§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. GILLETT
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It cannot be claimed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this proposal is a hardy annual, because the duty on lace has only been in operation for the last two years. The proposed New Clause is to the effect that the duty chargeable upon lace imposed by the Finance Act of 1925 should now cease. I may remind the House that a Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act was appointed in March, 1925, at the request of the Federation of Lace and Embroidery Employers' Associations, fortified by one or two other associations and also supported by the British Lace Operatives' Federation. On the other hand, we have the rather extraordinary fact that the application for duty was opposed by the Lace and Embroidery Group of the London Chamber of Commerce. The reason given by those who were anxious to have a duty imposed was that it would help the export trade and their application was based on figures dealing with the export trade. They pointed out that in 1913 the United States imported from this country 5,900,000 dollars' worth of goods, and from France 5,300,000 dollars' worth. Ten years later the figures were 800,000 dollars' worth from this country, and 4,800,000 dollars' worth from France. They argued from these figures that in some way—which was rather difficult to see—the imposition of a duty would be to the advantage of the export trade.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), who was then, I think, sitting on the benches below the Gangway, pointed out during the Debate that in Calais only 50 per cent. of the machinery was employed—that, in a protected country, only half the looms were at work. He then expressed a view which is, I believe, held 66 by many others, that the real problem confronting the lace industry was not foreign competition but the change which had taken place in regard to the use of the goods which were formerly manufactured principally in Nottingham. He also pointed out that in 1907, 73 per cent. of the total output was exported, leaving only the small amount of 27 per cent. to the home trade, and the committee reported that they were informed that the position was very much the same in 1925. The right hon. Gentleman then asked how a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would enable the manufacturers to recapture export trade, and he suggested that if the Government wanted to help the lace industry, a subsidy would be more suitable than a duty. We have now had two years' experience of the duty, and we are able to see how far the export trade has been helped by it. I find that in 1924, the last year before the duty was imposed, the total of exports was £2,620,000. If we take 1926, the first complete year after the imposition of the duty, we find that the exports have fallen to £1,948,000. The argument may be used that the general strike in 1926 and the coal stoppage explain this difference, but looking at the first four months in each of the two years, 1925 and 1926, we find that the export trade in 1925 was £865,000, and in 1926 that had fallen to £660,000. The same tendency is shown if we take the first five months of 1926 and compare them with the first five months of this year. The figures fell from £770,000 to £683,000. Therefore, it does not seem that the duty has been of any benefit to the export trade. Still, that was one of the points which was emphasised when the application was made and, therefore, I am laying stress upon it.
Let us now look at the question of imports. It might be supposed that imports would be affected by the imposition of a duty, but the figures which were given during March in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) do not seem to justify the duty in this respect either. In 1924 the imports, less re-exports, came to 67 £505,000; in 1925 the figure rose to £609,000, and in 1926 it had fallen to £458,600. Even if allowance is made for the industrial disturbance of 1926, there is nothing in these figures to justify the policy of the Government. Although the question asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury was as to the amount of imports, the answer dealt with imports less re-exports, and rather extraordinary figures have been presented by one of the newspapers in a report on the lace trade. In 1924 we are told the imports were £2,330,000, and the re-exports £1,830,000, and two years later, after the duty had been imposed for some time, the imports were £607,000 and the re-exports about £100,000. What seems to have happened is that the re-export trade has almost entirely disappeared; and although the figures given in the last Board of Trade document seem to be slightly better, there does not seem to have been otherwise any very great change to justify those who were enthusiastic supporters of the duty.
Meanwhile, the employers issued a statement in which they claimed that their home trade had increased by about 18 per cent. If we look at these figures, and consider how much of the imports are left in the country, I think we must conclude that, if they have improved their trade, they could have improved it without the duty. The difference is very small—only something like £50,000—as affecting the goods actually left in this country, taking the difference between the imports and the re-exports. Therefore, to sum up that side of the question we find that the exports have fallen off by about 25 per cent., and if we take the home trade, we find the claim made by the manufacturers—though no figures have been put up to justify it—is that there has been an 18 per cent. improvement, whilst the re-export trade has been almost annihilated. That is the experience since the duty was imposed, and meanwhile, on the Continent we find that Germany has been pushing her lace in the American market. In 1924 she sent 657,000 marks' value of goods to America, and two years later that figure had risen to over 2,000,000 marks.
