HC Deb 02 November 1932 vol 269 cc1915-43

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. COCKS

I am opposed to all the Schedules, but I want first to speak in support of the rejection of this one. I will confine my remarks to that part which deals with the Canadian Agreement. I have been through all the Agreements. Instead of going from bad to worse, we start with the worst and go on to the bad. I think the Canadian Agreement is the biggest fraud on the British public, in the name of Empire, that has ever been perpetrated. I would like to subject it to a certain analysis. My first reason for objecting to it is that it is absolutely inconsistent with the principles with which Ministers went to Ottawa to come to some agreement. We have heard very often in this House reference to the Debates of last June, when the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs stated their aspirations. At that time their objects were to strengthen the ties of Empire, to promote freer trade within the Empire and the world. The Lord President of the Council himself said that his object was to bring about reciprocal Free Trade within the Empire, or the nearest approach to it.

Inspired by these high hopes Ministers sailed to Ottawa. I suppose that in front of their eyes was the vision of our Lady of the Snows, the Golden West. I am afraid that those visions soon perished in the harsh light of reality. When they got to Ottawa the Gracious Lady of the Snows turned out to be Mr. Bennett, and instead of the High Tribunal of the Empire we had what, in the opinion of many people who went there, resembled more a thieves' kitchen. "The vision splendid" faded, and we had the Lord President of the Council in what I think was a cry from the heart saying: How difficult it is in the kind of discussions inseparable from a conference, to maintain those high ideals and live up to those speeches we often made.… before we came into conference. Under the Agreement embodied in the Schedule what is it that we are giving to the Dominions As I say, I intend to confine my remarks to Canada but the same thing applies, or can be applied by other Members who speak, to the other Agreements. We have given Canada a preference upon wheat and upon various other natural products including the products of the pig and timber. What are we getting in return? We are not getting that list of 8,000 commodities which Mr. Bennett said he was going to give us and which was supposed to represent, I believe, £40,000,000 worth. When examined by our experts that was reduced to a much smaller figure. We have not got 8,000 commodities, including such interesting items as "Mickey Mouse" and machinery for making "noises off." The list has been reduced to 220 according to the Schedule and these 220 items include some things which do not even exist.

It has been frequently stated in this House that there is one item on that list which has never been seen on sea or land but which is to be sent to Canada free. I mean the item of "electric storage batteries composed of plates measuring not less than 11 inches by 14 inches and I inch thick." These have never been sent to Canada and have never been made in England or anywhere, not even in the realm of fairyland. Anyhow, they are to go into Canada free as a result of this Agreement. It has also been mentioned though I do not like to say things which have been said before in the House that one of the items includes comic journals and periodicals. I suppose these are to be sent in in order to help the Prime Minister's "Newsletter." Then there is the item of bagpipes which are to go into Canada free. I wonder why these have been included. Is it a compliment to the Prime Minister, or does it indicate a last despairing attempt to retain in the National Government the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) or even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dar wen (Sir H. Samuel)? In any case apparently these are the results we have secured from a Conference at which enormous animosity was developed and at which at times a very bad feeling arose between the representatives of various parts of the Empire. Mr. Mackenzie King who, after all is the leader of a great party in Canada has said: I do not think we shall see in the British Empire another such conference, for I believe relations came as near to the breaking point as they could come. If the claim… that Mr. Bennett had forced Great Britain to change its fiscal policy was justified, then the Empire was threatened with disruption. That is the statement of the Leader of the Liberal party in Canada. Another objection which I have to the Schedule is its fraudulent character. Apart from the non-existent items which I have mentioned, what has happened is this, and I do not think that this has been made clear in the course of the Debate. The present Government in Canada for the last two years has clapped enormous duties upon British goods. There were low duties two years ago. Since then, they have put on enormous duties. Then they have slightly reduced those duties but still left the tariff almost insurmountable. I would like to put to the Committee certain figures which have been provided by Canadian importers. It is very difficult to understand these Schedules because there is not only the one ditty, but all sorts of other duties such as dumping duties, exchange duties and so on. But I have here a list compiled by a Canadian importing firm showing the exact difference which the Agreement makes in certain classes of goods.

In Vile case of unbleached cotton fabrics, before 1930 the duty was 13.7 percent. The present Canadian Government put it up to 39.7 per cent. and as a result of the Agreement it has been reduced to 38.6 per cent. In the case of white cotton flannelettes, before 1930, the duty was only 16 per cent. In 1930 it was put up to 48.3 per cent., and as a result of the Agreement it is 40.60 per cent. The ad valorem duty on cotton printed piece goods before 1930 was 19 per cent. In 1930 it was raised to 48.2 per cent. and as a result of the Agreement it is still 48.2 per cent. Cotton velvets before 1930 had a duty of 17 per cent. ad valorem which was put up to 38.2 per cent. in 1930 and is now reduced to 29.3 per cent.—still nearly twice as much as it was two years ago. Coloured cotton lace before 1930 had a duty of 19.2 per cent. which was put up by Mr. Bennett to 34 per cent. and is now reduced to 33.7 per cent.

Cotton pillow cases were 16 per cent. two years ago and that was put up to 49.3 per cent. but it is now reduced to 47.5 per cent., so that we can sleep more soundly in our beds. Cotton sheets were 16 per cent. before 1930; that was increased to 50.7 per cent. and is now reduced to 48.5 per cent. Cotton novelties—I do not know what they are—had a duty of 21.5 per cent. two years ago which was increased to 49 per cent. and the duty still remains at the same level. Cotton and art silk piece fabrics before 1930 had an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, which was put up two years ago to no less than 73 per cent. and remains at 70 per cent. Wool blankets were 21 per cent. two years ago and were put up to 92 per cent. and are now 66 per cent.

