parts comes under the provision of this Bill, that a simple governing rule of that description should be first considered by the committee. If these articles are too small to be marked, all the committee has to do is to consider that one thing first of all before they involve the time of various persons and incur the expense that long investigations involve. Then with regard to paragraph (b), these items must be of such a nature that marking will impair their efficiency. That again, I think, is an obviously sensible provision to insert in the Bill. Marking is of no use either to the consumer, or I would say now—as the obvious purpose of the Bill is primarily in the interest of the producer, as explained by the advocates of the Bill opposite—to the producer, if it impairs the efficiency of the commodity. The third point is that these items should not be marked if they are of such a nature that it would not be practically possible to apply effectively an indication of origin. There are three governing rules which we desire to insert, believing that. before any article or commodity was considered by the committee they should first of all investigate whether this particular article came under either or alp of these governing regulations, and of course if they did the article is immediately removed from the scope of the provisions of the Bill. It will save a lot of time and will indicate the intention of Parliament that we desire certain governing regulations to be observed. We believe the Bill will be improved, at least to some extent, if the Amendment is adopted, and I commend it to the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

Are we to have no reply from the Parliamentary Secretary?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 205.

Division No. 480.]	AYES.	[3.42 p.m.
Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Harris, Percy A.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Ammon, Charles George	Hayday, Arthur	Scrymgeour, E.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Baker, Walter	Hirst, G. H.	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Barnes, A.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Barr, J.	Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)	Stamford, T. W.
Batey, Joseph	Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merionsth)	Sullivan, Joseph
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Charleton, H. C.	Kelly, W. T	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)
Cluse, W. S.	Kennedy, T.	Thurtle, Ernest
Compton, Joseph	Lansbury, George	Townend, A. E.
Connolly, M.	Lawrence, Susan	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Cove, W. G.	Lawson, John James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lee, F.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lunn, William	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	MacLaren, Andrew	Westwood, J.
Day, Colonel Harry	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Dennison, R.	MacNeill-Welr, L.	Whiteley, W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	March, S.	Wiggins, William Martin
England, Colonel A.	Montague, Frederick	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gibbins, Joseph	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gillett, George M.	Naylor, T. E.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Owen, Major G.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Palin, John Henry	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Groves, T.	Potts, John S.	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Riley, Ben	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)	Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.
Hardie, George D.	Rose, Frank H.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bullock, Captain M.	Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Everard, W. Lindsay
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Burman, J. B.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Albery, Irving James	Burton, Colonel H. W.	Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Fermoy, Lord
Apsley, Lord	Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Campbell, E. T.	Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Fraser, Captain Ian
Astor, Viscountess	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Frece, Sir Walter de
Atholl, Duchess of	Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Chapman, Sir S.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Ganzoni, Sir John
Beamish, Captain T. P. H	Christie, J. A.	Gates, Percy
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Goff, Sir Park
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Grace, John
Bennett, A. J.	Cohen, Major J. Brunel	Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)
Berry, Sir George	Cope, Major William	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Betterton, Henry B.	Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)	Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R,, Skipton)	Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Grotrian, H. Brent
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Braithwaite, A. N.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Brass, Captain W.	Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Hanbury, C.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Harrison, G. J. C.
Briggs, J. Harold	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hartington, Marquess of
Briscoe, Richard George	Drewe, C.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Brittain, Sir Harry	Eden, Captain Anthony	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Haslam, Henry C.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Hawke, John Anthony
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Elveden, Viscount	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Mayer, Sir Frank	Shepperson, E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Mitchell, S. {Lanark, Lanark)	Skelton, A. N.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Monsall, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, c.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)	Smithers, Waldron
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Murchison, C. K.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden,E.)
Hurd, Percy A.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)	Storry-Deans, R.
Hutchison, G. A. C.(Midl'n & Peebles)	Nuttall, Ellis	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Jephcott, A. R,	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Penny, Frederick George	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Tinne, J. A.
King, Captain Henry Douglas	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Kinloc[...]-Cooke, Sir Clement	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Knox, Sir Alfred	Pilditch, Sir Philip	Waddington, R.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Price, Major C. W. M.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Radford, E. A.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)	Raine, W.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Loder, J. de V.	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Looker, Herbert William	Remer, J. R.	Watts, Dr. T.
Lowe, Sir Francis William	Remnant, Sir James	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Rentoul, G. S.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Ropner, Major L.	Wise, Sir Fredric
McLean, Major A.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Womersley, W. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald Jo[...].	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.	Sandeman, A. Stewart	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-	Sandon, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Malone, Major P. B.	Savery, S. S.	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)	Lord Stanley.
Margesson, Captain D.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (5),

We propose to delete this Sub-section because of the very much wider scope the Bill has assumed in its passage through Committee. This Sub-section provides that If on inquiry … it appears to a committee that imported goods of any class or description to be used in the United Kingdom ought not to be sold unless distinguished from similar goods manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom or in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions but that, by reason of the nature of the goods it is not practically possible to apply either at all or effectively an indication of origin to these goods, … Then, if the Committee reports that the case ought to be dealt with, an Order in Council may be issued providing that such imported goods shall not be sold or exposed for sale in the United Kingdom unless they are distinguished … by some form of distinctive colouring or other variation in their make-up. Owing to the fact that the Bill did not give power requiring marking on importation, it seemed to be desirable that there should be some other method of marking, and this form of colouration suggested itself. It is more particularly applicable to heavy articles, such as articles in the steel trade, large bundles or iron rods, and so forth, where in the rough handling through which they pass in transit a mark applied after importation, which might have to be attached, might easily be removed. That was one of the reasons why we introduced this colouration provision. We thought that by colouration we might avoid that danger. It will be obvious to the House that marking at the time of manufacture can be more easily applied in the case of these heavy steel trades than in most of the trades which will come within the scope of the Bill. There were difficulties about the Clause in Committee, because in certain respects it might have been extended to foodstuffs, and all sorts of questions were raised as to what sort of foodstuffs should be marked, and where they should be marked. Since this marking has been extended, this seems to be no longer necessary. As a matter of fact, I sholdu think it is as easy, if not easier, to mark an iron girder with letters in accordance with the provisions of the Bill than it is to mark by colouration, and that would apply to almost all the articles in these heavy steel trades. Further, it would be a very difficult matter to amend the Clause as it stands in order to comply with the Bill, as the Clause as it stands would not apply to marking on importation, and would have to be amended. Also, the Bill would have to be amended to bring it into line with other alterations which have been made in the Bill.

Mr. WEBB

This Clause was maintained by the Government throughout the long proceedings of the Committee in spite of all arguments to the contrary, and during the whole of those proceedings my memory does not bear any impression as to the extent of the difficulties which the Government now discover. The Government put forward this Clause, in the first instance, without any reference to the question of marking On importation. There is no reference in the Clause, as origiNally drafted, as to whether there was to be any marking on importation or otherwise, and during the discussions in Committee it was repeatedly pointed out that the Clause as drafted would apply whether there was a requirement for marking on importation or no such requirement. I do not remember that the hon. Gentleman who has just given the explanation, or the right hon. Gentleman who took charge of the proceedings in Committee, ever suggested that this Clause had become inapplicable now that the power had been given to mark on importation any goods whatsoever. So much so, that when some of us put down an Amendment on the Report stage to re-insert in this Clause the words, "being foodstuffs," in order that it should be confined to foodstuffs, to which it had origiNally been confined, there was no suggestion made that the intention had always been to let it relate only to other things, such as iron bars, and so forth, which it now appears can be satisfactorily marked, though the Government did not suppose they could be satisfactorily marked.

However, what is interesting to note is that this is a Sub-section on which a large number of representatives of what is called the agricultural interest placed great hopes of an effective marking to distinguish the foreign or the colonial eggs from the British eggs. Now I should like to ask whether the Union Jack mark on the eggs is to be reserved for the British produced egg, and whether we are to be deprived of the rainbow variety of eggs altogether? It seems to me that the Bill will have certain consequences, and that those consequences will not be so much in the regions of economics or commerce, as in the region of politics, or, perhaps, I might better say, in the region of electioneering. It may be that at a farmers' meeting an hon. Member opposite may say that a valuable Act has been passed, but, probably, the hon. Member will not go on to explain that all the provisions as regards the colouration of things that come into this country in order that they may be distinguished in an indelible fashion from things made in this country, is to be given up, and not only the distinctive colouring, but also the requirement of some distinguishing shape or make-up is to be given up. All that goes by board.

4.0 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman has not explained the difficulty of the distinction in the make-up. I think it is ridiculous to insist on such a distinction, but this proposal, as I say, formed part of the policy of the Government, and part of the expert advice given to the Board of Trade, and a strong case was made out for it. I do not know how many hours we spent on Clause 5. At any rate, it was maintained with all the strength of the Government majority, and, in so far as numbers indicate wisdom, the proceedings of the Committee would lead readers to suppose, if there are any readers of the proceedings, that the wisdom and effectiveness of this Clause had been thoroughly demonstrated. Now we are told that it is only a matter relating to iron rods and things of that sort which can effectively be required to be marked before importation. I think, if the hon. Gentleman will look back to his former brief, he will find that the argument had a very much wider scope than that, that there were some goods which could not possibly be marked effectively, and it was for those goods that these means were proposed of a particular colouring of a distinguishable nature. That has all gone by the board, and another large range of goods is to escape this barrier, which it is proposed to put up against the ruinous flood of goods from abroad, which seem to have impressed, if not His Majesty's Government, at any rate a large number of their supporters. I do put it to the House that we ought to be told how the unfortunate agriculturist, on the one hand, and the unfortunate manufacturer on the other hand, are going to be protected in this way against those goods which it is not practicable to mark. It will be noticed that the Clause, as drafted, refers to things of a description to which it is not practically possible to apply either at all or effectively an indication of origin. It is not a question whether they are to be marked before importation or not. The Sub-section applies to all those goods to which it is not possible to apply at all or effectively an indication of origin. There are some goods which can be marked effectively in the process of manufacture or before importation, and these may be required to be so marked, but that still leaves all this class of goods which cannot he effectively marked, either before importation or after. A number of cases have been indicated. One case quoted last night was that of a toothpick. It is not practicable, either before or after importation, to mark effectively a toothpick or a lady's hairpin, if there are any lady's hairpins used now. There are other articles, I will not say of greater importance, but of greater variety and, perhaps, more serious than those to which I have alluded. These are all to be abandoned and British traders are to be subjected to a ruthless flood of foreign competition. The unfortunate agriculturist equally has a large number of articles which cannot be effectively marked. There are, for instance, the currant and the harmless blackberry. It would tax the ingenuity of the Minister of Agriculture effectively to mark them, even if he could mark them at all. It was expressly in order to meet goods of that clans that this Sub-section formed part of the policy of the Government, not merely at the time of the drafting of the Bill but during the long proceedings in Committee.

