HC Deb 27 May 1930 vol 239 cc1229-64
Captain PETER MACDONALD

May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Young, as to what Amendments you propose to call, as there are a number on the Amendment Paper in my name?

The CHAIRMAN

I intend to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Mr. Gibson) and another one, and that is all.

Captain MACDONALD

Which other?

The CHAIRMAN

The next one.

Mr. HANNON

I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at end, to add the words: as from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five. The effect of the Amendment will he to postpone the abolition of these powers until 1st June, 1935. The right hon. Gentleman attaches one meaning to this Clause, but I and my friends attach a different meaning to it. As we understand it, it really means that the machinery that exists at the present time for dealing with the dumping of goods into this country under the circumstances detailed in Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act becomes repealed. We think that it would be a deplorable thing in the present state of industry in this country if that machinery is removed from our administration. I feel very strongly that in the state in which industry now finds itself, with the continuous increase of unemployment every day, and no means by which we can deal with the measures taken by foreign countries to dump goods into this country, it would be a very serious state of affairs if the power now in the hands of the administration were removed. Of course, it is extremely difficult on this subject to make any sort of appeal with any hope of a reasonable response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is determined, as he has indicated so forcibly since he came into office, to destroy every means whereby industry in this country may be safeguarded from any attack of any sort from our foreign rivals. This is but a further step in the continuous course he has pursued to the injury of productive enterprise in this country by repealing such opportunities as we have had of safeguarding our industries against dumping in this country.

Most countries have provided antidumping laws. Canada, for example, has safeguarded her local industries by having an anti-dumping law. The Chancellor is familiar with its operation, be cause he knows at the present moment silk exported from this country into Canada is not merely charged an in- creased duty but also 100 per cent. of the rebate which they regard as a bounty given by the Government here. The United States has an anti-dumping law, and every country under the sun which has real regard for the needs of its own people has some means in its power to deal with unfair competition by its rivals. Yet, in the fact of that competition and the deplorable increase in unemployment due to the assault continually made by competition from abroad, the competition, due in large measures to the very causes which the Section of the original Act was produced in order to deal with, he now proposes to repeal the law as it stands. The President of the Board of Trade, in spite of his amiability and all the admirable qualities he has shown in this House, has been committing himself day by day since he came into office to taking away more and more the possibility of industry in this country defending itself against these assaults from abroad. He is now going to support the repeal of these powers. It is a very sad circumstance that he should do it at this hour of the morning. [Interruption.] I am glad that there is some life in the Liberal Party, that they have raised sufficient spirit to say "Hear, hear" in support of the humble claim I am making on behalf of British industry. Someone says it is the only speech they have made in the Committee. I submit this Amendment for the postponement of the execution of these powers, which His Majesty's Government now possess to deal with the dumping of goods into this country.

Mr. FOOT

Are they operative?

Mr. HANNON

We claim that they are operative.

Mr. FOOT

Why did not your Government ever use them?

Mr. HANNON

If the occasion arose, the late administration would have given effect to these powers. For the reason I have given and the situation in which this country finds itself, I beg to move this Amendment, in the hope that the elimination of these powers will not be carried into effect.

Sir B. PETO

I support the Amendment, because I should like to see the operation of the Clause postponed as long as possible. The Amendment postpones it for five years, which I gladly accept instead of the more humble Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper myself. Whereas the Clause proposes to repeal Section 3 of the Safeguarding Act of 1921, it does not propose to put anything in its place. The Liberal party have been trying to challenge the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) as to when these powers were used. The less that this part of the Act has been used in recent years, the more need to have something effective in its place. The Government take a merely negative attitude and pick out this particular Section of the Act, which is the operative Section, to repeal. They leave the rest of Part II on the Statute Book, although it cannot possibly have any effect without Section 3. I hold that that is not a straightforward way of dealing with the Committee. The Government are removing from the Act of 1921 the operative Section, and they have not got even the grace to let people know exactly what it is that is meant, because of the other seven Clauses in Part II six are left on the Statute Book.

Because this Part of the Act has not been put into operation up to the present, is not, I hold, ground for sweeping away the vital part of the Act. Any Government taking that course at the present time, in view of the terrible state of our industries, ought at least to be able to tell the Committee what they propose to substitute as something more effective. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are definitely committed against giving any assistance to industry in a direct way such as Safeguarding, we can only assume that they have no intention of substituting anything for it. My own Amendment is to postpone this Section to 1932. Personally, I do not think there is the least chance of the present Government being in office in 1932, but I want to be quite sure that this question will not be dealt with until a Conservative Government is in office, and I therefore gladly agree to this Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

The position of this Clause in the Bill can be quite simply, and, I trust, clearly, explained, and I hone to be able to convince the Committee that no useful purpose can be served by continuing this part of the legislation of 1921; nor can any of the Amendments on the Paper be in practice effective. All who were Members in this House after 1918 will remember that there was a great deal of discussion regarding the large scale dumping of goods in this country, due in part to the export advantage enjoyed by other countries in depreciated exchanges and the possibility of their having considerable quantities of the commodities that they could sell at less than cost of production in the country of origin in our market in Great Britain. There was considerable discussion in 1921 that led to the passing of the Act, the object of which was to impose, after inquiry by the Board of Trade, a duty of 33.3 per cent. on goods which enjoyed those advantages. I will not detain the Committee with a long historical review, but, of course, as I pointed out before, that part of the legislation dealing with depreciated exchange expired in 1924. That part of the problem has altogether disappeared, due to the return to the gold standard and the absence of anything like a margin of exchange such as would justify the duty on that scale.

We propose in this Clause to wipe out Section 3 of the Act of 1921. The cumulative effect of this Clause is to repeal all that remains of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. May I make it quite clear, first, in answer to an hon. Member, that this could by no stretch of imagination, be related to existing industrial conditions. The ground for saying that is the experience of the last nine years during which this Act has been in operation. The Act was passed in 1921, and in that year there were two applications. In neither of those cases could the applicants prove that the goods were being sold in this country below the cost of production. In 1922 there were three applications, and in the succeeding years, between 1926 and 1928, there were four more, making a total of nine applications under this Part of the Act of 1921. In not a single case of the nine applications did the applicants establish a case that these goods were being sold in these markets below the cost of production. The history of this duty proves that you could not apply it in practice, because you could not get at the cost of production in the country of origin. Even if you had been able to do so, there were a hundred ways at least in which a duty of that kind could be evaded either by repudiation or by some consideration as between the parties to the transaction. The whole thing was utterly inapplicable. No Government could put it into force.

