HC Deb 18 July 1927 vol 209 cc133-58
Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

This Clause, which imposes a duty upon certain classes of china and pottery, has been debated at fairly great length on the Money Resolutions and the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill, and I do not propose to occupy much time on the present occasion. At the same time I invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to one or two facts. The Minority Report of the Committee which recommended the duty was signed by Mr. George Hayhurst, with whom I am very well acquainted, and who, as hon. Members know, is connected with the movement with which I am associated. In the course, of the previous Debates frequent references were made to that Minority Report. I consider that Report is a complete justification for the action we take in opposing the duty. In previous Debates, perhaps because I have spoken after the Government representative, have not had an answer from the Government to the case which I have submitted based upon the experience of the factory referred to in the Minority Report. That co-operative factory has been described by certain hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Reamer), as being one of the most inefficient factories in the Potteries.

Mr. REMER

Hear, hear!

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am very glad to know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield repeats that assertion today. It only increases our justification for asking the House to reject this proposal to place a tax upon pottery. I want to repeat the facts concerning that factory, and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how, in face of those facts, he can possibly ask the House to impose the duty. This factory was purchased at the request of our constituents in the cooperative movement during the period when it was difficult to obtain foreign deliveries of china. It could only be obtained by purchase from a close ring of manufacturers in the Potteries. They asked far too high a price; we had to pay, however, and therefore the factory is over-capitalised. They also laid a condition upon us that for five years after the purchase of the factory we must take from the ring at least the same quantities of pottery as we had purchased before buying the factory. Obviously these things were a very great handicap, but in spite of the over-capitalisation made necessary by the high price demanded by the owners, and the handicap of the condition with regard to purchases of pottery, the factory, since it has become a co-operative factory, has consistently secured a surplus upon its transactions which, if it were dealt with on the basis of a private trading company, would show a return of no less than 12 per cent., on the average, upon the high amount of capital invested. In this case referred to again and again by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), and others, I submit that if, in spite of its over-capitalisation and of the fact that it pays trade union wages: if it provides holidays with pay and still shows a surplus of 12 per cent., what becomes of the case put forward of the need of protection for this "dying" industry? There is not a shadow of a case remains for the imposition of this duty.

It is said that the amount of surplus secured in this case is due to the fact that there is a tied market, but that statement is entirely opposed to the fact, because every shareholding society is free to buy when and where it pleases. They are able in this "inefficient" factory to get what they require at a proper price, and they do it in a way which is beneficial to themselves, and yet still pay 12 per cent. on the capital. It seems to me that in face of these arguments, and other arguments which have been put forward, the whole case for the duty falls to the ground. Even if you put on these high duties amounting to 40, 50, 60 or 70 per cent. of the value of the goods, it will not bring the price of the foreign article into real competition with bone china and translucent china. The real joy in regard to the duty comes from those who are going to get the benefit of the restrictions placed on foreign supplies, the earthenware manufacturers who made no application for a duty. I do not wish to state my case at any great length, but there is overwhelming evidence for supporting our view that this tax upon the consumer is totally unjustifiable by all the facts of the industry.

Mr. SULLIVAN

I beg to second this Amendment.

A good deal has been said on behalf of this duty by supporters of the Government, but at the end of the day we find that they have satisfied nobody. My objection to this Clause is that it presses more heavily on the people who use cheap pottery than upon those who use the finer article. For these reasons, I think the House will be well advised to reject this Clause, and to remember that the Government have tried this principle before at a General Election, and they are likely to get the same decision when they put the question once more before the electors.

Mr. REMER

There has been so much said upon this particular Clause at previous stages of the Finance Bill that I do not intend to say very much on this occasion. I would remind hon. Members that the reference made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was to some observations which were made after a most violent and vitriolic attack upon several members of the Committee. I have previously stated that we deplore very strongly people being put into a judicial position in regard to Safeguarding Committees, and then subjected to violent attacks upon their impartiality. It was only after those attacks had been made that we retaliated with an attack upon Mr. Hayhurst who signed the Minority Report. It was Mr. Hayhurst who said the Longton potteries were inefficient. Let me remind the hon. Member for Hillsborough that although all the other members of the Committee visited several potteries in Longton Mr. Hayhurst only visited one.

Mr. ALEXANDER

That statement is quite untrue, because I have made personal inquiries about it.

Mr. REMER

I do not accept the hon. Member's statement.

Mr. ALEXANDER

My authority is Mr. Hayhurst.

Mr. REMER

I will let that pass. The hon. Member for Hillsborough has stated that this factory has made a profit of 12 per cent. If all factories were placed in the position of the particular factory in question, where you have a protected market and a preference over your competitors, they would achieve the same results. That is the whole point of the Protectionist case, and I that is what you have to do if you want to make your factory a profitable concern. It is not merely the price of the commodity or the wages you have to pay, but the most important thing is to keep your factory going full time, thus reducing your standing charges and your rent, rates and taxes to such a minimum that you can pay higher wages and increase the profits to the shareholders and still produce your goods at a lower price. There are scores of cases of that kind, showing that the safeguarding proposals have been a success, and I am sure that the duty we are discussing will be an equal success when it has had time to develop. The result will be cheaper pottery, higher wages for the workpeople, more employment, and a better state of affairs all round for the industry.