HON. MEMBERS

Hear, hear!

Mr. COCKS

Yes, but that is three times what the duty was two years ago. Of course, it is a well-known fact that if you are making a bargain you put up the price first and then reduce it slightly. I will not trouble hon. Members with more than two or three further items of this kind. Wool overcoatings were 24 per cent. before 1930 and were put up to 89.5 per cent. and are now reduced to 75.7 per cent. Wool hosiery—and I believe there is an hon. Member who wishes to speak on that subject later, being interested in hosiery—had a duty of 23 per cent before 1930 which was raised to 79 per cent. and has been reduced to 71.7 per cent. as a result of the Agreement. Finally, there are Axminster carpets, on which the duty was 23 per cent. two years ago, but in 1930 it was put up to 92.5, and it has been reduced, as a result of the Agreement, to 71.5 per cent. I admit frankly that certain trades, such as the chemical trades and the steel industry, have benefited by this Agreement, especially in certain lines which are not made in Canada, but even those benefits are very largely cancelled by the business with Russia, in which our iron and steel trades will be very adversely affected.

The supporters of the Government may say that we are forgetting that there is a Tariff Board to be set up in Canada, which will carry out certain principles in Articles 11 and 12 of the Agreement. To those principles, there are certain exceptions, and the two main exceptions are that Protection by tariffs is only to be given to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success. The other exception is: Special consideration…to the case of industries not fully established. Therefore, the two industries which are protected in this way are, first of all, the infant industries which are not fully established and, secondly, the adult industries which have great possibilities of success. What remains? That covers a very wide field. Take out the young industries not fully established and the adult industries which have reasonable opportunities for success, and all that remain unprotected art the adult industries which are probable failures. In the case of those industries which have sound opportunities for success we are to be allowed to compete on certain terms, and what are those terms? According to the Agreement, we are to have full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production. I think that ought to be examined. First of all, the Tariff Board must report, and we know very well that Mr. Bennett has done away with the Tariff Commission which existed in Canada formerly because it was not Protectionist enough. Mr. T. W. Page, who was the Chairman of the American Tariff Commission which was supposed to do much the same thing, says, in his book called "Making the Tariff in the U.S.A.": The application of the difference between costs as a measure of duties is usually impossible owing to the difficulty of finding what the difference amounts to. There is no such thing as a single domestic cost of production for any commodity. There are almost as many different costs as there are producers; and the question arises, Which should be taken for comparison with a foreign cost to find a standard for measuring duties? If the lowest cost were taken, it might result in no duty at all. The conclusion cannot be escaped that it is rarely possible to ascertain accurately the difference in costs of production at home and abroad. To use as a basis of a general tariff Act a thing so fleeting, evasive, and shadowy would be neither right nor possible. That is the summing up of the gentleman who was the head of the United States Tariff Commission.

10.0 p.m.

Surely the result of all this will be interminable arguments about costings, which will lead to a great deal of bad feeling between the various firms and the Canadian Tariff Board. And we must remember that the Canadian manufacturers are complaining at present that most British goods sent to compete with Canadian goods are made by sweated labour. We may think that is so or we may not, but that is the argument of the Canadian manufacturers, who say that the Lancashire cotton industry is conducted by sweated labour. I should like to read these two statements from cotton manufacturers in Canada. The first is a statement issued by the Canadian Cotton Manufacturers' Association: British textile manufacturers have been exporting large quantities of goods below fair market value and below cost of production. We do not regard with apprehension the Agreement. We have no reason to fear such an investigation, provided it is carried out with comprehension of all the facts. Then we have Mr. G. B. Gordon, managing director of the Dominion Textile Company, who says: The present tariff barely compensates for the difference in wage-earnings and overhead costs as between Canada and Lancashire. In addition, we have an extra burden of costs in -the wide diversification of our products and our limited consumption. There you get a factor which is very difficult to fight. What will happen? You will go before this Tariff Board, and all these things will be brought before it; and it is suggested in a letter which I read in the "Manchester Guardian" that in Canada it is assumed that the Tariff Board is an instrument of the Gov- ernment. The same article states that tariffs are worked under the instruction of what are called the "James Street" interests of Montreal, financiers indebted to Wall Street, and that not a single Canadian has the slightest expectation that the Board will act scientifically or impartially. On top of all that, according to the Agreement, even if the Tariff Board decides anything, the Canadian Government are not bound to accept its decision. That will mean that all the controversy will be transferred from the Tariff Board to the lobbies of the Canadian Houses of Parliament, and you will have all sorts of trouble. I suggest that this is not likely to end in Imperial unity or in any benefit to the interests of the Empire.

The Agreement is a very disappointing one from the point of view that it absolutely abandons the interests of the coal producers of this country. I know very well that, according to the Agreement, there is a slight increase of 10 cents in the preference on anthracite coal, but there are geographical reasons why that will not be so beneficial as otherwise it might be, owing to the frontier line between Canada and the United States. But not a single thing has been done for bituminous coal, and there is still a tariff in Canada against our exports of bituminous coal. Considering that we have not only agreed to purchase from Canada, under this Agreement, large quantities of her timber and wheat, but that we have agreed also to buy 2,500,000 cwts. of pig products, bacon and ham, from her, one would have thought the Secretary of State for the Dominions might have made an effort to get Canada to agree to buy a quota of coal from us.