6 a.m.

In July last we received an application from the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers regarding certain electrical articles imported from some foreign source, and on looking at the facts at the Board of Trade I was obliged to say we could not proceed, and, in any case, we intended to take the earliest opportunity of repealing this useless piece of legislation. It is idle to keep on the Statute Book and be compelled in law to accept applications to consider something which you cannot do in practice, and which in nine years could not be applied. It is important for that reason to get rid of it. But I want to add that the other difficulties are really insuperable. The thing cannot be done. I will not this morning press the Commercial Treaty point. It is plain that you cannot apply this legislation. The final point is that a duty of that kind is no remedy for dumping. Nine years of sympathetic experience proves that you simply cannot. For these reasons, there is not a vestige of case for the Amendment.

Sir B. PETO

Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that a duty under this part has never been applied to anything in the whole of the nine years, and can he tell us under what legislation the first duty on gloves was imposed?

Mr. GRAHAM

I could not tell the hon. Gentleman what he asks with regard to the duty on gloves, but I can reply to his question at once that under that Section, that is, the dumping Section of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, no duty has ever been applied.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The Committee has been indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for the very clear and lucid speech which he has just made, and I think that if all the Amendments that have been proposed to other Sections had been dealt with as fully and as understandingly, probably we would not have been sitting here at this hour of the morning. But, interesting and clear as his speech was, I am bound to say that the longer it progressed the less reason did I see for repealing this Section which is the one protection against dumping which exists to-day. He gave us a historical review, concise and full, and I agree with him that he was not only justified, but, indeed, bound to cover the whole range, because the Measure which he now seeks to commend to the Committee does involve the history of the imposition of the duties under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and where depreciated exchanges or dumping are concerned it becomes necessary for him to consider the action that was taken at the time, how far it was successful, and how far that or similar action is necessary at the present time. The President of the Board of Trade told us that these proposals came to us, not as the product of one party, but fortified by the considered judgment of a Coalition Government. I very well remember how much sound Protectionist doctrine I learned from the great Free Traders of the Liberal party who were my masters and leaders at that time. I understand that they are free now from all immediate obligations and able to return to their own allegiance, and I sincerely hope that we may have support of such Liberals as are here.

Mr. FOOT

We have a better proposition than you have got.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a larger proportion of Liberal principles than I have, though the conduct which they have shown recently leads to a doubt as to whether they have Liberal principles at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was a whole-hearted supporter, and, indeed, the originator of these duties.

Mr. E. BROWN

They go back before 1921.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

As the hon. Member says they go back even earlier, back to the Paris Resolutions—

Mr. BROWN

The right hon. Gentleman is always sneering at the people who gave him his start in politics. The less he says about it the better.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that we are prepared to defend our present and our past, and we shall not be deflected from referring either to the present or to the past by any Members of his party. But I am content to found myself on this Bill itself which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It dealt with dumping in the popular sense of selling below the cost of production and dumping owing to depreciated exchanges. The President of the Board of Trade said that we need not worry about depreciated exchanges to-day, because all countries have got on to the gold standard and that the bounty of a depreciated exchange was no longer with us. I am not at all satisfied that the effects of depreciated exchanges are not with us to-day. It is quite true that with the exception of a few countries, the exchanges are no longer depreciating; you have not got what the economists would call the bounty of a depreciating exchange. But in many countries, and particularly in Germany, you have the result that with the exchange depreciated large industrial concerns were able to wipe off practically the whole of their debentures and other charges at a nominal figure.

Therefore, we are facing to-day competition from the effects of depreciated exchanges, and I think it is true to say that in foreign countries where exchanges were depreciated, the cost of living today is cheaper than with us. Indeed, I remember well hearing colleagues of the President of the Board of Trade arguing against the Safeguarding case by saying that it was quite true that the wages were far lower in Continental countries than they were here, but that if one went to France one would find that those wages bought more than a corresponding wage bought in this country, and, therefore, that you ought not to put on a duty because, relatively, the worker was no worse off. I am paraphrasing one of the arguments used in this House—I think it was on one of the textiles. That argument had some force, but I do not think it had force for the purpose for which it was used. What you have to consider in the competition you have to meet is the actual wage rate paid, because it is the amount of wages paid in France or Belgium, compared with the amount paid in England, which fixes the cost at which the article can be sold. If the result is that the wages paid are lower in France the article can be sold in England, or a neutral market, at less price than the English article.

It is no way of meeting foreign competition to say that the foreigner is no worse off owing to his small wage, because it buys more than it would in England. I think the argument singularly futile for that purpose, but it is very relevant to be advanced against the President of the Board of Trade. It shows that in these foreign countries the lower wage purchases a greater amount of commodity than the same wage could buy in this country. That is a legacy of the depreciated exchange and the form of competition we have to meet. You have not nearly reached the period in which you can wipe all that out and not consider it in the field of competition.

But the real issue is that of dumping in the popular sense—the sale of goods here below the cost of production, or the selling price in the country of origin. The real question the Committee has to ask itself before it passes this Clause is not whether this particular Clause is effective for its purpose, but do we need anti-dumping legislation today? The answer to that can only depend on whether the risk of dumping is past. If your powers in this Measure are inadequate, it is not for you to repeal these powers, but to add to them. I was never greatly enamoured with this Section, because I thought it was very difficult to deal with the cost of production with something taken off. It is a much fairer basis, and appeals to everybody, that we should take the price at which the foreign articles are sold here and ascertain if it is lower than the prices at which the articles sell in the country of their production. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the test in this Act is wrong—and I think it is too narrow—he should come with an Amendment to provide the necessary powers, unless he can show that the need for anti-dumping legislation has passed. He cannot say anything of the sort. I defy anyone, whatever his fiscal views, to say that today the risk of dumping is probably not greater than at any time in the past. It is plain beyond a peradventure.