The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. Crawfurd) made an attack upon myself in regard to a statement I made in regard to this duty, and it referred to the question of balance-sheets. I have since had an opportunity of making full inquiries into the particular case which the hon. Member mentioned, and while I admit that if you dot the "I's" and cross the "T's" my original statement may not have been strictly accurate, yet it was so nearly accurate that I will state exactly what happened. In the particular instance mentioned, during the whole of the applicant's case before the Safeguarding Committee not a word was mentioned about balance-sheets. The opposing counsel, to use, a vulgarism, began to make a song and dance about a matter which had hardly been mentioned during the whole of the hearing of the case. When this matter was referred to by the applicants' counsel, the chairman did make the observation that he did not regard it as a suitable matter to bring forward at that particular point. Therefore, my original statement that the applicants in the ease had never been asked for balance-sheets was literally true, and, although I may have transgressed by not quite accurately stating the case in the first instance, my statement was so nearly accurate that submit that the House will probably forgive me if I did not, as I have said, dot my "I's" and cross my "T's." As I have said, I believe that this duty is going to bring new hope to the district of Longton, and I want to repeat that, while we heard from the Labour benches a number of speeches from people many miles away from Longton, yet from Hanley, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, or from Burslem not one speech have we heard, although they must know—

Mr. GILLETT

The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) spoke.

Mr. REMER

He spoke at a very late hour. I heard his speech.

Mr. HARRIS

The right hon. Gentleman for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) also spoke.

Mr. REMER

On the last day of the Committee stagy the right hon. Gentleman did not make a speech of any kind. I think it is a notable thing that these Gentlemen, who know the conditions, who know the unemployment which exists and which we have reason to believe will now disappear from t he Potteries, have not come to state the case on behalf of the Potteries. I would particularly make reference to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Clowes), because he is a paid official connected with the pottery workers of the district, and it is a very striking thing that he, being a trade union official in the industry, should not have been in his place at any time while the Debate has been proceeding. I would submit that this duty is going to be of very great advantage to the pottery industry, and I am sure that those Members who oppose it will be very sorry for the electoral disadvantage to their party when the next Election comes.

Mr. CRAWFURD

I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) for not being in the House when he began his speech. I had not anticipated that the matter would arise quite so soon. I think it is due from me to say something in reply to what the hon. Member has just said, and I say at once that I regret very much that he has not taken the opportunity to withdraw completely what he said. I am going to read again what the hon. Member said on the 28th April during the Report stage of the Budget Resolution. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date in my hand: A further statement was made that the manufacturers who were the applicants in this case refused their balance-sheets. There cannot be anything more categorical than that. He then went on to say: That statement is not correct. The statement was made at the last minute by Mr. Comyns Carr.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1927; col. 1088, Vol. 205.] As I said on a previous occasion, Mr. Comyns Carr is not only a past Member of this House, but is a very eminent barrister, who has taken part in many of these inquiries, and who over and over again has pressed and stressed this particular point that applicants should show their balance-sheets. The hon. Member said that this statement that the balance-sheets were asked for was not correct. As a matter of fact, the balance-sheets were asked for on the 5th, the 10th and the 12th days of the inquiry—

Mr. REMER

It is very strange that the Chairman of the Potters' Society knew nothing about it.

Mr. CRAWFURD

It is very strange indeed, but not nearly so strange as that he should have misinformed the hon. Member, if, indeed, he said that.

Mr. REMER

It is equally strange that the two other members of the Committee were also misinformed.

Mr. CRAWFURD

All I can say is that, on the 5th, the 10th and the 12th days of the inquiry, these balance-sheets were asked for. On the 13th day of the inquiry, Mr. Comyns Carr, who represented those who objected to this duty, commented on this. The 13th day of the inquiry was the 25th January. The inquiry closed on the 15th February, and yet the hon. Member says: That statement was not correct. The statement was made at the last minute by Mr. Comyns Carr. That is to say, the last minute before the 15th February was the 25th January.

The other point was that the Chairman of the Committee made some comment. I have in my hand the transcript of the shorthand notes made on the 25th January, which was the 13th day of the inquiry. That was the day when Mr. Comyns Carr made this statement. He said: Every one of these manufacturers has resolutely declined to produce a balance-sheet. That was nearly a month before the end of the inquiry. He went on: Not one balance-sheet has been put before you. The only one is the balance-sheet, or rather the prospectus, of the Cauldon Company, with extracts from its balance-sheet, which I can put before you because it is a public issue. Says the hon. Member, when this statement was made, the Chairman intervened to say that it was unfair.

Mr. REMER

What I said was that Mr. Faraday made some observations about the statement to which the hon. Member has just referred, and the Chairman of the Committee did at that time say that it was unfair to make such observations.

