Sitting of 30 June 1921

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Manchester (Police, etc.) Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.
Earby Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that
    2304
    Sapper James Micklin, No. 12,105, Royal Engineers, has since May, 1918, been under treatment for tuberculosis at the Moxley sanatorium, Wednesbury; that he has been in receipt of full allowance until 8th June last; that he has now been informed by the regional director that a final allowance of £1 per week will be made for a further six weeks only; and that he is so ill as to be unable to work; and will he have a thorough investigation made into this case?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I regret that in the short time available I have not been able to obtain the full facts of this case from the Birmingham regional office, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that H. Ballard, of 37, Lydford Road, Paddington, late of the Royal Garrison Artillery, lost a leg above the knee during the War; that Ballard, who is still unable to take employment, is in receipt of 24s. a week, upon which he is entirely dependent for his livelihood; and that, although this man has been medically certified as unfit to work for the present, his treatment allowance has just been stopped; and if he will inquire into this case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This man re-received treatment and allowances for the eight weeks ending 23rd June, when it was medically certified that no further treatment was necessary, and payment of pension at the scheduled rate appropriate to his disablement was accordingly resumed. Treatment allowances can only be paid under the Warrant while treatment continues and while the man is, in consequence of the treatment, unable to work.
    Sir F. HALL: To what amount would this poor man have been entitled if, instead of going to the War, he had stayed at home, and earned the wages that were applicable in his case? What unemployment benefit would he have had?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I have stated the full amount.
    Sir F. HALL: He would have done a great deal better by staying at home.

    APPEAL TRIBUNALS, LONDON.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether any, and, if so, how many additional appeal tribunals have been set up in the London region since the 28th February last; what is now the average number of appeals being heard each week; and what is the usual period which at present elapses between the date on which an appeal is received by the tribunal and the date on which it is listed for hearing?
    Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. There are at present eight Pension Appeal Tribunals sitting in London, dealing with approximately 400 cases each week. The average period elapsing between the date a London area appeal is received by the tribunal and the date on which it is listed for hearing is about seven weeks. The number of waiting appeals in this area have been considerably reduced since March last.
    Sir F. HALL: Cannot steps be taken to set up additional tribunals, in order that this work can be expedited?
    Major BARNSTON: I will communicate that suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Sir F. HALL: That is practically the purport of the question. In order that there may be some improvement, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that that is done?

  GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND OFFICES.

    IRISH OFFICE.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many officials in his Department at present receive a salary, including war bonus, of £1,000 or over, and how many received a salary of £1,000 or over in June, 1914.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The number of officials in the Chief Secretary's Office (which includes the Belfast Branch and the Irish Office in London) who are paid from the Vote for that Department and are in receipt of salaries in excess of £1,000 per annum apart from war bonus is two, in addition
    2306
    there are six officials whose salaries, together with war bonus at the current rate, exceed £1,000 per annum, or who are paid inclusive salaries in excess of that amount. The corresponding number in June, 1914, was two.

    CIVIL SERVICE (COST).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public demand for a reduction in the cost of the Civil Service, he will follow the precedent of one at least of the State Governments of Australia and cause to be set up an impartial Committee which, dealing with the higher salaried officials of each Government Department, will examine each official and decide whether his experience and capability is adequate and, where adequate, necessary to the efficient working of the Department, and the decision of the Committee in each case to be final and not subject to the concurrence of the Minister in charge of the Department?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): My hon. and gallant Friend's proposal runs counter to the whole principle of the responsibility of Ministers to this House for the efficient and economical administration of the Departments under their control; and I fear, therefore, that I cannot agree to his suggestion.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman get into communication with the: representative of New South Wales in this country and ask him how the Government of New South Wales Government dealt with their officials?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid New South Wales could not possibly teach us how a committee can discover the adequacy of an official for a particular post as well as the Minister in charge of the Department.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in New South Wales, a committee did it successfully?

    BOYS' WAGES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as stated in the Press, boys of 17 years of age in the Civil Service receive salaries and bonus equal to £212 per annum, and that boys of 15 years of age in the Ministry of Health receive 35s. a week?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Boys of 17 years of age if employed in the clerical class would at the present rates of bonus, receive, in London, total remuneration at the rate of£159 a year, which will be reduced to £135 a year from the 1st September next on the revision of bonus. Few, if any, boys of this age are at present employed in this class. The total remuneration of boys of 17 in other classes of employment is considerably less and varies with the grade down to about 31s. 6d., which figure will likewise be reduced by the revision of bonus. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Islington, on the 14th June.
    Commander BELLAIRS: How can the hon. Gentleman tell the exact amount on 1st September next, seeing that an average is taken on the first of each month?
    Mr. YOUNG: Of course it must be an estimate.

    DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the officials in his Department, who have had business experience in the export and import trades and who have studied trade conditions overseas, in the Dominions, and foreign countries, are members of the permanent Civil Service or ex-service men who have been brought in; if so, in what proportion; and whether in any contemplated reductions of staff the claims of ex-service men who have such knowledge will be specially considered?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Of the 48 market and trade officers, who have had business experience of import and export trade, 11 were members of the permanent Civil Service before their appointment to this grade, 12 were appointed to permanent posts from outside the Service, whilst 25 are temporary officers. Of this total of 48 officers, 30 have had service in the Army or Navy. As regards the market and trade officers and directing staff who have studied trade conditions overseas, 19 were employed as permanent Civil servants before their transfer to the Department, 10 now permanently
    2308
    employed had not been in the Civil Service before their appointment to the Department, whilst 33 are temporary officers. Of this total of 62 officers, 37 have had service in the Army and Navy. The hon. Member may rest assured that, in making reductions of staff, the fullest consideration will be given to those who have served in His Majesty's forces.

    POST OFFICE.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the approximate number of his headquarters and local staff who are entitled to an annual holiday of four weeks' duration, and the number who are entitled to an annual holiday exceeding 28 working days, exclusive of Bank holidays and other public holidays?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): Approximately, 3,400 are entitled to 24 working days annual leave and 1,500 to annual leave in excess of 28 working days, in all cases exclusive of Bank and other public holidays.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he will give the present salary, with or without war bonus, now drawn by a sorter, a postman who delivers and collects letters, a telephone exchange clerk, and a telegraphist in the London area, and the salary that was drawn by an official employed on the same kind and grade of work in August, 1914, or other convenient pre-War date?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As the particulars are in tabular form perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

  IRELAND.

    POLICE SEARCH, BALLYMENA.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the raid in Ballymena carried out by the Ulster special constables on Friday, 17th June; whether the houses of a number of Catholics in the town were raided, the system being to place in each house at about 4 o'clock a.m. two or three special constables who, in most cases, separated the men and women into different rooms and kept them there until an officer arrived to carry out a search, which meant

    2309
    that in many cases people were kept in this position from 4 o'clock until 9 or 10 o'clock; whether in most cases the special constables adopted a very aggressive and provocative attitude; whether in the case of one leading merchant the officer in charge took the keys from the assistant manager at his residence and, accompanied by two special constables, entered the business premises, which contained valuable goods and securities, and remained there for an half hour without informing the owner that any raid was intended, and unaccompanied by any representative of the owner; whether in the case of a hotel in the town special constables who were not under the control of an officer burst in the door, went through the hotel holding up everyone at the point of the revolver, and entered the room of an old lady about 80 years of age, a confirmed invalid, and ordered her to get out of bed; whether he can state who was responsible for this raid and for what purpose it was carried out; why was the raid directed against Catholics alone, as was evident from the questions asked some of the residents; whether the instructions issued by the Government are that the district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary, as executive officer for the district, should be consulted prior to such raids; whether the district inspector in Ballymena was consulted about this raid; whether there has been a clear breach of discipline; and whether he will cause a full and searching inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to ascertaining who were the parties responsible for this attack on the liberties and rights of the Catholic population of Ballymena?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A search was carried out in Ballymena on 17th June, following the receipt of important information of local rebel activities contained in captured documents. The number of houses visited was 21. The picketing of these houses prior to the arrival of the actual search party under an officer was a necessary precaution, and there have been no complaints of an aggressive or provocative attitude on the part of the men employed on this duty, all of whom were Class A special constables.
    As regards the visit to the business premises of a leading merchant, I am informed that a few of this gentleman's
    2310
    employés were among those to be searched. On learning that they worked at a store, the officer conducting the search considered it advisable to search their place of business, and obtain the keys for the purpose. He visited the premises at 8 a.m. accompanied by one non-commissioned officer, but finding that no one was yet in attendance, he left immediately without conducting a search.
    In the case of the hotel, the door was broken in, because of the delay in complying with a demand for admission. For their own protection the constables held up the inmates with their revolvers There were five males on the premises, and these were placed in one room. This was the only case in which men and women were separated. The invalid lady referred to was not ordered to get out of bed; her daughter was left in the same room with her while the house was searched.
    The general outlines of this operation had the approval of the responsible police officials, and the inquiry which has been made discloses no breach of discipline. I understand that the occupants of the houses searched, without exception, signed a certificate that nothing had been taken, and that in the majority of cases they expressed their thanks for the courteous manner in which the search was carried out.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what justification there was for this raiding of the houses of a number of respectable citizens of Ballymena?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have said it was the receipt of important information of local rebel activities.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite a customary thing for anonymous letters to be written to the authorities in order to have these outrages committed on the persons and homes of innocent people?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I get hundreds of anonymous letters weekly myself, but this was not based on an anonymous letter.
    Mr. DEVLIN: On what was it based?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it is in the public interest to say.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I must demand the information, because this was one of the most disgraceful outrages committed. These people were supporters of mine, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman's servants attacked them, including an old woman of 80 years, in the middle of the night.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a speech, not a question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What redress are these people to have? They were not guilty of any offence. An old lady of 80 was dragged out of her bed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member received an answer to his question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is there any redress to be given to these people? They live in the midst of a hostile Unionist majority, and they are marked now among the members of the community. There is no redress for them. No documents were found on them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will please put on the Paper the question about redress.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is there no limit to the outrages on these people? That is what I want to know.

    SHOOTINGS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a report as to the wounding of Mr. M. Leahy, who was shot by one of three men at Wren's Hotel, Cork, on 18th June; whether Leahy had been previously, arrested and only released from prison that morning; and whether his attackers have yet been traced?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: This place is in the martial law area, and I have therefore asked the Commander-in-Chief for a report. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question (of which I received notice only yesterday) on one day next week.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Chief Secretary whether he has yet received a report on the further investigations stated on 21st April and 13th May to be still proceeding into the death of Mr. John Geoghegan, who was said to have been shot by uniformed men at Meycullen on 20th February; and, since nearly five months have now passed since his death,
    2312
    whether it is yet possible to state if his murderers have been identified?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret to say that no further information has come to light in this case.

    MURDERS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an inquiry has yet been held into the death of a man named Reilly, of Birr, and another named Cunningham, of Belmart, both in King's County, stated to have been taken from their homes and shot on the 17th and 18th instant, respectively?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The finding of the Court of Inquiry in lieu of inquest held in each of these cases was that the deceased was murdered by some person or persons unknown. Both the murdered men were ex-soldiers, and were on very friendly terms with the troops stationed in the vicinity of their homes. This was probably the reason for their murder. Reilly leaves a widow and five children, and Cunningham a widow and three children.
    Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER -SHEEasked the Chief Secretary if he has any information with reference to the murder of Constable Patrick Clarke, of Cliffoney, County Sligo; of Constable Shanley, murdered, and Sergeant Ryan, wounded, when returning from mass at Kildorrery, County Cork, and with reference to the murder of an ex-soldier, Patrick Maher, at Moonkeena, County Tipperary, on Sunday 26th June?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for a full report on each of these cases, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question, of which I only received notice yesterday, on Thursday of next week.

    LORD CHANCELLOR (APPOINTMENT).
    Major C. LOWTHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a new Lord Chancellor has been appointed in Ireland in succession to Sir James Campbell; and what are the reasons for the change which involves a pension of £4,000 a year in addition to the pension of a like amount to another Irish ex-Chancellor?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Section 44 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, has now been brought into operation and a new

    2313
    Lord Chancellor has been appointed under the altered conditions attaching to the office which include the transfer of the custody of the Great Seal of Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant. It is not intended to fill the vacancy in the Chancery Division of the High Court which has been caused by the new appointment and this and other economies in contemplation will more than counter-balance the pension of the retiring Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Why was Sir James Campbell removed, and an old gentleman of nearly 70 years put in his place?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Lord Chancellor who has just retired was 70 years of age.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Was he asked to retire?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: His distinguished successor is a younger man. For all matters in Ireland I am responsible, and I take responsibility.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is not an answer to the question.
    Major LOWTHER: Was any pressure put upon Sir James Campbell to retire, and, if so, why was pressure put upon him?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The retiring Lord Chancellor is a member of His Majesty's Government. I do not intend—I hope the House will support me—to say anything further than that the retiring Lord Chancellor goes with the usual pension, and that as a reward for his distinguished services His Majesty the King has been pleased to offer him a peerage, which he has accepted.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Pursuing our inquiries into this most disgraceful job—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Sir James Campbell, a man of the greatest professional ability, was forced, against his will, out of this place which he held with distinction, in order to make way for another gentleman? May I ask secondly, with regard to this other gentleman, who has been described by the right hon. Gentleman as being the same age as Sir James Campbell, whether he was not too ill even to open the psuedo Parliament in Dublin on the day after his appointment? Finally, is it true that Sir James
    2314
    Campbell first learned of his dismissal from office when he read it in the newspapers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the statement contained in the last part of the question, I am glad to say there is absolutely no truth. As to the rest of the question, I decline to add anything to what I have already said.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what justification he is prepared to offer to the House and to the country for the appointment of a gentleman of 68 years of age, who is too ill to perform his duties, as a substitute for a gentleman who was in the best of health and spirits, had high legal attainments, and was the right-hand man of Lord Carson in the Provisional Government? Why he is now dismissed in favour of an old gentleman who is not fit to perform the duties of the office, while the State has imposed upon it an extra cost of £4,000 a year for this most disgraceful job? Why is this done while Dr. Addison, a decent man, is dismissed from office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    Major LOWTHER: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman—

    CREAMERIES (CLOSING).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary whether he can give any information as to the procedure adopted by the military authority in Ireland when orders are issued for the closing down of a creamery; how much notice is given to those responsible for the creamery; whether any opportunity is given to dispose of the perishable stocks of foodstuffs; and what arrangements are made by the authorities for the utilisation of the milk which farmers cannot dispose of owing to the closing down of such creameries?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The reasons for the closing down of a creamery and the duration of the restriction are notified by the Military Governor by Proclamation or through the Press. The Commander-in-Chief informs me that usually the creamery manager is handed a copy of the Proclamation, and that the length of notice given varies from one to four days at the Military Governor's discretion. It is not possible in such cases

    2315
    to make arrangements of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases when notice has been handed to a creamery to close on a certain date, that the closing order has been applied two or three days before the date fixed. Will he answer the last part of my question, as to what steps are being taken by the authorities for utilising the milk which farmers cannot dispose of to the creameries?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No steps.
    Mr. WATERSON: Are we to take it that in the case where a particular creamery is closed down, 6,000 gallons of milk a day are wasted?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. As a matter of fact, most creameries are not for the sale of milk at all, but are for the sale of milk products like butter and cheese, and the shutting down of the creamery is no hardship to the people of the locality so far as milk is concerned, although it is a hardship as far as the trade in products is concerned.
    Mr. WATERSON: But is not the right hon. Gentleman well aware that before the products of the creamery can be realised, milk must be secured? Seeing that the creameries are closed down, what is he doing with the milk?
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary whether the Tournafulla Co-operative Creamery, Limited, Tournafulla, County Limerick, has been closed by an order of the military; whether the closure was carried out on the 12th, although the proclamation was dated 16th June; whether the military on the 19th instant took away practically all the essential books of the society; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings, which fail to achieve their object and inflict hardship and injustice upon innocent persons?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Commander-in-Chief informs me that the Tournafulla Co-operative Creamery was closed for 14 days by proclamation of the military governor dated 16th June, on account of road cutting in the neighbourhood. The local military authority, however, misinterpreted his orders and closed
    2316
    the premises four days before the date decided upon. He also had the books removed, but this was remedied as soon as possible and the books returned. I am informed that necessary steps have been taken to ensure that the orders of the military governor are in future more precisely transmitted.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Ballyclough co-operative creamery has been closed by an order of the military; whether the Ballyclough Co-operative Society has been warned by a military officer that the creamery would be continued to be closed for a month unless the society cleared the roads; whether in the same district Messrs. Cleeve's proprietary creamery has been allowed to remain open; and on what grounds the distinction is made between a co-operative creamery and a proprietary creamery?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that Ballyclough co-operative creamery was closed for 14 days from 16th May by order of the Military Governor as a punishment to the inhabitants for allowing malicious damage to roads and failure to repair these roads voluntarily. A warning was embodied in the Proclamation to the effect that the question of extending the period of restriction would depend upon the compliance or other of the inhabitants in keeping the roads in their locality in a serviceable condition. As has already been stated it was laid down that not more than three creameries in any one area were to be closed at one time. In this instance these creameries were selected which were in each case close to where roads had been trenched or blocked. The fact that the creameries were proprietary or co-operative did not in any way affect the selection.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that this proprietary creamery is within a distance of 400 yards of the co-operative creamery? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the managers of creameries and their staffs to maintain roads when according to the law as applied in Ireland it is an illegal practice to possess the necessary arms in order to protect themselves? Seeing that these roads have been in many cases cut up by the armed forces

    2317
    of the Crown, does not the right hon. Gentleman regard the closing down of the creameries as a severe injustice?
    Mr. DEVLIN: That is why he does it.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman states that he closes down the creameries in order to punish the inhabitants of the district. Will he not bear in mind the fact that in punishing the inhabitants he is also punishing the people of this country by preventing them receiving the food products which they would otherwise get from these creameries?
    Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman does not care about that.

    PRISONERS AND INTERNEES.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Chief Secretary how many Irish civilians, men and women respectively, are at present serving sentences of penal servitude, of imprisonment with hard labour, and of imprisonment without hard labour, respectively, for offences arising out of the political condition of the country; how many are awaiting trial for such offences; how many are interned on suspicion; and whether he is ready to provide a monthly return giving these details, together with the convictions and arrests occurring in the month?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of men convicted in Ireland of offences arising out of the disturbed state of that country and at present undergoing sentences of penal servitude, imprisonment with hard labour, and imprisonment without hard labour is respectively 376, 706, and 145. The similar figures for women—two, two, and eight, respectively. The number of men in custody and awaiting trial or where cases have not yet been investigated is 1,553, and of women 26. The number of men interned under the provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulation 14B is 3,311. There are no women interned. As regards the last part of the question, I think that the most convenient and economical method of complying with the hon. Member's request will be that he should at reasonable intervals of time put down a question on the subject.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Has law and order been re-established after all this?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, in many parts of the country, and especially in that part from which the hon. Member comes.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I am not an adventurer from Canada.

    VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Ireland made a very large contribution to the medical and nursing staff of the nation during the War, and that the skill of those serving was to a large extent acquired in the voluntary hospitals of Ireland; if he will explain why Ireland was excluded from the reference to the Committee appointed by the late Minister of Health, and is in consequence excluded from the grant of £500,000 about to be made to the voluntary hospitals of the United Kingdom other than those of Ireland; and if Ireland will be granted a sum at least proportioned to her taxation as part of the United Kingdom?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that Ireland made a large contribution to the medical and nursing staff of the nation during the War. The British Government already makes an annual grant of over £16,000 to Irish hospitals. Under present conditions the Government does not see its way clear to ask the House to increase that grant. Lord Cave's Committee did not consider the condition of Irish hospitals on the ground that, under the Government of Ireland Act, hospitals in Ireland come under the provisions of the two Parliaments.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it a case of "live horse, and you will get grass." I am sure we have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy and we ask for its exercise in favour of our hospitals.
    Colonel Sir J. GREIG: Are there equivalent grants in England or Scotland to hospitals from public funds?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think similar grants are not made to hospitals in England or in Scotland, but exclusively to Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman says, I am fully sympathetic, but I regret from the point of view of Ireland that the people of this country have taken the view, and indeed it is the view under the Government of Ireland Act, that matters

    2319
    that come under the two Parliaments of Ireland can no longer be treated by this House, especially in face of the financial grants.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is there to be no contribution until the Irish Parliaments function concurrently? If so, we may have to wait indefinitely.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the fact that one of these Parliaments has postponed its deliberations till September and that the other does not propose to meet at all; and, in the meantime, while the hospitals are suffering and are in debt because of these political events, are they to be denied the advantages of this grant from the public Exchequer, to which Ireland pays its fair share? Answer that with all your sympathy.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Air how many airships are now in the possession of his Department and where they are housed; how many are of British construction and how many have been surrendered by the Germans; if his Department still have any further airships under construction; and, if so, how many, and what is the estimated cost of same?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): There are six airships in possession of the Air Ministry. The R.80 is at Howden; the R.33, the R.36, and the L.71 are at Pulham; and the R.37 and the R.38 are at Cardington, the last-named having been built for the United States. Of the six, five are of British construction and one, the L.71, was surrendered by the Germans along with another vessel, the L.64, which has been dismantled. There are no further airships under construction. The terms of the Government offer to dispose of the airships were issued as an Air Ministry Communiqué, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Colonel Sir A. SYKES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us which airship was floating over the House as hon. Members came in this afternoon?
    Captain GUEST: I think it was R.33.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that in another month's
    2320
    time we shall have finally disposed of these costly productions?
    Captain GUEST: Yes, Sir. The final date is the 1st August.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    UPPER SILESIA.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British officers have resigned their posts in Upper Silesia since the beginning of March; and for what reasons?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): According to the latest information in my possession, five officers have resigned their posts in Upper Silesia. Three of these resigned on grounds of ill-health, and two for private or family reasons.

    INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government have taken to give effect to the third resolution proposed by the Commission on International Trade at the Brussels International Financial Conference in 1920, and unanimously adopted by the Conference, in which it is recommended that each country should aim at the progressive restoration of freedom of commerce; and whether the declaration of the Supreme Council on 8th March, 1920, which stated that the States enlarged as a result of the War should at once arrange for the unrestricted interchange of commodities, is still adhered to by His Majesty's Government?
    Sir P. LLOYD - GREAME: His Majesty's Government have by the progressive removal of the controls established in war time, consistently followed the course advocated by the Brussels Conference. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the Bill which is to be discussed this afternoon is in direct contradiction to the proposals of this very distinguished Conference?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. I do not think it is the least in conflict with these proposals. Perhaps the hon. and

    2321
    gallant Gentleman is not aware that of the 39 countries represented at the Conference, all, I think, except this country, had protective tariffs.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better not discuss that until the proper time.

    AUSTRIAN REPARATION.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the various powers have signified their willingness to suspend their liens on Austria, so that Austrian assets may be released for raising foreign credits; and for what number of years are their liens to be suspended?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Great Britain, France, Belgium, Japan, Siam, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, and Poland have accepted the principle of the suspension of their liens on account of reparations for 20 years. Great Britain, Denmark, and Sweden have agreed to a similar suspension for the same period in respect of relief credits granted to Austria.

    GREECE AND TURKEY.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister what action is contemplated with regard to the reply of the Greek Government to the recent Allied representations; and what steps are being taken to end the hostilities between Greece and Turkey or to limit their scope and area?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): His Majesty's Government have not yet received the full text of the Greek reply nor considered what, if any, action it may require on their part.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be informed when the final reply is received and the action to be taken indicated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. Of course, no action will be taken without consultation with our Allies.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be informed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. If a question is put down in the course of the next few days, I may be able to communicate something about it.
    Lord R. CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will forthwith lay upon the Table a copy of the Report of the inter-Allied Commission which inquired into the recent alleged massacre of Turks by Greeks?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Inter-Allied Commission upon alleged Greek atrocities. The conclusions are summarised thus in the first paragraph of the Report:
    "Credible evidence has been produced as to crimes committed during the last twelve months by both Greeks and Turks. There is no doubt that there have been a large number of atrocities in the Ismid Peninsula, and it appears that those on the part of the Turks have been more considerable and ferocious than those on the part of the Greeks."
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when we may expect this Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We only saw it this morning ourselves, and it has yet to be printed. As soon as these processes are gone through it will be laid on the Table of the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any fresh information with regard to the situation on the Ismid Peninsula; whether the 14,000 refugees are being removed to Constantinople; whether the Soviet Commissar Chicherin has arrived at Angora and is encouraging the Kemalists to defy the Entente; and, further, whether he has any information as to negotiations taking place between the Bulgarians and the Kemalists.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no fresh information regarding the situation in Ismid except that the town was occupied by the Trukish forces on the morning of 28th June. I do not know the numbers of the refugees, nor what steps are being taken to deal with them. We have heard from Constantinople that M. Chicherin is believed to be at Angora, but have no other information. In regard to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have received from several sources indications which point to a desire on the part of the Angora Government to establish close relations with certain elements in Bulgaria.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is there any truth in the report to-day that the Allies have arrested 100 Russian Bolsheviks in Constantinople, including three Jewish commissaries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I have no official information to that effect.
    Mr. MILLS: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea as to the cost per head of the unemployed persons in Constantinople and in Cyprus?

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

    PROCEEDINGS (PUBLICATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister how it is pro posed to inform the House of Commons of the results of, and conclusions arrived at, the Imperial Conference now sitting; whether an agreed report of the proceedings will be issued; and, in particular, whether he will make a statement of the Government's decision with regard to the renewal or otherwise of the Anglo-Japanese alliance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Conference itself will decide what part of its proceedings shall be published. The House will be informed of the Government's decision in regard to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty as soon as it is possible to make a statement upon the subject.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to be given an opportunity of discussing this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would prefer that such a question should be put to the Leader of the House.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May we be quite certain that the House will not be faced with anything like an accomplished fact?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House will be kept fully informed of the progress of events. This is a matter of first class policy.

    IMPERIAL NAVY.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIRasked the Prime Minister whether the matters relating to the Imperial Navy which are being dealt with at the Imperial Conference will be settled and the results made known to Parliament in time for them to be considered in conjunction
    2324
    with Votes 8, 9, and 12 of the Navy Estimates; and whether a day will be allotted for this after the decisions of the Imperial Conference have been completed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present add anything to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend by the Leader of the House on Monday last.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is it really intended that it should be left to a small minority of this House to decide whether or not these important questions are to be discussed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.

    FORESTRY TRAINING CENTRE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
    Mr. RAWLINSONasked the Prime Minister what is the amount of grant being made, or proposed to be made, either as a capital sum or annually, to Oxford University in respect of the new single centre of training in forestry; how much is being contributed by India or Australia or other Dominions towards the expense of the centre; and whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing or voting upon this question before any grant is finally made?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question was answered yesterday, and appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I not have an answer to the latter part of the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would feel obliged if hon. Members put questions relating to the business of the House to the Leader of the House.

  POST OFFICE.

    TROOPS ABROAD (POSTAGE FACILITIES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the free postage facilities granted to soldiers serving abroad have been withdrawn except in the case of the forces in Mesopotamia; if so, will he state the reasons for this step; and why a distinction is drawn in favour of the Mesopotamian troops as against those serving in Palestine, Silesia, and elsewhere abroad?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. The facts are as stated in the question. The reason for the distinction is that troops in Mesopotamia are still regarded by the military authorities as serving under active service conditions.
    Sir F. HALL: If they are serving under active service conditions, does my right hon. Friend not think that, in like manner, the men in Silesia and Palestine are serving under active service conditions?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That is a point which I am not in a position to determine. I must be guided by the military authorities.
    Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Secretary of State for War upon this matter, and, if not, will he communicate as early as possible with the War Office in order that there may be no hardship placed upon soldiers serving in these spheres of, what has been termed, active service?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been in communication with the Secretary of State for War on the subject, and I shall continue to be in communication with him.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to give Notice that I shall put the same question to the Secretary of State for War on this day week.

    AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the great irregularity, both in arrival and despatch, of the Australian mails; and whether, if the pre-War weekly service is not possible, arrangements can be made with the Peninsular and Oriental and the Orient lines that each of them shall run a mail steamer once every four weeks to give a fortnightly service at regular intervals?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The recent irregularity in the Australian mail service has been due to the difficulty experienced in obtaining coal for the mail ships, which have thus been unable to maintain their scheduled dates of departure. I hope that it will be possible at an early date to make the arrangements suggested by the hon. Member.

    PICTURE POSTCARDS.
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Postmaster-General whether every picture postcard with a five-word message has to be read by a member of his staff to discover whether the message is purely congratulatory or conveys information; and, if so, seeing that an immense amount of public time is being wasted and paid for while officials are so employed to the detriment of their proper work, will he see that the practice of surcharging shall be discontinued?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: If this Regulation were in fact so troublesome to carry out as the hon. Member suggests, I fear that I should have no option but to prohibit any words at all. But I am happy to assure him that the trouble given in applying this Regulation (which is not a new one, but dates at least from 1903) has in practice proved negligible.
    Sir C. OMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that experiments are being made at the present time in sending their various forms of code messages and messages on the border between questions and statements, and that the result of the examination of them by those putting them through is that some are fined an extra penny and those who are not fined an extra penny are not divided from the other kind by any reasonable line? May I also point out—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! This information ought to be given to the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby.
    Sir C. OMAN: Is there not an equally obvious way of putting an end to this trouble by abolishing the extra halfpenny on picture postcards?

    TELEGRAMS (ASCOT RACES).
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of telegrams were sent from the Ascot grand stand telegraph office on behalf of Viscount Churchill on the evening of Wednesday, the 15th instant; whether these telegrams referred to the issue of vouchers for the grand stand, and were sent On His Majesty's Service; whether he will state the number of telegrams so transmitted, the total cost to the State, and the name of the Department by which the expenditure will be borne; and, having regard to the grave

    2327
    necessity for economy, will he issue instructions that official telegrams of this character shall not be transmitted at the public expense?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the conditions in industry, commerce, trade,. and agriculture during the last three months have been such as to warrant a revision of estimates of revenue as calculated on 31st March last; and, if so, what occasion does he propose to take in order that the nation may realise that its financial position is getting worse and worse, and the consequent necessity, not only for less expenditure, but also for more and cheaper production to secure larger exports?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am not in a position as yet to supplement the Budget statement. The main consideration affecting the estimates of revenue for the current year is the condition of industry, commerce, and finance in the quarter from January to March, 1922, which I cannot, of course, forecast accurately now. I do not think it probable, therefore, that I shall be able to give the House any revised figures of estimated revenue during the current Session. As regards expenditure, I certainly intend to take a suitable opportunity towards the end of the Session to make a statement on the general financial position.

    EX-LORD CHALCELLORS NOW RECEIVING PENSIONS.

    —

    Served as Lord Chancellor.

    Period.

    Pension.

    Great Britain—

    From—

    To—

    Earl Halsbury

    24 June, 1885

    17 Aug., 1892

    7 years 1 month

    17 years 6 months

    £5,000 p.a.

    29 June, 1895

    10 Dec., 1905

    10 years 5 months

    Earl Loreburn

    11 Dec., 1905

    10 June, 1912

    6 years 6 months

    Originally £5,000 but reduced to £2,500 p. a. from 4 Dec., 1918, at his own request.

    Viscount Haldane of Cloan.

    11 June, 1912

    26 May, 1915

    2 years 11½ months

    £5,00 p.a.

    Lord Buckmaster

    27 May, 1915

    10 Dec., 1916

    1 Year 6 months

    £5,000 p.a.

    Ireland—

    Baron Shandon

    26 Mar., 1913

    7 June, 1918

    5 years 2 months

    £3,692 6s. 1d. p.a.

    Mr. LAMBERT: Does my right hon. Friend really think that the estimated revenue as anticipated by the Leader of the House in his Budget statement will be realised?
    Sir R. HORNE: Oh, no; of course I do not; no sane man would.

    EX-LORD CHANCELLORS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ex-Lord Chancellors in Great Britain and Ireland are receiving pensions, the amount of each pension, and the length of service in the office by each recipient?
    Sir R. HORNE: With my right hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the desired particulars, which are in tabular form, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: Do these gentleman serve the State at the present time, although they are pensioned?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I think probably all do upon occasion, although two of them seldom now exercise any function apart from the performance of the ordinary duties of the House.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the list so long that it must be circulated, and not read to the House?
    Sir R. HORNE: No, it is not—
    Mr. DEVLIN: Would you please give it, then?
    Sir R. HORNE: It consists of a very large number of figures which, I am certain, that not even the most intelligent body could follow.
    Following are the particulars promised:

    PORTUGAL (LOAN ADVANCES).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government are at present negotiating a loan to Portugal; and, if so, what is the amount of such loan, the security, and the proposed terms of interest and repayment?
    Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no question of ah additional Government loan to Portugal, but the outstanding balance amounting to £1,500,000 of a loan made to Portugal early in 1916 has now been consolidated with other war advances to Portugal.
    Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us particulars of the basis on which the balance of the old loans have been amalgamated?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that. I could not tell at the moment.

    IRISH REPUBLICAN DEMONSTRATION, LONDON.
    Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER - SHEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a meeting of the Irish Self-Determination League was held in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, 26th June, and that the flag of the so-called Irish Republic was carried through the streets of London under police protection; and whether he-will give instructions that in future, if permission is granted for a political demonstration, it will only be granted on the express understanding that no rebel emblems shall be carried in the procession?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am aware of the facts mentioned in the question. No permission is required for these demonstrations; it is only necessary that the rules for Trafalgar Square should be observed and order maintained. Nor can flags of any particular colours be prohibited; action can only be taken if they are used as an incitement to sedition or disorder.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a good thing to allow the colours of people who are in rebellion at the present time to be carried through the streets of
    2330
    London; is he aware that, naturally, it is an outrage on the feelings of loyal people in this country?
    Mr. SHORTT: I doubt whether many people knew what the flag was.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of injury has been done to the feelings of these unfortunate fathers, mothers, and relations of the police and soldiers of this country who have been murdered in Ireland? Is he aware that this matter, if persisted in, is likely to lead to a most serious breach of the peace in London?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of those things.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to send him some information on the subject that will tell him something about Ireland that he does not know?
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give permission for an anti-Sinn Fein meeting to be held in Trafalgar Square at the same time and place?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman hold a meeting anywhere he likes?
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a display of rebel flags on the Nelson monument during a recent Irish republican demonstration in Trafalgar Square; whether he is aware of the great irritation thereby occasioned to loyal citizens, and that another demonstration of a similar character has been arranged to be held in Trafalgar Square on 2nd July; and whether he will take steps to ensure that that demonstration shall not be of such a character as may lead to any breach of order?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am aware that flags were displayed on this occasion, but I understand that the general public treated them with indifference. I am informed that a meeting to advocate peace with Ireland is to be held in Trafalgar Square on the 2nd July. No disorder is anticipated. If any should occur the police will deal with it.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has been asked to give permission for this meeting to be held?
    Mr. SHORTT: In the first place application for permission was not made to me. In any case, as long as the Regulations are complied with people are entitled to meet there.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Has any action been taken to prevent these intolerable demonstrations being held in London?

    RACE MEETINGS (POLICE DUTY).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary the number of the Metropolitan police force who were employed during the Epsom Derby race week and the Ascot race week; who paid the charge for the men so employed; if any part of the charge for attending these race meetings falls on the Metropolitan police fund; and, if so, how much?
    Mr. SHORTT: The number of Metropolitan police employed on the course at Epsom was 855, and at Ascot 524. All these were paid for. A large number of Metropolitan police were, of course, employed on the roads in the ordinary police duties of regulating traffic. I cannot give the exact number. Their cost falls, like that of other police employed elsewhere in similar duties, on the Metropolitan Police Fund.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: How do these numbers compare with the numbers of police set apart for the protection of people engaged in a much more mischievous function last Saturday at the League of Nations demonstration at Hyde Park?

    LONDON DOCKS (THEFTS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether, as a result of a deputation that waited on him recently from the City of London complaining of thefts of goods in transit through the docks and on import and export steamships, he appointed a committee to consider the matter; if this committee has yet reported; if so, what are their recommendations; and whether his Department proposes to act on the same?
    Mr. SHORTT: A committee was appointed by the Commissioner of Police before I saw the deputation, and that committee has submitted a report. The committee recommends the addition of a
    2332
    small detective staff to the Thames Division, and effect is being given to that proposal. The other recommendations deal with matters outside the powers of the Home Office, and I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to them at present.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is that report going to be published?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is under consideration; I think probably not.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Major COPEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as Chairman of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), whether the Board still exercise the power to veto the issue of Excise licences for the retail sale of wines and spirits to be held in conjunction with, the wholesale licences for those liquors as provided for in Section 111 of the Licence (Consolidation) Act, 1910; if so, whether this veto is exercised only in the case of licences under which retail sales are made to the public, or if it is also exercised in the case of licences for sales to licensed traders for the purpose of their trade; and if in the latter case whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to small traders who require for the purpose of their trade quantities of less than two gallons of particular wines or spirits, he will consider the advisability of not exercising this veto when the sales are to licensed traders for the purpose of their trade?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): The Board retain the power to veto the issue of new Excise licences which are not granted on the authority of a Justices' licence, but for some time past they have exercised this power only in the case of retail licences. Such licences when once obtained would be available for sales both to the public and to other licensed traders, and small traders of the type mentioned in the question should experience no difficulty in obtaining the quantities which they require through the existing trade channels.

    CEYLON.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether

    2333
    the Salary Commission has yet reported on the pay and allowances of the various grades of the British personnel of the Ceylon Civil Service; and, if so, if he will state what their recommendations are in the case of the white police force?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. E. Wood): The Salaries Commission has only recently begun its work, and its recommendations cannot be received for some time.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that the overcrowding in the single men's quarters of the white police force in Ceylon is such as to constitute a menace to health; whether he is aware that there is an instance of nine men sleeping in one room and six in another; and whether, having regard to the fact that the climate is a tropical one, he will at once take steps to provide better accommodation?
    Mr. WOOD: I have no information, but I will ask the Governor for a report.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend in giving those instructions ask what steps have been taken to interview the committee properly appointed to represent these men, with a view to considering the very serious grievance which they consider they are suffering from at the present time?
    Mr. WOOD: I shall be glad to put my Noble Friend's point before the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    WEST AFRICA (NATIONAL CONGRESS).
    Mr. SPOORasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further information from the Governors of Nigeria and the Gold Coast showing that the delegation from the National Congress of West Africa, which was recently in this country, was really representative of the native communities, and that it was not repudiated by the most authoritative exponents of native public opinion; and, if so, whether the representations made by the delegation will have consideration in the light of this further information?
    Mr. WOOD: No, Sir. All the information received tends in the opposite direction.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during the first five months of this year, the value of our exports averaged about £1,000,000 a day less than the value of our imports; if the indications for this month are any more favourable; and has he any information as to the extent to which invisible exports relieve the situation and the extent to which the recent excess of imports creates national impoverishment?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: During the first five months of the current year the excess in the declared value of the imports of merchandise into the United Kingdom over that of exports therefrom averaged £731,000 per day. I regret to say that I do not anticipate a smaller average daily excess for June than for May, when it exceeded £1,160,000. I am unable to furnish at the present time any estimate that would be at all reliable as to the earnings of British merchant shipping and other non-merchandise credits, or as to the extent and direction of the balance of our foreign obligations.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD FUND.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Minister of Transport whether the funds raised from the taxation of motor vehicles was intended solely for the maintenance and development of the roads; and whether grants and loans are being made to local authorities from such funds for the purchase of commercial motor vehicles?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The Road Fund is solely applicable to the purposes of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by the Roads Act, 1920. As regards the second part of the question, grants and loans to a limited amount are made to highway authorities from the Road Fund towards the cost of the purchase of road plant. Vehicles required for the haulage of road materials are in some cases included in such plant.