All over the world there is vastly increased manufacturing plant, and vast factories occupied in mass production. The cost of manufacture in all these factories depends on whether the factories can be run full time. They have all protected their own markets. They have hurried in, as a consequence of the Tariff Truce, to protect them a little more. They have that secured to them. The purchasing power of their people has rather diminished in the recent slump, but they will want to go on producing and producing cheaply. What is going to happen? The articles which are produced in these mass production factories will be sold as much as they can in their own market, and they are going to sell the rest at any price. They are coming to the country which, by reason of the Tariff Truce, has said, "Whatever you do, nothing will make us defend our workpeople, although 25,000 are added to the unemployed every week."

The need in these circumstances is far, far, greater to protect us against the dumping of foreign goods than ever before. It is not for the President of the Board of Trade to say he is not continuing this because he is going to carry out the policy of the Labour party, the policy set out in "Labour and the Nation." I do not wish to regard him as personally responsible for the writing of that document. But it is the prospectus, and he is one of the directors. What they said was that they would deal with this by means of prohibition. There is a great deal to be said for that and the hon. Member for Leyton is nearer to us in fiscal matters than to his own front Bench. He is not going to get prohibition out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN

We are not discussing that the Clause should stand part. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks make it appear so.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I apologise, but the President of the Board of Trade dealt with the whole position, and gave his reasons why we should reject the Amendment. Perhaps I may be permitted to deal with this briefly. There is not the least chance of dealing with this by prohibition, because he has deliberately gone into a Convention which prohibits him from putting on any prohibition. That avenue is not open to him. He must deal with the matter by effective duties. I think that everything I have said is in line with the economic realities of the world to-day. Instead of asking us to repeal this Section, he ought to come down and ask us to reinforce it.

Major COLVILLE

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment which stands in my name is being taken concurrently with the present one?

The CHAIRMAN

I did not intend it in that way, but the discussion has got so wide that I think it ought to be discussed with the present Amendment.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN

In that case, the Amendment will be put without any further debate?

The CHAIRMAN

Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

What Amendments is it proposed to take?

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot be called upon by Members to state which Amendments I am going to take. I have stated earlier which ones I propose to call. Perhaps the hon. Member was not present.

Sir H. CROFT

The President of the Board of Trade, in his very clear speech, gave good reasons not why the Clause should be introduced, but why the present existing Measure should be made operative and effective. He never showed that there was any reason for introducing this Clause at all. These powers are not harming anyone at the present moment. He is simply depriving the country of a weapon which can be used in special circumstances—the dumping to which my hon. Friend has referred. This existing Measure by very simple amendment could be brought in keeping with the whole ideals of trade unionism in this country, and the same principle applied to the products coming into this country. I particularly wish to call attention to the responsibility of all parties in this House for placing this Measure originally on the Statute Book. It arose, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, from the Paris Resolutions. It is no good of hon. Members below the Gangway dissociating themselves from the action at that time of the late Lord Oxford, then Mr. Asquith. He used words actually covering this Measure, and which apply very clearly to the pre- sent situation. This is what he said just after the Conference of Paris, at the end of 1916: The War has opened our eyes to the full meaning and manifold implications of the German system of—

The CHAIRMAN

I must appeal to my hon. Friends at the other end. I hear every word they are saying, and, consequently, I cannot hear the words of the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee.

Sir H. CROFT

I was following the line of argument used in two or three previous speeches showing what was the origin of this Clause with which it is proposed to deal in the Finance Bill. Following that, the Coalition Government, which contained representatives of all three parties, came out very strongly for these principles.

Mr. FOOT

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if the Act set out as the act of all three parties in 1921 had the support of Mr. Asquith at that date, and of the Independent Liberal party?

Sir H. CROFT

I do not suggest that. The party of Mr. Asquith at that time was not in association with the Government, but, perhaps, I may be permitted to quote on that point some words of the present leader of the Liberal party as late as 14th November, 1922: The Safeguarding of Industries Act was an inheritance from our predecessors. It was simply an attempt to incorporate the Paris Resolutions framed by our predecessors. As a matter of fact, it did not go as far as the Paris Resolutions. Who drafted those? A good Free Trader—for Mr. Runciman regarded himself as such—and he with Mr. Bonar Law and Lord Crewe put them before the Conference of the Allies who adopted them.

Mr. E. BROWN

Is there not among those Resolutions one which enables countries who like to do it by nationalisation to do so? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that Mr. Bonar Law was in favour of nationalisation?

Sir H. CROFT

I would be out of order if I referred to nationalisation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish the quotation from his present leader: Mr. Asquith then recommended these principles to the House of Commons as his own. He was the witness, Mr. Runciman being the parent, and he said to the House, 'What a fine child it is!' It is clearly shown that, though the Liberals following Lord Asquith and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were divided on other things, they were all Protectionists with regard to this policy which is the origin of Safeguarding. The Liberal party at least should not allow this Clause to pass and this Measure to be practically removed from the Statute Book and render this country defenceless in case we have to deal with the question of dumping. My hon. Friend and his colleagues should reconsider this matter. Perhaps they would bring it up again at a later stage and not deprive this country of this weapon, because we have been rendered absolutely defenceless by the Tariff Truce in which the right hon. Gentleman has taken such an interest.

Mr. E. BROWN

I think something should be said on that point. The statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman though, as always, accurate, are so out of perspective in regard to the whole problem, that they really convey an effect of inaccuracy in regard to the way they are put. At the time of the Paris Resolutions—some of us were otherwise engaged then—those who were engaged in the War for a political end and taking part in this international conference, were facing the situation they might meet at the end of the War and the possibility of an economic bloc being formed against the Allies by our antagonists. That was the origin of the Paris Resolutions. In addition to giving powers to take tariff measures, they gave powers to every country that desired to go along the lines of Socialism to rationalise, if they thought that was the best weapon, if and when the occasion arose.

It is quite obvious that the fight is out of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends rather thought earlier in the Debate that they were going to deal with a very different subject from that contained in this Bill. There were numbers of members very ready to talk about lace and Nottingham earlier in the Debate. It is quite obvious that it is agreed upon all sides that, whatever may have been the intentions behind this legislation, it has never been put into effect.

It is agreed on all sides that the machinery devised in 1921 when the state of the exchanges was extraordinary in character has no relation whatever to our present-day affairs. The weapon is utterly useless, even if it were wanted. Therefore, it is a right thing to take from the Statute Book this kind of legislation, which simply cumbers it, and has the effect on the public mind of thinking that we have legislation that will give our country power for anti-dumping legislation, whereas we have not got it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) was very careful in his talk about dumping. All his illustrations were taken from factories—nothing about the land or about food, because the last thing he wants to do by a tariff is to put a tax on food that is dumped, unless by taking some ambiguous way round.