I confess that I have some feeling of dissatisfaction, having sat day after day discussing this Sub-section in Committee when all the time the Government knew that they were going to throw it to the wofves, or at any rate if they did not know then their conversion is more tardy and less explicable and less excusable because it can only have been after the proceedings in Committee that the Government have come to the conclusion that this Subsection either was not required or was not workable. If those considerations weigh with the Government, I can only say that I wish they would extend these considerations to other Clauses of the Bill. I cannot help thinking that there are a good many other provisions and Clauses in the Bill which cannot be carried out at all, or, if possible to be carried out, cannot be effectively carried out, or which are not required, excepting always for such purposes as I ought not to allude to in any more distinct way than to say that they are for platform purposes. I do not propose to divide against the suggestion of leaving out the Sub-section, because, after all, it is not wise that we should have any more of these bogus Clauses than are necessary; but I do suggest that the House has a right to be dissatisfied, and especially the followers of the right hon. Gentleman, that, having been offered this long Subsection occupying nearly half a page, which purports to be important, and having had it maintained day after day in Committee, it should now at this last hour be thrown over as being either entirely unnecessary or ineffective and impracticable.

Mr. HARRIS

I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade has now come into the House. We had, as we always have, an interesting statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, who gave us an explanation of the reasons why this Clause should be left out. We should like to know why it ever appeared in the Bill, and why it was thought necessary to insert these words. We criticised them very closely in Committee, but with very little success. I suppose, in order to convince the right hon. Gentleman, he must have two or three months to think things over. I suppose he has had some expert, practical knowledge from people in trade and industry, and has been convinced that he has introduced a very bad Bill, because on the Report stage most of the Amendments materially altering the Bill have been from the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have no doubt that if we carried on the Report stage for a few days longer some other Clauses would disappear. At any rate, if it were delayed to the next Session of Parliament it would be a very different Bill that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce.

I notice that most of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters in Committee, with one notable exception, who were so keen and enthusiastic about these colouring words, are conspicuous by their absence. I see that his supporter the expert on eggs and pigs is here. I do not know what he will have to say about the disappearance of this colouring matter which would save people from eating Danish butter when they thought they were eating English butter. We had agricultural experts in Committee explaining to us that it would do no harm, but would be an advantage that the butter from different countries should have different colourings. We are now told that these things are not necessary. I do not want to waste the time of the House. I am the last person to do that. Parliamentary time is very valuable, and I would not have intervened as we have got. our way if I did not want some assurance from the Minister himself in the interests of traders and business people of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary said these words were not necessary because of the enlargement of the Bill. I do not think that is an unfair interpretation of his statement. That) seems to me to indicate that it will be still possible, through the machinery of a Committee, for colouring to be insisted upon and required. If that be so, I would rather have the words in an Act of Parliament than leave it to the discretion of a Committee. Might I point out that traders and those connected with the agricultural interest who are endeavouring to protect the British farmer and manufacturer by having some distinguishing mark should see that these words are included in the Bill. Those who, on the contrary, believe that they are opposed to the interests of manufacturers and farmers should see that they are deleted. Sub-section (5) says: Where it is not practically possible to apply at all, or effectively, an indication of origin of goods, then the Committee may require some form of distinctive colouring or other variation in their make-up. Am I to understand that now the Committee will not be able to require some form of distinctive colouring or other variation in make-up, or, if we leave out these words, will it mean they will not be allowed to require these articles to be coloured purple, red, yellow or green according to their country of origin?

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

If the hon. Member will read the Bill, he will see that "indication of origin" is defined in Clause 3, and that the words to be used are either "foreign manufacture or produce" or "Empire manufacture or produce." It might be possible for the Committee to say that the word "foreign" should be in coloured letters. I do not, think it would be probable, but it would not be possible for the Committee to order the articles to be coloured.

Mr. HARRIS

Then we have gained something, and our efforts have not been in vain. We are going to protect the consumer. That shows that we were usefully employed in Committee upstairs in spite of the fact that we were closured over and over again, and it also shows that, we knew more than the President of the Board of Trade. This inspires us to go on with his education.

Mr. R. MORRISON

It is encouraging to us that there are more Government supporters here to-day, but it is particularly unfortunate that, being here, they should be met almost at the outset with a disappointing speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, announcing that the Government have abandoned half-a-page of the Bill. We have had this Sub-section for a long time in the Bill. It has been there during the Second Reading and all through the Committee stage, where it was fought line by line, and where hon. Members opposite repeatedly, in Divisions, supported the Government because they thought it was something good. Now this afternoon they have the disappointment of being told that, after all the fight which they put up in order to retain this Sub-section, the Government intend to throw them overboard and that they do not want the Sub-section; it does not appear to be practicable and, even if it were, there is no necessity for it. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite, who have been hungering during yesterday and to-day for some opportunity when they could rouse themselves into enthusiasm as to the possibilities of this Measure and when they could picture the benefits to the country that would accrue when it becomes an Act of Parliament, have not been very fairly treated 'by the Government. It seems to me to be an absolute confession of failure, and, if the Government would consent to postpone the whole Bill for a couple of months, I think they would then come forward and frankly propose to delete a good many more Sub-sections. I only hope that they will take that opportunity. There has never during the time that I have been a Member of this House been a Bill which has undergone so many changes and which has been so chopped and changed about in Committee as this Bill, and now here we are almost at the final stage and lumps of it are being taken out and thrown overboard and new pieces put in. It seems to me that even if the Government know what they hope to carry out they have not the haziest notion how to do it.

Mr. HARDIE

I suggest that the Government should take the Bill back for reconstruction, and reconstruction does not mean lopping off different parts but taking away the parts that are rotten and putting in fresh parts. The Parliamentary Secretary, strangely enough, left out the whole mass of the subject, and came to one item called steel. He left out of consideration all the other things that require marking just as much as steel. When it came to a question of marking steel we were told that we were getting away from the idea of colouration. I would say that the marking of steel would be most difficult, not the operation itself, but the retaining of that mark upon a steel pin as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. Supposing you have on that steel pin in raised letters "foreign produced," or suppose they are cut out, counter-sunk, or indented. Anyone skilled in the handling of an oxyhydrogen smelting blow-lamp can simply wipe out your raised letters on the steel pin or fill in where it has been cut out, and a run with an ordinary hand file will leave that steel pin in a state where no expert can say whether at any time or not there has been letters either raised or indented upon that pin. What is the use of men trying to pose in this House as being serious on a subject like this when anyone can, as I am doing now, expose the whole fallacy of the thing, The whole of the Parliamentary Secre- tary's speech was based upon the steel having this mark. He did not seem to understand that it was the most vulnerable thing of all, in connection with the marking of articles. There is n thing that you cannot do with a steel beam, when it comes to a question of heating or melting, with the implements that we have available to-day. In the old days it was necessary to put the whole bean' into a furnace. To-day there are portable instruments which will generate much more heat than the ordinary big furnace. There is, therefore, no protection, because the beam that comes in at the cheaper rate with "Foreign" marked on it, will have that mark wiped out and will be sold at a higher rate as what is called the home-produced article. Suppose that you have an article used in steel called mofybdenum. Why did the Parliamentary Secretary not tell us how he will proceed in marking things like that?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Because he would have been quite out of Order in making such an observation.

Mr. HARDIE

I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade is here to protect his colleague somewhat, but that is no answer to the question I have put. It might suffice in an ordinary debating society, but I presume that we are here on serious business. In any case it is Mr. Speaker who decides on questions of Order and not the President of the Board of Trade. What are to be the means used for dealing with other things besides steel? The President of the Board of Trade comes in and says, "Turn to Clause 9, page 11, and there you get the indication of origin, 'foreign produce.'" Yes, but how is he going to retain that mark? The Government have not put forward a single argument to show that any mark which can he put on can be retained until the consumer is satisfied as to what he is buying. Therefore, why not scrap the whole Bill?

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, after the word "apply," to insert the words "an indication of origin."

This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon one which has already been made.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The next three Amendments in my name are also consequential.

Mr. BARNES

Are we not taking the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)?

Mr. SPEAKER

No. I did not propose to select that Amendment, which has been covered by the discussions we have had already. I propose to select later the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris).

Mr. BARNES

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh deals exclusively with the disfiguring of an article so as to affect its sale.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think that has been dealt with in a previous Amendment.

Mr. BARNES

The previous Amendment covered the replacement of parts of a larger article. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh deals with a complete article that may be sold by itself on the market.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

On that point of Order, There was an Amendment before us yesterday which raised the whole issue of marking in such a way as injuriously to affect an article. What we have already assented to provided that the marking must be in such a way as to be practical, and so as not to injure.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is so.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, leave out from the word "goods" in line 39, to the word "with" in line 40.

Leave out from the word "origin" in line 44, to the word "recommend" in line 45.

In page 5, line 2, leave out from the first word "goods" to the end of the Sub-section.—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, at the end, to insert the words () A committee may and shall if so required by any persons representing interests substantially affected report as to what provision should be made under which imported goods of a perishable nature not marked or distinguished in accordance with an Order in Council may be landed, unshipped, or transhipped, including provisions (if the committee think fit) for the consignee entering into bond with one sufli- cient surety in such sum as the committee may recommend for the marking or distinguishing of such goods in accordance with the requirements of such Order, so far as practicable, before the sale or exposure for sale thereof in the United Kingdom. This is an Amendment of a very practical kind, which I hope the Government will be prepared to accept. If the President of the Board of Trade cannot accept the exact words proposed, he will secure the smooth working of the Bill and do much to prevent hardship and injury to consumers by inserting something of the kind. It is important that something should be clone. I presume that this matter will be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, who is always so sweetly reasonable and anxious to do what is fair and just. Among the articles that are likely to be affected are imported perishable food, such as fruit, vegetables, butter and meat. These articles, if held up by the Customs, must be injuriously affected, if not damaged to such an extent as to become unsaleable. I understand that what is proposed is that the box or the sack or basket that contains these fruits and vegetables shall bear an imprint on the outside as to the country of origin. At certain times of the year, particularly in the summer, hundreds of thousands of cases of perishable stuff come into Dover for Covent Garden or into London for Smithfield. There are enormous interests, concerned.

It is probable that in the early days of this Rill's operation many of the cases containing these goods will not be properly marked. Much of the fruit imported is produced in country districts abroad, for instance, in Southern France, where the facilities for stamping cases will not be adequate, and it is possible that large consignments will come to this country improperly marked. We ask that in such cases the importer, if he gives a substantial guarantee that when the goods are placed on sale their country of origin will be indicated, he should be allowed to bring the goods into this country and so save them from the destruction or damage that would result from delay if he had to satisfy the Customs, find the necessary money, brand them and fulfil all the other requirements. Something of that sort is essential. We have had some experience in the working of another Act, especially in connection with the importation of silk. There have been endless delays. Silk has been held up for many weeks in order to satisfy the Customs, in order that the necessary brand or certificate or money may be found, or in order to show whether the article is wholly silk or only partially silk.

