Sitting of 2 December 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES.

    INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSION.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in possession of the general conclusions reached by the International Judicial Commission which recently considered the disturbances at Shanghai; and whether, in that case, he will state what these conclusions are?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, being unavoidably detained, has asked me to reply. The information in the possession of His Majesty's Government is insufficient to enable me to answer the question. Further information has been requested by telegraph.

    NEAR EAST.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Council of the League of Nations has under consideration any proposals whereby the Governments of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece and Rumania may be invited to apply the Locarno or other method to their respective countries?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; whilst His Majesty's Government would warmly welcome such a development, they hold that to be successful the movement must arise from the spontaneous action of the nations immediately concerned, and be the expression of the wishes of their Governments and peoples.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SCALES OF PAY.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether alterations have been made in the pay of officers and ratings of the Navy after such pay has been approved by this House in the Estimates for his Department; whether such alterations have been made under the authority of an Order in Council; and, if not, whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of altering scales of pay approved by the House without the sanction of Parliament or under an Order in Council?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Alterations have been made in the pay of officers and ratings of the Navy, but these changes only affect officers entered or promoted to officer's rank and men entered in the Service after the 4th October last. All the alterations made will in due course receive the sanction of an Order in Council in accordance with the usual procedure, and in these circumstances it has not been thought necessary to consult the Law Officers of the Crown.
    Mr. BAKER: Is it not perfectly clear that an Order in Council should be the authority for any such proposal; and in these circumstances, is not the reduction which has been made absolutely illegal?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: No. The procedure followed in this case is the same as that which has been followed when the pay of the officers and men in the Navy has been raised.

    OIL FUEL (PURCHASES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of fuel oil purchased from foreign countries and from the Dominions and British Colonies during the year 1924–25?
    Mr. DAVIDSON:80 per cent. was purchased from foreign countries and 20 per cent. from the British Empire.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these purchases are made, when possible, from the Dominions and Colonies in preference to foreign countries?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I will consider that suggestion.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. WILLIAM WATSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to retain any established men in the Care and Maintenance party at Rosyth; and if it is proposed to retain transferred men for these posts?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: As far as possible established men will be retained in the Care and Maintenance party; the men so retained may be either transferred men or local entrants.
    Mr. WATSONalso asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any communication has been received from the Dunfermline branch of the British Legion protesting against disabled ex-service men being included in the first lots selected for discharge from Rosyth Dockyard; and will he see that the greatest possible consideration is given to these men and that they are kept in employment as long as possible?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Disabled ex-service men are given all possible consideration, and such men at Rosyth will be retained so long as employment suitable to their disabilities can be found for them.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What is going to happen to the other men who are discharged? Is some special provision being made for them or are they just being thrown out?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put a question down.

    LOSS OF SUBMARINE M1.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the crew of Submarine Ml were chief engine-room artificers and engine-room artificers; whether they were all men who had volunteered for submarine work; and, if not, how many of them had been appointed to the vessel without being asked to volunteer for such work?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: There were four engine-room artificers on board, of whom two were volunteers and two were not.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it the case that the widow of one of these men has been out off and that you are not certain
    2196
    whether he was one of the crew or not? That is the statement in the Press.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I am not aware of such a case.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is it not the fact that until quite recently all officers and men in submarines were volunteers, and is the reason why that is not so now because there is not the same difference in the rates of pay as before?
    Mr. AMMONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, on the occasion of the naval exercises during which the "Ml" was lost, warnings were sent out by wireless telegraphy to ships in the Channel that exercises were being carried out by submarines?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: A caution is issued in Chapter I of all Sailing Directions of the British Isles that "submarine vessels are constantly being exercised off the coasts of the United Kingdom," and in view of this general notice, no special W/T warning that submarines were being exercised was issued on the occasion on which "Ml" was lost.
    Mr. AMMON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be to the advantage of His Majesty's Fleet and also the mercantile marine if some method were instituted of sending out such wireless messages?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I will represent that to the First Lord.
    Colonel GRETTON: Do foreign vessels get these instructions and directions to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his reply?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

    SHIPBREAKING TENDERS.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and sizes of Admiralty ships his Department have decided to scrap in the immediate future: and whether, in inviting tenders from shipbreakers, provision is made that the ships shall only be broken up in British shipbreaking yards and that special consideration will be given to those tenders which provide for work in areas where considerable unemployment exists?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The ships are

    3

    cruisers each of 5,400 tons.

    5

    depot ships of 30,980 tons in all.

    18

    destroyers varying from 900 to 1,075 tons, with 7 submarines, 3 trawlers and 1 drifter.

    Mr. CLARRY: May I have a reply to the latter part of the question?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I said that the reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Does the answer apply to broken-up material and the export thereof?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I do not think the Admiralty follow this material after it has been broken up.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ADMIRALTY STAFF.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many shorthand writers are employed at the Admiralty now and the corresponding figure in 1914?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: 78 shorthand writers are now employed as compared with 10 in 1914.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman think any economy can take place in regard to the number?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The whole question is being considered in connection with the Estimates which will be presented. In most commercial firms a shorthand-typist is considered to be a labour-saving device.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the hon. Gentleman think it will be an economy to dismiss these people, and put thorn on the Employment Exchange?
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Are these employés typists, as well as shorthand-writers?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The question referred to shorthand writers.
    Sir F. WISE: Are they typists as well?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I must have notice of that question, but I imagine they are.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many messengers and cleaners are employed at the Admiralty and the corresponding figure for 1914?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: 238 messengers and 143 cleaners are now employed as compared with 221 and 101 respectively in 1914.
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many persons are employed in and what is the cost of the technical costings section of the Admiralty, whether this section is productive of economy, and how the work was carried out in 1914?
    Mr. DAVIDSON: The present staff of the technical costs section consists of 15 technical officers and one clerk. The total cost of the salaries is £6,111 19s. per annum, this cost being shared with the Admiralty by other Departments of State which utilise the services of the section. The section is productive of economy, especially in those cases where competition is not available. In 1914 there was no such specialised organisation. The section was transferred from the Ministry of Munitions to the Admiralty on the recommendation of the House of Commons Committee on National Expenditure after the War.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WRITING ASSISTANTS AND TYPISTS).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst members of the writing-assistant and typing grades employed in his Department owing to the small number of promotions which have been made in these grades recently, having regard to the number of open recruits and transfers from other Departments appointed to the clerical class in connection with the recent increase of work; and whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the claims of all suitable writing assistants and typists for promotion to clerical posts arising out of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that there is any considerable dissatisfaction among the

    2199
    staff as to the number of officers promoted to the clerical grade from the writing assistant and typing grades. During the last five years 56 officers have been so promoted, and my right hon. Friend has recently arranged for a further number of officers of these grades to be placed on clerical duties to test their fitness for promotion.
    Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why it is there is such a considerable disproportion between the number of men and women appointed to posts under the Widows' Pensions scheme. I understand the proportion is something like 91 to 16. May I ask him why?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter, and I would like the question to be put on the Paper.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (MECHANICAL BOOK-KEEPING).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Post-master-General whether, in connection with the proposed introduction of mechanical methods of book-keeping into the Post Office Savings Bank, he will see that the promotion prospects of writing assistants and typists are not prejudiced thereby?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The effect of any changes of book-keeping methods on the promotion prospects of writing assistants and typists in the Savings Bank will be carefully watched: but I am unable to give any definite undertaking on the subject.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOTS (CIVILIAN COMPLEMENTS).
    Mr. GROVESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain the reason for the delay in the fixing of civilian clerical complements for the Army Ordnance services; whether he is aware that the official explanation for the delay was that the question was more or less bound up with the fixing of military complements for these depots and the corps generally; whether he is also aware that the military complements were fixed as early as September, 1925, and that the civilian complements are not yet avail-
    2200
    able; and whether he will give instructions for the issue of these figures without further delay?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): It was necessary to settle the military establishments of the various Ordnance Depots before the civilian complement could be fixed in each case. But this is only a part, and by no means the most difficult part, of the investigation necessary before the new scheme of reorganisation of clerical gradings can he applied. I am assured that the work is proceeding as rapidly as possible. When the re-grading has been completed, effect will be given to the new scales of pay as from the 1st April of last year.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been refused benefit this year in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney on the ground of not genuinely seeking employment?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): During the period 13th January to 12th October, 1925, 636 applications for extended benefit were rejected by the Stepney Local Employment Committee on the ground that the applicants were not making reasonable efforts to secure whole-time employment. Particulars are not available of the number of applications for standard benefit which were rejected on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking employment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Are any of the women who apply for ordinary benefit "knocked off" or refused benefit on the ground that they are not likely to get insurable employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "ordinary benefit."
    Mr. LANSBURY: Standard benefit.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot tell. Certainly none of them are "knocked off" under discretion, but it the hon. Member wishes to ask how many women are refused benefit on one of the

    2201
    statutory conditions, and puts down a question to that effect, I will try to get him the information.
    Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of "genuinely seeking employment"?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is what the local committee, in the case of ex tended benefit, think is genuine.
    Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the various methods of various committees in applying this rule, would it not be as well for the hon. Gentleman to send out an instruction as he does in other cases?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I always do my best to let each local committee know the practice of the others, so that, as far as possible, they may approximate in their standards. On the other hand, this is one of those matters in which you cannot possibly venture to lay down a perfectly definite standard of what constitutes genuineness. It is a matter of local circumstances, and the people on the spot are likely to know best.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Member of this House when he goes to his constituency is besieged with people wanting to know what they have to do to comply with this condition?
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Labour how many applicants for extended benefit at the Exchanges of Penis tone and Stocksbridge there were during the past three months; how many have been refused; and the corresponding figures for one year ago?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Separate statistics of applications for extended benefit at these local offices are not available, as the applications are dealt with and included in the statistics relating to the work of the local employment committees at Barnsley and Sheffield respectively.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have applied for extended benefit during the past eight weeks in Glasgow and the number who have been refused as not having a reasonable period of employment during the past two years?
    Sir A, STEEL-MAITLAND: During the period 15th September-16th November,
    2202
    1925, 41,671 applications for extended benefit were considered by the local employment committees in the Glasgow area, and of these 2,534 were rejected on the ground of not having a reasonable period of insurable employment in the previous two years.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state that those men are not looking for work, even though they have not been employed during the last two years, and should not the Statute with regard to genuinely seeking work cover these cases?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not the least doubt that the question of how far they could or could not have got work and that of genuinely seeking work were considered by the rota committee.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why, if these men cannot be disallowed under the Section in regard to genuinely seeking work, are they disqualified for not having been employed during the past two years?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no doubt that there is more than one ground, in certain cases, on which a claim might be disallowed. It is really a matter for the rota committee, in cases like that, to decide.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Might I press this point? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of the rota committee is to examine the question with regard to genuinely seeking work first, and if they cannot disqualify on that ground, they then take the two years during which those 2,000 men have established that they have been genuinely seeking work, and disqualify them for not having been in employment for the past two years? Is it fair?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I submit that, as between two grounds for disallowance, the question whether it should take place under one or under the other, and the way in which the rota committee should exercise its powers, do not arise out of the simple question which the hon. Member put to me on the Paper, but, if he will put a further question about it, I shall be glad to go into it. It does not arise out of this question, and I should have to go into it and consider it.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for benefit in Glasgow who have been refused same during the past eight weeks by the insurance officer after the benefit had been granted by the rota committee?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The recommendations of local employment committees are reviewed departmentally and not by the insurance officer. Between 15th September and 16th November last 10 cases in the Glasgow area allowed by a committee were disallowed department-ally, and one case was allowed depart-mentally after having been disallowed by a committee.

    TRAINING (RURAL HANDICRAFTS).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who have received training in rural handicrafts (estate handy men) under the auspices of his Department, and the number of such men who have been placed in employment; and what steps he proposes to take to see that such men are found employment and given an opportunity of making use of their training?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 116 men have completed courses of training under the Ministry of Labour as estate handy men since August, 1919, and 30 are still in training. Figures are not available as to the number placed in employment after training, but I am not aware that they have experienced any special difficulty in finding employment. Every effort is made to help those who register at the Employment Exchange.
    Mr. STEPHEN: If I give the right hon. Gentleman particulars about one of these men who has received that training, will will he make an effort to get him employment, as he has been unemployed for a year?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly,. if the hon. Member will communicate with me.
    Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman keep a record of what happens to these men?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I have not kept records with regard to these particular men. They started under such
    2204
    varying conditions when I made the inquiries that I did, that it has been difficult to trace them.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR FACTORY, BIRMINGHAM.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether any articles suitable for sale are being manufactured at the Ministry of Labour factory, Garrison Lane, Birmingham; and, if so, what methods does he propose to employ to dispose of the same?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Some woodwork and ironwork are being made for use in connection with this and another training centre of the Ministry of Labour. As the men on entering are unskilled, and the course covers a wide range, they are not likely to produce any large quantity of saleable goods, and the question of the disposal of such good has not yet arisen.

    HOLIDAY INSURANCE.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Labour whether employers of labour who, by agreement with their employés or by custom, are under an obligation to pay wages for holidays of a week or more are treated as exempt from the payments towards unemployment insurance for such holidays; and, if so, what number of insured persons such exemption covers?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative: the second part does not, therefore, arise.

    EMPLOYEES' STATEMENTS.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give instructions to all rota members and officials that any statement given by an employer shall be read over to the applicant?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no reason to suppose that if there is, in connection with a claim for extended benefit, a statement by an employer, which has any material bearing on the point at issue, the statement is not already communicated to the applicant; but I will consider whether an express instruction should be issued.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I strengthen the consideration of the Minister by asking

    2205
    if he is not aware that in four Exchanges in Glasgow, to my knowledge, complaints are there established that the reading of these statements is not the case?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Under the Statute the statements of an employer have to be made in the first place to an insurance officer, and then, naturally, they would go to the applicant. That would be the normal course for a statement by an employer. If there is any reason to believe that they should go before a local committee, perhaps the hon. Member will give me the cases, and I will gladly look into them.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not a fact that sometimes the employers make their statements in person and not in writing?

    MOTOR INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the motor manufacturing industry in Coventry, Wolverhampton, and Birmingham, respectively, in each quarter from the year 1920 to 1925; and the number of persons in the same industry recorded at the Employment Exchanges in those towns as unemployed at the same dates?
    Sir A. STEEL- MAITLAND: The information required will take some time to extract from the Department's records. I will, however, circulate the figures as soon as they are available.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it a fact that in Coventry to-day every employable man is in employment?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, is it not a fact that during the period when the McKenna Duties were repealed there was no unemployment there?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would not venture to make a statistical statement on knowledge in answer to those two questions. My opinion is this, that there was very little unemployment during either period, but that the numbers have grown since the earlier date, and the question of good employment applies at the present day to a larger number of persons.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Labour whether the numbers of
    2206
    persons recorded by the Minister of Labour as insured and unemployed in the motor vehicle industry includes persons employed in motor garages in all parts of the country on the work of maintenance and repair; and whether he has any information as to the average number of persons in employment in Great Britain in the work of manufacture, as distinguished from repair, at different periods in each of the last five years?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Persons employed in motor garages on maintenance and repair work, so far as they can be separately distinguished, are classified for statistical purposes in the group described as "construction and repair of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft." Other employés in motor garages are classified in the groups "Other road transport." Separate figures are not available for the motor vehicle industry or for manufacture as distinguished from repair.

    PENISTONE AND STOCKSBRIDGE.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed (men, women and juveniles) were registered on the Exchanges at Penistone and Stocksbridge respectively last week and for the corresponding week a year ago?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply involves a number of figures. I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    NUMBER OF PERSONS on the Registers of Employment Exchanges at Penistone and Stocksbridge.

    —

    Penistone.

    Stocksbridge.

    23rd Nov., 1925.

    24th Nov., 1924.

    23rd Nov., 1925.

    24th Nov., 1924.

    Men

    …

    …

    344

    103

    377

    188

    Boys

    …

    …

    5

    2

    13

    6

    Women

    …

    …

    21

    26

    9

    18

    Girls

    …

    …

    4

    1

    1

    2

    Total

    …

    …

    374

    192

    400

    214

    BUILDING TRADE, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of build-

    2207
    ing trade workers in Glasgow who are at present unemployed and drawing benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers registered as unemployed on 26th October in the Glasgow area in the various occupations in the building trades.
    Following is the table promised:

    Carpenters

    155

    Bricklayers

    58

    Masons

    77

    Slaters

    30

    Plasterers

    17

    Painters

    470

    Plumbers

    109

    Labourers to the above

    1,062

    Others

    1,019

    Total

    2,997

    Of this total, 2,701 had claims to benefit current at 26th October, but I cannot say how many were actually then in receipt of benefit.

