HC Deb 03 May 1928 vol 216 cc1929-51

9. "That during a period of five years beginning on the twenty-eighth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, there shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of buttons made of any material, and whether finished or unfinished, of a description commonly used for the fastening or decorating of wearing apparel or household linen, not being buttons forming part of any other article, a duty of Customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value thereof."

Which Amendment was: In line 1, to leave out the words "five years" and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."—[Mr. Dalton.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

We were interrupted last night in the Debate on this important matter of buttons, but before we take a vote on this Amendment—I assume that the discussion will be quite short—I want to refer to one or two of the aspects of this case, and particularly to the speech made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). In the course of the hon. Member's defence of the Government—and it needed defence yesterday very badly—he made certain statements in which he drew attention to the procedure of the Committee upon whose recommendation the Government have proposed this duty. He complained bitterly that whereas the manufacturers had been put to great expense and trouble those who had suffered most had the audacity to employ counsel. This is how the hon. Member for Moseley described those members of the legal profession who were quite legitimately putting the case as lawyers on behalf of the interests concerned: You have an opposition at the instance of paid advocates fighting against British manufacturers in favour of the foreigner who was competing against them. I think it is quite gratuitous for the hon. Member for Moseley to malign the learned counsel who were engaged before the Committee. I do not think it, is right for an hon. Member of this House to take advantage of his Parliamentary privileges to abuse and insult lawyers who are only doing the best they can for their clients who happen to be important people, and who have a right to some consideration. Buttons are largely used in the tailoring trade, more especially in the case of ready-made clothing in which the world competition is very keen. Consequently if you put up the price of buttons you hamper a trade in which thousands of people are employed. I believe there are 30,000 people employed in the clothing trade in Leeds alone, and the total number of people employed in the button trade in the country is a little over 3,000. In the East End of London and in my own constituency there are a number of important ready-made clothing factories employing a large number of workpeople and they do an immense export trade. In Leeds, Hull, London and probably Glasgow there are more people employed in the ready-made clothing trade than in the whole of the button industry. Another important trade is the re-export trade which is of peculiar importance to this country. The Committee which dealt with this reported, on page 15 of their report, as follows: It may be admitted that the duties on imported buttons would affect to some extent all makers of clothing, but the expenditure on these articles is necessarily such a small item in the cost of any individual garment that we do not think a duty would have any adverse effect upon unemployment in the clothing trade. It has been suggested to us that there is a large re-export trade which now has its home in this country, and that the facilities for re-export would be greatly decreased if a duty was imposed. While recognising the importance of this re-export trade, we doubt whether our conclusions ought to be influenced by this consideration, and we think that the suggested difficulties could he got over by separate orders for and separate packing of buttons. The entrepot trade is of the greatest importance to this country, because we employ in it a tremendous number of wharfingers, storehouse workers, people connected with banking and insurance and many other persons. All these are what we call invisible exports, and these services as common carriers are of the greatest importance to this country. All these pettifogging Regulations relating to buttons only add to the cost of the goods, and yet the Government prides itself upon never interfering with industry. When it is a matter of one million miners being underpaid, of course the Government never interfere. In this case for the sake of the constituents represented by the hon. Member for Moseley, who has not a couple of thousand of people employed in this trade in his constituency—


The interpretation which the hon. and gallant Member has put upon the words which I used last night is without a shred of foundation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Then I will read once more the actual words used by the hon. Member: You have an opposition at the instance of paid advocates fighting against British manufacturers in favour of the foreigner who was competing against them. I say that is a scandalous reflection for a Member of Parliament to make upon the legal profession.


I made no reflection whatever upon the learned profession of the law.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I am glad to have that disclaimer from the hon. Member, and I am sure the legal profession will appreciate the hon. Member's policy at its face value. I think the Committee put their fingers on the true inwardness of the button trade when they said that where the higher grades of button are concerned, the trade is in a favourable position. Everybody knows that we have held our own, broadly speaking, in the trade of the world on account of the high quality of our goods, and it is only in the cheap low grade goods that we have been undersold. That is the history of the textile industry of this country, or at any rate that was the case until the present Government took office. It is true that other countries are competing severely with us in the market for cheap goods, but I hope we shall go on relying on the quality of our goods and not upon the sale of shoddy material. As several hon. Members have already pointed out, there has been a change in fashions.