    FIRST-CLASS TICKETS.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Transport if he will state the circumstances under which two first-class return tickets were issued, free of charge, from Glasgow to Euston, in December last, to two persons named Grant?
    Mr. NEAL: I have no knowledge of the circumstances referred to, and regret, therefore, that I cannot give a specific answer to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Member make inquiries?
    Mr. KENNEDY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask if the Minister of Transport or the Government can exercise any restraint upon granting concessions of this sort, which are granted on a very wide scale to privileged persons with interests, and are not consistent with the very large sums of public money voted—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If a more specific point be put in the question, it will be possible to get an answer.
    Mr. KENNEDY: I gave the date on which the concessions were granted, and the names of the persons to whom they were granted.
    Mr. NEAL: To whom?
    Mr. SPEAKER: By whom they were granted is the point omitted.

    TRAMWAY EMPLOYÉS, PORTSDOWN AND HORNDEAN.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Portsdown and Horndean Light Tramway Company recently gave notice to all their employés who were members of a trade union, and that on re-engagement wages were reduced by 9s. per week and the hours of labour extended from 48 to 60 per week; and, if so, will he take action under the Industrial Courts Act?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have received a communication on this matter from the United Vehicle Workers' Union, and, in view of the fact that both the Company and the Union are associated with the Joint Industrial Council for the tramway industry, the Union have been advised that the matter is one which should, in the first instance, be brought before the Joint Industrial Council for the district, whose next meeting will, it is understood, be held in the first week of July.

    SEA-SCOUT MOVEMENT (DERELICT BOATS).
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the desirability of encouraging the sea-scout movement, favourable terms will be quoted to them for the derelict boats now lying in the dockyards?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): Applications for boats for units officially recognised receive favourable treatment, inasmuch as facilities are afforded by which boats may be purchased at prices at which they have been laid apart for sale in His Majesty's dockyards, without putting the applicants into the position of having to compete with outside purchasers.

    HOUSING (WHITNALL v. EDWARDS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Whitnall v. Edwards, heard in the Manchester City Police Court on 24th June; whether he is aware that the complainant was an ex-lieutenant who is unable to recover possession of his own house from a tenant, who was a conscientious objector, upon the sole ground that the latter holds under an agreement which entitles him to possession until peace is declared; and whether he can take steps by legislation or otherwise to effect that, so far as the relations between landlord and tenant are concerned, the War may be deemed to be terminated?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have not seen any report of the case referred to, and if, as I gather, the decision was governed by the ordinary law of property, it would not be a matter with which my Department would be concerned.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: This question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and I sent full details of the case referred to, and I should like to know when a question of great legal importance is addressed to the Prime Minister by an hon. Member whether there is any Regulation which prevents him getting a reply from the Prime Minister?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The rule is that questions which apply to a particular Department should be addressed to the Minister for that Department.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The Minister of Health, who has just purported to answer the question, has stated that his Department has nothing to do with this matter. The question relates to the definition the Government has placed upon the phrase "duration of the War." It is a question of great public importance, and I submit having addressed that to the Prime Minister it ought not to have been altered at the Table and addressed to a Minister who has nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: My attention has not before been drawn to this matter, but I will look into it.

    EDUCATION AUTHORITIES, SCOTLAND (EXPENSES).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the auditor of the Scottish Education Department and the Scottish Education Department are declining to admit as legal payments made to members of education authorities at uniform rates prescribed by the Department on 8th April, 1919, for time necessarily lost from ordinary employment in attending meetings of education authorities; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that chains for payments in accordance with the provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, as amended by Schedule 5, Section 5, B 2, of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, are not disputed by the Department in future?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray): It is not the practice of the auditor of the Scottish Education Department or the Scottish Education Department to raise any question as to the payment of expenses made in virtue of the Department's minute of 8th April, 1919, where it is shown that a member's occupation is remunerated on such a basis that a definite pro rata reduction of earnings is suffered by reason of his attendance at meetings of an education authority. But as at present advised the Department cannot regard it as legal for such payment to be made in other cases. The whole matter has, however,
    2338
    been referred to the Scottish Law Officers, and will be further considered in the light of their opinion.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it has been the custom recently to pay these expenses to miners' agents and ministers?
    Mr. MURRAY: I have not sufficient information to enable me to reply to that question.

    TITHE RENTCHARGE ACT.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the grave hardships accruing, to the ratepayers in many parishes from the relief afforded to the clergy by the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act; and whether he will approach the Treasury with a view to securing a special grant to meet the burden imposed by the Act?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir. I have had brought to my notice the fact that in a few exceptional cases the addition to the poundage on the rates resulting from the passing of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act has been considerable. In the great majority of parishes, however, the relief given to ecclesiastical titheowners by the Act has raised only to a slight extent the amount of rates to be paid by other ratepayers. These results were, I think, fully recognised by this House when the Bill was under consideration last year, and I regret I am unable in present circumstances to see my way to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The matter will, however, be borne in mind in connection with any proposals which may be made for dealing with the whole question of local rating.

    FRUIT AND JAM (PRICES).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has taken any further action with regard to the price paid to growers of soft fruit by the jam manufacturers, and the price charged by manufacturers for the fruit when made into jam to the public?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The inquiries which have been set on foot as to the

    2339
    prices offered by jam manufacturers to growers of soft fruit this year have not been completed. I will inform the Noble Earl later of the result, but I should like to point out that I possess no powers which could enable me to control either the price of fruit or of jam.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that his Department is responsible in matters of this kind, and if there appears to be primâ facie evidence of a combine, is it not the duty of his Department to refer the matter to the Committee on Trusts or to the Central Profiteering Tribunal?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will certainly look into that.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless the inquiry be expedited, it would be a soft inquiry, instead of an inquiry into soft fruit?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The inquiry is being expedited.

    CROWN COLONIES DEFENCE FORCES (WAR MEDALS).
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has now been reached with regard to the award of a war medal to the members of the Defence Forces of those Crown Colonies and Protectorates which are not defined as a theatre of war in Army Order XX. of 1918 or Army Order 301 of 1919?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): This matter is still under consideration, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of -State hopes to make a full announcement on the subject of medals for General Service at Home at an early date.
    Mr. MURRAY: When will that "early date" be? The question has been down for nearly 6 or 8 weeks.
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am hoping it may be very soon indeed.

    ROYAL INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that many officers of the Royal Indian Medical Service have had no English leave for many years; and
    2340
    whether, having regard to the debilitating climate of India, he will take steps which will enable officers of this service to have leave at regular periods?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury, for Mr. Montagu): My right hon. Friend regrets that, owing to the conditions created by the War, it has not been possible to grant leave to the Indian Medical Service to the extent desirable. Every effort is being made to bring the Service up to full strength, and so make it possible to grant leave more freely. As the hon. and gallant Member is doubtless aware, the terms of service have been immensely improved, with the object of attracting a larger number of candidates of the best type. But the falling off in the out-turn of the medical schools during the War makes this a slow process. In the meantime, all the Government of India can do is to restrict the amount of leave that may be taken by an officer at one time, so that as many officers as possible may come home.

    ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the approaching question of the renewal of the alliance with Japan, any representations can be made to the Japanese to induce them to evacuate the territory of the Far Eastern Republic?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think it would be very undesirable to state in advance the nature of the communications that may or may not pass between the two Governments.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been formed of the amount which will be collected in respect of the Customs duties imposed by the Safeguarding of Industries Bill?
    Colonel P. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the amount of goods to be dealt with by the Customs under the Safeguarding of Industries Bill; whether there is adequate warehousing

    2341
    accommodation for the purposes of the Bill; and, if not, what will be the cost of providing such accommodation?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. In 1920, imports of goods of the classes specified in the Schedule amounted approximately to £3,000,000. It is not possible to frame any accurate estimate of what the value of such imports will be after the passage of the Bill. As regards Part II of the Bill, until it is known to what goods the duty will be applied (and this can only be known after complaints have been investigated by Committees to be set up) it is impossible to frame any reliable estimate of the revenue likely to be collected. It is not in contemplation to allow bonded warehousing for goods subject to duty under the Bill. In any event I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Williams) that bonded warehouses are not provided by the Crown.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it true that fleets of vessels, revenue cutters, are being fitted out to prevent smuggling?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think that is an imaginative statement!
    Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the only figures upon which this Bill has been founded hitherto have been figures of speech?

    JUVENILE PRISONERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a boy of 16, having been for six weeks in Winchester Prison without trial, committed suicide; whether there is a girl in the same prison who has been detained for six months without trial; and whether he will at once inquire whether there are similar cases of delay in trying prisoners in other prisons, with a view to expediting the course of justice and avoiding these scandals?
    Mr. SHORTT: With regard to the boy of 16 who committed suicide in Winchester Prison, I would refer the hon. and gallant Baronet to the answer I gave to a question in this House on the 16th instant. On inquiry I find that the Justices refused to allow him to be released on bail pending his trial, on account of the statements he had made as to what he would do if lie were so released. I have no knowledge
    2342
    of any prisoner who has been in custody as long as six months without trial, but there is a young woman of 21 who was committed on a charge of arson on the 26th of last month for trial at the Assizes, which will not be held till the middle of October, and I am now inquiring whether anything can be done to prevent such a long period of detention in prison before trial.
    Sir S. HOARE: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether there are other cases of this kind in other prisons?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have not been able to hear of any.
    Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry, and send a circular to all the prisons to find out whether that is the case or not?
    Mr. FRANCE: Was there any medical inquiry into the state of this lad's mental health, in view of the wild statements that he made?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the very serious scandals disclosed in the right hon. Gentleman's own answer, does he propose to take any steps to find out if a similar state of affairs exists in other prisons?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am constantly in touch with the magistrates all over the country, circularising them in regard to bail, which is really the point at issue.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit his responsibility for the fact that these people have been there without trial all these months?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. I am not responsible at all. All I can do is to advise; I cannot enforce.
    Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries at the prisons as to whether there are cases of this kind?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir. We have been making inquiries, and, as I have said, I cannot hear of any.
    Mr. DEVLIN: How many people are there in Ireland kept for months and months without trial, and there is none of this indignation at all?
    Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some legislation is not desirable in order to put a stop to these scandals?
    Mr. SHORTT: We are considering that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the Irish Office also consider it?
    Mr. WATERSON: Is there any possibility of such legislation being passed this Session, there being no contention in this House on the matter?

  ENGINEERING TRADE DISPUTE.
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

      DR. MACNAMARA'S STATEMENT.
      Mr. J. DAVISON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement about the negotiations in the threatened dispute in the engineering trade?
      The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am glad to say that, after prolonged conferences, a joint memorandum was signed by the Negotiating Committees at two this morning, embodying an agreement reached between the representatives of the employers' federations and the unions concerned. I need not, perhaps, read this document, but I may say that the Negotiating Committee of the unions submitted the memorandum to their delegate meeting this morning, and the meeting by resolutions approved it and agreed to recommend the same to their constituent bodies for acceptance. The employers' representatives thereupon agreed to recommend the acceptance of the memorandum to their local associations. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a sincere tribute to those who have been concerned in these negotiations, both on the side of the employers and on that of the trade unions. If I may say so, the successful issue of the negotiations is a signal illustration of what can be done when employers' and workpeople's leaders sit down together to face a problem with a real intention of grappling with it until a solution has been found. I tender my congratulations equally to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir A. Smith) and his colleagues who represented the employers'
      2344
      federations, and to Mr. Brownlie and his colleagues who represented the trade unions.
      Mr. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the period for which this settlement has been reached?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I can show my hon. Friend a copy of the agreement.

    WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC (GENEVA CONFERENCE).
    Viscountess ASTOR(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether the Government is making any recommendations through its representative to the conference on the traffic in women and children which meets at Geneva tomorrow; if so, what these recommendations are, and whether in making them they have asked the advice or secured the support of any women's organisations?
    Mr. SHORTT: As I pointed out in reply to a previous question on this subject, the object of the conference is to co-ordinate the reports received from the different Governments, and to endeavour to secure a common understanding between the Governments with a view to future united action. The British representative will promote this policy, but he has not been instructed to put forward any particular proposals.
    Lord R. CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in a matter of this kind the British Government ought to have some policy?
    Mr. SHORTT: The question asked is whether instructions were given to the delegate.
    Sir S. HOARE: Would it not have been much better to send a woman to represent the British Government on this occasion?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.
    Captain ELLIOT: Is it not desirable that at any rate a woman adviser should go with the British delegate, and give assistance in co-ordinating the steps to be taken in the future?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that those who have dealt specially with this subject here in England have never been consulted, and that a man has been sent who practically knows nothing about it?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; that is not in the least correct. Our representative is accompanied by two members of the National Vigilance Association, one of whom is a woman.
    Mr. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the real objection to a lady representing the Government at that function?
    Mr. SHORTT: We have only one representative, and he has a lady with him as adviser.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Leader of the House when he proposes to put down the Vote which will enable the House to discuss the recent appointment of a third Lord Chancellor in Ireland?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I think that matter can be discussed, if it is the desire of Irish Members, whenever Irish Votes are put down again.
Mr. DEVLIN: When will Irish Votes be put down, and on what Vote may we discuss it?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the business for next week, and whether he can now give the House the terms of the Motion to be discussed in relation to the business set down for to-morrow?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards next week, we propose on Monday to take the Second Reading of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill.
On Tuesday, Supply—Scottish Estimates.
On Wednesday, the Third allotted day of the Committee stage of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill.
On Thursday, Supply—Ministry of Mines Vote, and the continuation of the discussion of the Treasury Vote.
On Friday, the War Pensions Bill, Second Reading.
As regards the Ministry of Mines Vote, I am putting that down in fulfilment of the pledge that the House should, if it wishes, have an opportunity of discussing the settlement arranged in the mining industry. Some indications have reached
2346
me, however, that the House may not wish to discuss that, and that will enable us to proceed to the important discussion on the Treasury Vote, which I think everyone desires.
As regards to-morrow, we propose to move,
"That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government respecting the several Conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Conference at Washington in November, 1919."
That, I think, raises the whole question which the House wishes to discuss.
Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to Thursday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, supposing the second Order does not come on until after 7 o'clock, he will see the advisability of putting down, by agreement through the usual channels, some other Vote, as the understanding with my hon. Friend was that an occasion substantially equal to the first Order of the day should be given to that Vote?
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the particular direction from which he has received from Members of the House an indication that there is no reason or justification for a discussion upon the recent miners' dispute?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press me to say from what sources I derive my information. I did not say there would be no justification for such a Debate, or that anyone suggested that there was no justification for it, but I have received indications from some quarters, where I thought there was a desire to discuss it, that they do not entertain that wish, and possibly the whole House may be of that opinion. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) I shall be glad if he will give me a little more time for consideration as to what business should be arranged. We should be rather glad to take as early as possible the continuation of the Treasury Vote in order that we may discuss the question of the Civil Service bonus, which is calling forth a great deal of interest and which cannot be properly treated merely by question and answer.
Mr. CLYNES: In view of the importance of the Bill set down for Monday, the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill, is it the resolve of the Government not to

2347
allow more than one day for the Second Reading?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should imagine one day will be ample for the Second Reading.
Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the repeal of the Corn Production Acts is one of the most grave constitutional proceedings that this House has ever witnessed, and that therefore more than one day will be required for the Second Reading?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not for a moment deny that the question is a very important one, but the issue is a very simple one, and I hope that one day for the Second Reading will be sufficient.
Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to give only one day if a number of Members on all sides indicate, in the usual way, their desire to speak, and is he aware that there is as much interest taken in this question in one quarter of the House as in another?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall consider what takes place in the course of the Debate, but at the same time, if the issue be a very important one, it is a very simple one. The same issue will be raised on the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading, so that the Second Reading will not be the only opportunity that Members will have of speaking. I would venture to appeal to Members in respect of this matter to have
some regard to the amount of essential business that we must do before we rise, and to the difficulty of rising at any reasonable time unless the House will make some sacrifice of its desire to discuss every subject.
Lord R. CECIL: When my right hon. Friend says that the same issue can be raised in Committee, does he mean that the Committee stage is going to be taken in this House?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
Captain W. BENN: When will the resumed discussion on Parliamentary control of expenditure by means of an Estimates Committee be taken?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend talked it out after three hours' discussion the other day, and I have no hope of finding time for resuming it before 11 o'clock.
Captain BENN: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to pursue the plan of setting up a Committee to give this House control over expenditure.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it will beset up on Monday if the hon. and gallant, Member withdraws his opposition.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill and the Overseas-Trade (Credits and Insurance) Amendment Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 61.

Division No. 209.]

AYES

[4.5 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

Britton, G B.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Dockrell, Sir Maurice

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Brown, Major D. C.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Astor, Viscountess

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Edge, Captain William

Atkey, A. R.

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Edwards, Hugh (Giam., Neath)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Elveden, Viscount

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Carr, W. Theodore

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

Casey, T. W.

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M

Barnston, Major Harry

Cautley, Henry Strother

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Forrest, Walter

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

France. Gerald Ashburner

Betterton, Henry B.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Gardner, Ernest

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Cope, Major William

Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

Blair, Sir Reginald

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Borwick, Major G. O.

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Glyn, Major Ralph

Bottomley, Horatio W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Goff, Sir R. Park

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

McConnell, Thomas Edward

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Grant, James Augustus

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Greer, Harry

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Gretton, Colonel John

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Mitchell, William Lane

Stanton, Charles Butt.

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Stevens, Marshall

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

Stewart, Gershom

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Morrison, Hugh

Sturrock, J. Leng

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Sugden, W. H.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

Taylor, J.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Nail, Major Joseph

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Hinds, John

Neal, Arthur

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Wallace, J.

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Hurd, Percy A.

Parker, James

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Pearce, Sir William

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Jephcott, A. R.

Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Jesson, C.

Philipps Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Johnstone, Joseph

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud.

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Pratt, John William

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Prescott, Major W. H.

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Purchase, H. G.

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

Rae, H. Norman

Winterton, Earl

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Wise, Frederick

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Raper, A. Baldwin

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Reid, D. D.

Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Remnant, Sir James

Woolcock, William James U.

Lloyd, George Butler

Renwick, Sir George

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Younger, Sir George

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Dudley Ward.

Lynn, R. J.

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Hayday, Arthur

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Rose, Frank H.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hirst, G. H.

Royce, William Stapleton

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hogge, James Myles

Sexton, James

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Sitch, Charles H.

Cairns, John

Irving, Dan

Spoor, B. G.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Kennedy, Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Devlin, Joseph

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lawson, John James

Waterson, A. E.

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Lunn, William

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Galbraith, Samuel

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wignall, James

Gillis, William

Mills, John Edmund

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Glanville, Harold James

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Myers, Thomas

Wintringham, Thomas

Grundy, T. W.

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

O'Grady, James

Hallas, Eldred

Rendall, Athelstan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Swan and Mr. Kiley.

Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on any Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order
2350
(Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
The, House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 64.

Division No. 210.]

AYES.

[4.15 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Grant, James Augustus

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

Parker, James

Armitage, Robert

Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Greer, Harry

Pearce, Sir William

Astor, Viscountess

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Atkey, A. R.

Gretton, Colonel John

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Perring, William George

Banbury, Rt.- Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Barnston, Major Harry

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pratt, John William

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Prescott, Major W. H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Purchase, H. G.

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Haslam, Lewis

Rae, H. Norman

Betterton, Henry B.

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Raper, A. Baldwin

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

Reid, D. D.

Blair, Sir Reginald

Hills, Major John Waller

Remnant, Sir James

Borwick, Major G. O.

Hinds, John

Renwick, Sir George

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Bottomley, Horatio W.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Britton, G. B.

Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Rounded, Colonel R. F.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Brown, Major D. C.

Hurd, Percy A.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Burdon, Colonel Rowland

Jephcott, A. R.

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Jesson, C.

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Carr, W. Theodore

Johnstone, Joseph

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Casey, T. W.

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Stanton, Charles Butt

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Stevens, Marshall

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

Stewart, Gershom

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Sturrock. J. Leng

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sugden, W. H.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lloyd, George Butler

Taylor, J.

Cope, Major William

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walton. J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)

Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

Lynn, R. J.

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

McConnell, Thomas Edward

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Dockrell, Sir Maurice

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Doyle, N. Grattan

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Edge, Captain William

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Edwards, Major. J. (Aberavon)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Elveden, Viscount

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M

Mitchell, William Lane

Winterton, Earl

Evans, Ernest

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Wise, Frederick

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Morrison, Hugh

Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert.

Woolcock, William James U.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Gardner, Ernest

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Younger, Sir George

Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

Gilbert, James Daniel

Nail, Major Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Neal, Arthur

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Glyn, Major Ralph

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Dudley Ward.

NOES.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

2352

2353

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hogge, James Myles

Royce, William Stapleton

Cairns, John

Holmes, J. Stanley

Sexton, James

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Irving, Dan

Sitch, Charles H.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Spoor, B. G.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Kennedy, Thomas

Swan, J. E

Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Devlin, Joseph

Kiley, James Daniel

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Lawson, John James

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Galbraith, Samuel

Lunn, William

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Gillis, William

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Waterson, A. E.

Glanville, Harold James

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Mills, John Edmund

Wignall, James

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Grundy, T. W.

Mosley, Oswald

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wilson, Rt. Hop. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Myers, Thomas

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Hallas, Eldred

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Hayday, Arthur

Rendall, Athelstan

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hirst, G. H.

Rose, Frank H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Short and Mr. J. Davison.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
THOMAS EDWARD M'CONNELL, Esquire, for the Borough of Belfast (Duncairn Division).
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL,
"to amend the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1920, with respect to interruptions of residence during the qualifying period," presented by Mr. SHOKTT; supported by Sir Alfred Mond and Sir John Baird; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 159.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 160.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 160.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment, the Select Committee on Divorce Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time.
Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the Third time.
Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Doupe's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Preston's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the cases, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. Morison.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Deputy-Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Railways Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

BASTARDY BILL (CHANGED TO "CHILDREN OF UNMARRIED PARENTS BILL").
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 161.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 162.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,—
Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) (No. 3) Bill,
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Tithe Annuities Apportionment Bill, with an Amendment.
Unemployment Insurance Bill,
Radcliffe and Little Lever Joint Gas Board Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Lymington Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
Westminster City Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Hastings Tramways Company to construct extension tramways in the county borough of Hastings and for other purposes."
[Hastings Tramways (Extension) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the John Newland Endowment." [John Newland Endowment Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Bessie Alice, Marchioness Conyngham, of 15, Somers Place, Paddington, in the county of London, with Frederick William Burton, Marquis Conyngham, a Peer of the Realm, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Conyngham's Divorce Bill [Lords.].]

CONYNGHAM'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a; Second time.
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to-the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
JOHN NEWLAND ENDOWMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Ordered (under Section 7 of The Private-Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board of Trade to apply Part II to certain goods.)
    (1) If, on complaint being made to the Board to that effect, it appears to the Board that goods of any class or description (other than articles of food or drink) manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom—

    (a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter denned; or

    (b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;

    and that by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being or is likely to be seriously affected, the Board may refer the matter for inquiry to a committee constituted for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
    (2) If the committee report that as respects goods of any class or description manufactured in any country the conditions aforesaid are fulfilled the Board may by order apply this Part of this Act to goods of that class or description if manufactured in that country:
    Provided that no such order shall be made which is at variance with any treaty, convention or engagement with any foreign State in force for the time being.
    (3) An order made under this Section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made for a period of twenty-one days during which that House has sat, and if that House before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the order His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and thereupon the order shall become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "fulfilled" ["are fulfilled the"], to insert the words, "and that the effect of an order made under this Part of this Act will not diminish the aggregate employment in the United Kingdom."
    The words proposed to be inserted affect the duties that are to be imposed upon
    2374
    a Committee to be set up. That Committee is to report as to whether certain conditions are fulfilled, and those conditions are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1). They are to report whether goods are being sold

    "(a) at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined; or

    (b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;"

    We ask that, having reported on these conditions, they should also report as to whether the effect of an Order made under this part of the Act would be to diminish the aggregate employment in the United Kingdom. This Amendment is designed to touch what we believe to be the fundamental fallacy of this part of the Bill, namely, that by making things dearer in this country you can increase employment. The reason for Part II is to increase employment. The reason for Part I is to increase national security. The Government desire to see the largest number of people employed, and they think that they are going to secure that by increasing the price of things that come into the country. That is a theory which has been better expounded in this House by the Minister of Health than by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Secretary for Overseas Trade.
    I do not know whether the attack on the Free Trade position will be continued in the same way during this Debate as it has been conducted in the preceding Debates. It has become almost routine. There is an assault, if I may say so without offence, by the comparatively light artillery now in position on the Treasury Bench, and at a certain hour the very heavy gun is brought into action. I congratulate the Protectionists on having captured a very heavy Free Trade gun and on getting it into position on the Treasury Bench. We are subject to bombardment from that weapon. I do not know of anything like it in military warfare except the bombardment of Paris by Big Bertha during the War; a weapon the whereabouts of which could not be discovered during the day, but which reappeared at regular times on certain evenings. So far as my recollection goes, the damage to Paris was not very excessive, and I do not think the Free Trade position is suffering very much

    2375
    even from the attack of the big gun now. The Protectionists are to be congratulated—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am waiting to discover at what moment the hon. Member is going to approach the question of unemployment.
    Major BARNES: I am sorry if I have left you in any situation of anxiety, and I will come to the point as quickly as may be. My point is that, under the circumstances to which I was referring, the Government and the Protectionists are to be congratulated on the fact not only that they have captured this big gun, but that they are finding that their old ammunition fits the bore. No argument is more familiar to us in dealing with Protection than the argument that Protection is a means of remedying the evils of unemployment. The only argument that has been employed in this Debate in regard to Part II is that by introducing this Measure of Protection and imposing duties of 33½ per cent. we are going to increase the amount of employment and to decrease the amount of unemployment proportionately. It is rather a happy coincidence that this Debate will be followed immediately by a Debate upon a Bill which is being brought in by the Government to deal with unemployment in another way—relieving it by paying a money dole.
    We all feel that that is a very unsatisfactory way to deal with unemployment. It is better that people should receive relief and not be exposed to the privations which unemployment brings, but all of us are agreed that it is better for people to be at work earning money than to be out of work receiving assistance from the Imperial Exchequer or the rates; and if this proposal of the Government were a real solution of the problem of unemployment, and would indeed set people to work, to no party would it be more welcome than to those in this quarter. But in this Debate there has already been comment on the significant fact that the party which might be expected to welcome proposals to deal with the problem is the party which is as critical as any other in this House of the present proposals. They have received no approval from the Labour party. A body of men very far removed from the Labour party have been announcing what they consider to be proposals which would improve the trade of this country, and in
    2376
    consequence reduce unemployment. What the bankers have said has been referred to over and over again in this Debate, but their opinion is looked upon as of no value by those upon the Treasury Bench.
    The view of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), the Minister of Health, and the occupants of the Treasury Bench is that the bankers know nothing when they suggest that the real way to cure the evil of unemployment is to get back to a sound currency and normal healthy conditions of trade. They scout the Government proposal of curing unemployment by raising prices of certain articles by 4d. in the shilling and making things coming into this country cost 6s. 8d. in the pound more than they did before. We have had no arguments in support of that theory. In pre-War days there was an attempt to support that thesis, but it was a complete failure. We are probably not in so good a position to-day as we were before the War to meet these arguments, because we have not got the statistics to-day that were available in the great controversies in pre-War times. One has to fall back on the figures which were used then. The assumption of the Bill is that if you can stop a certain number of manufactured articles coming into this country you are going to make more work for the people at home. We contest that, at all events in theory at least, by such facts as we know of with regard to the years before the War. I have some figures abstracted from the statistical abstract of the Board of Trade, which give, on the one hand, the net imports of manufactures from 1904 to 1913, and, on the other hand, the rate of unemployment in those same years. If the theory of the Government were correct, the more manufactured articles come into this country the greater would be the unemployment.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The thing is not so simple.
    Major BARNES: That is so, but that is the argument of Part II of the Bill. It is, "Here is a disease—Unemployment. It is caused by goods being sold here at certain prices. The remedy is to put those prices up." The figures show that the very reverse was the case, and that as the imports of manufactures increase the rate of unemployment decreases. From 1909 to 1913 the net imports of manufacturers increased from £123,000,000 to £164,000,000. On the theory of the Bill

    2377
    unemployment should have increased with it. Instead of that unemployment decreased from 7·07 per cent. in 1909 to 2·1 per cent. in 1913. Those figures are Government figures based on a survey of the whole country and not figures brought forward by partisans to support a particular industry. You may say it is theory on one side and theory on the other side, but the figures do support our theory. You cannot cure unemployment by keeping goods out of this country, and by letting goods in cheaper you do the reverse and increase work here.
    If the Government view or the view of Protectionists generally be true, that you are going to cure unemployment by putting on tariffs and raising prices, one would expect making a survey of the world at present that you would find unemployment at its lowest in countries which enjoy all the blessings of a tariff. That is not so. The Minister of Health when speaking I think only last night pointed out that in America there are at least 4,000,000 people unemployed. America enjoys all the blessings of a tariff, and a tariff very much greater in intensity and severity than the one proposed in this Bill. There is not the slightest ground for believing that what the Government propose here is a real remedy. I commend to hon. Members who are interested in this matter—of course, nobody would vote who is not interested—a study of the June number of the "Labour Gazette." No doubt both the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department are perfectly familiar with those figures which the Gazette contains—figures of unemployment, not only in this country, but in countries overseas. The latter figures may have been furnished by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department who, no doubt, is thoroughly familiar with them. The figures are given for all the principal countries, including Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and the United States. In all these countries, it does not matter whether they are whole-hog Protectionists or enjoy more or less of a tariff system, you will find that the figures for unemployment are considerable.
    Sir F. YOUNG: You do not blame the Coalition here for that.
    Major BARNES: It may be that the principles which are represented by the
    2378
    Coalition Government are in general operation throughout the world. What the figures do show is that you are not going to cure this evil by putting on a a tariff. In Belgium the percentage of unemployed was 31·5 on the last working day of March. In Holland there were 22·5 per cent. of the members of trade unions affiliated to insurance funds out of work in March. Wherever you turn you find this state of things. Obviously it cannot be connected with questions of Free Trade or of Tariff. The Free Trade position has never been that by its operation you will eliminate this problem of unemployment. Its position has been that, under the operation of Free Trade, employment was more secure, less uncertain than it could be in this country at least under the operation of a tariff, and under Free Trade you do get such accumulations of wealth as enable you in times of bad trade to make provision to deal with that situation when it arises. Our suggestion is that the Committee, when reporting on this matter, should not consider the effect of any particular import on any particular industry, but should consider what would be the effect of imposing this tariff on the whole of the industries of the country.
    It is a simple matter to show that imports do affect some particular industry. There is no need to argue that. If a chair is imported into this country it is obvious that if it is wanted in this country and is not imported it would be made here, and it might be said that its importation would put a chair maker out of work. It is always possible to show, if you are dealing with particular industries, that a certain amount of unemployment would ensue. The Free Trade position is that, taking industries as a whole, imports make exports, and if imports come into the country, after certain adjustments of industry, any loss is far more than compensated for by the conditions of industry brought about by the export trade that is produced. I do not want to rely upon theory but upon facts, and I want to bring before the attention of the Minister two communications that I have received. One is from the paper-using industries of this country, who are concerned at the prospect that under this Bill there may be a protective duty placed upon paper imports. That is being urged, and hon. Members have received appeals from the paper-makers of this country to be in-

    2379
    cluded in this Bill. What do these paper-users say? They are not politicians; I do not know that they are free traders, but they have very sound ideas on this subject, for they say:
    "The natural result of such protective duty would be to restrict the supplies from overseas and to enable British manufacturers to charge a higher price for their productions than they could under the present conditions."
    They are supported in that by the Minister of Health. They go on to consider the question of unemployment, and they make the point that our Amendment is intended to make, that if by the operation of this Bill you increase employment in one industry, you will diminish it in others, and what we say is that the amount by which you will diminish it in others is greater than the extent to which you will possibly increase it in those who get the benefit of this Bill. They go on to say:
    "When considering the question of unemployment from a national standpoint, it is necessary to consider the number of persons engaged in the respective industries, he principal industries in which paper is the raw material are the printing, bookbinding, manufacturing stationery, and cardboard box trades, and the newspaper and publishing trades. The number employed in these trades is 262,000, omitting boys and girls under 16 years of age. The number of persons employed in the paper and wallpaper making trade is 53,000. In other words, the principal paper using trades employ five times as many people as the paper making trade, and any increase in the cost of paper, although it might benefit the paper makers, only increases the unemployment in the much more important trades that use paper."
    That is a statement which is not made from any party point of view, but it is made by a number of people who are actually engaged in the businesses that would be affected if paper came under the operation of this Bill. Under Part II of the Bill everything that comes into this country, with the exception of food and raw material, may be affected, and these people have a very real fear of what may happen. They point out, in the paragraph that I have read, what we are pointing out in our Amendment, that by imposing a duty which will benefit one section of people and increase employment in that section, you will be producing a very much larger degree of unemployment in other sections.
    Lastly, I have a memorial from the British Steel Re-Rollers in this country,
    2380
    who are also afraid of the operation of the Bill. This is a memorial signed by a very large number of firms in different parts of the country, some in Scotland, some in Wolverhampton, some in Birmingham, some in Sheffield, some in Walsall, some on the Tees, some on the Tyne; in every part of this country you have got these people afraid of the operation of this Bill. They say:
    "Free imported semi-raw steel is the life blood of the British re-rolling industry, without which they could not successfully compete with other nations in the world's markets for the more highly finished products in which. British re-rollers have specialised."
    What are they afraid of? They are afraid of your 33⅓ per cent. duty. They have been told quite plainly in this Debate what to fear, for I think the Minister himself said that semi-raw steel is just the sort of thing that may come under this Bill, and here are these great firms afraid of that and pointing out what the effect of a duty on semi-raw steel is going to be. They say:
    "If semi-raw steel should be brought within the operations of this Bill, the price will be immediately advanced, and consequently our large export trade in finished products will be greatly diminished, if not entirely cut off."
    This is only an illustration. Here are one or two trades who have realised the dangers of this Bill and who have become vocal, but this Bill threatens every trade in the country. It threatens the whole export trade of this country, and if there is one thing we have learned during the last year or so, it is that upon the maintenance of a great volume of export trade our commercial and industrial prosperity depends. I tell the Minister that what he is getting here are only the first rumblings of the storm and that when the full extent of the possible operations of this Bill is known, and when the manufacturers of this country, who have built up a huge export trade, come to realise that its very foundations are threatened by this Bill, all the specious pleas that under this Bill you are going to reduce unemployment will be of no avail. The facts will discount them, and events will show that, so far from decreasing unemployment by this Bill, the volume of it will be vastly increased.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) has dealt very fully with the broad principles of this question,

    2381
    and I should like briefly to give one or two illustrations in detail of the serious injury which is threatened to the iron and steel industry of this country, and particularly the re-rolling section, by this Bill. I may say that my own business would, if anything, be benefited by the protection which is offered, but I am satisfied, from an experience of some years in the iron and steel trade, that for the benefit of the trade as a whole it is most desirable that there should be no hindrances placed on the import of semi-manufactured productions. What is the position? The Minister of Health said we must keep out these semi-manufactured articles in order to help the iron and steel industry, who have spent a tremendous amount of money during the War in order to provide the steel necessary for this country; but would you really help the iron and steel industry by these duties? Germany, Belgium, France, and the other countries are going to continue manufacturing whether these duties are put on or not. You may, for the sake of argument, prevent some of the products coming into this country, but you would simply drive them into other markets. The English manufacturer of angles, bars, or whatever it may be will have to face the same competition, but will have to face it in the markets to which this cheaper material goes. In my own district we have a works which are rolling out these semi-manufactured products in the shape of billets. The same works re-roll them into wire rods, sheets, etc., for export abroad. They find, as a matter of practical experience, that they can buy these semi-manufactured products, billets, and so forth at a cheaper price abroad than they can manufacture them themselves.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Hear, hear!
    Mr. THOMSON: Well, they buy them from abroad. He wants them excluded, but if you exclude them, it will not mean that your mills which make the rods and sheets will be able to buy these goods from the English steelmaker, because he cannot produce these goods cheap enough for competition with the foreign market. It will simply mean that you will close down your re-rolling sections, employing thousands and thousands of men, in many hundreds of works, and you will do no good whatever to the steel manufacturer in this country. During the past 20 or 30 years the manufacturers of rods,
    2382
    sheets, wire, and so on, have built up a new trade for this country, a huge export trade, which is absolutely and entirely dependent upon free access from the Continent of these cheaper goods. I do not say for one moment that they are kept going wholly by the import of these goods. It is unnecessary that they should supply more than a small percentage, but the very fact that these goods come in without these duties keeps down the price of the home product in the same line. An hon. Gentleman opposite yesterday belittled the suggestion that this Bill would play into the hands of trusts and combines. Anyone in the iron and steel industry knows that you have rings and combinations which control prices absolutely and entirely, and if you have not the import of this foreign material, which is outside the rings and the combinations, they will put their prices up to an unheard-of extent and cripple entirely the re-export trade of the country, as well as make the prices of the home market dearer than they are at present.
    We want to look at the question from the whole point of view, and not from one particular trade's point of view. It is possible that owing to bars coming into the country some men engaged in that particular trade may be thrown out of work in that trade, but, if they are, work is found for infinitely more men in the re-rolling sections, employing highly skilled labour, which is specialised, with great technical skill, and which has grown up and been developed in this country on this very class of material during the last 20 or 30 years, and if you cut off the supplies of cheap material you will close down hundreds of works and throw out of employment thousands of men. The reason why we press this Amendment is that if you are really concerned, as we are all concerned, with the question of employment, you want to consider what is going to be the net result of your operations, and though you may possibly keep one or two works engaged on fuller time in one class of industry, you are going to throw out infinitely more men and close infinitely more works in another class of industry. We have established in this country a record of skill for bridge-building and engineering work second to none in the world. How is it that we are able to carry that on so successfully? It is because we have free access to the Con-

    2383
    tinent for the cheapest manufactured plates, angles, and sections required in the construction of these bridges and other engineering works. The great advertisement of one big firm in my own part of the country is, "We bridge the world." They have supplied bridges in every section of the Empire and of the world, and that industry is built up entirely by the fact that they can get their semi - manufactured material, plates, angles, sections, and girders in the cheapest market the world can supply, and because of that they can employ infinitely more men on bridge-building and on constructional work than would be employed on rolling out the sections or manufacturing the girders.
    5.0 P.M.
    The whole point, therefore, is that we, with our skill as manufacturers, want to put our labour on to that which gives the most employment to labour, and infinitely more employment is found for labour, and infinitely more money is paid in wages, when you come to the highly skilled and specialised industries than on the raw material of those industries. Therefore, as a manufacturing nation, it pays us every time to forego, if you will, the manufacture of the semi-manufactured product, on which a comparatively small amount of labour is required, in order to get this cheaper semi-manufactured product from abroad and place our men and our works on the more highly skilled manufactures, which give much more employment and enable us to compete with the trade of the world. What happened before the War? We had in our own district billets sent from Germany to mills in this country. They were rolled out into wire and sections, and that same wire was sent back into Germany and was able to compete with the German wire maker who had his own billets at his own door. That can be exemplified by whichever line you like to take. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that we want to weigh up very carefully what is going to be the full effect of a Clause of this kind. I am satisfied if you canvass the whole position and inquire from manufacturers throughout the length and breadth of the land you will find you are killing industry. Although you may keep this material out of this country you would have to face the same competition in India, Egypt,
    2384
    Australia, Norway, Sweden, whatever part of the world we send our products to, and you will find in the end work will not be provided for workers in this country but rather reduced.
    We were told yesterday that industry was being ruined, that there was a flood of goods coming into this country. What evidence have we of that? Can you point to a single industry of any size that is being ruined, or can you point to any case where goods are coming in to anything like the same extent that they did before the War? In my own particular trade, heavy iron and steel, the imports to this country to-day from outside are nothing like what they were in 1913. Yet we are told we have to unsettle the whole trade of the country because of some fear, unfounded at present, which may materialise in the future. If there is one thing that manufacturers in this country require it is stability and certainty, and by proposing, far less carrying out, legislation of this sort you are creating fear and uncertainty in the minds of manufacturers. They do not know whether it is safe to quote for contracts or make business arrangements ahead, and this mere uncertainty is doing more harm and causing more unemployment than any good that can result from this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade was asked the other day if he could give the amount of imports from Germany during this year as compared with last year. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) he said comparative figures were not available for the period for which they were asked, but he would give them for the first quarter of this year. The total imports into this country from Germany during the first quarter of this year were £7,000,000, as compared with, not the first quarter of 1914, but the whole year 1914, £37,000,000. I will not suggest that he intended that we should draw the conclusion that if we multiplied by four we should get the comparative figures, but we must remember that during the year 1914 imports were coming in for seven months only because of the intervention of the War. Therefore you had £37,000,000 worth of imports for seven months, which is equivalent to £65,000,000 in the year. This year you have £7,000,000 worth for the first quarter, which is equivalent to £28,000,000 per year. Then you have to remember that the values are different. When you

    2385
    take that into account your comparative figures would be something like £3,000,000 coming in in the first three months as against £20,000,000 before the War. Yet we talk about our industries being ruined! The whole thing is built up on a superstructure of fear for which there is no foundation in fact, and I urge the Government, if they are really intending to reduce unemployment and provide work, they should accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. They should envisage the whole question, and not look merely at one particular industry, and by that means we may safeguard the trade which is still left to us.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I confess I think this is really an important Amendment, and it is to my mind an extreme discredit to the House of Commons that the discussion upon it should be conducted as it is being conducted this afternoon in the presence of less than a quorum of Members. I desire in a very few sentences to suggest to the Government—and I purposely rise before we have heard any declaration from that Bench—that upon their own assumptions, and accepting their own avowed purposes, the introduction of these words would be an enormous practical improvement to their Bill. I am one of those, like my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate, who think that the whole of this Clause is based on misconception, that it provides a vicious remedy for an unreal disease. Let us assume, for the purposes of the argument, and only for the purposes of the argument, that a case can conceivably be made out for intervention on the part of the State, that either through what is called dumping, or through the artificial stimulus given to particular kinds of foreign importations through a depreciated exchange, goods are brought into this market under abnormal conditions, with the result that in certain departments of British industry there is at any rate a prima facie case for inquiry as to whether there is or is not consequential unemployment. That is the inquiry which, as I understand, is to be entrusted to the Committee under this Clause. If that is so, it appears to me that the argument put forward by my two hon. Friends who have spoken is quite irresistible, namely, that this Committee should not and ought not to confine the scope of their vision and the range of
    2386
    their inquiry to the effect upon employment in the particular industry whose production is directly affected by foreign importations, but that they ought, in the interest of the community at large, to have regard to the aggregate employment in all industries. That seems to me to be an elementary proposition which has only to be asserted to commend itself to everybody's common sense. Both my hon. Friends, from their practical knowledge and experience, gave some illustrations of the effect, the disastrous effect, upon general employment which might arise if we were to confine the inquiry in the manner in which it is confined for the purposes of this Clause.
    I pointed out some weeks ago, in addressing the Committee on the introductory Financial Resolutions, that of our total importations of what the Board of Trade describe as wholly or mainly or partly manufactured goods, no less than 60 per cent. come here, not as finished products capable of being put on to the market; they come here to receive the finishing processes which British capital and British labour, of all forms of Capital and labour in the world, are best able to supply, and in just as true a sense as cotton or wool are raw materials for the manufacture of goods. It is quite true that in not a few cases these partially finished imported manufactures compete with similar productions here, but the question is, and I put it to the clear intelligence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is not obscured and mystified as some minds are when they approach the consideration of these economic problems—I put it to him, in the interests of the community, if you are going to have intervention of this kind, which I do not think you ought to have, whether you should have regard merely to the possibility of diminution of employment in the particular industry in which the partly manufactured article is produced, and should wholly disregard as irrelevant and immaterial, and as having nothing whatever to do with the case the damage which is being done to the other often much greater and more important industries in which the imported so-called manufactured goods are raw materials. Some illustrations have been given by people with much greater knowledge of the details of trade and manufacture than I have, and my hon.

