§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided."
So far as one can understand the first Sub-section of this Clause, it provides for conditional freedom from duties for Imperial products coming from the Dominions, but there is a provision that the Treasury can charge an additional duty on goods coming from particular Dominions if it is satisfied that by so 1550 doing the Agreements will not be breached, and we are anxious to know the circumstances that are being provided for in the proviso. We therefore move to leave out these words and make the Sub-section a clear exemption for Imperial products of all kinds which are otherwise taxed when they come from abroad under the Bill. It seems that the object of the Bill is to give Imperial preference and, according to all the arguments that have been advanced by the Government, one of the things that are 1551 desirable is that this preference should obtain with certainty for a number of years. But this seems to raise doubt in the mind of everyone as to whether or not at some intermediate date the Treasury may not suddenly impose a duty upon goods coming from a particular Dominion, and we are very anxious to know why this uncertainty should be introduced. Naturally, if one is to have a system of Imperial preference, as we have to have in the Ottawa Agreements, it is desirable that as many goods as possible should come into the country free. Therefore, anything which tends to add a further duty upon any of the goods which come from the Dominions is something which we should resist, and unless the hon. Member can give us some very satisfactory reason for this system of giving the Treasury power to add additional duties to Imperial products we shall have to vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, this part of the Clause gives the preferences to those who were parties to the Agreement. The proviso upon which he desires an explanation provides that if without contravention of any of these Agreements an
§ additional duty can be placed upon Empire goods the Treasury may by order impose such additional duties. The reason is that it was made plain throughout the Ottawa discussions and it is made plain in certain parts of the Agreements—the first intention of the Government is to protect the home-producer, the second intention being to protect the Dominion producer. If, therefore, after experience of these Agreements it is found that the home producer requires a modicum of protection, even against the Dominions, he is not debarred from obtaining it owing to the fact that we have inserted this proviso. It may, for instance, appear with regard to poultry or with regard to some other agricultural product at the expiry of three years—it is the stipulation in Schedule A of the Canadian Agreement and other Agreements—that the home producer may petition for some benefit, and he can get it under this Proviso. That is, indeed, the object of the Proviso.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 51.1553
|Division No. 336.]||AYES.||[9.19. p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Glossop, C. W. H.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Chalmers, John Rutherford||Gluckstein, Louis Halle|
|Albery, Irving James||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Goff, Sir Park|
|Allen, Sir Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Christie, James Archibald||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Clarry, Reginald George||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)|
|Apsley, Lord||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Graves, Marjorie|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Greene, William P. C.|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Conant, R. J. E.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Cook, Thomas A.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cooke, Douglas||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Craven Ellis, William||Hanbury, Cecil|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hanley, Dennis A.|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Crossley, A. C.||Hartland, George A.|
|Blindell, James||Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Donner, P. W.||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Bracken, Brendan||Eastwood, John Francis||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Eden, Robert Anthony||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hornby, Frank|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Horobin, Ian M.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Elmley, Viscount||Howard, Tom Forrest|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Burghley, Lord||Everard, W. Lindsay||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Burnett, John George||Fox, Sir Gifford||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Fuller, Captain A. G.||James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Ganzonl, Sir John||Jamleson, Douglas|
|Cassels, James Dale||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)|
|Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Nunn, William||Slater, John|
|Kerr, Hamilton W.||O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.|
|Kimball, Lawrence||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Palmer, Francis Noel||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Knight, Holford||Pearson, William G.||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Penny, Sir George||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Leckie, J. A.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Petherick, M.||Storey, Samuel|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Lewis, Oswald||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Ramsden, E.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Rankin, Robert||Thompson, Luke|
|MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)||Ratcliffe, Arthur||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Ray, Sir William||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaharn)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Remer, John R.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Robinson, John Roland||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Ropner, Colonel L.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Rosbotham, S. T.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Meller, Richard James||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Welts, Sydney Richard|
|Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Runge, Norah Cecil||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chiew'k)||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Mitcheson, G. G.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard||Withers, Sir John James|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Savery, Samuel Servington||Womersley, Waiter James|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Scone, Lord||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Muirhead, Major A. J.||Selley, Harry R.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Munro, Patrick||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Nall-Caln, Arthur Ronald N.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Captain Austin Hudson and Major|
|North, Captain Edward T.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||George Davies.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Milner, Major James|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Batey, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Bernays, Robert||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Price, Gabriel|
|Briant, Frank||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hicks, Ernest George||Roberts, Cried (Wrexham)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Hirst, George Henry||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Holdsworth, Herbert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Curry, A. C.||Janner, Barnett||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Daggar, George||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||White, Henry Graham|
|Edwards, Charles||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Lawson, John James||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Logan, David Gilbert||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Lunn, William|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||McKeag, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.|
§ Mr. COCKS
I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 36 and 37.
This is almost a unique Amendment, because I think it is the only one so far moved which would make no alteration in the character of the Bill. There is really no necessity for these words at all. We have all been told that unnecessary words should not be included in Bills. I am informed that the Government already have these powers under the Interpretation Act, and consequently 1554 I suggest that these words are unnecessary, and that the Government might accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
The hon. Member says we already have the power to vary or revoke an order apart from the Bill. If that is so, he cannot object to these words except on the ground of redundancy. There is the proviso that the 1555 Treasury shall have power to make such an order, and we should be on the safe side by providing equally that it should have power to vary or revoke such an order. We do not think it is unnecessary, and in these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I am sure that the hon. Member cannot have considered the point, because in the Interpretation Act it says that the power to make an order shall include the power to vary or revoke an order. This power is already given by the words "power to make an order." If the words are inserted, it will arouse suspicion in some people's minds as to what is the meaning of the Interpretation Act. They have never been inserted in other cases and they are unnecessary in view of the Interpretation Act.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Surely the words appear in the Import Duties Act, and if that is so, there can he no objection and certainly no misconstruction placed on them here.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I understood the National Government were in favour of economy, and why should you print an extra word in every Bill throughout the country? The hon. Gentleman has been totally unable to give any reason for it and has not controverted the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, but simply says they should be inserted even if they are redundant. We might have any number of words put in just because a Minister is not quite certain where he stands. It is not good enough for him to come down without being able positively to say that the insertion of these words will not make the slightest difference, but that on the whole he thinks it better to have them in. He is sinning against conciseness and economy.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I rise only for the purpose of informing the hon. Member that I have had it verified that by the Interpretation Act power is given to revoke Regulations only and not Orders. That being so, instead of his suggestion that the point is covered, seeing that there was some doubt about it, I should have thought in his legal capacity he would have said we must be on the safe side.
§ Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON
The hon. Member opposite has said it would be uneconomical to put these lines in. There are over 100 pages in this Bill and there are about 40 lines in each page, so he is only objecting to two lines, which is therefore one two-thousandth part of the cost of this Bill which is 2s.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out from the word "chargeable," to the end of the Subsection.
This Amendment deals with the case of the Irish Free State. There are two parts. In one case, while exceptional legislation directed against the Irish Free State is in force, the Ottawa Import Duties are not to apply, but as soon as this matter has been settled, happily as we hope, then the Irish Free State is to be treated as a foreign country. It is a most extraordinary position to be taken up by a Government largely composed of members of the Unionist party, because we have here a definitely separatist movement. We all deplore the present position between the Irish Free State and this country, and we all hope that some settlement may be come to in this contest which is proceeding somewhat on the principle of the fight between the Kilkenny cats. When the Dominions Secretary and Mr. de Valera or someone else have met and successfully made a settlement, then there is a proviso here that we are going to treat the Irish Free State as a foreign country or, at least upon the basis of a Dominion that has not made any special arrangement. I should have thought it clear that if any settlement is to be come to, that settlement must include some trade agreement, if the Irish Free State is still to be treated as a Dominion. It is very unfortunate that there should be such a proviso in the Bill, which, in effect, contemplates and expects a continued state of tension between the two countries. It almost contemplates a final separation. I suggest that as this matter is still, we hope, to be settled by agreement in the near future, that there is no reason whatever to insert these words. It is much safer to say that these duties shall not become chargeable, and to deal with the next situation as it arises, instead of putting in a rather threatening proviso.
The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas)
I doubt whether the hon. Member speaks quite definitely for his party. It will be on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he has said, and his views on the Amendment that he has moved. He knows perfectly well that the Amendment will not be carried, but in order that the electorate may know exactly what he has moved and what he intends, I must remind the Committee that if the Amendment were carried it would give a premium to any Dominion that wanted to repudiate their obligations. I thought that the hon. Member did not know that, and that is why I thought it necessary to bring it to his notice. Let me explain to the Committee exactly the position under the Bill and the Amendment which has now been officially moved. I will deal later with the phrases with which it was moved.
The Bill says that if, in the application of these Agreements any Dominion, no matter what that Dominion may be, fails to observe its agreement, it will be open to His Majesty's Government to say: "You have failed to observe your Agreement. Therefore, we cannot be expected to keep ours." That is not only a natural condition, but it is a commonsense condition. If there are two parties to one agreement, and one says: "Having entered into the agreement, we now feel, no matter what the circumstances may be, that it would not be wise to go on," common sense and common prudence says: "Under those circumstances, the other party is free from its obligation." That is the Bill as it stands. For the benefit of the Committee and the country, I would ask: "Is that not a commonsense arrangement?" If there are two parties to an agreement and one of the parties say that they are unable to comply with the agreement, common sense says: "If one party is unable to fulfil their obligation, the other party are at least released from their side of the bargain." The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member says: "That may be true in regard to Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Newfoundland, but so far as Ireland is concerned we want to put her in a privileged position, so that she, unlike any other Dominion, 1558 will get benefits, notwithstanding that she may have broken an agreement."
That is what this Amendment means. In other words, it puts a premium on a Dominion that defaults and penalises those that do not. Having established that position the hon. Member says: "She has not got an agreement." Let us see why she has not. Here I am coming to trade union practice. The hon. Member cannot be very well acquainted with that, but there are a number of hon. Members opposite who are.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his facts. I have been a trade unionist for 25 years.
There are people who have been trade unionists for 50 years who do not know trade union practice. I am speaking of trade unionists who understand trade union practice and who, like me, have stood for collective agreements. Those collective agreements were of such a character that we were able to say to the employers: "If you break the agreement, we shall pull you up." That is sound trade union practice. In the dispute that, unfortunately, prevails with the Irish Free State, they have broken an agreement and, just as I did with a railway company when they broke an agreement, I pulled them up. I said that the principle that applies to collective bargaining between a trade union and an employer, is the same principle which should be observed between Governments. I intimated that. The hon. Member will be aware that three months ago I stated, on behalf of the Government, that the free entry that applies until the 15th November would cease so far as every Dominion was concerned, unless there was a new agreement made.
We went to Ottawa and made Agreements with every other Dominion except the Irish Free State. In accordance with the declaration I made on behalf of the Government, it was known before we went to Ottawa, and it was announced by me last week on behalf of the Government, that, having failed to reach an agreement with the Irish Free State, on the 16th November free entry from that country would cease. I, like the hon. 1559 Gentleman, deplore the circumstances. He said that it was a sort of fight between Kilkenny cats. As long as it is placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and as long as it is understood in the country, that the hon. Member looks upon one of our Dominions repudiating their obligations, which means that the British taxpayer has to bear the burden, and defends it as a sort of fight between Kilkenny cats, I am content to allow this House and the country to judge.
I repeat that the Amendment would place the Irish Free State—the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well—in a more privileged position than a Dominion which observes its agreements. That is the Amendment. On behalf of the Government I not only resist it but I say to the hon. Member and his friends, are you wise in your move? Do you really speak for the working classes, do you really speak for trade unionism? There are leaders of trade unionism on the other side of the House who know the value of collective bargaining, who will be called upon to defend their workers against any repudiation by the employers. I say to them; are you wise in going into the Lobby and by your vote and actions say that you will not only be a party to supporting those who repudiate their obligations but you carry it even to the extent of looking upon it as a virtue and give them a privilege because they have disregarded their obligations That is the Amendment now before the Committee.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I have rarely heard a more irrelevant speech than the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It had about as much relevancy to the question as Thursday morning has to St. Paul's Cathedral. In what respect was the question of collective bargaining raised by the Amendment? How can the right hon. Gentleman argue or imply that my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) indicated that we believe that collective bargains should be repudiated? There was not the slightest justification for 99 per cent. of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said.