    MOULDERS, GLASGOW (EMPLOYMENT OF IRISH).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that moulders have been brought from Wexford through the medium of the Employment Exchange there by Messrs. Wallace and Company, agricultural implement makers, to work at a rate of wages less than the district rate; that there are hundreds of moulders unemployed in Glasgow; and if it is the policy of his Department to allow exchanges to be used in this way to provide labour for employers at rates of wages less than those ruling in the district to which the men are brought?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that certain unemployed moulders were brought by an employer from Wexford to Glasgow. I am not sure whether the Wexford Employment Exchange made arrangements for the transfer, but in any case I cannot find that any action in the matter was taken by any Exchange within my jurisdiction.
    Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the practice in connection with the Exchanges in this country, would the Minister not come to some agreement, or try to arrange an
    2208
    agreement, with the Ministry of Industry in Ireland, so that the same policy should be carried out there?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a question I will consider.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that in this particular area the Exchange officials were not aware that there were vacancies for moulders, and that these men were brought over from Wexford unknown to the insurance officials in the locality, to take places that could have been filled from the Employment Exchanges at Glasgow?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the reason they brought over those workers to Glasgow was because it was cheap labour?
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask for a reply to my supplementary question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the Minister can be expected to answer that, without notice.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: But the question is as to the rates of wages. I want an answer to the last part of the question, namely, whether the men were brought across at a lower rate of wages than the standard rate? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were 20 men signing on at an Exchange within a hundred yards of the place?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot carry in my head all the details asked in a number of supplementary questions put by other Members from Glasgow, but on the point of this question alone, I fancy the labourers brought from Ireland must have been brought at a lower rate than the ordinary customary district rate. That is my impression, but I have no certain knowledge.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I have a letter from your Department to that effect.

    TRADE BOARDS.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases of infractions of the wages and conditions laid down by the various trade boards which have been reported by trade board inspectors to his Department since the 1st January, 1919, to date?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The information desired is not available for the years 1919, 1920 and 1921. From the beginning of 1922 to the end of November, 1925, failure to pay the appropriate minimum rate of wages to one or more of the workpeople was discovered in 6,270 cases of inspection.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases of infractions of the rates of wages and conditions laid down by the chain and hollow-ware trade boards, respectively, which have been reported to his Department; and the number of cases he has proceeded against in the Law Courts as a result of the failure of employers to comply with the regulations of the said boards since 1st January, 1919, to date?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Particulars are only available for the period since June, 1920. In that period 25 firms in the chain trade and 32 firms in the hollow-ware trade were found by inspectors to be paying less than the legal minimum rate of wages to one or more of the workpeople. During the same period proceedings for failure to comply with the requirements of the Trade Boards Acts were taken in the Courts against three firms in the chain trade. No such proceedings were taken in the hollow-ware trade.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Labour the number of prosecutions which have been instituted by his Department in those trades scheduled under the Trade Boards Acts for failure by the employer to observe the rates of wages or conditions laid down by the trade boards since the 1st January, 1919, to date?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Sine January, 1919, criminal proceedings have been instituted by the Minister of Labour for failure to comply with the requirements of the Trade Boards Acts in 117 cases. In 11 further cases civil proceedings have been instituted for the recovery of arrears of wages due.

  SCOTLAND.

    SHALE FIELD (WAGES DISPUTE).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the
    2210
    dispute in the Scottish shale field is placing a great financial burden upon the local parish councils concerned by payment of poor relief; and whether the Government have taken any steps to bring about an immediate settlement?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that the effect of the dispute may be to place an increased financial burden upon certain parish councils. The Ministry of Labour has been in constant touch with the parties concerned, who know that the services of the Ministry are immediately available when required. A conference of parties interested in the dispute is to be held in Glasgow to-morrow.

    HOUSING SUBSIDY.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland on what principle the types of houses chosen to receive the special subsidy were selected?
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that in connection with the special subsidy for Scotland the Scottish Board has turned down the firms that had entered into an agreement with the Building Trades Federation, including the Atholl Housing Company, and that, in consequence, a serious set of circumstances has arisen in Scotland which might result in the cessation of work wherever the scheme is being put into operation by the Scottish Board of Health, he will explain on what basis the selection was made?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I will answer these questions together. The general principles governing the selection of makes of houses for special subsidy were cost, construction, output and limitation of building trade craftsmen to 10 per cent. of total labour engaged.

    ATHOLL STEEL HOUSES, LIMITED.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the Atholl Housing Company had definitely arranged to pay trade union rates of wages to all their workmen; that this company was excluded from the selection of contractors to receive the special subsidy of £40 per house for Scotland as recently announced by the Prime Minister; that this company's

    2211
    business is prejudiced by this decision, and whether they are to be finally precluded from receiving the Government subsidy?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that Atholl Steel Houses, Limited, have arranged to pay trade union rates of wages to their workmen, and I am aware that this company is not included in the firms approved by the Scottish Board of Health for the purposes of the additional housing subsidy. As regards the suggestion of prejudice to the company's business, I would remind the hon. Member that the number of houses covered by the new subsidy scheme is but a small proportion of the number of houses required in Scotland. Moreover, while this firm's houses will not participate in the additional subsidy, they are still eligible for participation in the ordinary subsidies under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 subject to their cost being reasonable.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is the Secretary for Scotland aware that these Atholl steel houses are in growing demand in England, and that bodies like the London County Council have contracted for them to be built; and can he give any explanation why this firm, which is at peace with the trade unions, is prohibited from being on the list?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very glad to hear that these houses are in demand. The problem of including them in the extra subsidy was governed principally and mainly by the necessity of cost.

    SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the strike of wireless operators now in progress in the mercantile marine; and whether he proposes to take immediate steps towards instituting an inquiry into the dispute between the employers and the operators?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My Department is in touch with the parties concerned in this dispute. As at present advised, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by instituting a court of inquiry.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Can we be informed what proportion of owners have settled their differences with the operators, enabling them to resume duty, and what proportion of the shipowners are now taking advantage of the Board of Trade exemptions from Regulations?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not tell the hon. Member off-hand, but if he wishes for the information, I will try and get it for him.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the average wage of these operators?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    RECRUITS (RELEASE).
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the lowest sum demanded by the Air Service for release of a recruit under special circumstances; whether there is a period beyond which such discharge cannot be sanctioned; and, if so, what is that period?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, airmen are entitled to claim their discharge within three months of the date of attestation on deposit of a sum of £20. As regards the last part, discharge other than that above referred to is a privilege granted only subject to the requirements of the Service, and the sums required to be paid in the varying circumstances are laid down in paragraphs 578 and 581 of the King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions for the Royal Air Force. The minimum payment is £17 10s.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why an applicant for discharge should be made to pay £100?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot deal with this question without notice. I do not carry the details in my mind.

    BUILDINGS.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Air if it is the policy of the Air Ministry to proceed

    2213
    expeditiously to erect and acquire buildings; and when it is anticipated that requirements for buildings both for the use of the Ministry and of the Air Force will be satisfied?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but naturally the prevailing financial stringency must be taken continuously into account. As regards the second part, the expansion of the Air Force for home defence is still in progress, and it is not, therefore, possible to state a date by which requirements will be fully met.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the signing of the Locarno Pact likely to affect this programme in any way?
    Sir S. HOARE: That is certainly a question that must be taken into account when the general problem of disarmament is considered.
    Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the buildings at Halton axe still going on?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir.

    PURCHASE OF LAND, CASTLE BROMWICH.
    Mr. SCURRasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that buildings and 179 acres of land, at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, have been purchased by the Air Ministry for £60,000, he can say whether it is proposed to build a new aerodrome on this site; if so, the estimated cost; whether this land was formerly in the possession of the Ministry; and, if so, what was the price realised at its sale?
    Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first and second parts of the question, it is not proposed to build a new aerodrome, but merely to recondition and modify the existing buildings in such a way that, with some timber hutting, they will meet the requirements of an Auxiliary Air Force squadron, and the estimated cost thus involved is £30,000. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, the land was formerly occupied under compulsory powers, not owned, by the Air Ministry, and when it was relinquished the price realised for the buildings by the Disposal Board, including both those sold for removal and those left in situ, was £18,000.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that this land works out at about £335 an acre, and whether he considers that any other land cheaper than that would not have done as well?
    Sir S. HOARE: We made very full investigations in the neighbourhood. Our difficulty was to get land close to Birmingham and neighbourhood. I am afraid this was the cheapest land we could find.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that there have been 50 lives lost in the Royal Air Force since the beginning of the year; whether in all these cases inquiries were held; and, if so, whether he will analyse the causes of these mishaps?
    Sir S. HOARE: In answer to the first part of the question, there have been 39 fatal accidents in the Royal Air Force since the beginning of the year, resulting in 55 deaths of personnel; to the second, courts of inquiry were held in all cases, and every other available means, including in the case of accidents at home an independent inquiry by the Accidents Investigation Branch, was employed to determine the causes of the accident with a view to preventing, so far as possible, their recurrence in the future; to the third, that the 39 accidents may be analysed under the following heads: Accidents due to engine or installation failure, 3; to error of judgment, 19; to defect in aircraft constructional, 1; to miscellaneous or as yet undetermined causes, 16.

    AIRCRAFT AND PERSONNEL.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for Air what number of machines are in possession of the Air Force in Great Britain and the out-stations, respectively, immediately ready for flight on war service on emergency; and what is the present number of pilots and observers, respectively, available for immediate service?
    Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, the present distribution of first line units of the Royal Air Force, with an average of 12 machines to a squadron, is 27½ squadrons at home, the

    2215
    equivalent of 9 squadrons for the Fleet Air Arm and 18½ squadrons distributed between India, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Aden and Malta. The answer to the last part of the question is 2,163 pilots and 29 observers.
    Colonel GRETTON: For the answer to the first part of the question, I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman, but he has not given the number of machines immediately ready for flight on emergency.
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend will see I have given the number of squadrons, and the average number of machines in each squadron, and, therefore, I think a multiplication sum will show the number of machines. He may take it that from 10 to 12 machines are available in each squadron.
    Colonel GRETTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me the total number of machines which he knows are immediately ready to fly on emergency?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, I certainly can if my hon. and gallant Friend will either put a question down again or will communicate with me.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Prime Minister whether the Civil Research Committee have received representations from the workpeople and manufacturers in the iron and steel industry; and can. he say when the Report of the Committee will be issued?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Committee of Civil Research have consulted the organisations representing both the employers and the men engaged in the iron and steel industry as regards the latter part of the question, it would be contrary to established practice to publish any Report of a Cabinet Committee.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the Prime Minister yet say whether it is contemplated holding an ordinary inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say yet.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to arrive at a decision on this matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope before we rise.

    ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (WEIR REPORT).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are going to publish the Weir Report on electrical development: and, if so, when?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not proposed to publish the Report referred to by the hon. Member.

    IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the findings of the Irish Boundary Commission will be put into effect in the absence of the signature of the Free State Commissioner?
    The PRIME MINISTER: After consultation with Mr. Cosgrave, I have communicated with the Boundary Commission, and, in deference to our wishes, the Commission has agreed temporarily to postpone publication of their Report and Award.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Morrison.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I rose immediately the Prime Minister replied to my question, to put a supplemental question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not catch my eye.

  EDUCATION.

    STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (CIRCULAR 1371).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the scope and further implications of the decision of the Cabinet to place a limit on expenditure, which is first announced to the country in Circular 1371 of the Board of Education?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Such information as the right hon. Gentleman desires will not be available until the Government have completed their examination of Departmental Estimates.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Is it not rather remarkable that an announcement of large public policy by the Cabinet should be made through a circular from one of the Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would not accept that suggestion. The announcement was made, as my right hon. Friend explained a day or two ago, for a purpose; that the Minister might get into immediate contact with the local authorities. Until he has had the opportunity of discussing this with the local authorities, I do not think he will be in a position, and does not propose, to make any further announcement.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether, before introducing any legislation for the purpose of replacing the percentage grant to local education authorities by a block grant, as forecasted in Circular 1371 of the Board of Education, the Government will await the Report of the Meston Committee and the publication of the evidence given before it; and whether, meantime, he can inform the House whether any of the evidence given either by Government Departments or by local authorities was favourable to the change of system proposed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the delay which has already occurred, I could not undertake that no legislation would be introduced by the Government until the Report is received. The evidence received by the Committee has not yet been submitted to the Government.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he can answer the last part of my question, as to whether it will be possible to know the general tendency of the evidence in the Report on this vitally important question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge beyond what I have answered just now, but I might suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that any further questions should be put to the Minister of Education. It is, however, quite obvious that, assuming that legislation is neces-
    2218
    sary, there will be ample opportunity for the House to discuss this matter and express its opinion at the time. My right hon. Friend has in mind a change in the system of grants. Nothing can be done until the next financial year.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: In view of the announcement of the Government that this very important change is contemplated by them, is it reasonable to ask that the only source of expert evidence on the subject should be put before the House while the matter is being discussed in the country as well as here?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put that to the Minister of Education.
    Major CRAWFURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before legislation is introduced in the sense of this Circular, he will publish a White Paper giving the result of the communications of the Department with the local authorities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education how much money it is estimated he will save during the next three years by the proposed new system of grants foreshadowed by Circular 1371?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): It is not clear what basis of comparison the hon. Member has in mind, but my right hon. Friend would remind him that the grant provided for in the Circular is a guaranteed minimum during the period covered, not a fixed maximum, and that the Circular indicates that the Board expect to present Estimates for 1926–27 for a larger amount than the Vote for the current year.

    INFANTS (WALTHAMSTOW).
    Major CRAWFURDasked the President of the Board of Education the number of children under the age of five and between the ages of five and six in the schools under the Walthamstow Education Authority?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: On the 31st March, 1925, the numbers (on the registers) were:

    Under five

    …

    538

    Five and under six

    …

    2,091

    FIGHTING SERVICES (POLITICAL PROPAGANDA).
    Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extension of the franchise to include all members of the Forces, he is prepared to grant further facilities for the dissemination of the views of all political parties to the same extent as obtains with private citizens?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. I know of no obstacles in the way of the lawful dissemination of views among the Forces, and the Home Secretary has no power to give facilities for anything which would be unlawful.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary say if it is equally lawful to spread out newspapers, leaflets, and pamphlets from the political associations in the barracks just as much as we can do it among private citizens?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Any question of that kind has to do with the King's Regulations, and ought to be put to the War Office.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: That is exactly the question which I have put down to the Prime Minister: Whether he would give equal facilities for soldiers as well as other citizens in civil life because the franchise rights are exactly equal?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will the Prime Minister see to it that all parties, including the Socialist party, in this country will be permitted to send all kinds of Parliamentary Election and propagandist literature to the soldiers who are registered on the roll of electors of every constituency, and who may be in barracks at the time?
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the King's Regulations contain specific clauses which, in fact, debar certain specific literature to the troops and to the Navy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should address that question to the War Office.
    Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. Gentleman see that subversive doctrines are not disseminated among the troops?

    EXPORT OF HORSES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave charges made by a Departmental Committee against the actions of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its denial of the same, the Government will take the necessary steps to secure a full inquiry in order that the public may know the truth of the matter?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. The Departmental Committee made a very thorough inquiry into the whole question of the export of horses, including methods of killing abroad. Evidence was given before the Committee by representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was carefully weighed by the Committee in framing their Report. No new facts regarding the points complained of have subsequently been brought to light, and my right hon. Friend sees no occasion for further inquiry into the matter.
    Captain GEE: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Government will warn the public against subscribing to this and other kindred societies allied in this charge?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: As a member of the Committee, I should like to ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not agree that the sole aim of the Committee was to get at the truth of the conditions of the export of horses from this country? I should also like to ask whether, after having read the Report, he does not agree that the genuineness of the so-called "faked film" was only upheld on secondhand evidence? Also I should like to ask— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was answered by the Minister some little time ago in the House when he dealt with the matter.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: Are not the charges which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bosworth. (Captain Gee) in this House

    2221
    an additional reason why the inquiry asked for into this Report should be given?
    Major BARNSTON: The Report is published and is there for anyone to read and draw their own conclusions.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the cost is prohibitive, and only after they have the evidence can the public judge for themselves the truth of the statement?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, is a matter which was dealt with in Debate recently.

    ROAD FUND.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to the Road Fund?
    Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Members for Govan and Chiselhurst on the 23rd November and to the hon. Member for East Bradford yesterday.