Mr. CRAWFURD

The hon. Member is still repeating something that he said the Chairman said, but I have in front of me the report of the proceedings on this particular occasion, which was not the last minute of the inquiry, but was three weeks before the end of the inquiry, when Mr. Comyns Carr made this complaint referring to the past. Obviously, there must have been some mention of balance-sheets, and some demand for balance-sheets, or Mr. Comyns Carr would have been interrupted at that point.

Mr. REMER

Is the hon. Member quoting from Mr. Comyns Carr's final speech?

Mr. CRAWFURD

No, I am quoting from the speech which Mr. Comyns Carr made on the 25th January, in, I think, opening the case for the objectors. When he referred to the Cauldon Company, the Chairman said: None of these manufacturers are public companies.' That is the intervention of the Chairman. It was not a complaint about the statement of Mr. Comyns Carr. The Report goes on: Mr. COMYNS CARR: No. The CHAIRMAN: They are all private. Mr. COMYNS CARR: When I speak of other inquiries, in every inquiry I have taken part in, the manufacturers, in camera, have produced their balance-sheets for inspection. We have had no balance-sheets here. We have challenged them, we have asked for them, and they have refused them. That is the statement made before the Committee by Mr. Comyns Carr—as categorical a statement as you could possibly have. Surely, if the chairman, or any member of the committee, had any complaint to make, he would have made it on that occasion, which was, as I have said, three weeks before the end of the inquiry. I say again, as I said on a previous occasion, that people like the hon. Member for Macclesfield would not be misled into this kind of position if the demand which we have always made were satisfied by the President of the Board of Trade. I understand that when any of these committees come to the end of their deliberations, and give their conclusions to the right hon. Gentleman, he is supplied with a copy of the transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence. I believe that goes to him on every occasion. The evidence is available to him, but it is not available to the Members of the House, and it seems to me, especial y in view of what has happened with this particular inquiry, and the question we have been discussing, that it is a monstrous thing that Members of the House should be asked to pass their judgment on these matters without seeing the evidence on which the conclusions are come to. A jury in a Court of Law who are asked to decide upon matters of fact not only hear counsel and the summing up of the Judge, but the evidence that is tendered on oath to the Court and they are the people who give the verdict.

This House is in the position of a jury. We are asked to give a verdict. We listen to ex parte statements, and we can read the summing up of the Committee, but we are not given a chance to see the evidence brought by the two sides, upon which our conclusions should be based if they are to be just and right and fair conclusions. We on this side—I believe I speak for hon. Members above as well as below the Gangway—are not satisfied with the way in which these committees have been handled by the right hon. Gentleman. We are not satisfied, for instance, that he has been content in every case to appoint three members only of the Committee. We are not satisfied that on some occasions one member of a committee only has heard the evidence given. We are not satisfied that in the case of the committee on cutlery there was not some undue influence used by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to cause that Report to be hurried to its conclusion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Mr. James Hope)

The hon. Member is now dealing with another committee.

Mr. CRAWFURD

I apologise, but there is plenty to say about this committee. We are not satisfied that in this instance the right hon. Gentleman has not appointed to this committee people who are notoriously biased in one direction. [Interruption.] No, I do not. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It seems to me to be a pity that he is not able to rise to the conception of these matters being decided by people who are not notoriously biased.

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

I have appointed a great many Liberals.

Mr. CRAWFURD

That does not make the case any better. That intervention and the spirit in which it is received, is an admirable illustration of what I mean. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor hon Members opposite have any conception at all of the way in which these matters ought to be handled. When people are coming to a Government Department to ask that duties which will take money out of the pockets of the general consumer, and put it into their pockets, should be imposed, at least we are entitled to ask that the bodies that decide these questions should be impartial and as far as possible, judicial in character. It does not matter whether the bias is on one side or the other. It is equally bad. I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this: The Committee finished its deliberation, I believe, about 3 o'clock one afternoon. One Member left London for the country the next day and the other left England for South America. How, under those circumstances can we accept the Report that has been given as a considered and impartial review of the evidence tendered to the Committee? From beginning to end, this machine set up by the Government to get round, by a back door, the pledge given by the Prime Minister at the last election is characterised by all the suspicion of trickery and bias which accompanies tariff-mongering in every country.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The hon. Member has dealt very faithfully with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) as far as the matter of balance sheets is concerned, but the hon. Member for Macclesfield made two other charges against the attitude that we take on this side of the House. In the first place, he said none of the Members representing those districts and speaking from these benches had defended the attack upon this Clause. It was pointed out to him that two Members at different times had spoken. He called attention to the fact that other Members for the district had not spoken. The point is this: We who are Free Traders have always admitted that if you put on a duty it will probably benefit the people who are actually producing that particular article. What we have always said is that the very small benefit which may be conferred upon the people producing that particular article more than offset by the disadvantages to the people of the country as a whole, and I should still be against this duty even if all my friends on this side, realising that some advantage might accrue to their constituents, had come forward in support of the duty. The remarkable fact is that none of the Members representing those constituencies on this side came forward to support the duty, and that, so far as the inquiry was concerned, the particular trade union involved definitely decided not to be represented in favour of the duty.