I endeavoured to see if any information could be obtained dealing with the important question of employment. I find the number of people employed is 68 less, and that is explained by the fact that this is to a large extent a dying industry. The number unemployed in July, 1925, was 3,800, and in July, 1926, 4,035. The latest figure which I have seen is for February, and it is 2,389, but I should like to know whether in this particular trade July and February figures are properly comparable in this respect. We know that in many trades the unemployment figures in February cannot be compared with the figures for July; but I do not know enough about the lace trade to know whether in that case it is a fair comparison. At any rate, from the export and import figures, it is difficult to see how there could be any large increase in the number of people employed. Unless the Minister is prepared to show that the figures I have presented are not correct, I fail to see how he can argue that this duty has been of any benefit. The final conclusion reached by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen was that the trade is a dying one. People do not use nowadays the lace curtains which were formerly so popular, and if the demand has ceased it is hopeless to seek to revive it by the imposition of duty. At the same time, I cannot see how this duty could have been of any advantage to the export trade. Surely, if there was need of help in regard to the export trade, the only way to help it was by a reduction in the cost of manufacture. What you want to know is how you are going to reduce costs in order to produce goods at a lower price, and so compete with the other countries in the markets of the world. I was interested to notice in the "Manchester Guardian" commercial supplement of this week a sentence which refers to another aspect of this question:The present revival of smuggling appears to be principally in silk, lace, and other commodities on which a high duty was recently placed. Needless to say the reputable trader suffers as much as the Revenue.As far as one can see, that is the only definite result of this duty. The smuggling of lace has become a temptation to those who are interested, and who think they can make a little profit in that way at the expense of the Revenue. Looking at all the facts, it seems to me my proposal is amply justified.
§ Mr. HARRIS
I beg to second the Motion.
A very strong case has been made out by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) in favour of dropping this duty. He has shown that while some small advantage may have accrued to the town of Nottingham, the loss to the country has been considerable. I am not ashamed to speak as a London Member. I know the fashion now is to speak with contempt of the working men and business men of London as if they were to be ignored. We have heard of great cities being brought into decay by bad government and unsound legislation. The various actions of this Government are tending to do immense harm to the business men, traders and workpeople of London. London exists because of its river and its port; and the Port of London is suffering from the experiments in Protection which are being made by the Government. As has been shown by the hon. Member for Finsbury, trade is being diverted from the port of London to many ports on the Continent. The long queues of men waiting to work at the docks and the large number of unemployed in the packing trade and in the warehouse business give eloquent testimony of the result of the policy of the so-called safeguarding of industries. Some sections may be safeguarded, but the great shipping and carrying trades, the great packing and dock industries are all suffering as a consequence.
The hon. Member for Finsbury showed conclusively that, as a result of these duties, the actual retained imports have, if anything, increased. There is no diminution, apparently, in the amount of foreign lace used by the women of this country. The trades that have been injured by these duties are the merchant trades, the carrying trades, the packing industry, and all the industries that are concentrated in the great port of London, and that exist because London in the past has been a free port. The actual figures show that the decrease in the re-exports, or of the lake passing through the port of London to be distributed all over the world, to the Empire, to Canada, to the United States of America, has been immense; and that 70 has done untold injury to very many trades. I am not quite so pessimistic as the hon. Member for Finsbury, and I am not going to say that the lace industry is dead. Lace is subject to the vagaries of fashion, and women's whims are peculiar. To-day they will want one thing with which to decorate themselves, and to-morrow they will be attracted by some article which is at present out of fashion. There may be, in the course of time, a revival of the lace industry, and again prosperity may come, not only to Nottingham, but to all the many manufacturing centres on the Continent that concentrate on the production of lace; but, as I said in a previous Debate, before the people of Nottingham are entitled to ask for special protection, to the injuring of our foreign trade, they ought to put their own house in order and to be prepared to go with the times.
I have taken a little trouble, as I think we are bound to do nowadays, with so many industries brought to us for consideration, to obtain some information about lace, and it may be of interest to the House to know that Nottingham made in the past what is called Normandy lace, which was turned out by machinery by the yard, very much like sausages are turned out—a simple standard pattern. Fashions have so changed now that there is practically no demand for this lace. It is not that it is being made by the foreigner; it is not being made by anybody, because women no longer want it. I could give a great number of examples. Here is another, an article called Valenciennes, which is certainly very beautiful to the male mind, but it is now no longer used. There is good machinery in Nottingham to turn out this most attractive thing, but, unfortunately, now, not even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade could induce women to decorate themselves with this charming lace; not all the blandishments of the Safeguarding of Industries Act can do it. We have heard of the sumptuary duties, which came into force to prevent the use of luxuries by women, but I think we ought to have a new kind of legislation, compelling women to wear Nottingham lace, compelling householders to hang up 71 Nottingham lace curtains. [An HON. MEMBER: "A chance for the Liberal party!"] No; we are more intelligent than that. It is the hon. Members opposite who believe in this State interference with trade and that they can restore industries by artificial means; we believe that what an industry wants is the healthy breeze of competition.