Two years ago he went to Canada and said he had an order for coal and that it would need the construction of seven ships to carry it. Now, however, he has made no effort to get an agreement by which Canada will purchase a single knob of coal, and he has abandoned the miners as he has done more than once before in his career. We on this side of the Committee are not opposed to Imperial Preference and to friendship between ourselves and the different parts of the Empire, but we believe that the preference should be a free preference as advocated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and not a locked preference. I am supported in this by a statement, by one whom I have quoted before in the House, Mr. Mackenzie King, who has put the words so well that I cannot do better than quote them again: The method of voluntary fiscal concessions made in a spirit of good will is infinitely preferable to the bargaining and blasting policy of the Bennett Ministry. The former allowed trade to flow in free unchecked channels and eliminated the possibilities of friction, whereas the locked agreements now submitted are hard to interpret, difficult to administer, and productive of feelings of discord. We on this side of the Committee believe that the Canadian Agreement is a betrayal of British interests and of the interests of Imperial unity. We vote for its rejection and we hope and believe that it will he substituted by a better agreement when both Mr. Bennett in Canada and the Prime Minister in this country are hurled from power.

Mrs. TATE

In the unavoidable absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank) I rise to ask whether sugar machinery is included under Item 84 of Schedule F of the Indian Agreement, and to draw the attention of the Government to the considerable anxiety which is felt by manufacturers of sugar machinery in this country owing to the fact that no preference has been granted them under this Schedule. Up to September last year, sugar machinery entered India free of duty, but since that date a revenue tariff of 10 per cent. has been imposed upon it by the Indian Government. Since the imposition of that duty, there has been a serious falling off in orders to this country, whereas Continental firms have received very large orders. There are many firms specially equipped for the design and manufacture of this machinery in this country. It is rather significant that one of the delegates from India to the Ottawa Conference has, since his return from Ottawa, concluded an agreement to the value of £95,000 c.i.f. with Holland for sugar machinery. I have information concerning other large orders which have gone to Continental firms. The House will appreciate what the receipt of those contracts would mean to firms in this country, as they involve many subcontracts for castings, pipes, electrical fittings, and so on. A sur-charge of 10 per cent. over and above the existing 10 per cent. duty would ensure a fair proportion of such work coming to the United Kingdom, and, in view of the fact of these large orders having gone to the Continent, I would like the assurance of the Government whether or not sugar machinery can be included under Item 84 of Schedule F.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has discussed his case so forcibly that I hope that some supporters of the Government will come into the Lobby with us to vote for the rejection of this Schedule. I want to concentrate on the Agreement entered into with India. During the Second Reading Debate, I raised the question of that Agreement with reference to the importation of iron and steel free into this country. I put a certain interpretation upon the Agreement, but the representatives of the Government on the Front Bench were unable then to give me a reply. When later the President of the Board of Trade replied to the discussion, and touched the question of India, I asked him what the Agreement was so far as iron and steel were concerned. The reply I received was that I was under a misapprehension and that if I called on the President he would discuss the matter in order to show me that I was under a misapprehension. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Sir F. Mills), who was connected with the Ebbw Vale Iron and Steel Works for a large number of years, as I was, and other steel manufacturers in the House, were very much alarmed at the Agreement if our interpretation were right.

The President of the Board of Trade was unable to see the deputation, but he arranged for one of his officials to meet us. I want the House and the country to understand—to use a phrase of which the Dominions Secretary is very fond when replying to speeches from this side—what this Agreement really means. The official informed us that the interpretation that I had put on it was the correct one. What happened Twelve days before the deputation from this country arrived in Ottawa the steel manufacturers of this country and those of Canada met and discussed the question of the iron and steel trade, and entered into an arrangement which afterwards they submitted to the delegation from this country which was attending the Ottawa Conference, and the only thing the Government representatives did was to accept that arrangement, and we are now ratifying it in this House.

The same thing happened so far as India is concerned. A representative from India representing the Tata Company and a representative of this country met and discussed the question of the export of the surplus stock of iron and steel from India, iron and steel manufactured by sweated labour, into this country. What was that arrangement? The Government have decided to impose a tariff of 331 per cent. on steel bars imported into this country from France, from Belgium and from Germany. Those steel bars are manufactured into galvanised sheets and also tinplates. According to the latest figures, the import of steel bars from France and Belgium into South Wales amounts to something like 12,000 tons per month, and if we take the duty at £1 per ton, though it is more than that, the Treasury to-day is receiving revenue from them at the rate of £150,000 per annum. That revenue is received as a result of the duty on French and the Belgian steel imported into South Wales.

Mr. PIKE

Why do you not buy it from Sheffield instead?

Mr. GRIFFITHS

Because we can manufacture it in South Wales ourselves. That is the arrangement so far as Belgian and French steel is concerned. The tariff was imposed in order that the members of my trade in South Wales should be set to work, that the furnaces should be started and the mills set going; but under this Agreement we are allowing Indian pig iron and Indian steel bars to be imported into South Wales free of charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If the object of the Government in imposing this tariff on Belgian and French steel was to set my men to work—and there are men who are still idle—why should this Indian steel be allowed to come into South Wales free? Will hon. Members say "Hear, hear!" to that? They do not reply to that invitation. This arrangement whereby pig iron and steel bars from India are to come in free has been made without consulting any of the representatives of the men here. It has been done privately. I want to ask the Government whether the agreement entered into between the representative of this country and the representative of the Tata Company is available to members of this House? Shall we know what is the agreement that has been entered into by two private individuals, one representing capital in India and the other representing capital in this country? If you put it another way, you could say that English capital has been represented in India and Indian capital is represented in this country, and that these two interests have entered into an arrangement, irrespective of the welfare of the iron and steel workers of this country, as long as they could get dividends in this country or in India.