    2387
    Friend who has just sat down, in particular, has dealt with the very important memorial which was circulated widely among Members of the House in regard to the importation of semi-raw steel.
    I will just give in that connection some facts which have been described to me, which I believe to be absolutely verifiable. They are in regard to what is called steel sheets. On the north-east coast the manufacturers of steel sheets are buying at this moment Belgian steel bars at £6 10s. a ton. They export 75 per cent. of their whole production to foreign markets, and they are just able, and only just able, to do so at a profit. The cost of English steel bars is £13, exactly double the cost of the imported Belgian raw material. If this 33⅓ per cent. duty were imposed upon the imported Belgian steel bars, assuming Belgium is selected as one of the countries in regard to which these experiments are to be made, their cost would be raised from £6 10s. per ton to £8 15s., and the effect of that to this very large body of English manufacturers, who supply the finished goods, who now export 75 per cent. of their total production with just a fair margin of profit—the effect will be they will be completely killed as exporters in the neutral markets. All these things hang together.
    Mr. KILEY: There is a further 25 per cent.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am not piling up the agony. I am dealing with the case in its simplest and most naked form. The English corresponding raw material costs double what the Belgian raw material costs, and you are going artificially to protect that English trade which for reasons I do not inquire into for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wages and coal."] We have got to deal with things as they are. This is not the way to bring wages down. You are going to erect an artificial ringed fence of protection, and compel your English manufacturer to pay twice what he is at present paying for the essential raw materials of his industry, in order to keep this comparatively small production going. That is the case which has to be answered. Take the illustration of leather. I believe a precisely similar case could be made out there. My attention has been called to it more than
    2388
    once. The diminution in our export trade of manufactured leather is a very serious thing. Let us compare the exports for the first five months of 1913 and those for the first five months of the present year. The exports of boots and shoes in the first five months of 1913 were 586,000 pairs, which were valued, at the prices that then ruled, very much lower prices than those which rule now, at £1,700,000. The exports for the corresponding five months of the present year were fewer than 150,000 pairs, valued, at the present higher prices, at £1,000,000.
    At a moment like that you are going to put it in the power of this Committee to impose an import duty upon what in the technical sense are undoubtedly manufactured goods, namely, patent leather, glace kid and calf, which are the materials out of which boots and shoes are made. You will do far more harm to a great, and for the moment depressed, industry, in which this country has in days gone by enjoyed almost supremacy in the markets of the world by handicapping the supply of their raw material, than by permitting the import of the leather without this impost. It is much the same with paper. This is one of the subjects on which I may be regarded as an obscurantist. Paper is one of the things of which I should not be at all sorry to see the price go up. But that is a personal feeling. We are dealing now with the general interests of the community. The point I want to make is, I think, unanswerable. If you are going to have legislation of this kind, and if you are going to set up committees of this kind, and are to give them, with or without the consent of the House of Commons, the power of imposing large import duties upon foreign manufactures, and if the ground upon which you make that claim is the possible deleterious effect of such importation on British employment, look at British employment as a whole, and not at the interests of this or that particular trade, and instruct your committees always to have that in view.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): The right hon. Gentleman has said with all the weight of his authority that the case he has put was unanswerable. That makes me very nervous in attempting to reply to him. But, of course, there is another side to the case which the right hon. Gentleman put with his accustomed persuasive skill. I

    2389
    think I appreciate the points which were put by him and by the hon. Members who spoke before him. If I may say so, the hon. Members who spoke before him seemed to be dealing not so much with the words of the Amendment as with the general, question that has been so often discussed, Free Trade versus Protection. A great deal that they said might have been very apposite had we been discussing the question of a general tariff. The hon. Member seemed to me just to miss the point of the special circumstances of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Paisley in his remarks brought the discussion to the much narrower point of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposition he put was elementary. I am sure he will agree that all elementary things are by far the most difficult things to deal with in this world. It is a perfectly obvious thing, I agree, that if it were possible by any form of investigation that human skill can devise to get all the facts in one of these cases, it would be desirable. The task that is laid upon the Committee is a comparatively simple one. They have to decide on what are really questions of fact and questions of comparatively simple fact. If they had to inquire into the question whether or not there is a disturbance of the whole vast reservoir of labour in this country, I believe that the inquiry in each case might be protracted into months and no decision would be reached.
    If anything is to be done on the lines of this Bill I should rule out this Amendment as making the working of the Bill absolutely impracticable. Let me illustrate what I mean. I will touch on the case raised by the right hon. Member for Paisley and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). With reference to the question of paper, I should say, in passing, that I had the pleasure of meeting a very large and representative deputation of paper users, who put their views before me and pointed out some of the tragic results that might happen if there was any difficulty in obtaining paper. The paper question is a very simple one compared, for instance, with the question of ship-building, and compared with the points raised to-day. What would the difficulties be to investigate further than is provided for in the Bill such questions of trade as have been raised with regard to the bars and billets and girders? The hon. Member for
    2390
    Middlesbrough spoke with enthusiasm of the tens of thousands of men employed in the finishing processes, and from what he said and from what the right hon. Member for Paisley said, the Committee would gather that the men employed in making the goods up to the point where these particular goods are imported are negligible in number. Without going into details, I might remind the Committee that even this is a much less simple matter than appears on the surface.
    Take these bars that for the moment are coming from Belgium. Suppose it were true—I do not know whether it be or not—that these particular bars were being sold in this country at something below the cost of production, or owing to the depreciated currency in the country of export they were enjoying a bounty-fed subsidy, and suppose it were true that by their importation employment in the particular industry was being affected. What is that employment? That employment comprises the men who are employed in rolling the bars; it comprises the men who make the raw materials for the bars; it comprises the men who work the blast furnaces; it comprises the men who work the limestone quarries and produce the limestone for the blast furnaces; it comprises the men who mine the ore used in the manufacture of pig-iron; it comprises the men employed in the transport of these articles; it comprises the men who dig the coal that is used in all these processes up to that point; and it comprises the men who are employed in the conversion of so much of that coal as is required for coke, and also the men who are employed in obtaining the byproducts from the coal.
    I mention that to show how extraordinarily difficult it is to say what the labour displaced on the one side would be as against the labour displaced on the other, even assuming—here is the biggest hypothesis of the lot—that the man who bought the goods which for the time being were being dumped was unable to secure orders if he could not get the dumped article. I do not believe that any tribunal on earth could follow out those two chains in those two directions and give any satisfactory answer. The hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) laid great stress on a point that I have never used. He said that this was a Bill to increase

    2391
    employment. It is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill to prevent unemployment when caused by a certain course of action which is described in the first Sub-section of the second Clause of the Bill. It is something that is temporary and sporadic. It is no general tariff. The Bill is devised to meet a contingency, and a contingency that we hope and believe is a temporary contingency. Other countries are attempting, with what success we shall see later on, to do the same thing. I think that probably before long a great many countries will make the attempt.
    I have been ridiculed for telling the Committee quite frankly that it is impossible to say whether this attempt will be successful or not. It is an attempt that has never been made before, because the circumstances in which it is being made have never before existed. A great deal of the criticism levelled against us fails because it never recognises that fact. Our whole case is that the circumstances are entirely new, and that we are attempting to do something to meet dangers which we believe are inherent in those circumstances. The time for our Debate is short, and it is with great reluctance that I stand at all in the way of Members who desire to express their views. I have said all I have to say on this point. I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I have given. I have considered the matter very carefully because I can quite see the possibility of cases in which there might be some temporary dumping under the exchange part of the Bill, that might have the very effect which hon. Members dread. I do not think it is likely, but I think it is possible, and I am trying before the Bill passes out our hands to find some means by which the Committee may be enabled to take cognisance of some facts other than those directly concerned with the one industry. I do not know whether I shall be able to do what I have in my mind, but so far as this Amendment goes it would open the door to so much investigation that it would paralyse any action under this Bill.
    Sir W. BARTON: I am sure the Committee is very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for his interesting speech, and especially for the closing sentences, because I am quite sure if he sets his practical mind to this point he will realise that the proposal of the Bill
    2392
    is impracticable and unworkable. He has informed us that his objection to the criticism passed in connection with this Amendment is that it fails to realise that this is a Bill dealing with temporary circumstances—with new circumstances, and with new conditions. I submit to him that, after all, the novelty is only a question of degree. We had dumping before now, and we have had some experience of depreciated exchanges. I am not sure that the fact of an extension of degree necessarily alters the principle by which we must try to meet a particular difficulty. Examining the paragraph with which this Amendment deals, I think it provides a very strong case for the Amendment. I find the words, applying to certain eventualities,
    "if by reason thereof employment in any industry in the United Kingdom is being, or is likely to be, affected."
    Who shall decide whether employment is likely to be affected? I never knew an unenterprising manufacturer yet, who, confronted with severe competition, was not ready to go to a Government Department and ask for help on the assurance that his business was likely to be affected. The inefficient trader is always sure that his business is likely to be affected. He is always dreading that the whole business of the country is likely to be affected. He always sees black.
    One of the most dangerous features of what you are proposing to do now is that instead of looking at trade and industry whole, as this House and as British Governments have always done in the past, you are now going to look at it in sections. I feel very strongly that you are thinking of pianos and toys and opera glasses when you should be thinking of our great staple industries, and lying behind your proposals I see a great danger to those industries. The President of the Board of Trade, following up an illustration given by one of my hon. Friends, dealt with steel, and he said the displacement of employment caused by the importation of steel went much further than the actual productive processes in connection with steel in this country. He went on to tell us of all the other different processes in which employment would be displaced. I wonder he did not get down to the baker, the butcher, and the shoemaker. It was a regular "house that Jack built." I am not complaining of that, because, as

    2393
    a matter of fact, I think the President of the Board of Trade was right on that particular ground, but the point is this, that by putting on a duty and not allowing the steel to come in, it does not necessarily follow you will remedy that. You will only cut off possibilities from shipbuilding and other industries. I will give you an instance. A shipbuilding firm has the offer of a contract, say, from the Chilian Government, to build ships. They will not buy Belgian or German steel. They are highly principled people, who think the British workman must be maintained whatever happens, and as a result they lose that business. Not only is the shipbuilding lost, but it does not follow that the steel is then made in this country. As a matter of fact, employment is lost in both ways. The assumption behind this proposal is that, under its operation, steel would be manufactured in this country. It does not follow at all, but in fact the contrary follows. I come back, however, to the point that it is not the business of the Government to concern themselves with sections. The business of the Government is to concern themselves with trade as a whole. Now that we are going to become a Protectionist country—and that is what seems to be happening—you will have all sorts of trades and sections coming forward and asking to be included in Bills of this kind. It is exceedingly desirable that there should be someone who will regard the proposals of these Committees set up by the Board of Trade, from the point of view not of a section but of the whole. I gather that the President of the Board of Trade accepts the Amendment in principle. If he desires, as I am sure he does, to make this Bill as little harmful as possible, I strongly urge him to come forward at a later stage with some proposal in the direction indicated by this Amendment.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Had the President of the Board of Trade really been in possession of the whole of the facts he would have seen that his speech proves the case for the Amendment. It is quite true at the present moment steel bars are coming in and are being sold to the roll sheet makers, and these roll sheet makers are just enabled to carry on by reason of the cheap bars which they are getting from Belgium and Northern France. That is well known to everybody acquainted with the trade. In Middles-
    2394
    brough we are shipping large quantities of pig iron to Belgium and Northern France for the purpose of making these bars. If you stop the importation of the bars you will stop the exportation of the pig iron, and displace all the labour in connection with the latter.
    Major HAMILTON: Can the hon. Member say when the last consignment was sent to Belgium?
    Colonel WILLIAMS: It is going to-day. I heard it over the telephone this morning. I can state from my own personal experience that quite recently there were hundreds of tons for delivery and a large and profitable business is being done in that respect. Not only Middlesbrough, but other centres on the north-eastern coast are shipping this iron to Belgium for the manufacture of steel bars. It is used to mix with battlefield scrap and is coming back very cheaply in the form of sheet bars. It is enabling our industries here to get going again. If you put a duty on these bars, you are not going to start the steel works here. They cannot possibly start on that class of material. You are simply going to drive the trade into the hands of the Belgians, who will manufacture cheaply and ship to India. They are well able to do it, because to-day there is a large quantity of freight going from Germany to India shipped through Rotterdam. They are enabled to send their sheets to the Indian market very cheaply and very conveniently. I press upon the Government to consider this question further than they have considered it. The Committee may be interested to know that just this time last year I had a long interview with a gentleman who wanted to buy a large, quantity of iron over the enduing year, that of 1921–22, for making castings for two very large firms of motor manufacturers and makers of similar things in this country. The slump came early in the autumn of last year. All these orders were cancelled, and we lost the orders for pig-iron. That is what will happen if you put a tax on. The whole question needs more consideration. Any Committee that is dealing with this matter should have instructions to take the whole case into consideration, otherwise you will do infinite harm by interfering with trade about which you do not know anything.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I should like to speak as one of those unfortunate people who is interested in the making of these very billets. There is, I think, a great deal of talk about nothing. Out of all the iron and steel makers in England and Scotland I have not received a single letter from one who wishes to have a tariff put on steel billets—not a single one. Why, then, all this talk! This is not being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is being done by the Bill."] They will not do it without the steel makers ask them to do it, and it is, therefore, only waste of time to talk about it. When the Bill is passed the particular article to have the duty put on is going to be selected by a Committee of the Board of Trade. If such representations are made to the Board of Trade and they think it necessary to put on the duty, they will do it. Otherwise it will not be done. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right. There will be this reference to the Committee, as he says.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I do not believe anyone in the iron and steel industry will ask for a tariff.
    Mr. DAVISON: They have asked for it.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: They have not asked me.
    Mr. J. DAVISON: I can prove what I say.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: There is not much substance in this Amendment, and the Board of Trade might just as well accept it. After all is said and done, the only objection I can see to it is the way a judge in Court might interpret the words. If it is possible for him to interpret them as meaning that if one man was to be thrown out of employment by putting on a particular tariff, that, therefore, there should be a tariff, then it would bring the whole thing into ridicule.
    Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is that if the Bill be passed as it stands it will be open to any tin-pot, twopenny firm making steel billets to make an application to the Board of Trade, although the industry as a whole,
    2396
    as my hon. and gallant Friend says, has no intention whatever of putting in for this tariff. Anyone may apply. He may be an agent selling for a foreign firm which is manufacturing billets, and he may put in for the 33⅓ per cent. and prove his case, and upset the whole industry of this country doing so. I should like to give one further and possibly even more striking example of a concern already feeling the effects of this. I have had a communication only this week from the managing director of one of the steel firms in the country. It is a firm owning collieries and steel works, and making ingots, billets, sections, and plates. They also have a tremendous trade in corrugated galvanised iron. I am informed by this gentleman that all their departments are shut down, except the corrugated iron one, the market for which is largely colonial and foreign.
    Colonel P. WILLIAMS: South American and Indian.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Yes. South American and Indian, and foreign countries, generally speaking, not involved in the War. The market is open now, and it is the best market there is, but at the moment people will not buy goods, what with wages and coal coming down. Therefore they must leave their orders over for the moment until they see how things will turn out. It seems to me that until this firm can do as before, and be certain of getting their billets from time to time and as the necessity arises, they will not hold the corrugated market abroad. In default of this the whole place is shut down—the steel works, the rolling mills, and the corrugated iron works and galvanizing works—simply because the unfortunate manufacturer is not allowed to buy in the cheapest market while his competitors abroad may buy as they choose. The President of the Board of Trade suffers from the fact that he is not a lawyer, because I must say that every speech he makes on this Bill, whether it be on Second Beading or Amendments in Committee shows to me conclusively that so far as he is concerned—well, to say the least, he does not think much of the Bill. The speech to which we have just listened was to me a good example of faithful dealing; and the reason why he does not think much of the Bill is that he is not a lawyer. He has some knowledge of the industries of the country.

    2397
    I have given the case of corrugated and galvanised iron. The same thing applies to one of our most profitable foreign trades, and that is the trade of enamelled iron hollow-ware. These are two points which I hope the Committee will bear in mind. First of all, that any little tin-pot firm can upset the whole industry unless this Amendment is passed. Such an agent as I have mentioned can go to the Committee and say, "If this duty is not put on the imported billets out will go ten or a hundred men in my employ engaged at present making these steel billets." Unless some provision is made such as is suggested in this Amendment whereby industry must be regarded as a whole instead of in little bits as the Bill lays down, we shall simply be in the hands of foreign competitors again in this matter as we have been in the past.
    Mr. PERRING: So far as I can judge, the majority of the arguments that have been used this evening are entirely foreign to the question before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has suggested that some tin-pot firm could upset an industry and cause a lot of trouble. He well knows that by one of the Clauses of the Bill the whole question will be referred to a Committee and hon. Members who suggest that those who are engaged in an extensive way in an industry will not have a voice before the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Do hon. Members suggest that one tin-pot firm are going to have a paramount influence in an industry; that either the Government or the Committee will adopt something detrimental to the major portion of the industry?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: If they come and prove that there is unemployment and that their men are affected!
    Mr. PERRING: It has been suggested by other speakers that if such a policy was brought about it would ruin a large number of people. Are we to suppose that these self-same people will not come forward to put their case before the Committee if this matter is going to ruin them?
    Mr. HOPKINSON: They would know nothing about it!
    Mr. PERRING: Reference was made just now to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite said that they had made out
    2398
    their case. The Mover of the Amendment—this was one of his strongest arguments—referred to trade and unemployment between the years 1905–15, and argued that as the import trade went up so unemployment went down. If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion it would be desirable to import everything, and then we should have no unemployment! Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that it would be well to go to the coal industry and tell the miners that if we import all our coal they would be in full work, or to go to the pianoforte makers and tell them that the more we import German pianos the busier they will be? I fail to see the logic of the argument at all. It has no bearing upon the subject. We have heard about steel. It has been suggested that by getting steel bars cheaply certain firms referred to would be able to export 75 per cent. of their wares. The hon. Gentleman who suggested that must know that we are engaged in Middlesbrough in the steel trade, and that we have very keen competitors in all branches of the steel trade in America, and even in Canada. Only yesterday I myself saw a quotation of steel-drawn wire at £30 a ton in New York. At Warrington to-day it is £55 per ton, and that with all the advantages which we have in regard to buying cheap bars from Belgian or cheap steel. Warrington has a much higher price, notwithstanding all these advantages, and cannot compete against Canada and America. It goes to show that there is something else that is influencing prices quite apart from what this Bill can or cannot do.
    Some hon. Members seem to forget the difference in the price of coal in this country and in America, and also that an important factor is the amount of work turned out in these other countries, where they are producing cheap steel, as against what we turn out. I suggest that if hon. Members were to direct their minds more in that direction than in raising bogies about this question they would be doing far greater service, not only in the matter of unemployment, but to the community generally. It is the height of folly to raise arguments which are either foreign or misleading, and to suggest that something is going to happen which cannot happen. There is a large amount of unemployment from which we are suffering from to-day, notwithstanding

    2399
    that you can buy your cheap billets or bars from Belgium at £6 10s., while the English price is £15—and the right hon. Gentleman told us that it is £30. We can be beaten in our own markets and the foreign markets. Reference has been made to Germany. She is not the only competitor we have to consider. There are other competitors even more vital to our industries than even Germany. The small amount of imports from Germany during the first three months of the year compared with other periods was also referred to, as if they were an important argument against this Bill. They are not of the least value whatever against this Bill. There are other countries sending in goods—
    Mr. KILEY: They are outside the Bill.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. PERRING: These arguments are not worth the time spent on them. It would be well if hon. Members would direct their attention to root causes. Then we should not have anything to fear from this Bill because the result would be that the people would be employed and we should be in a better position to compete in the world market than to-day. Fears have been expressed about what this Bill is going to do. In a large degree these fears are ill-founded. What will this Bill do? It merely sets up machinery which can be put into use at a moment's notice under a certain set of circumstances. Those set of circumstances must arise in certain industries. Hon. Members have great fear about them if they do arise. There is the fear of unemployment due to dumping, and to collapsed exchanges; but I should have thought hon. Members would have been equally anxious to prevent the unemployment of the people. The arguments which have been used seem to me to be entirely false. One would assume that hon. Members opposite wish to see people unemployed because they argue that we should keep on importing and importing, and then the people would not be employed. It is so illogical that it does not seem necessary to answer such arguments.
    Mr. FRANCE: The proceedings on this Bill are rapidly developing from comedy into farce. We have heard one hon. Member telling the House with great conviction that this Measure is going to be absolutely futile, that the causes of un-
    2400
    employment has very little to do with collapsed exchanges, and that we should look for other reasons. We have also been told that the steel manufacturers of this country are not asking for any protection, or at any rate they have not asked the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Brigadier-General Hickman) to urge that the 33⅓ per cent. should be put on steel. Why should they? This Bill will be an Act, and it must become an Act, and no amount of argument will affect the vote which hon. Members opposite will give. The majority of this House will turn this Bill into an Act of Parliament.
    The steel manufacturers know that there is going to be a duty of 33⅓ per cent. put into this Act which they may avail themselves of if they desire to do so. If they find that goods are coming here which come under the definition of dumping or that the collapsed exchanges are adversely affecting their trade and they can show that unemployment is affected thereby, they have a right to come and ask the Government to put on this 33⅓ per cent. Under these circumstances why should the steel manufacturers come to the hon. Member opposite who is in that particular trade and give the show away? They know it is possible to obtain the imposition of this duty if they can prove that in their trade there is any temporary unemployment caused. The President of the Board of Trade, with whom I sympathise very deeply, said just now that we wish to ridicule him, but we do not wish to do anything of the sort because our hearts bleed for him, and our sympathies are with him. The Minister of Health, to use the metaphor used by the President of the Board of Trade, is a trumpeting elephant sent out to bring in adherents. The President of the Board of Trade has been speaking in doleful accents like one who is seeking salvation and at last is finding out the truth. He speaks every time more in the direction of saying, "After all, this is not going to do very much good and it is not going to help very much, but something must be done as the position is very serious."
    The hon. and gallant Member opposite said the steel manufacturers did not ask for this. What was the burden of the speech of the Minister of Health last night? Surely it is not toys or small trade that this great Measure is going to affect. The right hon. Gentleman said

    2401
    this Bill was to save this country from ruin and save the great staple industries, and he referred to the steel trade. It does not influence me at all when the hon. and gallant Member opposite admits that he has not yet received any request for protection from his friends in the steel trade. The President of the Board of Trade said this was only a temporary Measure, and therefore it was not necessary to have this Amendment. I do ask him, however, if he would be good enough to consider what is the effect of rejecting an Amendment of this kind. What does he say? Those who support this Amendment say, "We know perfectly well that you can improve and help a particular trade by protection temporarily." Everyone knows that. Nobody is stupid enough to deny that you can bring temporary benefits to a trade by keeping some goods out which compete with that particular trade.
    Let us look at this question from a wider point of view. Let us consider whether you are not going to do something which is going to benefit or injure in the broader sense the trade of the country. In order to prevent that injury we want you to take into consideration whether the articles you are keeping out might not by a process of further employment give more employment. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot have that Amendment. I think he must admit that he is prepared to help a particular trade and benefit that trade, and safeguard the employment, and by his own admission he says that must be done even if thousands are going to be unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches show that he is learning those elementary principles which are very difficult and sometimes very awkward, and I hope he will believe that we are not saying these things with a desire to obstruct, but with a general desire that this question should be looked upon more from a national point of view and not from the point of view of any particular trade. The steel trade apparently does not want this protection, and, if so, why have a Bill to protect the steel trade? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to see that this narrow aspect of one trade will not be taken in the provisions of this Bill when it finally emerges as an Act, and I hope that wider considerations will have play.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I have been connected with the steel trade, the galvanis-
    2402
    ing sheet trade, and the tin plate trade for the past 30 years, and if it were possible for the steel trade of this country to be wiped out of existence as a result of foreign competition, a thing I never believe can happen, my bread and butter is at stake, and, therefore, if anybody ought to support the Government I ought to do so. But I take a broader view of this question than the question of how this Bill affects the steel trade. I look at this matter from the standpoint of how it will affect the volume of employment in this country, and if we look at it from that standpoint I think we shall be able to examine this Measure and find out whether it is going to be an advantage to the country or not.
    The President of the Board of Trade, in addressing the House recently, tried to compare the advantage that this Bill would give to the men who were producing the iron ore, the limestone, the men at the blast furnaces, the men at the steel furnaces, and so on. I want to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that if he will make a careful calculation of the average number of men employed in producing a ton of steel he will discover that the number is only about five men, while the average number of men employed to convert that ton of steel into galvanised sheets is about 20. I have had a circular to-day, and I have gone over the names in that circular, and it has astonished me to find in it the name of a gentleman who lives only three miles from my own constituency, and who, up to a short time ago, was one of the biggest Tariff Reformers in this country, and when he finds that raw steel is going to be taxed he signs this circular urging hon. Members to vote against the Key Industries Bill. He was one of the biggest Tariff Reformers I ever came across in South Wales.
    The President of the Board of Trade, in comparing the number of men, forgot one important point. Assume for a moment that the steel worker is thrown out of employment as a result of this semi-raw steel being imported into this country. The President forgets that there is another steel worker employed in another steel works producing steel to make ship plates to build ships, which are required to bring material into this country and to ship out the finished articles produced with this semi-raw steel, and also another steel worker employed to

    2403
    produce steel rails for the purpose of carrying the raw and finished article to the port. You will have a greater volume of employment under Free Trade and under the free exchange of commodities between nations, because it is to the advantage of people of all nations, and you will have a greater volume of employment as a result of importing this semi-raw steel into this country, and producing or manufacturing from it tin plates and galvanised sheets, than if you protected and prevented this steel coming into the country. Let me deal with the tin plate trade in South Wales. This is an export trade. I should think we export 80 per cent. of the tin plates that we produce in South Wales to foreign countries. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that we should get cheap steel in order to produce these tin plates. What is the result going to be if we are going to have a protective tariff?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I should like the hon. Member to connect his arguments with the Amendment before us. I am not saying that he is out of order, but we cannot have a general discussion on the Bill on this Amendment.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I was going to show-how tinplaters will be thrown out of employment as a result of steel being protected in this country. On an average you have about five men employed in producing a ton of steel, but you have 20 men employed in the tinplate trade converting that steel. These plates are exported and unless we can produce tin-plates cheaper and put them on to neutral markets the Americans are going to capture all the neutral markets. Therefore Protection is not good. If your tinplate trade goes down your foundries go down too, and instead of throwing one body of men out of employment you will throw lots of others also out of employment, and in so far as the foundries are concerned, in so far as the engineering trade and the transport trade are concerned, this is going to land us into no end of difficulty. I venture to assert the Government have not grasped the elementary position in so far as this question is concerned. This is my frank opinion. I have said plainly what my position in the steel trade is. If it goes down my bread and butter go as well. Inasmuch as when you shut the door of this Chamber in the face of Black Rod
    2404
    you also close yourselves in, so that when you shut other people out in this matter of trade you equally close yourselves in and we become little Englanders straight off the reel.
    I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade and to those who are trying to establish Protection in this country to try and understand international trade and economics. Let them see how it will affect them. Trade is an exchange of goods for goods. No one will deny that, and, least of all, will the President of the Board of Trade do so. For every pound's worth of foreign goods imported into this country a pound's worth of English goods is exported and consumed in other countries. If we adopt this insular policy of absolute Protection, we can have no external trade whatever, and we shall be shut out from every market in the world. Therefore, I say to the President of the Board of Trade and to those supporting this Bill, let us look at this question from a national standpoint. Let us view it as it will affect the volume of unemployment in this country. I want to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. We have steel manufacturers in this country to-day who are building steel works in Canada. If they are able to produce steel there more cheaply than is done by the steel workers in this country, are we going to prevent that steel coming into England? If not, what is the difference between English steel workers suffering as a result of Belgian steel being shut out and suffering by the shutting out of steel obtained from our Canadian steel works?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There is nothing in this Bill to prevent anything, whether it be steel or any other article, coming into this country unless it is sold at a price below the cost of production.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I accept that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But I know something about this business, and I want to put this question to him. There are some combines in this country which own their collieries, their blast furnaces, and their steel works. There are other steel firms which possess steel works alone. The combines will be able to produce a ton of steel at 5s. or 7s. 6d. per ton cheaper than can be done by the firm which simply owns its steel works. If this firm with one steel works is going to the Board of Trade to make out a case that the foreigner is sending steel

    2405
    here under the cost of production, how will the President of the Board of Trade deal with that question?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Board of Trade does not deal with it at all. It is referred to a Committee.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: When that Committee sits and allow these people to appear before them—people, I mean, whose men are going to be thrown out of employment as a result of cheap steel which has been imported—will they listen to a deputation from the representatives of the firms who own collieries, blast furnaces, and steel works, as well as from the people who complain that the steel is sent in under cost of production and also see a deputation of those who use the semi-raw steel? The more I go into this matter the more puzzled I am. I really cannot get at the bottom of it, but I do ask the President of the Board of Trade and those who support him to study both economics and international trade. If they do that I am sure the Bill will be dropped.
    Sir H. MACKINDER: This is not in the ordinary sense a question of Free Trade or Protection. If the hon. Member who recommended the President of the Board of Trade to go in for the study of economics will refer, to his Adam Smith be will find that Adam Smith discusses the relative natural facilities of different countries to produce, and advocates that those countries should interchange the products which they have natural facilities to produce. I do not say that that exhausts the argument in this 20th Century, but that kind of argument is not involved here. We are dealing purely with a temporary condition of things, or a condition of things which may be temporary at any given time. The only goods involved are goods which are being sold below the cost of production, or which are specially reduced in price owing to the working of the present very abnormal condition of the exchange. I think the amendment now before the Committee raises very fairly the broad issue between the supporters of this Bill and the opponents of it. An hon. Member just now asked us to take a broad view of the question. The broad view that appears to me quite justified when we come to examine the meaning of this Amendment is that the Amendment takes the short view, and that the Bill takes
    2406
    the long view. It is perfectly possible under present conditions that you may momentarily get greater employment at the cost of less employment a little later on.
    I take it that Germany is not the only country involved in the working of this Bill. I will deal with her case because there at the present time you have a very artificial condition of affairs which cannot last for more than a certain number of years. The condition of things in Germany is this: that she is bound, as far as possible, to go on manufacturing those lines for which she has the raw material in her own country, because for any other raw material she must pay enormous prices owing to the state of the exchange. She has a population which is crowded on relatively sterile ground. They have a certain skill, and therefore you have a condition of things at the present moment in which that skill is cheap in Germany and will be applied to those particular lines of trade for which Germany happens to have the raw material within her own borders. Given these conditions it is perfectly possible that you will have a development of certain lines of trade. There is in a country of the magnitude of Germany a considerable home consumption, and you will have a temporary temptation to Germany to dump in those particular lines in order that she may produce that which she can produce, consuming her own raw material and consuming skill which at the present moment is superfluous among her own people. That is a temporary condition of things. But see what may happen here. Owing to the dumping there will be thrown out of employment here not merely certain labour, but certain skill and certain fixed capital in particular lines, for where you are throwing out of employment people engaged in particular lines you are definitely scrapping skill and fixed capital—plant, for instance—in those particular lines. The result is that Germany is speicialising in one particular kind of work and you are driven to specialise in another kind of work. That would not matter so very much if there were no war in the world, but it is because of the lessons of the War that we cannot afford this kind of specialising. If you merely wanted to get cheap guns it would have been cheaper perhaps to have allowed Krupp to grow into a world producer of guns.