    BRITISH FILMS.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that legislation has recently been passed in Australia making it compulsory for cinema exhibitors to show a certain percentage of British films in their programmes; and whether it is the intention of the Government to pass similar legislation in Great Britain, having regard to the great importance of stimulating the production of British films?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. My attention has been called to proposals of this kind in Australia. The possibility of taking action to increase the number of British films shown in this country is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an entirely false impression of British life and manners is given by the American films which are
    2222
    shown at present? Is it not very desirable that we should have British life and manners represented by British films?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Well, I was taking that into consideration, but, again, I would point out that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in stating as a fact that legislation has recently been passed in Australia. I made inquiries to-day at the Dominions Office, and I find that the Bill has not yet passed the Legislative Assembly.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cinematograph exhibitors themselves are very much against any such restriction being placed upon them?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: In view of the fact that the present supply of British films is not sufficient, either in quantity or quality, to allow of a compulsory percentage, will the hon. Gentleman in the interests of the picture-going public take that fact into consideration if he contemplates legislation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, I will. As regards the statement of the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Colonel Day) I agree that all the managers of the cinematograph are not in agreement as to what should be done. There is great diversity of opinion.
    Colonel DAY: Might I point out to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Pointing out should be done in private.

    CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT, 1898.
    Captain BENNasked the Attorney-General whether he proposes to introduce legislation so to amend the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, as to exempt the exempt the Attorney-General from the provisions of Section 1 (b), which forbids comment by the prosecution on the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): No, Sir.
    Captain BENN: Is the right and learned Gentleman aware that, according

    2223
    to all the available evidence, he himself infringed this Act in a recent case, and what action does he propose to take?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There was no infringement by me in any recent case, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had attended the Debate yesterday instead of attending only the Division Lobby he would have had the opportunity of hearing what was said.
    Captain BENN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the "Star" newspaper states that the Attorney-General drew attention to the effect that the accused did not give evidence, and is he prepared to produce the official report of his own speech?
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: In answer to the first part of the question, I know that the "Star" newspaper inaccurately reported that; they did not report the speech, but inaccurately summarised it. As to the second part of the question, I have already stated that there are no public funds available for the purpose. I have a transcript of the speech, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to read it I shall be happy to lend it to him.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that a serious charge of this kind can be lightly treated, and is ho aware that his own speech bears out the accuracy of the charge?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In answer to the first part of the question, it depends who makes the charge. In answer to the second part of the question, I have already stated that my speech does not bear out the charge, and nobody in this House ventured to suggest that it did.
    Captain BENN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to make the text of his own speech available to Members of this House?

    POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the main defect of the Poor Persons Depart-
    2224
    ment, recommended to be abolished by the last of Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence's Committees, was that it had no power to give, and was incapable of giving, because there was no lawyer on its staff, legal advice to the poor; and whether he will recommend, or cause recommendations to be made, to the committees of solicitors referred to in the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence (Cmd. 2358), that the clerk or librarian also referred to in the said Report should receive a proper legal education before undertaking his duties, and that the small honorarium, and also his accommodation, recommended in the said Report, then be moderately increased?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member has misconceived the functions performed by the Poor Persons Department and to be performed in the future by the official, if any, employed by the local law society. Those functions are purely administrative, and do not include the giving of legal advice.
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Attorney-General whether, seeing that the Poor Persons Rules, and those contemplated, prohibit a poor person proceeding under the said rules from recovering, when successful, any costs other than the out-of-pocket expenses, since 1919 reduced by some 50 per cent.; that in ordinary litigation in England by ordinary persons a successful party recovers ordinary costs in addition to the out-of-pocket expenses; and that every civilised nation except England, whose only State legal aid to the poor in civil proceedings is the remission of court fees, allows a successful poor person to whom legal aid has been given in civil proceedings to recover from the unsuccessful party costs as well as out-of-pocket expenses like an ordinary litigant, he will recommend, or cause recommendations to be made, that the old Chancery rule before the Judicature Acts, allowing ordinary costs as well as out-of-pocket expenses to a successful poor person, to whom court fees have been remitted in civil litigation, may be restored?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not accept the assumptions of fact contained in the question. The answer to the question itself is in the negative.
    Mr. CLUSEasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that, with the exception of Spain, England is the only civilised country in the world that has a rigid poverty test limit as a condition for granting civil court aid to poor persons; whether, as the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice P. O. Lawrence (Command Paper, 2358) recommended that the rigid poverty test limit so far only as concerns married women in matrimonial proceedings should be alternatively abolished, but should be retained for all other poor persons, he will consider whether in the interest of justice the rigid poverty test limit should not be entirely abolished and legal aid be given to all poor persons, in all cases where it is necessary because of poverty, to secure justice in the circumstances of each particular case, such being the practice in Scotland; and whether he will recommend or cause recommendations to be made in the proper quarters to secure the equal administration of justice to the poor in civil proceedings without exclusion by a rigid limit either as to income or capital, legal aid being given to the poor, in whole or in part, where necessary to secure justice?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir; I am not prepared to make any such recommendation.

    HUDSON MEMORIAL, HYDE PARK.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, for what purpose the Fine Arts Commission was constituted; and whether the Government do not consider it to be a competent tribunal to decide as to the desirability of removing to another site a monument or piece of sculpture erected in a public place as to which a controversy has arisen?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Fine Arts Commission was appointed to advise Departments of State and public bodies on such questions of public amenity or of artistic importance as may be referred to them, and, in so far as the Hudson Memorial is concerned, they may be considered the successors of the Sites Committee, who advised the Department in regard thereto. The First Commis-
    2226
    sioner considers the Commission a thoroughly competent tribunal to advise on such matters.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Sites Committee, to which he has referred, were not unanimous?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said so.

    PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) ACT.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Minister of Health the names of the county boroughs which have adopted Section A of the Public Health (Amendment) Act?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply. I presume that the hon. Member refers to the county boroughs that have adopted Part IV of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890. I regret that a list of such boroughs is not at present available, but my right hon. Friend is having a list compiled and will send it to the hon. Member in a few days.

    BOROUGH BOUNDARIES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Major CRAWFURDasked the Minister of Health whether the Royal Commission on Borough Boundaries has yet reported; and, if so, whether the Report is available?
    Sir K. WOOD: A first Report, dealing with the constitution and extension of county boroughs, has been issued by the Commission and was presented to Parliament in September last (Cmd. 2506).

    VAGRANTS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that vagrants are committing crime and surrendering to the police to obtain shelter in prison, owing to the shortage of food supplied to the vagrants and the general bad conditions accorded to them; and whether he will take action in the matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not aware that this suggestion is well founded.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to make inquiries, in view of the responsible evidence which can be put before him on this case?
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman can supply me with any facts, I will look into them.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that some of the vagrant wards in various places are said to be verminous?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, but that is another question.

    COKE (WATERING).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the practice by retailers of coke of watering the coke in order to increase the weight; and will he consider the advisability of legislation with a view to stopping this practice?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware that complaints as to short deliveries of coke have been made from time to time. Some local authorities have taken powers by local acts to deal with the sale of coke with a view to the prevention of fraud. The matter is being carefully watched in case any general action should prove to be necessary and practicable.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the coke is delivered in bags containing only between 84 lbs. and 90 lbs. instead of 112 lbs., and is he not prepared to protect the poor people who buy it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am very sorry to hear that. Practices of that kind will not be tolerated for a moment, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite will give me any specific cases where they have occurred, I will make it my special duty to go into them.
    Mr. BECKETT: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider whether, in order to carry that reply into effect, local authorities ought not to be given the power to distribute coke without having to incur the expense of first coming to this House for powers?

    CURRENCY (GOLD PERCENTAGE).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total legal tender on the 30th June, 1914, and on the 30th October, 1925, with the approximate percentage of gold in each case?
    Mr. McNEILL: I presume that by legal tender in this connection my hon. Friend means legal tender notes. On that assumption, the figures are, for 30th June, 1914, £56,926,000 and 67·6 per cent., and for 30th October, 1925, £403,558,000 and 36·8 per cent.
    Sir F. WISE: Why not gold?

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

    PAPER (IMPORTS).
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantity and value of the total imports of paper classified as wrapping or tissue paper, 10 pounds double crown and under, for the years 1913 and 1924?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The paper of the class to which the hon. Member refers would, I understand, be mainly though not exactly represented by the category "Tissue Paper," in the Official Trade Returns. The imports of tissue paper amounted in 1924 to 81,296 cwts., valued at £268,001. Corresponding particulars for 1913 are not available.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to note the question, and to realise that this means a loss of something like £100,000 in wages to British workers?

    GLOVES (IMPORTS).
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the volume and the value of the imports and exports of fabric and leather gloves and glove fabric for 1913, 1923, 1924, and the first 10 months of 1925?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As the answer involves a statistical table, I propose, with the concurrence of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT GIVES THE DESIRED INFORMATION SO FAR AS THE PARTICULARS ARE AVAILABLE.

    Period, etc.

    Leather Gloves.

    Fabric Gloves.

    Imports into United Kingdom:

    Dozen Pairs

    £

    Dozen Pairs

    £

    1913

    …

    1,473,943

    1,800,341

    2,531,798*

    728,050*

    1923

    …

    609,437

    1,357,059

    1,125,148

    706,169

    1924

    …

    901,221

    1,719,788

    954,199

    589,621

    January to October, 1925

    …

    985,491

    1,773,388

    1,826,880

    1,223,067

    Exports of United Kingdom Production:

    1913

    …

    229,237

    369,636

    65,456†

    23,552†

    1923

    …

    32,715

    116,655

    146,007

    185,163

    1924

    …

    41,056

    144,741

    87,765

    114,733

    January to October, 1925

    …

    41,297

    149,129

    56,789

    70,145

    Exports of Imported Merchandise:

    1913

    …

    208,130

    266,230

    262,301*

    106,738*

    1923

    …

    35,973

    89,209

    89,174

    111,841

    1924

    …

    50,375

    122,875

    112,149

    122,682

    January to October, 1925

    …

    47,344

    110,856

    86,217

    80,810

    * Described in 1913 as "Gloves of cotton or of which the chief value is Cotton" and including cotton woven fabric gloves.

    † Includes only cotton gloves of all kinds.

    NOTE.—Since 1st April, 1923, the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State has been included; since the same date the direct foreign trade of the Irish Free State has been excluded.
    Particulars of the trade in glove fabric are not available, except in respect of imports charged to Depreciated Currency Duty. The value of such imports was £3,047 in 1923 and £206 in 1924 (1st January to 20th August).

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the Minister of Agriculture, whether re-examination of all the possible sources of foot-and-mouth infection is being now carried out, and notably those represented by foreign hay, straw, and cattle cake; and whether the Minister concerned has considered the advisability of prohibiting for a period the import of the above supplies as a means of eliminating or not, as the case may be, these three sources as possible infection carriers?
    Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: As the reply is necessarily long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Inquiries are made in every case with a view to ascertain the possible source of
    2230
    infection, and particular attention is paid to the possibility of foreign hay or straw or feeding stuffs being involved. With regard to the second part of the question, since 1908 the importation of hay and straw into this country from any country in which foot-and-mouth disease exists has been prohibited by the Foreign Hay and Straw Orders, the only exceptions being:

    (a) Hay or straw which, at the time of importation, is being used for packing merchandise;

    (b) manufactured straw not intended for use as fodder or litter for animals;

    (c) hay and straw landed at a foreign animals wharf for the purpose of destruction or disposal in accordance with the Ministry's instructions, and

    (d) hay or straw authorised to be landed for use otherwise than as fodder or litter for animals by licence of the Minister.

    It has recently been decided to cease altogether the issue of any licences under Clause (d) of these exceptions, although in the past such licences have only been granted in respect of straw generally

    2231
    intended for thatching houses or buildings or for saddlery purposes, and this decision has been communicated to all known importers. At the same time the Ministry has issued the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Order of 1925 which prescribes that no hay or straw, from any source, which has been used for packing purposes, shall be brought into contact with any animal in Great Britain, or be removed from any premises, unless used as packing, or for the purposes of destruction. Hay or straw which has been used for packing purposes, if not so used again, is required to be destroyed.
    The Minister has recently considered the possibility of taking still more drastic action in respect of the importation of foreign hay and straw, but is of opinion that in view of the many important trades in which hay and straw is habitually used for packing, it would not be practicable altogether to prohibit the use of those materials without serious detriment to very important industries. The evidence that cattle cake is a vehicle by which the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is introduced into this country is not strong enough to justify the Ministry in prohibiting the importation of cattle cake and other feeding stuffs, especially as agriculture could hardly be carried on without these foreign feeding materials.

    WELL STREET, HACKNEY (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that two serious traffic accidents have occurred in the last few weeks at a certain point in Well Street, Hackney, the last accident, on Saturday, the 28th instant, having involved injury to five persons; whether he is aware of expert local opinion that accidents will continue at this spot until its width is altered to permit of a double track and more room; and whether, bearing in mind the further fact that a large elementary school is shortly to be opened close by, he will take immediate steps to effect the necessary improvements?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel W. Ashley): I am not at present in possession of particulars of either of
    2232
    the accidents to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, nor have I received representations of the nature indicated in the second part of the question. I am not aware that proposals for street improvements have been formulated by the authorities concerned.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to obtain the fact about this particular spot?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is not my province. It is the province of the local authority, and if they want anything done they should send the particulars to me.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long he would tolerate this state of affairs in his own constituency?

    SILK DUTIES (PERSONAL LUGGAGE).
    Colonel DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of fines being inflicted upon persons bringing silk stockings into this country as personal luggage; and, in view of the fact that small quantities of tobacco and spirits are allowable to sojourners on the Continent, will he cause Regulations to be made to allow women passengers similar privileges in respect of small articles containing silk?
    Mr. McNEILL: Passengers are required to declare personal belongings of a dutiable character to the Customs officers, and where this is done fines are never inflicted. Silk articles contained in personal baggage are treated on the same lines as tobacco and spirits, but in all cases dutiable articles must be declared.

  KADAVER FACTORIES.

    GERMAN GOVERNMENT DENIAL.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask a question of which the Leader of the Opposition gave notice—and may I express his regret that he is unable to be present to submit this question himself— namely, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement as to the Kadaver story?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)—who, on rising, was received with general cheers: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War told the House last week how the story reached His Majesty's Government in 1917. The Chancellor of the German Reich has authorised me to say, on the authority of the German Government, that there was never any foundation for it. I need scarcely add that, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I accept this denial, and I trust that this false report will not again be revived.

    DOLGARROG DAM DISASTER.
    Major OWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the serious nature of the evidence disclosed, and the verdict returned at the coroner's inquest held at Conway yesterday on the Dolgarrog Dam disaster, he proposes to order a public inquiry to be held into the causes of this disaster; and whether it is the intention of the Government immediately to introduce legislation which will enforce strict supervision of such dams during and after construction?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There has not yet been time to obtain and consider a full report of the proceedings of the inquest, but the whole position will be most carefully reviewed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: Is the Prime Minister now in a position to state the business which the Government intend to take on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. We propose to put down the Third Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill; the Second Reading of the Government of India (Civil Services) Bill [Lords]; the Second Reading of the Coastguard Bill [Lords]; the Report and Third Reading of the Roads and Streets in Police Burghs (Scotland) Bill; the Report and Third Reading of the Circuit Courts and Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords]: the Committee stage of the Money Resolution relating to the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill; and, if time permit, other Orders.
Mr. W. GRAHAM: Will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision to take the Money Resolution on the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill in view of the fact that there is general agreement that further negotiations with regard to that Bill must take place and that in any case we cannot make any progress before the Christmas Recess.
The PRIME MINISTER: The most important thing at the moment is to get the Rating Bill to another place.
Mr. GRAHAM: Will the Prime Minister reply on the point whether he intends to take this Resolution?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to say whether we can or not.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the business on the Paper to-day, will the Prime Minister state to what hour he expects to keep the House sitting, and how far he proposes to proceed with the Resolutions?
The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend has been a Member of this House for so many years that he must know that the only answer I can give at this moment is that the time depends on the progress of the business.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I, Mr. Speaker, put a question? At the beginning of this Session a Motion was made giving the Government the whole time of the House, and since then almost every day a Motion has been put down to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, and there have only been two days on which it has not been put down. The only time some of us private Members have to raise questions is on the Motion for the Adjournment. Yesterday was the first occasion an opportunity arose for private Members, and on that occasion a number of Electricity Orders and other business were taken, cutting out the opportunity which would other wise have been given to private Members. I want to ask if there is no way of protecting the private Member against this kind of procedure? Is there no other way of giving an opportunity to private Members of raising questions connected with the administration of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not uncommon during the pressure of business to have these Motions. The only remedy I can

2235
suggest is the one I suggested yesterday, namely, greater brevity in the speeches made.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Even if that were practised to-day, I submit that all greater brevity in the speeches would lead to would be that the Government would get a greater amount of business conducted after Eleven. It is not a question of quarrel against the Government, but the protection of my own rights. I have certain questions to put to the Minister of Labour which are of the greatest importance to my native city, and I want to raise them with the Minister, if I possibly can, before the Adjournment, but I can see no opportunity. I do not
want there to be any more scenes like that which occurred yesterday, and I want to ask you, Sir, if there is no way of obviating the occurrence of that kind of thing?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid there is nothing that lies in my hands. If there were, I would gladly use it to shorten the proceedings.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceeding? of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this clay's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 142.