Mr. REMER

Or to oppose it.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

That is true. They decided to remain neutral. That is a very extraordinary thing, and in view of the allegations that this was going to benefit the industry, it is very remarkable that the workmen's side definitely came to the conclusion that it was not worth their while to support the application for a duty. Then the hon. Member for Macclesfield dealt with the co-operative factory, and he thought he had made an answer to my right hon. Friend by saying they had a tied market. That, like many of his other statements, is entirely without foundation. They have not a tied market, either in theory or in fact. It is quite a recognised thing in the co-operative business for the local co-operative establishments to buy in the outside market and not to give their trade in particular products to the Wholesale Co-operative Society, and in this case that is true. In order to secure the market of the local co-operative stores, the Wholesale Co-operative Producing Society have to compete in the open market with the other industries.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield accused us of attacking the personnel of the Committee, but why have we done that? Because, in our view, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have not fulfilled the functions it is their proper duty to perform. This process of safeguarding should be carried on, as we understand the proceedings, by a judicial Committee to examine witnesses and study the facts judicially, and on those facts the Chancellor of the Exchequer should base his decision, and be prepared to defend it himself. As a matter of fact, that has not been done. What has been done is this. First of all, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, he deliberately absents himself from all these discussions. The President of the Board of Trade generally simply says, "The Committee has come to a decision, and you have got to accept that decision." It is in consequence of that that we are forced to consider what right these three people, appointed originally by the President of the Board of Trade, have, by a majority of one, to come to a decision, which decision is practically binding on this House. That is what we object to, and that is why, if that be the policy and method of proceedings adopted by Government, we are then compelled to take a course which we should not otherwise take of examining the qualifications of the Committee and their method of taking their evidence to see whether they are fit to arrive at a decision which is binding upon the country as a whole.

I come to the President of the Board of Trade. In the course of the Committee stage on this proposal he defended this Duty on the ground that this Felspar china was, in fact, in competition with the Longton china, and he did it on the ground that you can make an article of Longton china and you can make Felspar china and that you would not be able to distinguish one from the other; and, therefore, he says that is sufficient proof that, although made of different materials, they are, in fact, in competition with each other. That is not the case. The real position is, that the Longton china article is a great deal more expensive than the Felspar article, and that, though it is quite possible if you were to make a similar article of the two materials you would not be able to distinguish one from the other, in point of fact, you can always distinguish them by the enormous difference in price. It is because of that enormous difference in price that they are not in competition. Longton china is only suitable for articles which are going to be articles of luxury, and these articles are only bought by people who can afford a long price. The Felspar articles are cheap articles, or were before the Duty was imposed, and they have been bought by people who could only afford a cheap article. They came into competition not with Longton china but with earthenware and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green South-West (Mr. Harris) told us last time, with tin mugs and other things with which they were comparable in price. So long as the Longton manufacturers put upon their articles the very large prices which they are asking to-day they are not really even benefited by this Duty because the price, even with the Duty, does not come within the range of the Longton china article.

I come to another point brought forward by the President of the Board of Trade when we had this matter before us on the last occasion. Perhaps he will be kind enough to give me his attention on this point. In the course of defending the general duty he explained that the imports measured by weight had been going steadily up, and he said not only were they going up in 1926—which, of course, he must recognise as well as I, was quite an abnormal year and is quite unfit for comparison—but that if you went to the time when the coal dispute was at an end, the first four months of this year showed that the imports had continually risen right up to the imposition of the Duty. That was an argument, in his opinion, to prove that the imports were abnormal and it was perfectly right the Duty should be imposed. Later on, however, I moved the Amendment to alter the date from when it was proposed to be put on on the ground that people had had no notice and that many freights were on the sea and it was very unfair to deal with them. The President of the Board of Trade then changed his tune, because he then said the amount of import duty in the earlier months of this year had shown that the importers were fully alive to the possibility of this duty being imposed. The President of the Board of Trade cannot have it both ways!

9.0 p.m.

Either the large quantities imported in the earlier months of the year are really due to the gradual growth of the trade that would have taken place if no duty had been put on or they are due to the expectation that the duty was going to be imposed. He cannot use the same figures in two opposite directions twice on the same subject. He must either recant from one or the other. He must either admit that the higher weight of articles coming in was due to the expectation of the duty, in which case his whole case for the abnormality of the increase disappears at once, or, if he prefers to take those figures as evidence in weight as still being an increase, then he cannot argue that they were put on in expectation of the duty. But he has preferred to take both, and I leave him to choose which one or the other he will take as the sound argument he proposes to put before us this evening.

I only wish to touch upon one or two further points before I sit down. The President of the Board of Trade attempted to argue that this amount of 3⅓ per cent. is really met by 28s. per cwt. duty. We have maintained that 28s a cwt. duty is really the equiva- lent of far more. In order to prove his case he chose to take a certain consignment. He said, I think, it was a 975 cwts. consignment and it was a sample produced by a gentleman who was a principal witness on behalf of the opponents. He goes into a great many figures and he works out that on that consignment the duty would be 34 per cent. I would like to put to him, or to whoever is going to answer on behalf of the Government, this question: Is that typical of all the imports that have taken place. I understand it is not. I understand that the figures given by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) are more nearly correct and that the average, taking all the facts, is at least 42 per cent. If that is not so, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will tell us what is the average result, taking all the facts together. I am not including the very expensive china, because, as I said, when this matter was before the House on Second Reading, if you chose to add the very few per cent., which is the duty on chinaware worth several pounds as against several shillings for cheaper china you will, no doubt, bring the duty down. But we are concerned for the common people of this country who are being mulcted in duty or prevented from buying articles in order to bring this vary hypothetical advantage to a luxury trade.