    2407
    Apart from the question of war and from the views of those who believe there will be no war in the future, I want to point to the purely commercial condition of affairs. You have a temporary condition of things in Germany which is forcing upon us also a temporary condition of things. You have specialising in Germany on those particular things in which she happens to have the raw materials cheap, because they are within her own borders, and you have, too, specialising here, to which we are driven, because Germany can dump her specialised goods here. That would not matter if the conditions were to be permanent and if there were no war. But they will not be permanent, and gradually the exchanges will right themselves and, accordingly, the condition of affairs will become such that Germany will be able to afford to buy raw materials from outside. Her whole policy has always been to equip herself as a complete economic unit, and the result will be that she will put out of action a certain amount of your skill and plant in those things which temporarily she was monopolising. Having done that, and having injured you to the extent that you will not be able to restore that skill and that plant, except after the lapse of a certain number of years, she will then return to the position she had before the War, and will attract to herself every trade which will enable her to work upon you a second time. The hon. Members in their Amendment and in their arguments seemed to forget the action of time. It is assumed that two nations are both producing that which they can produce best, and that they will interchange, but it is forgotten altogether that we are no longer in Adam Smith's condition. It takes years to equip a country in order to produce in any given line, and especially in skilled lines, and, if you allow, under temporary conditions, your plant and skill to be broken by dumping, you will not be able to restore your productive power under a certain number of years and without very great capital expenditure, which, temporarily, is not remunerative. Therefore Germany, or any other nation, will have acquired during those years a monopoly so far as you are concerned, and can, upon the wealth of that monopoly, proceed to erect, if she has a national policy and not a laissez faire
    2408
    policy, the remaining trades which temporarily she has lost because of the conditions prevailing at the present time.
    What we ask to-day is not that we shall go into the whole question of Protection and Free Trade, not that we shall attempt to do impossibilities—to grow sugar cane or other impossible things that are not wanted in this country. This Bill is simply to meet the temporary condition of things which exists to-day, and which is such that certain countries, and notably Germany, are in a highly artificial condition, impelling them to such a policy of dumping and the use of exchanges as will temporarily injure your trade and enable them to scrap your skill and your machinery, so that it will only be after a number of years that you will be able to restore the position. The Bill takes the longer view; this Amendment takes the shorter view. The Amendment asks you to judge of the immediate effect; the Bill says, "Do not be tempted to accept the gifts coming from the Greeks, but look a little further. You are being tempted to your own damage and loss, and not in the direction of greater employment. Do not allow dumping or exchanges to break your industrial organisation, which you will need a little later." That is the sole object of this Bill as far as I can see it, and it seems to me that the arguments against it do not really face the position. It seems to me that this Amendment does fairly raise the issue between the Bill and its opponents. It is a question of short sight and long sight. The long sight is on the side of the Bill, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not accept the Amendment.
    Captain ELLIOT: It seems only fitting, as the last speaker is a Scottish Conservative Member, that the next speaker should be a Scottish Conservative also, especially as my views are in every way diametrically opposed to his. It seems very strange that he should make a long speech about an Amendment, and leave out of account any discussion of the Amendment whatsoever, except to make the extraordinary general statement that the Amendment took the short view and the Bill took the long view. The Amendment does take the short view—the shortest of all. It says, "Hear the other side." Is there anyone in the Committee who will say that the Protectionist case, which has been argued with such fluency, is incapable of meeting the argu-

    2409
    ments against it? Is there anyone who says that it is so weak that only one side of the case must be presented to the Committee? Here is an Amendment which takes the common-sense, old-fashioned English view that if you hear one side of the case it is almost inevitaable—at any rate it has always been considered as only courteous, even if you have made up your mind beforehand—that you should hear the other side as well. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade is rather like that of the Irish lynch judge who, on hearing the case for the prosecution, said, "The case is now closed." "No," said the defending counsel, "I want to speak." "Oh," said the judge, "I never like to hear argument on the other side; it has a tendency to confuse the court."
    That is the position in which we are just now. The President of the Board of Trade used the extraordinary argument that this is a difficult and complicated matter. Of course it is a difficult and complicated matter. At this very moment, at the other end of the Lobby, a case in point is being heard. The agricultural interest has for some years past had the advantage of an embargo on Canadian cattle coming into this country, and, as a matter of fact, I am in favour of that myself, but hon. and right hon. Members have raised a discussion as to whether it should be continued or not. Is there any vestige there of this revolutionary doctrine that only one side of the case should be heard? I myself, and all the agricultural Members, would be only too pleased if the Royal Commission were only to hear the evidence of those people who claim that employment in their industry is being or is likely to be seriously affected by the admission of Canadian cattle. If only those witnesses were to be called, we could make out a very strong case indeed. But the agricultural interests in this country have taken the revolutionary step, according to the Government, of actually admitting evidence on the other side, and at this moment the Commission is hearing evidence on both sides. Let us do away with that. Let us scrap it. Let us say, "It is a ridiculous idea to hear evidence on both sides; it makes it still more complicated." Let us ask the Commission only to hear arguments in favour of retaining the embargo, and none of the arguments
    2410
    in favour of taking it off, and then none of us will have any doubt as to the issue.
    The President of the Board of Trade, less zealous and ardent than his supporters, admitted that there was something to be said for this, and that, between now and the Report stage, he would do his best to see whether it was not possible that the other side of the case should have a chance of being put. His supporters will have none of that. They say, "Oh, no; we want the Act immediately. We want to go straight into this; we want something which can be set immediately in operation. It will be delayed if you hear evidence on the other side." And then the hon. Member for Camlachie (Sir H. Mackinder) actually said that this was taking the long view. Of course, it is taking the long view if you are to say that evidence against one's own views delays a verdict in one's favour. Of course it does, but that is a revolutionary doctrine to bring into the proceedings of the British Parliament. The speeches delivered and the oases made out to-day have grown, as the hon. Member for Batley (Mr. France) said, from comedy into farce, and there could be nothing more farcical than the latest suggestion. I do not think I should have been moved to make these few remarks if it had not been for the extraordinary pretensions, not so much of the President of the Board of Trade, as of his supporters. We have a perfectly definite Amendment here, which says that the evidence on the other side should be heard as well as the evidence on the Protectionist side. Surely that is a simple and common-sense Amendment. It is additionally necessary in that we are not merely discussing now the question of dumping, that is to say, selling here below the cost of production. That is a matter upon which we are all agreed. But we have here the question of selling at a lower price than can be attained in this country by reason of the depreciated exchange.
    That brings in an entirely different set of circumstances. Depreciated exchanges, says the hon. Member for Camlachie, will right themselves—as if they were some mysterious thing that moved like the wind, blowing where it listeth. The mysterious thing about the exchanges is that they are a symbol, and not a thing in themselves. The exchanges

    2411
    are like a thermometer. If the thermometer shows that the room is too hot, you do not take the thermometer outside and wait until it goes down; you open the window and cool the room. If it seems that the Germans, owing to the pressure of the indemnity and of recovering their position, are trying to export goods into this country, the only way in which the exchange will come right is by releasing those goods and letting them pass between the two countries. If you maintain a prohibition against German goods, you automatically retain the depreciated exchange. It is not then a temporary thing, but becomes permanent, and, instead of taking temporary measures against exceptional conditions arising out of the War, we shall have to adopt a new permanent commercial policy in this country. Many of us are quite willing to take special measures in favour of key industries, or against the warlike commercial operation known as dumping; but a general Protectionist policy in this country as a permanent feature of our industrial polity is not a thing that we are proposing to adopt if we are not compelled to do so, and we thoroughly resent the attempt that is being made to foist that system on the country and smuggle it through under, the pretext that this is merely a Bill—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is now getting very wide in his remarks, and I would ask him to keep more closely to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Captain ELLIOT: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Hope, for calling me to order. I was getting rather wide of the point, but not, as hon. Members below the Gangway have said, merely through a desire to obstruct, although the new view seems to be that any evidence against the Bill is obstruction. On that general ground it is, perhaps, obstruction, but I simply want to say that here we have an Amendment asking that both sides should be allowed to place evidence before the Committee which is going to give its verdict. We have had a promise from the President of the Board of Trade that he would at least examine the possibility of this being done, and I beg of him, if he will not accept this Amendment—for which personally I intend to vote—that he will at least accept some Amend-
    2412
    ment which will have the effect of allowing, not only one side, but both sides who are going to be affected by the decision of this Committee to have the honest, old-fashioned, English chance of pleading their case, and then, if you like, of taking the verdict at which the Committee arrive.
    Mr. SEDDON: We have listened with interest to a facetious speech, which gave a good deal of amusement but threw very little light on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member started by gibing at the previous speaker for delivering a speech in which nothing was said about the Amendment; and then he began to build up a case which, as far as I can see, has no substance in it at all. I can see nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent any person coming before that Committee and giving evidence either for or against. I want to go back and support the hon. Member for Camlachie in the line that he took. We have been talking about steel, but there are other trades. Some of them are small and some are great, but I do not think you ought to take a mean advantage of those who are engaged in a small trade simply because it happens to be small. This Bill is the fulfilment of pledges, and those pledges were largely based upon the activities and the proposals of the party that now is bitterly opposing the Bill.
    Mr. KILEY: We are talking about depreciation.
    Mr. SEDDON: I can go on without the help of the hon. Member. I know where he is, and I know that we are diametrically opposed. This discussion has rambled from subject to subject, and I want to bring it back to the Amendment itself. The hon. Member for Camlachie has said that this Bill takes the long view, and the Amendment takes the short view. What is the position of some of the smaller trades? I want to deal with that of ceramic printing. It is a very small trade. Up to the outbreak of the War we allowed it to be a German trade almost entirely. When the necessity arose they were told, under definite pledges and promises emanating from the Paris economic resolutions, that if they put their capital into the industry when the War was over they would not suffer the same penalties that were inflicted upon them before the War took place. Thousands and thousands of capital have

    2413
    been put into that form of printing. Owing to the depleted exchanges Germany is flooding the markets. That capital is practically gone. If you do not have this protection the people who put their money into that industry will have been misled, not only by this House, but by the promises that were made, and it will be a breach of faith and honesty to those who have put their capital in it. So far as this Amendment is concerned, as I read it the discussion has had nothing to do with the rights of either side. Either of those who are for or against have an opportunity of going to this Committee if it is set up, and any discussion on this Amendment is waste of time.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The Mover of the Amendment used military metaphors and compared the Minister of Health with Big Bertha. Following that line, he himself, and others on his side, have been putting up a smoke screen, because they have done all they possibly could to obscure the real issues raised by this Amendment. Speech after speech has been made to meet the specific case of steel billets, apparently under the impression that the Bill had some reference to steel billets. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hopkinson) said that under this Clause any trader need only show that in his business some of his employés would be thrown out of employment and he would then get protection. It would not be at all a bad thing if hon. Members before making speeches of this type in support of Amendments would read the Clause they are trying to amend, and try to understand what their own Amendments amount to. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) told us that the effect of defeating the Amendment would be to shut out all evidence against the application before the Committee. That is an entire misreading of what it effects. When the Committee meets there is nothing in the Bill to prevent witnesses giving their evidence, either for or against the application. Some hon. Members have really forgotten that the House has already sanctioned a considerable portion of Clause 2. It has already authorised the Board of Trade to set up a committee to deal with these applications, and this Sub-section really deals with what is the best method to carry out the provisions which are set forth in Sub-section (1).
    It must be obvious to everyone that if we really want to get this committee doing
    2414
    its work well, we want its members to be detached from all political pre-dispositions, and from all theoretical predispositions, men who will simply address themselves to the specific issues which are included in the reference which is given to them. The reference is stated already in Sub-section (1). The issue they have to decide is whether these goods are sold at prices below the cost of production, or at prices which, by reason of the depreciation in values, are likely to cause unemployment in the particular industry. Those are broad issues of fact, and if you are going to get this Committee doing good work it has to address itself surely to facts and to facts alone. It is no good dealing with large questions of political or economic theory. We do not want to have the Committee disturbed in its adjudication of what is the only object of its coming into being, namely, a decision as to whether or not those conditions exist.
    We have had appeal after appeal that the Committee must look to broad principles, that it must take the long view, and that it has to look at the matter as widely as possible, and no doubt hon. Members who have spoken in support of it hope to see this Committee not dealing with the specific issues which are referred to it, but go altogether outside the orbit of the reference which is made to them and to deal instead with these large questions of political economy, to bandy quotas lions from learned writers or orators on political economy from Adam Smith to John Bright and from Cobden to the hon. Member for Whitechapel, and to hear theoretical economists who have always been interested in persuading the country that it is a. good thing to have foreign imports to the greatest possible extent. I contend that discussions of that sort, discussions of broad issues, are discussions for the House. They are not discussions for this Committee at all. The reference to the Committee is already framed, and it is ridiculous to expect the Committee to go outside the orbit of the reference. In the reference there is not a word about these potential results of the measures which are advocated by the Committee, and therefore it is absurd to expect them to go into matters altogether alien to the reference. The object of the Committee is to act as a judicial body on specific facts. It is not its object to act as a

    2415
    debating society. When the results of the Committee's deliberations are submitted to Parliament, Parliament can deal with these larger questions of political and economic speculation. That is not the job of any Committee. It is only common sense that the Committee should stick to its job, which is the adjudication on certain actual phenomena, and not speculation as to future remote and hypothetic consequences.
    Captain W. BENN: I quite understand why the President of the Board of Trade does not answer. He wants a limited time for consideration. But really the Government suffers from its supporters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst) has given the whole case away, and he correctly interprets the Subsection. It says, "by reason thereof employment," etc. That is to say, the man who has a locus standi before the Committee is the man who alleges that employment in his particular industry is suffering. No one else has any locus standi at all. The President of the Board of Trade does not attempt to deny it. All he says is, "Once you start on these large questions of general employment it is beyond the grasp of any man." That is what we believe. The less the Board of Trade attempt to grasp it, the better. The more they leave it to people who have made it their life study, the better. Trade is not a matter which can be controlled by young gentlemen in Whitehall. It is a thing that is built up in a complicated way by one man specialising in searching for some produce over the world and another specialising in how to sell it, and they do not want a young gentleman to go and poke his ringer into the wheels of industry and decide whether he should put an embargo on tungsten and before lunch decide whether he will put a swinging duty on paper. What is wanted is freedom for these wheels to revolve without interference from Government Departments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the only people who can go before the Committee are people whose trade is affected.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURST: No, I did not say that at all. I said those people will go before the Committee and any persons who wish to raise objections can go too.
    Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman expressly ruled out what he
    2416
    called the speculative question. Let me take a simple case that I know well. Take paper. A man comes before the Committee and says, "My paper mills are being affected by the import of foreign paper." What about the publisher? He cannot come before the Committee. His employment is not being affected by the import of cheap paper. It is being helped. Consequently you will have a paper manufacturer applying for a duty on his article regardless of the disastrous effect on the newspapers of the country. The President of the Board of Trade dealt in a very tentative and apologetic way with the Bill. His supporters do not do that. They go in for the whole hog, and they want little interests to bring pressure on a small committee in the hope of getting their interest protected by a tariff. That is the thing we object to. That is the thing that really renders this Amendment one of the most important we have discussed and one which certainly the Government ought to accept.
    Mr. KILEY: I am not interested in steel bars, but I have a little interest in a town known as Northampton, which is noted for the manufacture of boots. In order to manufacture the best boots in the world they require patent leather. Patent leather is best obtainable from a country other than our country. We are already trying to make that patent leather in this country.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask you, Sir, whether this discussion is in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is necessary to allow a certain exordium to an hon. Member. The hon. Member will doubtless connect his exordium with his argument.
    Mr. KILEY: I was leading up to the fact that we are trying to make that patent leather to enable the bootmakers to keep their people in employment. We have done our best to prevent that being done because, under the key industries part of the Bill, we have prevented the importation of the material to make that leather to the best advantage. That is the reason the hon. Member (Mr. Samuel) told the Committee that he was unable, perhaps for the first time, to support the Government, and he would not vote against them and so would not vote at all. The Committee will realise the position.

    2417
    The manufacturers of Northampton were bound to provide the materials to keep their bootmakers employed. If they paid this 33⅓ per cent., which the patent leather makers would have to pay, it places them at a disadvantage in first of all having to get inferior leather and then they have to pay a very much bigger price than they would otherwise pay, and it does not place them in a position to retain their overseas trade. With regard to the Committee, I have served on a Board of Trade Committee and I know the procedure. The President is urged to prohibit or restrict imports. On one occasion a proposal was brought to us that a certain commodity, which had been imported into this country at 9s. 3d., could not be made here for less than 15s. The Committee there and then passed a recommendation to the President that he was not to allow any more of that commodity to come in. Those who are concerned have no opportunity of coming
    before the Committee. We on the Committee have no opportunity of testing the accuracy or otherwise of the statements. It is absolutely essential that if the Act is desired to be properly administered, precautions should be taken to see that all points of view are considered. If that is not done there will be very serious disadvantages accruing to all concerned, and although it may tend to create some employment for those who are trying to make this patent leather—
    It being Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 222.

    Division No. 211.]

    AYES.

    [7.2 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Halls, Walter

    O'Grady, James

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hayday, Arthur

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayward, Evan

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hirst, G. H.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Briant, Frank

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Cairns, John

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Irving, Dan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Swan, J. E.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Lunn, William

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wignall, James

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)

    Gillis, William

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Myers, Thomas

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Atkey, A. R.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Casey, T. W.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G

    Reid, D. D.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)'

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jesson, C.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Seager, Sir William

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Simm, M. T.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Stevens, Marshall

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Stewart, Gershom

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Forrest, Walter

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Taylor, J.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Manville, Edward

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Morrison, Hugh

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Neal, Arthur

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Winterton, Earl

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Parker, James

    Wise, Frederick

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford)

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Perring, William George

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hood, Joseph

    Pratt, John William

    Younger, Sir George

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n.W.)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    McCurdy.

    The Chairman then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment proposed by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Amendment proposed: Leave out Subsection (3), and insert instead thereof:
    "(3) If at the time when it is proposed to make any such orders the Commons House of Parliament is sitting or is separated by such an adjournment or prorogation as will expire within one month, the drafts of the
    2420
    proposed orders shall be laid before that House and the orders shall not be made unless and until a resolution is passed by that House approving of the drafts either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution, and upon such approval being given the orders may be made in the form in which the drafts have been approved.
    In any other case an order may be made forthwith, but all orders so made shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after its next meeting, and shall not continue in force for more than one month after such meeting unless a resolution is passed by that House declaring that the orders shall continue in force, either without modification or subject to such

    2421
    modifications as may be specified in the resolution; and, if any modifications are so made as respects any order, the order shall thenceforth nave effect subject to such modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Any order approved or continued under this Sub-section shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 78.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Charge of Customs duties on goods to which Part II applies.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, there shall be charged, levied and paid on goods of any class or description in respect of which an order has been made under this Part of this Act, if manufactured in any of the countries specified in the order, on the importation thereof into the United Kingdom, in addition to any other duties of customs chargeable thereon, duties of customs equal to one-third of the value of the goods.
    (2) Where goods are manufactured partly in one country and partly in another, or undergo different processes in different countries, and any one or more of those countries are countries in relation to which an order applying to the goods in question has been made under this Part of this Act, the goods shall be liable to duty under this Part of this Act unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that fifty per cent. or more of the value of the goods at the time of export to the United Kingdom is attributable to processes of manufacture undergone since the goods last left any country in relation to which such an order has been made.
    (3) An order under this Part of this Act may extend to goods brought back into the United Kingdom after having been exported therefrom for the purpose of undergoing any process out of the United Kingdom, and in such case the goods shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to have been manufactured in the country in which they have undergone such process, but the
    2424
    importer shall, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of the value of the goods free on board at the time of such exportation, and of the identity thereof, and that no drawback has been allowed thereon on the exportation thereof, be entitled to be repaid by the Commissioners such proportion of the duty paid under this Part of this Act on the goods so brought back after having undergone such process as aforesaid as represents the duty on the value of the goods before exportation.
    Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in addition to any other duties of Customs chargeable thereon."
    This Amendment stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Thorn-bury (Mr. Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, W. (Mr. C. White), and I have been asked to move it. The object is to prevent cumulative duties being levied upon any articles which come under this Bill. As the question was discussed last night by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn), I will not debate it further.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 70.

    Division No. 212.]

    AYES.

    [7.12 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral, Thomas B. S.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Neat, Arthur

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Parker, James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Perring, William George

    Bellairs, Commander Carlvon W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pratt, John William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Reid, D. D

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Remnant, Sir James

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

    Renwick, Sir George

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hood, Joseph

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,w.)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Hopkins, John W. W

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Casey, T. W.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Seager, Sir William

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert

    Simm, M. T.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Jesson, C.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cope, Major William

    Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

    Lewis. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lloyd. George Butler

    Taylor, J.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Elveden, Viscount

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Manville, Edward

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Forrest, Walter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Morrison, Hugh

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Winterton, Earl

    Woolcock, William James U.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Wise, Frederick

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    McCurdy.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Younger, Sir George

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Hayward, Evan

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hinds, John

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Irving, Dan

    Spoor, B. G.

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Cairns, John

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Swan, J. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lunn, William

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Wignall, James

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Mills, John Edmund

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Gillis, William

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Myers. Thomas

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Halls, Walter

    Rae, H. Norman

    Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.

    Hogge.

    Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 213.]

    AYES.

    [7.23 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Parker, James

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Pearce, Sir William

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Perring, William George

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pratt, John William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Reid, D. D.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Renwick, Sir George

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Seager, Sir William

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G

    Simm, M. T.

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Casey, T. W.

    Jesson, C.

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Stewart. Gershom

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Taylor, J.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Cope, Major William

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Manville, Edward

    Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred Moritz

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Morden, Col. W Grant

    Wise, Frederick

    Forrest, Walter

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morrison, Hugh

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Younger, Sir George

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Neal, Arthur

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wilson.

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lunn, William

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Halls, Walter

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mills, John Edmund

    Briant, Frank

    Hayward, Evan

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Cairns, John

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hinds, John

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Myers, Thomas

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Irving, Dan

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    John. William (Rhondda, West)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Gillis, William

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Spoor, B. G.

    2426

    2427

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Swan, J. E.

    Wignall, James

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Colonel Penry Williams and Major

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Barnes.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "one-third" and to insert instead thereof the word "one-tenth."
    The winning personality of the President of the Board of Trade assisted the Government in a very awkward Amendment earlier in the afternoon, though even the supporters of the Government found great difficulty in supporting it in the Debate. This House of Commons is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his anxiety not to disturb trade conditions. Throughout our Debates he has shown readiness to listen to every argument addressed from this side, though up to this moment we have not succeeded in making any improvement in the Bill. We can appeal then to the Government to endeavour to conserve the trade interests of this country by avoiding any sudden levying of duty. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, with his business experience, will agree that if goods are imported in future and are forced to pay a duty of one-third it will upset trade conditions throughout the country. We think a 10 per cent. duty sufficient. If it is proved that 10 per cent. does not secure the object which they have in view, the Government can come at short notice and ask the House to give them increased power. Two or three times during the last few months the Government have asked the House to change legislation which was passed a short time ago.
    The Government propose a uniform remedy in this matter. Whether there is a heavily depreciated exchange as in Russia, Poland and Austria, or a much less depreciated exchange as in Belgium and France, the idea in the mind of the Government is to apply a uniform remedy to every one of these varying trade conditions. What is sufficient for one case is insufficient for another. Therefore I appeal to the Government to take a more moderate view and to adopt the view which Tariff Reformers in the old days outlined to this country. We are aware that their proposals were rejected at three general elections after they were submitted to the country, and that at recent bye-elections every candidate, whether a supporter of the Government
    2428
    or not, was opposed to this Bill. These are strong reasons why the Government should hasten slowly in this matter. Let them adopt 10 per cent. to start with. If the country approves of the policy, and we realise the value of protective duties and high prices in creating employment, then the Government can come forward with a good case and ask the House of Commons to increase these duties.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Last year an international conference under the auspices of the Supreme Council, and representing 31 nations, met at Brussels. The three British representatives were very distinguished exponents of economics and finance. The whole of the Allied and associated Powers and several neutral countries were represented by gentlemen of very nearly the same calibre. They discussed the whole question of European trade, exchange, etc., and recommended unanimously that every barrier to the restoration of trade should be swept away. They further said that the new States created under the Peace Treaty should immediately withdraw all restrictions on trade.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know how that can be considered relevant to the question of whether the Committee should decide on a duty of one-third or one-tenth.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we have got to take poison we should try to take as little as possible. This Bill will not be an encouragement to these new States. How the proposals to levy a duty of one-third the value of the goods can be reconciled with the Government's own policy—because the Supreme Council approved and therefore the British Government were committed to the recommendations of this Conference—I do not know. If they do need any assistance in the way of protection a duty of one-tenth would be high enough.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: The President of the Board of Trade in resisting these Amendments admitted that this legislation was an experiment so far as interference with English trade was concerned. That is all the more reason when break-

    2429
    ing new ground for treading carefully and not going more quickly than is necessary. Therefore I join in the appeal, as it is such an innovation affecting such large trade interests, to move cautiously and consider whether a duty of one-tenth would not be preferable to a duty of one-third. The right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) gave a striking illustration of the effect which this duty would have on a very large industry in this country, the industry of sheet bars, which are now coming into the country for rolling out into corrugated sheets and galvanised sheets and are at present quoted here at £6 10s. a ton as compared with £13, the present price of the English manufacture. Yet even at the price of £6 10s. it gives the sheet roller all he can do to compete in the world markets. Our trade is largely an export trade to India, the Colonies, America and elsewhere, and to put on a duty of one-third making the price £8 13s. 4d. would make it impossible for our sheet rollers, manufacturers of half finished products, to compete in the world markets and that trade would go. If the duty were one-tenth making the price £13 3s. it might yet leave a margin which would make it possible to carry on this large industry.
    Even if this proposed duty were imposed it would not benefit the steel producers of this country, because the orders for these bars will not go to the English manufacturers of steel, as it is impossible for the sheet manufacturer to pay £13 and compete in the world market. It simply means that you prevent the sheet works of this country carrying on at all, and you will do no good to the manufacturer of steel in this country. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of the whole country and of trade to consider whether it is wise to put on this prohibitive duty which will kill this particular trade. It is not a question of raising the price of these bars if they come in, by raising the price of the whole material that is used by manufacturers in this country. Take a country which has a depreciated exchange. It gets the benefit of 33⅓ per cent. Take, then, another country which sends this material which may not have a depreciated exchange at all, and though it does not get the duty on its goods the price of the imported material from the competing country having been raised to this extent the one importer naturally takes the
    2430
    advantage which is given to the other importer and his price is raised accordingly.
    You raise the whole cost to the manufacturer in this country and make it prohibitive. You are dealing with a trade which has an import of over 1,000,000 tons of steel and iron, half finished products in one form or another, and affects values equivalent to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 at least. You are going to shut that up by this Bill. Proceed cautiously and begin with the duty of one-tenth without endangering the trade which has been built up during the last 20 or 30 years, which employs hundreds of thousands of men, and depends entirely on the cheap products of the country. Not that we get the whole of the material used in our mills from the Continent, but the fact that we have open markets keeps the price of steel bars in this country down to a level which enables our manufacturers to compete in the world market. The instance which I have given shows that the danger to trade involved in this provision of the Bill is so tremendous that the President of the Board of Trade might accept this Amendment, so that at any rate as little harm as possible may be done.
    Sir R. COOPER: The two last speakers have used an argument which we heard a good many times yesterday, and they referred to this 33⅓ per cent. duty, not only as being a very high duty, but as a new experiment in the fiscal principles of this country. That is absolutely incorrect, because at this present time, and for the last two years at least, a duty of 33⅓ per cent. has been imposed on all motor spare parts and accessories coming into the country. There are many hundreds of firms engaged in this trade and concerned with goods that are imported from France and Germany, but mainly from the United States, and I am personally connected with one firm that imports these parts, and in this particular firm last year over £30,000 was paid to the Treasury in duties alone on the imported goods. It is true that this 33⅓ per cent. duty which is referred to as being so very high has not had the effect of keeping out the American goods, but the Treasury has got the £30,000 from one comparatively small firm. It is open to any hon. Member to get information from British firms who are producing these goods in this country as to the value to them of the 33⅓ per

    2431
    cent. duty and as to what would have been the value of a 10 per cent. duty such as is advocated in this Amendment. In the case I have instanced hon. Members can ascertain as an absolute fact what has really been the effect on the prices in this country. I am speaking of something of which I have a considerable knowledge, and I can give the Committee my personal assurance that in many of these parts the price would not have been any lower if this duty had not been imposed.
    What is really happening is that these importing firms are now finding it exceedingly difficult to continue competing, because the English manufacturers are making at prices that are not so high as to make the full difference of the 33⅓ per cent., and though I cannot profess to know the secrets of the British competing firms, I know they have been well employed, whilst most other firms this last winter have been partly closed or in some cases shut down altogether. I am quite certain that they would give unanimous evidence to any hon. Member that the effect in this particular case of the 33⅓ per cent. duty has been of the greatest benefit to the English trade and to all those employed in their factories. There is an obvious answer to what I am saying, namely, that this is a luxury article. I admit that, but the principle is there, and hon. Members, many of whom do desire to learn the real truth of the operation of the principles involved in this Bill, have here an established fact upon which they can get information, which would be of great guidance to them as to whether the proposals of the Government in this Bill are good or bad. I can only say from my own experience and from actual knowledge that they have been exceedingly good for capital, for the employer, and for the working people in those industries connected with motor cars and motor-car accessories, and I cannot conceive why they should be bad for every other industry.
    Captain ELLIOT: If we are seeking precedents, there are plenty of others. The main objection that most of us have to these proposals is that the Government wave the magic wand of 33⅓ per cent. over imports coming from foreign countries whether the exchange has depreciated to an enormous degree or whether it has depreciated to a much less
    2432
    extent. It is very difficult to conceive of anybody who should say that the duty shall be 33⅓ per cent. on cotton goods coming from Lodz, in Poland, where the mark is 2,600 to the £, and from Germany, where it is only about a tenth of that. There is another country which has stumbled into this blind alley and actually applied these duties, and that is Spain. Spain has been up against the depreciated exchanges, and on the 4th June, Spain applied the principle of differentiating against countries with depreciated exchanges; but though we are inclined to run down the Spaniards for their short-sighted views, I think we must admit that they have adopted the common-sense business attitude of going through the countries with depreciated exchanges and classifying them. Consequently you find that dynamos, for instance, pay 150 pesetas a kilogram. "The American and British exchange," they say, "has not depreciated, and we will charge them 150 pesetas; the French and Belgian exchange is fairly depreciated, and we will charge them 192 pesetas; the German exchange is extremely depreciated, and we will charge them 244·5 pesetas." There is some logic about that. It may be a wrong-headed proposal, but at any rate it is a wrong-headed proposal seriously applied and honestly gone into, and it will probably show the fallacy much sooner; but when we find a proposal like this that is in the Bill, and when we know that the depreciated exchanges go over such a wide gap, it raises in our minds the suggestion that this is but another piece of camouflage legislation and that it is not intended to work.
    We can imagine the Government saying, "Let there be a duty, and that will please some people, and we will make it 33⅓ per cent., because it is a nice round figure and involves a certain amount of vulgar fractions that make it difficult to calculate." The proposal comes, surely, from the illogical mixing up of dumping and depreciated exchanges. Part I of the Bill has to do with key industries, and we will pass that by. Part II mixes up the two problems of dumping, which is a definite, commercial attack on a definite range of products, carried out with the definite object of crushing out an industry, and of depreciated exchanges, which is a very much wider and more complicated problem and which none of the speakers

    2433
    from the Government Bench have explained in any way to the satisfaction of the Committee. Simply to say that certain goods are coming in cheaper owing to depreciated exchanges, and not to inquire how much the exchange has depreciated or what are the causes of depreciation, to wave the magic wand and say, "Let there be a duty of 33⅓ per cent.," and then to proceed to argue that that will have the effect in all cases of remedying this extraordinary phenomenon which nobody understands, is straining our credulity a great deal too far. I think the 10 per cent. is impossibly low; the 33⅓ per cent. in many cases may be impossibly high—certainly it is far more in some cases than the amount by which the exchange has depreciated—and in many cases 33⅓ per cent., for a depreciated exchange like the Polish exchange, which has depreciated so far that the nominal value of a shilling is now a farthing, is ridiculous. The thing has gone up 48 times, and we put on a duty of one-third to counteract it. How can such a proposal as that be justified? I beg the Government to explain why the same duty will apply to all classes of depreciated goods, whether they have depreciated a quarter or 48 times, as in the case of Poland, and if they cannot, then let us apply this duty solely to dumped goods and leave the whole problem of depreciated exchanges to be dealt with in a separate Bill, under different conditions, when we can have this extremely difficult problem properly thrashed out.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: For the very excellent reasons which my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Elliot) has just given for voting for the Amendment, I shall vote against it. He is quite right in saying that a 33⅓ per cent. duty will not do very much good in respect of goods coming from a country like Poland. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) on my right and my hon. Friend who represents the National party (Sir R. Cooper) talked about necessities like iron and steel goods, or motor cars, which are quasi-necessities, and they have taken the line of argument that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would raise the cost to the manufacturer in a trade depending on cheap products from the Continent. That may be all very well with regard to necessities, but let us see if there are not other trades
    2434
    which are not necessities, but purely luxuries, but which are still importing trades. There occurs to me the silk trade, which is not unimportant by any means. We imported last year £40,000,000 worth of manufactured silk, and of that £12,000,000 worth came from four or five countries like France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, and Austria, which have depreciated exchanges. We had £40,000,000 worth of goods coming in which are luxuries. It does not matter whether you put a 100 or a 1,000 per cent. on those goods, it will not put up the-price of living to a poor man, because they are pure luxuries, and as far as they give employment to working people, so much the better. If people want luxuries, let them pay whatever they cost and let them be made here. I do not see what good it is proposing to put 10 per cent. rather than 33⅓ per cent. on luxury trades such as silk.
    8.0 P.M.
    During the War we induced people to put up factories in order to turn out the silk goods which hitherto had been imported, and if you do not now put on a good stiff duty on silk fabrics you, throw silk manufacturing people out of work. The duty on a luxury does not have the effect that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said it would have, namely, of raising the cost to the manufacturer whose trade depends upon cheap production. Therefore I say if any persons want silk goods she or he first must make up their mind whether to indulge a fancy which calls for a large price. It will not put up the price of living to the poor of this country whatever the duty is, nor damage a subsidiary trade. A 10 per cent. duty is no good on a manufactured imported product like silk, and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) that 33⅓ per cent. will not go far to help us, but as between the two I am bound to vote for 33⅓ per cent. rather than 10 per cent. What good is 33⅓ per cent to a trade, with depreciated exchanges, of £12,000,000 worth of imported manufactured silk? We will take Germany before the War. There wages were, let us say, £2 or 40 marks a week for making silk goods. The same volume of silk fabric can be made in a week in England as in Germany. In England the worker will get £4 or £5, and in Germany he will get six times what he got before the War. He got 40

    2435
    marks before the War; now he will get 240 marks. Wages in Germany have gone up six-fold; the mark has gone down 14-fold against sterling. He gets 240 marks now, instead of 40 marks, for the same labour. For these 240 marks the German manufacturer will have produced the same quantity of silk as was produced in this country in the same period for £4 or £5. The foreign manufacturer can bring this same quantity of silk here, and he will be perfectly well paid if he gets £2 for it, which means to say 550 marks in return for 240 marks labour cost. Therefore he can compete over and over again in face of so small a duty as 33⅓ per cent. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Captain Elliot) that 33⅓ per cent. is not much good in such a case, but for that reason I am not going to vote for 10 per cent. An hon. Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says, What about raw silk bought by Germany? Raw silk is produced in Italy, Hungary, and in Greece and the Levant, and Turkey in Asia, and, I think, in the southern part of Bulgaria. The exchange of Germany as against the exchange of the bankrupt Near East is as much in Germany's favour as the sterling value of our sovereign is against the mark in Germany. The consequence is Germany or Italy do not feel the depreciation of the mark and, lira in buying raw silk material in South-Eastern Europe and Asia Minor. I am going to vote for 33⅓ per cent. In these times I only wish it was 133⅓ per cent., so far as it affects luxuries, and, indeed, even prohibition import of manufactured luxuries like manufactured silk is sound on economic lines, let alone 33⅓ per cent.
    Mr. MOSLEY: My hon. Friend who has just sat down is, at any rate, genuine in his intentions. With that sort of speech we know where we are. I am afraid I am one of those who join with the hon. Member for Lanark in deploring these attempts at camouflage rather more than the genuine enthusiast in a cause which he has at heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark adduced certain considerations which have never been answered by the Government, either in the course of the Second Reading discussion or in the course of the discussion in Committee. He put to
    2436
    the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade what seems to me to be a very pertinent question. How does he hope to apply this 33⅓ per cent. duty equally to all the conditions with which we are confronted to-day? We find exchanges all over the world with widely varying differences of depreciation, and we find also that these exchanges affect the internal industries of the country concerned in very varying degrees. The basis of the whole difficulty seems to be that the bounty which the industries of countries possessing a depreciated exchange secure on exports depends entirely on whether or not the raw materials component in those articles are indigenous in the country or are purchased externally. Obviously, if raw materials are purchased externally, the adverse exchange operates against the country concerned, and, in fact, constitutes a prohibitive duty when she comes to export the manufactured goods. It is only in cases where all the raw materials are indigenous in the country concerned that the exchange operates as a bounty in her favour. But even then you cannot quite take it as my hon. Friend took it as a mere question of the extent of depreciation. Although it has failed to work in this particular instance, owing to the utter collapse of the world credit system, we must consider the ancient economic law that internal prices rise in exact proportion to the external depreciation in the value of a country's currency. I agree it has not quite worked out in that way. If it had, the whole hypothesis of this Bill would fall to the ground. I was only trying to point out in passing that you cannot merely take the extent of the depreciation of a country's exchange and work on that, but, at the same time, it is evident that in cases where the raw materials are indigenous an immense bounty is afforded to the exporting countries, a bounty to correct which a duty of 500 or 600 per cent. would be required in the case of countries like Poland or Austria. In the case of such industries possessing indigenous raw materials, it is quite evident that 33⅓ per cent. duty is entirely farcical and must be utterly ineffective.
    The President of the Board of Trade, in the small hours of one of our previous discussions, said, "If this part of the Bill does not do much good, it does not do very much harm." I welcome that as

    2437
    some slight recompense for some of the dangers with which we are threatened by this Measure. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend in the course of today's discussion scarcely could contain his own internal merriment at his advocacy of a proposal which he knows to be an absurdity. Of course, this Measure in the case of countries having collapsed exchanges and indigenous raw materials is an utter farce, a mere piece of camouflage, to console certain persons who were grumbling against conditions which arise from mistaken policy. But in the case of other industries which have to purchase their raw materials outside their own borders, it is quite evident that it is already difficult for those industries in foreign countries to compete successfully in their exports to this country, and in those cases a 33⅓ per cent. duty will act presumably as an entirely prohibitive tariff, and undermine any chance of their competition. In the case of such goods coming into this country it is quite evident that a 10 per cent. duty would be far fairer than a 33⅓ per cent duty. In fact, in some cases a 10 per cent. duty is no more fertile than a 33⅓ per cent. duty, and in the other cases which I have adumbrated the 10 per cent. duty would be far fairer than the 33⅓ per cent. duty, although, in fact, in these cases no duties are necessary at all, for the goods are virtually prohibited from entering into this country at the present time. Therefore, under all these considerations, it seems to me that this Amendment is more than justifiable.
    Major HAMILTON: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member who has just sat down. He started off by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on his great honesty, and he accused the Government and those who support this Bill of camouflage. Well, he is a good judge of both. He entered this House, as I understand it, as a Conservative Member of the Coalition Government and as a supporter of the Government in the actual proposition which this Bill tries to carry out. The hon. Member has now joined the Wee Frees. He has never consulted his constituents, but he comes here and accuses us of camouflage and dishonesty when we are endeavouring to do our level best to carry into law the promises which he and we made at the last General Election. What does he say?
    2438
    He says that this Amendment to reduce the 33⅓ per cent. duty to 10 per cent. is in some cases ludicrous because 334 per cent. would do no good, and in other cases 10 per cent. would do less harm. What is really the point? If only the hon. Member would read the Bill which he criticises so freely before he gets up and wastes our time he would find that the proposition put quite simply is this, that first of all those occupied in an industry have got to satisfy the Board of Trade that competition due to dumping, clearly defined in Clause 2, either dumping as we understand it, or dumping made possible by foreign exchanges having depreciated, is causing serious unemployment, or that employment in this country is likely to be seriously affected. Then the Board of Trade refers them to a Committee. In face of all the opposition which will be admitted to that Committee these people have again to satisfy that Committee, and then the object of this particular Clause is that the Government, after the Committee have reported in favour of a tariff on these particular goods, is limited to 33⅓ per cent. and cannot put on more. If only the hon. Member would take the trouble to understand the proposals in the Bill I think he would save the time of the House.
    Dr. MURRAY: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who criticised my hon. Friend below me has read the Bill, because he told us that 33⅓ per cent. was to be the largest duty under this Bill. It is possible to have 44 per cent.
    Major HAMILTON: It has got to be a key industry in that case. I did not go into those details.
    Dr. MURRAY: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will support this Amendment. I do not think it is fair to the Parliamentary institutions of this country that we should be discussing a Bill for ten days on which the Government absolutely refuses to accept any Amendment whatever.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I have put to my name several Amendments.
    Dr. MURRAY: I am sorry if my statement was too sweeping, but so far I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has accepted any substantial Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told us last night he was a genial optimist in regard

    2439
    to trade. Let him prove his optimism; let him show his faith by being content with a 10 per cent. duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) told us a lot about the silk trade, and insisted it was a luxury trade, and that the bulk of the people of this country were not concerned with silk; it was only for the adornment of certain classes.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I made no such statement.
    Dr. MURRAY: The working lad in the factory likes to see his girl dressed up with fine silk ribbons in her hat and wearing a silk dress now and again at a ball. Why should the brightening of life be confined to the War profiteers?
    Mr. SAMUEL: On a point of Order.
    Dr. MURRAY: My hon. Friend spoke for half-an-hour on this subject, and I cannot give way.
    The CHAIRMAN: Two hon. Members cannot be on their legs at the same time. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) is in possession of the House, and if he does not wish to give way the matter does not rest with me.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: May I not ask for protection? What the hon. Member has stated is entirely contrary to what I said.
    Dr. MURRAY:: The hon. Member wants to be protected from himself. I am merely giving an interpretation understandable to the Committee of what my hon. Friend said. He did suggest that silk was entirely a luxury trade, and that the lower classes ought not to have their lives brightened by seeing a bit of coloured silk in a girl's hat or anything of that sort. The effect of Free Trade has been to make what were regarded as luxuries available to the many.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is rather beyond the question before the Committee. We have to assume that there is to be a duty. The question is whether it should be 10 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent.
    Dr. MURRAY: I support the Amendment because it is the lesser of two evils; 33⅓ per cent. is a great evil, and 10 per cent. is a lesser evil. Dumping has not been proved yet. Dumping is the Mrs. Harris of trade—"There was never no sich a person." So far as dumping is
    2440
    concerned the tariff reformers were always content with a 10 per cent. duty, and I do not see why 10 per cent. should not be accepted by the Government now. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) told us about motor cars, and said that the duty of 33⅓ per cent. helped the industry. Of course it helps the motorcar industry. I was once the owner of a motor-car—it was a Ford—but I cannot afford to have one to-day, simply because of this 33⅓ per cent. duty. After all, commodities are made for the people who want them, and not for the people who make them. It is certain that this duty has prevented many people from owning motor-cars. With regard to the exchanges, 33⅓ per cent. is really a pill to cure an earthquake. We are told it is only a temporary proposal to meet a temporary difficulty. I wish the President of the Board of Trade would read the views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the permanence of taxes of this kind, once they are imposed. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to speeches in which the Secretary for the Colonies proved to the hilt that once you put on any of these taxes it will be very difficult to get them off. There is an old Scottish saying, "Aince a bailie aye a bailie." As far as the exchanges are concerned, this 33⅓ per cent. is of no use and has no relation to facts. There is no relativity in this whatever.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two now. I always conclude that a subject has been pretty well thrashed out when the hon. Member who has just spoken is put up to address the House. The question was put to me by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), "Why so high a rate as 33⅓ per cent.?" And he suggested that the rate on this dumping should be only 10 per cent. The reason why the rate is what is proposed is that we regard dumping as a bad thing in itself and we want to stop it. Other countries have tried to stop dumping. In Canada they put a duty on over and above their ordinary tariff, which is a very high tariff. A duty on the scale of 33⅓ per cent. should be a real deterrent. I believe it will act as a deterrent where ordinary dumping is concerned, and we cannot see our way to reduce the figure. I would like to say a few words in reply to the argument regarding dumping under Clause 2 (1) (b), the exchange dumping. It was very interesting to me,