Major COLVILLE

The Act contains the words: Other than articles of food and drink.

Mr. BROWN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must admit that the right hon. Gentleman went a good deal further than that, and was dealing with the general question of dumping, and not merely with the Act. His charge against the Government was not merely that they were repealing the Act, but that they were putting nothing in its place.

Sir H. CROFT

Is it not a fact that the hon. Member's leader himself has declared that you ought to use a weapon against the dumping of corn in this country?

Mr. BROWN

That may be so, but now the hon. Member is putting up a tariffist argument for dumping, and my retort is that his illustrations were all drawn from the field of manufacture.

Sir P. FORD

Is it not a fact that the whole of this discussion has proceeded on manufactures, and that this is a red herring drawn across the trail?

Mr. BROWN

I am sorry that the hon. Member did not wait to hear me. He will admit that when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he asked me not to interrupt him but to wait until he finished his argument. This Act has never been used. The weapon is utterly obsolete, and if hon. Members above the Gangway want to have a real anti-dumping discussion, let them have the courage of their convictions and discuss agriculture as well as manufactured articles.

Mr. BROCKWAY

I intervene only to indicate that there is a view different from that which has yet been expressed in this Committee. Many of us on these benches are definitely not Free Traders, and take the view that there is an overwhelming case to deal with the problem of dumping, and that Free Trade is an absolutely inadequate method to deal with it. We say that equally inadequate is the method of Safeguarding. We believe in the method of Import Boards for the industries which are concerned, and we would give them the powers of absolute prohibition.

Major COLVILLE

I should like to correct the impression of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that we on this side of the Committee thought that we were raising the whole question of Safeguarding. We were perfectly clear that what we were raising was this question of dumping. It centres round the pledge given by the present leader of the Liberal party in 1918 that if production was to be maintained at the highest limit at home, security must be given against the unfair competition to which our industries might be subjected by the dumping of goods produced abroad and sold to our markets below the actual cost of production. I was not at all convinced by the arguments of the President of the Board of Trade that there was no need for such machinery at the present time. Looking at the present world depression, we must be on our guard against large-scale unloading. With all the great manufacturing countries finding their markets saturated, we are the only free dumping country in the world. It is no argument to say that this machinery has not been used for nine years. It is no argument against keeping a fire escape to say that a man has not used it for nine years. It may be said that we in this country are the pot calling the pan black after the Coal Bill with its provisions for cheap coal for export. Other countries have machinery for dealing with this very question. Why should we not have it to guard against the same danger?

Mr. BECKETT

I beg to call attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member has sent three of his leaders to sleep.

Major COLVILLE

I do not think that the Government have made out a case for dropping this machinery without putting anything in its place to deal with what is, undoubtedly, a danger at the present time. Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking only of unemployment or of the 12,000,000 employed at present? Surely their jobs might be menaced by the wholesale unloading that might take place at any time from these competitive countries.

Captain P. MACDONALD

Perhaps we can get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us on what grounds of reason, logic or economic, he bases the argument for the removal of these safeguards against dumping of foreign goods into this country at the present time. There are more reasons to be considered than depreciated exchanges when dealing with dumping. There are the important questions of conditions of labour in other countries, the hours of labour, and so forth. There are still depreciated exchanges in European countries, despite what the President of the Board of Trade said, which have not yet stabilised their exchanges. So that we are still subject to the dumping of foreign goods which are enjoying the advantages of a depreciated exchange as against our gold standard and our superior working conditions. Yet it is at this time that the President of the Board of Trade has thought fit at Geneva to commit us to a policy of the open door, by allowing other European countries to increase their tariff by means of his so-called Tariff Truce. By doing this, he has placed this country in a very serious position indeed. To take the step proposed now is to add still greater burdens on the people who are trying to carry on the industries of the country.

I would ask hon. Members opposite who represent trades unions and organised bodies of working men what would be their attitude if we were to import foreign labour to work longer hours for lower wages in order to take the work out of the hands of our own people? There is no doubt that there would be an unholy outcry. Yet what is the difference between employing labour working under inferior conditions for lower wages and longer hours in this country and purchasing the goods manufactured abroad under such conditions? I have never obtained an answer to that reasonable question.

Major LLEWELLIN

It seems to me that there is very little use in repealing Section 3 of this Act of 1921 at the present time, because the whole power under Section 3 hangs upon Section 2. Under Section 2, an industry has to make a complaint to the President of the Board of Trade and he may then set up a committee. Having set up a committee, and that committee having reported, he may then, acting upon that report, make an order. So it seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government could quite well have made this Act of 1921 a dead letter if they had wished to do so, without doing anything in this Finance Bill; and they could have left on the Statute Book the power this Act gives to any subsequent Government—which we hope to see of a different complexion from the present one—to do something to prevent dumping. It seems to me to be quite useless as it stands, and I do ask them, when they can quite well make this Act a dead letter because of the President of the Board of Trade taking no action, to leave this power on the Statute Book for some succeeding Government to try to protect our industries against unfair competition from abroad. They talk about some possible prohibition in the future. That is not half as good as showing a willingness to meet dumping under legislation already on the Statute Book. Here we have a power which maybe is not as adequate a power as some of us would like to see, but, at any rate, the power is there, and it seems to me that all parties who have the welfare of the unemployed at heart should show their goodwill by keeping an existing provision on the Statute Book. However inadequate the power may be, I, at any rate, am prepared to go into the Lobby in support of it.

