§ 15. Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in appealing to the Government of India for a reconsideration of their proposal to increase the general tariff on cotton piece goods from 11 per cent, to 20 per cent., he suggested that a preferential rebate should be made to British cotton piece goods; and whether a preferential rebate has been made?
§ 16. Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what is the present position of the Cotton Industry Protection Bill; and if he can give the House any additional information about the proposed preferential rebate on British cotton piece goods?
§ Mr. BENNThe Bill introduced by the Government of India at the beginning of this month provided for a duty of 15 per cent. on cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom. On cotton piece goods 7 from other countries it provided for a duty of 20 per cent., with a minimum of 3½ annas per pound in the case of plain gray goods only. The Government of India have, I understand, agreed to accept an amendment proposing to provide for the following duties: on plain gray goods from the United Kingdom, 15 per cent., with a minimum of 3½ annas per pound; on other piece goods from the United Kingdom, 15 per cent. The duties on goods from countries other than the United Kingdom remain as in the original Bill. The Measure is still under the consideration of the Legislative Assembly. As the hon. Member will see from the correspondence circulated on the 17th March, the representations made to the Government of India came from the Cabinet. No suggestion was or has been made by me at any time as to the preferential treatment of goods from the United Kingdom. This suggestion originated in India.
§ Sir W. DAVISONHaving regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government being contrary to preferential tariffs, has this proposal of the Government of India the approval of His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYMay we take it that the representations made by the Cabinet were made prior to the consideration of the amendment, and that since the amendment no representations of any kind have been made?
§ Mr. BENNYes. As the hon. Member will see from the date of the telegram to which I referred as being sent by the Cabinet, they were prior to Mr. Cheety's amendment.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYIs it a fact that, whatever amendments may be made, it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to make representations to protect the interests of Lancashire?
§ Mr. BENNThe hon. Member must make no assumptions on his own account. He must follow the correspondence and make accurate deductions from it.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEYIs it not clear that, since representations were made, 8 there has been a change of policy—that in the first case the Cabinet did think it necessary to make representations and that since the change of policy no remarks have come from His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. BENNThe Cabinet sent their considered views in the telegram, but they have to have regard to the established and indisputable rights of India and the Legislative Assembly in these matters.