I would like to know why the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones), who has been championing the cause of the steelworkers of this country, has been so silent during this Debate? He has not spoken at all, either on the Second Reading or in Committee. He has been advocating the claims of the steel employers in this country for a tariff on imported steel. Why has he been so quiet? The other day I was asked to withdraw because I stated that he was making "misleading" statements. I cannot use that word to-night. If he will look up the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he said that we have the most efficient steel productive plant in the world, that our men are paid the highest wages in the world and that our men have the shortest hours and the best conditions in the world. That is what he said to the Members of this House and to the country.

What are the Government ratifying today? Instead of ratifying an agreement to benefit men working under the conditions stated by the hon. Member for West Swansea, the Government are going to ratify an agreement that was entered into to allow people who have the lowest wages, the longest hours and the worst conditions in the world, to send iron and steel into this country. Why is the hon. Member for West Swansea not here protesting against it? Where is he? [Interruption.] I want to know!

I have not gone into details. On the Second Reading I did go into details about the development of the iron and steel industry of India. I gave figures of the exports and imports of that country. Now, before this Committee and before the country, I want to protest against this Agreement. If there is any hon. Member sitting on these benches, or on the benches on the other side, who represents a steel or iron centre, I challenge him to go to his constituency and defend this Agreement before the working men. Anybody, I do not care who he is, that is representing a steel and iron centre, I challenge to go to that constituency and defend this Agreement with the steel and iron workers. I have given my explanation, and, feeling sure that my interpretation is correct, I am going into the Lobby to vote for the rejection of the First Schedule to the Bill.

Dr. BURGIN

The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) has been rightly jealous of the interests of the unemployed in his area. The Government take the view that the unemployed in any part of the United Kingdom are materially assisted by the improvement of trade conditions generally, and it is because the whole policy of these agreements is, in the opinion of the Government, one which will be likely to affect trade generally, that they think that it will necessarily affect advantageously the lot of the unemployed of Pontypool. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate), asking a question on behalf of the hon. and gallant. Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank), asked whether certain types of sugar machinery benefited from the preference under Paragraph 84 of the Indian Agreement. I do not think that that sugar machinery comes within that particular heading of the Indian tariff. I am sure the hon. Lady will realise that, while there are things in these Agreements which were obtained as a result of discussion at Ottawa in regard to which one would have looked for the inclusion of an advantage, it was not possible, in the time available and in view of the different interests, to do more than secure the best that was possible in the circumstances.

I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who started the discussion on this subject. His speech was a very caustic comment on the whole Agreement with Canada. He saw nothing good in it at all, but saw very considerable disadvantages to this country, and his proposal was that this part of the Schedule should be cancelled. As I understood the burden of his argument, it was that this country had given too much and secured too little, and for that reason he desired that the Canadian Agreement should be omitted from the Schedule. I want him just to appreciate the position. We have already, in the earlier stages of this Bill, imposed duties. It is under the Canadian Agreement that advantages are to be secured. If there were anything in the hon. Member's argument that we had given too much and secured too little, he would hardly assist himself, having already taken part in discussions on a Bill which imposed duties, by declining to accept that part of the Bill which gave advantages to this country. That would seem to be entirely contrary to his own argument.

Mr. COCKS

I object to both sides of the Agreement.

Dr. BURGIN

Yes, but the hon. Member does not follow that, by removing the Canadian Agreement, he would do nothing to remove any one of the duties that have been imposed, because, under the scheme of this Bill, those duties are in force if any of the Agreements stand, and, in point of fact, there is no single duty which the United Kingdom has undertaken to put on and which is referred to in the Canadian Agreement that is not also referred to in other Agreements. Consequently, the effect of excluding the Canadian Agreement from the Schedule would be entirely nugatory, and would not lead to any of the results which the hon. Member desires.

Mr. COCKS

Although my speech was directed to that point, that is not all that is before the Committee. I did intend to move to that effect, but it was ruled out of order. My speech was against all the Schedules and all the Agreements.

10.30 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN

I entirely understood the hon. Member, but it will be within the recollection of the Committee that he founded the whole of his speech on his objection to the Canadian Agreement, which, to use his own words, he said went from worse to bad. I was encouraged by that, because be found so little about the worst to complain of that I thought the bad must be comparatively good. So far from taking the view which the hon. Member seems to share of the Canadian Agreement, we, of course, are of opinion that that Agreement presents very solid advantages to this country. I noticed that the hon. Member said nothing about the 132 cases where duties are reduced, the 79 cases where the United Kingdom has free entry for the first time, and the 83 modifications in the direction of increased preferences. Very little was said on that subject, and, inasmuch as the proposal to remove any one of these Agreements from the schedules could obviously only be a wrecking Amendment, there is no alternative but to ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. PICKERING

My reason for speaking on this Schedule is that a bargain has been made and the people of this country have been asked to pay a big price in the shape of additional taxes on food, wheat, meat, raw material and, indeed, on cod liver oil. Even though our Ministers and delegates have tried to belittle this, there is no doubt that a great price has been asked of the people of this country. Now the people, especially those in my constituency, want to know what they are getting on the other side. I am not speaking in favour of the Ottawa Agreements. I am speaking of a bargain having been made. The people of Leicester are vitally interested in this because the hosiery industry is one of those most concerned in these negotiations. The whole hosiery industry in Leicester is utterly dissatisfied with the Ottawa Agreements, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not come forward with any letter that has been received from some Leicester manufacturer saying that the industry is going to have a great boom because an order has been received for, say, a suit of rose-coloured underwear from Mr. Bennett.