I had hoped that on the last occasion the President of the Board of Trade would have met us over the question of the date. Although I know that he refused us then I still hope that he will make some concession to us to-day. If he does not do so, I feel that this particular duty is one of the most scandalous that the Government have put on under the pretence of this safeguarding procedure. It violates the fundamental principles of taxation; it violates in spirit the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister in regard to safeguarding procedure, and it raises the price of articles of common consumption in the very hypothetical interests of a luxury trade.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

I do not rise to add anything to the general discussion. but only to raise two points. One of the reasons which makes me dubious about this duty is that there is a great deal of dubiety as to precisely the articles to which the duty is to apply. In the Committee stage, certain Amendments were moved attempting to exclude from the operation of the duty certain kinds of translucent pottery. The President of the Board of Trade met us in regard to certain fancy articles, but there is a great deal of dubiety about cooking utensils, such articles as are not used as table ware, such as milk boilers, pie dishes, baking dishes, souffle dishes and things of that sort. I understand, but I am not sure, that the Customs officials in administering the duty are treating these articles as if they are not affected by the duty. As there is a great deal of dubiety about it, I should welcome a statement from whoever is to reply as to whether these articles which are not produced in this country, at Longton or anywhere else, and consequently there is no industry to safeguard, do or do not come under the operation of the duty.

There is, further, the effect that the duty has had on the trade. The House having listened to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) with his assurances of lower prices, higher wages and more employment may be interested to hear what the "Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review" of the 1st July has to say about the operation of the duty in so far as it has gone: It is at once apparent to anyone who has occasion frequently to tour the Potteries, and who is at all competent to judge the state of the market, that there is no 'tone' in trade at the present time. It can safely be said that there are, indeed, few factories which are busy, and many manufacturers seem to be quite unable to explain the paucity of orders and the daily reports of their travellers that there is little disposition on the part of the average retailer to make up anything like a decent journey order. This, in view of the tariff which is now operative upon foreign china, might, at first, seem to constitute a paradox, but when one looks into the matter more closely there would seem to be a definite explanation to the fact that few stocks require replenishing for the moment. There has undoubtedly been very heavy buying of Continental china prior to and during the Safeguarding Inquiry, and the buying of these heavy stocks has, without doubt, caused the tying up of a good deal of ready money. Not only has this affected the London importers and wholesalers, but also the provincial dealers, some of whom have been courageous enough to tell the Staffordshire manufacturers very plainly what their position is: for the moment they can neither order nor meet their accounts with that regularity which has been their custom in times past. 'You must wait until we have got rid of some of this heavy stock of Continental ware that we have on hand,' one or two of the bigger buyers are reported frankly to have told the travellers. All this is very disconcerting, to both the travellers and the manufacturers, some of whom are beginning to wonder whether the duty is not actually doing them a bad turn. However, the more long-sighted of our manufacturers are gradually becoming more reconciled to the idea that, given time, the trade of the Potteries is bound to benefit by the higher prices which will assuredly have to be asked for foreign china in view of the heavy duty which is now having to be paid on the arrival of foreign packages weighing, say, five to six cwt. It is only now that the dealers are beginning to realise what the duty really means to them in actual terms of £ s. d. The article goes on to say: There are, indeed, many lines which will now have to be changed over by retailers from foreign china to English earthenware, and, to some extent, the earthenware houses or the Potteries have already received practical evidence of this. That is only part of a very long article, but it is sufficient to show that the argument produced from below and above the Gangway on this side of the House is correct, that the case made out for this duty is not sufficient to warrant the House in passing this Clause to-night. I have very great pleasure in supporting the rejection of the Clause, and I hope that, even at the last moment, this kind of evidence will persuade the President of the Board of Trade to withdraw the Clause, which is doing harm not merely to the trade in the Potteries but is helping to restrain trade at the ports and adding to the Customs staff and the expenditure of the country on that staff.

Sir B. CHADWICK

A good deal of the Debate has been spent on charges and counter-charges on one side and the other. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) opened the Debate by referring to the pottery factory which, I understand, is associated with the body he so ably represents in this House. He wanted to know why if that pottery factory was efficient we impose a duty to help it. He then proceeded to prove that the factory was not inefficient but was perfectly efficient and paying a 12 per cent. dividend and, therefore, did not need the duty. It is just as well to bring to the notice of the House the motives which have actuated the Government in imposing this duty. Here we have an industry employing some 8,000 people, who are part of a larger community of some 60,000, 70,000 or 80,000 people directly concerned in the industry, and again those people are part of a community of 250,000 people directly and indirectly concerned in this industry. This industry is suffering from foreign competition, and that is one of the main reasons for the duty. This bone china is in direct competition with the cheap material coming from Czechoslovakia. That is one of the main considerations that have actuated the Government.