Division No. 434.]

AYES.

[3.50 p. m

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hanbury, C.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Crook, C. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Albery, Irving James

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Harms worth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Haslam, Henry C.

Atholl, Duchess of

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Hawke, John Anthony

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Davidson, J. (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Dixey, A. C.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Drewe, C.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Berry, Sir George

Eden, Captain Anthony

Herbert, S. (York, N. R-,Scar. & Wh'by)

Bethell, A.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hilton, Cecil

Betterton, Henry B.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Elveden, Viscount

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

England, Colonel A.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Holland, Sir Arthur

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Homan, C. W. J.

Brass, Captain W.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Everard, W. Lindsay

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Briscoe, Richard George

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Fermoy, Lord

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Fielden, E. B.

Hudson, R. s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Finburgh, S.

Huntingfield, Lord

Buckingham, Sir H.

Fleming, D. P.

Hurd, Percy A.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Bullock, Captain M.

Forrest, W.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Burton. Colonel H. W.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Fraser, Captain Ian

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Frece, Sir Walter de

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Caine, Gordon Hall

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Jephcott, A. R.

Campbell, E. T.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Gates. Percy

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Gee, Captain R.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Knox, Sir Alfred

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Goff, Sir Park

Lamb, J. Q.

Chapman, Sir S.

Gower, Sir Robert

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip)

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Grant, J. A.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Christle, J. A.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Clarry, Reginald George

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

Loder, J. de V.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gretton, Colonel John

Looker, Herbert William

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Lougher, L.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Cooper, A. Duff

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Cope, Major William

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

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

Mac Andrew, Charles Glen

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hammersley, S. S.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Macintyre, Ian

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Storry Deans, R.

McLean, Major A.

Preston, William

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Price, Major C. W. M.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel

Radford, E. A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Malone, Major P. B.

Raine, W.

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Margesson, Captain D.

Ramsden, E.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Rees, sir Beddoe

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Meyer, Sir Frank

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

Tinne, J. A.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Remnant, Sir James

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Warner, Brigadier-General W. w.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Warrender, Sir Victor

Murchison, C. K.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sandon, Lord

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

Savery, S. S.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Watts, Dr. T.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Nuttall, Ellis

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Oakley, T.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Skelton, A. N.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Womersley, W. J.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Pease, William Edwin

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Pennefather, Sir John

Smithers, Waldron

Wragg, Herbert

Penny, Frederick George

Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Philipson, Mabel

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sder. E.)

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Pilcher, G.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Colonel Gibbs.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)

Grundy, T. W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Alexander, A. v. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Riley, Ben

Ammon, Charles George

Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

Ritson, J.

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Baker, Walter

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Rose, Frank H.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hardie, George D.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Barnes, A.

Harris, Percy A.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barr, J.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Scrymgeour, E.

Batey, Joseph

Hayday, Arthur

Scurr, John

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Sexton, James

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hirst, G. H.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Briant, Frank

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Broad, F. A.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

sitch, Charles H.

Bromley, J.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smillie, Robert

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Buchanan, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Cape, Thomas

John, William (Rhondda, West

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Clowes, S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Snell, Harry

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Compton, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Stamford, T. W.

Connolly, M.

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Cove, W. G.

Kirkwood, D.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lansbury, George

Sutton, J. E.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Lawson, John James

Taylor, R. A.

Davies. Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Livingstone, A. M.

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

Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lowth, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Day colonel Harry

Lunn, William

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Dennison, R.

Mackinder, W.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Duncan, C.

MacLaren, Andrew

Thurtle, E.

Dunnico, H.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Tinker, John Joseph

Fenby, T. D.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Townend, A. E.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

March, S.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Montague, Frederick

Varley, Frank B.

Gillett, George M.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Viant, S. P.

Gosling, Harry

Murnin, H.

Wellhead, Richard C.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Owen, Major G.

Walsh, Rt. Han. Stephen

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Palin, John Henry

Warne. G. H.

Greenall, T.

Paling, W.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondds)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Groves, T.

Purcell, A. A.

Weir, L. M.

2238

2239

Westwood, J.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Whiteley, W.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Wiggins, William Martin

Windsor, Walter

Hayes.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Wright, W.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can you help me, Sir, out of a difficulty? A few minutes ago I was having a conversation with one of my personal friends, and, in consequence of that, I was a little absent-minded and went into the wrong Lobby. The result was that I was advised to vote for the Government, but I could not see my way to do that. Is there any remedy whereby I can record my vote for the "Noes"?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member must accept the fact.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (FOREIGN PAYMENTS).
Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and extend the law relating to the prevention of corruption."
I had intended to introduce this Bill last Wednesday, but certain Communists were then in Court upon a criminal charge, and I felt that no words of mine in this House, however privileged, should be allowed to interfere with a fair trial for them. Therefore, I have postponed introducing this Bill until to-day. I do so now under the protection of the Ten Minute Rule, but I shall speak only for 4½ minutes. This Bill is in no way directed to stopping free speech; it is in no way directed to interfering with the great trade unions of this country, the disposal of their funds, and the management of their own affairs. It is directed solely against those persons who receive foreign money for purposes hostile to the security of the State and subversive of the constitution of the realm.
It seems extraordinary that anybody should not support a Measure as benevolent as that which I introduce to-day, but I am told that people will object to it, and there are some who object to it on the ground that it is unnecessary. People tell us that as long as an enemy does not march into our territory with armed strength to lay waste and devastate it we can sleep and snore serenely in
2240
our beds. But now that people can read and write there is a weapon in the arsenal of anarchy far deadlier than any bomb or bayonet. I served three years with the Russian Army at the front, and I remember seeing those armies of the Czar, who had for long stood unconquered against frightful odds, yield in a few weeks to the sugared falsehoods of the paid agents-provocateurs. I saw whole armies evaporate without a single blow under the high explosion of that mixture of a distortion of the truth and an exaggeration of it which goes by the name of propaganda to-day: and that propaganda was possible simply because there was foreign money behind it.
I chanced to be in Russia during the revolution. Not many Members of Parliament were. I was in Petrograd shortly afterwards, and one day I happened to be in the streets, and I saw a short, bearded man enter a house, go and open a window, and speak to the multitude outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I went and listened. Perhaps there was shame in that. I heard this man preach anarchy, murder, and treachery. I asked who he was, and was told that he was named Lenin. I went straight off to the officials of the Republic, which was then in power under Kenensky, and I said to them: "Why do you not lock up this crazy incendiary?" The only answer I got was that he was a negligible nonentity, and that nobody need pay the slightest attention to him. That negligible, nonentity, in six months' time, became Tsar of all the Russias and his triumphant régime has lasted till to-day, nearly 10 years later. How was he able to do it? Do you imagine that any man, whatever his genius, could have achieved that by will power alone? He did it solely because he was given money by a foreign enemy. He was sent, as we know, with £2,000,000 by Ludendorff to influence the Russian proletariat and to steal soldiers and sailors from their allegiance to a common cause, and there are to-day thousands, nay millions, of people, who might be alive among the allied countries but who are dead, simply and

2241
solely because Lenin prolonged the War by ruining Russia. If Lenin was a negligible nonentity, then, however negligible some of our nonentities may seem to us to-day, I do not think that they can be negligible if they can get foreign money to work their will, and I would like to prevent that foreign money coming into this country in order to ruin it. We may be told that they are unimportant people. You might as well say that the typhoid bacillus is a jolly little fellow, because he lives in your blood and remains with you to no harm to yourself while you are well. But you have only to weaken your resistance in a moment of ill-health to see the ravages he may work in your system. So it is with any negligible nonentity if he is given money and supplies.
This money flows from Russia to-day. We know it, and it has been proved. It is not generally denied. I remember, when I learned political economy, we used to hear about what were called invisible exports, outgoings which were unseen from one country to another, and which balanced the trade of the country which was behind hand. But there are no unseen outgoings from any country to-day that are as invisible or secret as the Russian rouble which travels over from Moscow to do its purposes here in England. It comes over at any moment. There is no sea that can stem it; there is no frontier that can arrest it; there is no cordon of police that can stop it. I think it is legitimate to say to-day that there is probably no strike in this country, the fomenters of which could not get support from the Soviet; there is no journal in England which, if it turned red, might not draw some sustenance from suspected quarters; and there is probably no type of civil disorder upon which the subsidised hand of anarchy could not, in a crisis, stamp its odious imprint. This Bill is brought in in order to prevent that sort of thing, if possible, from occurring again. The time has surely come when foreign cash should no longer be free to flow in here to interfere with our purely domestic concerns, and when a murderous régime in Moscow should no longer be at liberty to fan the flames of our own disputes, and for its own chaotic ends to poison the wells
2242
of good will and conciliation in our own labour disputes. This Bill is brought in to prevent this, and to bring to book those English mercenaries who have sold themselves for stolen shekels to the high priests of disorder in an enemy land. Under this Bill these pests will be made to own up, pay up, and shut up.
Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask for the information of the House whether this Motion is correctly put down on the Order Paper, or whether it ought not to have been put down as a Notice of Motion to ask leave to bring in a Bill? I do not wish to interfere on this occasion, but some of us have been a little misled as to the form of the Notice.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Notice is quite in order and according to our usual practice.
Miss WILKINSON Miss WILKINSON rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Bill?
Miss WILKINSON: I rise to oppose it. I had not intended to do so until I heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson), and it does seem to me quite extraordinary the way in which Members of his way of thinking, assume that there is some mysterious power placed in the hands of anybody who is paid to prosecute any particular doctrine by which they can take away the brains or common sense of the people who happen to listen to them. I wish that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who evidently speaks from some knowledge of Russia at the time of the revolution, had not told us only of the agitators who were at the front, but also something of the economic conditions of the soldiers who were at the front. If those men had been fighting in a cause which they thought was right, and if they had been properly supported from their headquarters, I venture to suggest that there would have been no propaganda and no words, however honeyed, that could have taken them from their allegiance. If that were not the case, surely the agitators who were paid in order to seduce the Red troops from their allegiance would have had greater success. What you had at the time of the revolution, as every-

2243
body knows, was a complete breakdown of transport, not due to any Soviet Government, not due to the Kerensky Government, but due to the complete breakdown of the Tzarist Government before the revolution.
Everyone knows these conditions. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House have written books to say these Russian soldiers were fighting in the snow with clubs because there was no ammunition. It is not a question of any words of any orator. However many restrictions we place upon propaganda, however many people we put in prison, that will not stop revolution unless the economic conditions that make for revolution are altered. The reason they had revolution in Russia is that it followed the most appalling tyranny the world has ever known. The only safeguard against revolution in this country is not imprisonment and is not Bills such as this, but a real desire on the part of Members of this House to remove poverty and the causes that lead to destitution and misery and distress. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intentions are of the very best, but Bills like this are merely pills to cure an earthquake and plasters put on running sores. They merely widen the conscience of people in this House who refuse to look at the appalling conditions there are in this country and try to believe that it is not their privileges and their oppressions, but merely the honied words of agitators that make revolution. The Bill is completely unnecessary and is on entirely wrong lines
Bill ordered to be brought in by Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, Colonel Gretton, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Burgoyne, Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Captain Foxcroft, and Captain Gee.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION (FOREIGN PAYMENTS) BILL,
"to amend and extend the law relating to the prevention of corruption," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 267.]

INCITEMENT TO MUTINY ACT (1797)—REPEAL.
Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797."
I believe this Bill will be quite non-contentious. I think it is common agreement in the House that the Act it seeks to repeal is an archaic and unnecessary piece of panic legislation. This House never legislates at its best when it is in a panic, and it was in a panic at the time it passed this Act. The mutiny at the Nore was then in progress, and I am afraid we must assume that the Commons of England as a consequence were in a panic. This Measure was never intended to be a permanent piece of legislation. Mr. Pitt himself, when he introduced it, made that quite clear. He said it was only a temporary Measure to meet a temporary emergency, and as proof of that I should like to cite the fourth Clause, which makes it clear what he meant. It says:
"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that this Act shall continue and be in force until the expiration of one month after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament and no longer."
That was nearly 130 years ago. It is high time that Parliament now carried out the original intention of the authors of this Act. As a matter of fact, even from the point of view of dealing with mutinies in the Army it was not carefully thought out. Its phraseology is very loose and general. On that point also I can bring the testimony of Mr. Pitt himself. He says:
"Feeling the extraordinary pressure of the circumstances, he had merely brought forward a Measure which in his opinion was adequate to the end proposed. He regretted that the offences were so secret and so complex that it was impossible at present to define them, and under those circumstances he could not propose any Measure so definite as he had wished."
If any Incitement to Mutiny Act is needed, we ought to have a carefully thought out Act which would consider the crime in all its relations. This Act is far too general and far too loose to deal with the crime it is supposed to deal with. Let me cite this possibility. Supposing the clergy of the country, quite contrary to precedent, were to start an intensive campaign amongst the troops to make

2245
them apply the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill." If they did that, there is nothing in this Act that makes it clear that that would be a crime. As a matter of fact there is no need, as the Attorney-General himself knows, for this Act to remain on the Statute Book. He was very careful to point out last night, quite correctly, that incitement to mutiny can be dealt with under the Common Law of the land. It may be said we can trust to the discretion and the good sense of the Law Officers of the Crown not to misuse the Act, but in the light of very recent occurrences we can see that if we trust to that good sense and discretion we are going to find our ancient liberties very seriously interfered with. Therefore I would much prefer to see the Act taken off the Statute Book. I am going to ask the House to say that this 18th Century rusty musket shall be removed once for all from the armoury of the law.
Captain BOURNE: In spite of the very honied tones in which the hon.
Member has asked leave to bring in his Bill, I think the House will hardly be ready to grant that leave. He says the Act was passed after a very serious mutiny, and that it was intended to be temporary. He seems to have overlooked the fact that it has been on the Statute Book for 130 years, and therefore successive Governments have found that it was necessary. Further we, who keep a very small Army in comparison with our very great Imperial responsibilities, have the more need for that Army to be absolutely trustworthy and loyal. I sincerely hope the House will not accept this Measure, even though introduced in such honied terms.
Question put,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Incitement to Mutiny Act of 1797."
The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 272.

Division No. 435.]

AYES.

[4.25 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Hardle, George D.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Ammon, Charles George

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hayday, Arthur

Sitch, Charles H.

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hayes, John Henry

Smillie, Robert

Baker, Walter

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Barr, J.

Hirst, G. H.

Snell, Harry

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Stamford, T. W.

Broad, F. A.

John, William (Rhondda, West

Stephen, Campbell

Bromley, J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sutton, J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Taylor, R. A.

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

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

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, T.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Clowes, S.

Kirk wood, D.

Thurtle, E.

Cluse, W. S.

Lansbury, George

Tinker, John Joseph

Connolly, M.

Lowth, T.

Townend, A. E.

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, William

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Mackinder, W.

Varley, Frank B.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

MacLaren, Andrew

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Day, Colonel Harry

March, S.

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Dennison, R.

Montague, Frederick

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Duncan, C.

Murnin, H.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Dunnico, H.

Naylor, T. E.

Weir, L. M.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Palin, John Henry

Westwood, J.

Gillett, George M.

Paling, W.

Whiteley, W.

Gosling, Harry

Potts, John S.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Purcell, A. A.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenall, T.

Riley, Ben

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Ritson, J.

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wright, W.

Groves, T.

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grundy, T. W.

Rose, Frank H.

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

Scurr, John

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

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

Sexton, James

Warne.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tyavil)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Albery, Irving James

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. s.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Atholl, Duchess of

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streathan)

Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gee, Captain R.

Montell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Goff, Sir Park

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Gower, Sir Robert

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Grant, J. A.

Murchison, C. K.

Berry, Sir George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Bethell, A.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

Betterton, Henry B.

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Gretton, Colonel John

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Blundell, F. N.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nuttall, Ellis

Brass, Captain W.

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

Oakley, T.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Hall, Vice Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hammersley, S. S.

Ormsby Gore. Hon. William

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hanbury, C.

Owen, Major G.

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pease, William Edwin

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Penny, Frederick George

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Perring, William George

Buckingham. Sir H.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Haslam, Henry C.

Peto, G. (Somerset. Frome)

Bullock, Captain M.

Hawke, John Anthony

Philipson, Mabel

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Pilcher, G.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Asshetos

Caine, Gordon Hall

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Preston, William

Campbell, E. T.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Radford, E. A.

Cazalet Captain Victor A.

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Raine, W.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hilton, Cecil

Ramsden, E.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir O. (St. Marylebone)

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Chapman, Sir S.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Remnant, Sir James

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Holland, Sir Arthur

Rice, Sir Frederick

Christle, J. A.

Homan, C. W. J.