We are bound to have a similar experience under this Bill. Of course delay with silk, though serious, has not been fatal. It may have resulted in lost trade, but the goods have still been saleable. Take the case of meat coming from Holland. Large cargoes of pork come every year, and if held up they miss the market. Then there are strawberries, cherries, cabbages, beans, and flowers. If the Minister of Agriculture does not want to have his life made a burden by traders asking why so many cargoes have been damaged by being held up, if he does not want to be pestered by letters to the Press, or by deputations to Ins Department, something of the kind suggested in the Amendment is required. We have had from the President of the Board of Trade some concession about colouring matter. Let us have from the Minister of Agriculture some concession on this point, and we shall then be doing something to make the Bill less injurious to the trade and the country, and, above all, less injurious to the consumers.

Mr. WIGGINS

I beg to second the Amendment.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)

The proposal of the Amendment is that in the case of perishable goods the Committee which recommends as to the Order should also deal with the way in which the goods are to be landed from ships. Of course these perishable goods will, in the ordinary case, concern the Minister of Agriculture. In our opinion, the proper way to deal with this question is to leave the administration in the discretion of the Department of Customs. The case can arise only where the goods are subject to an Order to be marked before importation. If there is any difficulty about marking before importation, the Committee which inquires into the application will naturally recommend that they be marked after importation, and will make the necessary provision to deal with that point. If, however, it is laid down that the goods are to be marked before importation, it would be a great invitation to evasion to say that in spite of that Order they should go past the control of the Customs without effective marking. The case arises very often to-day. Under various powers the Board of Customs have to see that certain requirements as to marking are fulfilled. In the ordinary course no difficulty arises in marking these goods under the control of the Board of Customs.

I am sure that in the case of perishable foodstuff, where the urgency of marking will he greater than in the case of nonperishable goods, they will fulfil their responsibilities in the same spirit as in the past. No complaints have been made as to any lack of reason or consideration in these matters on the part of the Board of Customs. In the other matters dealt with in the Amendment, transit and re-exportation, we have already provided in the Bill, at the bottom of page 3, that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall deal with these matters on compliance with such conditions as to security as they may impose.

Captain BENN

Re-exportation?

Mr. GUINNESS

Yes. They are doing that constantly to-day, and they are obviously the people to deal with these questions of administration. There is no difficulty about it, and it is far more convenient to the trader that these questions of bond and security, of transit and re-exportation should be in the hands of the Customs who have for long administered such questions without any difficulty.

Captain BENN

I understand this is the first time it has been proposed to mark perishable goods. Brands and Customs formalities are required in the case of many other a tides, but delay in distribution from the ports does not affect the value of those other articles. It may affect their market f Dr the moment, but not their intrinsic value. Here we are proposing for the first time to put this hindrance in the way of the importation of perishable goods. There may be delays due to the slowness of the Customs officials, to the accumulation of work, or to some mistake on their part. I am not speaking of any wilful default in carrying out the instructions given under this Measure. In such a case, what is to happen to a person who pays for such goods, and who finds a whole stock left on his hands without any value?

Mr. GUINNESS

If the goods are properly marked, they can pass through. If they are to be allowed to come in, despite an Order which has been framed in view of all the circumstances of the case, declaring that they are to be marked on importation, then it is merely putting a premium on breaking the law. As a matter of fact, the Customs administration in this country deals with such matters in an absolutely efficient manner at the present time. We had only this year an Order concerning cherries from infested districts abroad. At very short notice we put on a restriction that no cherries should come in unless they were covered by certificates from foreign Governments as to their origin and came from areas free from the cherry maggot. The Customs administered that Order, and there was no difficulty whatever.

Mr. BARNES

Did it not lead to a rise in the price of cherries?

Mr. GUINNESS

It led to a shortage of cherries because at that time the only cherries on the market were these foreign cherries, and it was a choice between having diseased cherries or no cherries at all. But that is quite beside the point. What I suggest is that the Customs are quite able to administer the clearing of these perishable goods without any delay, and that if we were to accept this proposal, we should inevitably have a great amount of evasion.

Miss LAWRENCE

The Minister has drawn an analogy which is not at all cheering. He points out that the Customs were perfectly capable of declaring that certain imported cherries were infected, and then destroying them. I am very much afraid that the Customs, following the precedent of the cherries, will say in regard to these other articles of food: "They are not properly marked; we will destroy them as efficiently as we destroyed the maggotty cherries." That is their tradition, apparently, in dealing with articles of food. The question of whether food is to be destroyed or not is one on which we ought to have better assurances than those we have had up to the present. The Customs officers are not accustomed to deal in a great hurry with perishable articles, and serious difficulties may arise if a particular port is filled with an importation of perishable articles. I mentioned in Committee how much the jam trade relies upon what may almost be described as "sudden" supplies of fruit. If these were to come in unmarked, in some cases a day's delay would mean that the whole stock would go bad and rotten. I raised that matter in Committee, and I had a very gloomy and dubious answer from the Minister of Agriculture. He said: In a case of no great gravity, an opportunity of marking would be given on importation. In other cases it is possible to arrange for their return; in graver cases that arrangement can be made, but there may well be occasions when, owing to the grossness of the offence or the impossibility of return, there would be no alternative except to destroy or to let the foodstuff rot on the quay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 15th July, 1926; col. 579.] Thus we see that these foodstuffs are to be destroyed, or left to rot on the quay in eases where it is impossible to ship them back—which would be nearly all cases—or where the offence has been gross. Nothing is said about the value of the food or the necessity for preserving it. We have only that most alarming statement. If people send in food not marked according to the law, I suppose somebody has to suffer, but that such food should be allowed to rot on the quay on account of the grossness of the offence committed by the importer seems an altogether wicked business. The food ought to be confiscated if necessary and sold if necessary. It could do no harm to our trade to sell off a few parcels of food which have come in irregularly. My view is that food is so precious, that even to contemplate allowing it to rot on the quay because of the grossness of an offence against this Measure is intolerable. I want from the Minister rather better assurances than we had in Committee on this question. If the offence has been gross, confiscation is a very useful weapon and a sufficient punishment. It will not hurt the importer any more if you allow the food to rot, and it will make this country very much the poorer. I would press for some assurance as to what is to be done in regard to the marketing of perishable articles which have come in not properly marked.

Mr. RILEY

I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to an aspect of this question which has not yet been men- tioned. The reply of the Minister to this Amendment is that the matter will be left to the discretion of the Customs, and that their discretion is quite enough to meet the situation contemplated by the Amendment. When this Bill becomes an Act, the Customs will be endowed statutory powers to exclude goods which do not conform to this Measure as regards marking. It is all very well to say that this discretion has been used already in the case of the cherries, but I understood the Minister to say that the discretion was then used on the instructions of his Department. Take the case of goods which meet with some accident in transit. The packages may be knocked about during a rough passage, and labels or other markings destroyed. Will specific instructions he given to the Customs, whereby, on the surety of the importer that the goods will not be sold unmarked, he will be

allowed to have such goods delivered? There is the other case which I mentioned yesterday as to consignments of meat and other foodstuffs the destination of which is uncertain at the time of their despatch. Instructions may be given by wireless to the master of a ship at sea as to the port at which the goods are to be delivered, and a cargo intended for a foreign country may be diverted to London. Will steps be taken to see that such goods are delivered in London on the surety of the importer that they will be marked? The reply that this matter will be left to the discretion of the Customs does not meet the case, unless we are also assured that definite instructions will be issued from the Department concerned.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 233.

Division No. 481.]	AYES.	[4.42 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Saklatvala, Shapur[...]
Ammon, Charles George	Hardie, George D.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Attlee, Clement Richard	Harris, Percy A.	Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, Walter	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes, A.	Hayday, Arthur	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Barr, J.	Hayes, John Henry	Slesser, sir Henry H.
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bromfield, William	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Stamford, T. W.
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stephen, Campbell
Clowes, S.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Sullivan, Joseph
Cluse, W. S.	Kelly, W. T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Connolly, M.	Kennedy, T.	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Cove, W. G.	Lansbury, George	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lawrence, Susan	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh	Lee, F.	Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lowth, T.	Townend, A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lunn, William	Wallhead, Richard C.
Day, Colonel Harry	MacLaren, Andrew	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dennison, R.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Duckworth John	MacNeill-Welr, L.	Westwood, J.
Dunnico, H.	March S.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Montague, Frederick	Whiteley, W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.I	Wiggins, William Martin
England, Colonel A.	Naylor, T. E.	Wilkinson Ellen C.
Gardner, J. P.	Oliver, George Harold	Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gibbins, Joseph	Palin, John Henry	Williams. David (Swansea, East)
Gillett, George M.	Paling, W.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gosling, Harry	Ponsonby, Arthur	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Potts, John S.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Pureed, A. A.	Windsor, Walter
Groves, T.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. w.	Riley, Ben
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil	Rose, Frank H.	Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)	Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Albery, Irving James	Astor, Viscountess	Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Atholl, Duchess of	Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Apsley, Lord	Balniel, Lord	Bennett, A. J.
Berry, Sir George	Grace, John	Nuttall Eilis
Betterton, Henry B.	Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R, Skipton)	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Boothby, R. J. G.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Penny, Frederick George
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wth's'w, E.)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.	Grotrian, H. Brent	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Braithwaite, A. N.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Price, Major C. W. M.
Briggs, J. Harold	Hammersley, S. S.	Radford, E. A.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hanbury, C.	Raine, W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)	Hartington, Marquess of	Remer, J. R.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Remnant, Sir James
Bullock, Captain M.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Rice, Sir Frederick
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Haslam, Henry C.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'is'y)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hawke, John Anthony	Ropner, Major L.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouih)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Rye, F. G.
Campbell, E. T.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hills, Major John Waller	Sandon, Lord
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. B. (Prtsmth.S)	Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G.	Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A,	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Savery, S. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew.W.)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'yr
Charteris, Brigadier-General,I.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).	Shepperson. E. W.
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, R. 9. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Skelton, A. N.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Hurd, Percy A.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Clarry, Reginald George	Hurst, Gerald B.	Smithers, Waldron
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Hiffe, Sir Edward M.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Cope, Major William	Jephcott, A. R.	Storry-Deans, R.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Courthope, Lieut. Col. Sir George L.	Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	King, Capt. Henry Douglas	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)	Knox, Sir Alfred	Templeton, W, P.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)
Dalkeith. Earl of	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Dalziel, Sir Davison	Looker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Tinne, J. A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F,(Somerset, Yeovil)	Loder, J. de V.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Looker, Herbert William	Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Lowe. Sir Francis William	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera	Waddington, R.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Drewe, C.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	McLean, Major A	Watts, Dr. T.
Ellis, R. G.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Wells, S. R.
Elveden, Viscount	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Macquisten, F. A.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Malone, Major P. B.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fermoy, Lord	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Wise, Sir Fredric
Fielden, E. B.	Margesson, Captain D.	Withers, John James
Finburgh, S.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Wolmer, Viscount
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Womersley, W. J.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Frece, Sir Walter de	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dga & Hyde)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col, Anthony	Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Morrison, F. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Gates, Percy	Murchison. C. K.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Major Hennessy and Captain
Goff, Sir Park	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld-)	Lord Stanley.