4.0 p.m.

Men still wear buttons, unless they are taxed. I notice that the latest thing is zip-fasteners, which do away with braces and all kinds of things, and have taken the place of buttons. You might just as well demand an import duty on hairpins, because women have given up using them, or on horses because the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) drives about London in a motor car instead of a cab, or you might just as well put an import duty on harness. If the hon. Member really wants to impose a tax on buttons, why does he not engage in a propaganda for wearing more buttons? Why does he not popularise the costermonger's gala costume? Let the hon. Member set an example. Imagine the picture in the illustrated papers of "Patrick Hannon, Esquire, M.P., The Pearly King." I am sure that the fashion would take on immediately, and that it would bring more employment to the distressed button-makers even than this unnecessary and, indeed, useless tax. The better-class buttons do not need a tariff, and the cheaper ones from Japan will not be kept out by the tariff, but the price all round will be put up. The entrepot trade will be injured, and the ready-made clothing trade will be still further hampered. For all these reasons, I hope this latest fiscal monstrosity will be turned down by Parliament.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams)

I do not think there is a great deal in the last speech to which I need reply. The main burden of the hon. and gallant Member's argument related to the question of the influence of the alleged increase in the price of buttons on the clothing trade. I am not prepared to accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's unsupported assertion that the price of buttons will, of necessity, go up, because, if we take the analogy of other industries enjoying safeguarding in general, there has been no rise in price. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they are going up in price. I have made a very rough calculation, which might be open to some question, but, on the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, it might add 2d. to the cost of a suit of clothes for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and in my case it might add a penny.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Would that be owing to the better quality of buttons on my suit?


No, the number of buttons necessary for the purpose. He also complained of the separation of packages. In the ordinary way it is not likely that packages of buttons would be split, one half going to Manchester and the other to New Zealand. On balance, it is likely that packages will be dealt with whole, and the advice to the Customs officers that they should keep packages separate is merely on the ground of convenience. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act, 1925, he will find complete provisions with regard to re-export, and any button which leaves this country in the condition in which it is imported will be entitled to a drawback, which answers the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, and that put last night by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton).

This is not the first time that this matter has been before the House of Commons. I will read two paragraphs from the Preamble of a previous Act: Whereas great numbers of the inhabitants of this kingdom are employed in the making of bone-lace, band-strings, buttons, needlework fringe and imbroideries, who by their industry and labour have attained and gained so great skill and dexterity in the making thereof, that they make as good of all sorts thereof, as is made in any foreign parts. That is the first part of the Preamble. It then goes on to explain how they had suffered through foreign competition, and proceeds: by means whereof the said trade and calling is of late very much decayed, those employed in the said calling very much impoverished, the manufacture much decreased, and great quantities thereof already made left on their hands that make it, His Majesty defrauded and deceived in his Customs, and many thousand poor people, formerly kept on work in the said art, like to perish for want of employment. That happened in 1662. I am not in the least surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken on this subject have not learnt anything, even although these arguments were presented more than a quarter of a millenium ago. No argument has made any impression on them. Let us take the speech made last night by the Mover of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Peckham, who wanted to know whether the industry was of substantial importance, and con- trasted it with the tombstone industry. It may be some satisfaction to him that he can have his tombstone free of duty, but who judges of the substantial nature of the industry by the size of the article made, whether it is a button or a tombstone? Is it substantial in the fact that it is an important article of commerce, and in the sense that it employs a large number of people in its manufacture? This industry in 1913 employed over 6,800 people. To-day, unfortunately, it employs only 3,600. But whichever figure you take, we have an industry here which clearly is substantial from the point of view of providing employment to some of our own fellow-countrymen. If you ask, "Is it substantial from the point of view of being an article in general demand?" I ask every hon. Member to examine his own clothes, and he will find it is so substantial and so necessary that no Member would dare enter this House unless provided with an adequate supply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has quoted wrong figures? According to the evidence given before the Committee of the Board of Trade for 1913, the number for the 11 firms for which they have returns was only 3,300.


Precisely; but I was not limiting myself to the 11 firms. There are not only it firms in the industry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the figures I gave on the same page.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Yes, I see.