Mr. GRAY

I propose to make only an observation or two in regard to the last few speeches. I want to paint out to hon. Members above the Gangway on this side that really the whole of these speeches are irrelevant to what this Clause actually does. This Clause repeals a Section of the Safeguarding Act which does not deal with any question of conditions in other countries. It does not matter how bad may be the wage that is paid in another country; it does not matter how bad the conditions that exist in another country, the Act of 1921 did not give you any power whatever to deal with those conditions. The Act refers to goods being dumped below the cost of production, and that cost of production may be lower than here by virtue of low conditions and low wages. But that would not be dumping below the costs of production and the whole of that kind of argument is not affected by the Amendment that is before the Committee. It is quite true that hon. Members above the Gangway do want to have some form of Protection in this country, but this Clause is not the proper place on which to discuss that question. The speech that came from the front Opposition Bench was really a strong case in support of the action of the Government, because I suggest that to retain on the Statute Book a weapon which gives you an illusion of being able to do something which you cannot do by that weapon, is misleading. The mere fact that during the whole period of the last administration there never was the slightest attempt to use this weapon, must prove one of two things—either that there was no occasion to use it, because there was no dumping, or that the weapon in the Act of 1921 was incapable of use to meet the situation.

It is useless for hon. Members above the Gangway to talk to those of us who sit on these benches and try to induce us to object to the removal of that Measure for which many of us did not ever care a great deal. References have been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and I find myself in some difficulty to understand what is the mentality of right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in regard to that right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether they wish to assert that he is such an excellent and a desirable leader that they are going to borrow him, or do they mean to suggest that they are quite prepared to use him when they find him useful? Now that he is no longer associated with them, do they wish to blame him for everything that they do not like? Hon. Members must make up their minds as to whether they think that everything my right hon. Friend does is absolutely right, and that because he was associated with them in the Coalition Government he has got to continue to support it, and that we are bound by it. I am quite sure the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would not care to be bound by principles which hon. Members wish to apply to my right hon. Friend. We support the Government in this action because this weapon is useless. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not put on the Statute Book a purely Protectionist Measure. It is so safeguarded that for all practical purposes it is quite useless. Why, then, should we keep it on the Statute Book?

7.0 a.m.

Sir F. HALL

I was rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the suggestion that a debate of this magnitude should take place in Parliamentary hours. It has been thrust upon us. It does not matter to me that my hon. Friend says that so far as he is concerned this is "useless." I disagree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that we should not retain this because it is cumbersome. If it is useless it cannot do harm, and if it cannot do harm, it can very likely do good, and a great amount of good. [Interruption.] The position in regard to this Measure is left entirely in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. He has to decide, from the complaints made by traders, that goods are being dumped into this country on such terms that they cannot be otherwise than under the cost of production in the country of origin. It is only reasonable to suppose that the President of the Board of Trade would look upon the effect it was likely to have upon the trade of his own country. The hon. Member below the Gangway, apparently, wishes to throw over his own leader.

Mr. GRAY

May I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to put into my mouth words I did not use?

Sir F. HALL

One can judge only by the manner in which the hon. Member desires to dissociate himself from the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Are we to understand that the hon. Member has one opinion on one day and another on another day?

Sir H. CROFT

The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has now become a prohibitionist so far as foodstuffs are concerned.

Sir F. HALL

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for drawing my attention to that fact. I can understand the difficult position in which hon. Members below the Gangway find themselves. We have a large amount of unemployment, and surely we should take every possible step to protect our labour. I am never frightened to say that, so far as I am concerned, I always believed in protecting industries for my own people in my own country. Is it sensible to allow the products of other countries to come in, when they are produced under conditions that no one would permit in this country? At seven o'clock we start a discussion which has a far-reaching effect upon the industries of this country. It is not fair; it is without parallel in the time I have been a Member of this House. I have never seen a debate of this magnitude forced upon the Opposition at this time of the morning on so important a subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he would weary us out, but we can stop as long as he can. We shall take good care to let the electorate know the way in which debates of this magnitude are forced upon us. If there is no harm in this, as the hon. Member said, why not leave it on the Statute Book?

Mr. GRAY

I never said there was no harm in it, but that it was a useless weapon.

Sir F. HALL

The hon. Member for Leith said that this was one of those Measures which were cumbersome, not that it could not do good. It is a Measure which may do a vast amount of good. If it cannot do any harm, surely you may leave this Measure upon the Statute Book. It has been gone into years before some of the Members who are here now were here. It was because of the difficulties we encountered after the War that it was practically accepted by all parties in the House.

Major TRYON

I think that a rather remarkable feature of this debate has been the fact that there has at last been an intervention from the back benches opposite. Almost the whole night we have hardly had a speech from those back benches. In the very clear speech from the hon. Member opposite, he did not at all take up the attitude assumed by the Government. He clearly stated that in his view dumping was an exceedingly serious matter. He even went so far as to suggest sweeping measures of prohibition.

Sir H. CROFT

He also stated that it was the view of a considerable number of Members on his side.

Major TRYON

I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. We now find a coalition between some of the extremists on the Socialist back benches, who advocate prohibition to prevent dumping, and the leader of the Liberal party with regard to subsidised food from overseas. With regard to the position of the Liberal party, I have a few observations to make. First, the foundations of the subject we are now discussing were undoubtedly laid by the Liberal party. We had from the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) a statement that We ought to be defended against dumping or any other kind of unfair competition. That was not merely some War measure, as was suggested, because "unfair" suggests a competition that is unfair and is not some passing emergency lasting only during the War. He admits that dumping is unfair. The present leader of the Liberal party said security should be given against unfair competition to which our industries had in the past been subjected by dumping of goods below the actual cost of production. That is the point we are arguing, and it is in a letter signed by the present leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). When this Act we are now discussing was brought in in 1921, Mr. Asquith, speaking for the portion of the Liberal party he led at the time, asked, "What is dumping?," and proceeded to define it. He said that dumping meant the deliberate and organised attempt of foreign producers or, as is much more common, a combination of foreign producers, flourishing as they do under rings and trusts and protective tariffs, to flood our markets regardless of price with goods which will undermine and, as they hope, destroy some particular part of British industry. That seems to me an extraordinarily good definition. He also said: There is nothing in the Free Trade creed or practice which obliges any Free trader to submit to a process of that dumping.

Mr. KEDWARD

For what do you want that obsolete weapon?

Major TRYON

It seems to me a pity that the hon. Gentleman should wish to destroy these remains of Liberal action against unemployment in this country.

Mr. KEDWARD

It is time it was buried; it is beginning to smell.