Mr. WEBB

I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end, to insert the words (8) This Section shall not apply to goods of a class or description which are not manufactured or produced in substantial quantities for sale in the United Kingdom. This Amendment is designed, in accordance with the ostensible purpose of the Bill, to relieve from the onerous obligations proposed those goods where there is no object in putting on the obligation because they cannot actually, be misleading to consumers, seeing that they are goods of a class or description which are not manufactured or produced in sub- stantial quantities for sale in the United Kingdom. There is no reason why we should aim at hitting imports from overseas as such. I cannot understand the kind of impression that all imports are, as such, injurious to this country or to our trade or employment. I have always believed that our import trade was at least as valuable as our export trade, and gave as much employment and produced as much profit as the export trade did, in addition to the even more important consideration of our great shipping industry in relation to imports. Now there appears to be a sort of impression that imports, as such, are injurious, and that even if they cannot be altogether kept out they shall be stigmatised and frowned upon. I am interested to see the Board of Trade taking up that position, or at least assumed to be taking up that position. It is not in accordance with the traditions of the Board of Trade and I should not have thought that the Board would have adhered to that position. But that is the position taken up by very many Members in this House. Here is a Bill which proposes to impose the obligation of marking, and of making it quite clear that an article is not produced in this country or manufactured here. That may be necessary in order to enable the consumer to know what he is buying and to enable him to satisfy his desire for a British egg or anything of that sort, but I should have thought it would have been simpler if the obligation had been put upon the British producer to mark his article and rely on the quality which he believes it to possess, and thus to make it known. That course has not been adopted by the Government. They leave the British producer free not to mark his article, however bad or however good it is, and they put the obligation on the foreign article, however bad, or however good it is.

It would not be in order for me to enlarge on all the consequences of that policy, but I would just point out that there is some inconvenience in extending it so far as to cover articles in regard to which there is no doubt that they are not produced in this country and therefore the consumer cannot be under a wrong impression. One of those inconveniences is that you advertise the fact of foreign production and manufacture. I should have thought that if there is any value at all in encouraging British trade and manufacture as against foreign, it would not be desirable unnecessarily to emphasise the fact that an article was made, say, in Germany, and thus to let the customer know that these articles are not produced here. These goods are sometimes far superior, in some cases, in quality to any produced in this country, and they are very often superior to many others produced in this country, and it is not good business to have this compulsory marking of goods and have them advertised in this way.

Here is a case where there is no object in insisting on their having this mark, because it is not required to enable the consumer to be satisfied as to whether the article is British or foreign. The Amendment is designed to exclude from the necessity of this marking goods of a class or description not made or produced in this country in substantial quantities, and, consequently, as far as the ostensible object of the Bill is concerned, there does not seem to be any reason why compulsory marking should be required in such cases. We went into this question in Committee and the right lion. Gentleman in charge of the Bill explained that there was no reason to be advanced against the proposal I am making except that he said it might not be convenient to a Committee which wanted to recommend the compulsory marking of particular articles which were produced in this country if they had to restrict their order simply to those goods, and therefore it might be more convenient to them to use a general term and order compulsory marking of goods of a particular class, whether made in this country or not. That was the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman in the case of pottery. It was said there are certain kinds of pottery and articles made of earthenware and china clay which are not made in this country—not merely a-particular pattern but whole classes—and that it would be very much more convenient for the Committee, if they thought it desirable to order the marking of some kinds of pottery, to say that all goods of the nature of pottery should be marked. That is an argument which has a validity as far as it goes, but I suggest we ought not, for the sake of making it more convenient to deal in general terms with the whole section of goods of this kind, to include some we do not wish to stigmatise and others which there is no necessity to give a free advertisement to. We ought not merely, in order to save a line of print, or something of that sort, to encourage the Committee or make it necessary for the Committee, if they are to attain their object, to impose an 'obligation which they wish to impose with regard to some articles, upon a great many other articles not produced in this country.

That is an argument which warrants me in suggesting that this Amendment might very well be accepted, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman on consideration will so see his way, if not to accept the words, which possibly are not up to the high standard of draftsmanship imposed by the Bill, though we have had to correct it to an enormous extent. I say that not in any criticism of Parliamentary draftsmen, for whom I have the profoundest sympathy, but if you have a Bill of this kind it does require Parliamentary draftsmanship of a standard which is not easily attainable by the ordinary Member of the House, and therefore I say, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my crudely expressed Amendment, at any rate, will he consider whether it would not to possible to make it unnecessary, in order to attain the object of the Bill, to make his penal Order, his restrictive, costly and extravagantly expensive Order, cover a very much larger field in some instances than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. MARCH

I beg to second the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

I would ask the Minister not to stop the importation of necessary goods into this country because of the vast amount of employment that it finds for the workers in the London areas and in East London especially. We have always been given to understand that the importation of goods found employment for workers and that the exportation of goods followed in return. Therefore, we think the Government would be wise in not putting too much opposition in the way of articles and goods manufactured abroad coming into this country when we do not manufacture the same kind of goods here.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. Member who has just spoken is, I think, under a misconception. This Bill does not prohibit the importation of goods; it merely says that where an Order has been made foreign goods are not to come in unless they are marked as foreign. It will be perfectly open to people who import foreign goods to go on doing so, but the goods must be marked as foreign, and the buyer will know that he is buying foreign goods. The objections to this Amendment are on their merits, and I am not quarrelling with the draftmanship of the Amendment. If I accepted this Amendment, it would open the door to any amount of evasion, and it would have the very serious effect of making it impossible to make an Order to mark any Empire products which are not also produced in this country. Anyone who has had anything' to do with administration must realise that you must make your administration watertight. If you admit any exceptions, there can be manàuvring, and your administration goes by the board. An ingenious importer could persuade an ingenious manufacturer abroad to make pottery of a slightly different description and a little different in the design, and he could come and say: "This is not the same as pottery which is manufactured in this country." That opens the door to any amount of evasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) asks for facility of administration that the Bill may be executed rapidly, that there may be no hold-up in the ports. Can you conceive anything more likely to hold up goods in the ports than if an unfortunate Customs official has to wend his way through infinite intricacies in the designs Of pottery? That is one objection, but there is another which is certainly not less serious. The Imperial Economic Committee, in every one of its Reports, has laid stress on the fact of the Dominions not being able to bargain for the marketing of their produce. If this Amendment were to go through, there is not a single commodity produced in the British Empire which could be marked under this Bill unless the commodity is also produced in large quantities here. That is enough to condemn this proposal.

Captain BENN

Is it true to say that Imperial products, if this Amendment were accepted, could not possibly bear an indication of origin? I do not think that is true at all. At the present moment their best products are marked as "Best New Zealand this" and "Best New Zealand that." There is nothing to prevent that going on if this Amendment is accepted. It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman has given a totally false impression.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

No, Sir; the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said that if the Amendment were carried an Order could not be made under this Bill.

Captain BENN

The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that if this Amendment were carried it would be impossible for Imperial producers to market their goods. He cannot deny that they are quite at liberty to advertise their goods if they wish without any Order under this Bill. All that will happen here if we do not exclude this class of goods will be this: You are not protecting the consumer, because he cannot get home goods in any case, as the Order only applies to foreign goods. You will be forcing the foreign manufacturer to advertise his goods in this country. He will not advertise bad German pottery or cheap Dutch supplies; he will mark the goods as the best, and that will produce in the minds of the consumers an appetite for these things and a desire to have them. The right lion. Gentleman has not made any case against this Amendment except from the one false point as to Empire produce. His case really is that, by excluding goods, whether they are made here or not, he is in effect putting up a barrier to prevent the free importation of articles for the benefit of consumers in this country. That is the object. of this Bill, but that is a plea that he dare not put in.

Mr. BASIL PETO

I would like to add a word to what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade: but before I do so I would like to refer to the speech which was made by the Mover of this Amendment. He divided his speech into two parts; one dealing with goods in general and the other dealing particularly with the marking of fruit. He said that nobody would suppose that bananas were produced in any quantity in this country, and that, therefore, that showed the absurdity of the draftsmanship of the Bill in insisting upon the possibility of the Committee ordering such a thing as the marking of bananas. But, although bananas are not grown in this country, they are grown in the British Empire, and they ought to be grown much more largely than they are. I believe they would he if people had the means of knowing whether they were buying foreign or Empire bananas. There is no reason why the proportion of Empire fruit purchased by people in this country should not be enormously increased. With regard to the remainder of the argument as to goods generally, the President of the Board of Trade pointed out the administrative difficulty, the impossibility, if this Amendment were put into the Bill, of carrying out the provisions of the Bill at all if Customs officers had to distinguish between one kind of pottery and another. But there is another reason. The right hoe. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) instanced pottery and said there were some classes of pottery that are not made in this country. It would be a good thing that the people of this country should know that. I cannot imagine anything that, would be more likely to produce a demand for home-produced pottery than the British public finding out that certain kinds of pottery are only produced abroad. It is always said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill cannot do anything to assist employment in this country, but this one fact proves that to be an absolute fallacy. All the arguments we have heard to-day we have already heard upstairs in Committee, and the same Amendments are being moved to-day as wore moved there. I do think it is important that now and then, at any rate, we should make some answer from this side of the House besides the answer made by the Minister. I know it is important to Carry the Bill through, and no one is more anxious to see it in force than I am, lout when arguments of this kind are brought forward and are based upon the supposition that this Bill is dealing with things that are produced only in the United Kingdom, I think those arguments should he answered. To hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham you would imagine he had never heard c f any other part of the British Empire than these islands, and that he never had the Empire in mind when he was framing his Amendment. If he had, being a skilled draftsman, as he says, he would have drafted his Amendment in an entirely different way.

Mr. HARMS

We are glad to have from hon. Gentlemen opposite an answer to some of our arguments. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken really shows the policy which hon. Members opposite wish to follow. It is the policy of scarcity, of discouraging foreign goods coming into this country. Our policy is the policy of abundance: we want to attract foodstuffs to this country so as to reduce the cost of living, which is the cause of all the industrial unrest. Every barrier, whether it takes the form of safeguarding of industries, of tariffs or of branding foreign goods, will make that more difficult, and that is what hon. Members opposite want to do£to discourage the foreigner from sending

his butter, his corn and other foodstuffs into this country. The cost of articles of food are too high here. The words of the song are only too true, "Yes, we have no bananas," at least in the East End, because the prices are prohibitive. The hon. Gentleman and his friends want to make it impossible for the foreigner to send in these goods. We know there is a lot of advertising of Empire goods, and it is a good, sound policy. We ought to advertise our own goods. If British producers would standardise their goods and advertise them, that would be the way to encourage consumers to give a preference to British goods, not passing legislation of this kind which will only disorganise British trade.

