HC Deb 09 June 1937 vol 324 cc1839-67
The Chairman

I will give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) the opportunity of explaining his Amendment, in page 2, line 21, after "fulfilment," to insert "(except in respect of Articles 3, 13 and 15)." I am not quite sure what the intention is. He will know, of course, that we cannot alter the agreement and it is a little difficult to see what will be the effect of the insertion of the words that he proposes without some further Amendment.

Mr. Lees-Smith

The object of the Amendment was to omit three of the Clauses from the Agreement. If you, Sir, rule that that is out of order, I will make my observations on the Question that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Morgan Jones

Would it be out of order to move this in view of the fact that the Agreement has not yet been ratified?

The Chairman

That does not make any difference. It is beyond question, and has been ruled in quite recent times, that a scheduled agreement such as this cannot be amended.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Donner

I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (6).

My object is to endeavour to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary not to repeal Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932. I do so in the belief that the weight of argument is on the side of those who hold the view that the existence on the Statute Book of this Section, which invests the Board of Trade with certain powers, serves a useful purpose; that nothing is gained and something may be lost by its deletion; that under certain clearly defined circumstances it represents a valuable bargaining instrument; and, finally, that there appears to be no valid reason why it should be abolished. It is this view to which I desire to give expression in as few words as possible. For purposes of clarification and in order that the matter will not be rendered obscure by cryptic references to Sections the contents of which hon. Members could not possibly remember, I will, with the permission of the Committee, read Section 5, Sub-section (1) of the Ottawa Agreements Act: If at any time the Board of Trade are satisfied that any preferences granted by this Act in respect of any particular class or description of goods, being preferences granted in fulfilment of the agreement set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance, directly or indirectly, of prices for that class or description of goods through State action on the part of any foreign country, the Board of Trade may by order prohibit the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of that class Or description grown, produced, or manufactured in that foreign country. The remaining Sub-sections refer to the machinery of administration and do not therefore now concern the Committee at the outset I should perhaps refresh the memory of the Committee by explaining that Section 5 was incorparted in the Ottawa Agreements Act in order to give effect to Article 21 of that Agreement. As it is important that the contents of that article should be borne in mind by hon. Members I will read it: This agreement is made on the express condition that, if either Government is satisfied that any preferences hereby granted in respect of any particular class of commodities are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance, directly or indirectly, of prices for such classes of commodities through State action on the part of any foreign country, that Government hereby declares that it will exercise the powers which it now has or rill hereafter take to prohibit the entry from such foreign country directly or indirectly of such commodities into its country for such time as may be necessary to make effective and to maintain the preferences hereby granted by it. I should, perhaps, add that the Canadian Government of that time attached great importance to the inclusion of Section 5 in the Ottawa Agreements Act, because they feared that the preferences which the United Kingdom Government has extended to Canada in regard to timber might be nullified by the action of the Russian Government. This Section applies, and the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am mistaken, not only to Canada but to the whole Empire, although it was included in the Ottawa Agreements Act at the request and for the benefit of the Canadian Government.

There is no provision corresponding to Article 21 in the new trade agreement between this country and Canada which has been signed but not yet ratified. That is no doubt the reason why this particular Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act is now to be repealed unless the Com- mittee can persuade the Government to change their view. I would like to make it clear that in moving this Amendment the action for which I am pleading involves no legislation and no practical difficulties. All that I am asking for is a continuance of the status quo. I am asking that the Board of Trade should continue to possess the power to prohibit the importation of certain goods under certain clearly defined circumstances which would nullify in whole or in part the effect of Imperial Preference. It may be argued that these powers will never be required. In that event they would obviously never be used. But if they are on the Statute Book they are to hand and should they be required they can be put into operation without delay. It is obvious that there is something to be gained by their retention, and nothing gained by their removal. It would seem to be a matter of common sense to retain these powers and use them should it be necessary so to do. They represent a formidable bargaining instrument, and a measure of protection which should not lightly be set aside.

I may be told that these powers have never been put into operation. In my submission it would be reasonable to deduce from that that their very existence has prevented any attempt on the part of foreign countries to frustrate or vitiate the effect of Imperial Preference, and therefore the circumstances which would call for their operation have never arisen. But it would not be legitimate to assert that if these powers had not existed no such attempts would have been made by foreign countries. The majority of truncheons in the hands of the police have never broken a man's head; their very existence has provided a sufficient deterrent. It would be an exaggeration to assert that there powers which the Board of Trade now possess stand in the same relation to Imperial Preference as colour does to paint. Colour is of the very essence of paint but it is true to say that these powers stand in the same relation to Imperial Preference as paint does to wood, because paint protects wood in very much the same way as these powers safeguard the effectiveness of the policy of Imperial Preference. It would, in my judgment, be a mistake not to attach proper significance to the value of these powers at present invested in the Board of Trade.