Major TRYON

That is an offensive description of a Liberal Measure. The only speech we have had from the back benches of the Labour party admits the danger of dumping. In the speeches I have quoted from the Liberal benches, the word "unfair" appears time after time, and, therefore, in justice to our people we claim that this provision should be continued. Surely, with the unemployment returns, bad as they are—and the unemployed are well aware of them, despite their being suppressed in the "Daily Herald"—and with the danger we are in from the present state of trade in the world, it is a pity to take away this provision, which surely ought to be left. There never was a time when there could be a greater danger of dumping than at the present moment. It is notorious that the whole world is suffering from over-production. Therefore, all countries are faced with the alternatives of either closing down some of their works, working short time, or sending their surplus products at almost any cost into our markets. The removal of this Part of the Act will be a direct encouragement to other countries, because they will know that the Government will not in any way intervene to protect our workers.

Mr. KEDWARD

It is pathetic to see how the hon. Members above the Gangway cling to obsolete and useless opinions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carnarvon Boroughs!"] We have heard a great deal about the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but there is one Member on the Front Bench who should remember he was washed, clothed and fed and given his chance in life by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. One would have thought that common decency would have put a seal upon his lips. Whenever the word "Safeguarding" appears, it is sufficient to raise tremendous enthusiasm or indigation among the minds of hon. Members above the Gangway. It is on their backs like the Old Man of the Sea, a presence from which they cannot get free, something which holds them and refuses to let them go. If this was such a useful and valuable instrument, why did not hon. and right hon. Gentlemen during their 4½ years of office put it into operation? It is rather a strange thing that during the whole of that time it was never called to their aid in one single instance. Now they are appealing for the retention of the shadow, though there is no substance, and of the symbol when there is no fact behind it. It is on a par with the whole of their reasoning in regard to Safeguarding.

What would have happened if we had adopted the attitude of mind of the party above the Gangway when our forefathers were developing the country, building ships and railways and sending our products all over the world and receiving their goods in exchange? Now they have a type of mind that seems anxious that we should put a barbed-wire fence round the whole country, so that nothing can get in or out, and then suggests that we should get prosperous taking in each others washing. If this instrument could have been used, why did they not use it in reference to German wheat? Hon. Members above the Gangway have talked about German wheat on every occasion. It was coming in during the 4½ years they were in office, yet they never used that weapon during the whole period.

Major COLVILLE

The Act expressly excludes articles of drink and food.

Mr. KEDWARD

No attempt was made by the Conservative party to amend that Act so that they could deal with German wheat, although they were in power with an overwhelming majority.

Sir P. FORD

Is it in order to raise the question of whether any party ought to have amended a previous Act?

The CHAIRMAN

Just as much in order as many other things.

Sir P. FORD

Might I point out that two blacks do not make a white?

Mr. KEDWARD

I am not prepared to pursue this further, but the country will realise that the whole of the arguments put forward above the Gangway break down under the weight of their own absurdity.

Sir P. FORD

We have listened to a very humourous speech delivered in a very friendly manner, but I regard the crisis in the history of the country as too serious to be looked at in that kind of buffoonery. There is a great necessity under world conditions that we should not abandon anything that might protect us. The party opposite is always pointing out that over-production is the cause of a great deal of the troubles of this country. I want to emphasise that in these conditions it is not a matter for recrimination between parties, but the point that is really important for this country to realise is that there is over-production, and great over-production, in manufactures, and it is being led by the

greatest Protectionist country in the world—the United States. There is going to be a scramble to get out and to get markets. Where are the people of any nation going to be hardest hit? Surely in this country, which lays itself open to that kind of attack. We are the country that can least afford that kind of attack, because we do not keep our home markets in a position to encourage our manufacturers by mass production and sell abroad in the face of fierce foreign competition. If we are attacked, we are going to starve, and to abandon, for any sort of party motive, any Measure that is in any degree calculated to help us to protect ourselves in this way is directing a vital blow at our manufactures and crippling our power to sell our goods.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 69.

Division No. 318.] AYES. [7.25 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Leach, W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gibbins, Joseph Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Alpass, J. H. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Arnott, John Gill, T. H. Lees, J.
Aske, Sir Robert Glassey, A. E. Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Attlee, Clement Richard Gossling, A. G. Lindley, Fred W.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Gould, F. Logan, David Gilbert
Barnes, Alfred John Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Longbottom, A. W.
Barr, James Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Longden, F.
Batey, Joseph Gray, Milner Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lunn, William
Bellamy, Albert Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Benson, G. Groves, Thomas E. McElwee, A.
Bowen, J. W. Grundy, Thomas W. McEntee, V. L.
Broad, Francis Alfred Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) McKinlay, A.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) McShane, John James
Bromfield, William Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Marcus, M.
Brooke, W. Hardie, George D. Marley, J.
Brothers, M. Haycock, A. W. Marshall, Fred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Hayes, John Henry Mathers, George
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Matters, L. W.
Burgess, F. G. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Messer, Fred
Cape, Thomas Herriotts, J. Middleton, G.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Mills, J. E.
Charieton, H. C. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Chater, Daniel Hoffman, P. C. Morley, Ralph
Clarke, J. S. Hollins, A. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Cluse, W. S. Hopkin, Daniel Mort, D. L.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Horrabin, J. F. Moses, J. J. H.
Compton, Joseph Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Daggar, George Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Noel Baker, P. J.
Dalton, Hugh John, William (Rhondda, West) Oldfield, J. R.
Dickson, T. Johnston, Thomas Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Dukes, C. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Palin, John Henry
Duncan, Charles Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Ede, James Chuter Kennedy, Thomas Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Edmunds, J. E. Kinley, J. Potts, John S.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lang, Gordon Price, M. P.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lathan, G. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Egan, W. H. Law, Albert (Bolton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Foot, Isaac Law, A. (Rosendale) Ritson, J.
Freeman, Peter Lawson, John James Romeril, H. G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Rowson, Guy Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wellock, Wilfred
Sanders, W. S. Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Sandham, E. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Westwood, Joseph
Sawyer, G. F. Sorensen, R. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Scurr, John Strauss, G. R. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Sullivan, J. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Shield, George William Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Shillaker, J. F. Thurtle, Ernest Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Shinwell, E. Tinker, John Joseph Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Simmons, C. J. Vaughan, D. J. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Sinkinson, George Walkden, A. G.
Sitch, Charles H. Wallace, H. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) Watkins, F. C. Mr. Paling and Mr. William
Whiteley.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Everard, W. Lindsay Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Ferguson, Sir John Ramsbotham, H.
Beaumont, M. W. Fison, F. G. Clavering Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bird, Ernest Roy Ford, Sir P. J. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Salmon, Major I.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Greene, W. P. Crawford Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Briscoe, Richard George Gunston, Captain D. W. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Butler, R. A. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Savery, S. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Skelton, A. N.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Smithers, Waldron
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Somerset, Thomas
Colfox, Major William Philip Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Colville, Major D. J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Llewellin, Major J. J. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Long, Major Eric Thomson, Sir F.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lymington, Viscount Todd, Capt. A. J.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Margesson, Captain H. D. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Dalkeith, Earl of Marjoribanks, E. C. Wells, Sydney R.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Duckworth, G. A. V. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Muirhead, A. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Elliot, Major Walter E. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sir George Penny and Captain
Wallace.