Question put. "That those words he there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 102: Noes, 250.

Division No. 482.]	AYES.	15.16 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Riley, Ben
Ammon, Charles George	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Ritson, J.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hardie, George D.	Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Baker, Walter	Harris, Percy A.	Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Barnes, A.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barr, J.	Mayday, Arthur	Scrymgeour, E.
Batey, Joseph	Hayes, John Henry	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, William	Hore-Beilsha, Leslie	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bromley, J.	Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Smith, Rennie (penistone)
Buchanan, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Stamford, T. W.
Clowes, S.	Kelly, W. T.	Stephen, Campbell
Close, W. S.	Kennedy, T.	Sullivan, Joseph
Connolly, M.	Lansbury, George	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cove, W. G.	Lawrence, Susan	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dalton, Hugh	Lee, F.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lowth, T.	Thurtle, Ernest
navies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lunn, William	Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry	MacLaren, Andrew	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dennison, R.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan)	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Duckworth, John	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Westwood, J.
Dunnico, H.	March, S.	Whiteley, W.
England, Colonel A.	Montague, Frederick	Wiggins, William Martin
Gardner, f. P.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gibbins, Joseph	Naylor, T. E.	Williams. David (Swansea, E)
Gillett, George M.	Oliver, George Harold	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gosling, Harry	Owen, Major G.	Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)	Palin, John Henry	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Paling, W.	Windsor, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Ponsonby, Arthur
Groves, T.	Potts, John S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy. T. W.	Purcell, A. A.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normantnn)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Henderson.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent,Dover)	Bennett, A. J.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James I.	Astor, Viscountess	Berry, Sir George
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Atholl, Duchess of	Bethel, A.
Albery, Irving James	Balniel, Lord	Betterton, Henry B.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Banks, Reginald Mitchell	Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Barclay-Harvey, C M.	Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Apsley, Lord	Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Blundell, F. N.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Boothby, R. J. G.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Bourne. Captain Robert Croft
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Braithwaite, A. N.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Penny, Frederick George
Bridgeman, Ht, Hon. William Clive	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Brings, J. Harold	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Briscoe, Richard George	Grotrian, H. Brent	Perring, Sir William George
Brittain, Sir Harry	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hall, Vice-AdmiralSirR. (Eastbourne)	Pielou, O. P.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hammersley, S. S.	Pilditch. Sir Philip
Brown. Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)	Hanbury, C.	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Buckingham, Sir H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Price, Major C. W. M.
Bullock, Captain M.	Harrison, G. J. C.	Radford, E. A.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Raine, W.
Burman, J. B.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Reid, Capt. A. S. c. (Warrington)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Haslam, Henry C.	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hawke, John Anthony	Remer, j. R.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Remnant, Sir James
Caine, Gordon Hall	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V L. (Bootle)	Rhys, Hon C. A. U.
Campbell. E. T.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Rice, Sir Frederick
Cassels, J. D.	Hennessy, Major J, R. G.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Herbert.S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)
Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)	Hills. Major John Waller	Ropner, Major L.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebonc)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Rye, F. G.
Chapman, Sir S.	Holt, Captain H. P.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Chlicott. Sir Warden	Hopkinson. Sir A. (Erie. Universities)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N).	Sandon, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd.Whiteh'n	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave O.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hume-William, Sir W. Ellis	Savery, S. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurd, Percy A.	Shaw, Lt -Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts. Westb'y;
Cockerill. Brig.-General Sir G. K.	Hutchison.G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Shepperson, E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Hiffe, Sir Edward M.	Skelton. A. N.
Conway. Sir W. Martin	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'D	Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cope, Major William	Jephcott, A. R.	Smithers, Waldron
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	Kindersley, Major O. M.	Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Stanley. Lord (Fylde)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Kinloeh-Cooke, sir Clement	Storry-Deans, R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend>	Knox, Sir Alfred	Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick;	Lane Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.	Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Curzon. Captain Viscount	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Datziel, Sir Davison	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Templeton, W. p.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset.Yeovil)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Thorn, Lt. col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Loder, J. de V,	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Davies, Or. Vernon	Looker, Herbert William	Tinne, J. A.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Tryon. Rt. Hon. George Clement
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere	Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Drewe, C	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Eden, Captain Anthony	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Waddington, R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Ellis, R. G.	Macdonald, H. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Warner, Brigadier-General w. W.
Elveden, Viscount	McLean, Major A.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Macmillan, Captain H.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Watts Dr. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Macquisten, F. A.	Wells. S. R.
Fairlax, Captain J. G.	MacRobert. Alexander M.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Fade, Sir Bertram G.	Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel.	William, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fermoy, Lord	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fielden, E. B.	Malone, Major P. B.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Finburgh, S.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ford, Sir P. J.	Margesson, Captain D.	Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	M filer, R. J	Wise, Sir Fredric
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Wolmer, Viscount
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Womersley, W. J.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Frece, Sir Walter de	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)	Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gates, Percy	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Murchison, C. K,	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Goff, Sir Park	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)	Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Bowyer.
Grace, John	Nuttall, Ellis
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld.. N.)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out from the word "goods" to the word "and" in line 18.

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS

f beg to move, in page 5, line 19, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "six."

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to prove quite adamant, but I hope to persuade him to make some small concession to the much despised merchant class. I know he considers them unworthy of any consideration, and perhaps some people would like to see them ruined. The trading community has passed through very difficult times during the last 12 or 18 months. They have large accumulations of stock, big contracts in hand, and they have not been able to take delivery of many of them because of the trade depression. I put it to the President of the Board of Trade that it is not wise to bring in the whole machinery of this Bill, with all its requirements and Regulations, and the penalties which are involved, until the trade of the country has had time to adjust itself to the new conditions, to alter their plans, change their cases, and alter the make-up of their goods in order to satisfy the requirements of this Measure. I know the Minister contends that the trade has had reasonable notice. Yesterday he made much play on the fact that this Bill was introduced last May but, as I pointed out, it was introduced in very exceptional circumstances. It was introduced on a day when Parliament was paying less attention to its work than on any day within the last 50 years. It was the day on which the general strike terminated, and the public, the Press and the trading community of the country were quite unconscious that this was the day chosen in order to smuggle through Parliament this Merchandise Marks Bill. It is true that it has had three predecessors, but they never became Acts of Parliament because the opposition was so effective. This is a Government Measure, of course, but it does not arouse any enthusiasm in the serried ranks of the Protectionist party opposite, who are at the moment conspicuous by their absence. But the business people and the traders of this country are very much alarmed.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke with great contempt of the London Chamber of Commerce; he brushed its decision aside. But he knows that the decision of that Chamber of Commerce was unanimous, it was carried without a single dissentient vote. It was indeed carried with acclamation and enthusiasm. And this Chamber of Commerce represents no less than 60,000 traders—the most powerful trading organisation in the world. The right hon. Gentleman at a time of great trade depression is going to inflict untold hardship upon merchants if he puts these provisions into operation at once. I say he should give them a little time to adjust their stocks, to exhaust their contracts and become accustomed to the new conditions which will be imposed. That is a fair and reasonable concession, and I hope he will extend the time given in this Clause from three months to six months.

Mr. MORRISON

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a small and reasonable request., and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, will at last show, a change of heart and make us some little concession in return for all the efforts we have made during the last two days. Three months is a very short period indeed, particularly when it is realised that there may have to be a good deal of correspondence with persons abroad over changes to be introduced, and alterations of plant for stamping and printing articles. All this takes time, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to inflict larger losses on traders than he is compelled to. Yesterday when I endeavoured to get the operation of the first Clause delayed for 12 months instead of six months the right hon. Gentleman retorted to me that he thought six months was quite reasonable notice seeing the Bill had been before the House for so long. The answer to that is that two or three Bills of this character have been before the House on previous occasions and have died before birth; and, therefore, up to now the trading community have had no guarantee that the Government were any more in earnest about this Bill than the previous Bills.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and he knows perfectly well that it is true, that it is only within the last few days that many thousands of business people have, to use a slang expression, begun to "sit up and take notice" of this Bill. That may not be so as regards Chambers of Commerce and organisations of that kind, although the London Chamber of Commerce is taking a good deal more notice of this Bill since it came out of Committee than it did pre- viously, having evidently realised the danger; but apart from these organisations a very large number of individual traders who will be affected by the Measure have only recently begun to take notice of it and to try to understand its full implications. For all these reasons I think the right hon. Gentleman might grant this small concession, because even six months is barely sufficient for a great deal of the work that may have to be done in making alterations to plant, especially in the case of goods made under a system of mass production.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I do not think anybody in business circles has been taken by surprise by this Bill. I have had the privilege of consultations with—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I was saying that no one could have been taken by surprise because not only has the Bill been before the country for the last six months, but it has been claimed that there was every intention that it should pass into law. Even before the Bill was introduced it formed, as any Bill of this kind ought to, the subject of very long discussions at the Board of Trade with interests concerned—manufacturers, merchants, importers, shipowners, and so on. Therefore, the arguments that this is a novel proposal, which is going to take everyone by surprise, is not well founded. Then it is said the notice provided for, which is a minimum of three months, is insufficient. If three months be insufficient it will be quite competent for a committee to recommend, and for an Order to declare, that the notice shall be longer than three months. Minimum does not mean maximum, and while there may not be less than three months there must at least be three, and there may be more.

Even if the period stated in the Order is three months there is considerably more than three months' notice in fact. When an inquiry is referred to a Committee, 28 days' notice has to be given, so 28 days are added to the three months. Then the Committee sit, and hear applicants and objectors who have, in their opinion, a substantial interest in the matter, and obviously if they are being heard they have notice. The Committee, having concluded the taking of evidence, proceed to consider their Report, and when they have made it, that Report has to be published and laid. Then the Report is considered by the appropriate Department, and if the Department agrees with it a Draft Order is made. That Draft Order has to be laid. It is published to the world, so that everybody sees the draft, and then it is laid for 20 Parliamentary days, and cannot become a valid Order until the lapse of 20 Parliamentary days.

Therefore, in addition to the minimum of three months, which dates from the making of the Order, there is all that preliminary period during which everybody concerned has full notice, and I think it is unreasonable to say that that notice is insufficient. If, however, notwithstanding all this preliminary notice—the publication of he application, the issue of the draft Order and the issue of the Order in its final form—it is still considered that the circumstances are so exceptional that more than three months' notice is required, that can be provided for in the Order. Anybody who says, "I have quantities of goods on my hands which I have rushed in"—or not rushed in—such things have been known as people trying to rush in things in anticipation of an Order or an Act of Parliament—and thinks that three months is too little notice, will be entitled to argue that point before the Committee, and if he can make out a case, the Committee will recommend more than the minimum of three months. Some people may think the objector has been safeguarded with too great consideration, but that it can be geld for one moment that, with all these safeguards, anybody is going to be taken by surprise or injuriously affected in his business seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, to be ridiculous.