The validity of the argument in support of the repeal of this Section of the Ottawa Agreements is not obvious inasmuch as His Majesty's Government are not opposed to the policy of Imperial Preference. Not only are they committed to that policy and endorse it, but the Government is responsible for the whole range of the Ottawa Agreements. It follows that it must be the desire of the Government that these preferences should not be frustrated or nullified, and, this being so, there can be no object in divesting the Board of Trade of these powers. The Committee will recall that Article 21 of the Trade Agreement with Canada operated both ways, and that it placed upon both Governments the same obligation, the obligation to defend the preferences and to ensure that they would not be vitiated or destroyed either by foreign subsidies or by price manipulation on the part of foreign Governments, and the validity of the argument in support of the repeal of this Clause is surely further challenged when it becomes apparent that in the new trade agreement with Canada the Canadian Government themselves agree, in Article 8, to maintain the margins enumerated in Schedule 5. Article 8 reads: The Government of Canada undertake in respect of the goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom, enumerated in Schedule V appended hereto that the difference between the rates of duties of customs on such goods on importation into Canada, when conveyed without transhipment from any part of the British Empire, enjoying the benefits of the British Preferential Tariff into a sea, lake or river port of Canada, and the rates upon similar goods, growth, produce or manufacture of any foreign country shall not be less than the margins set out in that Schedule. The only interpretation to which Section 8 of the new trade agreement lends itself is that the Canadian Government intend to retain the margin enumerated in Schedule 5 which covers a great range of manufactured goods, and it follows, therefore, that if the Canadian Government intends and in fact commits itself to maintain the margins of preference, it is somewhat ungracious on our part if we propose to divest ourselves of the power to protect the preferences which we on our side propose to grant to the Canadian Government. Schedule 5 covers a great range of goods, and among other items coal and anthracite. Under the new agreement we shall be able to export to Canada coal and anthracite without any fear of unfair Russian competition, a competition which began in April of this year. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment, because to repeal this Section would appear to result in a one-sided arrangement with the Canadian Government, and would conceivably imperil the whole effectiveness of Imperial Preference in practice. The repeal of this Section must therefore prove a source of anxiety to all who desire to see Imperial Preference as great a success in the future as it has been in the past, and I desire to express the hope that the Amendment will be accepted since it has played its part by its very existence in the past, and may well prove to be of service in the future.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

I think my hon. Friend in the speech which he made is labouring under a misapprehension. He seemed to be under the impression that this particular Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act applied not merely to preferences to Canada, but to the preferences granted to other Dominions. That was the crux of his argument. As a matter of fact, it does not. If he will look at the terms of Section 5 he will see that it reads as follows: If at any time the Board of Trade are satisfied that any preferences granted by this Act in respect of any particular class or description of goods, being preferences granted in fulfilment of the agreement set out in Part I of the First Schedule— If the hon. Member will look at Part I of the First Schedule he will see that it is an agreement between this country and Canada in 1932. That part of the Schedule no longer holds, because it is being superseded by the new agreement which has been negotiated between the United Kingdom and Canada, and therefore this particular Section 5 really has no further relation to actuality. It can never be put into operation except in the event of Canada calling our attention to some frustration of the preferences granted under the Act of 1932. It was enacted at the special request of the then Canadian Government, and as the new Canadian Government which negotiated with the United Kingdom Government did not ask for any such provision to be made, the hon. Member will realise that there is no justification for keeping it in operation.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Amery

I am very surprised at my hon. Friend's speech. It is perfectly true that this provision was only introduced at the instance of Canada, and that it primarily applies to the Schedule covering the agreement with Canada.

Mr. Hudson

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. It is not a question of the provision applying primarily to Canada; it applies only to Canada, and could not be applied in any case to any of the other Dominions.

Mr. Amery

That is the point to which I was coming. The Schedule of preferences to the other Dominions is substantially the same in almost every item as in the case of Canada, and any action of the kind referred to in that agreement would affect the importance of preferences not only to Canada but to every other Dominion producing the same type of goods, and, incidentally, in the case of most agricultural products, it would affect our own agriculture. I am not at all convinced that the Government are only able to bring that Clause into operation on a special appeal by Canada. It was our duty to give that effective safeguard, and see to it that Canadian preference was not impaired by the action of other States. We were fully entitled and in duty bound, if a preference were given to Canada or any Dominion and it was impaired by the action of Russia or any other foreign country, to take action ourselves without waiting to be appealed to, and to take action to prevent what might be a danger not only to Canada but to the whole system of preference.

We hear a good deal on the negative side about preference as a barrier. There is also the positive side of economic nationalism, especially the economic nationalism that is carried to the extent it is in a country like Russia, where, for general purposes, goods are sold at prices bearing no relation whatever to the cost of production. That is something against which it is very desirable that we should safeguard ourselves. If by any form of wording we are so limited in powers which were originally introduced as not to be able to use them in our own defence, the answer is not in the removing of this Section from the Statute Book, but in amplifying it. Certainly, to my mind, the reply to the argument used by my hon. Friend sounded completely unconvincing. While it is very desirable, for the purposes of stability and security, to make definite agreements with the Dominions in connection with preferences, there is nothing to preclude our doing everything in our power, whenever we have an opportunity, to make that preference more effective. If the present Canadian Government do not wish to apply that Section on their side, that is no reason whatever why we should not retain a Section which enables us still to give more effective preferences to Canada if that preference should be threatened from outside.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give further consideration to the point raised so temperately and fairly by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner), and consider whether any possible harm could be done by the retention of this provision and whether its retention might in certain circumstances —possibly unlikely circumstances—still be of some use. I was of opinion, in the long discussion which went on, that the power to retain the existence of that Section in the background had proved of no little value to our representatives. It might well be that its retention might again prove of value in some negotiation or another. I join with my hon. Friend in appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further consideration to the matter.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Benn

The speeches have been very interesting. We are always told that nationalists want to set up Imperial Preference, which means extending world trade, and our Government have set their hand to various documents agreeing to quotas, restrictions and the like. They are always coming up at Geneva and we are always supposed to be in favour of them. These people who speak about preferences as the basis for extending international trade come and want to enforce an unwilling Government to accept a power on behalf of a Dominion Government when they themselves have ceased to demand that they should have such power.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Donner

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will reconsider his attitude between now and the Report stage?

Mr. T. Smith

Why should he?

Mr. Donner

He gave the guidance for which I asked but, surely, that in no way destroys the validity of the arguments which I put before him. Would he, therefore, give an undertaking, to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage?