Question put accordingly "That those words be there added."

"The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 172.

Division No. 319.] AYES. [7.34 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Everard, W. Lindsay Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Ferguson, Sir John Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Beaumont, M. W. Fison, F. G. Clavering Salmon, Major I.
Bird, Ernest Roy Ford, Sir P. J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Boothby, R. J. G. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Greene, W. P. Crawford Savery, S. S.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Gunston, Captain D. W. Skelton, A. N.
Briscoe, Richard George Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Smithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Somerset, Thomas
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Colfox, Major William Philip Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Colville, Major D. J. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Thomson, Sir F.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Llewellin, Major J. J. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Long, Major Eric Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lymington, Viscount Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Marjoribanks, E. C. Wells, Sydney R.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dalkeith, Earl of Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Muirhead, A. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Duckworth, G. A. V. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sir George Penny and Captain
Edmondson, Major A. J. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Margesson.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Ramsbotham, H.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Attlee, Clement Richard Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Bellamy, Albert
Alpass, J. H. Barnes, Alfred John Benson, G.
Arnott, John Barr, James Bowen, J. W.
Aske, Sir Robert Batey, Joseph Broad, Francis Alfred
Brockway, A. Fenner Hollins, A. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Bromfield, William Hopkin, Daniel Potts, John S.
Brooke, W. Horrabin, J. F. Price, M. P.
Brothers M. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) John, William (Rhondda, West) Ritson, J.
Burgess, F. G. Johnston, Thomas Romeril, H. G.
Cape, Thomas Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Rowson, Guy
Charieton, H. C. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Chater, Daniel Kennedy, Thomas Sanders, W. S.
Clarke, J. S. Kinley, J. Sandham, E.
Cluse, W. S. Lang, Gordon Sawyer, G. F.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lathan, G. Scurr, John
Compton, Joseph Law, Albert (Bolton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Daggar, George Law, A. (Rossendale) Shield, George William
Dalton, Hugh Lawson, John James Shillaker, J. F.
Dickson, T. Leach, W. Shinwell, E.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Simmons, C. J.
Dukes, C. Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sinkinson, George
Duncan, Charles Lees, J. Sitch, Charles H.
Ede, James Chuter Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Alfred (Sutherland)
Edmunds, J. E. Lindley, Fred W. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Logan, David Gilbert Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Egan, W. H. Longbottom, A. W. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Foot, Isaac Longden, F. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Freeman, Peter Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sorensen, R.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lunn, William Strauss, G. R.
Gibbins, Joseph Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Sullivan, J.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) McElwee, A. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Gill, T. H. McEntee, V. L. Thurtle, Ernest
Glassey, A. E. McKinlay, A. Tinker, John Joseph
Gossling, A. G. McShane, John James Vaughan, D. J.
Gould, F. Marcus, M. Walkden, A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Marley, J. Wallace, H. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Marshall, Fred Watkins, F. C.
Gray, Milner Mathers, George Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Matters, L. W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Messer, Fred Wellock, Wilfred
Groves, Thomas E. Middleton, G. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Grundy, Thomas W. Mills, J. E. Westwood, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morgan Dr. H. B. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morley, Ralph Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hardie, George D. Mort, D. L. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Haycock, A. W. Moses, J. J. H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hayes, John Henry Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Noel Baker, P. J. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Oldfield, J. R.
Herriotts, J. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Mr. Paling and Mr. William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Palin, John Henry Whiteley.
Hoffman, P. C. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much further he proposes to go?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN

Of course, we must have Clause 5, and Clause 6, I should venture to think, is not very controversial. There is, of course, one reason why it is suggested that we might now report Progress. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has not been able to stay the course. In view of the promise he made of the very vigorous part he was going to play in the debate on Safeguarding it would be rather unfortunate

to continue without his presence. I would, therefore, propose to report Progress after Clause 5 is finished.

Major COLVILLE

I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at end, to add the words: except in the case of goods manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom which are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices below the cost of production.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 171.

Division No. 320.] AYES. [7.45 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Boothby, R. J. G. Cayrer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Astor, Viscountess Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Braithwaite, Major A. N. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Beaumont, M. W. Briscoe, Richard George Colfox, Major William Philip
Bird, Ernest Roy Butler, R. A. Colville, Major D. J.
Courtauid, Major J. S. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Savery, S. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Skelton, A. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Smithers, Waldron
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Llewellin, Major J. J. Somerset, Thomas
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Long, Major Eric Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lymington, Viscount Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Duckworth, G, A. V. Margesson, Captain H. D. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Edmondson, Major A. J. Marjoribanks, E. C. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Everard, W. Lindsay Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Fison, F. G. Clavering Muirhead, A. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Ford, Sir P. J. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wells, Sydney R.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Greene, W. P. Crawford Ramsbotham, H.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Sir George Penny and Sir Frederick
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Salmon, Major I. Thomson.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
NOES.
Adamson, Ht. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, George D. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Haycock, A. W. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Alpass, J. H. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Palin, John Henry.
Arnott, John Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Paling, Wilfrid
Aske, Sir Robert Herriotts, J. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Potts, John S.
Barnes, Alfred John Hoffman, P. C. Price, M. P.
Barr, James Hollins, A. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Hopkin, Daniel Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bellamy, Albert Horrabin, J. F. Ritson, J.
Benson, G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Romeril, H. G.
Bowen, J. W. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Broad, Francis Alfred John, William (Rhondda, West) Rowson, Guy
Brockway, A. Fenner Johnston, Thomas Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Bromfield, William Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sanders, W. S.
Brooke, W. Jowitt Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Sandham, E.
Brothers, M. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Sawyer, G. F.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kennedy, Thomas Scurr, John
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kinley, J. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Burgess, F. G. Lang, Gordon Shield, George William
Cape, Thomas Lathan, G. Shillaker, J. F.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Law, Albert (Bolton) Shinwell, E.
Charieton, H. C. Law, A. (Rosendale) Simmons, C. J.
Chater, Daniel Lawson, John James Sinkinson, George
Clarke, J. S. Leach, W. Sitch, Charles H.
Cluse, W. S. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Compton, Joseph Lees, J. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Daggar, George Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, Fred W. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Dickson, T. Lloyd, C. Ellis Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Logan, David Gilbert Sorensen, R.
Dukes, C. Longbottom, A. W. Strauss, G. R.
Duncan, Charles Longden, F. Sullivan, J.
Ede, James Chuter Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Edmunds, J. E. Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Tinker, John Joseph
Egan, W. H. McElwee, A. Vaughan, D. J.
Foot, Isaac McEntee, V. L. Walkden, A. G.
Freeman, Peter McKinlay, A. Wallace, H. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) McShane, John James Watkins, F. C.
Gibbins, Joseph Marcus, M. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Marley, J. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gill, T. H. Marshall, Fred Wellock, Wilfred
Glassey, A. E. Mathers, George Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Gossling, A. G. Matters, L. W. Westwood, Joseph
Gould, F. Messer, Fred Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Middleton, G. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Mills, J. E. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gray, Milner Morgan, Dr. H. B. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morley, Ralph Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Groves, Thomas E. Mort, D. L. Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, Thomas W. Moses. J. J. H. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Noel Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Oldfield, J. R. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Hayes.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 71.