I have taken the trouble to find out whether there is any demand for lace, and here I have something—I suppose it is a terrible thing to show anything of foreign manufacture—known as guipure lace, which is manufactured in Germany. It is still, in spite of the 33⅓ per cent. duty, imported into this country, and I am informed that there is hardly a machine in Nottingham able to produce lace of this character. This lace is largely used in women's garments that are sold, not only in this country, but all over the world. The garment trade in the East End of London, and in the West End, is of considerable importance, and this particular lace is attached to the garment for decorative purposes, but when exported it is impossible, owing to the vagaries of the Customs, to get the drawback. [Laughter] That may seem a laughing matter, but these exports help employment. It is our export trade that is suffering, not our home trade. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was pointing out the other day, before the Adjournment, the tremendous depression in the exports from this country. Well, here we have the Government coming along with their Safeguarding Duties and taxing what is the raw material, although a manufactured article itself, of a great many industries which depend for their existence on being able to supply themselves with what they require untaxed by the Custom House. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I suggest that we should do well to take off this duty.
Meanwhile, while we are lamenting, and almost boasting of, the depression in the Nottingham lace trade, we have Germany making new experiments and pushing her business. She is capturing many of the markets of which we used 72 to have almost a monopoly. She has captured the Australian market, not by sending her goods through London warehouses, but by sending them direct from Hamburg, thus giving employment to her packers, dockers, pattern makers, lace finishers, and the hundred and one industries that might have been kept busy in handling these goods in this country. I am told that while this charming cotton lace has gone out of fashion, Germany has been concentrating on the manufacture of lace made from artificial silk, and has made a great advance in that manufacture. Of course, our Chancellor of the Exchequer has had his finger in that pie, and the struggle of the lace industry in Nottingham to manufacture artificial silk lace has not been helped by the duty on artificial silk. On the contrary, owing to the difficulty of getting drawbacks, the German manufacturer has been given an immense advantage.
I think I have made an overwhelming case in favour of dropping this duty—an unanswerable case. Nottingham is not prosperous, Nottingham is still lamenting and weeping, and it would be far better for the Board of Education to step in and develop design. Design is very important, now that the public are more educated and want a well-designed lace. The old mechanical lace that used to be turned out by the thousands of yards is no longer suited for the world's trade. Let them develop the art of design in Nottingham. I am told that they are actually repeating what they have been making for 30 or 40 years past, turning out the old designs and keeping very much, with two or three important exceptions, to the old standard patterns, which did very well in the old Victorian days, but which will not suit present needs. In the same way, the Board of Education should develop technical education. In Germany both machinery and chemistry play a very important part in the manufacture of lace. The use of chemicals is a very big factor in the mass production of lace, and, of course, the development of the ingenious machinery which they have at their lace centres. Let us concentrate more on that sort of thing, and do not let us suggest that our lace manufacturers want the artificial assistance of tariffs, instead 73 of being able to produce lace to compete with the world because of its quality, beauty, and design.
§ Mr. BROCKLEBANK
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said he had made out an overwhelming case for taking off this duty. If he were to go to Nottingham, he would find himself in a wetter condition than he is in now, and he would find that it would require a considerable amount of power, not to convince the people of Nottingham that they have been wrong, but to enable himself to reach the bank of the River Trent. I will give some plain and simple figures as to the condition of the unemployment question in Nottingham. I do not say that they are all that we could desire—they are still very different from what we should like—but I shall be able to prove conclusively that the position is very much better than it was. We were greatly troubled last year by what troubled the whole of this country. The coal dispute shut down the fires of the factories where the lace is prepared, and, therefore, a considerable number of people were unavoidably out of employment. This makes the figures somewhat bad for last year, but when we consider the figures for this year, we find that unemployment has greatly decreased. The figures are taken as at 1st July, but they are not counted until November, as far as the actual numbers registered in the industry are concerned. Therefore, for 1st July this year, we have not yet got the figures, but I will take them as if they were the same as those registered in the industry last year. In 1925, there were 19,500 people registered in the industry; in 1926, owing to the coal trouble and not being able to get fuel, they had dropped to 19,000; and in 1927 I shall take them as being the same as in 1926, namely, 19,000. The numbers of those registered as unemployed in 1925 were 3,378; on 1st July, 1926, there were more unemployed on account of not being able to keep the fires burning, and they were then 3,751; but when we come to 1927, we find that on 1st July the numbers unemployed were 1,404, which means that our unemployment has dropped from 17.7 per cent. to 7.4 per cent. I hope the House will consider that, if we had been able to get through our troubles last year, last year's figures 74 would have been as different from those of the year before as are this year's figures.
§ Mr. BROCKLEBANK
In 1925, 16,082; in 1926, owing to the coal trouble, 15,249; and in 1927, no fewer than 17,596. I think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green had better not come to Nottingham but, if he does, I trust he will not be accompanied by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett).