In order that my hon. Friend may understand. The hon. Member moved an Amendment, and that Amendment was that the Irish Free State, although they have repudiated 1560 their obligations, should never have the Ottawa Duties imposed upon them. That is the Amendment.
§ Mr. JONES
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by doing what no other speaker on the Ministerial Front Bench has done. He has trailed his coat somewhat liberally so that my hon. Friend and others presumably might tread upon it. He was much concerned as to whether my hon. Friend spoke for his party. He need not worry himself. When my hon. Friend fails to speak for the party we will pull him up, not the right hon. Gentleman. When he speaks from this Box the right hon. Gentleman can presume that he speaks authoritatively for his party. What was the point put by my hon. Friend? It was a simple proposition, and was in no way answered by the right hon. Gentleman. Let us assume that we are wrong, but at any rate let us have an answer to the proposition which we have put to the Committee. What was it?
§ Mr. JONES
To-night the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with cats. At Ottawa he was concerned with "Comic Cuts." What was the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse? He said that the implication of this Clause was that, while certain exceptional legislation, already passed, applied to the Irish Free State the Ottawa Agreements did not apply. Let us hope, however, that the time may come when a more amicable arrangement may be arrived at between ourselves and the Irish Free State. In that case my hon. Friend puts the proposition that the effect of the Clause, if it remains as it is, would be that the Irish Free State then would be treated not on a par with other Dominions but as if she were a foreign nation. My hon. Friend may be right or he may be wrong, but at any rate the right hon. Gentleman never made an attempt to answer him. He never dealt with the point. There was no point at which he even touched the argument of my hon. Friend, even to indicate whether he was right or wrong. No question of collective bargains was raised. Is it true or is it not that when a period of amicable relationships is arrived at between ourselves and the Irish Free State, when the cause for exceptional legislation has passed, the situation then, if the Clause 1561 remains as it is, will be that the Irish Free State will not be regarded as a Dominion and treated like other Dominions but will be regarded as a foreign nation——
§ Mr. JONES
I am willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman presently. At the moment I am putting an argument, and I do not want to be interrupted. The right hon. Gentleman was much more concerned to score a debating point. Three times in a speech he referred the country to the implications of the Amendment. Let the right hon. Gentleman forget the country for a moment and apply himself to this difficult proposition. I give him credit for a desire to see the time when harmonious relationships will exist between ourselves and the Irish Free State. Very well. In order to help and not deter that, he ought to be able to give us an assurance that when that new relationship has come Ireland will enter into the community of nations within the Commonwealth, treated like others, on a par with the others. That is all we have raised. It surely is not an improper point to raise. It does not justify all the posing that the right hon. Gentleman has indulged in, and his posturing before the country. That is utterly indefensible and a little unworthy of the very important point which my hon. Friend raised. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now give us a straightforward answer.
I am at a loss to understand this outburst of my hon. Friend, as he was present when his hon. Friend moved the Amendment on behalf of the party opposite. "Kilkenny cats," "treated as a foreign nation,"—all these phrases were not mine; they were the phrases of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. My hon. Friend must not be so indignant, because he knows me and I know him, and all his outburst carries no weight with me. I knew just the value to attach to the Mover of the Amendment, and I merely used my illustration of collective bargaining because on the Opposition side of the Committee there are trade union officials, and as trade union officials they knew what I meant by keeping an Agreement. I repeat again to my hon. Friend who wants a clear answer to his question, Yes, on behalf of the Government, I say 1562 that we will welcome the earliest opportunity of the Irish Free State entering with us into a trade agreement that will be a trade agreement within the British Commonwealth of nations. I repeat that now. But the opportunity to do that was before and at Ottawa. We cannot go back on the declarations made in the House of Commons, that on 15th November free entry ceases unless an agreement is made.
I assure my hon. Friend that even if the Amendment were carried—it will not be—or even when it is rejected, it will not prevent this Government and me, speaking for the Dominions Office, being not only anxious and willing but delighted to enter into a trade agreement with the Free State. But meanwhile the Irish Free State and everyone else must realise that the British Government believe in the sanctity of agreements, and that until the sanctity of agreements is established and realised by every Dominion, no useful purpose will be served by giving any intimation of any sort or kind that we are willing to commit ourselves to fresh bargains with those who have not kept the existing bargains. When the existing bargains are kept the Government will not only enter into fresh negotiations and will be willing and anxious to do so, but we will come to this House, and I am sure my hon. Friend will be the very first to say "Yes, we are glad of this change of policy, and we want the Irish Free State to continue as she is at this moment, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations." Until the Free State says that, until she realises her obligations, until she deliberately accepts the bargain she entered into, she cannot be inside the British Commonwealth and have all its economic advantages, and yet remain outside for political advantages. In other words the Irish Free State has to be in or out. I say on behalf of the Government that the Irish Free State has to be in to have all the advantages of the British Commonwealth.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question which has been put to him. What we are dealing with now is the form of Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 of the Ottawa Agreements Bill. What we are question- 1563 ing is not the policy of the Government towards the Free State at the moment, but the wisdom of the form of the Clause which is being put into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quite clearly cannot have appreciated what is in the Clause. If he will be good enough to look at it he will see that the Clause lays it down that these duties which are put upon foreign goods shall not be charged on goods from the Free State" until the earliest date on which no order is in force" by virtue of the Special Duties Act against the Free State. It has nothing on earth to do with 15th November. The Special Duties Act does not cease to operate on 15th November.