Then the hon. Member for Peckham attacked the efficiency of the industry. He asked what guarantee had we that the safeguarding of the industry would produce keenness and inventiveness on the part of the industry and give them brains and business acumen. I think anyone who makes a speech on this subject ought not to attack an industry without having studied the information. I will read one sentence from paragraph 8 on page 15: The efficiency of no section of this industry was seriously challenged. I do not think that any industry could have a more satisfactory statement made with regard to its efficiency, and the hon. Member's remarks were a reflection on the capacity of the people engaged in the industry. We all know that the trouble does not arise from the lack of efficiency on the part of the manufacturers, but from the lower labour costs of the foreign countries of origin. Then the hon. Gentleman said that it was utterly futile and contemptible. I agree that if you have not studied the Report properly, the only way is to use a lot of noisy adjectives. The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) said, what is the use of saying that this competition is due to lower wages? And he asked us to look at the United States, where wages are very much higher, and from where a large percentage of these buttons come. As a matter of fact, only about 2½ per cent. come from the United States, and that was the only material argument of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment.

We come to the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who said that linen buttons have almost gone out of use. He had read the bulk of the Report, but he missed a few paragraphs, and if he will study the Report again he will find that more than 50 per cent. of the production of buttons in this country consists of linen buttons. He will find that imports have increased rapidly and are now responsible for 40 per cent. of the production. Adding the two figures together you get, as far as I can estimate, about 4,000,000 gross of linen buttons consumed in this country. And yet the hon. Member actually said that linen buttons have almost gone out of use. Four million gross is nearly 600,000,000 buttons. Somebody must be wearing a lot if there are many wearing none. He also said that the cheap pearl button is made from shell that comes from China. I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning and found that the reference to China does not appear, no doubt through inadvertence, but the hon. Member certainly referred to China. He pointed out how close Japan was to China, though, of course, it depends on the part of China. Anyhow, if he will turn to the Report, he will find that the bulk of these shells comes from Australian waters, and in the Report the Committee state that on balance the Japanese do not enjoy cheaper raw material than we do. So that every aspect of his argument seems to be dealt with. Then the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) expressed some regret that this Committee in recommending that buttons should be taxed, did not also recommend that other things should be taxed, and wanted to know what was the position of the snap fastener. The ordinary button has a button hole, whereas the snap fastener has not. That will be, I think, an easy means of differentiating between one and the other.

The case I have to answer is such a slight case that there is no need for me to speak at any length, but let me summarise briefly the conclusions of the Committee. They came to the conclusion that the industry is a substantial one, and I have dealt with that. They point out that the products are so interchangeable and vary so much on account of periodic fashion changes, that they must be taken as a whole, and they are, in fact, a homogeneous class. They decided that imports are abnormal in relation to consumption. Whether imports are abnormal or not does not depend upon whether imports are greater now than in 1913. The test is the ratio of imports to consumption, and on that basis it is clear that they are abnormal. We have not got in the Report complete figures for 1927, but there has been a certain amount of importation anticipatory of this Resolution, and it is quite clear that importation, if anything, has increased slightly. Leaving erinoid out of account, home production has dropped more than one-half, and by that test it is quite clear that importation is abnormal.

The costings in the industry were very satisfactory. Elaborate costings have been taken, and show quite clearly that, under existing conditions, foreign buttons, particularly of the cheaper variety—what may be called the lower end of the trade—are being sold at prices below those at which they can be profitably manufactured in this country. It may be retorted, in view of that, that buttons are bound to go up in price, but, if hon. Members will refer to the Report, they will find that it points out that present conditions of competition make efficient mass production almost impossible; and that, of course, is one of the reasons why the cost of production is higher than it otherwise would be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

You said just now that the industry was efficient.


Precisely. You may have 100 per cent, efficiency, but the conditions under which you are forced to work may be such that that efficiency cannot be secured. As to the question whether employment is seriously affected, that is not in doubt, and the fact that the exceptional competition was due to lower wages was also clearly established. The efficiency of the industry was unchallenged, and the Committee came to the conclusion, despite the opinions expressed this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that no adverse effect on any other industry was likely to occur. In view of the overwhelming case that was presented to this Committee—and it was not a biased Committee, because they were asked to examine two allied trades, and in one case their decision was favourable, while in the other case it was unfavourable, so that no one can allege bias against them—and in view of the overwhelming nature of their Report, I can only ask the House to reject this Amendment.