    2441
    who am now getting on in years and perhaps losing my elasticity and courage, to hear Members like the hon. Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) talking as if this was a very simple matter to settle. I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow for pointing out one essential fact which the hon. Member for Lanark had overlooked. The hon. Member for Lanark took up the line that the fixed rate of duty on exchange dumping is a mistake. He suggested that we ought to have had a rate of duty calculated very carefully to correspond with the great differences and the great fluctuations that obviously occur.
    Of course, as the hon. Member for Harrow knows, the extent of the bounty in this form of dumping is really the difference between the two values, the external and the internal, and the root difficulty in dealing with this matter is that this is a difference, which in the first place it is impossible to measure, and in the second place is a fluctuating difference. These two reasons alone make it perfectly impossible—even if it were possible in other ways—to contemplate dealing with it by any other than a fixed rate. You may with some reason take the line of argument that this bounty differs so much in different countries, and at different times, that it is quite useless to put on a fixed rate because you will never hit it off, and you may have too high a rate at one time and too low a rate at another. Within limits that is true, but we have tried to meet it. I introduced an Amendment yesterday, that no matter involving a question of depreciated currency shall be referred unless the Board are satisfied that the value of the currency of the country in question in relation to sterling is less by 33⅓ per cent. or upwards than the par value of the exchange. That is to meet the point where you have a very small margin in the differences between the values of the currency, and where 33⅓ per cent. duty would be distinctly too much, and it means in effect that cases of small differences will not come before this Committee.
    When you get into the cases where the difference is greater, then for a considerable period 33⅓ per cent. will meet those cases. It is quite true that beyond that, you may get some, where even the 33⅓ per cent. will not be enough. It is very
    2442
    difficult to say, until the cases are brought before the Committee and examined, what the differences will be found to be; as I have said, they fluctuate, they are never constant, and it is difficult to ascertain them without the closest examination, so I am not going to dogmatise upon that point. It may be that 33⅓ per cent. will not be sufficient in some cases, but if it is not sufficient, at any rate it may be useful in going a great part of the way. The consciousness that there is a power to put on this 33⅓ may quite conceivably act as a deterrent in this, just as in the other form of dumping. I should like to say a word on the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) about the Brussels Conference of last year. That is a very interesting point. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that while it is quite true we took part in that Conference, and while I think the Committee will agree with a great many of the conclusions to which the Conference came, it is only fair to remember another point. I have had to say two or three times over that we are not imposing a general tariff in this country. This Bill does not involve a general tariff. I need not enlarge upon that, but so far as a general tariff is concerned, practically all the countries represented at Brussels have increased their tariffs since the beginning of 1920, and, since the Conference itself sat, duties have been increased by Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, Guatemala—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Two blacks do not make a white.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot see how anything we did in that Conference at Brussels can prevent us from passing legislation in our own country on such a point as dumping, which is entirely different from a general tariff. If we had gone in for a general tariff, after discussing matters in the terms we did at Brussels, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might fairly have had something to say, but there is nothing which passed at Brussels, that I am aware of, that can, by any stretch of imagination, debar us from dealing at this time with this phenomenon that is facing us at present, namely, the phenomenon of dumping. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams)

    2443
    once more with regard to steel. I think the Committee has had quite enough of that for one day, and with regard to the new candidate for our sympathy, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow, I think I shall leave him where he is.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, but his defence is about the weakest I ever heard in my life. We sent our representatives to Brussels; they met the representatives of 131 other States; they explored the whole situation, and they tried to diagnose the disease afflicting European trade, of which the exchanges were the symptom. They specially dealt with the exchanges and came to the unanimous decision that the best possible policy was to remove all barriers to international trade. In the face of that we produce this Bill, and the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman—who has my sympathy in his efforts to defend a bad case—is that Guatemala, Switzerland, Belgium, and a number of other nations who were also represented there, went back on the recommendations of their own experts. He says, therefore, we are justified in doing the same. What an excuse! Is that to be the attitude of the British Government which has prided itself in the past on keeping its pledges and engagements, and on the consistency of its policy? Even if that were not enough, the right hon. Gentleman has thrown overboard the Prime Minister. I thought that was coming, and it has come. I could understand a moral decline since last year, when the Brussels Conference was held, but on the 17th February of this year the Prime Minister used an argument in this House which so impressed me that I voted for the Government. I was the only Member of the official Oppositions who voted for the Government on that occasion, and I did so as a result of these words from the Prime Minister:
    "You have undoubtedly as a result of the War an extravagant immoderate nationalism which finds expression in all sorts of ways which are obstructing commerce. … They say that you must build great walls all around and never give a cup to your neighbour. Czecho-Slovakia has it, and Poland has to a certain extent. They say: 'We will look after our own country.' …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1921; col. 419, Vol. 138.]
    Those were the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman's nominal chief and leader.
    2444
    Now he is thrown overboard. To Czechoslovakia and Poland you must add Great Britain. I voted for the Government, and I feel I have been betrayed. I supported the Prime Minister, and this is the reward I get! It is iniquitous! An hon. Friend beside me says that the Vote was iniquitous, and really, when I look at the Bill, I begin to think it was. This is the evil returned me for the good I did the Government. I shall not make that mistake to-night. I represent the shipping port of Hull, and unemployment in that port is great amongst seafarers. Every ton of goods we get in is in future to have a tariff of 33⅓ per cent., and that means a ton less to go out to pay for those goods, and every £l's worth of goods kept out of this country will prevent £l's worth coming in, and vice versa, and that will mean more unemployment in one of the greatest of our key industries, our shipping.
    Major M. WOOD: Supposing there is dumping or that there are exchanges which have gone down in such a way as to make it necessary to put on some duty. It may be they have not gone down far enough, or that the dumping is not so considerable, as to make it necessary to put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. Is the Government really going to take power to put on a duty of 33⅓ per cent. when, on the admission of the Committee appointed for the purpose, 20 per cent. will be quite sufficient to meet the necessities of the case? Will the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department consider—if he cannot give me an answer now—between now and Report stage whether the Government might not accept an Amendment, putting in before the 33⅓ per cent., the words, "not more than," so as to give discretionary power to put on just that duty that will meet the necessities of the case? There should be a limit, but there should also be a discretion by the Committee not to put on a bigger duty than will meet the particular case involved.
    Mr. KILEY: Before the Committee goes to a Division I think they should realise exactly what the Government mean by these proposals. This matter of depreciated exchanges is really a serious matter and requires serious treatment. The Government want us to believe that they realise this, but consider how they proceed to deal with this very serious

    2445
    matter? They commence by putting almost every country outside the provisions of this Act on the ground that we have conventions or agreements. They sweep out with one stroke of the pen 98 per cent. of the countries that would be likely to dump goods upon us. They leave in France, which will come under this penalty of 33⅓ per cent., which begins if the depreciation of their exchange exceeds the 33⅓ per cent. Suppose it is only 32⅓ per cent., which is not serious. What stupidity! How can business houses conduct business proceedings in view of these things? Either prohibit the importation altogether or else put on a tariff that will achieve your object. There may be some fear of Germany, but if hon. Members will take the trouble to look at our imports from Germany—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Gentleman's remarks would appear to be more relevant to a Second Reading discussion. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the question of the Amendment, which is to leave out "one-third," and to insert "one-tenth."
    Mr. KILEY: I was dealing with the effect this tariff will have on Germany itself, which is supposed to be the country at the present time under this depreciation of 33⅓ per cent. or more, and is dumping vast quantities of goods into this country. If anyone will look at the actual imports into this country in the last figures available for the first three months of the year, they will find that they did not exceed 10 per cent. of the imports in the corresponding three months of any pre-War year. This country then, Germany, is dumping here—or we are led to believe it is—because of their exchanges this vast quantity of goods. The Government are either misleading themselves or misleading the country when they allege that this fearful and calamitous dumping is taking place. If they cannot produce better figures of imports—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have over and over again reminded the hon. Member that while he may be in Order in regard to the Amendment, he is out of Order because of repetition. I have heard over and over again every argument, he is using. He must keep himself to the Question which is before the Committee.
    Mr. KILEY: Whether it should be 33⅓ per cent. or a smaller figure, would it
    2446
    not be better if the Government really fixed the figure at 10 per cent. which, after all, represents 20 per cent.; then they would possibly be able to see that although they had attempted to do something that it was no cure any more than the larger figure was a cure. They might then be able to say: at all events we have done something to deal with this matter from our point of view.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I was in the Committee when the President was speaking. If I understood him correctly, the Government propose this 33⅓ per cent. duty because of the internal and external difference in the value of the mark. Do I understand that it is because of the internal and external value of the mark that the Government are proposing this duty? I was called out of the Committee, and, as I entered, I thought I gathered that that was the policy of the Government. Is that really the intention of the Government, because it is a really important subject. We are anxious to find out whether this 33⅓ per cent. duty is to be imposed on account of a depreciated currency in all countries, or whether it is simply because of the internal and external value of the mark. Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform me if I am correct?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think that I should serve any useful purpose by repeating the speech of my right hon. Friend.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have taken up this point on more than one occasion, and I think it is perfectly proper for me to ask for an answer. It is a perfectly reasonable question. The traders of this country are anxious to know whether this Clause applies to every country which has a depreciated currency, or whether it applies only to countries where the external and internal value of the mark has depreciated. I wish to enter a protest against the definite refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to answer a perfectly reasonable request dealing with a matter which affects every trade in the country.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have still a good deal to discuss in this Bill. My right hon. Friend spoke for a long time on this question, and I think it is very reasonable that that reply should stand.
    Sir G. COLLINS: If the hon. and gallant Member will answer my question "Yes" or "No," I will resume my seat. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not know."] I do not think that that is a correct interpretation of the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are here for the definite purpose of considering whether 33⅓ per cent. or 10 per cent. should be the duty, and I do not think that the Government have treated the Committee with that respect which the representatives of the taxpayers, gathered together it may be in small numbers, are entitled to receive from the Government.
    Sir W. BARTON: After the treatment accorded to the last speaker I do not know whether I dare put a further question. Am I right in assuming that in countries where depreciated exchanges exist this provision would not operate unless the depreciation was not less than 33⅓ per cent.?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: An Amendment on this point was agreed to yesterday.
    Question put, "That the word 'one-third' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 214.]

    AYES.

    [8.52 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Neal, Arthur

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Parker, James

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Perring, William George

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Pratt, John William

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hope, sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jesson, C.

    Seager, Sir William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Simm, M. T.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)

    Thomson, Sir W Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Edwards. Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wise, Frederick

    Forrest, Walter

    Manville, Edward

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Mason, Robert

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Matthews, David

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Gould, James C.

    Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Dudley Ward.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Briant, Frank

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Cairns, John

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Gillis, William

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Swan, J. E.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lawson, John James

    Wallace, J.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Lunn, William

    Waterson, A. E.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Halls, Walter

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wignall, James

    Hayday, Arthur

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Hayward, Evan

    Myers, Thomas

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Hinds, John

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprin)

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie

    Irving, Dan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Wood.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spoor, B. G.

    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    As the Committee know, Sub-section (2) deals with goods which are partly manufactured in one country and partly in another. On the Order Paper there is an Amendment to Sub-section (2) in the name of several hon. Members to substitute 25 per cent. for 50 per cent. of the value of the goods as the exemption limit attributable to processes of manufacture undergone since the goods last left the country in relation to which an order has been made. I am anxious that the Committee should observe the difference between the Government policy on this Sub-section and the policy they adopted earlier in the afternoon. The Sub-section states that it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners where these goods are manufactured. If 25 per cent. of the manufacture is in one country and 75 per cent. in another the Commissioners have to determine this very important point. Earlier in the afternoon, when Members from this side of the Committee asked the Government to take note, not only of the unemployment created in one trade, but of the general unemployment throughout the country, and to let their policy be determined not by the interest of a part but by the greater interest of the whole, the President of the Board of Trade said that was a superhuman task which the Committee set up under the Bill could not perform. But under this Sub-section the Commissioners are, in the opinion of the Government, possessed of the ability to determine by examination what percentage of production in Germany, Austria, Belgium or France has been put into certain articles. Does not that show that when the Commissioners and Custom House officials at our ports endeavour to decide that problem they must break down in practice? Does it not also show
    2450
    that the hopes held out by the Government to their supporters that this Bill will not operate are largely founded on fact, and that as a matter of course the Bill will not come into practical operation, because the Commissioners, with the best will in the world and with all the knowledge they will be able to get from able civil servants, who will be asked by the Government to assist them, will not be able to determine this very important problem?
    There is a further question I would like to put. Every package of goods that comes into this country in the future from the Continent will have to be opened. If goods come from certain countries they will not be liable to duty, but if they come from other countries they will be subject to a heavy protective duty. To use a local phrase, there will be money in bringing goods into this country from countries not liable to be taxed, and if by the transfer of goods across the frontier from a country whose currency is not depreciated, you allow goods manufactured in a country with a depreciated currency to escape these high protective duties, then you will create a sense of unfairness between importers in this country. This examination cannot be carried out unless the Government employ a large number of officials at every port in the country to examine cases of goods. My right hon. Friend in the Debate last night drew attention to the very greatly increased cost of the officials in the Customs and Excise. If my memory serves me aright, that cost has risen from £2,000,000 in 1914 to £6,750,000 now. What will happen when this Clause comes into operation? All goods coming here will naturally require to be examined, and there will be lacking a sense of equity and justice if they are not thoroughly examined at every

    2451
    Customs House throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. Whether the country is in a mood to find money for that or not, evidently the Government are not anxious to find money for more officials, because within the last 48 hours they have refused a very reasonable request for some four officials to enable the House of Commons to exercise better control over expenditure. We are now passing legislation which is bound to have the effect of largely increasing the staff of officials at every port in the country. I remember visiting America before the War, and what a painful experience everyone has when landing there, when they have to go through the Customs and have their belongings carefully and minutely examined because of the high protective duties. The same thing will happen at Dover, Portsmouth, London, Hull and every other port in this country. The goods will require to be examined, and these very minute calculations will require to be made and proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, in order to examine the exact amount of the duty. The picture I have drawn of this Clause in operation is, I think, a true one. The difficulties are great, and the cost is high: whether the result will be satisfactory to the country and the Government is a matter of opinion.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will give us the benefit of his experience of the working of the provision similar to this which is contained in the Reparation Act. We had a long discussion, when that Measure was before the House, as to the impracticability of any such provision as this. It is very nice to say in theory that you will not let in any goods which include more than 50 per cent. manufactured in a certain country, but we beg to point out that the only result of that would be to hamper trade, so that traders would not know where they are. The thing would break down owing to its being totally impracticable. Before the Parliamentary Secretary asks us to repeat in another Act what is obviously an impracticable proposition, we should at least have the benefit of the experience he has obtained under the preceding Act, We were told by the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
    2452
    various other Ministers, that it had been done during the War, that it was perfectly simple, and that we had all the benefit of our war experience. We were venturesome enough to be suspicious of those assurances. I am not myself a trader, and cannot speak from personal knowledge as to the effect of the Reparation Act, but I really am very doubtful whether the provisions of this nature in that Act have been effective. I think we ought to have information as to the total value of the goods which, under these provisions, have been detected. The provision is obviously one which, if it does not work, can result in nothing but hamperng our trade, and I trust that the Committee will not agree to its retention without hearing what has been the experience under the Reparation Act.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I can give the Committee a very good example of the way in which this sort of thing works. It happened in the city which my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Entwistle) and myself have the honour to represent. The Reparation Act has a country of origin Clause very similar to this in form, although the figures are different, and it came into operation just at the season when in Hull we were importing our early fruit and vegetables. I know that food and drink are not included in this Bill, but the difficulty that we had in getting our early fruit and vegetables—it is a very important trade— into Hull will be multiplied dozens of times when we come to complicated manufactured articles. They would not let us bring in our lemons and melons from Spain and from Southern Italy and Sicily because, they said, they might be of German origin. That is literally true, and we had the greatest difficulty. We could get nothing done until my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, with a very representative body of traders from Hull, came as a deputation to the Board of Trade. They received us, as they always do, with the greatest courtesy, and summoned the leading Customs and Excise officials; and eventually we were allowed to get in all sub-tropical fruit of that sort without a certificate of origin. The trade, however, was hampered for weeks.
    That is just one example of the difficulty that is caused by a Clause of this kind, once you get into the terrible morass of the country of origin of goods. We had it

    2453
    during the War in connection with the blockade, and a vast organisation was built up, with a Minister at its head, a vast staff, and a tremendous system of espionage abroad. I do not say that that will be necessary to such an extent now, but there will be that sort of organisation on a smaller scale if you are going to try and differentiate between one country and another. It is all very well to say that certificates of origin can be obtained from the consuls. At many places on the Continent whence important lines of goods are shipped to this country, there is no consul, and we shall again have the same trouble that we had with our fruit and vegetables in Hull. Everyone knows the difficulty of going to a consul. He has not a large staff, he only sees people between certain hours, and it is difficult to see him. It hampers trade, and all these restrictions will injure our people here. Therefore, I hope that this ridiculous Sub-section will be left out. The argument that it would be possible, say, for Holland, with a good rate of exchange, to purchase goods from Germany, which has a bad rate of exchange, and therefore get round the provisions of this Act and ruin the unfortunate manufacturers in England, is quite fallacious, because there would be an extra profit for the Dutch middleman, as well as extra transit expenses and Customs duties, and the game simply would not be worth the candle. From the high Protectionist point of view, it would be better to leave out this Sub-section. If the effect of goods coming into this country is to create unemployment in certain classes of manufactures, it does not matter where they come from. This provision, if retained, will make for friction with other countries and for trouble and expense and worry to English traders, and therefore I hope that the Committee will agree to its deletion.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I cannot accept the proposal to leave out this Sub-section, because to do so would make the Bill quite inoperative. That, perhaps, is what those who support the proposal desire, but it is not what the Government desires. If we accepted this Amendment, we undoubtedly should render the Bill nugatory, because it would at once become open to any country against which an Order was made to pass its goods through any neighbouring country, either with the camou-
    2454
    flage of some small additional process, or by direct transhipment. The goods would then come here, and we should have failed in the entire purpose of the Bill. For that reason, as we read the Bill and mean to make it workable and effective in the cases in which these duties are imposed, we must insist on this Subsection being maintained in the Bill. I think hon. Members have exaggerated considerably the inconvenience which would be caused. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment pictured that on each occasion the Commissioners of Excise would investigate every consignment that came through and would have to make an inquiry into it, and by the light of their knowledge would have to discover what proportion was German and what proportion was attributable to other sources. That is not the way in which the machinery would work at all. The consignor would obtain a certificate of origin. Certificates of origin are not unknown in other countries. They are being worked in other countries in very large numbers, and it is part of the common machinery of those countries. The consignor would obtain a certificate of origin from the consul. If that certificate stated either that the goods are not of German origin, for example, but 35 per cent. of Dutch origin, or that having come originally from Germany they have had more than 25 per cent. of Dutch value added to them—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Fifty per cent.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We propose to accept an Amendment reducing that 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. The 25 per cent. is enough to keep out cases of what I may call a camouflaged process, and enough to let in those cases where a real amount of work has been added in a third country to the articles. A certificate of origin will be obtained from the consul on the spot, and the goods will pass through the Customs and can be cleared and the duty paid immediately the certificate of origin is produced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) smiles. Naturally he wishes to make out that this will be as difficult a process as possible. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly simple.
    Mr. WALLACE: How long does it take? Four weeks.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Nothing of the kind. It takes no longer to present a certificate of origin than to present any other shipping document. The certificate of origin comes forward with the bill of lading and the other shipping documents in the ordinary way, and takes precisely the same time to come forward and clear. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) asks me what has been the experience under the working of the Reparation Act.
    Mr. KILEY: Not I. I know it too well.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member cannot have got his shipping documents in order.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The hon. Member will find it will take no longer to pass through, and will be as simple a process as to conduct a count in this House. Under the Reparation Act there were certificates. I made inquiries whether there was a difficulty in obtaining them, and I found there was not. I quite agree that the only case in which there was difficulty, which practical experience led us to meet at once, was the case of perishable goods. In dealing with the German Reparation Act all exports from Germany of all kinds were subject to a levy. That is not the case here. There are only articles which are included in the Schedule and such articles as Part II may be applied to by Order. The real difficulty was the question of these perishable foodstuffs. That cannot possibly arise under this Bill, and even if it could, as my hon. and gallant Friend explained, as soon as that difficulty was foreseen it was promptly met, and, as he will agree, thereafter they came through with great speed. The difficulties attendant upon this have been very greatly exaggerated, and if this provision were not here the working of the Bill would be perfectly impossible.
    Mr. WALLACE: That would be a much desired result. The more I consider this Bill and the more frequently I hear it debated, the more convinced I am that it is one of the most ridiculous and one of the most ill-starred Measures which has been introduced by the Government. The
    2456
    hon. Gentleman has told us he expects no appreciable delay in the future regarding the working out of the provisions that we are now considering, and he bases that belief upon what has happened under the Reparation Act. Does he know anything at all about the commercial aspect of the Reparation Act? Let me give a case in point to show the difficulties which will arise under ths Bill if this Amendment is not accepted. What is the modus operandi of the customs when fiscal matters have to be considered? Let me give the sort of case which will occur under the present Bill. A consignment of goods was sent from Germany on 11th April. That is the date of the invoice and the date of despatch. They reached the consignee in this country on 11th June—and this will take place again. The goods arrived at the Custom House 12 days after despatch from Germany. The Custom House after receiving the goods allowed not a day or two to elapse, but their advice that the goods were received was dated 12th May—23rd April to 12th May. The bond was sent to the Custom House by the consignee in this country on 12th May. In an ordinary commercial transaction with a business house in this country, that bond would have been sent back by return of post. It was not returned by the Custom House until the 27th May. The cheque was sent on the same day as it was received, and the goods reached the consignee in this country on 11th June—23rd April to 11th June—and my hon. Friend has such confidence in this Measure that he ventured to get up here, before responsible business men, and tell us that the working of the Custom House part of the system under the Reparation Act has been so satisfactory that he has absolute confidence regarding the future under the Bill we are considering. I think a responsible Minister of the Crown should have more exact information to give to the Committee, and certainly on a basis of fact, which he has not proved to the satisfaction of the Committee.
    I suggest that as little as possible should take place on the part of the Committee in the way of interference with the ordinary channels of trade. It is elementary that a whole lot of the goods which we get in this country, to which this Clause refers, are partly manufactured goods—they may be partly manufactured in Germany and partly

    2457
    elsewhere. They are, however, absolutely necessary if we in this country are going to continue our export trade. If obstacles of this nature are to be put in the way by this Government, I can assure them that there will be in this country a feeling of dissatisfaction which will be shown in a most unmistakable form against the present Administration. I am a Coalition Liberal. I am extremely anxious to discover any means in a matter of this sort by which I can support the Government, but I say frankly that it cannot be done. I do claim to know something about how business is conducted in this country. I do know that to-day in London and in many commercial centres all over the country business is already upset by the introduction of this Measure. The ordinary business community to-day does not know where it stands. Several firms have come to me and have told me that they are quite unaware how to make contracts to-day on account of the prevailing uncertainty. In this Bill the Government are rendering a very ill service to the commercial interests of this country. I firmly believe that if the Government were to let this matter alone and to allow this Bill to become—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a Second Beading speech. He must direct his observations to the Amendment.
    Mr. WALLACE: I apologise for having become irrelevant for a single moment. I shall confine myself entirely to the Sub-section now before the Committee. Considering the many issues involved in this Sub-section, my hon. Friend would do very well to accept the Amendment, and to remove this Subsection altogether from the Bill.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wonder that my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill had very considerable difficulty in maintaining his gravity a little while ago when he was defending this Sub-section of the Clause. I am glad to recognise in a fellow Member who has some connection, at any rate, north of the Tweed, the element of humour, and that he understands the supposition that we are not able to appreciate a joke. He evidently does appreciate the joke in this Sub-section. If hon. Members will listen for a moment while I read two or three lines of it, they
    2458
    will appreciate what the extraordinary difficulties are—
    "Where goods are manufactured partly in one country and partly in another, or undergo different processes in different countries, and any one or more of those countries are countries in relation to which an order applying to the goods in question has been made under this Part of this Act, the goods shall be liable—"
    unless, under the proposed Amendment, in another country, to which the Order does not apply, 25 per cent. of that value has been added. Let us see how it is going to work under this part of the Bill. If hon. Members will turn their minds back to the part of Sub-section (2), which, under the guillotine, we did not discuss at all, and therefore we can now make reference to, as it directly relates to this, they will see, first of all, that it says
    "at prices below the cost of production thereof as hereinafter defined."
    Let us see what the Customs officials have to look at. What does "cost of production" mean? Clause 8 says it is:

    "(a) the wholesale price at the works charged for goods of the class or description for consumption in the country of manufacture; or

    (b) if no such goods are sold for consumption in that country, the price which, having regard to the prices charged for goods as near as may be similar when so sold or when sold for exportation to other countries, would be so charged if the goods were sold in that country;"

    That is the first thing. What is the next thing under this part of the Bill? We now come to the part on which we had something approaching a Debate last night:
    "(b) at prices which, by reason of depreciation in the value in relation to sterling of the currency of the country in which the goods are manufactured, are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured in the United Kingdom;"
    That is the collapsed exchange. Let me try and apply that to a concrete instance of which I happen to have some personal knowledge. Some clients of mine, a very large firm in South Wales, last February or March ordered electrical machinery for work in one of their great collieries. That electrical machinery was partly made in Germany and the other part had been manufactured in Switzerland. Under the Reparation Act they were in great difficulties about it, and the whole order was cancelled because they could not carry it through, and they were not going to be bothered with it. What

    2459
    happens under this Bill, supposing they attempt once again to do business and to get electrical machinery. First of all, it is quite easy to prove that the industry here which manufactures electrical machinery is in a depressed condition. Then they have, first of all, to ascertain under Part II either "prices below the cost of production" as defined in Clause 8, or the question of the collapsed exchange. Both these factors, no doubt, are easily ascertainable in Germany. Having found out what is the wholesale price in Germany—
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not quite follow. The gentlemen who are going to buy electrical machinery will not have to ascertain anything except the cost of the machinery until an order has been made.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: That is the whole point. If they bought this machinery, all this has got to be done by our officials to ascertain whether these goods can be brought into this country. Everyone of these things has to be ascertained before the goods will be delivered. Of course, that must be so, else what is the good of this thing at all? That is the process which must be gone through. It is what the Bill says that our officials have to ascertain. These are two factors you must find out with regard to that particular machinery before it is admitted here, namely, what is the cost of production in Germany, and—
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My right hon. Friend has not read the Clause aright. The Customs officials will not have to find out anything about that particular machinery. If a collapsed exchange order has been made under the Bill in regard to that particular class of goods it will be effective in regard to all goods of that class. If the order has not been made, then there will be no duty on any goods in that class.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: This gets, "curiouser and curiouser" as we go along. If you have your collapsed exchange ascertained that is a condition, but on the other point you will also have to find the "prices below the cost of production." Either of those factors have got to be ascertained. What happens again? One part of that machine is in Switzerland. The dumping part may
    2460
    apply, but the collapsed exchange part does not apply. The value of 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. is added in Switzerland and it comes through without any trouble. Suppose the other part of the machine is made in Belgium, our ally, our friend in the War for whom we entered the War. What happens there? Immediately this Act comes into operation, and either the thing is shut out altogether or there are three or four or six months' delay. Was there ever a more farcical business? If it comes from Switzerland, a country which very largely benefited by the War, it is all right, but if it comes from an ally, whose sacrifices in the War have been beyond words, every obstacle is put against it. It is not so much a farce as a tragedy that it is possible for a Government to pledge its credit to so insane a Measure as this. Take these words and attempt to understand them and assume that you are going to get Customs officers to work them and apply them. What the world wants to-day is business to be reestablished and not prevented. This is a Sub-section of a Bill for the prevention of trade. A more clear example of the tragical folly of the whole performance could not be produced than this Subsection.
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I frankly admit that up to the time when we came to this rather complicated Subsection I have supported the Government all the way through; but when I heard one of that miscellaneous collection of ex-Liberals on my right talking about officials and arguing that under this Subsection we should have a larger number of Customs officials than before, I was rather inclined to believe that there was something that we might lose in economy under this Sub-section. After a little while, I heard the hon. and Gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) enthusiastically supporting his leader, and I remembered that it was only a few nights ago that he deliberately talked out a Measure to enable this House to have fuller financial control. I am referring to the occasion when he became very loquacious about two minutes to eleven two nights ago on the question of the Estimates Committee. One minute these hon. Members are economists and the next minute they are in favour of expenditure of the widest character. There are one or two points in connection with this Sub-section which I do not

    2461
    understand. The business position is quite easy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that there are no business men on my right, so we need not worry about them. What is meant by these words?
    "unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners."
    I am not a lawyer, but I see the Lord Advocate of Scotland present, and I wonder if he would be kind enough to give us a clear definition of how he would interpret in a Law Court the word "satisfaction" as laid down in this Subsection. The definition, possibly, would not be as good as if we had a really first-class English lawyer here to give it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] There are certain Scotsmen here who know nothing about their own country. Scottish law is entirely different from English law. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will tell us his definition from the Scottish law point of view, and later on we might get one of the English Law Officers to give us his definition. The Sub-section proceeds:
    "that fifty per cent. or more of the value of the goods."
    There is an Amendment down in the name of the Government to alter the 50 to 25 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is our Amendment, also!"] I admit that according to the names attached to the Amendment, it is a Coalition Amendment. I would like to ask some of the eminent Free Traders, the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Sir H. Mackinder) or the Minister of Health, to explain to us precisely which would be the best, 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. If my questions could be answered satisfactorily, I should know on which side to vote.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Some people appear to think that this Clause can easily be worked, but it is not so simple as has been made out. This question as to the certificate of the country of origin is not an easy matter to work. I am at the present time in the midst of discussion with the Customs authorities over this particular point in respect to reparation. Before the War I was conducting experiments in Germany with certain machinery, but this machinery had to be abandoned in Germany when the War broke out. Recently I decided to send for this machinery. It was duly forwarded by my German friends. In due course it arrived
    2462
    in Hull. When it arrived in Hull, under the Reparations Act, a claim was made on me for 26 per cent. of the value of the machinery. I explained to the Custom House officials that that machinery was never paid for by the Germans and never belonged to them, but belonged to me for the whole time of the War, and it was simply being returned to its rightful owner. I showed them my name on the castings, but that was not sufficient for the Customs, and I am obliged now before I get hold of that machinery to sign a bond amounting to 26 per cent. of the value of the goods, representing the duty, in case that at some subsequent period it may appear that this machinery originated in Germany, in spite of the fact that it has my name on it. I mention that case simply because it is such a good example of the process of making Germany pay.
    Dr. MURRAY: I desire to support this Amendment. The Sub-section which I wish to have omitted shows the entire folly of this Bill. The fact that even the Custom House officers find it difficult to understand provisions of this sort has been illustrated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with regard to fruit. Evidently the Custom House officers do regard fruit as a sort of a composite, one part being grown in Spain and the other part in Germany. We all know that the pip is made in Germany and the pulp is grown in Spain. Therefore the Custom House officers would have solemnly to declare how much should be put down to pip and how much to pulp, and all these oranges were delayed several weeks before they were cleared out of the Custom House. That is a caricature of the whole business, but it illustrates in a forcible way what will occur when this is put in force. What grieves me so far as I understand this Sub-section is, that it will make the smuggling of these things much more easy. It would therefore require the fitting up of a large number of ships as revenue cutters to prevent the smuggling that must take place from some of these countries. Thus this Sub-section will be the means of creating a big horde of officials by land and sea. Of course, I will get no thanks from my own constituents for objecting to anything that will produce smuggling. But one must do one's duty, no matter what his constituents think. I hope that this Sub-section will be deleted.
    Mr. ACLAND: I have been trying to understand this Clause. One thing which strikes me is that it is a very good thing that it does not apply to food, because if it did we should have all sorts of questions about eggs. For instance, if a Swiss cock and a French hen were concerned, all sorts of questions would arise.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the manufacture of an egg can take place in more than one country.
    Mr. ACLAND: The words of the Bill are "the processes of manufacture." [Laughter, and HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I am speaking up, but if hon. Members will laugh while I am speaking they cannot hear me. If goods are made mainly in Germany, and the finishing touches are put upon them in Switzerland to the extent of 25 per cent., they come in free of duty. I am not talking of dumping. That means that the main work has been done in Germany, and only a little more than a quarter in Switzerland; but if the main work has been done in Switzerland, and the goods pass in an almost completed state into Germany, so that only 10 per cent. of the work is done in Germany, those goods are liable to duty because Germany was the last country from which they came. Which goods are likely to compete more as having been made in a country with collapsed exchanges? Surely the goods which were mostly made in Germany with regard to which no. duties will be payable, and not the goods mostly made in Switzerland with regard to which duty will be payable. If you said that wherever 75 per cent. of the value had been put into the goods in a country with a collapsed exchange you would hit that with your duty, that, although foolish, would be logical; but you are saying, if you are going on the last country from which they came, if that was a country with a collapsed exchange, however little was done to them there, you are going to hit the goods; but if the final process of more than 25 per cent. was done in a country without a collapsed exchange, then, however much they compete, because the bulk of the manufacture, 75 per cent., was done in another country, you cannot hit those goods at all. That is a loophole in the Bill, and we ought to have some explanation why it is that the Swiss goods are to be hit, even if only 10 per cent. is done on them in Germany, but that
    2464
    German goods are to be free if 25 per cent. of the work has been done in Switzerland.
    Mr. KILEY: I listened with amazement to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that there was no delay caused at the ports, and I suggest to him that when a convenient opportunity arises he should go to some of these ports and learn the position on the spot. If goods coming in from abroad are not dutiable, they are loaded immediately into the wagons and carted away, but when goods are subject to duty, they must be seized by the Customs officials and taken into a bonded store and documented, and that incurs a delay of from 3 to 33 days on each consignment of goods. Therefore, when the Minister says there is no delay at all, he is very wide of the mark indeed. I will undertake to drive a torpedo through this Sub-section unless the Minister in charge will alter the wording, and I will tell him how it can be done. We have excluded quite a large number of countries from the operation of this Bill. London is a market for a great many raw materials, and in my own district we have a large industry in furs, brought from all parts of the world. They are dressed and dyed, and a large number of the skins are dyed in Germany. If they come back from Germany, they will be subject to the reparation charge, but suppose instead of sending them to Germany you send them to Belgium, you cannot prevent the Belgians from sending them to Germany to be dyed and getting them back again. That applies to something like 26 different countries with whom we have got Treaties. Therefore, as far as the effect of this Sub-section is concerned, a torpedo can be driven through it quite easily, and I suggest to the Minister that if he wants it to be effective he should make it so, or else withdraw it altogether.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. FRANCE: The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Williams) who is anxious to support the Government and who is halting between two opinions and cannot understand Subsection (2) appeals to the Government to put up a lawyer or some person of intelligence on the Front Bench to explain it, and there is no response. May I appeal to the Government to send for the Minister of Education, or the Home Secre-

    2465
    tary, or the Minister of Labour, or some other Minister to explain the Clause, for there are many hon. Members who do not in the least understand it.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I did not deal with the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut. - Commander Williams), because I gathered that the gravamen of his charge was directed at hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I can assure him that he need be under no hesitation as to voting for the Government on this as on all occasions. As to the appeal addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), if it were to carry weight with me at all it would be to withdraw the 25 per cent. concession in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and propose the full 50 per cent. I am not sure he is serious in making the appeal. He really suggests that we should follow these goods through all the countries, and, when goods came into Germany and came out from Germany again, that we should make an analysis of what the constituent parts of those goods were and whether they came from within Germany or from within other countries. That would be quite impracti-
    cable, and I suggest that the practical course is, as we propose, to take the goods as they come out of the country which is subject to the duty.
    Mr. HAYWARD: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if any Consular certificate has been drafted such as will be required, because, if so, it would be interesting to have a copy of it laid on the Table of the House. A great many inquiries would have to be made in the case of these goods, and it would impose a very great burden upon somebody to do that. We should either have to increase our Consular staff very largely, in which case we should see great increases in the Foreign Office Vote, or, if the work was done by the Customs authorities, we should see a large increase in the Vote for the Custom House officers here, as we did, in fact, see two years ago after the Government's first experiment with the fiscal system of this country.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'fifty' ["the Commissioners that fifty"], stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 215.]

    AYES.

    [10.7 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Atkey, A. R.

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Hood, Joseph

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Forrest, Walter

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Gould, James C.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Grant, James Augustus

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Casey, T. W.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Manville, Edward

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Mason, Robert

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Matthews, David

    Renwick, Sir George

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Neal, Arthur

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Seager, Sir William

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Parker, James

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Pearce, Sir William

    Simm, M. T.