This Clause says that these duties shall not operate until after the order under the Special Duties Act has ceased to be in force. That will not happen, I gather, until an agreement is arrived at with the Free State. So that we are not dealing with anything happening on 15th November next; we are dealing with what will happen when an agreement has been come to with the Free State. According to this Clause, if an agreement has been come to with the Free State the duties will be charged on Irish goods as if they came from abroad. What this Clause says is that those duties shall be chargeable when the special duties cease to be chargeable, that is to say when a fresh arrangement has been come to with the Free State. Further, it is to be part of the fresh arrangement with the Free State, if this Clause is passed, that the full duties are placed upon all Irish goods coming into this country. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to suggest that he is going to start a negotiation with the Free State on the basis that under an Act passed by Parliament he is bound to charge them the full duties as if they were a foreign country? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear!" It seems to him to be a satisfactory way to arrange a thing with the Dominions to start by saying, "We must treat you as a foreign country." Hon. Members have not appreciated what is in this Clause.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I am coming to the last words. The right hon. Gentleman 1564 may say that it is possible by a special Resolution of this House to postpone. But the point that has been put time and time again to the Front Bench opposite is, What happens when Parliament is not sitting? [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but what happens if he wants to come to an agreement with the Irish Free State when Parliament is not sitting? The answer is that he cannot do it. He has to wait until the House of Commons sits again before a Resolution can be passed exempting the Irish Free State from these duties. If this were an order made by the Treasury or some other Government Department when the House was not in Session one could understand it. There would at least be an argument behind it, but this form of words has been refused by the Government, when dealing with duties in every case, because, they have always said, "There is a time when the House is not sitting. How are we to deal with duties during that time which may be three or four months? What are we to do? We have no power." This Clause is so drafted that it expressly takes away the power of the Government to do anything unless they can get a Resolution through the House of Commons.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, that if he is going to try to deal with the Irish Free State after the date when the special duties are finished—and that is the only time with which we are dealing because up to that time any operations against Ireland are under the Special Duties Act and not under this Measure at all—he ought to preserve complete freedom in the Government, to charge or not to charge duties under the Ottawa Agreements against the Irish Free State. We ask him to redraft this Clause, so as to preserve complete freedom, in order that he may be able to go into negotiations with the Irish Free State and say, "I can take off all the duties or I can leave them on." Then he can negotiate an agreement with the Irish Free State as with any other Dominion. If he goes into those negotiations and has to say, "I am sorry but I cannot do anything for the next two months because Parliament is not sitting, and I am bound to charge the full duties because this Section says so," then he will inevitably hamper his power of coming to an agreement with the Irish 1565 Free State and we beg him seriously to see that that power to come to an agreement with the Irish Free State at the first possible moment is not jeopardised by the form of this Clause.
In addressing the Committee again I am only responding to the invitation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Do let us be both practicable and common-sense in this matter. My hon. Friend opposite if he had the responsibility of any office in the past would have known, as indeed he must know now, that this is not an issue which has just arisen. Here is an issue on which the policy of the Government was declared months ago. I have no hesitation in saying again, as I have just said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) that the simple position is this. When the Import Duties Act was introduced, a declaration was made and accepted by the House of Commons that unless fresh agreements were made, free entry would cease on 15th November. That is common agreement. We have tried and are trying at this moment to make a new agreement because we do not desire that this should operate, but the House of Commons will make a profound mistake, as I have already pointed out, if you are going to say in advance, no matter whether Ireland remains adamant or not—because that is the effect of the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The effect of the Amendment if carried would be that no matter what the circumstances might be, the Ottawa Duties would not apply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no good saying "No." The legal gentlemen do not say "No."
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Since the right hon. Gentleman puts it to me I do say "No." The position under this Clause is that all dealings with Irish Free State taxation are to be under the Special Duties Act of 1932 and not under the Imports Duties Act at all. This matter never has been dealt with under the Import Duties Act. It is under the Special Duties Act and, so long as the right hon. Gentleman wants to charge duties on Irish goods coming in here, those duties will be charged under the Special Duties Act, 1932.
I am not going to let the Committee get away from the point. 1566 My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that his interruption is not correct. I repeat, what is the situation? On 15th November free entry ceases in the case of any Dominion unless a special agreement is made. There is no special agreement with the Irish Free State and free entry ceases. If this Amendment is carried, as it has been moved, the Ottawa Treaties can never, unless specifically mentioned, apply to the Irish Free State. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, and I am not going to allow anyone to get away from it. Therefore what the Committee are asked to vote upon is this: that having declared free entry till 15th November, with the hope that agreement would be made, and no agreement having been made, free entry ceases on 15th November and the Amendment now moved would mean that the Ottawa Duties, no matter what the circumstances, would never apply to the Irish Free State. We repudiate that proposal and that is why we resist the Amendment.