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Churchman Sir Arthur C.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Clarry, Reginald George

Hopkins. J. W. W.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hopkinson. A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Salmon, Major I.

Conway Sir W Martin

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cooper, A. Duff

Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Cope, Major William

Huntingfield, Lord

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Couper, J. B.

Hurd, Percy A.

Sandon, Lord

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Savery, S. S.

Courthope Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Crook, C. W.

James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Jephcott, A. R.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Skelton, A. N.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Smithers, Waldron

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Lamp, J. Q.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Dixey, A C.

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)

Drewe, C.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Duckworth, John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Loder, J. de V.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Looker, Herbert William

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Elveden, viscount

Lougher, L.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

England, Colonel A.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murrey Fraser

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Lumley. L. R.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Everard, W. Lindsay

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Tinne, J. A.

Falle Sir Bertram G.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Macintyre, Ian

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Fielden, E. B.

McLean, Major A.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Finburgh, S.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Fleming. D. P

Malone, Major P. B

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Margesson, Captain D.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Forrest, W

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Fraser, Captain Ian

Meyer, Sir Frank

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Watts, Dr. T.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Wells, S. R.

2248

2249

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Wise, Sir Fredric

Wragg, Herbert

Wiggins, William Martin

Wolmer, Viscount

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Womersley, W. J.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

TELLERS FOB THF NOES.—

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Captain Bourne and Major Colfox.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to persons carrying on business as moneylenders." [Moneylenders Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Before the President of the Board of Trade moves the first Resolution which stands in his name, would it be for the convenience of the Committee, Mr. Hope, if you indicated the course you propose to adopt in the discussion of these Resolutions? Do you propose to allow a general discussion now upon the Motion? I think that would be the best course.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I raise a further point of Order, which I think comes before that raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). Am I to understand that these Resolutions will be formed into a Finance Bill? If so, is there any precedent for Resolutions which are to be formed into a Finance Bill being put in charge, in Committee of Ways and Means, of any Minister other than a representative of the Treasury?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter in regard to which I have searched precedents. I should imagine that in former days when it was customary to have a Customs Bill and an Inland Revenue Bill, such a precedent would be found. I see nothing in the procedure that is out of order.
  Captain BENN: We follow practice here as well as Standing Orders. May I ask whether you rule that it is possible for a Finance Bill in Committee of Ways and Means to be set up, not only in charge of a Minister representing a Department other than the Treasury, but without a single representative of the Treasury being present?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have nothing but the Resolutions before me. I do not know what will be the Title of the Bill when it is brought in. It may not be a Finance Bill at all.
  Captain BENN: In the event of its being a Finance Bill, will it have to be backed by representatives of the Treasury?
  The CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be entirely hypothetical. I do not know whether it will be a Finance Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), may I be permitted to enforce the suggestion which has come from him as to the desirability of having a full and general discussion? I would suggest that the general discussion could come very well on the first Amendment on the Paper, which stands in my name and the names of other hon. Members: in line 1, to leave out all the words from ''That" to the end, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "Before any import duty is charged on the following articles: —

  Knives with one or more blades made wholly or partly of steel or iron, other than surgical knives, or knives for use in machines;

  Scissors, including tailors shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel or iron;

  Safety razors and component parts thereof;

  Razors, other than safety razors;

  Carving forks;

  Knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel;

  Handles, blades, or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles;

  a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the necessity for an import duty, and report thereon; and that the said Committee have power to call evidence from interested parties, including consumers, and have powers to call for papers and persons."
  That Amendment raises the whole general issue. I trust it will be possible within the rules of Order to have a general discussion. It would be impossible to raise the real issues that divide those who take different views upon this matter by discussing a series of sectional Amendments which only raise segments of the general issue. Would it not be desirable to have a full discussion and a general discussion at once? I suggest that that might come on the first Amendment.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask whether any general discussion on the general principle of the application of Safeguarding Duties can take place today, in view of the fact that the general principle of the application of Safeguarding Duties has been fully discussed and

  2269
  decided by this House during the present Session, namely, when the Lace Duty Resolutions were discussed?
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the last point, in regard to the Lace Duties, I imagine that the Committee, and subsequently the House, decided nothing more than that there should be a duty place. That does not prevent us discussing to-day the general question raised by these Resolutions. In regard to the point raised by the right hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I thought it conceivable that such a request might be made, and I have made a little research into precedents. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that such a discussion should take place but, of course, a general discussion could only take place once. If we allow a general discussion on the first Resolution, the same discussion cannot be renewed on every Resolution. In the subsequent cases the Resolution and the consequent Amendments must be discussed in reference only to the specific subjects of the proposed taxation. If it is for the general convenience of the Committee to have a full discussion now, I should be prepared to allow a general discussion, not only on the first class of duties proposed, but on the principle involved in connection with the first Amendment which I should call, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), in line 1, to leave out the words "during the period of five years "and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of 12 months."
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to understand that you will allow a general discussion before you call the first Amendment, after the President of the Board of Trade has made his Motion?
  The CHAIRMAN: On the first Amendment.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Would it not be much better that we should have a general discussion upon the Motion, before any Amendment be moved? I see no reason why a particular Amendment should be put before the Committee, when we have an opportunity of a general discussion upon the Motion itself.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is a practical inconvenience in that course, because an Amendment may be moved at any moment from either side of the House, and the effect of that would be immediately to limit the discussion. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to have a general discussion on the first Amendment.
  Mr. AMMON: With regard to the selection of the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), I assume that you rule out the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? May I then ask what are the grounds or the precedents on which you propose to select the Amendment before the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), in line 1, to leave out the words "five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "eighteen months," which is first on the Paper, as it merely substitutes "for" for "during."
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot admit the Amendment standing in the name of the light hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for two reasons. First of all, it is against the practice of this House to allow reasoned Amendments in Committee of Ways and Means; and, in the second place, it proposes the appointment of a Select Committee. The appointment of a Select Committee is a matter for the House and not for Committee of Ways and Means. In regard to the latter point raised by the hon. Member, the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), which comes second on the Paper, will allow of a general discussion.
  Mr. AMMON: May I ask on what ground the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury will not be taken first?
  The CHAIRMAN: Because it comes at a later point in the Resolution.
  Mr. BASIL PETO: You have ruled that there can only be one general discussion allowed. Does your ruling apply only to the Debate in Committee of Ways and Means? Will a second general

  2271
  discussion on exactly the same lines be allowed on the Finance Bill, if the Finance Bill conies before the House?
  The CHAIRMAN: We have to pass Resolutions in Ways and Means before we can get the Bill. Whether it is to be a Finance Bill or not I cannot say. Obviously, what kind of discussion will be allowed will be a matter for Mr. Speaker.
  Captain BENN: On your ruling that the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is out of Order, has your attention been directed to the fact that this is the first time for 60 years that the taxation of the year has been broken up into a separate Bill and the principle of the Budget abolished? Did your researches into the question, on which you have based your ruling that a reasoned Amendment is not permissible in Committee of Ways and Means, cover the period antecedent to 1860, which is the last period when this sort of thing was done?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to say whether the hon. and gallant Member is right or wrong in his history, but I think that if he will take his researches into the 'eighties he will find a precedent. In any case, the principle is fairly established—if he will direct his attention to the relevant page in Erskine May he will find it there set down—that a reasoned Amendment cannot be moved to a Ways and Means Resolution.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I understood you, Sir, to say that a general discussion could only take place by general agreement of the Committee. There could be no agreement on this side, and I therefore respectfully submit to you that for many reasons we should have a general discussion on the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman and then take the Amendments themselves.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is quite true I can only allow an extension of the Debate on the Amendment by general consent. That is true, but otherwise, if I am compelled to go on the strict course laid down on the Order Paper, the Amendment would have to be taken first and discussion confined to the particular point at
  2272
  issue, and then, when the Resolution is put, we should have a general discussion. If the Committee does not agree, that is the only course I can take. Unless it is agreed as I propose, I should call the first Amendment which is in order, and then the discussion would have to be confined to that Amendment.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In reference to your ruling regarding the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), have you in mind the precedent of 1909? I think I can refer you to the exact date. You probably have a more intimate knowledge of that precedent than any other Member, since it was an Amendment of your own on the Budget of 1909. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield moved to introduce words into the Resolution taken in Committee of Ways and Means which would have altered the whole nature of the Resolution, turning it into a series of preference Resolutions. That was an entirely new departure and, I believe, since 1860 them has been no precedent for any such thing. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield argued then with great skill that the matter was in order, and, ultimately, the decision was given by the Chair in favour of the view held by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. That was not to be wondered at, since he had had some practice in this matter. That was on the 24th May, and on the 10th May he found himself in conflict with the views not only of the Chair but of some of the most prominent members of his own party. He was then dealing with the Beer Resolution, and he moved an Amendment which he said ha had moved with the object of increasing the accuracy and precision of the Resolution and leading to accurate and precise definition, and in both of those cases the ground which was given by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield was, that although that was a new departure, it was open to the Committee of Ways and Means to embark on a new departure by way of an Amendment to the wording. I submit that the Resolution which is down on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is of the same nature as that with which you were very closely connected in 1909, and I ask that the latitude which was granted by the Chair then should be granted now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am flattered that my efforts for classification and precision in former days should have gained the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, bur. I do not gather that my Amendment was either a reasoned Amendment or involved the appointment of a Select Committee. If there was, I am afraid I should have to take the view that Mr. Emmott, the then Chairman, was wrong in admitting it.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move,
  CUTLERY.
  That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of Customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:—
  Knives with one or more blades made wholly or partly of steel or iron, other than surgical knives, or knives for use in machines;
  Scissors, including tailors' shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel or iron;
  Safety razors and component parts thereof;
  Razors, other than safety razors;
  Carving forks;
  Knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel;
  Handles, blades, or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles.
  In moving the first Resolution which stands on the Paper I propose to confine myself strictly to matters which are relevant to that proposal. This House on more than one occasion has discussed both the policy of safeguarding and the procedure by which that policy is to be carried out, a procedure which is being followed on the present occasion, and after more than one exhaustive Debate, the House has resolved by no small majority to support both the policy and the procedure. Therefore, on the present occasion I propose to do what I think is the only relevant thing, that is, to examine, in the light of the Report which has been made, whether in the particular circumstances of this case a duty ought to be put on, and whether the rate of duty proposed is in the circumstances a reasonable one. Therefore, I propose to go straight to the Report of the Committee.
  I should like in doing so, both as regards this Report and the others, to express again the thanks of the Government to the members of the Committees. Whether Members agree or do not agree as to the way the Committee's findings should be carried out, I think every Member will agree they were most careful, painstaking, exhaustive and clear inquiries. The first point to which this Committee directed their attention was the question whether the cutlery industry was an important industry. As to that, I do not think there is any dispute. Before the War it was employing between 11,000 and 12,000 people, as is to be found in paragraph 8 of the Report, They then go on to consider the next relevant question, and that is the course and rate of imports. They set out tables showing what the rate of those imports is. From those tables it will be seen that, whether you take values or whether you take volume, there has been an enormous increase in imports since 1913, that the rate has been going on increasing, and that in 1925 the rate had exceeded the rate of imports in the year 1924. Therefore, the Committee find as a fact—whether you take value, which is the more conservative estimate and the one which the Committee say they preferred to take in order to be well on the safe side—or whether you take volume, they find as a fact, as is plain from the evidence, that the rates of importation are abnormal.
  They then go on to consider whether competition is at prices with which the industry in this country cannot compete, and they find, as will be seen from paragraph 16 of their Report, that the prices at which the competing articles are being sold are in many cases between 7 and 75 per cent. below the British cost of manufacture. Having found that, they then go on to consider a matter germane to it, namely, whether the articles being imported are articles which are competing with the British production. It was alleged on behalf of the opponents—who argued their case at great length and brought forward every argument which could be brought forward—that the importation was not really of a competing character. The Committee dealt with that, and they find as a fact that the importation is of a competing kind and that, article for

  2275
  article, it does in fact compete, and, what is an actual test, that people going into shops to buy these articles buy one or the other. That is the most effective test of whether or not they do compete. The Committee say, in paragraph 18:
  "We are satisfied that, whatever difference there may be in the qualities of the steel or in general durability, the articles have the same appearance and finish, and, from the point of view of the ordinary purchaser, they are equivalent and one is substituted for the other."
  In paragraph 20 they say:
  "We are of opinion that the classes of goods referred to in our recommendation below, imported from Germany, are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices which are below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom."
  They then go on to consider what has been and is being the effect of this com petition upon employment in the industry, and the Committee will see set out in paragraph 21 of the Report a table showing, both in numbers and in hours of work, what was the employment in 1913 and in subsequent years after the War, ending with the year 1924.
  Captain BENN: Is that an official statement, or is it an ex-parte statement?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it is the finding of the Committee, and I do not think these figures are substantially challenged by anybody. I do not expect that even the hon. and gallant Gentleman would suggest that the cutlery industry-was not suffering severely from unemployment. If he does, he will find himself in conflict with every trade unionist in the industry and the trade unions have given evidence of it. The Committee's findings will be observed on page 9. I am reading from the Report of the Committee, and am giving their findings.
  "Taking into account the reduction in hours, the net reduction in employment between 1913 and 1924 shown by the above figures is 42 per cent."
  That shows the seriousness of the unemployment. They then go on to refer to the evidence given by witnesses from the trade unions which were concerned in this industry.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Why could not we have that evidence?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The evidence was given to the Committee, and in this matter I am following the precedent of previous Governments.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Why cannot we have that evidence? I submit that the Minister has no right to give evidence in this House when we cannot corroborate as to whether that evidence has been given or not.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On that point I say I am not quoting from the evidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] No, I am not. I am quoting from the Report. I have already stated that what I said I would lay in this House were these Reports.
  Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. The light hon. Gentleman has stated that the trade unions have given evidence, and I submit he has no right to say they have without this House knowing what was that evidence.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I read from the Report, as the hon. Gentleman docs not like my own words?
  The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order which can arise there. It may be a matter for criticism, well-founded or not, when the right hon. Gentleman made certain statements, but I see no point of Order involved.
  Mr. MACKINDER: On another point of Order. Is the Minister entitled to make statements that certain evidence has been given when this House has no opportunity of finding out whether that evidence has or has not been given? Can the Minister make any statement he likes regarding the evidence given when this House has no opportunity whatever of testing whether that evidence has been given?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of criticism, not of Order.
  Mr. STEPHEN: If the Minister quotes from document, is the House not entitled to ask that the document should be laid?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is quite a different matter. That is so. If he quotes from a document, the document must be laid, but I do not understand that he has been quoting from a document.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: The only document from which I have quoted is the White Paper, which I have laid on the Table. I will read the relevant passages. It is true that this Inquiry, like all inquiries, was held in public, except when there was given evidence of a confidential character, which in the opinion of the Committee would have been seriously prejudicial to the industry if it had been given publicly.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Why cannot we have that evidence?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be more convenient if this Debate were conducted by the process of one speech succeeding another. Let me quote the Report. The Committee say:
  "We received valuable evidence on the subject of employment from the witnesses from trade unions;"
  and they go on:
  "The percentage unemployed in the four cutlery unions is 40 per cent. as compared with 5 per cent. before the War."
  They take another test, which seems to me to be relevant. As hon. Members know, this is an industry in which there has always been a great deal of apprenticeship. Men have gone in and learned the skilled processes of the industry, generation after generation of a family learning the work. There used to be a recognised rate of apprenticeship. Now that rate has fallen enormously. It is not considered that the industry affords a good enough opportunity for the apprenticeship to be continued. The Committee say, in paragraph 23:
  "We are satisfied that the acuteness of the present unemployment is directly due to the competition which we have found to exist."
  Mr. MACLAREN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Committee were discussing the question of competition, the relative taxation levied in each country was taken into review?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It was taken into review where the question was raised. I am not sure whether it was raised before this Committee, but the hon. Member will see that in one Committee, at any rate, the question of relative taxation is mentioned. I do not think there is any mention of it in this
  2278
  Committee, but the hon. Member will find in a Report of another Committee, dealing also with Germany, I believe, that comment is made upon the lower rate of taxation. I do not think there is any finding of fact on this.
  Mr. HARDIE: An emphatic statement has been made about competition and apprenticeship. Did this Committee consider the fact that in one trade where we have no competition the building trade, we have a greater lack of apprentices to-day than in any other trade?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no reason to suppose that they are unwilling to take on apprentices in the cutlery trade. I think we shall probably discuss this subject better if we do not turn to parallels with other trades, which really are not relevant to the subject under consideration.
  Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but you know that my statement is true.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am quite content to rest myself on the direct evidence of this Committee, which contained a trade union representative among its members. The Committee considered the comparative wages and hours in this country and in Germany, and they deal with the subject in paragraphs 25 to 29 of the Report. Their finding comes to this—that in Germany the wages are 10|d. an hour for a week of 54 hours, whereas in Sheffield the wages vary from 1s. 1½d. to 1s. 6d. an hour for a week of 47 hours. They then say in paragraph 30:
  "On the evidence before us as to the lower hourly wages and the longer working week in Germany, as compared with this country, we are of opinion that the conditions in Germany are so different as to render the competition unfair."
  They then proceed to deal with the desirability of bringing this industry under the Merchandise Marks Act, with which it would not be relevant for me to deal at the present time. The Committee then take another point, with regard to German competition, and mention it in paragraph 33. They draw attention to the fact that many German factories have been able to re-equip themselves with capital paid off in depreciated marks, and, therefore, although the German currency is to-day stabilised, yet there remains the advantage to the competing German industry that German manufacturers