The Leicester industry feels that it has not been properly treated in this bargain. Up to a few years ago the imports of hosiery and knitwear into Australia were very considerable. In 1925 they were £1,500,000, despite the fact that there was a very heavy duty. Now, owing to the great increase in the duties, the trade has fallen to £145,000. Cotton stockings sent from England at 7s. 6d. a dozen have to pay a total duty, ad valorem and specific, of 30s., or 400 per cent. On wool stockings at 15s. a dozen the duty is not so high. It is 166 per cent. There has been this great fall in exports because the hosiery manufacturers could not possibly compete against such prohibitive duties. But even before Ottawa they did not ask that all duties should be removed. They only asked for the removal of the specific duty. They said that nothing short of the abolition of the specific duty would permit the entry of their goods.

Our hosiery manufacturers in Leicester were prepared to compete with the Australian industry with a duty of 421 per cent. against them, and remember. it was not because we had a low rate of wages in Leicester. The basic rate of wages in the hosiery industry in this country is as high as, or higher than that in any part of the Empire. In spite of that fact, owing to our efficiency, and to the fact that our industry has grown up under Free Trade, we are able to send our goods into Australia provided there is no higher duty than 50 per cent. against us. We hoped, when we heard what we were giving to Australia, that some reduction would be made. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, some reduction has been made. The amount offered is a Preference of from 5 per cent. upwards, but in no case higher than 75 per cent. below the most-favoured foreign country. It still leaves a prohibitive duty of about 200 per cent. against British hosiery.

In Canada we had a very big trade. Two years ago the duty was 30 per cent. ad valorem before Mr. Bennett came into power, and we could compete then because of our greater efficiency. Under Mr. Bennett's regime, when everything was sacrificed to the interests of the manufacturers, the duty was increased by a specific duty of a dollar per dozen, with a rebate of 10 per cent. for shipment to Canadian ports. We were stated to he having a slight preference then, because they put the duty on goods from foreign countries slightly higher. That means that on footwear sold at 11s. a dozen pairs the duty, plus what is called dumping or exchange duty, is 70 per cent. So that even in respect of the rather expensive goods the actual tax on our imports is 70 per cent. In the case of a cheaper article—and certain articles in that line are made at 5s. a dozen—the duty sometimes totals 120 and 130 per cent. As the result of the sweat of the brow of, and the burning of the midnight oil by, the British representatives at Ottawa, the specific duty has been dropped by 25 cents, so that now, instead of 120 or 130 per cent., the duty in the case of the cheaper articles is about 100 to 110 per cent. This is still absolutely prohibitive.

The high duty which Mr. Bennett put on was at once effective, and it hit our hosiery industry very hard indeed. In 1929–30 the hosiery imports into Canada amounted to £844,600. They fell in the next year to £584,000, a drop of £260,000. That was not due to the slump only. Our total imports into Canada in 1929–30 were £2,500,000. The next year the value dropped by £400,000, of which amount a drop of £260,000 was in connection with the hosiery industry. Therefore, our people have been particularly interested in what sort of a bargain would be made. But no bargain has been made. It has been so arranged that the foreigner is kept out and British goods cannot get in. A two-headed halfpenny is still a fraud, even when one of the heads is slightly smaller than the other. We have been asked to trust the Tariff Board which has been set up in Canada. That point has been dealt with completely by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). The Canadians themselves have no intention of allowing that Board to do anything. The textile manufacturers, speaking through their authoritative journal, the "Canadian Textile Journal," say that the common sense of the Canadians will prevent the destruction or the serious dislocation of their textile industry, but that it will be necessary for those industries to organise to maintain their position. Their position, as I put it, is one of unscrupulous inefficiency.

Our manufacturers in Leicester and the whole of the hosiery industry are so dissatisfied that they have resolved not to say anything, because nothing can be done. They have, however, as an official gesture, sent a cable to Mr. Bennett, which shows the official feeling in the trade in regard to the much-belauded preference that we have received. The cable says: National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers' Associations, representing 90 per cent. of the hosiery and knitwear industry of Great Britain, while recognising your valuable efforts to promote inter-Imperial trade by concessions to other industries notes with profound disappointment and surprise the meagre reduction of the specific duty on socks and stockings provided for in Ottawa Schedule and would respectfully refer you to Federation's letters"— They then refer to certain letters that they have sent from time to time— your replies to which, coupled with the provisions of the preliminary Agreements reached at Ottawa, justified the assumption that evidence of your desire to implement the undertaking to allow British goods to enter Canadian market on competitive basis might be forthcoming in the shape of the total abolition of such duty. They are only asking that the specific duty should be abolished. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the reply?"] There has not yet been any reply except that a few days later an official communication was received from the office of the High Commissioner of Canada stating "that owing to the fall in the pound 68 cents would be the tax on every pound's worth of goods sent, in the first half of November, over and above the ad valorem and specific duties." Mr. Bennett is the product of a country where high protection rules. He is not a national statesman, still less is he an Imperially-minded statesman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The rule in this House is that hon. Members do not make insinuations against statesmen of the Dominions.