§ Mr. REMER
I think the quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman and the late Solicitor-General is rather beside the point. The late Solicitor-General has suggested that the House of Commons might not be sitting at the time when the right hon. Gentleman made such an arrangement as has been indicated. Unless I am much mistaken Mr. Speaker in such circumstances has the power of calling the House of Commons together and getting such an agreement ratified within a few days. It has been done several times. It was done when the Irish Treaty itself was signed. It was done during the coal stoppage and it was done last year during the crisis when the National Government came into power. I think the late Solicitor-General can sleep quietly in his bed and when he knows a little more about the procedure of the House of Commons he will realise that it is not quite so difficult to carry out such an arrangement as that which the right hon. Gentleman has explained so carefully to him in so many speeches this evening.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 32.1569
|Division No. 337.]||AYES.||[10.14 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Goff, Sir Park||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||North, Captain Edward T.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Gower, Sir Robert||Nunn, William|
|Albery, Irving James||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||O'Donovan, Dr. William James|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Graves, Marjorie||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'knh'd)||Greene, William P. C.||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Apsley, Lord||Grimston, R. V.||Pearson, William G.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Penny, Sir George|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Petherick, M.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hanbury, Cecil||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Hanley, Dennis A.||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portem'th, C.)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Hartland, George A.||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Blindell, James||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)|
|Borodale, Viscount||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Ramsden, E.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Rankin, Robert|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)||Ratcliffe, Arthur|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ray, Sir William|
|Bracken, Brendan||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Hornby, Frank||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Horobin, Ian M.||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Briscoe Capt. Richard George||Howard, Tom Forrest||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Remer, John R.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Ranwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Nowb'y)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Robinson, John Roland|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Buchan-Hephurn, P. G. T.||Iveagh, Countess of||Rosbotham, S. T.|
|Burghley, Lord||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Burnett, John George||Jamleson, Douglas||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Cassels, James Dale||Ker, J. Campbell||Salmon, Major Isidore|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Chalmers, John Rutherford||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Sanderson, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Kimball, Lawrence||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Christie, James Archibald||Knight, Holford||Scone, Lord|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Knox, Sir Alfred||Selley, Harry R.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Leckie, J. A.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Slater, John|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Lewis, Oswald||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Cooke, Douglas||Liddell, Walter S.||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Smith-Carington, Neville W|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Spears, Brigadier-General Edwerd L.|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)||Storey, Samuel|
|Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||McKie, John Hamilton||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Dickie, John P.||McLean, Major Alan||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Donner, P. W.||McLean, Dr, W. H. (Tradeston)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.||Templeton, William P.|
|Eden, Robert Anthony||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Thompson, Luke|
|Elmley, Viscount||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Thorp, Linton, Theodore|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Milne, Charles||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Mitcheson, G. G.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Ward, L.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)||Ward, Sarah Adelalde (Cannock)|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John||Moss, Captain H. J.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Glossop, C. W. H.||Muirhead, Major A. J.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Munro, Patrick||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)||Wise, Alfred R.||TELLERS FOR AYES.—|
|Wills, Wilfrid D.||Womersley, Walter James||Lord Erskine and Commander|
|Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)||Wragg, Herbert||Southby.|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Lunn, William|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Milner, Major James|
|Banfield, John William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Batey, Joseph||Groves, Thomas E.||Price, Gabriel|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Grundy, Thomas W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Daggar, George||Hirst, George Henry||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Edwards, Charles||Lawson, John James||Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Logan, David Gilbert|
Sir J. SANDMAN ALLEN
I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:(7) Grain shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been consigned from a port on the east coast of the United States of America and shown as aforesaid by means of a certificate signed by an officer in the service of the Government of the Dominion of Canada to have been grown in Canada shall be treated for the purpose of this section and of section five of the Import Duties Act, 1932, as if it had been consigned from a part of the British Empire.This is an important Amendment, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it, because it deals with a matter which seriously affects the grain trade of this country and the grain trade with Canada. During the winter months the eastern hound trade of Canada cannot go through the St. Lawrence ports, During the summer months it goes to Montreal and Quebec, and is there shipped to Europe; but in the winter months, when the St. Lawrence is closed, the great bulk of it goes to Buffalo into a bonded warehouse. No wheat can go to America without a duty being paid on it, and therefore it goes into bond at an elevator, and from there on to the train and then to the ship. That is the practice in the grain trade. If we had to seal only with the question of Canadian-grown wheat, I would not have to trouble the Committee with any question at all, because the preference applies to Canadian-grown wheat, but there is the use of the word "consigned," which is used in a technical way by customs and other authorities. That is where the difficulty comes in. There is no question of its being American wheat. That is a totally different type of wheat, both as regards grade and origin. There is not the slightest doubt that it is Canadian wheat and that it can be nothing else.
1570 The only question is whether the Government—and possible the two Governments—wish to upset the practice of the trade, which has been going on for years. I have to admit, to be perfectly frank, that different shipments from different parts go into one elevator, and one cannot therefore say that any particular grains of wheat belong to one particular shipment, but that all the wheat is from Canada there is no question. It becomes a technical point as to whether "consigning" must mean direct consignment under a direct document. If it does that will be totally contrary to the practice of the trade. The effect of leaving the Bill as it stands will be to penalise the whole of that large portion of Canadian wheat which comes through United States ports in the winter, because the only other route involves very long train haulage down to St. John's, New Brunswick, or Halifax, Nova Scotia; and there are not the facilities there for dealing with large quantities even if the extra haulage expenses were justified. The point is a very important one and I would repeat that there never has been any question the Canadian grain being mixed with United States grain.
I would draw attention to Sub-section (6) which deals with the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. Shipments from those three colonies are made from the Portuguese port of Beira. The goods go into warehouse there and any goods that are shipped from there to the United Kingdom will get the benefit of the preference, while those that are consigned to Europe do not. In principle there is absolutely no difference between those two cases, and it seems to me there is no reason why we should not at least grant authority to deal with Canadian wheat 1571 in the same way. If the Government would wish to confine it to granting power or giving permission to do it, let them alter the Amendment to that extent; but to shut the door on even that concession seems a very unfair way of dealing with the preference, and, apart from that, it involves a most serious dislocation of a system of trade which has existed for years. It will disturb the whole of the gain trade both in Canada and this country. I submit that this is a practical Amendment, it is not like some of the Amendments, which could not be accepted, and I hope the Government will see their way to agree to it.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. WHITE
I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) in a very full and very able statement of the case. I will try not to traverse any of the ground which he has covered. I must, however, hasten to emphasise the point, which he made towards the conclusion of his speech, when he drew the attention of the Committee to the object of the Amendment, which is the placing of wheat, with regard to this preferential duty, in precisely the same positon that copper and other products are placed, when they are exported from Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, by the provisions of the previous Sub-section. The fact that this provision is not made in the case of wheat, which cannot by any means be described as a less important article than those which are imported from Nyasaland, has given cause of comment and criticism of this Bill, in a way which was never intended, and which ought never to have arisen.
It is clear that if provision is not made, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, for the carriage of wheat from the western ports of the great lakes, during the winter time, down to American ports, the alternative will be a long transit, with greatly increased cost, to the two small Canadian ports of West St. John and Halifax. I do not associate myself with the rumour, allegation or suggestion which has been made, but it is being said, owing to the absence of a provision for wheat similar to that which the Government have already made in regard to copper, that the provision has been left 1572 out simply as a ramp to drive Canadian wheat over the Canadian railways.