  2279
  have their factories fully equipped and have been able in depreciated marks to write off capital costs and to start again with lower overhead charges. [An HON. MEMBER: "Capital levy!"] It was not a result of a capital levy. It was a result of the extreme inflation. The Committee go on to deal with the question whether the industry in this country is efficient, and they find as a fact that it is efficient. They say in paragraph 36:
  "From the evidence that was submitted to us it is clear that Sheffield cutlery manufacturers are desirous of bringing their factories up to date in every possible respect; "
  and they add:
  "but they must be in a position to attract capital in order to do so."
  I want to give them a chance in every case of coining up to date. That, of course, is the difference between myself and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Committee say that not only do they think the British industry reasonably efficient, but they add that, although suffering from all these handicaps and difficulties, they have taken an active part in the prosecution of research and have earned the commendation of the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The Committee find, as a matter of fact, in paragraph 40—
  "We are satisfied, after a careful review of all the evidence on this point, that the applicant industry is being carried on with reasonable efficiency and economy."
  They then found that there could be no damage, by the imposition of this duty, to any other industry which uses these cutlery products. On this point, the inquiry appears to have reduced itself in the last resort to a question of whether people who use shoe knives would be prejudiced by this duty. On that the Committee say that they have no hesitation in answering the question in the negative. They, therefore, proceed to recommend the imposition of a duty upon the articles which are set out in paragraph 43 of the Report. Those articles are included in the Resolution which I have moved. I submit that the Report of the Committee justifies the Resolution. I am not going to traverse the ground which we covered in the earlier Debates on the general principle. I will add only this with regard to pledges. A perfectly positive pledge was given that this Government would not
  2280
  introduce a general tariff. We are not going to do so. But an equally positive pledge was given that we were going to safeguard industry, and the only breach of pledge that the Prime Minister and his colleagues and our party could be charged with would be if we were guilty of a breach of the pledge not to do the positive thing which we promised to do.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: As we are about to begin a discussion on the Safeguarding of Industries Duties as a whole, when shall we have an opportunity to discuss the Cutlery Duty by itself? The Resolution before us relates to duties on cutlery. A speech has been made by the right hon. Gentleman which it is not convenient to answer in a general discussion. It would assist us to know on what specific Amendment we can concentrate on cutlery alone?
  The CHAIRMAN: The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman will find a good deal to say on the Amendment to leave out "33⅓" and to insert "5." Of course, if the present discussion takes largely a purely cutlery aspect, it will follow that the discussion on a later Amendment might be liable to be shortened.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The difficulty that the Committee finds itself in is that the Minister has made his speech purely on the subject of cutlery. Are we to understand that when we come, say, to gloves, that he will make a speech on gloves? When we reach gas mantles, are we to have another speech on that subject, and still another speech on paper when that subject is reached? Will it not be open to the rest of the Committee to enter on a general discussion on each one of those subjects? May I ask for a ruling before I move an Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know what speech the Minister will make on gloves. Of course, it is open to him to make a speech upon gloves, and in that case some time will be required for Debate on the subject.
  Mr. HANNON: Would it not be convenient for the Minister to make a statement on each of these Resolutions?
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot compel the Minister to make a speech. He can make such statements as he thinks fit.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Was it not understood that there was to be a general discussion on safeguarding? How is it possible to have a general discussion in reply to the Minister's speech on the particular?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will put forward his views upon safeguarding on cutlery or gloves, and the Minister will reply if he thinks a reply necessary.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "during a period of five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of twelve months."
  I have no wish whatever to restrict the area of discussion. When we come to each of these specific Resolutions, the Committee should have a full opportunity of dealing with each one separately. Anything that I say now I hope will not be thought to preclude anyone else from dealing with the subject of gloves, or paper, or gas mantles, as the case may be. In that case I join with the hon. Gentleman opposite in suggesting that it is to our convenience that we should have some statement from the Minister on each one of these subjects as it arises. As you, Sir, have given us the right to discuss the general question of safeguarding, the first subject to which I wish to address myself is the method by which these Reports are produced and the procedure which has led up to the introduction of these Resolutions. The old safeguarding scheme was not as simple as this and was more formal. This has the advantage of great informality. The committees set up by the right hon. Gentleman are not responsible to the House of Commons, which is the ultimate taxing authority. It is not the Board of Trade which is the taxing authority, but the House of Commons, and yet these committees are creatures of the Board of Trade and not of the House of Commons. We know nothing whatever about their appointment until a paragraph appears in the newspapers saying they have been selected by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I do not wish to suggest that my right hon. Friend makes his selection improperly and I am not going
  2282
  to criticise the ladies and gentlemen who sit on these committees, but my right hon. Friend is a convinced Protectionist and he, naturally, when selecting three persons to sit on a committee, takes good care that the committee is not weighted heavily on the Free Trade side. He has on one or two of these committees appointed a single Free Trader. I am not making any complaint of that; it is exactly what we might expect from such a convinced and sincere Protectionist as the President of the Board of Trade, but the procedure is peculiar. There is no precedent for it as far as I know in the whole history of British taxation.
  The conditions under which the committees are to operate and report were set out in the White Paper which has been circulated, and the various tests to be applied to these industries appear in the instructions to the committees. The first condition is as to whether the applicant industry is of substantial importance. As far as I know there has never been any definition of what is meant by "substantial importance." It has been said, I do not know with what truth, that the President of the Board of Trade regards an industry as substantial, if it has more than 5,000 employés. It would be interesting for this Committee to know whether that is actually the right hon. Gentleman's ruling, and indeed I go further and say this Committee has a right to know what is his ruling. What is meant by "substantial"? Has he defined substantial as applying to an industry which has not less than 5,000 employés and, if so, what justification is there for the figure of 5,000? The right hon. Gentleman has thrown no light upon that matter either in any answer to a question or in the previous discussion. The next thing is that the committee has to satisfy itself that the goods are imported in abnormal quantities. Again, there is no definition from the Board of Trade of "abnormal," and the committees themselves do not agree as to what is abnormal. If that condition is to be complied with, surely the Board of Trade should let us know what is their test of abnormality. The next test is whether these goods made abroad and imported into this country are brought here and sold at prices at which similar goods cannot be manufactured in this country. That depends very largely,

  2283
  not on the economic conditions of the two countries, but on the efficiency of the firms engaged in the industry.
  Before I resume my seat I shall have a word to say about the financial provision which has been made by the cutlery firms in Sheffield to meet competition from abroad—financial provision made during the last twelve years. That is another important factor, as the President of the Board of Trade has just stated, in the competitive power of the Sheffield industry against foreign competitors. Then comes the question of severity of unemployment. On that point there is much more general agreement, but whether the severity of that unemployment is due to foreign competition or not is again left to the discretion of the committees with varying standards and, as far as we know, with no guidance whatever from the Board of Trade. Then we come to the question, what is unfair competition? Now, the trouble about unfair competition is that there is such a variety of definitions. A committee was asked to say that competition was unfair if advantage was gained by the foreign manufacturer or importer owing to the depreciation of currency, owing to subsidies or bounties being granted in the competing country, or owing to inferior conditions of employment of labour. Again, the definitions in each one of these cases is left entirely to the committees or to the Board of Trade. The committees are not answerable to the House of Commons, but the President of the Board of Trade is, and I suggest that he should give us a clear definition, before we proceed further with these duties, as to what is meant by "abnormality," "unfairness," and "inferior conditions," every one of these matters having a direct bearing upon the duties which are to be imposed by these resolutions. I believe the Prime Minister regarded unfair competition or abnormal imports as competition or imports which are grave, exceptional and unprecedented. Other conditions which have to be complied with if the applicant industry is to receive the support of an import duty, are set out at due length, and each one of them is examined by the committees in their various reports, according to varying standards.
  2284
  I take the cutlery case first. Let us consider the first condition which has to be applied. Is the trade of substantial importance? The committee have decided that it is, and I am not disposed to challenge that decision. We could not do without the cutlery industry, and certainly the number of people employed in it exceeds the standard which the President of the Board of Trade appears to have set up, namely, 5,000. The next condition is whether the foreign goods imported are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices below the prices at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom. The trouble about the cutlery trade is that the committee as well as the applicant industry have been attempting to compare things which are not similar. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to razors. There is very grave unemployment in that branch of the cutlery industry which devotes itself to the ordinary straightforward hollow-ground razor, and the reason why there is unemployment is not due to foreign competition, but is due to a change in the habits of the people and —except for the great impetus given to the hollow-ground razor industry during the war, when these razors were in large demand—the present depression is entirely due to the fact that the general public have taken to the use of safety razors, and safety razors are now used so largely that it is hardly likely there will ever be any revival in the hollow-ground razor industry with or without a duty. If we turn from the hollow-ground razor to the safety razor what did the Committee find? They did not find that safety razors which were made abroad and imported into this country were sold at lower prices than those made in England. Not at all. They found that the Gillette razor, which apparently has a larger sale than any other imported razor, is actually sold at more than the ordinary English safety razor, and the reason why it has succeeded in gaining its market is that on the whole at its price it is a better article. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is an English safety razor blade which is

  2285
  every bit as good as the Gillette blade, sold at the same price.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: And is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that that safety razor company was not one of the applicant companies? Moreover, that company has not anything like the degree of unemployment that is to be found in many other industries. The truth is that the reason why a safety razor sells well in this country is because it is a good article. It does not matter whether it is made abroad or made here. If it is good, the public will buy it. I observe that in discussing the safety-razor question the Committee appeared to overlook the fact —it certainly did not report on the fact— that the steel from which the Gillette blade is made is Sheffield steel. Why was that evidence not admitted before the Committee? Why was the Committee not allowed to take that into account when drawing up its Report? That is only one instance of many of the exclusion from the Committee of interests which have a right to be heard. The rules under which these Committees have been operating have been drawn so narrowly that neither the supplying companies nor the consumers have any chance of being heard.
  Let me say a word with regard to the consumer—and this applies to everyone of the categories covered by these Resolutions. It is said that interested parties may appear and "interested parties," according to the Board of Trade, are those who make and sell these commodities of various kinds in this country or they may be importing firms into this country or they may be those who use these various commodities in processes of manufacture. But one class which is universally excluded is the class of people who use these commodities in their ordinary daily lives. They are cut out altogether. The user of the razor is not allowed to appear before the Committee —he is supposed to have no status. The wearer of the gloves is not allowed to appear, the shoemaker who has to use some of the commodities covered by this Report is not allowed to appear, the ordinary householder who will be affected by a rise in the price of these various details of household equipment is not allowed to appear. If this is the way
  2286
  in which the Committees are to be conducted, it means there is only one body which has any opportunity whatever of placing the consumers' case before the House of Commons and that is the Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and it is our duty to press on the Government the fact that the chief sufferer from these duties will be the general consumer. They will all have their cumulative effect and even if they do not affect directly some trade in which these commodities can be called raw material, they will every one, no matter how you may draw the rule, fall with more or less heaviness upon the general consuming classes of the country.
  I have taken the safety razor as an example of the way in which Sheffield trade has suffered, quite independent of foreign tariffs, of depreciated currency or of unfair conditions whatever they may be. Now let me turn to one or two of the conditions which the committee regard as sufficient to justify their recommendations. They point out that, as far as unfair competition is concerned, there was no claim made under sub-heading A relating to depreciation of currency—for the obvious reason that the value of the mark is now stabilised. That point has gone by the board and the same remark applies to everyone of these reports. German competition is not now regarded by the Board of Trade as being a serious matter owing to depreciated currency. That has gone, but there are certain advantages which Germany is said to possess over this country. What are they? Preferential railway rates for ox-port of goods. Well, there are preferential railway rates in this country, as the President of the Board of Trade knows. There have been preferential railway rates in this country with regard to imported commodities and that has been a cause of complaint for many years past, especially in the Eastern Counties. What else is there? The remission of the turnover tax of 2½ per cent. on goods exported is said to be giving an unfair advantage to German commodities and the difference in social insurance payable by the employer between the two countries is said to be not less than 10d. per man per week. I do not know how that figure was arrived at, but if you put everyone of these in, the preferential railway rates, the 2½ per cent. on goods exported and

  2287
  the 10d. per man per week difference in insurance cost between Germany and there will remain another difference in the cost of manufacture between Germany and this country of far more importance than all these three added together. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that working capital in Germany to-day for industrial concerns cannot be obtained for less than 12 per cent. to 15 per cent., which more than counterbalances the whole of these trivial little items which are supposed, by their cumulative effect, to define unfair competition.
  Now we come to the question of wages. There was no evidence given before the Committee, so far as I know, of what wages were in Solingen, the Sheffield of Germany. Yet without this evidence, the Committee sends in a Report which is accepted by the President of the Board of Trade without any demur, and all that the Committee says is:
  "Although it was suggested by the opponents that the metal workers' wages were not applicable, they were unable to help us as to the wages in Solingen."
  There is a very good reason for that. By the procedure by which these Committees sit an applicant industry has months in which to prepare its case, but the other interests may have anything from 10 days to a fortnight. Then, when they came to the end of the discussion before this Committee, the President of the Board of Trade was driving the spur into the Chairman and the clerks to hurry up their Report, and that was the reason why the opponents did not give as much information as the Committee required, and should have had, before they entered judgment.
  The next thing that is apparent from this Report is that, just as the case of wages has not been proved, for no evidence was laid before it, the Committee itself has come rapidly to the view that the reason why the Sheffield trade is not prospering as well as the Solingen industries is that Germany is so much better organised to supply the demand than is Sheffield. The remedy for bad organisation is good organisation, it is not an import duty, and if the President is going to depend upon an import duty for the better organisation of the industry, I would like to know how. He has
  2288
  given us a hint this afternoon. He says that these duties will enable the Sheffield industries to obtain their capital abundantly and cheaply. I dare say there may be an impetus given, to those who imagine that these duties will be permanent, to put more of their capital into the industry, but why should they not have done so before? During the War they had the advantage of War profits—the Excess Profits Duty did not take away all their wealth—and as we look at the Report we find a very remarkable fact.
  We find that during the 12 years, 1913–24, these very applicant industries which are now asking for this artificial assistance devoted to capital expenditure upon new buildings and new plant—I am now leaving out of account war plant—only £65,000; that is to say, an average of £2,950 per firm or about £250 per firm per annum. The President and the Parliamentary Secretary have had some business experience. Would either of them get up and say that during this time of heavy depression, when improved processes were of first necessity for an efficient industry, to apply in these works only £250 per annum on new capital was anything like preparing for a rainy day? No wonder they are not well organised to meet German competition. They have not made the necessary capital expenditure to improve their machinery, to get their processes brought up to date; they have been taking the whole of the profit out of their industries without putting anything like enough capital back into them.
  The imported goods of which complaint is made are not comparable to the Sheffield articles. The reason why Sheffield has held its own in competition against the whole world is that the Sheffield articles, on the whole—there are exceptions—are better than are produced anywhere else, and these imported articles, which are sold, say, in the Wool-worth Stores at 6d., the cheap scissors, the cheap manicure sets, the cheap knives, are the articles which are said to be filching away the Sheffield trade. The Sheffield trade requires a good deal more advertisement than it has been getting recently. They ought to make known the virtues of high class steel. They had far better spend their money on advertising the higher quality of their goods than in