Mr. WEBB

The right hon. Gentleman has been at pains to show us that elaborate notice will be given in every case, but I venture to think he has left out certain considerations which impair very considerably that notice. Let us consider the case as a real case, and not as an Amendment put up to delay the progress of the Bill, and really apply ourselves a little sympathetically to the bare possibility of there being something in the point which is being urged. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the inquiry, the 28 days' notice, the proceedings before the Committee, and so on, as if all that were notice for the purpose of making preparations to comply with the Order when it comes out. He has taken it for granted, apparently, that directly an inquiry is held it will tell all the people concerned what they will have to do—that subject only to the contingency of the Order in Council being made, which they may very properly presume is a small contingency, they will know straight away, as soon as notice is given, what they will have to do. That is not the case. Difficulty will arise in cases where goods have to make a long journey to this country. The first thing which it will he necessary to know is whether the goods will have to bear an indication of their origin at the time of importation, that is, will have to have the marks put on when they are shipped. Let us take the case of goods which are to be shipped from New Zealand to this coati-try. The importer may not know whether the Order will require them to be marked before they are shipped from New Zealand or when exposed for sale in this country. The right hon. Gentleman has more than once explained that it is not contemplated that the very stringent requirement of marking before shipment—what is called marking on importation—will be applied in more than a minority of cases. Therefore, the shipper and the merchant will not know whether they will be required to mark the goods before they are shipped or two or three months afterwards, when the goods have arrived in this country. Moreover, the Bill provides that the Order in Council shall specify in every case the manner in which the indication of origin is to be applied to the goods. The unfortunate importer will have to wait to know what manner of marking is specified.

Therefore, it is no use the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that everybody has ample notice of what he will have to do as soon as an inquiry is referred to a committee and a 28 days' notice given. The trader does not know what manner of marking will be prescribed. He cannot be supposed to exercise his imagination on that point. There are an indefinite, I might say an infinite, number of ways in which one could be required to mark the indication of origin. A merchant could not send an order to a shipper in New Zealand to say, "From now onwards, you are to mark all the goods you are going to ship," because he would not know the manner in which the indication of origin is to be applied. He would not even know whether it would be necessary to mark the goods in New Zealand. Assuming that he may be prepared for the worst, and the Government are going to require these goods to be marked before shipment, how can he anticipate in what way the Order in Council will require them to be marked I Therefore the argument that this proposed period of notice would be unnecessarily long really has no foundation. Practically it takes six weeks to get goods from New Zealand, and that means that the whole three months period will be required. Therefore if anyone writes out to New Zealand as soon as the Order is made, he would use up the whole of that three months sending out and marking the goods in New Zealand and getting the goods back again. If you had to write to Japan in order to get the goods shipped so as to arrive here, again it would take the whole of the three months. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade on this point. I do not claim that my arguments have converted the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he might accept this Amendment.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL

I am afraid hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment have not read the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that three months is the maximum.

Mr. WEBB

Yes, unless the Committee he graciously pleased to give more.

Sir R. HALL

If the right hon. Gentleman clearly understands that three months is the minimum, then I fail to see his line of argument, because the Committee will know the distance of New Zealand from this country perhaps as well as the right hon. Gentleman, and, in making the Order and laying down the time, undoubtedly they would be guided by the different circumstances of each case. Therefore, I cannot see where the hardship going to come in. After all, one of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman is that the importer will not be able to tell a man in a foreign country what he has to do, and he will not be able to specify exactly. That is quite true, and until the Order in Council is made, it is quite open to any competent merchant to mark his goods in some way until the definite Order is made. I take it that this Bill will be administered in the same way as most other Acts are administered here, with reason and commonsense. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, I really fail to see that he has produced any argument in favour of increasing the period from three months to six months.

Captain BENN

I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has quite seized the point. Does he wish to penalise the trader who made these goods on contract and cannot get them here to have the markings changed before the Order comes into force?

Sir R. HALL

My point was that the Committee who are going to make the Order would be just as competent to take into consideration the whole of the circumstances as anybody else.

Captain BENN

Confidence in these Committees varies. We have already seen some of these Committees, and they are merely an instrument of the Board of Trade policy. The President of the Board of Trade rather shifted his attitude when he talked about rushing goods in prior to the Order. Of course the right hon. Gentleman was then thinking of a tariff, and this is intended to be a tariff. What we say is that you should lay clown in the

Bill that a reasonable time at least should be given as a statutory right, and that is all for which we are asking. With regard to the argument that the Committee will be composed of reasonable men, I have no doubt that this Committee will be like the Safeguarding Committees, which are far too much under the influence of the President of the Board of Trade. In regard to one of these Committees have recently had an amazing instance of instructions being sent by the Board of Trade to a judge, and this was rather indiscreetly brought out by one of the members of the Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The only case is one where a Committee invited me to make a pronouncement, and I entirely declined to do so.

Captain BENN

I still hold to my opinion that the President of the Board of Trade influences these Committees and they are not independent judicial bodies, but instruments of the Board of Trade.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That is a mis-statement of the facts.

Captain BENN

I contend that the incident in question was extremely discreditable to the Board of Trade. How do we know that a man who is carrying on a foreign trade will not be penalised, and he may find his goods held up in the ports. Protection in such cases should be given in the Bill, and this matter should not he left to the insecure protection of the good will of a committee, which may he merely a party of officials carrying out a pre-determined policy laid down by the President of the Board of Trade.

Question put, "That the word 'three stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 108.

Division No. 483.]	AYES.	[5.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Balniel, Lord	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James I.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ainswarth, Major Charles	Barnett, Major Sir Richard	Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Albery, Irving, James	Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)	Braithwaite. A. N.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.	Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Brings, J. Harold
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Bennett, A. J.	Briscoe, Richard George
Apsley, Lord	Berry, Sir George	Brittain, Sir Harry
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Bethel, A.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Betterton, Henry B.	Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Brown, Brig-Gen, H.C.(Berks. Newb'y)
Astor, Viscountess	Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Buckingham, Sir H.
Atholl, Duchess of	Blades, Sir George Rowland	Bullock. Captain M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Blundell, F. N.	Burman, J. B.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Boothby, R. J. G.	Burton, Colonel H. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Harrison, G. J. C.	Perring, Sir William George
Calne, Gordon Half	Hartington, Marquess of	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Campbell, E. T.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Pleiou, D. P.
Casseis, J. D.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Haslam, Henry C.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)	Hawke, John Anthony	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Price, Major C. W. M.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Radford, E. A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Raine, W.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hennessy, Major J. R. G.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Chilcott, Sir Warden	Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Christie, J. A.	Hills. Major John Waller	Remer, J. R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Remnant, Sir James
Clarry, Reginald George	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Marylebone)	Rentoul, G. S.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Holt, Captain H. P.	Rice, Sir Frederick
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Ropnar, Major L.
Conway, Sir W. Martin	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemanth)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Rye, F. G.
Courthope, Lieut. -Col. Sir George L.	Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	Hume, Sir G. H.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hurd, Percy A.	Sandon, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hurst, Gerald B.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Savery, S. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hiffe, Sir Edward M.	Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Dalziel, Sir Davison	Jephcott, A. R.	Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Shepperson, E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Skelton. A. N.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Smith, R. W.[Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Smithers, Waldron
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Drewe, c.	Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Eden, Captain Anthony	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Ellis, R. G.	Loder, J. de V.	Storry-Deans, R.
Elveden, Viscount	Looker, Herbert William	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)	Lowe Sir Francis William	Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray. Fraser
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Sykes. Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Templeton, W. P,
Fermoy, Lord	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Fielden, E, B.	McLean, Major A.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Finburgh, S.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Ford, Sir P. J.	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Tinne, J. A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Macquisten, F. A.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Foster, Sir Harry S.	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Foxcroft, Captain C T.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D Steel-	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Waddington, R.
Frece, Sir Walter de	Malone, Major P. B.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Margesson, Capt. D.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Meller, R. J.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Ganzoni, Sir John	Meyer, Sir Frank	Wells, S. R.
Gates, Percy	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H,
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Goff, Sir Park	Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Grace, John	Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Williams, Com, C. (Devon, Torquay)
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)	Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Moore, Sir Newton J,	Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Wise, Sir Fredric
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)	Murchison, C. K.	Withers, John James
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Wolmer, Viscount
Grotrian, H. Brent	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Womersley, W. J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Nuttall, Ellis	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hvde)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hammersley, S. S.	Penny, Frederick George
Hanbury, C.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.
NOES
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Barnes, A.	Bromfield, William
Ammon, Charles George	Barr, J.	Bromley, J.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Batey, Joseph	Buchanan, G.
Baker, Walter	Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Charleton, H. C.

Clowes, S.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)	Scrymgeour, E.
Cluse, W. S.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Scurr, John
Connolly, M.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Cove, W. G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Sitch, Charles H.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Kelly, W. T.	Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kennedy, T.	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lansbury, George	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Dennison, R.	Lawrence, Susan	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Duckworth, John	Lawson, John James	Stamford, T. W.
Duncan, C.	Lee, F.	Stephen, Campbell
Dunnico, H	Lindley, F. W.	Sullivan, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lowth, T.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Lunn, William	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro-W.)
England, Colonel A.	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Forrest, W.	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Gardner, J. P.	March, S.	Thurtle, Ernest
Gibbins, Joseph	Montague, Frederick	Townend, A. E.
Gillett, George M.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gosling, Harry	Naylor, T. E.	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Oliver, George Harold	Westwood, J.
Greenall, D. ft. (Glamorgan)	Palin, John Henry	Whiteley, W.
Groves, T.	Paling, W.	Wiggins, William Martin
Grundy, T. W.	Ponsonby, Arthur	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Potts, John S.	Williams, David (Swansea. East)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Purcell, A. A.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hardie, George D.	Riley, Ben	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Ritson, J.	Windsor, Walter
Hayday, Arthur	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Hayes, John Henry	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Eiland)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Sakiatvala, Shapurji	Major Owen and Mr. Percy Harris
Hirst, G. H.	Salter, Dr. Alfred

Sir B. CHADWICK

I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, after the first word "Order," to insert the words except in the case of an Order revoking a previous Order either entirely or as respects some of the goods to which that Order relates, or an Order made for amending a previous Order in consequence of a direction having been given with respect to that Order under the provisions of this Act relating to provisional exemptions. This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which was introduced yesterday.

Captain BENN

I thought the hon. Gentleman's explanation, while very interesting, was very brief indeed, and it did not appear to me quite to cover all the ground. Does he mean that this Amendment is moved in consequence, as he said, of some new Clause? The assurance I would like to have from him is this: Is there anything in this Amendment which deprives of the three months' notice any article which may be on its way to this country? If, of course, it is only that Orders repealing other Orders, and, therefore, permitting the importation, unmarked, of foreign goods, do not require three months' notice, there is no complaint that I can see against the Amendment; but I should like the hon. Gentleman to assure us that it is not possible under this Amendment to deprive the importer of the three months' statutory delay to which he is entitled under Clause 2 of the Bill.