7.21 p.m.

Colonel Gretton

I should like to support that plea. This really seems to be on all fours with the action of the previous Government when it set an example to the world by proceeding to seek disarmament, and then, when it was found that armaments were required, began making them in a great effort to recover the ground we had lost. This is a power and a weapon in reserve. It has not been required to be used, but it is a weapon of great potency which may be used in negotiation. I agree that it is of real value, and I hope that the Government will not throw it away, unless there is real reason or agreement in the Imperial Conference that this power is inimical to the general structure of economic relations and should be cast aside in the interests of the Empire.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) made use of the phrase "a weapon of great potency." As a matter of fact, this is not a weapon of great potency. Its potency has been completely spent because it refers to a non-existent schedule. It is a weapon which has never been put into operation. What my hon. Friend is asking us to do is to be more royalist than the King. I would remind him that in 1934 we put into the agreement with the country in question a specific Article. We considered it to be adequate and suitable in respect of that particular country. Again, I am glad to say we have never had to put it into operation. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about a weapon of potency, it is not the weapon that is being abandoned in this particular Clause. We are abandoning a weapon that is not required.

7.23 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair

Really, there are two schools of thought in this Committee. There are those who regard trade as a means of national aggrandisement and as a battlefield on which we are to fight with weapons of potency, and those who regard it as a means of exchange of material wealth and commodities between the peoples of the world. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner), who made such a charming speech, has appealed to the Government, with the support of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), to consider this matter again before the Report stage. The Government have shown reasons which are beyond argument that the matter is not one that they could possibly reconsider. The weapon has no potency. It is out of date, obsolete and finished, and has fallen to pieces with the replacement of the original Ottawa Treaty by the new trading agreement with Canada. Really, it is for the hon. Member to reconsider his position, and not the Government.

Mr. Donner

That is hardly a fair reply to my argument. Article 21 has been replaced by Section 8 of the new agreement which has been signed but has not yet been ratified but which I took the trouble to read to the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman should therefore have heard it.

Sir A. Sinclair

That is quite true, but the fact remains that this particular Clause in the Finance Bill only refers to the old Ottawa Agreement. It is no good the Government reconsidering their position. It is impossible for them to do anything about that Section. It is obsolete and out of date with no functions to perform. It is just being swept out of the way. It is for the hon. Member to reconsider his position before the Report stage and bring down to the House of Commons a new Clause which will embody and represent the kind of potency which he would like to see wielded in order to improve the prospects of British trade. I do not promise him my support, but I shall await the appearance of that Clause with interest. Then we can have a real Debate on the merits of the proposal of the hon. Member. Meanwhile, I feel sure that this Clause must be allowed to remain, and that there can be no real opposition to it as it stands.

Amendment negatived.

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

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith

We are now dealing with the Canadian Trade Agreement as a whole, and I wish to take the opportunity of raising one or two particular points which were contained in the Amendment, which was not in order. I consider that the present agreement is a great advance upon that which was originally made at Ottawa. That agreement was a one-sided arrangement in which we were at a disadvantage. I believe that we obtain far more benefit from this one, and, in particular, that it is a great improvement because, in fact, it gets rid of the Tariff Board, with that very peculiar formula upon which it had to act.

There is one feature of the agreement to which I intended to call particular attention in my Amendment. It is the Article by which we guarantee a margin of preference to a considerable range of articles imported from Canada. That means that, as a considerable number of these articles come in free of duty altogether, and as we guarantee there shall be a preference below which we shall not go, we prohibit ourselves in advance for three years from in any way lowering our tariffs on a fairly wide range of commodities. I call attention to that fact because it means that in effect we lose control over our own tariff policy, and at a period when it is even more essential that we should have a fairly free hand for some little time to come.

It happens that the argument I was going to use on that Amendment has been covered already. I was going to call attention to the fact that we are in a different position from that in which we have been for some time. Practically in all previous discussions on the possibility of lowering tariff barriers, the question of quotas and exchange restrictions throughout the world, we have been told that the difficulty lay with other countries. The fact now is that—it is obviously the case as the Debate this evening has shown—for the first time the initiative is coming from another country, and the country which would have the greatest effect in this direction. The initiative is obviously coming from the United States of America, and it is coming very largely owing to the influence of Mr. Cordell Hull, who has already negotiated 16 treaties, and whose policy, as we know, cannot be complete until he initiates a treaty with a great industrial country like ourselves. There have been two letters in the "Times" by Sir Arthur Willert explaining the position in which the United States find themselves and pointing out that Mr. Cordell Hull is in great difficulties unless he can get agreement with manufacturing countries. Therefore, the initiative, with a real chance of agreement, is now developing from the other side of the Atlantic.

The President of the Board of Trade is new to his Department, and I would call his attention to this general feature of the present situation which he may have to face if he stays in his Department for two or three years. Undoubtedly, the great peril which confronts this country is that the trade boom is approaching its peak and it will take a turn downwards in the next two or three years. It will be of enormous assistance to this country if in the meantime we can develop our foreign trade in order to fill the gap for which we are making no other preparation. This is a very vital matter. That is why I think the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has taken an entirely wrong perspective of the needs of the country in not looking forward for a time instead of using the same argument that he has used ever since I have been a Member of this House.