I am opposed to these agreements altogether, but if we are to have agreements they should at least be so clear that no allegation of that kind could possibly arise. My hon. Friend has said that the absence of the provision will drive the trade out of its natural channels. The cost of this duty upon the price of the standard loaf is estimated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as a farthing, or a very small amount, whatever the amount may be that he mentioned. I am of opinion that, unless an arrangement is made to let wheat from Canada go through its normal course, a very serious additional charge, probably far greater than the small charge of the duty will arise. I have had occasion before to refer to the extraordinary position of the grain trade. Undoubtedly, some very important changes will be brought about if they are not allowed to transmit their wheat in bond down to the American ports.
Wheat is an article which is extremely easy to transport. It can be brought down in bond and put into bond in the warehouses in the American ports, and whenever a ship is found to have a little space at the last moment, a parcel of wheat can be put into it. Since the development of wireless telegraphy, a ship containing wheat, may, when in mid-Atlantic, be directed towards whatever port where it may be most needed. That is a very important arrangement, and if it is disturbed, the consequences may be very serious indeed. There are those who say that, having regard to the small capacity of the alternative accommodation in the ports which will be available during the winter in Canada, there will be a very serious risk of a shortage in those seasons when, owing to variation in the crops in other parts of the world, we might be driven to rely almost entirely upon the crops from Canada.
Many Amendments have been introduced in the course of the discussion of this Bill, and many have been rejected, not, indeed, on their merits, but because they were inconsistent with the conditions of the Agreements. This Amendment does not interfere with any Agreement whatsoever. It is a suggestion which will enable the Agreement to be carried out with great advantage to all concerned. 1573 If the Amendment is not accepted, it is quite clear, not merely that the local interests of the grain trade, but that the interests of the great mass of the consumers in this country, and also of those Canadians who are supposed to benefit from the Bill, will probably suffer a very serious disadvantage.
My hon. Friend has pleaded with the Government to accept this Amendment, and I sincerely hope that they will. There is a very grave apprehension in the minds of those who are accustomed to deal with the wheat trade in this country, because there has been no experience yet under the Import Duties Act of goods coming from Canada after the St. Lawrence has been closed by frost, and they have been in consultation with the appropriate authorities on this matter, who inform them that the regulations under the Import Duties Act would not entitle wheat carried in the way that has been usual up to the present time to the preferential rate. That, really, is the gist of the whole matter. If the Government can inform us that they will accept this Amendment, or, failing that, make arrangements to see that the traders and consumers of this country are not disadvantaged by this arrangement, they will be rendering a very considerable service. I understand that provision is made in the Time Table for a Report stage, but, of course, there will be no Report stage unless some Amendment is accepted which has to be reported to the House. As the Government have made provision for a Report stage, I am sure that they could not choose a better Amendment than this one for that purpose. I do not wish, however, to close entirely on that note, because I and my hon. Friends with whom I am associated in this Amendment have been in close touch with this matter and have given it much study, and we attach the greatest importance to the Amendment.
§ Mr. LOGAN
I consider this to be a well reasoned Amendment. My hon. Friends from Merseyside have gone carefully into the matter, and I can certainly say to the Government that, if the Amendment is accepted, it will confer great benefit on the grain carriers of this country and will be most beneficial to our trade. That will be particularly so in the case of the shipping trade, and I and 1574 my hon. Friends on these benches would fully agree to its acceptance.
§ Mr. E. C. GRENFELL
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) referred to normal trade. From the moment that the Lakes are closed, and from the moment that the St. Lawrence is closed, there is no way of getting native Canadian grain out of the country eastwards except through the two Canadian ports and the United States of America. If the Government agree that Canadian grain can be earmarked, I would ask them to accept this Amendment. With reference to the question of normal trade, let me give the facts which were submitted to me by one large concern, namely, that, once navigation was closed, four ships came out in the winter from these two Canadian ports, and 45 came out of United States ports. The proportion was the same last year and the year before. Therefore, it is clear that normal trade means that in the winter that Canadian grain should come out of United States ports, but, when it does so, apparently, it will, under this Measure, lose the advantage which it would otherwise get.
Even apart from that, let me recall the fact that this is a period when the English shipping trade is suffering as it has never suffered before. There are the great English lines which run big ships from the United States to Liverpool—I am not now speaking of the "Majestic" or the big Cunarders, but only of those big ships that come to Liverpool, carrying passengers but also capable of carrying from 10,000 to 12,000 tons of cargo. They have always been accustomed to filling up the ship with grain when available at what to me are ridiculous terms. They are prices which are really not reasonable but which they quote in order to fill up the ship. We are, under this Bill, going to penalise those big liners. It is well known that the Cunard Line had to stop the big luxury ship which they have laid down, and they hope to make enough money with their other ships to pay for these luxury liners which are in competition with the subsidised ships of France, Italy and Germany. The only way in which the Cunard and White Star liners can pick up this grain will be to put into St. John and Halifax at enormous cost. If I were a shipowner, 1575 I should say it is not worth the risk, in foggy weather and in the winter, to put into those ports to pick up what grain there may be. Apart from the grain trade, which is to be disorganised by this Measure, I think we should not allow the great lines to be penalised by ships, say, from Italy or Norway which, with much lower wages than the English, will endeavour to put into ill-adapted ports like Halifax and St. John in competition with English liners from the American ports. I am not speaking in any way to benefit the Americans. I am speaking in order to implement what we wish to do for Canada and the Western States and not to penalise British shipping.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN
I should like to make one point which has been overlooked by my hon. Friends, that Merseyside is the second largest milling station in the world. I am very much afraid that, if the free flow of grain from Canada is withheld, the result will be that the Canadians will do their own milling. I view this with great fear, because that trade provides much employment for my constituents. I trust that the Government will look to that and realise the risk which they are running in diverting grain from its normal channels.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I know the Government are faced with great difficulties over this matter, because the whole basis of Imperial Preference is that goods are not only to be grown in the Empire but are also to be consigned from an Empire port, and I know that throughout the Departments concerned have attached the utmost importance to maintaining this principle. That makes it more difficult for the Government to make this concession. Nevertheless the arguments which have been placed before us are arguments of great substance. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that no human being knows how much wheat grown in Canada reaches this country. Some years ago, to my knowledge, statisticians of our Departments, and of the Canadian and American Departments, in conference tried to analyse the position, because they felt that it was very unsatisfactory that no one should know really what the trading relations were between the two wheat-producing countries of North America 1576 and this country. The trouble arises sometimes from the diversion of ships at sea, sometimes because in the summer a great deal of American wheat is shipped from Canadian ports, and the Committee have already learnt that a great deal of Canadian wheat is shipped from American ports.