    Wise, Frederick

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Perring, William George

    Stanier, Captain Sir Seville

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, Otty)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Pratt, John William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Purchase, H. G.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Dudley Ward.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Halls, Walter

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Armitage, Robert

    Hayday, Arthur

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayward, Evan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hinds, John

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Swan, J. E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Briant, Frank

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Cairns, John

    Irving, Dan

    Wallace, J.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty,

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Lawson, John James

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Gillis, William

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Mills, John Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Wood.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Myers, Thomas

    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), I leave out the word "fifty" ["fifty per cent. or more"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Mr. KILEYhad given notice of an Amendment, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "value" ["the value of the goods"], and to insert instead thereof the word "cost."
    The CHAIRMAN: The effect of this Amendment might be to increase the charge, and in any case to put in the word "cost" without definition makes it incomplete.
    Major BARNES: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    This Sub-section is one under which goods manufactured in the United Kingdom and sent abroad in order to undergo a finishing process are regarded
    2468
    as goods wholly manufactured in the country to which they are sent, and are therefore liable under this Bill to the imposition of the duty laid down. But in order to meet what is an obvious hardship, it is enacted that after these duties have been levied and paid the person receiving the goods on their return may bring before the Commissioners proof of the fact that they were originally manufactured in this country, and that therefore a great part of their value is value arising in this country, and that they ought not to be charged under this Bill. Having established this fact he is then entitled to receive a drawback, which is calculated on the basis of the value of the goods before exportation and the value of the goods on their return. We submit that that is putting the traders and manufacturers in this country under disabilities to which they ought not to be subjected. The advantage to this country

    2469
    in the way of revenue can be very trifling and the danger to this country in the direction in which danger is supposed to come, must be of the slightest kind. Imagine what Part II of this Bill is intended to avert. It is the danger of goods manufactured in another country being sold in this country at prices below their cost, and in consequence putting-certain industries in this country out of action. In this particular case the main value of the goods must arise in this country and from the employment of labour in this country, and the value which accrues to them on account of the finishing process in another country can only be of the slightest kind.
    It is not our view that cheapness is a danger, but, if cheapness be a danger, that danger can arise only in a very slight degree on the finishing process. What must happen? It is obvious that it is desirable not to choke up the channels of trade any more than is absolutely necessary. Trade consists in the passage of commodities from one person to another. Every delay and obstacle in that passage makes trade more difficult. Could a more cumbersome procedure be imagined than that under this Clause, where all kinds of proof have to be furnished? The President of the Board of Trade could at least give us the small concession that goods manufactured in this country, whatever processes may be applied to them in other countries, should not come under the provisions of this Bill. Let the Bill make it clear that the provisions apply only to goods manufactured abroad. In the Subsection we have just dealt with the President of the Board of Trade has introduced an Amendment which minimises some of our objections to the Sub-section. Twenty-five per cent. has been substituted for 50 per cent. We ask him to go on with that good work and to give manufacturers the relief now sought.
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment has rather misconceived the purpose of the Sub-section, and has not considered what the position would be if the Sub-section were not there. The position is that an order would be made against certain classes of commodities coming from certain countries, and therefore all manufactured goods of such classes coming from those countries would undoubtedly be liable to the full amount of the duty. Therefore
    2470
    if no more was said, the semi-manufactured articles sent abroad from this country to undergo a finishing process and re-imported afterwards, would be subject to the duty of 33⅓ per cent. This Sub-section enables a person who exports goods in this way for the finishing process to obtain a rebate which otherwise he would not obtain under that Clause. I do not think it would be fair to go any further. If it has been proved that there is in respect of a particular commodity an advantage as to export by reason of the depreciated exchange, it is held that the duty ought to apply. If a person exports from this country in order to have a finishing process carried out, say, in Germany, then pro tanto he is taking advantage of the bounty in that country, and to that extent the duty ought to apply. That is perfectly reasonable, but if the course suggested is carried out, it would make these goods liable to the whole amount of the duty.
    Captain BENN: This Sub-section will impose a duty on British shipping. I shall explain that. When a man exports an article for a finishing process abroad, and the process is completed and he re-imports, he is allowed a certain drawback in duty, but he has to pay the entire cost of transport both to the country in which the process is carried on and on the return of the goods from that country. Therefore the Board of Trade in their efforts to correct the depreciated exchanges are imposing a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on the British shipping which carries the goods abroad and back again.
    Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: Why British?
    Captain BENN: Well, hitherto, under Free Trade we did maintain a shipping service. The policy of the hon. Gentle man, whose views I know well, would possibly very soon destroy British shipping. I cannot but think that this point has been overlooked by the Government, The value that will be taken of the goods when they come back, is the value after paying the cost of transport, insurance, and freight, and, therefore, a tax is levied upon the shipping service. I would be glad to know if the Government intends to deal with what must obviously have been an oversight on their part.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I ask the Committee to consider what kind of trade will really be hit by this Clause as it stands. We assume that there is some process which can be done in a foreign country so much cheaper, that it actually pays to send English semi-manufactured goods to that country to have that process performed there, and then to bring them back, having paid the double freight and the cost of the process abroad. That indicates that the process abroad is in some way superior to what could be done in this country. Every country has special facilities and special aptitudes, and there are certain processes which are so much better done in foreign countries, that it pays to send goods there to have it done. Where there are processes so much better in England it is better to send them to be done here. If you are going to interfere with these processes you are going to interfere with the economical production and finishing of goods, not only in this, but in other countries. I suggest to the Government that this is a bad interference with economical production, and that they should either by the acceptance of this Amendment, or, if this is not applicable to the purpose, by introducing some other Amendment, allow British goods to go to these countries where there are special processes, special skill, and special knowledge of chemistry, and so get the benefit of these processes; otherwise we shall be interfering with our export trade. If we send abroad goods to get the very latest processes and the most advantageous treatment then we can afterwards re-export those goods to the whole world. If we are prevented from doing that our goods become inferior, and we will be placed at a disadvantage with our competitors in other parts of the world, and our people will be thrown out of employment.
    Mr. KILEY: It has been stated to-night that London is one of the world's markets
    where many commodities are imported and exported, but there is a growing industry in the East End that has not been much heard of, and that is the fur trade. Furs are imported from all parts of the world in their raw state, cleaned and dyed, and subsequently sold in their finished state for clothing. Some countries do this dyeing and cleaning with more skill than we do, or have better facilities, and these furs are sent abroad, subsequently brought back, and made into garments here, and then re-shipped to all parts of the world. These processes enable us to do a very large and profitable business. Every obstacle, every tax, every interference with that procedure prevents the expansion of that business. Had we the necessary skill and appliances no one would have anything to say to our doing it; but it so happens that we have to send these goods hundreds of miles away to other countries. Those concerned do not do this for amusement, but from sheer-necessity, and to enable them to carry on their business. To get these goods back from foreign countries you must have a Consular certificate, as we have been told to-night, but the Consul may be, and very often is, hundreds of miles away from the place where the work is performed, and I suggest that when after much trouble his signature is obtained, on payment of 5s. or 10s., it is not worth the paper it is on, seeing he is not in the district where the work is done. All this is hampering to trade, and, indeed, can have no other result.
    It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'after' ['after having been exported'], stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 65.

    Division No. 216.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Bagiey, Captain E. Ashton

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Casey, T. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hood, Joseph

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Pratt, John William

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Ramsden, G. T

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Reid, D. D.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Seager, Sir William

    Doyle. N. Grattan

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Seddon, J. A.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Simm, M. T.

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Lynn, R. J.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Stewart, Gershom

    Forrest, Walter

    Mackinder. Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Manville, Edward

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

    Mason, Robert

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Neal, Arthur

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wise, Frederick

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Parker, James

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Younger, Sir George

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Perring, William George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    McCurdy.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Myers, Thomas

    Armitage, Robert

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Halls, Walter

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Rose, Frank H.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hayward, Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Briant, Frank

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Cairns, John

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Swan, J. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Irving, Dan

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Wignall, James

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lawson, John James

    Wintringham, Thomas

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Lunn, William

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gillis, William

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Dr. Murray and Major Mackenzie

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wood.

    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at
    2474
    half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 194, Noes, 69.

    Division No. 217.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Parker, James

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Perring, William George

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Pratt, John William

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Reid, D. D.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hood, Joseph

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Seager, Sir William

    Bruton, Sir James

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Casey, T. W.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Simm, M. T.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Elveden, Viscount

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Manville, Edward

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Mason, Robert

    Wise, Frederick

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Forrest. Walter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Neal, Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grant, James Augustus

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    McCurdy.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Armitage, Robert

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Halls, Walter

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Hayday, Arthur

    Briant, Frank

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Hayward, Evan

    Cairns, John

    Gillis, William

    Hinds, John

    Hirst, G. H.

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Mills, John Edmund

    Swan, J. E.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Wallace, J.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Waterson, A. E.

    Irving, Dan

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wignall, James

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Myers, Thomas

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J W. (Stourbridge)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Lawson, John James

    Rose, Frank H.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Lunn, William

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. G.

    Thorne.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Remission and repayment of duty in certain cases.)
    Where an order has been made under this Part of this Act applying this Part of this Act to goods of any class or description on the ground that goods of that class or description being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices below the cost of production thereof, the following provisions shall have effect—

    (1) If any person by whom any duty would be payable proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods in respect of which the duty is payable, have already been sold in the United Kingdom at a price which was not less than the cost of production the payment of duty shall be remitted.

    (2) If any person by whom any duty has been paid proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the goods were on the first sale thereof within the United Kingdom sold at a price which was not less than the cost of production of the goods, or where there has been a change in the market conditions of the country of manufacture, not less than the amount which would on the date of sale have been the cost of production in that country of similar goods he shall be entitled to repayment of the duty so paid.

    (3) No such remission or repayment of duty shall be made, unless and until there is produced to the Commissioners a declaration in the prescribed form made by the consignor of the goods stating the cost of production, at the date of the declaration, of the goods, and the country of manufacture of the goods, certified by a British Consular officer, or by some other person duly authorised by the Board to give certificates for the purposes of this part of this Act, to be to the best of his knowledge and belief a true declaration.

    For the purpose of any claim to remission or repayment of duty under this Section, the declaration by the consignor, duly certified by a British consular officer or other person as
    aforesaid, shall be conclusive evidence of the amount of the cost of production of the goods to which the declaration relates.
    A certificate under this Section shall be in such form and be subject to such conditions as to period of validity and otherwise as the Board may direct.
    (4) Where goods which have been charged with duty are, without being sold, used in the United Kingdom for any purpose, they shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed on being so used to have been sold, and in such a case the sale price shall for the purposes aforesaid he taken to be an amount representing the price at which the goods were actually purchased from the exporter, together with freight and insurance and the amount of any import duty, other than the duty under this Part of this Act, which may have been paid in respect of the goods.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments to this Clause on the Paper are not in Order, because they represent hypotheses which, are inconsistent with what has already been passed. The third Amendment is incomplete, and would require consequential Amendments.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It seems to me to make English.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Sub-section refers only to the cost of production, and therefore would have to be amended at various points. Those Amendments do not appear on the Paper.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 62.

    Division No. 218.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Pratt, John William

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Hinds, John

    Reid, D. D.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Hoare. Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

    Renwick, Sir George

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hood, Joseph

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Roundel), Colonel R. F.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Casey, T. W

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Seager, Sir William

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Seddon, J. A.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Simm, M. T.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Stanler, Captain Sir Seville

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Davidson. J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dean, Commander P. T.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sugden W. H.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Edge, Captain William

    Lynn, R. J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    McConnell, Thomas Edward

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Thorpe, Captain John Henry

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wallace, J.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Manville, Edward

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Mason, Robert

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Forrest, Walter

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Waring, Major Walter

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Munro. Rt. Hon. Robert

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Neal, Arthur

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Wise, Frederick

    Grant, James Augustus

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.)

    Oman. Sir Charles William C.

    Woolcock, William James U.

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Parker, James

    Worsfold, T. Cato

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Perring, William George

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Philipps. Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    McCurdy.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Myers, Thomas

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Halls, Walter

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hayward, Evan

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hirst, G. H.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Briant, Frank

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Cairns, John

    Irving, Dan

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Swan, J. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Wignall, James

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Lawson, John James

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Lunn, William

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Gillis, William

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Mills, John Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. G.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Thorne.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDIT AND INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I would appeal to the House to let us have the Third Reading of this Bill now. It is a Bill on which the House was unanimous on Second Heading. It has passed through Committee, with only two drafting Amendments. Seeing that it has so far passed with the consent of the whole House, I hope it will receive the Third Reading without opposition.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am always ready to accede to requests by the Government when possible, but on this occasion there are two matters of great importance which I wish to raise. The first is with regard to India. Since the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department made his statement on the Second Reading it has become evident that he rather put his foot in it with regard to the Indian commercial community. Judging by the correspondence in the Press, the Indian Government have taken the matter up. He said that the Government proposed to extend the Bill to Poland, Lithuania, Roumania, Georgia, Armenia, and so on, but it was not intended to extend the Bill to British India. Considering that to-day we have an Imperial Conference sitting, with India represented by a most distinguished statesman, and asked to bear her fair share of the burden of Empire, I think that decision of the Government was rash, to put it on the lowest ground—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Macnamara.]
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Suspension of power to make special schemes.)
  The power of the Minister, under section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period:
  Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.
  Lords Amendment:
  Leave out the words
  "notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published—"
  and insert
  "application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or—"
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Section 18 of the principal Act of 1920 provided for setting up special schemes for the contracting out of various industries from the main scheme, but the present state of funds compels me to introduce into this Bill a Clause limiting severely for the time being, during the deficiency period this power to contract out. Therefore we put into this Bill Clause 5, providing that orders approving special schemes should not be exercised during the deficiency period. But this is also a proviso that the section shall not apply where notice of a proposal to make a special order has been published before 8th June, 1921. We put that in in order to keep faith with those who had practically gone all the distance towards the creation of a special scheme. On the Report stage my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir F. Flannery) thought I had drawn my line too tightly and I resisted that frankly. In another place at the instance of Lord Selborne the proviso was made to read
  "Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where application has been made to the Minister to approve a Special scheme on or before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
  That is much too wide. I propose to disagree with the Lords, and I suggest a form of words as an alternative which I hope may be acceptable to this House and no less acceptable to-morrow to the other House. My alternative is as follows:
  "Provided that this Section shall not apply in any case where, before the eighth

  2483
  day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, a draft scheme appearing to the Minister to be complete has been submitted to him, and application has before that date been made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the principal Act."
  Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to support the disagreement with the Lords Amendment. I am not quite clear whether I could support the suggested alternative of the Minister. I would first like to know the number of schemes that have been already so submitted to him, in order that we might judge as to the number likely eventually to take advantage of that Amendment and go out of the main scheme. It is quite clear that if there is a large number going out of the scheme the unfortunate, residue left in the scheme will find that although those at present involved in the scheme have helped create the deficiency and have drawn upon the surplus for the 1911 scheme, they will be allowed to go out and become relieved of their responsibility to make good their share of the deficiency. The actuary who appeared before the Special Committee of Inquiry into the employment exchanges said it would be fatal to any national scheme of unemployment insurance if the best industries, with a percentage of anything up to five, were allowed to go out, leaving the residue, which would necessarily have a much higher percentage of unemployment in the scheme. That would necessitate a review, and higher contributions would undoubtedly be asked of those left in the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman's alternative is agreed to and a large number are involved, they would be out of the scheme within the next month. The residue would consist of those intermittently employed, those employed in casual industries, and the percentage that might now be 25 would at once go up to not less than 30. It would not only lengthen the deficiency period, but it might also call for another early revision, necessitating a higher contribution from those least able to pay it, because the better and more favourable trades had been allowed to contract out. If the right hon. Gentleman would say to what extent his Amendment would affect those already in the scheme, if the number is few in comparison with the larger body, I think one must withdraw one's objec-
  2484
  tion with a view to meeting the desires of the Noble Lords in the other House.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure my hon. Friend I am anxious not to allow more than three or four to come under this provision.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly the number involved? Would it be two millions?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  Sir W. BARTON: I would like to have information on the financial effect of this change. What is the difference between the Bill as it left this House and as it is now, and what is the difference between the Lords Amendment and the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As far as I understand it, the only difference between the Bill and the proposal the right hon. Gentleman now makes is that in the one case the scheme has to be "published" and in the other case the scheme has to be "completed." I do not think he is giving any concession at all. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has behaved at all fairly to those people who wanted to contract out of the scheme. He brings in a Bill first of all giving them an option to contract out. A lot of those industries go through very expensive negotiations, they employ legal opinion, they put out a great deal of money, and then the right hon. Gentleman brings in a Bill doing away with contracting out.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: For the time being.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: He only allows one single industry, the insurance industry, to contract out, and the insurance industry finds it only requires 50 per cent. of the contributions under the State scheme to make it solvent, which shows that it is to the benefit of the employed people and employers to be out of the scheme. I went to another place and got the actual Amendment, and so far as I can see there is no concession at all in what is now proposed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend interposing to raise objection to the restriction which my right hon. Friend is seeking to enforce. My hon. Friend intervenes generally in debate to blame the Government for spending public money

  2485
  injudiciously, and on this occasion, when the Government are trying to restrict their liability and save the public purse, my hon. Friend is equally critical and equally violent in opposition.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Contracting out costs the Government a great deal less.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken. If general contracting out is now allowed it will cost the taxpayer a great deal more. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour feels, on reflection, having listened to what was said in another place, and reflected on what was said here, that he had drawn his Bill rather too tightly, and he has met what I believe was the object of the other place by the new Amendment which he has proposed. It will let in those schemes which are practically completed. They are four or five in number. They do not affect a large number of men and therefore do not affect in a material degree the finances of the Bill. But there would be some reason to charge the Government with harshness if those four or five schemes, which are on the eve of acceptance, were excluded, and it is to meet their case that my right hon. Friend is proposing the Amendment referred to.
  Sir T. ROBINSON: I am afraid this case may be far more serious than appears on the surface. The Minister proposes to allow four or five industries to contract out. To what extent are those four or five industries indebted to the national fund?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not answer that question at the moment.
  Sir T. RICHARDSON: The Bill as it stands practically precludes the people who have sent some of us here to represent them from ever having any benefit under the Bill. Unless we can get outside the Bill we are going to continue paying, instead of the taxpayer, to make the funds solvent, and without any hope of drawing a penny. For a million men
  to be paying contributions until the fund is solvent, without hope of any benefit, is manifestly unfair.
  Mr. LAWSON: The Amendment of the Lords is exactly in line with the action taken by the Labour Party throughout the discussion of this Bill. Originally, on principle, we did not believe in contracting out, but the Government insisted on contracting out in its original Act. Large organisations have prepared various plans of their own and spent large sums of money, but their schemes are not completed in the sense required, and now they find they are to be deprived of the right originally given to other organisations. This situation has been created by the zig-zag legislation of the Government. Having led the unions into the position of spending thousands of pounds, they abandon their proposal. All along, we have put the arguments which have been put in another place. The right hon. Gentleman now sees the wisdom of those arguments when they come from another place, instead of from these benches. It has been said that there is some democracy left in Parliament, but that it is at the other end from this. The Members of this House will enjoy the unusual sight of the Labour Party supporting a Lords Amendment, because at least it is consistent. We have regularly stood for this line of policy since the introduction of the Bill. While we think contracting out, originally, was a mistake yet it has led the unions into expenditure on a large scale and it is unfair at this point to drop it and leave them in such a position that all the work they have done will be of no effect at all. We support the Lords Amendment because it is consistent, and on the line of policy which the Government should have taken.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 219.]

  AYES.

  [11.23 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

  Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

  Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Bruton, Sir James

  Atkey, A. R.

  Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Casey, T. W.

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Seager, Sir William

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Seddon, J. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Simm, M. T.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

  Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Fildes, Henry

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Forrest, Walter

  Lynn, R. J.

  Steel, Major S. Strang

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Mason, Robert

  Sugden, W. H.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Green, Albert (Derby)

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Murray. William (Dumfries)

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

  Neal, Arthur

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Wallace, J.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Parker, James

  Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Waring, Major Walter

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Wise, Frederick

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Pratt, John William

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Purchase, H. G.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Younger, Sir George

  Hinds, John

  Rankin, Captain James Stuart

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hood, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  McCurdy.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Lunn, William

  Swan, J. E.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

  Wood, Major M. M (Aberdeen, C.)

  Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)

  O'Grady, James

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

  Mr. Lawson and Mr. C. Edwards.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Amendment made, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with:
  Leave out the words
  "notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one—"
  and insert
  "before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, a draft scheme appearing to the Minister to be complete has been submitted to him, and application has before that date been made to him to approve the scheme in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the principal Act."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

  CLAUSE 11.—(Amendment of Part II of First Schedule to 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 30.)
  Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act as amended by the Second Schedule
  2488
  to the Act of 1921, shall have effect as though they were inserted at the end of paragraph (d) thereof the following words: "and provided further that in the case of employment under a local or other public authority relative to the superannuation of persons in that employment, the Minister may, if any enactment provides for the aggregation of service in that employment under two or more employers, whether the service has been continuous or not, treat such service for the purposes of the foregoing provision as if it had been service in the same employment."
  Lords Amendment:
  After the word "inserted" ["as though they were inserted"], insert
  "therein after paragraph (c) the following new paragraph—
  '(cc) employment otherwise than in a temporary capacity as a member of any police force to which the Police Act, 1919, applies;'
  and as though they were inserted therein."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is made in pursuance of a pledge I gave. Part II of the First Schedule of the main Act excepts certain employments by the Schedule itself and certain others at the discretion of the Minister. Permanent police are in the second category at the present time. They can be excepted by the Minister, but my hon. Friends thought, and I think they were right, that the police should be placed in the first category.
  Lords Amendment:
  At the end of the Clause to insert the words, "and paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d) of the said Part II is hereby repealed."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is consequential on the last Amendment.
  Lords Amendment:
  After Clause 14, insert a new Clause—

  CLAUSE 15.—(Application of Act to Ireland, 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 67.)
  For the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act
  2490
  shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The present Unemployment Insurance Acts apply to Ireland, having been passed before the appointed day, which is set out under Section 73 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The Irish Parliament may amend or repeal them as they think necessary. The present Bill will become law after the appointed day, and unless this provision is made the Irish Parliaments will not have the power as regards this Bill that they have in regard to the main measure and other measures. Therefore this is practically a drafting Amendment, in which I concur.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

IRELAND.
  BLACKROCK AND PASSAGE RAILWAY.
  BLACKROCK AND PASSAGE RAILWAY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  MURDER, CHARLEVILLE.
  MURDER, CHARLEVILLE.
  DUBLIN CATTLE MARKET.
  DUBLIN CATTLE MARKET.
  INTERNMENT CAMPS.
  INTERNMENT CAMPS.
  SHOOTING.
  SHOOTING.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  TRADE COMBINATIONS.
  TRADE COMBINATIONS.
  JAPAN (FOREIGN TRADE).
  JAPAN (FOREIGN TRADE).
  GERMAN COLOURS AND DYESTUFFS.
  GERMAN COLOURS AND DYESTUFFS.
GOVERNMENT STAFFS.
  PENSIONS (TEMPORARY SERVICE).
  PENSIONS (TEMPORARY SERVICE).
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  WAR BONUS.
  WAR BONUS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (FEE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (FEE FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  GRATUITY (R. F. JAMES, ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY).
  GRATUITY (R. F. JAMES, ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY).
ROYAL NAVY.
  UNITED STATES (VISITS).
  UNITED STATES (VISITS).
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE (DISCHARGE).
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE (DISCHARGE).
HOUSING.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MINERS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MINERS).
EDUCATION.
  MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
POST OFFICE.
  UNPAID LETTERS (SURCHARGE).
  UNPAID LETTERS (SURCHARGE).
  PRINTED MATTER.
  PRINTED MATTER.
  EAST AFRICAN MAILS (DAMAGE).
  EAST AFRICAN MAILS (DAMAGE).
  LIVE STOCK (IMPORTS).
  LIVE STOCK (IMPORTS).
  CONVERSION LOAN.
  CONVERSION LOAN.
  EGYPTIAN DELEGATION.
  EGYPTIAN DELEGATION.
  TANGANYIKA TERRITORY (GOVERNOR'S RESIDENCE).
  TANGANYIKA TERRITORY (GOVERNOR'S RESIDENCE).
  EAST AFRICA (KILINDINI PIER).
  EAST AFRICA (KILINDINI PIER).
  LICENSING BILL.
  LICENSING BILL.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ANNUAL CAMPS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ANNUAL CAMPS).
  ALLOTMENTS, NORTHILL, BEDFORDSHIRE.
  ALLOTMENTS, NORTHILL, BEDFORDSHIRE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name in regard to this Bill.
Moved, That the order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Donaughmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RADCLIFFE AND LITTLE LEVER JOINT GAS BOARD BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move—"That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the session."
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Earl the

871
Leader of the House—"That Standing Order XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting in order to take the remaining stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill." There was some conversation on the subject yesterday and I think your Lordships are aware of the reason why we are asking that the remaining stages of this Bill should be concluded this afternoon. Lord Clarendon explained that July 4 is the date on which the new insurance year begins, and as it is necessary to carry out very extensive reorganisation in consequence of the amendments proposed by this Bill, it is desired that the measure should be passed into law, if possible, to-day.
Speaking yesterday on an analogous Motion which I had on the Paper in regard to the First and Second Readings of this Bill, Lord Salisbury said that his experience led him to believe that Departments, in these matters, were inclined to strain points and exaggerate the necessity of prompt legislation. I am rather inclined to think that in many cases the noble Marquess is correct, but I fancy that in this case I am correct. On hearing Lord Salisbury yesterday I made it my business to cross-examine closely the officials of the Department, and they really made out what I think is a very good case for passing the Bill in time to allow them to carry out the necessary changes before July 4. That, of course, does not touch the Parliamentary point to which Lord Salisbury and Lord Selborne alluded; though that is not the fault of the Department, but of the Government. I have already expressed my regret that such a course should be necessary at this stage, but I can assure you, on my personal responsibility, that the case for this Motion, from the point of view of the Department, really appears to me to be unanswerable.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting in order to take the remaining stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one can complain of the tone in which the noble Earl has made this Motion, but he has not availed himself of the invitation, which I extended to him yesterday, to tell your Lordships the history of this Bill in the House of Commons. I have not the same means of making myself acquainted with that history as has the
872
noble Earl, but I have spent a certain amount of time in making the necessary investigation. I find that this Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on June 8. Why it was not introduced before I cannot conceive. If time pressed, why should not the Ministry of Labour have found out how urgent this matter was before June 8? They have asked Parliament to deal with a very complicated measure in a very brief period. The first question I put to the Government, therefore, is: Why was it not introduced earlier? However, it was introduced on June 8, and the House of Commons had three weeks in which they considered it; three weeks, your Lordships will observe, whereas we are not to be allowed more than two consecutive days. The Bill was not in your Lordships' hands until yesterday, and it is suggested that it should pass through all its stages by the end of this afternoon.
What was the history of the Bill in the House of Commons? It was introduced, as I have said, on June 8. It was read a second time on June 15. The House of Commons, therefore, had a week between the introduction of the Bill and its Second Reading. We were not allowed even five minutes between those two stages. On June 15, then, the Bill was read a second time. It was not suggested that the House of Commons should go into Committee immediately. Three or four days were allowed to the House of Commons before they were called upon to consider the Bill in the Standing Committee. It took three days in the Standing Committee to discuss this Bill—not a whit too long. If your Lordships have had time to read the Bill in the very brief period allowed to you by the Government, you will have observed its character, and will agree that three days was certainly not too long a period in which to consider it.
The Bill was, as a matter of fact, considered almost entirely from one point of view—namely, the point of view of those members of the House of Commons who, very legitimately from their own standpoint, were anxious to have the terms made more generous to the waking classes; that is, to the insured persons. That is what we should all like to do, if we could do it. Even in those three days, the Bill was not really thoroughly discussed, either from a drafting point of view or from the point of view of those who want more carefully to safeguard the taxpayer in these anxious

873
and strenuous times. After it had been in Committee three days, it was reported to the House, not immediately after the Committee was concluded, but on June 27. One day was allotted to the Report stage—I do not mean a whole day, but no other stage was taken that day, so far as I understand—and the Bill was not read a third time until June 28.
The Government were quite aware of the difficulty in which they would place your Lordships' House, because the Minister of Labour very properly called the attention of the Grand Committee to the fact that, unless the Bill were passed by the House of Commons last week, the House of Lords would be put in a very difficult; position this week. As I hastily read the Report of that Committee, it was persuaded by his representations and by those of the Chairman to sit almost continuously. I believe there was one day's interval in the course of the Committee stage, but, on the whole, the days on which the Committee sat followed one another. It was evidently the intention of the Minister that the Bill should be sent to your Lordships' House last week. It was not sent here last week. For reasons of which I am not aware, the Government did not deal with it as the Minister had wished. It was not dealt with in the house of Commons until the early days of this week, and, finally, it did not reach your Lordships' House for effective discussion until yesterday.
I think that, even as I have stated the case, your Lordships and the country have a great grievance on the ground that the Bill was not submitted to them earlier. I say your Lordships and the country, because it is becoming increasingly evident that Bills are not being, and cannot be, properly discussed on those terms. I would ask your Lordships, not to read through the Bill this moment, but to glance at it and see what kind of Bill it is. It is immensely complicated. It deals with every conceivable legislation by reference, and it is almost impossible to understand it without a very great deal of care. Your Lordships' House, the House of revision, the House whose special duty it is, apart altogether from the main merits of the question, to see that bad legislation in detail is not passed, are not allowed to have any opportunity whatever—I make no exception—of considering this Bill in detail. You would certainly have thought that, if a Government came with such a
874
bad case to the House of Lords, the Bill would at any rate have been, from their own point of view, in proper order when it arrived. I am not speaking of your Lordships' duties, but of the Government's own point of view. An important Amendment on the application of the Bill to Ireland is going to be moved from the Treasury Bench, which shows that they actually have not thought out their own Bill, let alone asked Parliament to do so, before they invite us to violate all the proper traditions of Parliament in order to deal with it.
The Amendment of which I speak is not one of drafting, but of substance. It was evidently forgotten, in the drafting of the Bill, that in consequence of the Government of Ireland Act a special clause would be wanted for Ireland, which it is now proposed, at the last moment, to insert. If the Government have managed to discover a fault of that description in their Bill only in the last forty-eight hours, I leave your Lordships to imagine how many faults may be concealed in the complicated drafting of this Bill. We have some experience of this sort of thing. I remember a very important Bill, in which I took a great deal of interest last year, the Increase of Rent Bill. I had been a member of the Committee upon whose report it was introduced. That Bill was not hurried as this Bill is being hurried. Of course not; but it was hurried through much more rapidly than it ought to have been, and, of course, when it came to be operated, it was found to contain all sorts of faults. Naturally; what could you expect? I had not been properly looked at by the House, or properly drafted by the Government, and bad legislation was the natural result.
I hope that if your Lordships are going to make a stand at all you will make a stand now, upon this Bill. Unless the whole of the revising function of your Lordships' House is to be treated as, a farce, it is your duty now to say that you will not, in consequence of that which I am not using too strong language in calling the mismanagement of business by the Government and the House of Commons, abrogate your functions, but will insist on having proper time in which to look at this Bill. I do not suggest even that we should take anything like adequate time, but that, at the least, we should have some time in which to read the Bill and be able to understand its provisions before we are asked

875
finally to pass them. For these reasons, and because the Government have not dealt with the Parliamentary case at all in the speech of my noble friend, I ask your Lordships, with great respect, not to agree to this Motion.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Motion is often made, and it always meets with a protest from these benches—a protest which certainly has no relation to the political colour of the people who occupy these scats. It is, I think, a right and proper objection for an Opposition, as an Opposition, to take to a Motion that asks this House completely to disregard the true functions that it ought to exercise, and to pass, practically without comment and certainly without examination, a very important measure. I believe that every member of this House, and even those who represent the Government, would agree that that is a very undesirable thing, if we are to exercise co-ordinate functions with another place. If we are not going to consent to have our deliberations regarded as of no consequence, we certainly ought not to assent to a Motion of this kind, excepting upon some very extreme and urgent representation.
It frequently happens that these Motions are made, and that in the end the opposition is withdrawn. I myself more than once, when speaking against this Motion, have withdrawn my opposition because I know that to embarrass the Government is a thing which nobody desires, and that to reject the Motion might be to cause a confusion that would be far greater than the benefit that would result from the maintenance and assertion of a proper protest. It is that which has caused me to intervene this afternoon. I want to know what is the real extent of the confusion and the disturbance which it is suggested will ensue if this Motion be refused. I found myself rather unable to gather that from the observations of the noble Earl. That the Department will not like it may be safely accepted. That they may find themselves in sonic difficulty may also, I think, be accepted. But the mere fact that there is going to be Departmental difficulties does not seem to me to be adequate.
I want to know whether anything serious is going to happen if the Motion is rejected. If there be, I understand quite well that the representatives of the Government here are
876
not responsible for the carelessness of the Government in another place and their entire disregard of the duties of this House. I should, therefore, be very sorry indeed, in such circumstances, to insist upon my opposition; but unless I am satisfied that there is something which we ought to avoid, and which will most certainly occur if the Motion is successfully resisted, I shall join the noble Marquess in doing my best to prevent the Motion being passed.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords. I think I shall be expressing the sentiment of the Government when I say quite clearly that it is with the deepest possible regret that your Lordships have been asked to hurry over this particular Bill. But, if I may, I should like to carry your Lordships back to the trouble which really gave rise to the necessity for the Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that about thirteen weeks ago the stoppage in the coal industry took place. It became apparent to the Ministry who were responsible for this Bill, that they could not carry on with the power given them of raising the sum of £10,000,000, after the coal strike had been proceeding for six weeks. The moment that period was over, and it became settled that the coal stoppage would be protracted over a still longer period, the Ministry set to work to prepare the Bill which is now before the House. That necessarily took up considerable time. As the noble Marquess who first spoke in this debate pointed out, they had to consult previous Bills. That took some time, and, in addition, they had to consult the Government actuaries. After those two courses had been finished the Bill had to go before the Cabinet for approval. That took a period of something in the nature of four weeks, making ten weeks in all from the time the stoppage in the coal industry arose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl mean that the Cabinet took four weeks?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: No, I mean that was the time occupied in examining previous Bills, in actuarial calculations, and in getting the Cabinet approval. The Bill then came to the House of Commons on June 8, as mentioned by the noble Marquess, and I should like to say that I am willing to agree that the Bill is an excessively complicated one. I myself have had little time to study it.

877
With regard to the time in which the House of Commons dealt with the Bill I would point out that it was under discussion by them for only 26 hours, spread over a period of five days.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is twenty-one days since it was introduced in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: That is true, but I am speaking of the time during which it was under actual consideration by the other House. In answer to Lord Buckmaster, I should like to point out that it is urgent that this Bill should go through in the time allotted to it in this House, for the simple reason that if it is not passed through all its stages in the two days, it will cost the country half a million of money, because, by the provisions contained in this Bill, the benefit is reduced in the case of men and women, as from Monday next, July 4, whereas if your Lordships take longer in discussing this Bill, and its various stages are prolonged into next week, it means that the benefit will have to be paid on the old scale rather than upon the new. I hope that I have given sufficient reasons to show that it is urgent that this Bill should be passed through all its stages to-day, and become law at once.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the real and only case that the Government have put up is that unless this Bill is scamped by your Lordships' House, and. passed without any proper consideration, it may cost the country half a million of money. I am not wholly satisfied that, that will be the case, but if it were the case, then I say without hesitation that the responsibility would not rest upon this House but upon the Government in the House of Commons. And there is another aspect to this matter. There are tremendous interests involved in this Bill. I myself have put down an Amendment on behalf of all the banks of the United Kingdom, and of the employees of those banks, representing one of the greatest interests in this country.
Nobody had the slightest idea till yesterday that the Bill was to be hurried through to-day, and there has been no opportunity of letting all those who are deeply interested know that this matter, so vital to them,
878
was going to be dealt with to-day. This is not the proper opportunity on which to argue my Amendment, but I can say that it is of vital consequence to the vast number of the employees of all the banks, who are just as much entitled to consideration as any other class of His Majesty's subjects, and who are definitely penalised in a manner which, I think I could show your Lordships, is unjust and unnecessary, by the particular provisions of this Bill. Therefore, the matter is not really disposed of merely by saying that, if the Bill is not passed to-day, it may cost the Treasury more money, because the stake at issue for those for whom I speak is, according to their means, a very serious one. I hope that your Lordships will not agree to this Resolution, but will insist on taking that necessary time which alone can enable you to understand the provisions of this Bill or give to those who are interested an opportunity of attending to it.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to make only one point, and that is that the difficulties suggested could readily be put straight in the Bill itself when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The Treasury difficulty which is suggested—namely, that there would be an overpayment on July 4—is a matter which could be put right in the Bill itself quite easily.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that your Lordships have a very real grievance in this matter. I think that case is made out. One ought, however, to remember, not in complete excuse, but in palliation, that it does not quite exhaust the whole situation when one says that on such and such a day the House of Commons discussed it on the Motion for the Second Reading, and then they had three days, and then they were allowed four days; because those of your Lordships who have been accustomed to business in the House of Commons know very well that those opportunities are very frequently not the result of deliberate concessions, but spring from the situation that there are other matters which imperatively claim the time of the House. In other words, it is the exigency, and the pressure, and the competition of other Parliamentary business which, in another place, is the true explanation of this delay.
But it is, of course, absolutely true that

879
any revising Chamber, to which a proposal of this kind is made, has a real grievance. That the necessities felt in another place, which lead to this kind of request upon the House of Lords, are of a real character is perhaps illustrated by the circumstance, to which Lord Buckmaster, I think, referred, that the fault has not been found to lie either with one Party or with one Government in this House. Whatever Government has been in power has found itself driven by the difficulties in the House of Commons to make these unpalatable proposals, and whatever Opposition has sat where the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) sits to-day has found it its duty——
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt, all Governments are sinners, but I do not think any Government has sinned so much as this one, or anything like it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not really feel disposed to rack my memory in order to establish equations of this kind. But I do not remember that the reproaches which were heard on earlier occasions were much less violent than those which the noble Marquess has addressed to the House. As we are about to take, I suppose, a somewhat important Division, I would urge your Lordships to consider very carefully what has said by Lord Buckmaster. The noble and learned Lord is another critic who, like the noble Marquess, finds no difficulty in concealing any admiration which he may feel for the present Government. But, at the same time, he has surely called attention to the real question here. It is not whether we have been badly treated, because I think everybody is convinced that we have been. It is whether this is the particular occasion which we should select to make, with its admitted consequences, this particular kind of protest. It is not, and I believe it cannot be, seriously disputed that the result of that which it is proposed that your Lordships should do will be to cause to the taxpayers a loss of £500,000. Lord Selborne says that if that consequence does follow the real responsibility will be the responsibility of the House of Commons, and not the responsibility of the House of Lords. It may be so. I confess I derive particularly cold comfort from the reflection, if the £500,000 is to be lost, that I should have the satisfaction of saying, when still another burden is added to the many we carry on our backs to-day
880
—"It was not our fault but the fault of the House of Commons."
There is another method, after all, by which we can deal with this, without taking a decision so very serious in its consequences. Your Lordships, without voting against the Motion which the Government makes now, can surely proceed to the consideration of this Bill, because if it were really found that you could not deal with the very important points which Lord Selborne has in charge in the time available, there are always Motions which can be made which would bring the matter to an end and secure any necessary postponements. And, of course, it would be in our power—and I suppose it would not be a very considerable sacrifice in order to save £500,000—to sit a little later to-night. As a rule we conclude our deliberations by seven o'clock, and that House of Commons which has been so justly upbraided by the noble Marquess to-day has, at least, in comparison with us, sat through three whole, long nights, and continued its deliberations on a summer morning within the last month. I am not suggesting any course so extreme to your Lordships, but if we found that by debating the Bill till eight o'clock we were not able to give reasonable examination to the matter, it is possible to dine here, and, if we did so, to sit until ten or eleven o'clock, by which time I do not think any reasonable person could doubt that we should reach a conclusion.
At any rate, why not make a start; why not begin the discussion of this matter, and begin it in the spirit of men who will set a high example to the House of Commons, and will convince them that it is possible, without the human frame flagging or our intellectual powers sustaining any visible decline, to sit until eight o'clock. That would give a complete vindication of the desire for economy which both Lord Buck-master and Lord Salisbury have so often eloquently advocated in this House, by proving that, if it be really necessary, this. House, in its devotion to the public service, would not shrink from its desire to save £500,000 by even dining at the House of Lords.
On Question, Whether the Motion should be agreed to?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Powis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Monokton, L. (V. Galway.)

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Newton, L.

Chesterfield, B.

Riddell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

St. John of Bletso, L.

Craven, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Cochrano of Cults, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wavertree, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Carnock, L.

Gainford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Chalmers, L.

Hemphill, L.

Mayo, E.

Charnwood, L.

Inchcape, L.

Midleton, E.

Clinton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Northbrook, E.

de Mauley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

Denman, L.

Monson, L.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Falmouth, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

O'Hagan, L.

Goschen, V.

Pentland, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Elphinstone, L.

Phillimore, L.

Emmott, L. [Teller.]

Rotherham, L.

Airedale, L,

Erskine, L.

Southwark, L.

Aldenham, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strachie, L.

Askwith, L.

Faringdon, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Balfour, L.