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BENNETT
The main argument of the Mover of this new Clause, so far as I have been able to follow it, seems to be that, as the lace industry in this country is dying, the best thing to do is to knock it on the head and kill it right away. I think the lace trade in this country has slightly improved. Since the Safeguarding Duty was put on, if I am correct in my figures, the domestic business has increased by 18 per cent. It looks to me as if the reason why the domestic trade to-day is better is because this duty has been put on, but the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) gave that as an argument why the duty should be taken away. He stated that the entrepôt trade of this country was being injured by the duty. I quite agree with him that we want to keep the entrepôt trade in London and other ports as high as possible. But, if you compare the merits of the entrepôt trade against a manufacturing industry, I think we ought to look primarily to the interests of the manufacturing industry because it employs more workers in this country.
I do not think it is quite fair to judge what has happened in the lace trade in reference to safeguarding by the results obtained during the period that the duty has been in operation. All hon. Members who are interested in lace know that our main competitors are the French. If my memory serves me aright, when the Safeguarding Duty was first put on, the French exchange was about 90 or 95—I speak subject to correction. When the 33⅓ per cent. duty was put on at that time, it was considered to be an ample safeguard, but, since then, the French exchange has been as high as 250, and it is only now becoming stabilised at 75 about 120. It is, therefore, too soon to be able to gauge what the safeguarding duty will mean to our lace trade. We require another year's experience of it at least. My information is that the wages in the lace trade in France have gone up considerably as compared to What they were a year ago. Therefore, I believe that, while this duty may not save the lace industry altogether—that will depend upon the ability of our lace manufacturers—it will be very helpful during a very critical time. I suggest to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that before he speaks about our lace designers being entirely out of date—
§ Mr. BENNETT
I am sure that even that is an over-statement of the case. I do not believe that to-day there is any industry in the country which is more efficient that the lace industry, or one which has had to struggle against greater difficulties.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALL
I would like to add a word or two against the new Clause. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, we cannot fully assess the ultimate results of this duty on the lace industry at the present time. The same arguments are trotted out by the other side in relation to all the safeguarding duties. So far as there were any arguments at all in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, they were, in my view, in support of the duty and indicated that, perhaps, there had been too long a delay in getting the duty imposed, and that, if it had been much higher, it would have been more effective. He quoted figures and admitted that there had been an increase in the home trade of 18 per cent. He also quoted figures relating to export and re-export. But it is always overlooked by hon. Members opposite that the official returns relating to re-export may be very misleading and may bear no relation to the volume of trade that is actually passing. I believe it will be found that, in this particular case, the official returns relating to re-exports may be made to show a decrease, because the business is still passing by the same routes but by through bills of 76 lading, and it it not, therefore, included in our re-exports. The volume of traffic may, in future, be even greater and yet, because it passes on through bills of lading, it is not included in the official returns, and the Opposition are able to say, "Here is a case where the re-export trade is declining." The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are absolutely no evidence in this case.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)
I hardly need to make a speech in response to the speeches from the other side, after the figures which have been given and the devastating facts which have been quoted by hon. Members on this side. The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Brocklebank), who knows, if anyone knows, all about the lace trade, stated that the improvement that has occurred in the trade is in a large measure owing to this safeguarding duty. The duty, being a safeguarding duty primarily, has, I think we may claim, achieved its object so far as we are able to judge of a duty which has been enforced for only about two years. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) said a good deal about imports, exports and re-exports. The trade returns, however, do not give an accurate picture, as values only are recorded. Cotton has fallen considerably in price in the last two years, and, as cotton yarn is a principal raw material and in many cases forms a high proportion of the cost of lace, any deductions drawn from the import and export figures must be given with a large measure of reserve. As an indication of the variation in the price of cotton, which enters so largely into the manufacture of lace, I think it will interest hon. Gentlemen who are not aware of them if I quote some of the figures. In January, 1923, the cost of American 32's was 20½d. to 22d. per pound; and of Egyptian 80's, 37d. to 39d. per pound. It rose until July, 1924. Since then a rapid fall took place, until the end of 1926, when the price of the same two groups of cotton were 11¾ to 13d., and 23½d. to 11½d., as compared with the prices I gave for 1923. That has had a great effect on the general price of cotton lace. Our trade returns, therefore, would be expected to register a fall in both imports and exports even if the trade had practically remained the same. 77 The United Kingdom exports of cotton lace for the past three years, in value, were: in 1924, £2,500,000; in 1925, £2,250,000 and in 1926, £1,700,000. I confess that I did not follow the figures given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gillett) and I would like to see if he can now follow mine. The figures would show that the United Kngdom manufacturers have secured a larger share of the home market.