There is an opportunity, but this kind of article in the present trade agreement is an obstacle to it. I am not at all sure that it is a very serious obstacle. As far as possible I have been following the discussions at the Imperial Conference and we know what has been said by Mr. Lyons and Mr. MacKenzie King. It is clear that they do not take as extreme a view of their own demands as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. He goes far beyond anything that they contemplate. They realise the very simple fact that from their own point of view it will not be wise to limit themselves to trade with this country at the expense of cutting off possible openings for trade with other countries. One half of their trade is already with other countries. This country has a stationary population. It is inevitably going to have a diminishing population, whatever we do now, and it is quite clear that the Dominions are beginning to look forward to adjusting themselves to that fact. Therefore, I think the President of the Board of Trade was right in saying that there is not necessarily any antithesis as far as the Dominions are concerned. The problem is complicated but it is not overwhelmingly difficult. It is clear that a new situation is developing, with immense possibilities. A trade agreement with the United States might very easily be followed by one with the Oslo Powers, and probably by one with France, and if that were established and worked successfully it is possible that Germany would want to come in. If she did come in we should have a real possibility of doing something that would lead to the political appeasement of Europe.

My criticism of the Government is that they fail to realise the magnitude of the issues which arise. They failed at the Disarmament Conference in 1932. If such an agreement has to come everything will depend upon the driving force with which we push the opportunity home. We have debated this subject before. When the predecessor of the President of the Board of Trade represented the Government, I am bound to say that the whole impression he made upon me was that, apart from missing an opportunity, the very mention of the subject seemed to plunge him into a fit of melancholia. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman to-day is not going to be driven from a path which is obviously wise and advantageous to the trade of this country by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and that this opportunity is not going to be allowed, like the Disarmament Conference, finally to end in smoke.

There is one further feature of the Agreement to which I would call attention, because it seems to tie our hands at the moment when they ought to be free. It is the Clause which practically extends the system of Imperial Preference to the Colonies and Protectorates; to what one might call the dependent Empire. That is important again from the point of view of our general policy. The year before last the Foreign Secretary of that time, now the Home Secretary, delivered a famous speech at Geneva in which he told the world that we would consider the question of access to raw materials. That was our initiative, and as a result of that initiative discussions are now taking place at Geneva. It is quite clear that on an examination of the arguments put forward by Dr. Schacht and other German leaders most of their arguments are wrong. The argument that they find difficulty in obtaining raw materials from the British Colonies and Protectorates is obviously contrary to well-known facts, because the Colonies have been willing to sell raw materials to anybody, inasmuch as they have had an excess of production.

There is, however, one argument which has been brought forward by German spokesmen and by the spokesmen of the Allied nations which appears to me logically, economically and perfectly sound. The argument is that you cannot easily buy goods, raw materials, from our Colonies unless you can sell goods to them equally easily, and that if you put any country or any group of countries at a disadvantage in selling goods to our Colonies you put them at a disadvantage in buying raw materials from those Colonies. That appears to me to be a valid argument and it will probably be the final argument that will emerge from the discussions at Geneva. The difficulty in which we are now is that by this new Trade Agreement with Canada we prohibit ourselves from meeting that argument. We deliberately put them at a disadvantage in selling to our Colonies and, therefore, at a disadvantage in buying from them.

I am very strongly of the opinion that we shall probably find, if we are going to be at all reasonable, that we shall have to go back to the old policy of equal economic opportunity which we maintained for many generations. I have here a copy of the very famous utterance of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in which he pointed out how different we were from any other country in the world, how we acted as trustee for the native inhabitants and how we imposed no barriers of any preferential kind against the sale of goods by any foreign countries in our Colonies. He could not have made that speech today. So long as we maintained that policy we had a great British Empire, as great as now, practically without any challenge or complaint from the rest of the world, and we shall probably have to go back to it. It is because our power of doing so is prohibited for three years by this Agreement that I raise the point.

7.40 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as if the improvement in world trade and particularly our share of it has come upon us without our taking any action such as we have taken in recent years to stimulate recovery. If there is one thing clear surely it is that our improved commercial position in the world to-day is consequent upon the changes we have made in our fiscal system and the agreements that we have made not only with the Empire but with foreign countries. I think it is deplorable at the present time to talk about the removal of trade barriers and reverting to the former system of free and open markets and even to be contemplating that as a possibility. Hon. Members who speak in that way obviously entirely forget the lesson of rearmament. The right hon. Gentleman has hinted that he would re-open the disarmament discussion and throw away once more our position of security in the world at large. They also forget the lessons that we had to learn in the field of national defence, and they are asking us to ignore it in the field of trade defence. Representing as some of us do a part of the country which at long last is beginning to feel some small results from the trade agreements that have been made and the international bargains which we are now able to conclude, I enter my protest most strongly against any suggestion that we should relax our efforts in maintaining our trade defences and if necessary still further extending them, or that we should weaken our Imperial nationalism.

7.43 P.m.

Sir A. Sinclair

I approach this agreement with a very different feeling from that with which I approached the Ottawa Agreements. The Ottawa Agreements were the principal subjects of controversy in the general election which took place in Canada a year ago, when Mr. Bennett and Mr, MacKenzie King both declared that the result of the election would show what the Canadian people thought about the Ottawa Agreements. Mr. Bennett said that before the election took place and Mr. MacKenzie King used those words after the election. Mr. Dunning, in commending this Agreement to the House, drew attention to the ways in which it differed from the Ottawa Agreements and said in particular that the improvements that had been made in this Agreement as compared with the Ottawa Agreements would enable adjustments to be made as between the economic systems of Empire countries and those of foreign countries outside. In so far as this Agreement is a remarkable step in advance from the Ottawa Agreements I appreciate it, and I feel sure that if we had had in this country a Government of a complexion similar to that of the Canadian Government it would have been a very much better Agreement.

We are faced at the present time with a very important decision which has to be made in economics and world politics. The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) declared that our improved position is consequent on the adoption by this country of protection and preference. That is an opinion which he shares with a great many other hon. Members, but it is an opinion which I strongly oppose.