Since the Parliamentary Secretary has criticised my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) on the ground that he had not read the Report, I think it is only right that I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to paragraph 13 of the Report, which says: The home manufacture is at the present time almost exclusively a mother-of-pearl industry, whereas the imported goods, which far exceed the home production in quantity, consist almost entirely of buttons made from the trochus shell and from cheap fresh-water shells obtained locally in Japan. If, therefore, my hon. Friend was wrong, he erred in company with this unbiased and fully informed Committee.


If the hon. Member will read the paragraph for a few lines further, he will find that it says: There is no reason to believe that the cost of the trochus shell (which comes from Australian waters) is materially cheaper to the Japanese, when freights both ways are taken into account, though no doubt they are in an advantageous position in respect of the fresh-water shells.


Yes, but surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that that does not detract from the perfectly clear statement that the majority of these buttons consist almost entirely of buttons made from this particular shell and from cheap fresh-water shells obtained locally in Japan. I admit that the hon. Gentleman's information is correct, and so is that of my hon. Friend.


He mentioned China.


One or two interesting things emerge from this Debate. The first is that the hon. Member lays it down clearly that an industry which employs 3,600 people—of course, he said that, whether you took the one figure or the other, the number was a substantial one—is to be regarded as a substantial industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] Hon. Members opposite agree, and I am not going to quarrel with that, because I agree with the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to this extent, that, if you are arguing this question on a matter of principle, it does not really matter what the number of people employed is, and, if it can be argued on the White Paper that the industry is a substantial one, then, even though it be small, it is right that it should be entitled to the same protection. But in the same way hon. Members opposite must give us this credit, that we believe with equal sincerity that this process is doing harm to British industry, and that, even if the harm it does is small, it is in principle just as bad as if it were great. We on this side of the House are criticised, and by no one more than by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), for being the slaves of a shibboleth, but the hon. Gentleman has gone back about 250 years for an argument in support of his safeguarding policy, so I think that, on the question of shibboleths, those of hon. Members opposite are even more musty than ours. I want also to refer to a remark, which I regret I was not able to answer at the time, made last night by the hon. Member for Moseley. He has been at great pains this afternoon to explain that he means no reflection whatever upon the legal profession, but last night he said this: I submit … that in no other country in the world, while an application of this kind was proceeding, would you have an opposition at the instance of paid advocates fighting against British manufacturers in favour of the foreigner who was competing against them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1928; col. 1862, Vol. 216.] The hon. Member says that he does not mean to reflect upon the legal profession. Is that, then, a reflection upon Members of this House. Does the hon. Member suggest that we are the opposition at the instance of paid advocates? I want to know. Does he mean that?


The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I meant was that the Importers' Committee, representing those who were importing buttons into this country, who opposed the application, were using every means that they could in order to defeat the application of the duty.


Then the hon. Member's complaint is that the people who opposed this application did so because it was injuring their business, which was British business giving employment to British people? [Interruption.] The hon. Member and his friends cannot run away from that responsibility. If the figures which have been introduced in this House from time to time with regard to other safeguarded industries show anything, they show that the policy pursued by the Government has very gravely injured the importing and re-exporting business in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members will refer to the figures quoted in the Debate a few weeks ago, they will see that in the case of only one safeguarded article were the exports last year greater than they were in 1924; in every other case they were less. I was speaking, however, for the moment, not about exports, but about the re-export trade, and in some cases that has been absolutely killed. Hon. Members opposite cannot run away from that responsibility.