§ Sir B. CHADWICK
The fall in the exports is due, to some extent, to reduced purchases by the United States of America, who were one of our best markets. Taking the years 1924, 1925 and 1926, the United States of America imported, in the first of those years, 2,800,000 lbs.; and in 1925, 1,959,000 lbs. For 1926 I have not got the figures for weight, but I have them for value, and they show again a very big reduction, the United States, who were one of our big purchasers, having therefore been one very important cause of the reduced export of lace.
§ Sir B. CHADWICK
Only cotton lace. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) is in the habit of enforcing his arguments by demonstration. One day he rattles crockery here. Another day he produces gas mantles, but to-day he produced something which I, wearing these glasses, could not see. The lace industry here and in France would not produce the same volume of material to-day as they did in the past, for one main reason, which is, that the garments to-day are scantier and fewer. The hon. Gentleman found difficulty in understanding the reason for retaining this duty, having regard to the extraordinary drop in re-export in the returns. I think I may be able to explain that partly by the change-over from the practice of shipping lace on through bills of lading to transhipments under bond. Since the imposition of the duty there has been a change over from shipment on through bills of lading, which are included in the trade returns, to transhipments under bond, which are not so 78 included. The apparent heavy fall in our re-export trade, as far as that goes, is largely due to this change in procedure.
§ Sir B. CHADWICK
No, that means that they are included in neither—I will read this again. I do not want to commit myself; it is rather technical. Since the imposition of the duty there has been a change over from shipments on through bills of lading, which are included in the trade returns, to transhipments under bond, which are not so included. I am quite sure that will make it clear.
§ Sir B. CHADWICK
I do not think it is necessary to touch on various other points which have been raised, after the speech of my hon. Friend, and I claim that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has made out no case whatever for removing this duty.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I feel that it needs a considerable amount of courage to say one word on behalf of the new Clause after the devastating speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary. The House always listens to the hon. Gentleman with interest and with sympathy. I admire his courage in coming forward this afternoon to oppose this Clause, because apparently he has been deserted on this occasion not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who always beats a hasty retreat when any question of these protective duties is to be discussed, but by the President of the Board of Trade also. What did the devastating speeches delivered by the two representatives of the City of Nottingham, which gave so much comfort to the hon. Gentleman, really amount to? The only point dealt with by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Brocklebank) related to the figures of employment. I am not going to challenge the accuracy of those figures, but they certainly are quite at variance with all the figures I have been able to discover, either in official returns or in returns furnished by the trade itself in Nottingham. The hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) made a few general statements to the 79 effect that the lace manufacturers in Nottingham appeared to be satisfied with the working of these duties, adding that perhaps there had not yet been time to see what the full effects would be, and ending up with a digression about the effect of the depreciated French exchange. If those two speeches in opposition to this Clause are regarded as devastating by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I do not know how he would regard speeches that really did support the actual facts of the situation. The general opinion of the traders in Nottingham is worth a great deal more than figures of unemployment, because these may be vitiated by a number of other considerations. In the "Times" on Saturday there was a reference to the general state of trade, and a comment was made upon the state of the Nottingham lace industry. It said:At Nottingham, while many branches are dull, the curtain section is fully employed, helped by the demand for coloured curtains, and the fact that casement cloth is out of favour.The revival in that branch of the trade has not been assisted in the least by the safeguarding duties, but is due to a change of fashion. Let us have some further information on it. So late as the 27th May, less than two months ago, the "Nottingham Guardian" said:The condition of the lace trade is far from satisfactory. Large numbers of machines are practically unemployed. The export side of the trade remains bad.How does the hon. Member reconcile the statement he has made in his speech this afternoon with a statement like that? Even the "Board of Trade Gazette," for which the hon. Member has some responsibility, said in January of this year, when these duties had been in operation for 18 months:In the lace trade employment remains bad, and short-time is fairly general.The hon. Member for East Nottingham gave figures from which we were to draw the conclusion that there had been a very considerable decline in unemployment. What was the state of things in January of this year? I find from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" that in January of this year there were 2,843 persons either wholly unemployed or temporarily unemployed. The hon. Member said there were 80 something like 20,000 persons employed in the industry. I would ask him to reconcile that statement with the figures given by Mr. Lichfield in his annual review of the lace trade published in the "Nottingham Guardian" at the beginning of this year. Mr. Lichfield said there that on 26th January, 1926, the number of persons engaged in the lace industry was 15,731. The figure given by the hon. Member was 20,000. According to the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," in January, 1925—that was six months before the duties were imposed—the number of persons employed in the industry was 20,330. According to Mr. Lichfield's figures, after 18 months' experience of the operation of the duty the figure had fallen from 20,000 to 15,731.