Sir J. Nall

The right hon. Gentleman cannot dispute the sequence of events.

Sir A. Sinclair

No more than the hon. Member can dispute the fact that the greatest increase in prosperity in this country was under Free Trade. If we go into that question I am afraid we shall be involved in trouble with the Chairman, but on any suitable occasion I shall be delighted to meet the hon. Member in argument on that general proposition. When he went on to say that in deciding our attitude we should draw upon the lessons of rearmament, I was not quite sure what he meant. The most obvious lesson of rearmament, as we have always prophesied since the Ottawa Agreements were made is that the effect of treating trade as a means of national aggrandisement, excluding foreign countries from our Colonial Empire, must inevitably be an intensification of foreign rivalries, hostilities, suspicion and envy. Our prophecy has been justified. These economic weapons of tariffs and quotas have inevitably bred the more terrible military armaments of battleships, tanks and bombs. The lesson is that rearmament is a direct consequence of the policy of economic Imperialism, upon which we embarked at Ottawa. Now we have an opportunity of changing that policy.

Unfortunately I cannot quote the exact words of Mr. Dunning in the Canadian Parliament—his speech appears in the "Times"—but he said that we should now have an opportunity of adjusting the system of Imperial Preference to the needs of wider agreements with the world outside. At the present moment there is so much encouragement for the idea of taking down the barriers between nations and restoring a greater measure of trade and intercourse, that we think His Majesty's Government should lend the whole weight of its authority to the movement. Mr. Cordell Hull, President Roosevelt and the United States Ambassadors in this country and in France have shown in their speeches how much importance the American Government attach to this movement. Dr. Schacht has said that Germany is only reluctantly following the path of autarchy and Germany would prefer to follow the same path. The Oslo countries, including Finland, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, have already advanced a substantial way along that path, and all the American countries, North and South America, at Monte Video last autumn, strongly supported the lead which Mr. Cordell Hull gave them towards economic disarmament.

The Chairman

I have a recollection of hearing these same words used on the previous Clause. I think we must not repeat the debate on the previous Clause.

Sir A. Sinclair

I was attempting to depict the choice before us. We are faced at this moment with a grave choice between intensifying the policy of economic Imperialism or taking advantage of the movement towards freer trade which is now springing up spontaneously in so many countries. In the past Ministers have told us that we would take down our tariffs if other countries would do the same. I am saying that other countries are beginning to go along that path, and I am urging the Government to co-operate in that policy.

Mr. Crossley

Over and over again the right hon. Gentleman in these Debates has made certain vague remarks about Mr. Cordell Hull and President Roosevelt, but I have never seen anything of any kind which could possibly be called a specifie suggestion or offer. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to all the time as these great gestures on the part of the United States? It there anything in them really?

Sir A. Sinclair

Of course there is, if the hon. Member had studied these speeches. Of course there is no specific offer. Offers are not made in that way. You do not make specific proposals for a reduction in tariff schedules in speeches. That is not the way in which these negotiations are conducted. You do not get down to concrete terms until you get round a table. But short of any specific offer, may I refer him to the Resolution of the Monte Video Conference, at which all the American nations including the United States were represented, and which makes it apparent that these nations are not only prepared to go as far as we are along the line of economic appeasement but that they consider it is the only way of achieveing military as well as economic disarmament and averting the risk of war?

If the hon. Member wishes to have the opinion of an Imperial statesman, I would refer him to General Smuts, who has made speeches in exactly the same terms. To anyone who has followed the speeches which have been made there is no doubt that these nations are aghast at the prospect which faces us if we continue on our present lines, aghast at the prospect of a recurrence of the slump to which the President of the Board of Trade referred only a fortnight ago, and aghast at that fear of renewed slump to which our attention is directed by a very important letter to the "Times" to-day, signed by some of the greatest economists in the country, of unimpeachable authority and impartiality. All over the world people are beginning to be convinced that unless we can restore overseas trade we shall be faced with a slump, with still heavier armaments and with the catastrophe of war.

Captain Strickland

Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that the slump of 1931 was caused by our tariff policy?

The Chairman

I think I can help the right hon. Baronet on that question. I really do not think I can allow the question of the Clause standing part, putting a new agreement in place of the old Ottawa Agreements, to be the basis for a general discussion on economic world policy.

Captain Strickland

I only raised the point because it was raised by the right hon. Member, who asserted and was not stopped that a cause of the slump was the tariff system.

The Chairman

If I have failed perhaps in the past, I think I must now retrieve my failure.

Sir A. Sinclair

I did not say that tariffs were the cause of the slump in 1931, although they contributed greatly to it. I was pointing out the opportunity with which we are faced, the great choice we have to make. The difficulty which this agreement presents is that although it is a great improvement on the Ottawa Agreement, it still contains two vicious principles which may make agreements with foreign countries difficult. One is the guaranteed margin of preference and the other is the closing of the Colonial door. Those are two things which make me unhappy regarding this agreement, and if the issue is challenged I object so strongly to these two principles that I shall be compelled to vote against the agreement on those two grounds. I hope the Government, however, will succeed in persuading the Canadian Government, which on its public form one would certainly suppose to be anxious to facilitate an arrangement between this country and Canada and the United States and I hope with every Dominion country for an increase in trade and a reduction of tariff barriers; one would have thought that they would be anxious to facilitate such an arrangement, and I hope that this agreement, although it has these objectionable features, will not prove in practice to be a bar to the conclusion of a wider agreement. Nevertheless I am so opposed to these principles that if a Division is called I shall certainly vote against the Clause.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Boothby