An estimate was prepared some two or three years ago which showed that about 40 per cent. of Canadian wheat that came to the United Kingdom came through United States Atlantic ports. If that figure is true and if, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) says, the probability of shipments taking place in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick is often impossible, it means that, by refusing to accept this or some similar Amendment, 40 per cent. of Canadian wheat exports to this country are going to pay a duty of 2s. a quarter. That is, to a material extent, going to destroy the arguments, namely, of benefit conferred on Canada and secondly of the price effect. The argument which I and others advance that the duty will not raise prices is based on the assumption that Empire wheat will not pay duty. Unless some steps are taken by the Government they will deliberately impose on 40 per cent. of Canadian wheat coming into the country a duty of 2s. a quarter. I am told on the best authority that over 80 per cent. of the wheat shipped from the United States Atlantic ports is, in fact, Canadian wheat. It dominates the whole trade from those ports and the call for some action is overwhelming. It may be unfair to press the Financial Secretary to a decision at this moment, but, on the other hand, if a decision is not taken at this moment, unless some Amendment is made, there will be no Report stage. If the situation is such that they feel that action should be taken, it will be the duty of the Government to create a Report stage by some kind of trifling Amendment, and in all earnestness I urge the Financial Secretary to make strong representations to the Cabinet as to the gravity of the situation.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment need not apologise for the length of his speech. It was, indeed, a very brief speech although it adequately put the case—the very strong case—which he has in mind. 1577 I observe that that case has been supported from all quarters of the Committee. My hon. Friend was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to raise this subject, and accordingly the Government looked into this matter once again with the very greatest care and with a very genuine desire to see whether they could meet my hon. Friend and those interested in the Merseyside. But it has been found impossible on two grounds, first, because the Customs procedure would make it extremely difficult to identify the wheat, and, secondly, on the ground of policy. It always has been a matter of policy to insist, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said, that goods which are to enjoy a preference must not only grow in an Empire country but must be consigned from an Empire country. Objections have been taken to that on behalf of various commodities again and again ever since preference was in being, and the Government have been compelled to resist the plea on the ground that if they gave way in respect of one commodity, or in respect of one particular country, they would have to abandon this principle, which they have steadfastly maintained, altogether. The principle is maintained in order that direct trading may be encouraged between the countries which enjoy the Preference and in order that the Preference may not he intercepted.
My hon. Friend instances the case of Beira which figures in this particular Clause. He says that goods coming from Southern Rhodesia may enjoy the preference although they are shipped through a Portuguese port and are not consigned direct to this country, referring of course to the port of Beira. The two cases are entirely different as between Canada and the United States and Southern Rhodesia and Beira. Southern Rhodesia is landlocked. It has no port at all, and by the sheer forces of geography and nature is compelled to use the port of Beira. It maintains a Customs Officer in Beira and because shipping facilities are limited it is bound to store goods at Beira. How then does this condition apply in the case in question? Is not Canada in a position to store wheat? Is not the United Kingdom in a position to store wheat? It is our purpose to encourage 1578 the storage of wheat, either in Canada, which is to obtain this preference, or in the United Kingdom, where we may obtain the advantage of storage and warehouse dues. By virtue of giving the preferences we shall obtain advantages not only for Canada but for ourselves, and Mr. Bennett is perfectly well aware of that. Speaking in the Canadian House of Commons on 26th October, he said:The Canadian Government has ascertained that the mere transit of Canadian goods across the United States would not prevent them from securing British preferences"—I ask the hon. Member to remember that; they may still be sent across the United States provided they are consigned to us in this country—provided that the goods were definitely consigned from Canada to the United Kingdom and that satisfactory evidence of this can be produced.That is the position as defined by Mr. Bennett and clearly understood by him. He goes on:The preferences would not be available to goods sent from Canada to the United States and reconsigned thence.Therefore, we are creating no misunderstanding as between the Canadians and ourselves. Mr. Bennett appreciates the position perfectly well.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
That is what Mr. Bennett says, but is that what the Law Officers will say that it means?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
That is what Mr. Bennett says, and I must trouble the House by reading it again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it the law of the land?"] This is what he said:The mere transit of Canadian goods across the United States would not prevent them from securing British preferences provided that the goods were definitely consigned from Canada to the United Kingdom.That is an exact statement of the law. The goods must be not only grown but consigned from an Empire country to this country. Therefore, Mr. Bennett was precisely right in saying what I have read.
Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN
Is it quite clear that such and such a transaction does exist? Is it not rather a play upon words?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
If the hon. Member wishes to accuse Mr. Bennett of 1579 playing upon words, I can only say I am quoting Mr. Bennett who has accurately defined the position. I do not think there is any play upon words. This is the historic qualification for preferences and it is not being newly enacted in this Bill. It has been in existence from the very time we first brought in preferences, and we must maintain this position that if goods are grown and consigned in a Dominion we give them the boon of the preference, and it is an advantage given on that condition. You cannot give the preference to anybody who says: These were grown in an Empire country"; the Customs must be in a position to check that. They have gone into this matter sympathetically, and they have, as the hon. Member for Croydon is aware, found it impossible to administer a position of this kind. If they had found it possible, I might have been in a position to give a more satisfactory answer, as indeed I should have desired to do, but if this does result in finding some means of encouraging greater trade between Canada and Great Britain and in providing storing accommodation, either in Canada or here, instead of the United States, it will, at any rate, be of great advantage.