It is now suggested by the hon. Member for Moseley that people who object to these duties because they and their clients and their employés are being injured by them, have no right to the use of paid advocates, while the people who for their own gain—I am using now an argument that is frequently used by hon. Members opposite—are asking for a duty, who are asking permission to impose this tax on the people of this country and to put it into their own pockets, are entitled to employ paid advocates. I do not think that that suggestion quite does justice to the position. Then the hon. Member said another thing. He said that the indus- try is certainly suffering from abnormal unemployment, and I interrupted to ask whether he suggested that that was due to abnormal competition. He said that certainly the competition had been abnormal for a number of years. If the competition over a number of years has been abnormal, that is becoming normal. [Interruption.] Let me make it even clearer. If importation continues for a number of years at a particular figure which hon. Members assert is abnormal, you have got to go back to some period when the competition was not abnormal, and compare it with that. The report of the Committee helps us to do that, and gives certain figures. In paragraph 24, the Committee say: The whole industry must be taken together and the comparison made, mainly at all events, with 1913. That is the year which the Committee itself suggests, and that is the year to which the Parliamentary Secretary said just now we must direct our attention. If the condition of this industry is bad, as is asserted, if the industry is suffering on account of competition which is abnormal as compared with the year 1913, I will take the figures given, not by the paid advocates of the opponents, but by the Committee themselves. I find that on page 11 they say that in 1913 the value of retained imports of buttons was nearly £779,000. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, and it is agreed, that 1927 was an abnormal year, but in 1926 the retained imports had been reduced to £743,000. That is the decrease in value. It may be that some hon. Members will say, "Yes, you are talking about value, but what about the quantity?" The figures with regard to quantity are even more remarkable, because in 1913 the quantity of retained imports was 11½ million gross, in round figures, and in 1926 it was nine million gross. There is only one thing to be deduced from that. The hon. Gentleman says that that must be compared with the total consumption. I assume that the total consumption has gone up owing to the increase in population. I have no figures to show that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has them.


You get that by adding the production in this country to the imports.


At any rate, the retained imports have decreased from 11½ million gross to 9 million gross. Surely it cannot possibly be urged, in face of that reduction in the imports remaining in this country, that it is owing to importation that the condition of this industry has become worse. Why has it become worse? A certain amount of reference has been made to linen buttons. I am not an authority on linen buttons. The hon. Member for Moseley last night referred to what he called snap-fasteners, and said they were used for certain purposes with which no doubt the hon. Member for Walthamstow was familiar. I disclaim any authority on these points. All that I know is that, from the information given to us, it is the case that the linen button, for reasons into which we had better not inquire too closely, but which we cannot ignore, has to a large extent gone out of fashion, and that the Report points to the fact that probably about 50 per cent. of the British manufacture consists of linen buttons. I agree with an hon. Friend who has spoken that this is not perhaps a large matter. It is a small matter, but the question of principle has to be argued on small as well as on large matters. We are told that if we take the two large classes of buttons—the vegetable ivory button which we are all wearing, and the so-called pearl button which is used on shirts and accounts for roughly 5,000,000 gross of the imports—we are told that a 33⅓ per cent. duty cannot possibly make any difference. With regard to the best class of button, the erinoid button, the fancy button that is used on ladies' coats, we are told that this country need not fear the competition of others. With the other class, the linen button, it is not a question of foreign importation, but of change of fashion. It does not seem to me, therefore, that this duty is going to do any good to anyone.

When the hon. Member for Moseley and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth make the speeches which they do make so often, assuming that they are taking the patriotic course, let me say to them that my chief complaint against them is their unpatriotic attitude. We are not the people who are pessimistic about the future; we do not go about saying that British industry cannot compete with foreigners without the protection of a tariff. We believe that the Free Trade principles which have made us the greatest industrial country in the world are capable of maintaining that position for us, and I hold that it is to us that industry is entitled to look to give it, not fair play—because it is not a question of fair play. [Interruption.] We are entitled to say that we will not consent to the reintroduction of the 250 years' old system, born in 1662, based on monopolies and rights paid for and farmed out by patrons. We do not believe in a system of that kind, but we do believe in a system of free and unfettered competition which will bring to our people the products of the world at the cheapest possible rate.


After the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not feel that there is much to answer in the speeches that have come from the other side, but I rise because in the midst of my constituency there is one of the large button factories, and I am more in touch with the matter than otherwise I should be. What has struck me in all the speeches made last night and to-day from the Benches opposite, is the constant endeavour that there seems to be to belittle this industry on account of the Free Trade phantom which seems to hover over hon. Members on the other side. What is the situation? This industry is one of considerable importance. If any hon. Member who has been talking about it as being contemptible or not substantial, or who has said that tombstones deserve more attention than buttons—if any such hon. Member were to come to my constituency, I am sure he would get very short shrift. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) talked about the industry being futile and contemptible. The hon. Member who has just spoken has endeavoured by figures to do the same thing.


I attempted to do nothing of the sort. I did not say one word to belittle the industry or to show that it is futile or contemptible. I admitted that where a principle was involved a small industry was important.