  2289
  getting together evidence for this sort of case to put before a Board of Trade Committee. These incomparable competitive articles show a difference in price which no import duty could possibly bridge. Some schedules were put before the Committee, I am informed, to show that the difference between the price of the German articles which came in and those manufactured in Sheffield sometimes worked out at as much as 250 per cent. to 300 per cent. The President of the Board of Trade dare not come down to this House to ask for a 300 per cent. duty. He knows that even his own party would not tolerate it.
  You cannot bridge this gap by an import duty when you are dealing with goods of an entirely different nature, and the reason why the Germans sell their goods here is due to the fact that they have satisfied the demand for a cheap and nasty article. They have got their business, and if we want to beat them we must do it with a better article. If the general public demand is to continue for these cheaper articles, our works must adapt themselves to the needs and demands of the general public, who should not be put in the position of having to pay more for the better articles which are made in Sheffield. The truth of the matter is that in the whole of these inquiries the Board of Trade have had no guiding rule by which they could regulate the Committees. They have had a general aspiration, such as was announced by my right hon. Friend just before he sat down, to fulfil an election pledge, a pledge of the vaguest character. It is now being operated in such a way as to touch a great variety of industries; the general consumer is suffering thereby; the machinery is so bad that this House has not complete control over it, and on these grounds I hope the House will hesitate long before it authorises the President of the Board of Trade to take the place of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to impose burdens upon the people of this country which are not justified by the claims that are made.
  Mr. SN0WDEN: I think the Committee have a right to complain about the way in which this very important matter is being treated by the Government. Attention was called some time ago to the fact that these Resolutions which propose to impose taxation upon
  2290
  the people have been submitted to the House of Commons in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for such a proceeding as that. It is not treating the House of Commons with respect, it is treating the House of Commons with contempt, that there has not been during the whole of the Debate so far any representative of the Treasury on that bench. I do not know if the Prime Minister be engaged on important business elsewhere, but this is a matter in which the honour of the Prime Minister is very deeply involved. We have, in previous Debates upon this subject, challenged the Prime Minister to reconcile proposals of this character with his repeated pledges not by a back door or by a subterfuge to impose Protection during this Parliament, and we shall demand that the Prime Minister shall attend the House of Commons and give an answer to that challenge.
  An hon. Friend of mine interrupted the President of the Board of Trade during his speech and demanded the publication of the evidence upon which the Reports of these Committees profess to be based. It is a most extraordinary position that the House of Commons is expected to take this important step merely upon the words of two or three individuals unsupported by evidence. I see no reason why the President of the Board of Trade should refuse publication of the evidence taken before these Committees, so as to put it at the disposal of the House of Commons. The sittings were not held in camera, except upon occasions when the Committee decided that it was inadvisable that the public should be admitted, an ordinary course adopted by any Committee or Commission in such circumstances. There have been, it is true, very meagre reports in the Press, and, so far as one can gather from these Press reports, I am inclined to think that the reason why the President of the Board of Trade is determined to withhold this evidence from the House of Commons is that it certainly would not go to support the proposals he is now putting forward.
  I have never—and I am quite sure that every impartial person who has read and studied these Reports will agree with me—seen Reports where the conclusions are so little justified, even by

  2291
  the statements in the Reports themselves, as in each of these Reports. Why, every final recommendation is a non sequitur. I am afraid that I cannot be so generous as the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who has just sat down, in regard to the members of these Committees. They have been appointed by a Protectionist President of the Board of Trade, and I do not want to be discourteous, but the right hon. Gentleman has in every case taken good care to pack these Committees with persons who are well known to have Protectionist views. But even supposing that that were not the case, is the House of Commons going to abrogate its duties and responsibilities in the matter of changing the fiscal policy of this country to two or three individuals appointed by the Board of Trade? I have never read Reports which were such painful exhibitions of incompetence, of economic fallacies, and of ignorance of the rudimentary conditions of foreign trade.
  What is the genesis of these safeguarding of industries proposals? The Prime Minister, two or three General Elections back, appealed to the country for a mandate for Protection, and on that occasion, as on every other occasion when the issue of Protection has been directly submitted to the country, the country gave an overwhelming vote against it. The Prime Minister is convinced, he says, that Protection is necessary for dealing effectively with the problem of unemployment. Though the Prime Minister's panacea for unemployment was not accepted by the country, his interest in that panacea did not disappear, and he substituted, for the time being, for the full Protection programme, proposals for safeguarding industries. I think no tariff-monger in this House will disagree with me when I say that those proposals are put forward as a palliative for unemployment. Their purpose is to deal with unemployment, and, therefore, before the House of Commons extends the safeguarding of industries by means of tariffs any further, it is not only entitled, but it is its duty, to see how far the experiments which have already been made fulfil the expectations of the tariff-mongers, and increase trade, and reduce unemployment.
  2292
  The Minister of Health is not in his place. During the Recess he spoke in the North of England, and he made this statement—something of a platitude in tariff-mongering propaganda. He was entitled, he said, to point to the fact that wherever duties had been put on foreign imports, the results had been effective in increasing employment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite true!"] In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, I extend a challenge to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon). I defy either the Minister for Labour or the hon. Member to point to one single case where an import duty has increased the volume of employment or reduced unemployment. The hon. Member is so very fond—and he will excuse me for saying so—of putting questions to the Minister of Labour in regard to the volume of employment in certain trades. Last week the Minister replied to questions in regard to the number of insured persons, and the volume of employment in two industries which were protected by tariffs in the last Finance Bill—the motor trade and the lace trade.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), during the Debates on the lace duties, assuming the role of a prophet, said that in a very short time there would not be one unemployed lace-maker in Nottingham. I want to know what the hon. and gallant Baronet meant by that. Let us take the whole of our experience of the tariff. I need not deal with the McKenna Duties now, and the effect they have had in increasing the percentage of unemployment. [Laughter.] It appears that hon. Members were not present last week when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition dealt with the figures which had been supplied by the Minister, and, therefore, for their edification I will just refer to them. On the 27th July this year, that is the date when the duties were reimposed, or just about a month before that, there were 13,911 persons recorded at Employment Exchanges in connection with the motor trade, and up to the 26th October the number had risen to 15,200. But let me turn to the effect which the imposition of the duty has had upon unemployment. Again, the figures were supplied not a week ago by the Minister of Labour. A year ago, in July, 1924, there were 20,330

  2293
  insured workpeople in the lace trade. After these duties had been in operation for three months, on the 26th October, the number was 19,406. The number of unemployed on the 27th July was 3,812, and on the 26th October there was a slightly larger number, 3,893.
  Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether ho has the figures for the previous year when the duties were not in operation?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The duties are now in operation, and the percentage was 18·7 in July, 1925. [Interruption.] Hon. Members, I am sure, will take advantage of the opportunity to review the statement of the Minister of Labour. If hon. Members will consult the "Labour Gazette," they will find in a report from Nottingham last month these words:
  "Trade continues bad, with much unemployment and short time."
  The operatives employed in this industry have evidently noticed the rosy anticipations of tariff-mongers like the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, and the good times they might expect when these tariffs had been imposed, and therefore a few weeks ago they made application for an increase of wages. The employers would not listen to them, and the application was turned down. What effect has the imposition of these duties had upon the lace trade? Has it increased imports? I know the object of the tariff-mongers is to reduce foreign imports, and I can see that the operation of these duties on lace has had that result. They have nearly wiped out the imports from foreign nations. They have done something else. In the month of September last year, goods to the volume of £188,000 were imported. In September this year, the figure had fallen to £36,300. The hon. Member put a rather hoary question a question time this afternoon. He asked how much unemployment in this country was represented by certain imports from abroad. Let us take his test. Imports have fallen from £188,000 to £36,000. Therefore, there ought to have been, according to the theory of the hon. Member, a corresponding increase in employment, but, as a matter of fact, trade was bad and there was unemployment and short time.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the enormous imports of lace-during the two months previously?
  The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that two hon. Members must not stand on their feet at the same time.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Twelve months ago the imports amounted to £188,000, of which £168,000 were re-exports. What has been the effect? A reduction in imports from £188,000 to £36,000, but re-exports have fallen from £168,000 to £5,600. Therefore, we have lost at the rate of £2,000,000 a year in our re-export trade. What does that mean? It means an enormous increase of unemployment. The unemployment which must have been caused by the loss of this re-export trade must be colossal. Exactly the same thing is happening in the silk trades. There is more unemployment in the silk trades since these duties were imposed. In July, according to the official figures the state of unemployment was 6·2. In October it was 7·4. It has also had a very serious effect in reducing employment in other directions. I find, too, that in October of last year the value of the silk exported was £547,000. In October of this year that figure had fallen to £391,000 odd. These figures prove conclusively that the imposition of tariffs do not increase the volume of trade, that they have not. increased employment; that indeed they have had the very opposite effect. They have reduced the volume of trade, and they are fatal to the maintenance of employment. What has been proved in fact has long been known as a theory, and that is that we do not kill the trade of our foreign competitors by excluding their imports to this country. What happens is that they become stronger competitors in the neutral markets. That is the explanation of facts both in the lace and silk trades since the imposition of these duties. In these the volume of our exports has largely declined.
  Let us turn now to another aspect of the case. The President of the Board of Trade, very wisely, I think, confined himself in his speech to reading extracts from the Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "But not all!"] An hon. Friend behind me says he did not read them all. That

  2295
  is perfectly true. I am inclined to supplement the omissions of the President of the Board of Trade by reading one or two other paragraphs. I have gone through this Cutlery Report again and again, and I cannot find a single word in it about the Sheffield export trade. What we find in it is this, that whereas in 1924 the net imports amounted to £367,000, the exports amounted to more than £1,000,000. As a matter of fact, the Sheffield export trade at the present time is larger than its home trade, the value of goods retained is over three-quarters of a million pounds. If hon. Members have the Report of the Committee on Cutlery before them, I should like to go back a little, quote a few figures, and compare different years. The year 1921, as everyone knows, was quite an abnormal year. We get something like normal trade if we take the years 1922–3–4, which show better what are the present tendencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take 1913!"] I am not prepared to accept 1913 for the purpose of comparison. What we have to consider is what are the present tendencies. If we look at the figures it will be found that the value of the exports to the proportion retained in each of these years has been increasing. In 1922 the value was £1,400,000; in 1923 it was £1,776,000, and in 1924 it had risen to £1,755,000. The proportion of retained imports to approximate total output had fallen from 32·5 per cent. in 1922 to 20'9 per cent. in 1924. Can anyone doubt, in face of that, that our exports have increased? That is a very interesting and important point, especially in relation to the proposal to put on a uniform duty. I find that the value of foreign imports works out at 4s. 3d. per dozen articles whereas the British is valued at 14s. That appears to establish the fact that these are not competitive articles, but that they are entirely of a different class. It suggests that these superior articles are retained for home consumption.
  The President of the Board of Trade called attention to a sentence at the top of page 8, dealing with the wholesale price of the German article which, it is stated, varied from 7 per cent. to 75 per cent. below the cost of manufacture here. The Committee who report make that statement, and then they go on to recommend a uniform duty of 33⅓ per cent.
  2296
  Consider the difference in these percentages and the effect of a uniform duty! In the old days we used to hear about a scientific tariff. I should like to ask any member of the Committee what atom of science is there in a proposal like this? Where the margin is small, it is simply going to increase the profits of the manufacturers. In the case of a protective tariff being effective it is still a 75 per cent. margin, and it will leave those concerned subjected to the severity of foreign competition. If the Committee will turn to page 9, they will there find a table which deals with the approximate number of workpeople employed in the cutlery industry and the hours worked. I say again that this is limited, for the conditions are not merely abnormal, but they have been more abnormal. Take the years 1922–23–24. The number of workpeople have been increasing. The number in 1922 was 6,530; in 1923 it was 7,680; and in 1924 it was 7,697. It has this year gone up by 17. There is no indication at all that trade has declined. The evidence is otherwise, and in the right direction.
  Note the statement at the top of page 11, where it is said that among the minor advantages Germany is said to possess over this country, is included a, preferential railway rate for export goods said to amount to 1 per cent. of the value of the goods. I would ask any tariff reformer with an arithmetical turn of mind to work out what 1 per cent. preferential railway rate would mean in the price of, say, 1s. article? Yet this is a statement which is seriously introduced into the Report. Members of the Committee responsible for it expect that their report is going to be taken seriously. Such an exhibition of colossal ignorance one seldom sees. The President of the Board of Trade quoted again a sentence, and we understood that from the Minister of Labour there were no wages data in the German cutlery industry proper, so that comparisons could be made. On page 12, however, of the Report it is admitted that there is little difference in regard to the hours. In the middle of the Report we read that an Order of January, 1924, confirmed the general principle of the 8-hour day or the 48-hour week, but it introduced a number of provisions permitting the extension of hours, under certain conditions, of manual and non-manual workers up to 10 a week. It is much the same thing in

  2297
  this country. Therefore, in the circumstances there is no practical difference in the hours. At the bottom of page 12 reference is made to unfair competition. Then later we get some particulars to the effect that the Committee were impressed by the evidence given by the head of one of the largest manufacturing companies in Sheffield, who was chairman of a Cutlery Mission which investigated German cutlery factories in 1919. That Mission reported that
  "Machinery is used to a greater extern than in Sheffield, and the process of manufacture is very much sub-divided. All laborious work is eliminated where possible, machines being used for many operations done by hand in Sheffield. One very striking feature is the preparation of parts in the most perfect and finished manner to an infinite degree."
  The Report goes on—
  "It became clear to all of us that a greater application of machinery to the Sheffield cutlery trade would help considerably in meeting German competition in respect both of prices and output."
  And then at the bottom it says:
  "From the evidence that was submitted to us it is clear that Sheffield cutlery manufacturers are desirous of bringing their factories up to date in every possible respect, but they must be in a position to attract capital in order to do so."
  Really, that is something like a man having a half-dozen screws and as he does not like to waste them he buys a motor car in order to use them. An enterprising business man puts capital into his enterprise directly he sees the prospect of trade, or he tries to make trade by bringing the equipment of his factory up to date. These people admit that their factories are inefficient, less efficient than those of Germany. Surely their own common sense would dictate that they should make their factories efficient. Instead of that, they say, "Give us Protection, and then we shall be able to attract capital, and we can get our factories more efficient." We get an answer to that in the only sensible report which has emanated from any of the committees set up by the President of the Board of Trade, and that is the Committee on Super phosphates. They say that instead of a tariff having the effect of stimulating enterprise it has the very opposite effect: it acts as a narcotic. A tariff is always a crutch for inefficiency to lean on, and, if Sheffield gets this
  2298
  tariff, then, instead of equipping its factories, it will continue its inefficient methods, relying upon the futile Protection of a tariff. So much for that report. We shall have other opportunities of dealing with it in greater detail during the subsequent course of these proceedings.
  I referred just now to the Report of the Super phosphates Committee. None of these reports attach very much importance to the question of depreciated exchanges. That question cannot apply to Germany now, where the exchange has been righted, but still it is of interest and importance to remember what that Committee, to which I have just referred, said, more particularly with reference to the longer hours and lower wages in Germany. That Committee on Super phosphates was not unanimous, the chairman presenting a minority report, but they were agreed upon repudiating the importance which these other committees attached to the difference in labour conditions between this country and other countries. The chairman said, in effect,. "We may admit that the foreign workers work longer hours and that they have lower wages, but we must take into account internal purchasing power and prove that foreign real wages are lower than ours, and I am of opinion that foreign competition does not arise from inferior conditions of labour abroad." The other members of the Committee concurred.
  I submit to the Committee that on the evidence of these Reports themselves Parliament is not justified in accepting the proposals which the President of the Board of Trade has just submitted. There is no case on the evidence in the Reports themselves, and I am sure no self-respecting Government who had not already made up their minds to impose Protection would have submitted such Resolutions and asked for their endorsement. The President of the Board of Trade concluded his reading of the Report of the Cutlery Committee this afternoon by anticipating in a few words the criticism which, he knew, was bound to be raised with regard to the pledges of the Government. I have already incidentally referred to that, but I want to show in a few words, as I can prove to the Committee, that these proposals are