Mr. MARCH

Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should like also to ask him a question in connection with this matter. When we were discussing a previous Amendment, the Minister in charge of the Bill said that he could not possibly consider any Amendment whereby there would be any exemptions, because it would spoil the whole Bill if they started to make exemptions here and exemptions there. At the bottom, however, of this new paragraph, I find the words with respect to that Order under the provisions of this Act relating to provisional exemptions. Therefore, the Minister has in mind some idea of exemptions being made in some cases, and yet he could not accept other Amendments under which exemptions could be made. I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation of that?

Mr. CECIL WILSON

At the same time, I should like the hon. Gentleman to give us some general explanation on this matter. When this Clause is completed, with the Amendments on the paper, we shall have "the Order," "an Order," "the previous Order," "that Order," "an Order," "the previous Order," "that order," and "the Order." It seems as through it will end in general disorder. If the hon. Gentleman would give us some general explanation, I am sure we should be glad.

Sir B. CHADWICK

The answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) as to the meaning of this Amendment is that it is consequential on the introduction of the new Clause which gives power to the Department under certain conditions of emergency; to suspend the operation of an Order. That is the now Clause which was moved yesterday, giving power to the Department to give directions, to publish those directions, and so forth, where there is a case in which an Order is obviously creating hardship. This Amendment is consequential on that, because obviously, where the appropriate Department wishes to give a direction, it only, wishes to do so for the purpose of reducing difficulties that may exist under the order, and there is, of course, no reason why the three months' period should exist in connection with that direction.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HARRIS

I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, at the end, to add the words This Section shall not apply to raw fruit or raw vegetables. I would remind the house that between the egg-marking Bill of 1923 and the Bill of the following year there was a very vital difference. In the Bill of 1923, fruit and vegetables were included, but, as the result of the discussions, it was decided by the promoters, with all the knowledge at their disposal, that it was not practicable or possible to include fruit and vegetables, and so, in the Bill of 1994, fruit and vegetables were specifically excluded from the Schedule. The promoters of those Bills, and particularly the latter of them, were full of enthusiasm and belief in the principles of the Bills, and they had the courage of their convictions, because they put their Bills in a practical form and stated in a Schedule the articles that the Bill was to affect. With all their enthusiasm, however, they came to the conclusion, as the result of the representations of traders, that it was not practicable to require the branding and stamping of fruit and perishable vegetables.

I have already spoken on that subject, and do not want to restate the arguments against the stamping of fruit and raw vegetables, but the idea of committee after committee sitting to consider Brussels sprouts, Jerusalem artichokes, potatoes, carrots, French beans, green peas, spinach, and all the dozens of things that go into the vegetable pot, is too horrible to contemplate. Some hon. Members opposite were very cross with me some time ago when I said that the policy of my friends on these benches was the policy of abundance, while the policy of hon. Members opposite was the policy of scarcity. They resented that suggestion. I will accept the fact that they do not wish to cause scarcity, but, if the producers who supply our markets at present with an abundance of all these vegetables, to add to the variety of our diet and the health of our population, are going to anticipate all this elaborate paraphernalia being applied to their industry, they will come to the conclusion that the game is not worth the candle, and Protectionist farmers will have the satisfaction of knowing that they will no longer be faced with serious competition from abroad.

It is risky to send perishable stuff to our market if it may be held up by the Customs officials while all the requirements of this Measure are applied to it; and, of course, the arguments which apply to vegetables apply with even more force to fruit. Strawberries, cherries, plums, all the variety of summer fruits, if they do not get to the market on the very clay they arrive, become unfit for consumption and may as well be thrown into the river or destroyed by the destructor. It is common knowledge that a large number of inspectors are employed, even now, under the present conditions, condemning fruit in the summer time as not fit for consumption because it has been put on the market too late. The right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to follow the experience of the Bill of 1924, which specifically excluded fruit and vegetables. The whole of the organisation responsible for the fruit trade in London—the Federation of Fruit and Vegetable Traders—has unanimously decided that the application of a provision of this kind would seriously injure and jeopardise their trade. Covent Garden contend that it would make it almost impossible to carry on their business, so that I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not want to go down to unenviable history as the fruit and vegetable taxer, as the man who caused scarcity of fruit and vegetables by requir- ing these unnecessary restrictions, will do well to exclude these articles from his Bill.

Cobden made bread cheap; this Government may be known as the Government that made fruit and vegetables very scarce. I therefore submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be well advised to take this opportunity of specifically excluding these most necessary articles of diet, which are very expensive at the present time. There was a campaign in the Press the other day about the high cost of vegetables, and there is a slogan all over the country, "Eat more fruit." I hope the right hon. Gentleman's policy will not be, "Eat less fruit, or, at any rate, limit your market for fruit to the Empire trade." I want to see the fruit and vegetables of the world pouring into our country, and, therefore, I am against any kind of restriction, and trust that this Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS

The hon. Member is really not justified in assuming that an Order to mark will be made for all articles which possibly may be brought within the purview of this Bill. We express no opinion as to whether fruit, vegetables, and various other commodities which have been brought forward for exclusion from the Bill, will or will not be marked.

Fruit and vegetables are clearly a difficult problem. Whether they should be marked is a vexed question, as was shown in the case of private Members' Bills brought forward in the past, and that is, no doubt, why on one occasion they were included and in a similar Bill there was no mention of them. Since that time we have had a recommendation from the Imperial Economic Committee, and for that reason alone, quite apart from our decision that we had better deal with this not by Schedule but by allowing these matters to be considered by a Committee, it has been absolutely necessary that fruit should be considered in all its aspects and all the difficulties and advantages of marking it should be put before the Committee. The Committee will be in a better position to judge as to the expediency of marking fruit and vegetables than the House of Commons can possibly be, seeing that we have not heard the case. It is a complicated matter, admittedly, and one which is eminently suited for evidence before one of these Committees. This Bill is framed on the basis of The fullest discussion. By refusing to rule out any commodity we will not commit ourselves to the view that that particular commodity is going to be marked, but we are not prepared to put down Schedules to say what are suitable articles for marking, and we have definitely preferred the machinery of Committees, thinking that thereby we shall assure a full hearing and a wise decision, and therefore we cannot make any exception or rule out any commodity from being eligible for being considered by a Committee.

Mr. BROMLEY

The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be particularly enthusiastic in refusing the Amendment. I cannot for the life of me see what the Government have to object to in this, because it seems not only unreasonable but almost impossible to mark fruit and vegetables. It seems amazing to think of marking cabbages. But if appears that the Government are determined on having this Merchandise Marks Act as one step in the direction of Protection, and every attempt to minimise it or to make it a wise Measure is met with refusal because the Government feel that it is on the high road to more and more protective tariffs, and will not have anything altered. It is very strange that at a time when our Government are going blundering into what they feel to be Protection and profits for the captains of industry, the United States are just exploring the field for world Free Trade. We, apparently, are drifting towards something in the opposite direction, which many of us are convinced would be somewhat of a disaster for consumers.

I cannot conceive that it is really the intention of the Government to make foodstuffs, and the ordinary necessities and commodities of life, plentiful for the working people, or on the other hand to stimulate the home market. If that were so, there is a method quite ready at their hand, and that is to adopt the practice the United States have adopted and increase the wages, and therefore the spending power, of the working people. They will buy British goods quickly enough if they can pay for them. They will buy the best if they can afford it. We have a great potential home market for goods of every description, manufactured by British manufacturers and British workers, waiting to be sold, and the working people, who are the greatest consumers, cannot purchase them because their wages are not high enough. We find one class of worker thrown out of work by virtue of the fact that the other class of worker is prevented by low wages from buying his product, and so the vicious circle goes round. The finest way to deal with this matter is to take some step in the direction I have indicated. I do not think anyone would object to the purchaser knowing the country of origin of whatever he buys, but I cannot understand the Government sticking at an Amendment of this description, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position.

Mr. BARNES

Seeing that Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 has been withdrawn, I had hoped that the Government would accept its consequences and adopt this Amendment. I, too, feel that the Minister of Agriculture did not resist it with any force. It is not difficult to see behind his argument the knowledge that to apply the provisions of the Bill to raw fruit and vegetables would create more difficulties than advantages. If that be a fear that already exists and the difficulty of marking this kind of article be practically acknowledged impossible, would it not be better to remove any uneasiness which may still exist in regard to importers and traders and cut it out of the Bill entirely.

I should like to submit one or two difficulties that are bound to arise. By the time parcels of fruit find their way to the greengrocer's shop or the costermonger's barrow, it is practically impossible to know whether they have carried out. the Regulations by disclosing the origin of production or growth of the commodity, because, even though the importer handles them in large quantities, and it may be possible to label the bulk of the commodities as they come into our ports, by the time they have passed through the markets and been broken up and purchased by a multitude of small greengrocers, most of them dealing in very small quantities, one can realise the accumulation of difficulties which will arise at each step in the process of distribution until it breaks down by the sheer impossibility of supervision. We will assume that the Committee decides that a case has been made out for the marking of raw fruit and that the problem at the ports is overcome. There is no doubt that local authorities, on whom the responsibility of supervision is ultimately placed, will be confronted with a considerable addition to their staff of inspectors if this thing is not to become a matter a ridicule.

That is one phase of it which of itself should prove sufficient to enable the Government to accept the Amendment, but there are other aspects of it which are equally important. We have heard a good deal about the necessity of importing cheap fruit at different seasons. At a casual glance, one might take the view that this is not very important. As a matter of fact, it is of extreme importance to large bodies of consumers. If the average worker had a reasonable wage, the problem of cheap fruit would be of less importance. Then the sentimental desire of any native-born person to consume the products of his own country would operate effectively and naturally, but in view of the fact that large bodies of consumers are in such an economic position that sentiment cannot possibly enter into the problem of purchase, I feel that price becomes of increasing importance. As a matter of fact, the only time that large sections of our population get an opportunity of consuming fresh fruit at all is when market conditions produce a glut. It is a sorry thing and a wrong thing to have to admit, but that is not our problem. That is the problem of the system which hon. Members opposite consider they can defend.

It is not my purpose to enter into an argument as to the morality or efficiency of capitalism as an economic system. I must confine myself to the bare, brutal fact that large masses of our people are so poor that their only opportunity of getting fresh fruit, and very often fresh vegetables, is when there is a glut and large quantities have to be sacrificed for the purpose of getting a sale. In view of the fact that this Bill means that a large range of articles which previously floated into the country without any Customs supervision will now have to be supervised, the machinery of our docks and ports will not permit of these additional difficulties without adding to the congestion. Previously, it was argued that machines and manufactured articles do not lose their value if they are held up, but what will happen is that if one cargo is held up it will block the handling of other cargoes, and by that means the interaction of this Bill will cause a considerable loss of fruit and vegetables. It is nothing short of a crime that Parliament should be considering any form of legislation that tends to waste food supplies.