I am glad that the hon. Member repudiates the argument I have referred to. On several occasions during this Debate, hon. Members have said that the number of people employed was only 3,629, and that therefore it was a very small industry. They omitted to observe, as is shown in the Committee's report, that that figure applied to 1926, and that the figure for 1913 was 6,844. Therefore, there has been a diminution of employment by about one-half. If that diminution is to continue, I can only say that the trade will disappear altogether. That is precisely what the Safeguarding of Industries Act is to prevent. This proposal came from a very impartial Committee, whose Chairman was an eminent ex-Indian King's Counsel who, I believe, belongs to no political club and has no political axe to grind. When a decision is come to by such a Committee, it seems to me that the House ought to listen to its recommendations with great care and special attention.

It is no use putting forward the suggestion that a 33⅓ per cent. duty is inadequate to meet the competition. I can only reply that two or three days ago it was stated in the newspapers—I cannot vouch for its absolute accuracy—that in Czechoslovakia, out of 3,000 employed in this industry, I think 2,000 were getting a week's notice on account of this proposed duty on buttons. It does not seem, therefore, that foreign countries consider that this proposal will be of no effect. When hon. Members opposite treat this safeguarding of an essential industry as serious Protection, I am inclined to believe that they must be haunted by rather inconvenient visions of the arguments used by the Liberal party and others both at the time of the Paris Resolutions in 1916 and during the Debates on the McKenna Duties. Bearing these facts in mind, I trust that this duty will be heartily supported by the House. We are told by hon. Members that the duty will have no real effect. Why not? Are they not aware, as I have reason to know from experience in my own constituency, that the McKenna Duties did an immense deal to enable Mr. Morris to beat Mr. Ford. Motor car production, by reason of the McKenna Duties, increased greatly in my constituency. It has increased so much that it has had to go to a bigger area. A modest proposal of the kind that we are discussing, made by an impartial Committee, is one that ought to be supported, and I heartily congratulate the Government on having brought it forward.


The speech of the right hon. Member who has just spoken is as disappointing as the Report of the Com- mittee which dealt with this application. I was hoping that as he was speaking as a representative of the industry concerned, he would give a few particulars that the House has not been allowed to have so far. The hon. Member spoke of the manufacture of buttons as if there was only one kind of button in existence. That is one of the things that I complain of in the Report that has been presented to us. There are so few facts and figures given to us. There are two fundamental matters upon which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade laid stress. One is the number of people employed in the button industry. The hon. Member who has just spoken gave the impression that if only this duty were imposed, we should find the same number of people employed as were employed a few years ago. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) claimed it last night as one of the triumphs of Protection that such a result would automatically come. I do not know whether the hon. Member or the Parliamentary Secretary noticed a letter which appeared in the "Times" a few days ago from a gentleman—I am not acquainted with him—who is obviously closely connected with the trade. He attributed the fall in the numbers employed to one fact. Before the War there were large numbers employed in the East End in making cloth-covered buttons, and there was now no further demand for this kind of button. To this he attributed the decrease in the number of people employed. The cloth-covered button was not now required and he said that no imposition of duty would bring back that trade. We have no information of that kind in the Report.

The other point mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary concerned the duty imposed. The success of the whole scheme from the Government's point of view depends on preventing foreign buttons coming into this country and that depends on whether the amount of duty imposed is heavy enough. But the Report gives us no figures which will enable us to judge as to what duty would be required to attain this object. It only states that in the Committee's opinion the Japanese trade will probably not be affected. But to anyone like myself, who knows nothing about this industry, it is impossible to judge, without any figures, how far the prevention of buttons coming into this country from Japan would supply work for people in this country. Neither does the Report give us any particulars to show the price of the Japanese buttons, so that it is impossible to compare them with the English product.

The writer of the letter also referred to the buttons worn on men's suits. He states the experiments he was interested in, in the manufacture of buttons of this kind, proved it was impossible to make them satisfactorily here and no amount of duty would alter this fact. I shall be very interested to know whether this letter has been brought to the notice

of the Board of Trade. The House will have noticed with some interest that the Report, unlike those we have had before on the Safeguarding of Industry, states that no handicap to the trade has been imposed by the exchange condition of money. The Committee agree that, although the trade is carried on in many other countries, this financial question is in no way affecting the problem. That is interesting as giving some idea of the financial settlement of Europe and as showing that progress has been made.

Question put, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 137.