Let us take what are one or two other, to my mind, still more important points in this controversy. Again I am quoting from Mr. Lichfield's annual report. He says that on 30th September, 1925, that is, after the duty had been in operation for three months only, the number of racks produced was 296, and in September, 1926, the production had fallen to 282. Throughout the whole of this review Mr. Lichfield admits that there has been a decline in the total output. It is estimated that it amounts to something like 14 per cent. But there is another very important factor in the situation. Surely if these safeguarding duties are to justify themselves they must not only increase employment, which, as I have shown from these figures, this particular duty has not done, but must increase the volume of output, which, as I have also shown from these figures, it has not done, and, from the point of view of the work-people, the duty must raise wages.
Neither of the hon. Members from Nottingham who has spoken has said a word about wages. Let me give Mr. Lichfield's figures. Mr. Lichfield is a defender of the safeguarding duties. His article was written to a very great extent to justify the imposition of these duties. In regard to the wages what does he say? On 30th September, 1925, that is, just after the duty had been imposed, he says the average of wages and salaries was £27 15s. l1d., but that after 12 months' further experience of safeguarding wages and salaries had fallen to an average of 81 £26 7s. [HON. MEMBERS: "For what periods?"] He says:Wages and salaries paid per machine £36 13s. 11d. at the former period and £33 7s.—it is per employé in the former instance I have quoted.
§ Sir B. CHADWICK
The figures which have just been given by the right hon. Gentleman show an extraordinary discrepancy in regard to the number of people employed. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the figures at the end of 1926 showed that there were only 15,000 employed. My figures show 19,000, and that is an extraordinary difference.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The "Labour Gazette" does not give the number actually unemployed. That publication did give those figures in previous years, but for some reason the "Labour Gazette" has ceased to give the number of employed. The number of unemployed at the end of July, 1926, was 12 per cent. of those actually engaged in the industry. I need add nothing to what has been said with regard to the fall in the export trade, but I may call the attention of hon. Members opposite to an argument which was put forward with very great force in former Debates, namely, that if this trade could obtain protection in the home markets it would greatly strengthen its position in regard to the export market, because the trade would be able to keep its machinery fully employed, thus reducing overhead charges and the cost of production, and it would also at the same time strengthen its position in the world market.
What has been our experience in connection with the safeguarding of the lace industry? The figures on this point are quite clear. An attempt has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to try to minimise the seriousness of the fall in the export trade by referring to values. I am ready to concede something on that ground, but if the hon. Gentleman will get his statisticians to work out the percentages of the fall in the price of raw material, he will find out that it amounts to about 12 per cent., and therefore, at the most, the fall can only account for 12 per cent. of the 27 per cent. fall in the exports. Apart from the hon. Member's reference to the fall of values, perhaps he will explain why there has been this enormous fall in the export trade. Is the 82 hon. Gentleman aware of the very important fact that three-quarters of the output of the Nottingham lace trade was formerly an export trade? No less than 73 per cent. of the trade was done abroad, and 27 per cent. was done in the home market. Let us analyse those figures, and we shall see what has been lost by the imposition of these safeguarding proposals. Take a unit of production of 100 before the duty was imposed. No less than 73 per cent. of that went abroad, and 27 per cent. was retained at home. Now only 56 per cent. is exported, where 73 per cent. was formerly exported.
Even if we concede the contention of those who support the argument that these proposals have produced a larger consumption of home manufactures in the home market, what does it mean? It simply means that they have raised the former 27 per cent. in the home market to a little over 30 per cent. on a smaller output. Therefore, they have gained £5 in the home market and lost £18 in the export market. No wonder the "Nottingham Guardian" deplores the terrible condition of the lace trade. There has not been a single fact brought forward in the course of this Debate to justify the operation of these duties, which have almost ruined the export trade which used to be the mainstay of the Nottingham lace industry. These duties have encouraged foreign competition. An hon. Member quoted figures to show how German lace manufacturers were increasing their trade in our Colonial markets, a trade which the operation of these safeguarding duties has lost to the Nottingham lace manufacturers. Two years ago I sat upon a Committee of Inquiry into the wages paid in the Yorkshire textile trade, and we were told that Canadian buyers do not come here but they go straight to Paris to make their purchases. The reason they do this is that in the Bradford trade papers the Bradford manufacturers have been stating that they cannot compete with the French. This information has been broadcast, and naturally our former customers say, "Why should we not act upon the information which you have given us, and go to what you admit is a 30 per cent. cheaper market?"