We will take the problem of jam making. The jam making industry is of considerable dimensions, because fairly large quantities are consumed here as compared with other nations. Again, jam enters as a very important item of working-class consumption. A slice of bread and jam often has to compensate for the absence of a joint. Therefore, a cheap jam supply is essential. Not only is the amount of sugar in it vital to health, but it is a food commodity, and the price of jam to a very large extent depends on the quantity of fruit that may be on the market. I see no reason why the jam manufacturers should not get the advantage of the general machinery and the facilities for the importation of these things. If the fruit is sacrificed on the British market, we do not lose, the consumer does not lose and the British grower does not lose. If we wish to advance the interests of the British grower of fruit, I suggest that he is handicapped more by our out-of-date transport system, and the heavy charges by the railways for handling short-distance fruit traffic than by foreign competition.

The Minister of Agriculture referred to the fact that the Imperial Economic Marketing Committee have emphasised the necessity of consumers in this country being given an opportunity of knowing when they are purchasing Imperial produce. I agree. I do not think there is any hon. Member on this side who disagrees with the principle that the purchaser ought to know. We believe that if the purchaser does know that the article has been produced by our own Dominions, leaving out for the moment the question of price, sentiment will begin to operate; but right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that the trade of the Dominions has been built up in the British markets almost entirely so far. The Dominions do not sell much of their commodities in any markets other than the markets of Great Britain. It is a fallacy to assume that Empire produce is experiencing difficulty in finding a market in this country. The overwhelming bulk of Empire goods are sold in Great Britain. They have built up their markets here, and not because they had to break down any prejudice on the part of the merchant or any disinclination on the part of the consumer to purchase their produce. They have built up that market, and they will keep that market only by studying British practice and British taste. India has done it in regard to tea. New Zealand is doing it in regard to butter, and the Canadian producers of bacon are cutting out or beginning to compete with the Danish market in bacon.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must intervene here. The hon. Member is now making a general speech on the Bill.

Mr. BARNES

I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for having strayed into a general discussion. But the arguments which I have been trying to advance are applicable to Canadian apples, Australian fruit, and generally to the items covered under the term "raw fruit." The point which I was trying to emphasise was that the better plan, which has been tried in all circles of commerce and by all merchants of repute, is to secure the custom of the consumer, and in the long run the only permanent way of securing the custom of the consumer is by establishing your own brands of grading and quality, and depending upon that to keep you the market. The fact that we have set aside £500,000 for advertising Dominion produce is a far more scientific and more beneficial way of reaching the consumers in this country than bringing raw fruit and vegetables under the vexatious and irritating Clauses of this Bill. As the Government have eliminated Sub-section (5) from the Bill, which tried to deal with the problem of marking, I would suggest that as a logical conclusion they should remove this provision affecting raw fruit and vegetables.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I would like to put to the Minister in charge a question regarding Ireland. It is well known that a fairly large amount of raw fruit and vegetables comes into this country Iron Ireland. Clause 1 states that the scope of the Bill is to be the United Kingdom. As the House is aware, His Majesty's title has been recently altered, and I think that at this stage the question regarding the marking of raw fruit and vegetables coming from Ireland ought to he defined.

Mr. SPEAKER

We cannot do that now.

Mr. PALING

The Minister of Agriculture has given us one of the best reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. He practically admitted that they were in such doubt as to the advisability of marking fruit and vegetables that they were leaving it an open question.

Mr. GUINNESS

I expressed no opinion.

Mr. PALING

The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that they were in such difficulties and doubt as to the advisability of marking fruit and vegetables that they were leaving it open, and they did not know what they would do. They were to be guided by the situation in future. If their information on this subject be of such a vague character as that, it is asking too much of this House that we should put into operation a very definite Clause such as this. If the Minister of Agriculture does not know what is going to occur and we are to leave it to the future to see what happens, he ought not to be asking us to pass the Bill in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman knows, the President of the Board of Trade knows, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that if the Bill goes through in its present form it must mean delay in the delivery of fruit and vegetables. That delay must mean that a great amount of the fruit will perish. A much greater amount than perishes now will perish, anal prices will go up.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The Government makes no such admission and no such assumption.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must point out that those arguments have been repeated a dozen times to-day, and they were repeated yesterday. I called this Amendment on the understanding that we were to take a decision upon it without further debate, for the reason that we had already discussed the subject over and over again.

Mr. MARDY JONES

Those of us who have not had the privilege of sitting on the Committee dealing with this Bill have not heard these arguments, and we hear them for the first time to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER

I am not speaking of the Committee; I am speaking of the House. Hon. Members will agree with me that this question has been very generally threshed out. I. called for the Amendment so that the House might give a decision on the point.

Mr. PALING

I was not aware of that fact. Under the circumstances, I will cut down my remarks. I have a great deal of information 'which I had intended reading to the House. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture must be aware that delays will take place if marking becomes necessary. He must know that delays in regard to fruit and vegetables, fruit particularly, are very dangerous, and that if delays do occur the consumer in this country will have to pay a much bigger price. I do not know whether the position of the Port of Hull has been mentioned, but I am given to understand that at the Port of Hull in July, 1925, 769,000 packages of fruit were imported, 203,000 packages of vegetables and 869 packages of nuts. Those were the statistics for one port in one month, to say nothing of the importations at London, Southampton and Liverpool. This marking will take a considerable amount of time. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) referred to the steps that have been taken for the quicker handling of fruit in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and as illustration of that he mentioned that they had dispensed with railway transport, because it was too slow, and had put into operation a system of motor lorry transport to the West Riding towns. If this Bill comes into operation, it will mean that an immense amount of fruit imported into Hull will be held up waiting for marking, and dozens of these motor lorries will be held up.

To give more detailed figures of what will occur, I am informed that from France alone into Hull in one month 65,000 packages of plums were imported. French fruit is of a very perishable nature, more especially plums. If this Bill goes through and marking has to be set up, many of these packages of plums will deteriorate and will be wasted. Certainly a much greater number of packages will deteriorate and be wasted in the future. We have heard a great deal in this House about an aeroplane service coming into operation, because the aeroplanes are quicker. I believe it is true that aeroplanes are being used to a greater extent every month and every week for the transportation of fruit. What will occur to this particular branch of service if these marking operations are to come into force?

What will occur when a person trends to the greengrocer for 1 lb. of apples, which are delivered at the customer's house? Will the greengrocer have to enclose with the apples a ticket stating that the apples are Dominion or foreign produce? These are questions which, although the subject may have been discussed before, have not been answered, and the House is entitled to have an answer to them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with the courtesy for which he has a reputation, will give us complete and detailed answers to our questions.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 268.

Division No. 484.]	AYES.	[6.44 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Eiland)
Ammon, Charles George	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hardie, George D.	Scrymgoeur, E.
Baker, Walter	Harris, Percy A.	Scurr, John
Barnes, A.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Sexton, James
Batey, Joseph	Hayday, Arthur	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)	Hayes, John Henry	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bromfield, William	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Sitch, Charles H.
Bromley, J.	Hirst, G. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Charleton, H. C	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Clowes, S.	Janes, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Stamford, T. W.
Connolly, M.	Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Stephen, Campbell
Cove, W. G.	Kelly, W. T.	Sullivan, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Kennedy, T.	Thomas. Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)	Lansbury, George	Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro.W.)
Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)	Lawrence, Susan	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)
Day, Colonel Harry	Lee, F.	Thurtle, Ernest
Dennison, R.	Lindley, F. W.	Townend, A. E.
Duckworth, John	Lowth, T.	Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Duncan, C.	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H.	MacLaren, Andrew	Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Westwood, J.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Whiteley, W.
England, Colonel A.	March, S.	Wiggins, William Martin
Forrest, W.	Montague, Frederick	Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gardner, J, P.	Naylor, T. E.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Gibbins, Joseph	Oliver, George Harold	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M.	Palin, John Henry	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gosling, Harry	Paling, W.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Windsor, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Potts, John S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Purcell, A. A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Groves, T.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Sir Robert Hutchison and Major
Grundy, T. W.	Riley, Ben	Owen.
Hall, F. (York, W.H., Normanton)	Ritson, J.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.	Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ainsworth, Major Charles	Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)	Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Albery, Irving James	Astor, Viscountess	Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Atholl, Duchess of	Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bennett, A. J.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Berry, Sir George
Apsley, Lord	Balniel, Lord	Bethel, A.
Betterton, Henry B.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Perring, Sir William George
Biundell, F. N.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Grotrian. H. Brent	Pielou, D. p.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Pliditch, Sir Philip
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)	Price, Major C. W. M
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hammersley, S. S.	Radford, E A.
Briggs, J. Harold	Hanbury, C.	Raine, W.
Briscoe, Richard George	Harrison, G. J. C.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Brittain, Sir Harry	Hartington, Marquess of	Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Nowb'y)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Remer, J. R.
Buckingham, Sir H.	Haslam, Henry C.	Remnant, Sir James
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James	Hawke. John Anthony	Rentoul, G. S.
Bullock, Captain M.	Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Ox.f'd, Henley)	Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.
Burman, J. B.	Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)	Rice, Sir Frederick
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.	Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Ropner, Major L.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)	Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Caine, Gordon Hall	Hills. Major John Waller	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Campbell, E. T.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Rye, F. G.
Cassels, J. D.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)	Holt, Capt. H. P.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)	Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)	Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)	Sandon, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Savery, S. S.
Charteris. Brigadier-General J.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)	Scott, Sir Lesile (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Chilcott, Sir Warden	Hume, Sir G. H.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Christie, J. A.	Hume-Williams, Sir W, Ellis	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Hurst, Gerald B.	Shepperson, E. W
Clarry, Reginald George	Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfast)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hiffe, Sir Edward M.	Skelton, A. N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.	Jephcott, A. R.	Smithers. Waldron
Cohen, Major J. Brunei	Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cope, Major William	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Sprot, Sir Alexander
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Loder, J. de V.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lord, Walter Greaves-	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Dalziel, Sir Davison	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Templeton, W. P.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)	Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen	Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Thine, J. A.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	McLean, Major A.	Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Drew*, C.	Macmillan, Captain H.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Eden, Captain Anthony	McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John	Waddington, R.
Edmondson. Major A. J.	Macquisten, F. A.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Elliot, Major Walter E.	MacRobert. Alexander M.	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Ellis, R. G.	Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elveden, Viscount	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Malone, Major P. B.	Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Watts, Dr. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Margesson, Captain D.	Wells, S. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Mason. Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.	Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Faile, Sir Bertram G.	Meller, R. J.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Fermoy, Lord	Merriman, F. B.	Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fielden, E. B.	Meyer, Sir Frank	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Finburgh, S.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ford, Sir P. J.	Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)	Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Wlse, Sir Fredric
Foster, Sir Harry S.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)	Wolmer, Viscount
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Womersley, W. J.
Frece, Sir Walter de	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Murchison, C. K.	Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Neville, R. J.	Wragg, Herbert
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Ganzoni. Sir John	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Gates, Percy	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Nuttall, Ellis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Goff, Sir Park	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Major Hennessy and Captain Lord
Grace, John	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Stanley.
Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.)	Penny, Frederick George