Division No. 104.] AYES. [4.47 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cooper, A. Duff Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cope, Major William Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Couper, J. B. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Albery, Irving James Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hills, Major John Walter
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hilton, Cecil
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Apsley, Lord Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Atholl, Duchess of Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hopkins, J. W. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Balniel, Lord Curzon, Captain Viscount Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Davies, Dr. Vernon Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Dawson, Sir Philip Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Bennett, A. J. Dixey, A. C. Huntingfield, Lord
Berry, Sir George Eden, Captain Anthony Kurd, Percy A.
Bethel, A. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hurst, Gerald B.
Betterton, Henry B. Elliot, Major Walter E. Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Ellis, R. G. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Iveagh, Countess of
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Everard, W. Lindsay Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Fairfax, Captain J. G. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Blundell, F. N. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Jephcott, A. R.
Boothby, R. J. G. Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fermoy, Lord Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Fielden, E. B. Kindersley, Major G. M.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Forestier-Walker, Sir L. King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Briggs, J. Harold Fraser, Captain Ian Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Briscoe, Richard George Frees, Sir Walter de Knox, Sir Alfred
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lamb, J. Q.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Ganzoni, Sir John Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Gates, Percy Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Buchan, John Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Loder, J. de V.
Bullock, Captain M. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Long, Major Eric
Burman, J. B. Goff, Sir Park Lougher, Lewis
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Gower, Sir Robert Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Caine, Gordon Hall Grace, John Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Campbell, E. T. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Lumley, L. R.
Cassels, J. D. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Gunston, Captain D. W. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hacking, Douglas H. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) MacIntyre, Ian
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) McLean, Major A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Macmillan, Captain H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Hammersley, S. S, MacRobert, Alexander M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Chapman, Sir S. Harland, A. Malone, Major P. B.
Chilcott, Sir Warden Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Christie, J. A. Harrison, G. J. C. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Clayton, G. C. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Haslam, Henry C. Meyer, Sir Frank
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Conway, Sir W. Martin Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Rye, F. G. Tinne, J. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Salmon, Major I. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Moore, Sir Newton J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth Sandeman, N. Stewart Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Sandors, Sir Robert A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Nuttall, Ellis Sandon, Lord Warrender, Sir Victor
Oakley, T. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Penny, Frederick George Savery, S. S. Watts, Dr. T.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Wayland, Sir William A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Shepperson, E. W. Wells, S. R.
Power, Sir John Cecil Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Pownall, Sir Assheton Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Preston, William Skelton, A. N. Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Price, Major C. W. M. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Raine, Sir Walter Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Ramsden, E. Smithers, Waldron Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Rawson, Sir Cooper Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Womersley, W. J.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) Sprot, Sir Alexander Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Remnant, Sir James Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Tasker, R. Inigo TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ropner, Major L. Templeton, W. P. Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Margesson.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Harney, E. A. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Harris, Percy A. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayday, Arthur Scrymgeour, E.
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Sextan, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Baker, Walter Hollins, A. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes, A. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Shinwell, E.
Barr, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sitch, Charles H.
Bondfield, Margaret Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smillie, Robert
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Kelly, W. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Briant, Frank Kennedy, T. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Broad, F. A Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bromfield, William Kirkwood, D. Snell, Harry
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lansbury, George Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Lawrence, Susan Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Buchanan, G. Lawson, John James Stamford, T. W.
Cape, Thomas Lee, F. Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Lindley, F. W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cluse, W. S. Lowth, T. Strauss, E. A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lunn, William Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Connolly, M. Mackinder, W. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Cove, W. G. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Crawfurd, H. E. March, S. Thurtle, Ernest
Dalton, Hugh Maxton, James Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Montague, Frederick Tomlinson, R. P.
Day, Harry Morris, R. H. Townend, A. E.
Dennison, R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Duckworth, John Murnin, H. Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. Naylor, T. E. Wallhead, Richard C.
Edge, Sir William Oliver, George Harold Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Owen, Major G. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
England, Colonel A. Palin, John Henry Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Fenby, T. D. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wellock, Wilfred
Gardner, J. P. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Ponsonby, Arthur Wiggins, William Martin
Gillett, George M. Potts, John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenall, T. Riley, Ben Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Ritson, J. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Groves, T. Rose, Frank H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T Henderson.
Hardie, George D. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 138.