There is one point which I must make, because almost every speaker has referred to it, and that is the absence from the inquiry of the workers in the industry. Why were they not there, it has been asked. Why were they not there? I have been through many of the potteries in Staffordshire and I have spoken to the workers in the industry. I was not introduced to them by anybody; they did not know who I was, but I obtained the most remarkable evidence of the eagerness and earnestness with which the workers were looking forward to the imposition of this duty. The answer is better known to hon. Members opposite than it is to me why the workers in this industry did not come forward to participate in the inquiry. It is a remarkable fact that the hon. Members who represent the districts primarily concerned are not here to take part in this vital discussion, vital to the life of the people working in this industry. No answer has been made to the query as to whether the workers in this industry were at the inquiry or were represented at the inquiry.

Mr. BROWN

Is there not in this industry one of the most successful Joint Industrial Council of employers and employed and have any representations come from that Committee, which is a representative body of employers and employed?

Sir B. CHADWICK

I do not know whether it is within the province of the joint Industrial Council to make representations for different sections of the industry, but it is true that this industry is remarkable in the peaceful conditions that have existed for more than 25 years. Whether that Joint Industrial Council has made representations or not I do not know, but we do know that the workers did not take any part in the inquiry. The main thing which has actuated the Government is concern for the people in the industry. That point is not referred to by hon. Members opposite when they argue on these comparatively unimportant points. As to the inquiry and the constitution and appointment of these Committees, about which so much has been said, surely hon. Members opposite will realise that more than 50 per cent. of the Committees which have been appointed by the President of The Board of Trade to examine these industries have recommended no duty. Not one word of protest have I heard from hon. Members opposite, or from hon. Members on this side of the House, in cases where no duty has been recommended; but wherever a duty has been recommended, hon. Members opposite speak of a "packed committee" and accuse the right hon. Gentleman of partiality. The claimants in this case were the representatives of the old English industry of pottery making and the opponents were the London Chamber of Commerce. We think that the much stronger claim is made by the people who are concerned in the industry.

The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) spoke of the noncompetitive element between these two classes. He is wrong again. The committee took the view that he is wrong, and most ordinary people, who are accustomed to think of these matters in every day practice, people going into a shop to buy cups and saucers, will not consider that there is no competition between articles which in one case cost 3s. 6d. and in the other 4s. 9d. a dozen to produce. There is no doubt that there is direct competition between this bone china industry and the foreign industry. The opponents of the industry say "Abandon your old methods; you are inefficient. Turn over to a new process." They ask these old British Staffordshire potters to abandon methods which have kept them in the forefront of china production for years; and we are told by experts that if they adopted other methods they would not reduce the price of a dozen cups and saucers by a penny. It would not help them, because the people who are competing with them are working on a 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. less wage than the people in Staffordshire. That is all I need say in resisting this Amendment. The hon. Member for West Leicester criticised the President of the Board of Trade in regard to something he had said, but I confess I could not follow him at all. On the question of the value of the duty in the light of experience since it has been imposed, a duty of 28s. per cwt. has always been said to be far more relatively than a duty of 33⅓ per cent. over these classes of china. In the months since the duty was imposed in April the figures work out in this way. The dutiable imports of china in April were 1,036 cwts., of a value of £4,792; in May there were 6,182 cwts., of a value of £33,600, and in June 5,500 cwts. of a value of £28,558. The rate of the duty in April is equivalent to an ad valorem, duty of 30 per cent., in May to 26 per cent., and in June to 26 per cent. That rather disposes of the terrifying statements made by the hon. Member.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I have sat through all the discussions upon this Pottery Duty, and I have never heard any reply from the Government Bench which has been so entirely inadequate. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that there are 8,000 persons unemployed in the Longton china trade, and he has said that we show no regard for that predicament because we will not accept this particular proposal. But throughout the Debates no attempt has been made to show that, whatever unemployment there may be in this trade, it is going to be in any way affected by a duty on articles imported from abroad, and no attempt has been made to answer the ordinary causes which are assigned to the position of this trade by those who have inquired into it. The facts about the Longton china trade are that it makes a very beautiful but very expensive article, which from its nature must be confined to something in the nature of a luxury demand. It has also been shown, and not denied, that there is in this trade some sort of price agreement, I will not say it is a ring, and that in certain typical articles selected for examination, as a result of that price agreement, the price of the article has been increased by 400 per cent. as compared with the period before the war. If you come to the position which is represented there, when you come to treat with a luxury article for which, as a result of our present conditions, the demand is bound to be more restricted than before the War, and when you deliberately raise the price by a combination, the punishment of that is bound to be felt in a decrease in demand and an increase in unemployment. That is the cause which is commonly assigned to the special difficulties in the Longton china trade, and no speaker who has yet supported these duties has attempted to show that the cause is not in itself quite sufficient for the unemployment to be found there.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has said that the Joint Industrial Council had no right to make representations on this matter. As a matter of fact, the matter came before the Joint Industrial Council, and the employers' side of the council moved a resolution that, as the Joint Industrial Council, they should support this application, but the workers' side refused to have any part or lot in this particular proposal. If you ask the reasons, they are the reasons which we have stated and have been stating in these Debates for the last two months, namely, that this duty, while it may assist certain trades and workers in other industries, will not assist the workers in the Longton china trade, because this china from abroad, which has been discussed in this Debate, is not in any real or effective competition with the products they manufacture. This china from abroad, though it is called china, is made by a different process and sells on a different market and is made for a different demand.