Mr. PICKERING

I will, of course, withdraw. I am so convinced of the impossibility of these conditions imposed upon our people—they get absolutely nothing out of them—that I shall vote against the Schedule.

Mr. MANDER

I desire to associate myself with the rejection of the First Schedule. It is a thoroughly bad one. I have no objection to making bargains with the Dominions or with foreign countries—that is almost inevitable in the future—but I do object to making a bad bargain, and I think that this is an extremely bad bargain and one which I hope will not be carried. As far as my own constituents are concerned, who are interested in locks and keys and traps and such things, they get very little out of this Agreement—and they give a great deal away. The main point to which I desire to draw attention is the position in which the lead industry is placed. In Article 3 of this Schedule it is laid down that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom undertake that the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent, imposed by Section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on the foreign goods specified in Schedule C shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's Government in Canada. Before consenting to a power of that kind being given to the Dominion it is necessary to consider what has happened in regard to lead since the Import Duties Act was passed. At that time a duty of 10 per cent. was put on foreign lead coming into this country, arid up to the present advantage has been taken of it by the Dominion producers. The 10 per cent. duty has been something like 22s. a ton, and a premium has been asked on Dominion lead varying from half the duty up to 15s. and between 15s. and 7s. 6d. per ton, a very heavy charge. It is significant that this rate, which has been round about 7s. 6d. for the last few weeks, to-day for the first time has gone down to 2s. 6d., and it is perfectly clear that it has been put down in view of the Debate taking place in this House to-night. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who laugh are not so well informed on this matter as I am. I have information direct from those in the trade who know exactly what they are talking about. The Dominion suppliers of lead to this country have a monopoly. They have complete control of the imports of lead from Australia and Canada, and they are determined to use all the power which the imposition of this new duty gives them to extract all the tribute possible from the lead consumers of this country, and there is very strong feeling indeed on the part of the consumer.

Perhaps hon. Members who have ventured to laugh will listen to the arguments that were used in the Debate last February by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who was so exhausted by his efforts last night in supporting the Government that I suppose he is not able to be here now. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) raised exactly the same point I am raising. He pointed out that an exaction was being imposed, and that advantage was being taken of this duty to make the lead consumers pay more than they ought to pay. Hon. Members strongly pressed on the Government the seriousness of the position. They pointed out that it was a monopoly which was trying to use its power to increase the price to the consumer, and they moved an Amendment that lead should be put on the Free List. That Amendment was withdrawn on a specific undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I will quote to the House. He said: We have made it clear in previous statements on this Bill that the Government did not intend to tolerate any undue exploitation of the consumer by those who are benefiting by the imposition of the Import Duties.…I will further say that if the facts should be shown to be as my Noble Friend has put them to the House the Government themselves will not hesitate to take action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1932; cols. 680–81, Vol. 262.] What has the Chancellor been doing about it, and what are the Government going to do about it? Since that Debate, up to the present time, the lead consumers—very representative people—who buy lead for the manufacture of batteries in this country, have communicated on two occasions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on eight occasions with the Advisory Committee and on one occasion with the President of the Board of Trade. They have, no doubt, received perfectly polite replies, but no satisfaction whatever have they been able to obtain. In fact, they have got the impression that no serious attention is being given to the strong case they have made out. The United Kingdom consumption of lead is 200,000 tons a year. That could all be supplied from the Dominions, no doubt. If you take a moderate rate of premium which they have been asking, 7s. 6d.—I am not going to put it at the 15s. which they were asking at one time—that is an exaction of £75,000 a year for the benefit of these Dominion interests placed on the lead consumers of this country. Is not that exploitation? I hope the Minister who replies will say, in the terms of the Chancellor's undertaking, whet her that is undue exploitation or not and if it is—and this exaction of £75,000 a year is clearly one—I should like to know what steps the Government are going to take to carry out their promises after this long time?

The position is very serious from the point of view of exports. I will give one specific case where a British manufacturer had been exporting to a licensee in Italy lead oxide for the purpose of manufacturing batteries. Since the duty, he has received information from Italy that the extra charge has made it im- possible to go on buying the British oxide any more, and that they will probably set up a, factory in Italy and the people who were employed in this country manufacturing lead oxide for Italy will be thrown out of work as a direct result of the way in which this scheme is working.

I want to call attention to another portion of this same problem. In this Agreement it is stated that there is a safeguard in Article 4. That Article says that if at any time Empire producers of lead are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices, and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of United Kingdom consumers, then the Government can take action. The term "world price" has absolutely no meaning. It has a general meaning, of course, but specifically in terms of business, it has no meaning. Action is required to put that point right.

Then, with regard to "first sale," there is no safeguard. There is nothing to prevent these people putting up an intermediary body to whom they will make the first sale, or making the first sale to some subsidiary concern of their own. I suggest that in order to protect these very important interests the Government should do what they have done in the case of copper—call a, conference of the producers and consumers, and try to give the real safeguards which are not found in the Bill at all. The safeguards will be these. That the world price should be defined as the London Settlement price, which is published daily, which anyone can read and about which there can be no possible dispute; and the first sale should be a sale by producers or their bona fide agents to any consumer. If those definitions could be obtained, the safeguards now in the Bill, which are wholly illusory, would be of some value.