Let me say one word in reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). There is a concensus of opinion that an agreement between this country and the United States is perhaps the most desirable thing that could happen in the world to-day, and we are all anxious that nothing shall be done, that no Clause shall be passed which would militate against such an agreement. I am not satisfied, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said anything to convince the Com- mittee, that there is anything in this Clause to prevent such an agreement being signed. 1 would remind the right hon. Gentleman that as far as the British Empire is concerned our interests are immensely bound up with those of the United States. It is just as important to our Dominions to get a solution of the gold problem as it is to the United States; it is just as important for the Dominions to see the commodity price level maintained as it is to the United States. All these questions vitally affect us all, and there are many hon. Members who, whilst supporting the principle of Imperial Preference, feel that at the same time there can be no ultimate solution of any of these larger problems, which affect the Dominions just as much as the United States, unless there is some economic agreement covering not merely a reduction in tariffs, but covering the price level, the position of gold and currency as well.

I think it would be most unfortunate if it went out that there was a great body of opinion in this country opposed in principle to any agreement being arrived at with the United States. On the contrary, there is a great body of opinion which thinks that it would be in the best interests of this country and of the Dominions themselves. There is a large body of opinion supporting that view, and all we want is an assurance from the Government that we are not going to pass anything in the Bill which will in itself make the conclusion of such an agreement more difficult.

8.0 p.m.

Major Hills

The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) will forgive me if I point out that his speeches, in my opinion, do not help in the formation of opinion which would support an agreement with the United States. I want to see an agreement with the United States, and when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the old Free Trade policy before 1932, I must say that I do not want to see a reversion to the position which existed before that year. The one thing which I think might remove or lessen the possibility of an agreement with the United States would be the idea that it was the beginning of a policy of opening the door wider and returning to Free Trade as it existed before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness may smile, but I am sincere when I say that I want an agreement with the United States.

Sir A. Sinclair

If that agreement did not open the door wider, of what use would it be?

Major Hills

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that an agreement between two countries is a different thing from opening the door wide to the world. May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman from where he gets proof of the idea that economic nationalism is a cause of war, and why he links the economic question with the peace question? I do not believe they have any connection, and I am certain that talk of an economic settlement in Europe before a political settlement has been achieved is useless. My main purpose in speaking was to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness that he will set many people of my way of thought against the idea of an agreement with the United States of America if he urges that that should be the first step in a general reversion to Free Trade as it existed before 1932.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Walter Smiles

The good which the Government have done is very often quickly forgotten. As one who represents a textile constituency, I wish to place on record our gratefulness for the tariff policy pursued by the Government. When one sees 10 or 12 cotton mills opening and far more people going to work, one wonders where the good came from, and there can be no doubt that the trade agreements which the Government have concluded with foreign countries and the preferential tariffs for the Dominions have done a very great deal of good to Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition, in mentioning German trade with the Colonies, seems to have forgotten that there is a very large Free Trade area in our Colonies and Protectorates, the area covered by the Congo Basin Treaties. Many of us would like our cotton goods to go in there under a preferential tariff, but we appreciate that they cannot. We also recognise the fact that in many of the Colonies on the East Coast of Africa, Germany has imported far more in manufactured goods than she has taken from them in exports.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the question of the substitution of one agreement with Canada for another.

Sir W. Smiles

I was trying to answer some of the arguments put forward by other hon. Members, but I will conclude by reminding hon. Members, with reference to the remarks which have been made about an economic understanding with the United States of America, that at the World Economic Conference in London, it was the United States which torpedoed the arrangements on the very first day of the conference. Perhaps the tariff policy which we are now pursuing his led them to desire an agreement with us.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. C. Brown

I do not intend to enter into a discussion of the questions of high policy which have been raised in the Debate, but simply to ask the Minister a question with regard to Sub-section (3) of Clause 3, in which there is a reference to stockings or socks made wholly of silk or containing silk components. I wish to know whether these proposals will adversely or beneficially affect my constituents, and I should be obliged if the Minister who replies would tell me what changes, if any, are being made with regard to preferences to Canada in connection with the sending of silk stockings into this country. I know that I could find that information myself by looking up the necessary references, but it would be far better if the Minister would give it to me.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith

In discussing trade agreements with the Dominions or their effect on agreements with other countries, we must start from the proposition that none of these agreements fulfils the purpose for which it is embarked upon unless it results in a lowering of tariffs. That is a very elementary proposition, but one which does not seem to be generally accepted. The advantage of hearing three speeches in succession from the benches opposite was that it enabled one to grasp the very wide divergence of opinion among hon. Members of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) seemed, on the whole, to be an opener of doors, at any rate within reasonable limits. As far as the United States is concerned, he wanted to see them opened. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) seemed to be a slammer of doors, and that is the only way in which one can describe him. The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) wanted to keep the doors firmly ajar, neither one thing nor the other.

Mr. Boothby

The hon. Member has now discovered the secret of why we always win General Elections.

Mr. Griffith

Exactly. I wish now to discover whether the policy adumbrated by the hon. Member for Hulme represents the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I hope that the Minister who replies will address himself to that matter. The hon. Member for Hulme said that talk of the removal of tariff barriers is deplorable, and he wanted that talk to cease. If that be the case the foundation is taken away from a great many eloquent speeches addressed to the world by the representatives of His Majesty's Government, who have generally said that the Government are in favour of removing tariff barriers, but have given it firmly to be understood that they must be other people's barriers in the first place. That is a possible proposition, but it is a very different one from that enunciated by the hon. Member for Hulme. It is my fear that the remarks of the hon. Member for Hulme really represent the views of a majority of the supporters of the Government that leads me to pay very grave attention to them. I am very much afraid that in this matter, in the end, the tail may wag the dog, and that the influence will permeate from the hack benches to the Front Bench. I do not know who will reply to the Debate for the Government, but I had rather hoped that it would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After all, the tariff policy of this country is one of the charges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he cannot evade that fact. Although the right lion. Gentleman has made one short and non-committal speech to-day with regard to an Amendment which, as the result of a Ruling from the Chair, was withdrawn, he has not contributed to our wisdom on this very important question in any respect.