§ Sir P. HARRIS
I only want to say one word on the remarkable speech we have just heard. It is quite clear that the Government are prepared to face the position that for the first time Canadian wheat may be subject to a tax of 2s. because by the working of this machinery, unless a provision of this character is inserted, it is inevitable that in the winter time some Canadian wheat which comes through Buffalo when the Great Lakes are frozen will be treated as foreign wheat, and therefore for the first time wheat grown in Empire countries will be taxed.
Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN
I desire to thank the Financial Secretary for the way in Which he has answered the question. He has not in the least satisfied me, but I appreciate the fact that he has courteously considered the points I made. In the circumstances, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by pressing the Amendment to a Division.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 247.1581
|Division No. 338.]||AYES.||[10.56 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McKeag, William|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Milner, Major James|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grundy, Thomas W.||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Banfield, John William||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Price, Gabriel|
|Bernays, Robert||Harris, Sir Percy||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Cape, Thomas||Hirst, George Henry||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Holdsworth, Herbert||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Janner, Barnett||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Curry, A. C.||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Daggar, George||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||White, Henry Graham|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Edwards, Charles||Lawson, John James||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Logan, David Gilbert||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Lunn, William|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Mabane, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Mr. John and Mr. Groves.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Boyce, H. Leslie|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Bracken, Brendan|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)|
|Apsley, Lord||Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Briscoe, Capt. Richard George|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Borodale, Viscount||Browne, Captain A. C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Bossom, A. C.||Burghley, Lord|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Ray, Sir William|
|Burnett, John George||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirring)|
|Cassels, James Dale||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)||Iveagh, Countess of||Remer, John R.|
|Chalmers, John Rutherford||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Renwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Jamieson, Douglas||Robinson, John Roland|
|Christie, James Archibald||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Rosbotham, S T.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.||Ker, J. Campbell||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Runge, North Cecil|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Kimball, Lawrence||Russell, Flamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Cooke, Douglas||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Knight, Holford||Salmon, Major Isidore|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Crookshank, Cot. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Liddall, Walter S.||Scone, Lord|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Selley, Harry R.|
|Donner, P. W.||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Duncan, James A.L.(Kansington, N.)||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Eastwood, John Francis||MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Eden, Robert Anthony||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Slater, John|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.|
|Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||McKie, John Hamilton||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Elmley, Viscount||McLean, Major Alan||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mason, Col. Glyn K, (Croydon, N.)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Storey, Samuel|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Milne, Charles||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Glossop, C. W. H.||Mitcheson, G. G.||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Templeton, William P.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moreing, Adrian C.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)||Thompson, Luke|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Moss, Captain H. J.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Greene, William P. C.||Muirhead, Major A. J.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Munro, Patrick||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Train, John|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||North, Captain Edward T.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Nunn, William||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||O'Donovan, Dr. William James||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Hanbury, Cecil||Palmer, Francis Noel||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Patrick, Colin M.||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Pearson, William G.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Penny, Sir George||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Hartland, George A.||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Petherick, M.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Womersley, Walter James|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Hornby, Frank||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Horobin, Ian M.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Mr. Blindell and Commander|
|Howard, Tom Forrest||Ramsden, E.||Southby.|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Ratcliffe, Arthur|
§ It being after Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th October, sue- 1582 cessively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.1583
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."1584
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 55.1585
|Division No. 339.]||AYES.||[11.5 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Glossop, C. W. H.||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)|
|Albery, Irving James||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Goff, Sir Park||Moss, Captain H. J.|
|Allen. Lt.-Col. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Munro, Patrick|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Gower, Sir Robert||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.|
|Apsley, Lord||Greene, William P. C.||North, Captain Edward T.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)||Nunn, William|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Grimston, R. V.||O'Donovan, Dr. William James|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Pearson, William G.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||Penny, Sir George|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Hanbury, Cecil||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Hanley, Dennis A.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Petherick, M.|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Hartington, Marquess of||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hartland, George A.||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)|
|Borodale, Viscount||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Bossom, A. C.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Bracken, Brendan||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ramsden, E.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Rankin, Robert|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Hornby, Frank||Ratcliffe, Arthur|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Horobin, Ian M.||Ray, Sir William|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Howard, Tom Forrest||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Burghley, Lord||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Remer, John R.|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Renwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Burnett, John George||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Iveagh, Countess of||Robinson, John Roland|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Cassels, James Dale||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Rosbotham, S. T.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Jamieson, Douglas||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Chalmers, John Rutherford||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)||Ker, J. Campbell||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)|
|Christie, James Archibald||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Kimball, Lawrence||Salmon, Major Isidore|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Cooke, Douglas||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A, G. D.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Leckie, J. A.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Scone, Lord|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Selley, Harry R.|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Liddall, Walter S.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Donner, P. W.||Lovat-Fraser, lames Alexander||Slater, John|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Duggan, Hubert John||MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Eastwood, John Francis||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Eden, Robert Anthony||McKie, John Hamilton||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||McLean, Major Alan||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Storey, Samuel|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Milne, Charles||Templeton, William P.|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k||Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Mitcheson, G. G.||Thompson, Luke|
|Thorp, Linton Theodore||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.||Womersley, Walter James|
|Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)||Wells, Sydney Richard||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Touche, Gordon Cosmo||Weymouth, Viscount||Wragg, Herbert|
|Train, John||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)||Wills, Wilfrid D.||Mr. Blindell and Lieut.-Colonel|
|Wallace, John (Dunfermline)||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)||Sir A. Lambert Ward.|
|Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)||McKeag, William|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Banfield, John William||Groves, Thomas E.||Milner, Major James|
|Batey, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Bernays, Robert||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Price, Gabriel|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Harris, Sir Percy||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Hirst, George Henry||Roberts, Sled (Wrexham)|
|Curry, A. C.||Holdsworth, Herbert||Rothschild, James A. de|
|Daggar, George||Janner, Barnett||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Edwards, Charles||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||White, Henry Graham|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Lawson, John James||Williams. Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Logan, David Gilbert||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Lunn, William|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Mabane, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.|