I hope that the Government will take steps to implement the very specific undertaking that was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be far better, of course, to withdraw the duty altogether, but if the Government are not prepared to do that they ought to see that there is no advantage taken of the powers that are given to the monopoly to which I have referred. My hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) referred to a concession with regard to lead plates imported into Canada. The great concession that has been obtained in the case of Canada is that plates 14 inches by 11 inches by inch thick shall be allowed to go free into Canada. But no such plates exist; they never have existed; and so far as I know they are never likely to exist. I do ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee and those in the trade, who are entitled to know, exactly what benefit they are supposed to get by a perfectly ludicrous practical joke of this kind. These points are points of great importance to one of the greatest trades of the country, and they call for some reply.

110.0 p.m.

Mr. JANNER

At this late hour of the evening I still feel compelled to say that there are some matters in this very important discussion which require elucidation by the Government, and I take the opportunity of rising for this reason: The question which I put on a previous occasion has not been answered, and I regard that as indicating a lack of desire on the part of those who promoted these Agreements, to rectify a definite mistake——

Mr. A. BEVAN

On a point of Order. The Debate on this subject has lasted the whole evening, and, except for a very short time, no Member of the Cabinet has been on the Treasury Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, was here for about 10 minutes. The Committee is not being treated with proper respect and members of the Ottawa delegation ought to be in their places during these discussions——

Mr. JOHNSTONE

On a point of Order. Upon what Motion is the hon. Member seeking to raise his point of Order?

Mr. BEVAN

I will move to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member seems to forget that we are working under a Time-table Resolution and I am not empowered to accept a Motion of that kind. As to his point of Order it is not in my power to compel the attendance of Ministers.

Mr. BEVAN

While it is true that the Chairman has no power, surely the Com- mittee has power to enter its protest against the manner in which it is being treated by Ministers of the Crown.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Committee has no power whatever because the House has passed a Resolution prohibiting me from accepting any dilatory Motion and has thereby removed any rights which the Committee might have in that respect.

Mr. COCKS

While not casting any reflection upon your personal conduct, Captain Bourne, would I be in order in moving that you leave the Chair in order to call attention to the conduct of Ministers in this respect?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No, because the House has declared by Resolution that no dilatory Motion and no Motion to report Progress can be accepted, unless moved by a Member of the Government, and as the hon. Member is not a Member of the Government he cannot move it.

Mr. BEVAN

I regret that the House of Commons has no longer any control over the Government, but I submit that in carrying the Guillotine Motion it was not intended to give power to the Government to treat this Committee with the lack of respect which has been characteristic of this Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That may be so. but it is not a point of Order.

Mr. JANNER

I am sorry that the apple of discord has been thrown into this Debate, but I will come immediately to the apple of discontent as far as we are concerned and deal with the question of apples under this Schedule. The statements of those who have attempted to reply to the arguments advanced earlier on this point, indicate that there is no possibility of gain coining to anyone in this country or the Dominions in respect of certain periods during which these duties are to be imposed. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen to me because they may find that what they take for granted as being correct, coming from the Treasury Bench, is not bound of necessity to be correct. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not in his place because he said that there was a plentiful supply of apples to be obtained from Canada and that there was no neces- sity to go outside the British Empire for the supplies required in this country. I have a great respect for his opinion but I would draw his attention to something which is more authentic than any such statement. I have taken considerable trouble to satisfy myself whether the statements put forward are correct and I have here a bulletin issued by the Markets Branch of the British Columbia Department of Agriculture. It is interesting to hear what they have to say about the apple crop and about the supplies that are likely to come to this country in the near future. They say: The present rush to market apples in the United Kingdom is responsible for the slip in prices and this rush is not warranted in view of the following conditions: Nova Scotia's export crop is greatly reduced by recent misfortune; Ontario has little more than will supply her domestic market; Washington's crop is greatly reduced by worm injury, the leaving of unpopular apples on the trees and the decision not to ship Cee grade apples this year. The scramble at all points to sell for immediate cash at the time the British crop is being offered for sale has resulted in a flooding of the market at the present time, and the logical outcome of this situation will be a scarcity of winter apples to supply the demand until the next crop is ready. We feel safe in predicting that after the present overload all markets will strengthen and remain strong until the arrival of the Australian, New Zealand and South African crop. I was under the impression that the Government were not prepared to rectify mistakes. This, which is a definite statement from an authentic quarter, indicates that we shall shortly be faced with a position where we shall not be able to obtain anything in the nature of the necessary supplies of apples. [Interruption.] It may be a matter of no concern to Parliament, but I should like to point out that if that is so, there was no earthly reason why a duty should have been placed upon this commodity, particularly during periods when it could not possibly be obtained from Empire sources. It is definitely a mistake, allowing for all the frailties of those who were at the Ottawa Conference, and I still say——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is now developing an argument against a point that has already been decided, namely, whether there should be a duty on apples.

Mr. JANNER

I am using this as an illustration to show that there are mistakes in these Agreements, and furthermore I am using it to indicate that these mistakes ought to be rectified, and——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member might have developed that argument on Clause 1, but it is now too late.