Farrer, L.

Sydenham, L.

Buckmaater, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Terrington, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
[For report of proceedings on the further stages of the Bill, see column 909 et seq.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WATER) BILL.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 16th day of June next" be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE -MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in moving that these Bills be read a second time, may I say that the Marriages Provisional Order Bill is quite formal in character. It
882
is introduced to confirm a Provisional Order to set right any doubts there may be in regard to the validity of certain marriages conducted in two churches in Leeds. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bills be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bills read 2ª.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords,. I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice. This Bill is essential in the interests of the country.
Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the. House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 16th day of June next" be dispensed with.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 16th day of June next" be dispensed with.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
JOHN NEWLAND ENDOWMENT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

CORN SALES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-night is one to provide for greater uniformity in the weights and measures used in the sale of corn and other crops. In order to reach some uniformity we have to get rid of those almost innumerable measures which now govern the sale of corn and other agricultural seeds in this country. They are a cause of great confusion in the trade, and the confusion is increased because a considerable number of these measures are similar in name and vet, in different parts of the country, have different weights, and consequently different values. To get rid of the confusion and
884
abolish these measures, and to lay the foundation of the trade upon the much surer basis of weight only, is the sole object of the Bill.
This is accomplished, we hope, by Clause 1, which reads:—
"From and after the commencement of this Act, every contract, bargain, sale or dealing relating to corn shall, unless it is made or had by weight only and in terms of and by reference to the hundredweight of one hundred and twelve imperial standard pounds, be null and void."
Your Lordships are well aware that in this country corn is generally sold by the measure of the quarter. The quarter contains eight bushels. The bushel is a measure of capacity, and contains exactly eight gallons of water. I lay some stress upon that, because I believe it is the only thing which can be described as in any degree exact or certain in this most uncertain trade. But while its measure of capacity always remains the same, its measure as weight varies not only according to the variety of the grain, but also according to the quality of the grain. A good sample of grain is heavier than a bad sample.
In addition there is great variation in the bushel, owing to the number of customary measures which have been established in different parts of the country. In wheat alone there are five different sorts of quarters. These vary in weight from the imperial quarter of 40 lbs. to as high as the customary quarter of 588 lbs. But the measurement of wheat by the quarter is almost elementary compared to the multiplicity of the units into which it can be divided. In the East of England a common unit is the coomb, which is equal to four bushels. The bushels themselves vary, the more common ones being 60 lbs., 62 lbs., or 63 lbs. in wheat. In one part of Wales a customary bushel is as high as 80 lbs. In addition to the coomb and the bushel, there is the load, which is generally three bushels, though in some places it is five bushels, and if you happen to live in Oxfordshire or parts of Gloucestershire you may get as much as 40 bushels to your load.
The boll of wheat, which is used mainly in Scotland and parts of the North of England, has a great variety of meanings. In the North of England a boll of wheat equals 3 bushels, while in the South of Scotland it is exactly double that—6 bushels. In the rest of Scotland a boll of

885
wheat is equal to 4 bushels. In Preston you may, if you choose, buy your wheat by the windle, which is 220 lbs. Wales has the hobbit of 168 lbs., exactly one and a half ewts., and Ireland has the barrell of 280 lbs. which is exactly 2½ cwts. There has been in existence for a very long period the imperial measure of wheat, a quarter of 480 lbs., but it is generally disregarded, even by the Government. While in earlier Acts relating to corn the figure of a quarter of 480 lbs. was used—and it appears again in the Corn Production Act of 1917—in the Agriculture Act of last year (and I think also under some of the Regulations under D.O.R.A.) that quarter was not taken as the imperial quarter, but as one of 504 lbs. That is part of the story of wheat. I do not claim for a moment that it is the whole story. But those are the chief measures which I have been able to ascertain.
While wheat itself is sufficiently complicated, it is really quite simple compared with oats. Oats have no fewer than ten different quarters, varying from 304 lbs. to 528 lbs. in weight. It has far more than its fair share of bushels. The imperial quarter of oats is 312 lbs., but the Agriculture Act of last year fixed the quarter at 336 lbs. Then again, a boll of oats weighs 320 lbs. but a boll of oatmeal weighs 140 lbs., unless you are fortunate enough to live in Galway, where it weighs 280 lbs. Oats also has its own load, its own sac ft and its own hobbit, all different in weight from these measures when applied to wheat. I might lead your Lordships through the maze of rye and barley, beans and peas, not to speak of potatoes and turnips, all of which appear to live in little worlds of their own, passing their own laws, regulating their own sales, and differing, not only from each other but from themselves, in different parts of the country. It really is a chaotic condition of affairs, and the only approach to uniformity appears to be the regulation of the carrying trades of the country, the railway companies and shipping companies, who keep entirely to the cwt. in calculating weight.
This peculiar system of measures no doubt grew up when trading in corn was confined to very small areas, and as long as a man always bought and sold in his own market he grew accustomed to the measurements and there was not a great deal of trouble. But now dealings in corn
886
have become almost universal. Improved methods of communication have brought the ends of the country close together, and an intelligent farmer, quite properly, desires to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, and he looks at the quotations at different places to see where he can best place his order. Most of these quotations are given in cash, and unless he knows the actual market he does not know the weight of corn to which they refer. There is very little outside information to guide him. The fact does really act as a somewhat serious restraint upon trade.
I am glad to say that the whole of the agricultural bodies are in favour of the Bill. Resolutions supporting it have been passed by the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union (which desires an amendment to which I will refer later), the Central Landowners Association, the Surveyors' Institute, the Land Agents' Society, and the Agricultural Sea Trade Association. A special clause has been inserted at the instance of tithe owners. It is at least fifty years since some of these societies began petitioning Parliament in favour of uniformity in this matter. In the earlier days many of the agricultural societies demanded that the cental should be the standard of weight in place of the cwt., but that demand has been dropped, and they are now in favour of the Bill with the cwt. as the standard.
The important Report of the Committee, which is known as the Selborne Committee, contained a passage to the effect that they were in favour of a uniform standard of weight being laid down on which alone sales and purchases of agricultural produce, other than liquids and certain market-garden produce, should be legal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will the noble Lord read the last paragraph of that Report?
LORD CLINTON: I have not the Report with me. I know the paragraph to which the noble Earl refers. It suggests that the whole matter should be looked into by a Committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It suggests a good deal more than that.
LORD CLINTON: I am sorry I have not the Report with me now. All these agricultural bodies are anxious for this reform and for the standard we have proposed. The matter has been before the country on very many occasions. More than one hundred years ago, as early as 1758, a movement was made in the matter, and in 1795 a Committee reported in favour of selling corn by weight as being less liable to error. At intervals other Committees have reported in favour and societies have petitioned Parliament. Several private measures have also been introduced, but none has succeeded in becoming law.
I would draw your Lordships' particular attention to the fact that in the later measures the ground of objection was upon the standard of the cental as opposed to the cwt. As that is an important objection I desire to refer to it in a few sentences. That objection was made at a time when it was presumed that a. change from the avoirdupois to the metric system was imminent. That no longer can be said to be the case. The Committee presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh argued the matter closely and they reported—
"Having given very full consideration to the subject we arc unable to recommend the compulsory adoption of the metric system in this country."
The Committee on Decimal Coinage reported in the same way, and although I, in common with many others, hope that we may see this system adopted, it is evident at the moment that it is unlikely to be enforced. If it is not brought in for the whole country it is impossible to bring it in for one particular trade. It would cause great inconvenience. If it was brought in for the corn trade alone we should probably have different sets of scales. We must in ally case pay on the cwt. to the railway and shipping companies for freight charges, and it is certainly a great convenience to the home trade that the cwt. should remain in force.
There are probably other objections from those who do not like the metric system. Although I am in favour of it can see very strong objections to its adoption at this moment. If one may take the result of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee as conclusive, we may regard the metric system as being out of the way for the present. In those circumstances the House of Commons have passed this Bill through all its stages, and it only
888
remains for your Lordships to put your seal of approval to a measure which has behind it very strong public opinion and is earnestly desired by the whole agricultural community. Those are the observations in favour of the measure.
Two or three objections to certain parts of the Bill have been circulated amongst your Lordships recently and I should like to deal with some of the more important of them. Statements have been made by the Federation of Corn Trades Associations and by the Incorporated National Association of British and Irish Millers. I think I need deal only with the latter, because it seems to include the whole substance of the former, with one or two items in addition. If your Lordships have that statement before you, you will see that they say in the third paragraph—
"The present system of conducting the business in question with which all persons engaged in the industry are thoroughly familiar, does not give rise to any inconvenience calling for legislation of so drastic a character as is proposed by the Bill."
The whole object of my statement to your Lordships is to show that it does cause a vast amount of inconvenience, which can be put right only by reforms such as we have suggested. They say in addition—
"There is no desire on the part of persons engaged in the milling and grain trades, nor, it is believed, on the part of farmers generally, for, any such change of system as is proposed."
I cannot speak for the milling industry, but so far as farmers generally are concerned, I have resolutions from all their representative bodies, and they are certainly in favour of the change proposed. In the next paragraph they say—
"The Bill has been introduced without any consultation with the trades vitally affected."
I think that statement is, if I may say so, inaccurate. Before this Bill was drafted, correspondence was going on with these trades. That was more than nine months ago. They have had ample opportunities since that time. They have been very ably represented during the passage of this Bill through another place, and through their representatives there they have secured the insertion of an Amendment to meet part of their objection. One Amendment in the Bill was actually drafted by themselves, and I confess that I find it rather difficult to accept the statement that they have not been consulted in the matter.

889
If your Lordships will turn to page 2, you will see that they deal with an important matter, mainly in relation to flour. I think the second paragraph is important. They say—
"The proposed unit of the hundredweight of 112 lbs. is an arbitary standard weight which does not rule on the Continent of Europe or in the countries from which grain is principally exported."
That, of course, is a statement of fact. It does not rule on the Continent, and, so far as I know, there is no one standard under which grain is imported into this country. There is great variety of standards. Russian grain comes in by the quarter of either 492 lbs. or 496 lbs.; from the United States it comes by the quarter of 480 lbs.; and from Canada, I think, by the quarter of 496 lbs. From some other places it comes by the cwt., and, probably, from some places by the kilo. It was, therefore, a statement of fact that the unit of 112 lbs. is an arbitrary standard; but, at all events, we may say that at the moment there is no other standard of weight. They say further—
"The adoption of the hundredweight of 112 lbs. as the only legal unit, is inexpedient., since it Would complicate or render impracticable the more complete unification of weights and measures suitable for the import and export trade of the country,'
That I imagine to be again a covert allusion to the metric system. They say that the adoption of the cwt. of 112 lbs. would render impracticable the more complete unification of weights and measures. That is not the view taken by many members of the Decimal Association. They approve this Bill, because they consider that it will be easier eventually to make the great change from the avoirdupois system to the decimal system, if the weights and measures in this country have already been reduced to uniformity.
In the third paragraph they say—
"The milling trade of the United Kingdom would be seriously and unfairly handicapped and prejudiced by the passing of the Bill, for it would permit the flour of their foreign competitors to be sold in this country at the popular and customary unit of the sack of 280 lbs., divided into 140 lb. sacks or bags."
That is a peculiarly unkind objection to take, because the Amendment embodying this permission to sell flour or corn in the sacks in which it was imported was, I believe, put in at the request, not of the Millers' Association, but of their associ-
890
ates, the Corn Dealers' Association. It was put in at their request, and I have a letter from them saying that it has been of vital importance to the Bill. Their further objection is that the import into the country of the 280 lb. sacks and the 140 lb. sacks will compel the home milling industry "to adopt the new and inconvenient unit proposed by the Bill." That is really rather a curious objection. The 280 lb. sack is exactly 2½ cwts. There seems to be no difficulty whatever in their selling it as such. The 140 lb. sack is exactly 1¼ cwts. There is no inconvenient unit there.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It will involve double invoices.
LORD CLINTON: I think I heard the noble Earl say "double invoices." As a matter of fact, the whole of it is imported in terms of cwts., because every atom of flour and grain has to pay freight charges, which are all calculated by the cwt. I really do not believe that there is any inconvenience or recalculation required in that matter at all. With regard to the next objection, it is said—
"If the Bill became law it would be impossible to continue to develop the trade in British milled flour for export to the Continent by the customary Continental unit of the kilo."
That is a new objection, which I had not seen before it appeared here. It does not appear in the file of any correspondence which has taken place, and I think it must be somewhat in the nature of an afterthought.
I have endeavoured, since yesterday, to obtain some information about the export flour trade. I learn from the Customs and Excise Department that the total export of flour and wheat meal during the year 1920 was 227,000 cwts. I should like your Lordships to observe that the amount is given in cwts. The objection here is that it would prevent their exporting in kilos, but it is quite clear that they have to make their returns in cwts., otherwise it would not appear in the Customs and Excise Department's Report. Further, the total export being 227,000 cwts., 177,000 cwts. of that goes to British possessions, who certainly do not deal in the kilo. Therefore, even at the worst, they are left with only 50,000 cwts., which is not a very large number of kilos, so that there cannot possibly be very much inconvenience.

891
I think there is a great deal of misconception about the whole of this matter in the foreign grain trade. Corn or flour can be put in any size bags or sacks. There is nothing whatever in this Bill to regulate the size of sacks. It merely has to be sold in terms of, or with reference to, the cwt., and after all, if they have to sell, in this small number of cwts., by the kilo or hundred kilos, the calculation has already been made by them, and I have no doubt they have a ready reckoner kept for the purpose. I believe that those are all the matters of importance with which 1 need deal, but, of course, I shall be prepared to deal with any other matters which may be raised. I do not see anything in the statements which have been put forward which provides sufficient reason why we should not support. the Second Reading of this Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Clinton.)
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT had given Notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move—"That the Bill be read 2ª this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill proposes a very important change in our customs, and it proposes to do that, if I may venture to say so, after quite insufficient inquiry and consideration. I do not know—there has been very little time to look into the matter, and I have no connection with the trade in any way—whether there is any precedent in our legislation for making null and void the basis of contracts of immemorial usage. So far as this Bill would tend to simplify internal trade, and internal trade alone, I should be very loth to suggest interference with it. But after listening carefully to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, I do not see why the case which he makes out should not be met by very different measures from these. He might make the lb. avoirdupois the basis for all internal purposes in regard to home-grown produce.
But when we come to the immense foreign trade in cereals and agricultural products (dealt with in this Bill), which has grown up in this country during the last hundred years, we come, I think, to a very different set of circumstances. In regard to wheat, as is well-known, we import four-fifths of the wheat which we use in this country. As regards maize, we import the whole of that which is consumed
892
in this country, and this Bill would make void every contract in these commodities which is not expressed in terms of hundredweight. The import trade in wheat from America and Canada, as the noble Lord has said, is conducted in quarters of 480 lbs. a quarter of oats is 320 lbs., and a quarter of barley 400 lbs. From India a quarter of wheat is 492 lbs., a figure which would be very difficult to express in reference to cwts.
LORD CLINTON: May I remind the noble Lord that they have already been re-calculated for the trade by the carrying trade, the shipping and railway companies.
LORD EMMOTT: I will deal with sonic cases in which they are not, presently. Even if they are re-calculated for this purpose, I do not think that that alone is sufficient to authorise this Bill. In regard to the East of Europe, I think the noble Lord referred to different quarters which formerly came from the three exporting ports in Russia—namely, Riga, Odessa and Petrograd. How long it will be before we receive grain again from Russia I am unable to say, but I am afraid that it will he a considerable time. The same thing applies to other ports of supply in the Eastern part of Europe.
Now, with regard to the export trade, I have not had time to look into the figures, but clearly our export trade in 1920 is not a very good criterion of what it is in ordinary times; and even if the amount exported then was not very large, that is no safe guide as to the future. Our export and re-export trade is a tremendous thing for this country, and anything which interferes unnecessarily with it is a matter about which this House ought to be very careful. A good deal of our export trade is, I understand, done in kilograms. In Liverpool even the internal trade is done, I am told, in centals, and a Bill of this kind ought not to ignore the tendency towards the greater use of the metric ton and the metric cental. If we are to have a change so drastic as this, those should be amongst the authorised measures. For many years people interested in the complaint which was made about our being not sufficiently energetic and active in pushing foreign trade, constantly stated that we were not ready enough to quote in foreign measures and weights, and in foreign money. This Bill would make it impossible

893
to quote at all, except in hundredweights, in the commodities mentioned. That is a very serious step to take at this time, without very serious consideration.
Furthermore, in the North of England there is a modern tendency. In Liverpool trade is done in the short ton of 20 centals, and port charges are made on that basis. Millers' machinery in the North of England is of an automatic character, and as regards the intake of wheat it is arranged for 100 lbs. and not the cwt. Liverpool uses the 100 lbs. for selling. I maintain that the cwt. of 112 lbs. is not the most convenient factor to adopt. It contains the rather inconvenient multiple of seven. I have no inclination to make a fetish of the decimal system. U we were starting the world over again I think we should be much wiser if we started with the duo-decimal. But that is impossible. The decimal system is in use all over the world, and therefore holds the field, and to stereotype the increased use of the inconvenient cwt. for foreign purposes would, I think, be a great mistake.
It was about three or four years ago that I was suitably punished for intervening in a decimal coinage discussion by being made Chairman of a Royal Commission to consider the matter. We reported by a majority, and I think that if our Decimal Coinage Commission had been composed of the old kind, of people uncommitted, we should have been unanimous. We reported against the change to a decimal system of coinage because either the £ or the penny must be sacrificed. We came to the conclusion that it was not worth while facing all the trouble and friction, and it would be very great, unless we had a nearer approach to a decimal system of weights and measures. A great many witnesses came before us in favour of a change of coinage. We examined them on the question whether a change to a decimal system of weights and measures was not more important than a change to a decimal coinage, and they nearly all of them said that that was so.
Now this Bill would operate against an approach to a decimal system of weights and measures, inasmuch as it would make contracts in metric tons or metric centals null and void and interfere with the modern system, which has grown up in the North of England, of using the cental of 100 lbs. avoirdupois. Another effect would be to increase the cost of conducting business—additional clerical labour, new contract
894
forms and books, an alteration in the size of bags—always a matter of considerable trouble—and an alteration in the automatic weighing and sacking apparatus.
This measure is opposed, as your Lordships arc aware from circulars that you have received, by the National Federation of Corn Associations, by the millers, and, I understand, by the bakers. I have therefore felt it my duty, although I do not know anything about the trade, to raise the matter here, but the exact course that I shall take will depend upon the course of the debate. I particularly desire to know what the Government advise on this matter. The views of the Ministry of Agriculture are already known to us, but I am sure your Lordships will be particularly interested to hear the views of the Board of Trade, if they can be expressed later on. The Bill itself shows that there is no particular hurry, for it; does not come into force till January 1, 1923. And unless one of two things is done I must confess I shall feel inclined to press opposition as much as I can. The first is that all imported cereals should be excluded from the scope of this measure. The present partial exclusion, in paragraph (ii) of Clause 1, is quite useless for the purpose, because I am told that a good deal of foreign wheat is moved twice, and the second move puts it under the provisions of this measure. Alternatively (and this is what I should really prefer) I should like to see delay, and sonic Committee set up to inquire whether this is a practical proposal or not.
I appeal to your Lordships, and I appeal to the Government, to see that a measure of this importance should not be hurried through without proper consideration. Undoubtedly, as regards foreign trade, it is retrograde. Though I know nothing about the corn trade, it is our custom in one trade of which I do know something to sell to the Continent of Europe in kilo-grammes, sometimes in foreign money; and, looking at it from the point of view of that trade, it seems to me a monstrous proposal that the contracts that we regularly make of that kind should be declared null and void by legislation. I cannot, therefore, conceive that this measure can be a good one for our foreign grain trade, and in those conditions I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months.")—(Lord Emmott.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, I may say that as agriculturists we support this Bill. We believe that it would be of very great advantage to the home producer and to those farmers and others who have dealings in grain in this country. The Ministry of Agriculture would naturally like to see the Bill pass into law, believing, as they do, that it would put an end to a great deal of confusion winch now exists in different markets, owing to the various meanings of the terms "quarter" and "bushel" which prevail throughout the country. I think all your Lordships are fully aware that there is a great deal of confusion arising from these different weights and measures.
Before I go any further I should like to say that it must be thoroughly understood that I am speaking only on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, and stating the agricultural view. I understand that all do not see eye to eye on this question, and anything I say should not go out as the advice from this bench as to what the Government think of the Bill. I understand. that it is not the intention to put on any Government tellers. It is merely a question for noble Lords to decide for themselves, as they usually do, and to vote as they think best on the merits of the Bill. I have no doubt they would do that in any circumstances.
But I may be permitted to say, speaking personally as an agriculturist, and on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, that I think that some of the fears which have been expressed by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, and also in the statements made by the millers and the corn dealers, are not of a very substantial nature. In both those statements, which have already been very ably dealt with by Lord Clinton, they express their view as to what will happen if this Bill passes, but I do not think they give any concrete examples of the dangers which they dread. In the first place, I do not think that those who object to the Bill have taken properly into consideration the Amendments which have been made in another place.
I had the advantage of listening to a deputation from the millers and grain dealers some tune ago, before this Bill was
896
discussed in Committee in the House of Commons. It was very plain to me, from what the deputation told me, that, as the Bill stood, it would to a very large extent hamper and interfere with what is, after all, the largest portion of the grain trade of this country, namely, the trade in imported grain and flour. Since then, during the passage of the Bill in another place, certain provisos have been inserted in Clause I which, I believe, to a large extent, if not entirely, got rid of those objections. The Bill now allows grain coming from foreign countries to be dealt with in any terms that are thought fit, and the Bill does not apply until the corn is moved from the warehouse or shed in which it was at first stalled; also it does not apply unless it is moved from its original bags. I consider that that goes a very long way towards meeting the objections of the corn trade.
I do not think that the other objections which are raised really are as strong as they are supposed to be, because the whole object of this Bill is that in the future all dealings in corn shall be by weight, and not by measure. That is a fact that we should get into our heads. If that is the case, I cannot help thinking that some of the objections raised by the millers and others should not really carry weight. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent millers and others who require flour or grain in certain quantities from buying it by weight. That is practically the whole alteration made by the Bill. I was amazed, when I inquired into this matter, to find to what extent corn is sold in this country by weight. Before I examined it I was under the impression that a large amount of corn and meal and flour was sold by the sack, that people bought a sack of barley meal and so many sacks of wheat or oats; and that they believed that so many sacks went to the quarter and took no further trouble about it, but accepted the sacks or sent them to the corn merchant or the miller. I was astounded to learn that practically every sack of corn and every sack of flour is weighed in this country.
It seems, therefore, that the objections which are raised do not carry real weight, because even at the present moment people do not accept sacks of corn or flour but take every precaution to weigh them and find out how many lbs. of flour or oats or wheat they are purchasing. So far as I have gone into tile matter, I

897
consider that this Bill in no way interferes with the trade in foreign corn to this country right up to the time it is put into the werehouses. 'The noble Lord who moved Hut rejection of this Bill acknowledged, I think, that there were ten different ways of selling corn (there are a great many more, I believe) in common use in one port— Liverpool. Under the Bill the merchant will be allowed to trade in foreign corn in the old way until it is put into the warehouse in England, and to carry on all these old customs.
The other objection I sometimes hear is that it will mean that merchants and dealers in foreign corn will have to make a great many difficult calculations. They have to make a great many difficult calculations now, and to use comparative tables of the different weights and measures. I should have thought it would not have been very difficult for them to get out fresh comparative tables of weights and measures if it was found necessary to do so. What should weigh with your Lordships to a large extent is this. By their education probably, and the nature of their trade, farmers are not as good arithmeticians and calculators as these merchants, and, moreover, they- have not the same clerical staff to which they can refer. Surely, it is not unfair to ask, on behalf of those men, that they should have a standard method of selling corn and meal by the cwt., which they all understand, and should not be called upon to make these difficult calculations. On those grounds, believing that the objections to the Bill are not of a really substantial character, and realising the large support it is receiving among the farming and agricultural community of the country, I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking when I came down to the House, but I feel that I must say a few words, after listening to the lengthy speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken for the landed interest rather than for the trade. We have not yet heard the Board of Trade view of this Bill. If you pass it into law you are going to upset the whole of the foreign corn trade in this country. Every ship which discharges a cargo of grain into a warehouse, the books of which are made up with the usual customary weights and measures, will now have to deliver out of the ware-
898
house on quite different weights. It is going to alter all the sworn weighman's weights and measures, and for the sake of perhaps 20 per cent. of the inland trade of the country you arc going to upset, say, 80 per cent. of the foreign trade. I ask your Lordships to hesitate, to consider whether it is really worth while bringing in this Bill which, after all, is but a half-measure. If a Bill is necessary at all we had better go straight to the metric system.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture here to say that in blessing the Bill he was speaking on behalf of his Department only, and not on behalf of the Government. He will correct me if I am wrong. If I ant right, then I would ask the noble Earl who is leading the House why the Government changed their mind upon this matter? We are very accustomed in these clays to the Government continually changing their mind, and it would seem that they have done so in this case. When this Bill was before the House of Commons on Second Reading, the Minister for Agriculture said—
"This is not a Government Bill, hot so far as the Government are concerned they will recommend the Rouse to give a Second Reading to the Bill."
There has been an entire change of front. The Government now conic down and take the opposite view; and they are divided upon the matter. They do not, as a Government, ask this House to pass a Bill for which agriculturists have asked for many years, and which would get rid of a troublesome feature of their trade. The House of Commons thought it right to give a Second Reading to the Bill, and it was considered on its merits.
It is rather interesting to notice that when referring to the merits of the Bill generally the Minister of Agriculture said: I certainly think there is a strong case for legislation. The position is absolutely chaotic." For some reason or other the Government have changed their mind in regard to the position being "absolutely chaotic." The House of Commons apparently thought that the passing of the Bill would be for the benefit of trade, because on Third Reading only eighteen Members could be found to vote against the Bill. The Bill had been amended—reasonably amended. Had there been strong objections there certainly would have been more than eighteen Members

899
going into the Lobby against it on Third Reading. Therefore, I hope we shall have some stronger reason than has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, that this Rill should not have a Second Reading. If it is necessary to amend it at a later stage, that can be done.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I confess that I think the least interesting point is the personal and political point to which my noble friend has alluded. My noble friend beside me said he was speaking for the Department of Agriculture, and that as a Government we did not propose to advise your Lordships in either direction, but he made a strong appeal not merely that the Bill should have a Second Reading but that it should pass into law. The Board of Trade is afraid that the Bill may be more far-reaching in its character and, while conferring a benefit upon agriculture, may cause a serious impediment to our trade as a whole. It so happens that for four years I have been connected with the problems of bread-stuffs and milling, our flour supplies and bread distribution, and I beg your Lordships to allow me to say in a word or two why I hope that this Bill will not pass until it has received careful consideration at your Lordships' hands. The Government must really not be blamed for—
LORD STRACHIE: Changing their mind?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Even for changing their mind. I do not suppose that Lord Strachie does not change his mind. If so, he must have a very clear and strong conscience. I confess I should be sorry to be a member of a Government which was too proud to admit that it had changed its mind. I will explain in a moment how it has come about that this subject was not sufficiently probed during the earlier stages of its career. I set out by admitting anomalies. I know that these cereals and cereal products are sold in every kind of denomination, and I admit the anomalies. But who suffers by them? The farmers? No. We all know of two or three cases where farmers are quoted as having thought they sold in a. bushel or boll or whatever it be, and found that they were actually selling in another measure of a smaller denomination. That is not so in one thousandth of one per cent. of the cases of sales. My noble friend Lord
900
Clinton knows the farmer of England and of Scotland, and I challenge contradiction when T say that in not one thousandth of one per cent of transactions in t his country can the farmer say that he is swindled or cheated because he does not appreciate the denomination in which he is selling or buying corn.
The anomalies exist, and confusion exists, but it is not local confusion. It is not confusion in the market where the man sells, and where the merchant buys. It would be confusion if a man growing oats in the Shetland Isles in one denomination tried to sell them in the denomination which prevails in Cornwall. But that is not how the transactions are carried out. I therefore state emphatically that it is an exaggeration to try and impress upon your Lordships that this Bill is necessary to protect downtrodden and ignorant farmers. Moreover, the man who cannot sell in bushels would probably be quite as easily cheated if he tried to sell in cwts. I, therefore, think that the inconvenience—the vast inconvenience, as Lord Clinton called it—only exists on paper, and does not exist in point of fact. In any case the inconvenience and confusion which may exist are not local in character, and therefore do not touch the individual.
Lord Clinton commented rather severely on the third paragraph in this statement before your Lordships, on the ground that the Bill had gone a long way without the millers and federations of corn trades making any objection. I am afraid that is substantially true. But let me remind your Lordships that this Bill was not introduced very long ago in the House of Commons. Up to March 31 last, every miller in this country was a servant of the Government. He had to buy his wheat from the Government, through Government agents. He had to mill it according to the directions laid down by the Government, and he had to sell it according to the prices and schedules given to him week by week. His finance was controlled; his standard profit was allowed to him; his surplus was taken by the Government. That had been going on for four years. Exactly the same thing applied to the corn trade—a powerful and efficient organisation. For four years it had been the agency of the Government. It was told where to buy, how to buy, what to buy, and where to sell. Neither of these great bodies, both of them essential to the

901
livelihood of this country, has been a free agent during the last four years. That was not their fault. It was necessary, in order to ensure the food supply of the country, to control both of these two trades under the most rigid conditions.
What was the natural result 1 At the moment when this Bill was being projected in the House of Commons these two trades, to whom freedom was being gradually restored, had to devote every minute of their time to studying the terrific problems by which they were faced on having to resume the burden and responsibilities of private enterprise at a moment when the Exchange was fluctuating 6, 8 and even 10 points in a day, and when the price of wheat varied in 24 hours more than its normal variation during three months before Its, war. That was the condition in which these two trades found themselves on March 31, when this Bill was being projected. Can your 'Lordships blame them that they did not there and then appreciate how great a danger this was to their method of business, and that it should only have been at this late stage that they should appeal to this House for re-consideration of the matter. It does not lie in our mouths to scold or blame two great industries in this country because they come to your Lordships' House, and not to the House of Commons, to make an appeal. That, I hope, in the minds of your Lordships, will he a sufficient excuse, and will answer the observations of my noble friend, Lord Clinton, that these two industries did not make their appeal to Parliament in adequate time.
LORD CLINTON: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? That was not my complaint. My complaint against them was that they said they had not been consulted.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Certain people were consulted, but I can assure my noble friend that it was I myself who first asked some of these people what they thought about the Bill, and they told me that they did not know it had even been presented to Parliament. There are very important Bills awaiting the consideration of your Lordships, and I do not propose to detain you more than a moment or two. I wish to point out that this does not affect only the milling industry and the corn industry. Least of all does it affect the farmers. The farmers of this country are
902
producers of only 12 per cent., 13 percent., or 14 per cent. of our wheat consumption, and the remaining 88 per cent., I therefore, collies into t his country, and is dealt with as between the importers or shippers and the millers. The farmer here is not a party to those transactions.
I would emphasise that there is another large body, to which practically no reference has been made, and that is the body composed of bakers. Why is the baker not mentioned I It is true he is a very un-vocal party That is my experience of the baker. But your Lordships will remember that a baker has built up his business upon the existing system of weights and measures, and if von ask a baker what plant he has, he says: "I have a one sack, or a two sack, or a three sack plant." That is a unit of 280 lbs. Lord Clinton says that does not matter, and that there is no difficulty in letting the wheat be sold to him in 112 lbs. But that means a. double invoice.
My noble friend, Lord Ancaster, says, "They have to make elaborate calculations now. Does it matter that they should have to make more?" My Lords, this is a Bill in restraint of trade. These people want to trade in bushels, or in quarters, or kilos, or whatever be the denomination that they have hitherto traded in. Why should they not be allowed to do so? This is going to add another invoice to a system which is already utterly unscientific, and to say that of it is, in itself, to condemn the Bill. It is well known that the London and North Western Railway would save, on a calculation which was made before the war, £150,000 a year if they could keep their accounts on the metric system. Personally, I ant not a strong advocate of the metric system, or at all events have not taken much trouble to support it, but I am against introducing an utterly unscientific denomination if it is going to bar the way to a measure which is scientific' in its character.
Why should not the merchant in Liverpool be able to buy from a jobber in Liverpool, wheat from Chicago in bushels? That is what they do to-day. Why should not a man on the Baltic Exchange in London be allowed to buy from a shipper in Madras, or Karachi, or Bombay, Indian wheat in a unit of 2,000 lbs? That is what they do every day. If this Bill wore passed those things would be illegal. Any transaction in this country must be done in units of 112 lbs.
LORD CLINTON: Only when the corn is in this country.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am dealing with a transaction that is not done in this country, and I think I am quite correct. It is the same point that has been raised by Lord Emmott.
LORD EMMOTT: I rather think the Bill as drafted is intended to make "future" dealings impossible.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is what I understand.
LORD CLINTON: We are informed that the Bill does not affect "futures" at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not want to take up your Lordships' time in dealing with a question of construction, but those who deal in "futures" think it will make that class of tranaction impossible, and while it may be considered a wicked thing to deal in "futures," my experience is that "futures" steady the market, and, as such, are by no means without their use.
Lord Clinton referred to the Committee presided over by Lord Selborne. That Committee, as many of your Lordships will remember, included Lord Bledisloe, Sir Ailwyn Fellows, Sir Daniel Hall, Mr. Prothero (now a member of your Lordships' House) and Mr. Strutt, and it went into the question with the greatest care. They recognised anomalies, they recorded anomalies, and they condemned anomalies; but they suggested that the question should be made the subject of special inquiry. They said it should be examined by representatives of every profession, every trade, and every industry concerned, and that they should correlate the requirements of the country as a whole. That I think is sound advice. I do not know whether Lord Selborne still takes that view, but I am convinced it is the proper course to adopt, and if Lord Emmoott goes to a Division I shall certainly feel it my duty to support him. If, on the other hand, the promoters of the Bill would consent to refer it to a Select Committee—I should say of both Houses, though I do not want to prejudge opinion—I should be quite prepared to support the Second Reading. But I am perfectly convinced that it should not proceed without these three large industries being able to make careful and considered representations to your Lordships.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, no one could have had a less pre-determined view on this measure Than I had. I was very anxious to know what it was that the Bill desired to effect and what were the arguments for and against it. For that purpose I have done my best to attend to what has been said, though I had the misfortune not to hear the speech of the noble Lord who introduced it. I have always been strongly in favour of some alteration of our system of weights and measures. There is no doubt that they are most clumsy, and, although they are familiar to all people engaged in our inland trade, it would certainly greatly simplify other transactions and tend to the expedition of commerce if they could be changed. It does not follow front that that this Bill ought to be accepted.
I listened with interest to the different views that are held by different Government Departments on this measure. Apparently on this Bill the Coalition Government is unable to coalesce, and while the Ministry of Agriculture is taking one view the Board of Trade takes another, and both of them hold strong views, strenuously urged. What is to be done in such circumstances? I find myself absolutely bewildered, and still more bewildered because I cannot understand the construction which the noble Earl places upon it. He suggests that the Bill is intended to make void transactions here on the Baltic Exchange for the purchase, for example, of Russian corn. I say "for example" as I imagine it will be a long time before such contracts are entered into. I read the Bill as providing nothing of the kind. It provides that contracts relating to the bargain, sale, or dealing in corn shall be null and void unless it is made in reference to the cwt. of standard quantity. Then there is the second proviso to the effect that it does not apply to corn which at the date of the contract was not within the United Kingdom (that certainly would be Russian corn) or to corn that has been imported into the United Kingdom so long as it is in the warehouse.
The uneasiness expressed by the noble Lord as to the effect of the Bill on our import trade is hardly justified by the terms of the measure itself. The same thing I feel about the statement of Lord Emmott, to whose views on this matter I need not say I listened with the greatest possible respect, knowing how thoroughly

905
familiar he is with all business matters. But why should this interfere with our import trade? That is what I want to know. I am told that it is going to affect 70 per cent, of the import trade. Why? As I understand the Bill the whole of our import trade is left clean out of it altogether, and it only relates to our inland trade. All that the Bill does is to impose, for a short time, a certain amount of inconvenience upon people who are engaged at home in the buying and selling of domestic corn, and I find it a little difficult to see how great national disasters are going to How from such a result as that.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does it only apply to home-grown wheat?
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think it does. It applies to no corn that is imported into this country while it remains in the warehouse, store or shed, where it has been first stored on importation. That is what. I mean by saving that it applies only to domestic transactions at home. It is perfectly true that you may have corn that Inv. been imported and then sold here, and then, of course, the Bill will apply. But the point is; that it affects, as I understand it—I may be quite wrong, or the noble Earl may be quite wrong—nothing except contracts made at home for the sale and purchase of corn and wheat and other commodities that arc here at home and passed out of the warehouses and sheds into which they were originally consigned. What is there in that to interfere with our imports or to prevent the importation of what we all desire—namely, large quantities of wheat and corn? I confess I cannot understand it, and on the whole the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has, I think, made out his case.
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken is puzzled at the line taken by the Government ho will not be surprised that I am even still more puzzled. The Government are playing the part of Jekyll and Hyde. First we have Lord Ancaster speaking for the Ministry of Agriculture, which I always thought formed a part of the Government. He blesses the Bill, and says there never was such a Bi'l introduced and that it will be of the greatest possible use. I thoroughly agree with him. Then we have Lord Crawford, who says it is one of the worst Bills he has ever seen, and,
906
speaking for the Board of Trade (which I thought was also a portion of the Government) says it is not called for and would be most mischievous.
An unfortunate farmer, like myself, does not know which way the Government are going to vote, or what they are going to do. Is one portion of the Treasury Bench going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and another portion against it? As regards Lord Crawford's remarks do not think I misquote him— he said that. except in individual cases, it did not at the present time inflict much hardship. All I know is that I have received innumerable letters from farmers in the Eastern counties begging me to support the Second Reading, if your Lordships proceed to a Division. Further, the list of societies which was quoted by Lord Clinton is a fairly comprehensive one which may be taken to represent the farming interests very largely. Every one of them is in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that, if this question comes to a Division, the majority of the Government may be induced to break away from the Board of Trade on this occasion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have only a. very few words to add to what has been so well said by my noble friend opposite. I think the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has entirely disposed of the argument that this Bill will interfere with the import trade. I merely wish most respectfully, but most definitely, to disagree with Lord Crawford when he says that the present state of affairs inflicts only very small inconvenience on the agricultural industry. That is riot the opinion of the organisations which represent agriculture. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was proved before the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman, that the present condition: of these corn measures is simply chaotic, and, although this is not a final and complete remedy, it is, at all events, a very long step in advance. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will agree to the Second Reading.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a minute. Many years ago I used to grow eight or ten thousand bushels of corn a year and ship it to England. I shall certainly support this Bill, because I do not remember any of this corn being bought by the bag or the bushel. When

907
it got to London it was always bought by the cwt.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order) and passed.