The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the wages paid in Czechoslovakia and Germany are about 30 per cent. lower than the wages paid in this country. It has been shown that if in this country all the men worked for nothing, the china from abroad, made by the felspar process. would still be sold in this country at a price which does not cover our overhead charges. It is a cheap article, an article made for ordinary bazaars, and an article which is not bought by the same market as the expensive and elaborate china produced in Longton. The cost of the raw material is only about one-quarter of the cost of the raw material for Longton, and you cannot bridge this chasm in costs by any tariff which this House can conceivably impose. The consequence must be that whatever tariff is put on—even though the price of this china from abroad may be raised by 33⅓ per cent.— nevertheless, it will not be selling on the same market and in the same field of competition as the bone china made for the luxury trade.

For that reason, the workers in this bone china trade know that this felspar china has, as a matter of fact, nothing to do with the product for which they are responsible. Who is going to be assisted? It is this last factor to which I wish to call the attention of the House, because throughout all these discussions this mysterious obscurity has never been cleared up. There are some manufacturers who will be assisted by this duty, and they are the manufacturers of earthenware. They are in competition with felspar, and they produce a product which cannot be told apart from felspar. In the very dining room of this House there are cups of earthenware and saucers of felspar china and no Member can tell the difference between them and they are sold at competitive prices. They are made for the same market at the same price. The exclusion of felspar china from abroad will undoubtedly be of benefit to them, but they did not ask for a tariff, and, if they had asked for a tariff, they would not have been able to fulfil a single one of the conditions which the White Paper lays down. They have got a tariff by these manufacturers of bone china having somehow or other been placed in front, and so we have now reached the ridiculous and scandalous position that, as a result of an application for a tariff from manufacturers of a luxury article, a tariff has finally been given to manufacturers of necessities which enter into the cost of living of every home in this land.

Sir BASIL PETO

I should like to say a word or two in reply to the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member has said that there is a great deal of unemployment in this industry, and that from this side of the House we have not shown that the result of this duty is going materially to affect employment. My view with regard to that is that if you have a series of duties, all of which have produced a marked result upon the unemployment figures in the industries concerned, it is a fair assumption that at any rate there is a probability that the imposition of the duty will have a material effect on employment in the pottery industry, broadly speaking, as a whole. The Hon. Member says that the Langton china manufacturers never enter into competition with the felspar. He envisages two absolutely watertight compartments in one of which there is a demand for the one article and in the other there is a demand for the other article. But I hold that is an entirely wrong view to take of the course of any trade. There is no doubt that there are many factors which influence people in their purchases, and among them is the very widely distributed desire, in purchasing the daily needs of every household, to do something to find employment for the people of this country. If the difference is so enormous as between the cost of the foreign product and the home-made article, in many cases that may turn the scale, but though a duty of 28s. per cwt may not be sufficient, as the hon. Member says, to equalise or anything like equalise, this difference, it may in many cases enable people to make up their minds to purchase British china in preference to foreign felspar china which comes in and takes its place.

The hon. Member says that really what is going to happen is that some other branch of British workers, namely, those who are engaged in the earthenware industry, are going to be the people who will benefit. Why should we take such a narrow view in this House as to say that if there is any class of workers in any industry in this country which is going to benefit we should—just because it is not precisely the class of worker in one particular department of an industry that is going to benefit—therefore repeal or rather not enact at all a Clause of the Finance Bill which has already been in operation. The hon. Member says it is not precisely the body of workers which the Clause claims to benefit who are going to be the people who will really benefit in their employment, but I take the view that, if in the present state of employment in this country, we can help employment in any branch of industry, we should be very ill-advised on no evidence whatever and in the face of the evidence of every other industry which has been safeguarded, to refuse to enact a Clause which is already in operation. I cannot conceive of a more narrow-minded argument than that put before the House from the Front bench opposite. It is really a case of a dog-in-the-manger argument, that because you cannot claim that you are going to benefit most precisely the people you set out to benefit, therefore, you should repeal or rather not enact this Clause at all.