Mr. JANNER

If you rule that, Captain Bourne, I will put it in this way, that the Agreements as a whole, having a series of defects, ought not to be accepted and that we should vote against the acceptance, of this Schedule. I hope that the Committee will accept the view in all seriousness because it is of great importance, even at this late stage of the proceedings, that arguments should be made against the suggestions which have been directed against these Agreements from all sides. I want to point out with regard to the answers which were given in respect of periods when climatic conditions and other considerations make it impossible to obtain certain commodities which are referred to in the Agreements, that those periods made a substantial difference to our supply, and that consequently we could be placed in a position where the consumer would have to pay more. Those circumstances have not been explained, and I would like to have a definite explanation of them. The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said that it did not matter; we advanced the time as far, for instance, as South African oranges were concerned, because we anticipated that anybody who was bringing the oranges from another part of the world would be able to put them into cold storage. That might be his view, but it is not the view of those people who were handling that commodity. They say that you cannot keep oranges in cold storage for anything like

a month. Whatever system is used, you cannot keep them for longer than a week or two weeks.

Sir REGINALD BANKS

On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members opposite to form two deep when addressing the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am bound to say that I have not noticed that. phenomenon.

Mr. JANNER

We are not perturbed by interruptions because we feel that there is a substantial strength in the case that we are presenting. We ask the Committee, even though they may be in a large majority in favour of any action the Government may take on these Agreements, to consider that there is another side to the question, and that it may be a very important side. I have pointed out that a mistake has clearly been made in regard to apples, and I say it has been made with regard to all the other commodities. It is no good answering that periods exist which can be covered by other supplies when those do not exist, and I would ask in these circumstances that the Government should immediately consider the situation and that the House of Commons should not be persuaded into a blind acceptance of conditions and agreements which will work to the detriment of the consumer and the producer without bringing any advantage to a single Dominion. It is not a question here of the weighing of advantages, it is not a question of one person or one section working for a quid pro quo, but a question definitely of a mistake which is striking a very serious blow at those who are not in a position to say anything.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 55.

Division No. 353.] AYES [11.17 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.) Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Albery, Irving James Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portam'th,C.) Broadbent, Colonel John
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Belt, Sir Alfred L. Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Apsley, Lord Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Atholl, Duchess of Borodale, Viscount Burghley, Lord
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Bossom, A. C. Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Balille, Sir Adrian W. M. Boulton, W. W. Burnett, John George
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Talton Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Ramsbotham, Herwald
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Ratcliffe, Arthur
Castlereagh, Viscount Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Chalmers, John Rutherford Iveagh, Countess of Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Remer, John R.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) James, Wing.-Cow. A. W. H. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Christie, James Archibald Jamieson, Douglas Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jesson, Major Thomas E. Robinson, John Roland
Colfox, Major William Philip Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ropner, Colonel L.
Colman, N. C. D. Ker, J. Campbell Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Kerr, Hamilton W. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cook, Thomas A. Kimball, Lawrence Runge, Norah Cecil
Cooke, Douglas Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Cooper, A. Duff Knebworth, Viscount Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Copeland, Ida Knox, Sir Alfred Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Salmon, Major Isidore
Cranborne, Viscount Leckie, J. A. Salt, Edward W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Crooke, J. Smedley Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Levy, Thomas Scone, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Lindsay, Noel Ker Selley, Harry R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Donner, P. W. Llewellin, Major John J. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Draws, Cedric Lloyd, Geoffrey Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Duckworth, George A. V. Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Duggan, Hubert John Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Slater, John
Dunglass, Lord MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Eastwood, John Francis McCorquodale, M. S. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Edmondson, Major A. J. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey McKie, John Hamilton Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson McLean, Major Alan Soper, Richard
Elmley, Viscount McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Macmillan, Maurice Harold Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Maitland, Adam Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Storey, Samuel
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Fermoy, Lord Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Strauss, Edward A.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Marsden, Commander Arthur Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ganzonl, Sir John Martin, Thomas B. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gibson, Charles Granville Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Summersby, Charles H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Meller, Richard James Sutcliffe, Harold
Glossop, C. W. H. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Tate, Masts Constance
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Templeton, William P.
Goff, Sir Park Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Milne, Charles Thompson, Luke
Gower, Sir Robert Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Thorp, Linton Theodore
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Moreing, Adrian C. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Grimston, R. V. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Moss, Captain H. J. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Muirhead, Major A. J. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Gunston. Captain D. W. Munro, Patrick Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hanbury, Cecil Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hanley, Dennis A. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Wells, Sydney Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nunn, William Weymouth, Viscount
Harbord, Arthur O'Donovan, Dr. William James Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Hartland, George A. Palmer, Francis Noel Whyte, Jardine Bell
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Pearson, William G. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Penny, Sir George Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Perkins, Walter R. D. Wills, Willfrid D.
Hepworth, Joseph Petherick, M. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Wise, Alfred R.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) Womersley, Walter James
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Worthington, Dr. John V.
Hornby, Frank Pike, Cecil F. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Horsbrugh, Florence Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Howard, Tom Forrest Pownall, Sir Assheton TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Procter, Major Henry Adam Mr. Blindell and Lieut.-Colonel
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Sir A. Lambert Ward.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
NOES
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Cape, Thomas Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Attlee, Clement Richard Cocks, Frederick Seymour Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Barfield, John William Curry, A. C. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Batey, Joseph Daggar, George Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Bernays, Robert Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro',W.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Edwards, Charles Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pon'y[...]ol)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Grundy, Thomas W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Logan, David Gilbert Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lunn, William Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnest)
Harris, Sir Percy Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Tinker, John Joseph
Hirst, George Henry Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Holdsworth, Herbert Mender, Geoffrey le M. White, Henry Graham
Janner, Barnett Milner, Major James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Jenkins, Sir William Parkinson, John Allen Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Pickering, Ernest H. Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Price, Gabriel Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Rea, Walter Russell
Lawson, John James Roberts. Aled (Wrexham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Leonard, William Rothschild, James A. de Mr. John and Mr. Groves.