TITHE ANNUITIES APPORTIONMENT BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Apportionment of tithe redemption annuities.
1.—(1) An order of apportionment of an annuity charged on any land under section four of the Tithe Act, 1918, or under this Act, may be made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, under sections ten to fourteen, inclusive, of the In-closure Act, 1854, on the application of any person interested, according to the provisions of the inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, in the land charged or any part thereof, without the concurrence of ally other person, and in any such case the provisions of those sections shall apply with the exception of the proviso to section eleven and the words "so far as the same has been apportioned upon the lands of persons interested and making application as aforesaid" in section thirteen.
(2) In any ease to which this Act applies the Minister may, on the application of the person interested as aforesaid in the annuity which is apportioned by the Order, require, as a condition of making the Order, that any apportioned part of the annuity which does not exceed the yearly sum of two pounds shall be redeemed forthwith.
(3) Such fee as the Treasury may sanction shall be payable to the Minister by an applicant for an order under this section upon the issue of the order.
(4) An apportioned part of an annuity shall be a land charge within the meaning of the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection—
"(5) The expenses necessarily incurred in the registration of an apportioned part of an annuity under the said Act or the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897, shall be treated as part of the expenses incident to the apportionment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move as shortly as possible the Amendment which stands in my name. This Bill is brought forward in the very proper interests of the landowner who may wish to clear his title by getting rid of his obligation of tithe, by redeeming the tithe
908
upon an estate, and who may effect such a redemption in a way which may be called in gross, and may thereafter wish to sell in detail. For that purpose, he may wish to apportion the terminable annuity which I represents the capital sum by which the tithe rentcharge may have been redeemed in smaller sums than the total sum, proportionate to each small piece of his estate, which he may be disposing of to a plurality of buyers. That is a very proper and, no doubt, desirable transaction, and one which is entirely in the interests of the landowner, who is seeking to redeem his tithe rentcharge.
On the other hand, the other party to the proceedings will be subjected, and nothing which your Lordships' House can do can prevent his being subjected, to collecting a large number of small sums, at a comparatively great cost, instead of receiving a single sum from one owner at practically a very small cost. The least we can do is to say that the expense of registering and otherwise putting through this redemption and this apportionment, which this Bill will effect, should fall upon the party who gets the benefit of this apportionment. That is the effect of my Amendment, and I submit it with much respect as one which is required in common justice. I have only one more point to make. It might be regretted that this Amendment would expose the Bill to the risks inherent in the difficulty of finding time for discussion of it when it reaches the other House. I believe I shall not be going too far when I say that the Minister of Agriculture will not be indisposed to extend to this Bill that kind of protection, or assistance, or countenance, which gets over the difficulties of finding time for discussing this very proper and necessary Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I cannot raise any objection to the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I was very glad to hear his view that the Minister of Agriculture will assist this Bill, because, as your Lordships are aware, it has already been through all its stages in another place, and I sincerely hope that it will become law this session. But unless it were given facilities by the Ministry of Agriculture, I was rather nervous that,

909
if an Amendment were moved in this House and the Bill went back again to the House of Commons, it might not pass this session. I should like to ask my noble friend, Lord Ancaster, if he will do his best to persuade the Ministry of Agriculture to give this Bill every facility.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment, moved by Lord Stuart of Wortley, because I think it is a fair and just Amendment, and one which should be inserted. Of course, I fully recognise the difficulty in which the Bill is placed. If we accept the Amendment at this stage, the Bill will have to go back to the House of Commons, and there might be a chance of its being thereby lost. I will only say, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, that I saw him before the sitting of your Lordships' House, and that he definitely promised that he would do his very best to try' to get the Bill through another place this session. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will accept the Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOE: I am very much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to ask the noble Earl at what time the Royal Commission will sit this evening.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I understand that it is postponed until four o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the position in which we are placed. This afternoon we were told that it was absolutely necessary that this Bill should pass through all its stages to-day, in order that it might receive the Royal Assent this evening. Your Lordships can
910
see that the Throne has been prepared and everything is ready for the Royal Commission. But now we are calmly told, without a word of apology from the Government, that notwithstanding the fact that your Lordships were persuaded to suspend the Standing Orders so as to pass the Bill through its remaining stages to-day, this Bill will not be passed to-day. What is the reason for the change in the views of the Government? Where is the Leader of the House? Where is the Deputy Leader of the House? Is there no Cabinet Minister present to tell us why the House of Lords has been treated in this way?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Lord Crawford has been sent for, and is coming back.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad to receive that courteous intimation from the noble Earl, but your Lordships will allow me to say, very respectfully, that unless the House of Lords resists it will always be put upon. I hope your Lordships will realise that we were not so very unreasonable this afternoon, when we asked you not to agree to suspend the Standing Order. It is now quite obvious that the Government might, without any public inconvenience, have refrained from pressing their Motion, have held a sitting to-morrow, and have completed the remaining stages of the Bill then. They did not do so, and now, if you please, we are calmly told that there is to be a Friday sitting, without any notice of such sitting to your Lordships at the proper time. Noble Lords have gone away without any idea that there was going to be a Friday sitting. I do not know, and I do not anticipate, what decision your Lordships will make upon the Amendments, but if your Lordships make any Amendments the Bill will go back to the House of Commons to be dealt with by that House to-morrow.
LORD HYLTON: It is going back to the House of Commons after eleven o'clock to-night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The point is the same. Supposing the 'House of Commons think fit not to agree with your Lordships, the Bill will have to conic back to us, and there will be no House tomorrow to receive the Bill. There will, of

911
course, be a technical sitting, but noble Lords will have made no arrangements to be here, and they are not called upon to be here, having had no notice at the proper time. I think your Lordships will see that the House has not been treated with consideration in this matter. I earnestly hope I am speaking in the name of your Lordships when I say that the coming of the Deputy Leader of the House is still awaited to explain to your Lordships for what reason this change has taken place, and to express, perhaps I might say, an apology to your Lordships for the way in which your Lordships have been treated.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My- Lords, I beg to move that this Debate be now adjourned. In the absence of the Leader of the House it is really not possible to speak on the merits of the question. I see that the Deputy Leader (the Earl of Crawford) is now returning to his place in the House and perhaps it would be only courteous that I should repeat in substance what has just been said by Lord Salisbury. By a very narrow majority the Government persuaded the House to allow them to suspend the Standing Order, in order that this Bill might pass through all its stages to-day and receive the Royal Assent. They never suggested even that your Lordships might sit to-morrow in order to have more time. Do not for one moment think I imagine that that would have been an adequate suggestion; but, at any rate, it would have indicated some attempt to give more time in which to deal with this very important Bill. We were told, in courteous but very firm, terms, that public interest demanded that this Bill should pass through all its stages, and receive the Royal Assent to-day. Your Lordships took that view. I voted differently, because if your Lordships accept this kind of treatment there is no indignity to which you will not be subjected.
Then we hear, not from the Government, and through no official channels, but quite accidentally, that there is to be no Royal Commission to-night at all—that the Bill is not to receive the Royal Assent to-day, but that this House is to meet to-morrow and the Royal Assent will he then given. Suppose your Lordships think fit to make an Amendment in the Bill, and that that is not accepted by the House of Commons; the Bill will then come back to the House of Lords to-morrow afternoon. Half of those noble Lords who were here early in
912
the afternoon have gone away, without the slightest indication from the Government that there was going to be a sitting to-morrow. It is impossible to get in touch with them. I do not blame my noble friend opposite, but I ask why the convenience of the House of Commons and of everybody else is consulted, and it is only our convenience which is never consulted. I, therefore, move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that I was out of the House when Lord Selborne began to speak. I did not know that he was going to raise the point—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It was raised by Lord Salisbury.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, if I had known that the point was to be raised I should have been in my place. The difficulty, I gather, is that the House of Commons cannot deal with any Amendment which we may make until eleven or twelve o'clock to-night, or perhaps one o'clock in the morning. It is a very unfortunate circumstance, and in those conditions a Royal Commission at seven or eight, or even nine o'clock this evening is, I am afraid, impossible. I presume that, on the whole, the more convenient of two very inconvenient courses is to meet to-morrow, rather than to invite your Lordships to wait until some undetermined hour in the early hours of to-morrow morning, when the House of Commons may have dealt with the Amendments made by your Lordships.
I greatly regret the circumstances, but many of your Lordships have been in the House of Commons, and all who have been there will bear me out when I say that it is impossible to tell, within from one to six hours, how long any given subject will take. That is the situation at the present, moment. It is apparently feared that the Bill on which the other House is now engaged cannot finish until quite late to night, and in those circumstances no Message from the House of Commons, in response to our Message of Amendments, can reach us until the early hours of the morning. Whether, that being so, it is necessary to stop considering the Bill now is a very different question, and I cer-

913
tainly should strongly advise your Lordships to continue the consideration of the Bill at the present moment, rather than accept the Motion that the whole debate be adjourned.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I must say I feel that this Motion is a very serious one. The statement made on behalf of the Government that the postponement of the consideration of this Bill would cost the country £500,000 made a very great impression on me. I thought it was possible that they might be under some misapprehension as to the amount, but, none the less, it appeared to me that, in face of a statement of that kind, deliberately made, it became extremely difficult to oppose the Government's proposal I that this Bill should be proceeded with at once. Aral accordingly, though I could not bring myself to vote with the Government, I abstained from voting against them.
The same position arises again now. We are stilt faced with the same difficulty. If we adjourn this debate we shall incur the risk of losing the money, and I have the gravest doubts myself as to the possibility of your ever being able, by a clause in the Bill itself, to remedy the loss, if once incurred. The money will have gone, and I do not see how you are ever going to get it back by alterations of your Bill. I find that the position is this. We shall, to put it quite mildly, run the risk of incurring a very heavy financial loss—because I have not yet got accustomed to regarding a matter of half a million of money as a matter of no moment. That we have to consider on the one hand, and, on the other, we have to consider at once the proper dignity of this House and its convenience. I believe that the dignity of this House would be best asserted by assenting to the difficult position in which the Government have placed themselves, coming to their rescue, aril proceeding with this measure at once. I cannot possibly bring myself to support the Motion for adjournment in these circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am disposed to agree with the noble and learned Lord that there is no reason to press this Motion at this moment. The principal reason why my noble friend moved the adjournment was that we could not go on discussing the subject in the absence of the Deputy Leader of the
914
House. I make no complaint: he was quite unaware of it; but there was no Cabinet Minister to deal with our protest, and the natural. Parliamentary course, as every Member of Parliament of any standing knows, is to move the adjournment if you cannot get the proper satisfaction which you are entitled to receive, from the procedure which the Government are adopting. Therefore, as far as the Motion for adjournment is concerned, I do not suppose my noble friend will desire to press it.
The fact, however, remains that your Lordships were asked to suspend your Standing Orders because you were told that it was absolutely essential that the Bill should pass through all its stages to-day. Within a very few hours of that statement it turned out that it is amply sufficient to pass it through all its stages to-morrow. It is clearly so; if the Royal Assent is not given till to-morrow the thing might have been dealt with in the ordinary way of the sitting of the House to-morrow. That is the way in which the Government conduct the business of your Lordships' House, and I think we are absolutely entitled to make the protest we have made. Of course, we do not desire to obstruct the business of your Lordships' House, and there is no more to be said as far as that is concerned. But I do hope that your Lordships will take note of this for the next occasion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion to adjourn the debate, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion to go into Committee agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Suspension of power to make special schemes.
5. The power of the Minister under section eighteen of the principal Act to make special orders approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period:
Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty one.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in the proviso, to leave out "notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been-published," and to insert "application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or." The noble Earl said: The Amendment to which I ask your Lordships' attention, and which I trust you will support, is one of very great importance. I am bringing it forward on behalf of the banking associations of the Kingdom and of all the employees of all the banks of the Kingdom. It will not take long to explain the question at issue. By the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, facilities were given for the contracting out of that Act by special schemes, to be approved by the Minister. Immediately on the passage of that Act, in November last year, the British Bankers' Association, in cooperation with all the employees of the banks, set about framing a special scheme.
When your Lordships consider that the Bankers' Association had to deal with every bank, and with all. the classes and different bodies of organised employees of those banks, scattered throughout the whole Kingdom, you will not be surprised when I tell you that they did not get their scheme completed until a few weeks ago. But during that time, when they were strenuously and continuously at work, they were also in consultation with the officials of the Ministry al Labour, and, so far as they knew, they were proceeding in a manner which did not invite any hostile continent by the Ministry of Labour. The conclusion of these negotiations was that a banking scheme for this Kingdom, accepted by the representatives of all the banks and of all the bank employees, was framed, representing complete and absolute unanimity in the banking world. This scheme, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of last year, was submitted to the Minister of Labour for his approval on June 7.
If you turn to Clause 5 of this Bill you will see it is so worded—and I cannot help thinking that there is not an accident in the fact—as exactly and expressly to exclude this scheme of the banking profession. The words of the clause are—
"The power of the Minister under Section 18 of the principal Act——"
that is, the Act of last year —
"to make special orders, approving or making special schemes shall not be exercised during the deficiency period."
916
The deficiency period is an indefinite period. It certainly will not be less than two wears; it may be a good many years. That is, the period during which this fund will probably not achieve solvency. But this proviso follows—
"Provided that this section—"
That is, the suspension of the power of the Ministry to approve a special scheme—
"shall not apply in any case where notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
That excludes from the benefit of this proviso the scheme of the banking profession, because, although it has been submitted to the Minister, the Minister had not published it, and therefore, if the Bill becomes an Act in its present form, this scheme, unanimously adopted by the bankers and their employees, cannot be approved by the Minister for a wholly indefinite period. I ask your Lordships to remember what the effect and intention of that provision really is.
Unemployment in banks is an almost negligible quantity. It very seldom occurs. Therefore, the liability to unemployment is nothing like so heavy as it is in many other professions. Under this Bill the bank will have to pay 8d. in respect of every employee, and the employee 7d. But by the scheme of the banks, accepted by their employees, the banks will pay a much smaller sum and the employees will pay nothing at all. Therefore, the question at issue is the payment of no less than 7d. a week by every bank employee for the whole of the period during which the power of the Minister to approve this scheme is in suspension. The defence of the Government is that the Fund will be insolvent, and they want to achieve solvency as soon as they can. But there are certain trades and professions in which there is much unemployment while there are other trades and professions in which there is very little. Of these the banking profession is one where unemployment is an almost negligible quantity, as I have said, and they want the bank clerk to pay for the unemployment in some other trade where unemployment is common or more usual.
To what does that really amount? It amounts to relieving the general taxpayer of his contribution to the solvency of the Fund at the expense of one special class of taxpayer—the bank clerk. Although a

917
certain amount would be taken from the banks, and the additional amount to be taken from the banks under the scheme of the Government is small, by the scheme of the banks the employee will pay nothing a. week, but under the Government scheme 7d. will be taken from him for the benefit of sonic other trade. Therefore, it amounts to the taxing of the bank clerk specially in respect of a burden which, if it ought to be borne at all, ought to be borne by the whole body of the taxpayers.
In effect, my Amendment is a very simple one. I propose to leave out the words, "notice of a proposal to make such a Special Order has been published" and to insert instead the words "application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or." If that Amendment is accepted, the proviso will then read—
"Provided that this section shall not apply in any case where application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or before the eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
It will be observed that all the Amendment does is to preserve the power given under the Act of last year for the Minister to approve of this scheme. It does not in any way fetter his discretion. If he, unfortunately, did not approve of the scheme, his discretion would remain exactly the same as it is at the present moment. But it remedies a grievance, the hardship that the bank employees are suddenly deprived of the power, which the Act of last year gave them, of making a -special scheme, which they have already made with the utmost possible expedition and care and in continuous correspondence with the Ministry of Labour. It is a very hard case for the bank clerks if this Amendment is not accepted, and I ask your Lordships to insert it in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("notice of a proposal to make such a special order has been published") and insert ("application has been made to the Minister to approve a special scheme on or").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The Amendment moved by the noble Earl proposes to give the Minister power to approve any scheme w halt has been submitted for approval on or before June 8 of this year. In a number of cases draft schemes have been submitted to the Minister for approval or for the advice
918
of the Department on points of detail. The only case in which an exception to the general rule of suspension is proposed to be made is in a case where public faith has already been pledged; that is to say, it deals with the insurance companies. The Bill, which originally proposed to allow contracting out of the general scheme of Unemployment Insurance by industries which could more suitably provide for the needs of employed persons in the industry by special schemes of their own, was first introduced in December, 1919, and became law on August 9, 1920. Therefore, the industries which contemplated the setting up of special schemes have had a considerable time in which to formulate their proposals.
As has been indicated, one industry has been able to take all the necessary steps and to obtain approval before the present Bill was introduced. The industry in which the noble Earl who moves this Amendment is particularly interested—namely, the bankingindustry— submitted its draft scheme, as has been stated, on June 7. It was received at the Ministry on June 8. It is an essential condition that any special scheme shall be submitted by a joint industrial council or by an association of employers and employed which, as regards the employers, consists of persons representing a substantial majority of employers in the industry and, as regards the employed, consists of persons representing a substantial majority of the employees in the industry. I think I understood the noble Earl to say, in regard to the situation as between the employers and employed in the banking industry, that complete unanimity had been reached with regard to the scheme.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My information is to the contrary effect. Representations have already been received from an association of employees in the industry protesting against the draft scheme which bas been submitted. This association claims, I do not know with what force, to represent upwards of 20,000 employees in that particular industry. It would appear, therefore, that opinion in the industry itself is not ii oar tin ions as to the scheme. This would make it difficult to justify any concession confined to this particular industry, while, on the other hand, as already mentioned, it would not

919
be possible to make a concession to one industry which is not also made to others. This would be fatal to the financial basis of the Bill. It would upset all the actuarial calculations. I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Earl, and unless he is prepared to withdraw it, I am afraid we shall have to go to a Division.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot possibly withdraw the Amendment. I only wish to make two comments on the noble Earl's speech. The first is that my Amendment does not apply to banks only, but to all who have submitted schemes on or before June 8. Therefore, no special favour is asked for one trade. As to the second point, if the Minister was able to prove that my representations were wrong, and that the employees did not approve of this scheme, there is nothing here to fetter his discretion or judgment. He can approve or disapprove, just as he chooses.
LORD SYDENHAM: Can the noble Earl say what is the name of this association of employees which objects to the settlement which we believed had been arrived at by them all?
THE EARL OE CLARENDON: I am afraid I cannot give the name at this moment, but if the noble Lord desires it I can obtain it for him.
LORD ASKWITH: I think I can satisfy the noble Lord as to the name of the association. It is the Bank Officers' Guild. My information is much the same as that of the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench—that there is not complete unanimity, and that the foreign and colonial banks are not in this scheme. There is sonic doubt also whether Barclay's Bank is in entire unanimity with it, and that is one of the five big banks. I most certainly support the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, although I go further than he does in the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper, because I propose to omit Clause 5 altogether. The effect of leaving out that clause would be that Lord Selborne's Amendment, which is a smaller one than mine, would also be covered. In the event of the Minister turning down a particular scheme which has been put before the Ministry, it would be possible to amend that scheme, bring it up again, and get approval of it.
920
It is said by the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench that a long time has passed, and that only the insurance companies have come forward with a scheme for employers and employed insuring in their own industry. To me that seems no answer at all, These schemes take a long time to prepare. They have to be carried out with the greatest consideration for finance, and with a view of getting in every person concerned, and also of securing the assent of those employers who do not at first see the advantage of a special scheme. It may also be necessary to get the consent of a great many or the employed. The fact that the insurance companies have prepared a scheme within a year or eighteen months is a sign that those who understand the financial aspects of insurance best think they can do much better by keeping out of the Government scheme and having one of their own. They have gone upon the policy of the industry insuring itself. I am sure that is an aim which ought to be encouraged, and that it is one which, if carried out, will be most valuable to the industries concerned.
This is not a change of policy on the part of the Government. They have merely changed their method. When you have once started upon a policy of this kind, when, as in the case which Lord Selborne mentioned, trouble, expense and consideration have been given to the principle of employers and employed insuring in their own industry, it is only fair that there should be permission to go on. There should not he a cutting off in the way that the Government now proposes. That it would cost money, that it would upset the actuarial schemes, again seems to be an argument that can scarcely hold water. The subscription of the State to the schemes under which people may insure out of the State scheme is less than it would be to those schemes which are under the State. Every industry that insures out of the State scheme would reduce the number of Government officials required to deal with the insurance problem. Every industry that insured apart from the State would be an example to other industries. If you once start upon this and get it carried out by some of the big industries, St ate insurance will be very much minimised, or brought within a more reasonable compass. Although I shall support the noble Earl's proposal I would prefer that he should support my Amendment, which is of a more comprehensive character.
LORD EMMOTT: I hope your Lordships will support the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in his Amendment, which it seems to me perfectly right and just to accept. The noble Earl himself has already pointed out that the two objections urged by the noble Earl who speaks for the Government do not hold ground against this Amendment. It is an Amendment which in no sense applies to the banking industry only. The question of whether there is adequate support for this particular proposal may affect, the question whether approval should be given to the scheme, but it does not affect the Amendment that is proposed. To say that to do what is right and just in reference to a particular matter will upset the whole of a scheme, seems to me—I do not want to use hard words—in the nature of one of those Government apologias with which we are too familiar, and which would sacrifice right and justice to a mere matter of actuarial calculation. I hope the I louse will support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: As the point about actuarial calculations has been raised, I should like to give your Lordships sonic further information upon it. Clause 5 of the Bill is the security to the Treasury for the repayment of the loan of £20,000,000.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
All the actuarial estimates have been framed on the assumption that up to July. 1923, the trades with light risks will remain in the normal scheme of the Bill, and by their contributions help to repay the debt. There are, in all, 1,750,000 people who may be expected eventually to go out under special schemes. If Clause 5 is deleted and these people go out at once—and the incentive to do so will he very strong, now that the benefits are reduced and the contributions increased—the Fund will lose £5,000,000 a year, arid it will take at least one year more to pay off the debt, or three years in all. It is a dangerous assumption to make that three years will elapse before there are further economic or industrial disturbances. Further, if there is an exodus of 1,750,000 people, the Fund will not get through the first year with a borrowing power of £20,000,000, and, with this limit in the Bill, the scheme would again break down early in 1922. In view of what has been said on these actuarial calculations I thought it only right to give your Lordships this further information.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30 Non-Contents, 48.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to omit Clause 5. The noble Lord said: If this clause should drop out it will still allow Lord Selborne's scheme to go forward with such Amendments as are found necessary. The deficiency may continue for a considerable time. Sonic actuarial figures have been given to show that if this clause is omitted it would be serious for the finance of the Bill, but it is very difficult—and this illustrates the inconvenience of considering these matters at such short notice —to understand how that can be so. It is certain that under any scheme continuity would probably avoid many strikes, and it is fair that those persons who may, in the immediate future, have their schemes ready, should have a chance of going before the Minister for him to judge whether the schemes are fair or not. It may also be fair that he should have a chance of influencing the finance of the scheme in the way suggested, but it does not seem to tally with the noble Earl's remark that during about fifteen or eighteen months only one scheme has been got through. Let the employers and the employed, in industries where it is feasible, go on discussing, and, if they can, try to get out schemes of their own.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I will only say that, although the clause is amended, the Government prefer to keep it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what course my noble friend above the gangway proposes to take as regards pressing his Amendment, but I am inclined to counsel moderation in respect of this clause; not that my opinion is against the views of my noble friend, for I think he is very likely entirely right in his contentions, but the House has arrived at an agreement on the moderate Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Selborne, and that, I think, does constitute a distinct judgment of the House in favour of a middle course. It is a course which can be recommended on many grounds. I think your Lordships are aware that the House of Lords has been very badly treated over this matter, but there is no reason why we should be cross about it, or sulk, and we must do the best we can to get the business through. I think this is more
924
likely to be a course which will recommend itself to Parliament as a whole than the course proposed by my noble friend above the gangway. I would, therefore, suggest to him that we should be content to stand upon my noble friend's Amendment. And I would suggest to the Government that, in all the circumstances, and in view of the extraordinary way——
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Tell the Lord Chancellor what has happened. He was not here.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor has been informed of the circumstances concerning which we have had occasion to protest since he left the Woolsack, and I am sure he will recognise—for he is very fair in all these matters—That the House of Lords has been extraordinarily badly treated. In these circumstances, I think we may properly claim that he and his colleagues should exercise their great influence to see that this Amendment, which has now been inserted in the Bill, is agreed to by the Government, in another place. We really have not had a fair chance of discussing this Bill, and we shall not have a fair chance, unless a course is taken such as I venture to suggest. I am inclined to hope that, in view of all the circumstances, my noble friend, Lord Askwith, will not press his Amendment, not, as, I have said, because I disagree with him, but on the ground that we have arrived at a compromise.
LORD ASKWITH: I am not prepared to risk Lord Selborne's Amendment being thrown out in another place, particularly after what the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench said when he remarked that he was prepared to keep the clause, even as amended, which is practically an accept——
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think that is really a misunderstanding. Lord Selborne's point was different. I am afraid that, as we have just divided against it, that gives an indication that the Amendment was unacceptable.
LORD ASKWITH: The Amendment was unacceptable, but more acceptable than the loss of the clause altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what Lord Clarendon said.
LORD ASKWITH: As I think there is more chance- of Lord Selborne's Amendment getting through the House of Commons, if it. is left as it is, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provision for temporary payment of benefit.
8. Where it is not practicable to ascertain in the case of any person who would, if the provisions of this Act relating to disqualification for the receipt of unemployment benefit and repealing section forty-four of the principal Act, had not passed, have been entitled to receive such benefit, whether he does or does not satisfy the requirements of section three of the Act of 1921, the Minister may during the period of six weeks next after the passing of this Act authorise payment of benefit to that person as if he were a person who had complied with those requirements.
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask the noble Earl what the meaning of Clause 8 really is? I have tried very hard to make out what it means, but it has a great many references. Does it mean this: that whether a man or woman does or does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of the Act of 1921, the Minister may for six weeks give payment of benefit according to his discretion? If so, it would mean that any one who chose, either through stupidity or on purpose, to go and tell a few stories at the Employment Exchange, would satisfy the requirements of Section 3 and would be able to get paid. This would increase the objectionable system of the wrong people getting grants. I cannot understand the clause.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I endeavoured to explain the meaning of the clause on the Second Reading, and if I may be allowed 40 do so, I should like to repeat the explanation. It enables the eight weeks' benefit to be continued for the time being, where it is already being drawn, whilst inquiries are being made as to the other qualifications of the applicant for benefit.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendment of Part II of First Schedule to 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 30.
11. Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act as amended by the Second Schedule to
926
the Act of 1921, shall have effect as though there were inserted at the end of paragraph (d) thereof the following words: "and provided further that in the ease of employment under a local or other public authority relative to the superannuation of persons in that employment, the Minister may, if any enactment provides for the aggregation of service in that employment under two or more employers, whether the service has been continuous or not, treat such service for the purposes of the foregoing provision as if it had been service in the same employment."
THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON moved, after "inserted" to insert—
"therein after paragraph (c) the following new paragraph—
"(cc) employment otherwise than in a temporary capacity as a member of any police force to which the Police Act, 1919, applies:
and as though there were inserted therein."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to have the effect of excepting from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act permanent members of the police force. Under Part II of the First Schedule of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, there are two classes of employment excepted from the provisions of the Act. The first class is definitely excepted under the provisions of the Schedule, in which every class of employment is included; in paragraph (d) of the Schedule, the Minister of Labour has discretion to grant exception when certain conditions are satisfied. It has been represented by police authorities in the country that the police force as a whole should be brought within the class of employment which is definitely excepted by the terms of the Schedule, and taken out of the class in respect of which the Minister has discretion. The clause was inserted in the Report stage in another place, and the Minister gave an undertaking that he would endeavour to secure the Amendment. The 'Ionic Office agree with the proposal, which we made to give effect to the Minister's undertaking.
Amendment moved—
Clause III, page 5, line 26, after ("inserted") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line:36, at end insert ("and paragraph (ii) of paragraph (d) of the said Part II. is hereby repealed").—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON THE EARL OF CLARENDON moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause:
"15. For the purposes of section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed day."
The noble Earl said: Power is taken under the Government of Ireland Act to enable the Irish Government by Order to make the necessary adaptations in applying the Act to Ireland before the Appointed Day. The present Bill will become law after the Appointed Day. This clause is therefore necessary to bring it within the general provisions under which the Irish Government are given power to adapt the Statute administratively without fresh legislation.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to explain the real meaning and import of this clause. I do not pretend that I fully understand it, but it is proposed by this clause that the Bill, so far as it relates to Ireland, shall be deemed to have been passed before the Appointed Day. That is to say, that it shall be brought into the same category as all Acts of Parliament which were passed before the new state of things in Ireland. I should certainly have thought that the simplest Amendment would have been that "This Bill shall not apply to Ireland." Why should we go on legislating for Ireland? What in the world is the good of all the trouble we took in the autumn it we are going to legislate for Ireland instead of saying simply that henceforth matters which concern Ireland alone shall be dealt with by the Irish Legislatures? Why have this wonderful process, that an Act of Parliament passed after Home Rule, shad be deemed to have been passed before Home Rule, in order that the Irish Parliament should in some way be relieved of the necessity of dealing with this subject?
There may be a good reason for it, but surely it is not the kind of clause which is passed at the end of a sitting, without any explanation being given. The noble Earl—may I tell him with respect that he has conducted the Bill with great ability and lucidity all through—really did not give any reason at all for this Amendment.
928
It is not a purely drafting Amendment which may be inserted at any time. It is an Amendment which is to relieve the two Legislatures of Ireland of the necessity of dealing with this subject. I should have thought it was a matter of great importance, because what has really happened is that the Government forgot about Ireland. This wonderful Government, whose Departments do not consult one another, had forgotten about Ireland, and did not remember when they drafted this Bill that the Home Rule Act had become law. I imagine that was the reason. Then they had to produce this Amendment.
I do not complain of their producing this Amendment, but I should have thought that the simple course was to say that "This Act shall not apply to Ireland," and then the Ulster Legislature would deal with the subject in Northern Ireland, and the Crown Colony Legislature would deal with it in Southern Ireland. Or is this really a way of conferring some financial benefit upon Ireland? I cannot help guessing that is the reason, because I always notice that when this sort of clause is inserted it is generally to save the Irish people money, or to confer money upon them. Now that we are starting two domestic Legislatures in the country why should this be done?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am so crushed by the sarcasm with which the noble Marquess alluded to the wonderful Government of which I am a humble member, that I address myself with anxiety to the question which he has asked. I am sure, if the noble Marquess will continue to brood over our excellences, he will gradually become even more genuinely convinced of them. As to the particular illustration of them which he invites me to give, let me disarm criticism by saying that on the general principle I am entirely with him. We passed the Government of Ireland Act without any very constant or enthusiastic support from the noble Marquess, but that circumstance, of course, does not disentitle hint from arguing that, when once we have passed it, it is our duty to let those whom we have, so to speak, set, up in life with an establishment, address themselves to their own business. It would, of course, be an incomplete answer to say that the establishment which we provided for the South of Ireland has up to the present not been tenanted by those for whose convenience it was provided.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You have four members.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I know, but the number is inadequate, as the noble Marquess will recall, under the terms of the Act itself; but the real explanation of this provision is an historical one. The House will remember that in the Government of Ireland Act power was taken to enable the Irish Government, by an Order, to make any adaptation in a very convenient form that might be necessary in applying to Ireland Acts passed before the Appointed Day. We did not think it necessary to deprive the Irish Parliaments of a convenience of which, if and when they are set up, they will certainly avail themselves, and, although the present Bill will become law after the Appointed Day, there were commitments in relation to it of a kind which one always finds in a Bill which is riot an original Bill but the creature of an earlier one. The principal Bill, indeed, carried this Bill in its womb, in the sense that it was, on the face of it, a Bill which could not finally deal with the difficulty; and I have not the least doubt that other progeny in time will be born, even of this Bill.
I think nobody will dispute the reasonableness of bringing this Bill within the operation of the general provisions under which the Irish Governments are given power to adapt Statutes administratively without fresh legislation. That is really all that this clause does, and as showing how unobjectionable the clause is, let me remind the noble Marquess that a Bill recently passed through this House which I think engaged the attention of the noble Marquess himself—I mean the Dentists Bill. That Bill contains precisely the same clause, and for precisely the same reason. So far as I remember the noble Marquess received it with a ready and cheerful assent, or at any rate without open protest, and the reason in this case is just the same as the reason for accepting it in the case of the Dentists Bill.
Clause 15 agreed to.
The Schedule agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bill read 33 and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to ask the Government when they think they can announce the number of weeks in the months of August and September in which they will ask this House to continue in session. The noble Lord said: My Lords I will put very briefly the Question which is down in my name. I can assure the Government that I have no desire to increase the difficulties of the situation; but I want to make certain that they are looking the facts of the case fairly in the face and are making arrangements to cause as little inconvenience as possible to us in the circumstances in which we are placed. Since my Question was placed on the Paper I am aware that au announcement has been made in the other House that in no circumstances is there to be an autumn session. I sympathise with that to a certain extent, but I really want to know what is the idea of the Government. How long do they expect us to have to sit during the months of August and September? There are some Bills more or less controversial—two, at any rate—which will have to pass this House.
To those of us who live at a long distance from London the hardship of having to sit through August and September would be really very great. It means that those whose homes are in Scotland are deprived of the possibility of having time to spend a holiday there. One cannot in these days go up and down every week-end, and the inconvenience is really very great. It is bad enough to have to sit through the month of August, but the inconvenience is infinitely increased if the sittings are at all likely to continue into September. Apart from that, the uncertainty of our position is very nearly as bad as knowing that we have to do this work, because we cannot, if there is uncertainty, make any engagements or arrangements without fear of having to put ourselves and others to great inconvenience. I really hope that as soon as possible, if not to-day, a definite announcement will be made as to some limit of time in the month of August, or September, to which Parliament will be expected to sit.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot make a definite announcement to-day, but I can give my noble friend Lord Balfour a general statement of the Bills which it is expected

931
will reach this House. So far as I can learn, everything depends upon the progress of the Railways Bill. At this moment it is before a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, which is sitting continuously in order to make the quickest progress possible with that measure. But it is an important Bill. It is a very big Bill with, I think, seventy-five clauses in it, and it is difficult to believe that it can get down to the House of Commons for the Report stage for several weeks to come. In those conditions it is really impossible for me to guess on what day the Railways Bill will reach this House. Indeed, I do not think it will be possible even to give a general estimate for fully a fortnight.
There are three other Bills which must ultimately reach this House. The Safeguarding of Industries Bill is under an allotted time-table, and it ought to reach us by about July 26. The Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill is to be read a second time in the House of Commons on Monday, and it is probable that it will reach this House within about three weeks of that date. There is the Church of Scotland Bid, which will conic here in about a fortnight's time; and there are several minor Departmental Bills, which would not in themselves have any influence on the length of time the House is asked to sit. I might mention two of those Bills: one is a Ministry of Pensions Bill, the other is a Home Office Bill, dealing with registration; but neither of them is, I believe, in any sense controversial.
But, as I said before, the future depends upon the progress of the Railways Bill, and in view of the fact that the de-control of that industry must take place some time about the middle of August, the necessity of securing the passage of that Bill in good time is obvious. I very much agree with what Lord Balfour said about the desirability of being able to make one's plans with tolerable notice, and I shall certainly do my best to fall in with his wishes, and, indeed, with the wishes of Peers generally, to make definite announcements as soon as we can be sure that they are definite.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the statement made by my noble friend is one of the usual unsatisfactory character which we are in the habit of hearing at this period, or a later period, of the session. Personally, I always have been a very strong advocate of autumn sessions, and on
932
several occasions I have induced this House to pass Resolutions in favour of them. I understand from the noble Lord opposite that the Government are determined that there is not going to be one this year. My noble friend, the Deputy Leader of the House, is not in a position to say for certain how long we are going to sit, or, in fact, to say with what measures we are going to deal, and the position amounts to this, that, so far as he can tell us, it is quite possible that we may be sitting here until the middle of September or possibly later, and even then I do not believe there is any certainty that we shall escape an autumn session in the long run.
To my mind this question will never be definitely settled until we adopt the principle that autumn sessions cannot be avoided. I do not believe that the country will consent to Parliament adjourning for a period of more than three or four months in any circumstances; and, that being so, it seems to me better that we should understand that an autumn session is looked upon as a definite and invariable event. That would give us a reasonable prospect of certainty, and would also enable us to rise at a more convenient period and to follow the practice of other civilised nations in this respect.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, but there was, in answer to a Question in another place, a definite announcement in the sense which I indicated; but I do not know that it is a law of the Medes and Persians which cannot be reversed. I venture very seriously to express the view, if we are going to be kept here after the middle of August, that it will be much better for everybody if there is an adjournment and an autumn session, beginning some time late in October or in November.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot add anything more to what I have said, except that personally I take a diametrically opposite point of view from that of my noble friend, Lord Newton.
LORD NEWTON: The majority of the House does not.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am not certain that the majority of Parliament as a whole would not. I think if we settle that we are going to have normal autumn sessions it is a pure delusion to think that Parliament would rise in June.

HOUSE OF' LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported inter alia—

REPORT OF THE REFRESHMENT SUB-COMMITTEE.
The Committee considered a report from the Refreshment Sub-Committee. In this report the Sub-Committee stated that there had been a deficit of £210 on the year's working and recommended that the annual subsidy to the caterer should be increased from £450 to £500. They hoped that this addition to the subsidy, together with certain savings which could be made in small items, and the increased profits which were to be anticipated from the supply of refreshments in the lower refreshment room would result in this deficit being wiped out during the current year.
THE ACCOUNTANT'S SALARY.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that he proposed, with their sanction, to increase the salary of the Accountant (whose present salary was fixed at £200, rising by £15 a year, to £500), to £300, rising by £40 a year, to £500. In view of the responsible character of, and the great increase in, the Accountant's work, the Committee recommend that this increase in the Accountant's salary should be sanctioned—such increase to date as from the commencement of the current financial year and the annual increment as from the date of appointment, namely, the 1st of June.

TREASURY CIRCULAR AS TO THE REDUCTION IN ESTIMATES.
The Clerk of the Parliaments drew the attention of the Committee to a Treasury Circular, dated the 13th of May, 1921, relating to securing a large reduction in the Estimates for the Financial Year, 1922–23. The Committee decided to appoint Sub-Committee to inquire into the various headings in the House of Lords Estimates with a view to ascertaining what reductions were possible. It was further decided that this Sub-Committee should also consider the following questions:—

(1) The question of the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments which was raised in a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Leader of the House in November, 1920.

(2) The question of the augmentation of pensions to retired officers of the House of Lords which was raised by a petition presented to the Committee on the 16th of November, 1920.

(3) The question of raising the amount of the Private Bill and Judicial Foes.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the House of Lords Offices Committee be considered and adopted.

FEEDING OF CHILDREN IN SCOTLAND.
LORD ERSKINE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what
934
number of children in the several counties of Scotland are now being fed by the respective education authorities owing to the coal strike, the cost per week per child, the amount that the parents undertake to repay, and what the total liability that will fall on the rates is calculated to be.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, it is impossible, without obtaining a special Return from all the education authorities, to give the information asked for, and it is doubtful whether in any event it would be possible to distinguish between those cases where the necessity arises in consequence of the coal dispute and those where the provision of meals is required for other reasons. The cost per meal per child varies in the different education areas, and it is understood that between 3d. and 4d. would represent the average cost. But whereas certain of the authorities provide only one meal per day, others provide two or three.
As to the amounts that parents undertake to repay, no part of the cost is recoverable where the authority are satisfied that the parents are "unable by reason of poverty or ill-health to supply sufficient and proper food…for the child." Section 6 (2) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, as adapted by paragraphs 1 (a) and (c) of the Fifth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, provides that in such cases, if the necessities are not forthcoming through any voluntary agency, the education authority "shall make such provision for the child out of the education fund as they deem necessary during such period while the child is under obligation to attend school as they may determine." This requirement is extended by the Education (Scotland) (Provision of Meals) Act, 1914, to days other than those on which the school meets.
In the case of children whose parents cannot be regarded as wholly necessitous, the parents are required by the education authorities to contribute as much as their particular circumstances will permit. Where children of non-necessitous parents avail themselves of the facilities provided and obtain meals at school, the whole of the cost must be recovered from the parents by the authority. It is impossible to say what the total liability that will fall upon the rates in this connection will be.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock until tomorrow, a quarter-past four o'clock.