The Deputy-Chairman

I must point out to the hon. Member that this Clause simply deals with the substitution of one agreement with Canada for another, and that is not a peg on which he can hang the entire tariff argument.

Mr. Griffith

I am not trying to pursue the entire tariff argument, but the tariff argument does impinge upon the question of how we are to regard this particular agreement, how much good we find in it, and how much bad. I cannot divorce the discussion of this agreement altogether from the general tariff policy. I submit that the attitude of the Committee to this particular agreement must be largely affected by whether it takes the attitude of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen or that of the hon. Member for Hulme, and it is for that reason that I have called attention to the views expressed in those speeches and have paid a great deal of attention to them. I should pay still more attention and place much more importance on the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I knew what they were. I agree that it would be very embarrassing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with a matter such as this, but it will be very difficult for us if he goes into cold storage, as it were, whenever acute matters of fiscal controversy are raised, as they are on this question. If it turns out that the right hon. Gentleman is maintaining a moderating influence in the Cabinet, and preventing views such as those of the hon. Member for Hulme from ruling the day, I shall be relieved to hear it, but I should like to hear it from the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am watching the Chancellor of the Exchequer with an almost pathological interest, because I remember how previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), for instance, gradually sank and abandoned every one of their fiscal views, except the principle, and finally appeared to abandon that. I would like to know how far mortification has set in in the case of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that at some time we may be able to discover that.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Bellenģer

Obviously it would be out of order to discuss the whole tariff position, but unfortunately there are many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and perhaps in other parts as well, who think, perhaps justifiably, that the Canadian Agreement prejudices the whole position of British trade, inter-Imperial and international. There is one matter on which we ask that the Government should give us an indication. Although we know that there are certain features of the Canadian Agreement, and the Ottawa Agreements as well, which have undoubtedly helped to increase the volume of trade between this country and the Ottawa countries, we also know that there are still 1,500,000 unemployed in this country, and it is that with which we are concerned. We wish to take the long view. We know that, although the agreements which we are discussing may have helped in some small part to increase the volume of trade between this country and Canada and the other Dominions, that is only a small part of the whole problem. It is obvious that the Government sees that, because they, in conjunction with the French Government, have invited the Prime Minister of Belgium to try to produce evidence that we could increase the volume of our trade. All we are asking for is a statement of Government policy in relation both to Imperial agreements, such as the Canadian Agreement, and the whole problem of international trade.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson

Before I deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) may I answer a specific question put to me by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown)? He asked me how this agreement would affect his own constituency. I am afraid I cannot predict what the effect will be on his constituency, but I can tell him that the result of the agreement is to reduce the duty on these silk stockings from five-sixths to two-thirds of the standard rate.

Mr. C. Brown

It will be easier for them to come in now.

Mr. Hudson

That is doubtless true and it may also be that it will result in the hon. Member's constituency having to meet rather keener competition than it has had to meet in the past, but I have no doubt that, as a convinced Free Trader, the hon. Member welcomes that prospect.

Mr. Brown

The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. I am not a convinced Free Trader.

Mr. Hudson

If the hon. Member is not a Free Trader then, no doubt, he will vote in favour of this agreement for Imperial Preference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that on the whole he thought this agreement an improvement on the previous agreement, and I was glad to hear that he approved to that extent of the work which we have been able to do in this matter. I do not wish to go over the details which were given by the former President of the Board of Trade, during the Debate on the Financial Resolution. I would only invite the Committee to note that the effect of the first Ottawa Agreement was to raise the total value of trade between this country and Canada from £59,000,000 in 1932, to £98,000,000 last year. That represents a considerable improvement on the conditions of four years ago and if, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, the new agreement is even better than the first Ottawa Agreement, I hope we shall be able to look forward to an even greater increase in the ensuing four years.

Sir A. Sinclair

Does the hon. Gentleman really tell the Committee that the increase which he has just mentioned was the effect of the Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. Hudson

I think undoubtedly the agreement helped considerably to foster that increase. The proof of that is to be found in the fact that whereas our trade has increased, taking the world as a whole, no less than 80 per cent. of that increase is with the countries which come within the Trade Agreements. Therefore we are entitled to say that those agreements must have played a considerable part in the increase in trade.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley was worried in one respect about this agreement. He suggested that we had prohibited ourselves in advance by it for three years from making arrangements with other countries. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained earlier, that is not quite accurate, because Article 16 of the agreement specifically provides that in the event of changed circumstances, it shall be open to the two Governments con- cerned to consult together and to see what variations may be required in the agreement. The article provides that, in the event of circumstances a rising which in the judgment of the Government of the United Kingdom or of the Government of Canada, as the case may be, necessitate a variation in the terms of this Agreement, the proposal to vary those terms shall be the subject of consultation between the two Governments.

Mr. Holdsworth

But would it not be open to the Canadian Government under that Article to say "We cannot agree that there shall be any variation in the agreement, even though circumstances may have changed"?