That is what has happened in the Nottingham lace trade. It has been 83 broadcast that our lace manufacturers cannot compete with Germany. That information has come to the knowledge of lace buyers all over the world, with the result that they are now going direct to Germany and Paris for their purchases, and that must be the inevitable consequence of crying stinking fish, to use a rather vulgar expression. Two years' experience of our trade under these duties has definitely proved that the effect has been to dissipate trade, and instead of helping industry they are ruining it. The operation of these duties has reduced wages, and they certainly have not increased the volume of trade. It has not yet been proved that there has been any large increase in consumption in the home market on account of these duties. For all these devastating reasons, I ask the House to support this new Clause.
Mr. ROY WILSON
I really cannot allow the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to pass unchallenged. Speaking of the curtain industry in Nottingham, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that these duties have certainly not helped the curtain trade.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I did not make that statement. The only reference to the curtain trade which I made was simply to quote from the "Trade Review" in the "Times" of Saturday last, in which it is stated that there has been a little stimulus given to the curtain branch of the trade by a change of fashion.
I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and if he did not say that the curtain trade had suffered by these duties then I will not pursue that argument. The right hon. Gentleman certainly said that not one single fact had been put forward to justify these duties. I am going to give some facts which I hope the House will realise fully justify these duties. At a certain London hotel of which I happen to be a director, we have had to consider estimates for the supply or renewal of a considerable number of lace curtains. In the past these curtains have always been obtained from a manufacturer on the Continent. This year, as the result of these duties, the board of 84 this hotel decided to submit the samples for these curtains to a well-known firm of manufacturers in Nottingham. I am pleased to tell the House, and hon. Members may rest assured that it is a fact, that this considerable order for lace curtains went to the Nottingham firm who were able, by reason of these duties, to quote a much better price than the firm on the Continent who hitherto had been supplying those curtains. I am quite satisfied from inquiries that this is only one example of how these duties in course of time will prove of great advantage to manufacturers in Nottingham.
§ Mr. KELLY
I should not have taken part in this Debate but for the figures which I heard quoted in the earlier part of this discussion. As one who has to meet the net and lace manufacturers of this country, I have been astounded this afternoon to hear how well employed the operatives are said to be in that trade. I can assure the hon. Member who has just quoted some figures that that is not the tale told by those engaged in the trade. I have inquired, and I can assure the House that while I have not got the figures, I have been told that those engaged in the industry are working short time, and even shorter hours than they were working last year and the year before. I have been surprised to notice that hon. Members representing the lace districts have not stood up in support of these safeguarding proposals this afternoon. I have been waiting to hear some hon. Member representing Somerset, which is a large lace manufacturing district, or someone representing Derby or Long Eaton, who is prepared to say a word for these duties, but not one voice has come from those parts of the country in favour of these duties.
With regard to wages, figures have been quoted dealing with a number of people who were working full time. I would like to know if the machines in those instances were working double shifts, or was it merely that a certain number of people have passed through the gates of the factory to the extent that was given to us this afternoon without any regard to the number of hours worked or the wages received? Wages in the lace trade have not increased, and they are so deplorable that I cannot 85 understand how the people manage to live upon them. The last speaker quoted the case of an hotel which has now begun to buy British goods. I would urge hon. Members opposite to impress upon the Members of the Front Bench the importance of doing the same thing in regard to the purchases of their Departments. I think somebody ought to impress upon the India Office that they can very well purchase the goods they need from factories in this country without having to go to the Continent. If it is to be suggested that safeguarding is responsible for hotel companies buying English curtains, at least some attempt should be made to prove that statement. Speaking on behalf of some of the operatives in the lace trade, I assert that they have not benefited by the Safeguarding Duties, and they have certainly had no advantage from their operation.
§ Mr. DENNISON
I should like to tell the House of an experience that I had only this year, when, with 10 other Members of the House, I visited Malta with the delegation of the Empire Parliamentary Association. With one or two colleagues, I met the representatives of the Maltese lace manufacturers, who complained very bitterly indeed about the effects of this safeguarding duty on that part of the Empire. I should have expected that during the discussion this afternoon we should have heard something from hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who are usually shouting in the interests of Empire, by way of a plea for these poor people in that part of the Empire. I understand that something like £10,000 worth of Maltese lace was imported into this country during the year before the imposition of this duty, in 1925, while in 1926 the value of the imports was reduced to something slightly in excess of £2,000. That is a very serious matter to people in whom we claim to have some interest, and, surely, even if this proposed new Clause be rejected, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or those who represent the Treasury in this matter, might give serious consideration to the loss which is thus inflicted on an Island that is inhabited by our own people, who have no great opportunities of expansion, but who are practically confined to this industry for the purposes of earning their 86 living. The type of lace which they manufacture is a peculiar type, and there is no justification for imposing upon it so severe a tax. I know that some preference is given, but I trust that, if the Clause be not agreed to, at any rate consideration will be given to the matter.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
It would have been interesting if the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Roy Wilson) had given us just a little more information with reference to the hotel he quoted, the managers of which, through safeguarding, were made patriotic to the extent of purchasing British goods. I do not know whether the hon. Member has, or could get, the information, but it would be interesting to know what were the British prices for lace at the time when that contract was given to foreign manufacturers, and what was the price at which the British manufacturers got the contract afterwards.