I ask the House to consider this further point. This is a Clause which has been in operation for a month or two, and we have no evidence yet as to how it is going to work. We have evidence as to how every other Safeguarding Duty has operated in improving employment in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] At any rate, we have diminished imports in every case. That means a larger share of the home market for those employed in the industries in this country. That in face of that fact we should turn round and say, "We shall not enact this Clause or give it even a year to find out how it will operate." seems to me to be a counsel that no responsible body of legislators would consider for a moment. It is certainly not a counsel which would be

considered in this House. Let us admit that the hon. Member's argument might be appropriate two years hence, if he were then able to show on facts and figures that the imposition of the duty had produced no amelioration of the lot of the people engaged in the pottery and earthenware industry. Then he could say that the duty had been in force for two years, which was a sufficiently long time for some judgment of its operation to be made, that it had not operated to advantage, and that we should not continue it. But he has asked us to take out of the Bill a Clause that has never been tried and tested, and which, on the analogy of every similar Clause relating to every other industry, has done good, and he has asked us to do that in the name of the Labour Party.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 122.

Division No. 270.] AYES. [9.39 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Albery, Irving James Conway, Sir W. Martin Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cope, Major William Graves-Lord, Sir Walter
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Couper, J. B. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Courtauld, Major J. S. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Grotrian, H. Brent
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtan, N.) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Gunston, Captain D. W.
Balniel, Lord Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro) Hanbury, C.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Harland, A.
Bennett, A. J. Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Harrison. G. J. C.
Betterton, Henry B. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hartington, Marquess of
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Boothby, R. J. G. Dawson, Sir Philip Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Dean, Arthur Weliesley Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Brass, Captain W. Dixey, A. C. Hills, Major John Waller
Brassey, Sir Leonard Drewe, C. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Briggs, J. Harold Eden, Captain Anthony Hogg, Rt Hon. Sir D.(St Marylebone)
Brittain, Sir Harry Edmondson, Major A. J. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Elliot, Major Walter E. Holt, Canptain H. P.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Ellis, R. G. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Elveden, Viscount Hopkins, J. W. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Buchan, John Everard, W. Lindsay Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Buckingham, Sir H. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Hume-Willams, Sir W. Ellis
Butler, Sir Geofirey Fermoy, Lord Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Butt, Sir Alfred Fielden, E. B. Huntingfield, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Finburgh, S. Hurd, Percy A.
Campbell, E. T. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Hurst, Gerald B.
Carver, Major W. H. Foster, Sir Harry S Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H
Cassels, J. D. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cent'l)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Fraser, Captain Ian James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Galbraith, J. F. W. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Gsnzoni, Sir John King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Knox, Sir Alfred
Clarry, Reginald George Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lamb, J. Q.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Goff, Sir Park Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Grace, John Lister, Cunliffe-,Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lloyd, Cyril E, (Dudley) Oakley, T. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Loder, J. de V. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C.
Long, Major Eric Oman, Sir Charles William C. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Looker, Herbert William Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Styles, Captain H. Walter
Lougher, Lewis Penny, Frederick George Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Perkins, Colonel E. K. Tasker, R. Inigo.
Lumley, L. R. Perring, sir William George Templeton, W. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Pilditch, Sir Philip Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Maclntyre, I. Pownall, Sir Assheton Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
McLean, Major A. Price, Major C. W. M. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Macmillan, Captain H. Radford, E. A. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Raine, Sir Walter Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Macquisten, F. A. Rawson, Sir Cooper Warrender, Sir Victor
MacRobert, Alexander M. Reid, D. D, (County Down) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Stell- Remer, J. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Rice, Sir Frederick Wells, S. R.
Malone, Major P. B. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Margesson, Captain D. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Ropner, Major L. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Melier, R. J Rye, F. G. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Merriman, F. B. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Winby, Colonel L. P.
Meyer, Sir Frank Sandeman, N. Stewart Wise, Sir Fredric
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sanders, Sir Robert A. Withers, John James
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Wolmer, Viscount
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Womersley, W. J.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Shepperson, E. W. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Slmms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Moreing, Captain A. H. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Nelson, Sir Frank Sprot, Sir Alexander
Neville, Sir Reginald J. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Captain Viscount Curzon and
Nichloson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) Steel, Major Samuel Strang Captain Bowyer.
Nuttall, Ellis Storry-Deans, R.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Purcell, A. A.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Groves, T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Grundy, T. W. Riley, Ben
Ammon, Charles George Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Ritson, J.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) salter, Dr. Alfred
Barker, Walter Hardie, George D. Scurr, John
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Harris, Percy A. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Batey, Joseph Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bondfield, Margaret Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sitch, Charles H.
Briant, Frank Hirst, G. H. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Broad, F. A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smillie, Robert
Bromley, J. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snell, Harry
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cape, Thomas Kelly, W. T, Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lansbury, George Sullivan, J.
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M. Lawson, John James Taylor, R. A.
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Thorne, W. (West Ham, plaistow)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lindley, F. W. Townend, A. E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lowth, T. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Varley, Frank B.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Viant, S. P.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Mackinder, W. Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacLaren, Andrew Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Day, Colonel Harry Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)
Dennison, R. Maxton, James Westwood, J.
Duncan, C. Mosley, Oswald Whiteley, W.
Dunnico, H. Murnin, H. Wiggins, William Martin
Edge, Sir William Naylor, T. E. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
England, Colonel A. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Forrest, W. Oliver, George Harold Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gardner, J. P. Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gillett, George M. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenall, T. Ponsonby, Arthur Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Potts, John S. Barnes.