Mr. Hudson

I propose to deal with that argument in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley went on to express the fear that however prosperous the country may be now, we ought to be considering what will happen in two or three years time when the boom comes to an end and we enter on a period of depression. I have never admitted that alternations between trade booms and trade depressions result from an Act of God. I think they are more likely to result from the folly of man. Whether or not it will be possible to overcome that folly and to take steps in advance to prevent it developing, is another matter. It is precisely because we believe that it is necessary to foresee that folly and that the best method of preventing its consequences is to develop trade throughout the world, to increase the total volume of trade, that we are making these proposals.

Reference has been made to the possibility of getting an agreement with the United States. It seems to me that there would be no real advantage in getting an agreement with the United States, if it merely meant diverting some of the existing quantum of trade from one country to another. The whole essence of our policy, in trying to get this agreement, is to see whether we cannot increase the total volume of trade. Thus there is no real difference between the policy of Imperial Preference and the policy of trade agreements in that respect. That is also the answer to the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). If it were made clear to the Canadian Government, in the next year or in the next few months, that there was a possibility, not of merely diverting a certain amount of trade from one country to another, but of increasing the total volume of trade in which we should all have a share, it is difficult to believe that that Government, especially in view of their record as shown in the existing agreement, would refuse to meet us in the manner suggested.

The essence of the existing agreement is that it does provide for a substantial increase in trade. Mr. Runciman (as he then was) gave a list of the articles on which the Canadian Government had re-

duced the duties and a list of articles on which they promised not to increase the duties. Those lists represent a very considerable improvement and an important step along the road which we all wish to follow, namely, that of reducing trade barriers. For those reasons I hope the Committee will agree to the Clause.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 130.

Division No. 210.] AYES. [8.22 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Frcmantle, Sir F. E Mellor. Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Ganzoni, Sir J. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Albery, Sir Irving Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Gledhill, G. Moreing, A. C.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gluckstein, L. H. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Atholl, Duchess of Goodman, Col. A. W. Nail, Sir J.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Gower, Sir R. V. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Palmer, G. E. H.
Balniel, Lord Gridley, Sir A. B. Peake, O.
Barrie, Sir C. C. Grimston, R. V. Perkins, W. R. D.
Baxter, A. Beverley Gritten, W. G. Howard Petherick, M.
Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Porritt, R. W.
Beit, Sir A. L. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Power, Sir J. C.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Guy, J. C. M. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Bird, Sir R. B. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Procter, Major H. A.
Blair, Sir R. Hannah, I. C. Radford, E. A.
Blaker, Sir R. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Boothby, R. J. G. Harbord, A. Ramsden, Sir E.
Bossom, A. C. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Rankin, Sir R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Boyce, H. Leslie Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Rayner, Major R. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Bull, B. B. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Bullock, Capt. M. Higgs, W. F. Rickards, G. W. (Skioton)
Burton, Col. H. W. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Ropner, Colonel L.
Carver, Major W. H. Holmes, J. S. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cary, R. A. Hopkinson, A. Rowlands, G.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Horsbrugh, Florence Salmon, Sir I.
Channon, H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Salt, E. W.
Christie, J. A. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Samuel, M. R. A.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford) Hume, Sir G. H. Selley, H. R.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinsteao) James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Shakespeare, G. H.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Joel, D. J. B. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Colfox, Major W. P. Keeling, E. H. Simmonds, O. E.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Kimball, L. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Cox, H. B. T. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Craven-Ellis, W. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Critchley, A. Lees-Jones, J. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Crooke, J. S. Levy, T. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Cross, R. H. Lewis, O. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Crossley, A. C. Liddall, W. S. Strauss, E. A. (Southward, N.)
Crowder, J. F. E. little, Sir E. Graham- Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Cruddas, Col. B. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Strickland, Captain W. F.
De Chair, S. S. Lloyd, G. W. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ds enman, Hon. R. D. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Denville, Alfred Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Doland, G. F. Mabane, W. (Hudderafield) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Donner, P. W. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Dower, Major A. V. G. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Touche, G. C.
Duggan, H. J. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Train, Sir J.
Duncan, J. A. L. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Eastwood, J. F. Magnay, T. Turton, R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Wakefield, W. W.
Ellis, Sir G. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. s.
Emery, J. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Markham, S. F. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Errington, E. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Wells, S. R.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Womersley, Sir W. J. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Wise, A. R. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Withers, Sir J. J. Wragg, H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F, Dyke Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Parker, J.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parkinson, J. A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Price, M. P.
Adamson, W. M. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pritt, D. N.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Quibell, D. J. K.
Amnion, C. G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Barnes, A. J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ridley, G.
Barr, J. Holdsworth, H. Riley, B.
Batey, J. Hopkin, D. Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. J. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. w. W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Broad, F. A. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Rowson, G.
Bromfield, W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sanders, W. S.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Sexton. T. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J, (S. Ayrshire) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, A.
Burke, W. A. Kelly, W. T. Silverman, S. S.
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Simpson, F. B.
Cluse, W. S. Kirby, B. V. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cocks, F. S. Lawson, J. J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cove, W. G. Leach, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lee, F. Sorensen, R. W.
Daggar, G. Leonard, W. Stephen, C.
Dalton, H. Leslie, J. R. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Logan, D. G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lunn, W. Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Thorne, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McEntee, V. La T. Thurtle, E.
Ede, J. C. McGhee, H. G. Tinker, J. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McGovern, J. Viant, S. P.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) MacLaren, A. Walkden, A. G.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Maclean, N. Walker, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Marshall, F. Watson, W. McL.
Foot, D. M. Mathers, G. Welsh, J. C.
Frankel, D. Maxton, J. Westwood, J.
Gallacher, W. Montague, F. White, H. Graham
Gardner, B. W. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Muff, G. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Nathan, Colonel H. L. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gibbins, J. Naylor, T. E. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Noel-Baker, P. J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Oliver, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Owen, Major G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.