Mr. ROY WILSON
I did not happen to be a director of the hotel at the time when they were purchasing from abroad.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I am interested to know that, at any rate, one Member of the House has had some opportunity of making people patriotic. It would be interesting to know—I do not say it in a bad spirit—at what price the British lace was offered before the imposition of the safeguarding duty, and at what price the contract was actually given, because some of us have a suspicion, although we are told that it is ill-founded, that, when a 33⅓ per cent. duty is put on goods coming from abroad, the price does increase to an almost corresponding extent. Personally, I think that that is bound to be the case.
§ Mr. MACKINDER
I am talking about the goods that are bought by average members of the working classes, such as curtains, and so on. Average people of the working class do not indulge in either British or foreign motor-cars, but the majority of them do indulge in curtains, whether of British or foreign manufacture, because they have to buy them. It would be interesting to know if they buy British goods because the price of the foreign goods has been in- 87 creased as the result of safeguarding. We are often told that it is not increased to anything like a relative amount, and it would be very interesting if the hon. Member could look into the records and tell us in some future Debate whether the British goods went up in price as the result of the falling off in supplies from foreign sources.
A really interesting figure has been given from the other side of the House, and I think it deserves a word of comment. We have been told quite clearly that the importation of Maltese lace went down from £10,000 to approximately £2,000. I willingly accept those figures, in spite of the fact that I believe the Maltese have a preference of one-third on any of their goods that come into this country. If that be what is happening in the case of
§ Malta, where there as a preference—and, as far as I am concerned, and, I believe, as far as my party is concerned, we would wish to see the preference increased if it could help the Maltese—if that be what is happening where there is a preference, then what is the value of the rigmarole of figures that was given by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer just now? From the illustration that we have had from the other side, it must inevitably happen sooner or later that other countries must lose their trade with this country, greatly to the benefit of our own manufacturers, and particularly our working people.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 254.89
|Division No. 266.]||AYES.||[5.53 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)||Paling, W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield., Hillsbro')||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Ammon, Charles George||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Purcell, A. A.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Grundy, T. W.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Baker, Walter||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Ritson, J.|
|Barness, A.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hardie, George D.||Scurr, John|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Harney, E. A.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Harris, Percy A.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Briant, Frank||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Smillie, Robert|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Buchanan, G.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Snell, Herry|
|Cape, Thomas||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip|
|Charleton, H. C.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Banjamin Charles|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Connolly, M.||Kelly, W. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Cove, W. G.||Kennedy, T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lansbury, George||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lawrence, Susan||Townend, A. E.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, F.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Lunn, William||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Mackinder, W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Dennison, R.||MacLaren, Andrew||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Duncan, C.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Dunnico, H.||Maxton, James||Windsor, Walter|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Montague, Frederick|
|Forrest, W.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Gardner, J. P.||Naylor, T. E.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Gillett, George M.||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Balniel, Lord||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Brass, Captain W.|
|Albery, Irving James||Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Briggs, J. Harold|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James||Bennett, A. J.||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Betterton, Henry B.||Buchan, John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Buckingham, Sir H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Boothby, R. J. G.||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perring, Sir William George|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hartington, Marquess of||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Pilcher, G.|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Hawke, John Anthony||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Campbell, E. T.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hills, Major John Waller||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rye, F. G.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Salmon, Major I.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Huntingfield, Lord||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Cope, Major William||Hurst, Gerald B.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Couper, J. B.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Sandon, Lord|
|Courtauld, Major J. S||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingin. N.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Savery, S. S.|
|Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Skelton, A. N.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Knox, Sir Alfred||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Lamb, J. Q.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Loder, J. de V.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Long, Major Eric||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Looker, Herbert William||Storry-Deans, H.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Dixey, A. C.||Lumley, L. R.||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Drewe, C.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||MacIntyre, Ian||Templeton, W. P.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||McLean, Major A.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Ellis, R. G.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Elveden, Viscount||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Macquisten, F. A.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Vaugnan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Making, Brigadier-General E.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Malone, Major P. B.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fielden, E. B.||Margesson, Captain D.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Meller, R. J.||Wells, S. R.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Meyer, Sir Frank||White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Gates, Percy||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Grace, John||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Withers, John James|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Womersley, W. J.|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Nuttall, Ellis||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Oakley, T.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Penny, Frederick George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain|
|Hanbury, C.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Bowyer.|