Division No. 321.] AYES. [7.52 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hardie, George D. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Haycock, A. W. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Alpass, J. H. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Palin, John Henry
Arnott, John Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Paling, Wilfrid
Aske, Sir Robert Herriotts, J. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Potts, John S.
Barnes, Alfred John Hoffman, P. C. Price, M. P.
Barr, James Hollins, A. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Hopkin, Daniel Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bellamy, Albert Horrabin, J. F. Ritson, J.
Benson, G. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Romeril, H. G.
Bowen, J. W. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Broad, Francis Alfred John, William (Rhondda, West) Rowson, Guy
Brockway, A. Fenner Johnston, Thomas Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Bromfield, William Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sanders, W. S.
Brooke, W. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Sandham, E.
Brothers, M. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Sawyer, G. F.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kennedy, Thomas Scurr, John
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kinley, J. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Burgess, F. G. Lang, Gordon Shield, George William
Cape, Thomas Lathan, G. Shillaker, J. F.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Law, Albert (Bolton) Shinwell, E.
Charieton, H. C. Law, A. (Rosendale) Simmons, C. J.
Chater, Daniel Lawson, John James Sinkinson, George
Clarke, J. S. Leach, W. Sitch, Charles H.
Cluse, W. S. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Compton, Joseph Lees, J. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Daggar, George Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, Fred W. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Dickson, T. Lloyd, C. Ellis Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Logan, David Gilbert Sorensen, R.
Dukes, C. Longbottom, A. W. Strauss, G. R.
Duncan, Charles Longden, F. Sullivan, J.
Ede, James Chuter Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Edmunds, J. E. Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards. E. (Morpeth) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Tinker, John Joseph
Egan, W. H. McElwee, A. Vaughan, D. J.
Foot, Isaac McEntee, V. L. Walkden, A. G.
Freeman, Peter McKinlay, A. Wallace, H. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) McShane, John James Watkins, F. C.
Gibbins, Joseph Marcus, M. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Marley, J. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gill, T. H. Marshall, Fred Wellock, Wilfred
Glassey, A. E. Mathers, George Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Gossling, A. G. Matters, L. W. Westwood, Joseph
Gould, F. Messer, Fred Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Middleton, G. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Mills, J. E. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gray, Milner Morgan, Dr. H. B. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morley, Ralph Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Groves, Thomas E. Mort, D. L. Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, Thomas W. Moses, J. J. H. Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Noel Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Oldfield, J. R. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Astor, Viscountess Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Beaumont, M. W. Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Bird, Ernest Roy Dalkeith, Earl of Lamb, Sir J. O.
Boothby, R. J. G. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Llewellin, Major J. J.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Duckworth, G. A. V. Long, Major Eric
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Edmondson, Major A. J. Lymington, Viscount
Briscoe, Richard George Elliot, Major Walter E. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Butler, R. A. Everard, W. Lindsay Margesson, Captain H. D.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Fison, F. G. Clavering Marjoribanks, E. C.
Cazaiet, Captain Victor A. Ford, Sir P. J. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Colfox, Major William Philip Greene, W. P. Crawford Muirhead, A. J.
Colville, Major D. J. Gunston, Captain D. W. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Courtauid, Major J. S. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pilditch, Sir Philip
Ramsbotham, H. Smithers, Waldron Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Somerset, Thomas Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Robert, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Southby, Commander A. R. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Salmon, Major I. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wells, Sydney R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Savery, S. S. Thomson, Sir F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Skelton, A. N. Todd, Capt. A. J. Sir George Penny and Captain
Wallace.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I should like to express my regret that it has been necessary to occupy the Committee for so long. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so. The debate has been characterised by quite a lot of good humour. [An HON. MEMBER: "On one side!"] I hope that it will not be necessary to repeat this experience on the later stages of the Bill. I can assure the Committee that if it be necessary, it will only be under the direst need.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN

I wish to acknowledge the very friendly and pleasant words in which the right hon. Gentleman has just introduced this Motion. We part very good friends and in the best of tempers all round. I hope it will not be necessary for the Committee on this Bill to repeat the kind of sitting that we have had to-night. The right hon. Gentleman might try to enter a little more into the feelings of an Opposition, and if he finds himself obliged to ask them to help, to act as if he did it with regret, instead of with an apparently impish pleasure.

Mr. E. BROWN

I would like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman has made his maiden speech, but he has pursued a role of free silence. Sometimes free silence is much more effective than free speech. Speaking on behalf of those who have been mostly silent, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that if ever this kind of thing should arise again, to ask his old friends to spend a little less time in things not very important; and then we can get some things done that are more important.

Mr. DICKSON

Is it in order to raise anything on the Adjournment?

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 2nd June.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Eight o'Clock a.m.