Division No. 105.] AYES. [4.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Margesson, Captain D.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Fermoy, Lord Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Fielder, E. B. Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Albery, Irving James Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Foster, Sir Harry S. Meyer, Sir Frank
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Fraser, Captain Ian Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Apsley, Lord Frece, Sir Walter de Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Atholl, Duchess of Ganzoni, Sir John. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gates, Percy Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Balniel, Lord Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Moore, Sir Newton J.
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Glyn, Major R. G. C Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Goff, Sir Park Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Gower, Sir Robert Nuttall, Ellis
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Grace, John Oakley, T.
Bennett, A. J. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Penny, Frederick George
Berry, Sir George Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Bethel, A. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Power, Sir John Cecil
Betterton, Henry B. Gunston, Captain D. W. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Birchall, Major J. Daarman Hacking, Douglas H. Preston, William
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Price, Major C. W. M.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Hall. Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Raine, Sir Walter
Blades, Sir George Rowland Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Ramsden, E.
Blundall, F. N. Hammersley, S. S. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Boothby, R. J. G. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harland, A. Remnant, Sir James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Harrison, G. J. C. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Briggs, J. Harold Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Briscoe, Richard George Haslam, Henry C. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Ropner, Major L.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Rye, F. G.
Buchan, John Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Salmon, Major I.
Bullock, Captain M. Hills, Major John Walter Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Barman, J. B. Hilton, Cecil Sandeman, N. Stewart
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Caine, Gordon Halt Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sandon, Lord
Campbell, E. T. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Cassels, J. D. Hopkins, J. W. W. Savery, S. S.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Shepperson, E. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Skeiton, A. N.
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hurd, Percy A. Smithers, Waldron
Chapman, Sir S. Hurst, Gerald B. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chilcott, Sir Warden Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Sprot, Sir Alexander
Christie, J. A. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Clayton, G. C. Iveagh, Countess of Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cobb Sir Cyril Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Jephcott, A. R. Tasker, R. Inigo.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Templeton, W. P.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Cooper, A. Duff Kindersley, Major G. M. Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Cope, Major William King, Commodore Henry Douglas Tinne, J. A.
Couper, J. B. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Knox, Sir Alfred Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lamb, J. Q. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Warrender, Sir Victor
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green) Watts, Dr. T.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Loder J. de V. Wayland, Sir William A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Long, Major Eric Wells, S. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lougher, Lewis White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lumley, L. R. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) MacAndrew Major Charles Glen Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lich[...]ld)
Dawson, Sir Philip Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dixey, A. C. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Womersley, W. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony MacIntyre, Ian Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Edmondson, Major A. J. McLean, Major A. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Elliot, Major Walter E. Macmillan, Captain H. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Ellis, R. G. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Erskine, Lord (Somenset, Weston-s.-M.) MacRobert, Alexander M.
Everard, W. Lindsay Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Malone, Major P. B. Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Wallace.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Harney, E. A. Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Harris, Percy A. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayday, Arthur Saklatvala, Shapurji
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, Walter Hollins, A. Scurr, John
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sexton, James
Barnes, A. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barr, J. Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Batey, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bondfield, Margaret Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Shinwell, E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Briant, Frank Kelly, W. T. Sitch, Charles H.
Broad, F. A. Kennedy, T. Smillie, Robert
Bromfield, William Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kirkwood, D. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Lansbury, George Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buchanan, G. Lawrence, Susan Snell, Harry
Cape, Thomas Lawson, John James Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Lee, F. Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Cluse, W. S. Lindley, F. W. Stamford, T. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Livingstone, A. M. Stephen, Campbell
Compton, Joseph Lowth, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Connolly, M. Lunn, William Strauss, E. A.
Cove, W. G. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Sutton, J. E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Mackinder, W. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Crawfurd, H. E. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dalton, Hugh Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) March, S. Thurtle, Ernest
Day, Harry Maxton, James Tinker, John Joseph
Dennison, R. Montague, Frederick Tomlinson, R, P.
Duckworth, John Morris, R. H. Townend, A. E.
Dunnico, H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Edge, Sir William Murnin, H. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Naylor, T. E. Wallhead, Richard C.
England, Colonel A. Oliver, George Harold Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D. Owen, Major G. Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gardner, J. P. Palin, John Henry Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Garro-Jones. Captain G. M. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wellock, Wilfred
Gillett, George M. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Westwood, J.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Ponsonby, Arthur Wiggins, William Martin
Greenall, T. Potts, John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Riley Ben Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Groves, T. Ritson, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardie, George D. Rose, Frank H. Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

Order read for Consideration of Tenth and Subsequent Resolutions.