  2299
  part of a deliberate and carefully-designed plan to use the huge majority which the Government have at their backs to upset the long-established fiscal system of the country, and to impose upon this land, in violation of the wishes of the people, a system of Protection. Lord Birkenhead made that quite clear in a speech a few weeks ago. He said:
  "The Conservative party definitely advised their fellow-countrymen that the only real alleviation was to be found in a re-arrangement of our economic system. That advice was rejected in consequence of the disingenuous presentation of the opposite side by Socialists no less than by Liberals. After that it was unfair to ask the Government, in the light of those events, why they had not cured unemployment, but they were entitled to say that they had made some considerable progress in the application of the safeguarding of industries scheme, and they proposed to continue that process. Within two or three year she hoped they would have got a muss of economic information which would convince the nation that the course which they had advocated since the days of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was a wise course."
  The information that will be accumulated between now and the next General Election will be information of the character which has already been provided by the operation of the Lace Duties and the Silk Duties. It is quite clear from this that it is the thin end of the wedge of Protection, that the Government have not had the courage to propose a general tariff, an all-round system of Protection, and from their own point of view I think they are wise. At a General Election they would never prevail upon the people of this country to accept general all-round Protection. They are proceeding by the method of appealing to the selfish interests of particular trades. It has often been said that every man is a Protectionist in his own trade and a Free Trader in every other. There is plenty of evidence of that in the course of the evidence which has been placed before these committees. Men have come before a committee and said: "We are Free Traders, but we think the special circumstances of our industry entitle us to some Protection." There is not a single industry in this country which could not claim a Protective duty on the evidence on which these duties are recommended, not one. If we concede it to one industry, or to half a dozen industries, we cannot withhold it from the rest. But the
  2300
  Prime Minister has said that he would not introduce Protection by a back door. Writing to the Conservative candidate at Ripon a day or two ago, he said:
  "You stand for a policy which has the backing of the majority of the nation, a policy which is developing in accordance with the nation's wishes."
  As a matter of fact, the Tory candidate at Ripon has, in the course of the campaign, declared himself to be opposed to Protection, and the Prime Minister is not accurate when he says that this policy has an overwhelming backing of the majority of the nation. It is not true. The party opposite have not the overwhelming backing of the nation. They have never had a majority of the nation. They are a minority of the nation, as disclosed by the votes of the last General Election. The Prime Minister's pledge not to introduce Protection gained for Tory candidates the votes of a large number of Free Traders. Had it not been so, the Government's minority of a million would have been a much larger minority. Every bye-election which has taken place since the General Election shows that the Government and the policy for which the Prime Minister says they have the overwhelming support of the country are losing support in the country in every week that passes. There is not a case where the Prime Minister has more flagrantly violated a public pledge than the present Prime Minister has in giving his support to this policy. I wish he had been present to-night.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He is fulfilling another engagement.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I hope he will be present some time during these Debates. I read with great interest the address which he delivered at Edinburgh a few weeks ago when he was installed as Lord Hector, but the feeling with which I rose from perusing it was not so much admiration for the literary quality of the speech as admiration of the Prime Minister's courage. The text of that speech was, "Let us aim at meaning what we say and saying what we mean. Let us use perspicuous words and sentences and purge them of all ambiguity and make them luminous." I wish the Prime Minister, instead of spending so much time in preparing high-sounding moral platitudes, would give a little

  2301
  more time to the application of those moral principles in his legislation. I wonder if the reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer is more conspicuous by his absence than his presence this afternoon is due to the fact that he has a tender Free Trade conscience, or has been affected by this latest development of the Protectionist policy of the Government.
  We shall oppose these proposals at every stage of this Bill, because they are not merely dishonest, but they are dangerous, and they will have all the disastrous results which I have put forward this afternoon. I know that we can make no impression upon Tariff Reformers opposite, and they will vote for these proposals regardless of arguments or facts. [Laughter.] The only answer to our remarks and our arguments is inane laughter. We shall use every Parliamentary device in opposition to those proposals, and we shall bide our time, knowing that the time will come sooner or later when we shall be able to appeal to a higher tribunal than this, a tribunal which will show that it is not entirely wanting to a sense of decency
  Mr. STORRY DEANS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated in the observations he has made that the policy which the Government are now putting forward is in a minority in the country. In the face of that statement I wonder how it is that there are some 400 of us sitting on the Government benches and only about 150 on the benches opposite. When the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that we are impervious to facts and arguments, I should like to say that we are also impervious to abuse and vituperation. If I may also use a colloquialism, I would say that you get no change out of us by charging the leader of the Conservative party with duplicity, a word which is so much on the verge of being un-parliamentary that I wonder the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with all his audacity in Debate, dared to use it.
  I am aware that that is not to the point any more than the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The point is whether, first of all, we ought to propose this duty, and I rise to support it. It does not matter at all to me how the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else
  2302
  on the other side may juggle with figures. I say that I know from my knowledge of Sheffield, which is intimate and of long standing, that there are enormous numbers of Sheffield cutlers and men in the cutlery industry who are thrown out of work, and I say that in my view, and it is also their view, they are largely thrown out of work owing to the peculiar nature of the competition which comes from Germany; and they are of opinion, trade unionists in that trade as well as employers, that if they can be protected against some of this unfair competition with Germany large numbers of them will be put into employment again.
  You have now in the cutlery industry in Sheffield almost about half the people out of work as compared with 1913, and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) says there is no evidence that the decline in apprentices is due to this effect of unemployment or the competition which creates the unemployment, I say that I know scores of cutlers who have been cutlers for generations, probably from the time of Chaucer, and they tell me "I am not going to put my lad in this trade because this trade in Sheffield is declining." It is a fact that these people inherit and possess a kind of skill which can never be acquired by anybody but the sons of cutlers, and these people are declining to put their sons into this trade because the business is declining owing to their goods being so severely undersold by the German manufacturers. They know their trade, and they know it as well and even better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea, and I say with the greatest possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), I believe that they know their trade better than he does, and they are unanimously of the opinion that a, 33⅓ per cent. duty will go a long way towards curing unemployment in that trade.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said with great truth that every man is a Protectionist in his own trade, and why? Is this for his benefit or not for his benefit? [An HON. MEMBER: "His benefit!"] I say it is not for his benefit but for the benefit of the country. I am not at all concerned with the orthodox arguments of Free

  2303
  Trade. It seems to me that you can very well say that Free Trade is a system which is a good one for the merchants. It may be good for the entrépôts trade, and it may give a great amount of employment. I would like to point out, however, that we may have a turnover of £1,000,000 a year in that trade, and you might not have more than £100,000 paid in wages. On the other hand, I defy you to find a manufacturing industry in the North of England or the Midlands where, if you take a trade with a turnover of £1,000,000, you do not get at least £500,000 paid in wages. At any rate, it is a much greater percentage than in the case of merchanting. It may be that a form of Protection is a good thing for the industrialists —I do not merely mean the employers, but all the people engaged in the industry for whom I am concerned— although it is not a good thing and does not assist commerce, mere merchanting. I rather think this is one of the problems that statesmen and financiers and future Chancellors of the Exchequer, from whatever side they come, will have to deal with. They will have to try and reconcile those two positions, and give some sort of protection and encouragement and solid foundation to industry, while at the same time doing no harm, or as little harm as possible, to commerce and merchanting. That is a matter for the future consideration of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
  This matter, to me, is one of work and wages, and nothing else. When I go to Sheffield, my own city, I see all these good fellows, who are the finest craftsmen in the world, going to the Employment Exchanges and most reluctantly drawing the dole. I do not mention this with any disrespect to the men. They have to go to the Employment Exchanges. and they go most reluctantly, and most reluctantly draw the dole. I see those men, and I cannot remain unmoved, and I will violate every kind of orthodoxy, from the theological to the financial, if I think I can help those men to obtain what they ask for, that is, employment in their trade. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, I say that, in a discussion of this kind, I think he would do better, instead of casting these winged darts at
  2304
  the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade and the whole lot of us on this side, calling us tariff-mongers and using other genteel epithets, to think of these men walking about the streets unemployed and ask himself this question: "Will this Measure, if passed, conduce to the restoration of the prosperity of their homes and the comfort of their facilites?"
  Mr. MACKINDER: It is interesting to me to hear the hon. Member who has just sat down speak of men drawing the dole. Personally, I wish hon. Members of this House would not use that nasty word.
  Mr. STORRY DEANS: I most willingly withdraw it, and I will call it unemployment benefit.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I hope that that word will not be used again, either in the House of Commons or anywhere else. It is not a fit and proper word to use, and it is a misstatement of the position. I want to protest against the President of the Board of Trade not allowing the House of Commons to have the evidence submitted to the various Committees of Inquiry. I have a particular reason for desiring to have this evidence, because information has been sent to me that a. certain employer, when the Inquiry into the fabric glove industry was taking place, sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee, referring to certain evidence which was given by a fabric glove manufacturer, who stated that the fabric glove industry was the mainstay of Witham, in Essex, and that if the industry were allowed to fall deeper into the slough of unemployment the position of this community would become intolerable. The letter states that the facts of the case are that in the village of Witham there are 70 people employed in the glove industry, and the total wages they take out of the establishment in any one week is £100 when they are fully employed. There is also in the same village another firm, who employ 400 people, taking wages to the extent of £1,000 a week, and it appears, from the evidence given by this gentleman in the fabric glove industry, that, if the fabric glove industry is not assisted, the village of Witham will fall into the slough of despondency, and that the unemployment of 70 people will cause such a bad effect in the village so that everyone will be on

  2305
  the rocks, taking no notice of the 400 people employed there who are receiving an average of £1,000 a, week.
  I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade if that is the evidence submitted on behalf of the fabric glove industry, and if it is because that kind of evidence was submitted—untrue evidence, I want to suggest—that he has refused to allow Members of the House of Commons to read the evidence submitted. I want to put it to hon. Members, in whatever quarter of the Committee they may be, that, if the Labour party introduced a Bill of this description, the other side would want to know the reason, the evidence, and the arguments submitted as to why we proposed a certain course of action if an inquiry was held. It is no use suggesting, as an hon. Member has suggested, that we should go to the inquiry and hear the evidence. That suggestion is hopelessly impossible. I want to suggest to this Committee that the only way in which you can really and thoroughly analyse evidence, even when you have sat as a member of the Committee and have heard the evidence, is by going over the written statement after the evidence has been given.
  Mr. ERSKINE: What about a jury?
  Mr. MACKINDER: The Reports are there, available for the jury.
  Mr. ERSKINE: They have to decide before they leave the Court.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I want to suggest that it is unfair to the House of Commons that evidence which is necessary for us in making up our minds should be deliberately withheld from us, and I am asking the President of the Board of Trade if it is being withheld from us for the reason that untrue evidence has been submitted by an employer to bolster up his case. It is impossible, in a village where 70 people are employed by one firm and 400 by another, for the unemployment of 70 people to bring about such a state of things as this employer suggests. The most interesting feature, however, is that the employer responsible for the 400 people sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee which was investigating the fabric glove industry, and did not even receive the courtesy of a reply. I want to ask why he did not receive a reply, and if it
  2306
  can be considered that that is fair treatment. The President of the Board of Trade said that he was not reading from the evidence when he was quoting Sheffield, and I want to say in passing that this Committee is put in an exceedingly difficult position. The Chairman has said that the discussion is going to be of a general character, and I suggest that it is almost impossible for this Committee to discuss the general while the President of the Board of Trade refuses to discuss general principles. It was understood that this was going to be a general discussion on the question of the safeguarding of all the industries referred to in the White Paper. I suggest that this Committee cannot at the same time discuss the general and allow the President of the Board of Trade to discuss the particular. He stated that unemployment was bad in the Sheffield trade, and, in order to support his statement, he read a certain paragraph; but I would like to refer the Committee to paragraph 21 on page 9 of the Report, which says definitely:
  "We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment in the cutlery industry."
  They are unable to obtain the actual figures, and overleaf they say
  "That the industry is suffering from serious unemployment is beyond dispute."
  They have no evidence as to the actual number of people unemployed, and yet they are quite satisfied that Sheffield is suffering from serious unemployment. I feel that at all events the President of the Board of Trade and the Committee who have been investigating the Sheffield industry ought to give us something more than the fact that they are satisfied. It is not very difficult—
  Mr. DIXEY: If the hon. Member will turn to paragraph 23, on page 10, he will see that they do make a definite statement about unemployment.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Yes, paragraph 23 is exceedingly interesting: I have it marked. It says:
  "That the industry is suffering from serious unemployment is beyond dispute, and, though it is impossible to express imports in terms of unemployment—"
  Mr. DIXEY: They are satisfied.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Yes, I said earlier that the Committee were satisfied that

  2307
  there was unemployment, and I said afterwards that the Committee had no evidence as to the exact amount of unemployment. In paragraph 21, on page 9, they say:
  "We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment."
  Yes, although they are unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment, they are satisfied that this industry is suffering from serious unemployment.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: 1s the hon. Member contending that it is not suffering from unemployment?
  Mr. MACKINDER: I am only trying to suggest to the Committee—
  Mr. HERBERT: Will you answer?
  Mr. MACKINDER: I am trying to put it, to the Committee that it is not proved that there is serious unemployment in the cutlery industry, and that the Report bears out my contention.
  Mr. HERBERT: No!
  Mr. MACKINDER: May I turn to some more of the evidence submitted? On page 14 one finds the following remark:
  "There will no doubt be a very large demand for cutlery in the future, but we fear Germany is very much better organised at present to supply that demand than Sheffield is. This situation, though, is one that can and should be rectified."
  Is it the opinion of the hon. Member that it ought to be rectified by Protection? If it is, why was not Protection instituted when the Report which is here quoted was made, as far back as 1919? That Report, made in 1919, said that Germany was better organised than Sheffield. The Sheffield employers have had every opportunity since 1919 to organise their industry, and, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, to introduce machinery where machinery could be introduced; but, although they have had six years in which to organise their industry, at, the end of that period they come to the House of Commons and say, "Please let us have Protection; let us put a fictitious price on our articles, because we have not been able to organise our industry as we were advised to do in the year 1919."
  I understand that one of the conditions which has got to be proved is that the
  2308
  industry is of sufficient and substantial importance. The President of the Board of Trade was asked, "What is substantial importance?" Let me ask the Committee if it is considered that an industry with 1,800 employés is of substantial importance? On page 6 of the Report relating to fabric gloves, we have a statement that there are 10,000 people employed in the whole glove industry, but that in the fabric glove industry alone there are only 1,800 employed. It is very easy to lump two industries together, but no one can suggest that there is any relativity between the fabric glove and the leather glove, the chamois glove, or anything like that. You might as well include the woollen glove, and say that it is part of the glove industry. Why separate the woollen glove industry? If it is part of the industry, or if there is a relation between wash-leather gloves and fabric gloves, why should they be put together and the woollen glove left out? Does it not need protection? No evidence was submitted on its behalf. I suggest that an industry employing 1,800 people is not an industry of substantial importance. I might even go further, and say that, if the evidence showing that it employs 1,800 people is accurate, it may be that the statement made to the Chairman of the Committee was accurate, that 70 people are more important than 400 people. I contend that a case has not been made out that the industry is of substantial importance. I want to turn to another part of the Report relating to fabric gloves. It is stated on page 12 that
  "a further handicap to the British manufacturer is the high cost of distribution. We had an instance quoted to us where the retail price was double that of the British manufacturer's selling price."
  Is that due to imports? Or is it because the English distributor is prepared to put 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. on to the cost price, and make the price of the article as distributed so great that it is beyond the means of the public. Is it for that that we are safeguarding? If it is not. why is that paragraph included? I suggest that a paragraph like that has nothing to do with the question of foreign imports and their effect upon the home producer. Then the Committee say:
  "We are satisfied that those remaining are producing gloves fairly comparable with the imported article."

  2309
  What is "fairly comparable"? If foreigners are producing gloves which are better and cheaper than ours, is it fair to put a tax on the person who buys those gloves because our producers cannot produce them as well or as cheaply, because of antiquated machinery or lack of method in production? I want to put it to the Committee that this statement on page 13 of the Report is not strictly accurate, and is not evidence of which a Committee of the House of Commons should take cognisance that they are satisfied that those remaining, that is to say, the producers remaining, are producing gloves fairly comparable with the imported article. It is quite evident that the. Conservative Government are very anxious to protect manufacturers—
  Mr. HANNON: And Labour.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I am saying that in my opinion the Government are anxious to protect manufacturers, and, because they are anxious to protect manufacturers, they are going to put a fictitious price on the value of the article which those manufacturers produce. Why is it, I would ask, that the Government are not anxious to protect the consumer? Not a single word has been uttered by either the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Member of the Government, to the effect that there is going to be any protection whatever for the consumer. There is every evidence that, when the protection, or safeguarding, is put into operation, the home producer will be able to charge as much as he possibly can in conformity with the tax which has been put on the foreign producer. He is going to be able to lift his price to within almost a farthing of the price of the foreign goods plus 33⅓ per cent., and the only evidence is that he is going to get thumping big profit out of the opportunity which the Government have given him. This is Protection. There is no doubt about it, and by the number of documents that have been submitted it appears to us that it is a pretty hefty step on the path of general Protection. The Prime Minister says that there is going to be no general tariff. Well, we were dished out last Friday with about half-a-dozen White Papers indicating that at least a pretty important number of industries are
  2310
  going to be put under this Protective scheme. It is Protection. It is going to lead to general Protection. The Prime Minister did tell us that there was going to be no scheme of general Protection, and I protest against prices being put up to the members of the British public. I object to the prices of our people's necessities being increased. I want to suggest that when an article which is cheap to our people is going to be taxed, the result will be that the working classes will have to buy the article at a higher price.
  I have an instance in my own industry. The case is sub-judice, but we know for a fact that as soon as, or if ever, there is protection put on the worsted trade— those of us who know the Bradford manufacturers and the spinners—there will be an increase in price put on the home-produced goods, in order that they may be just below the level of the prices of the foreign imported goods, plus the tax. The effect of that is, that there is a reduction in wages for the members of the class to which I belong, as expressed in the prices that they have to pay for the necessities of life. They must use gloves, or, at all events, I think they ought to have some opportunity to use gloves like other people. How can they get them with their wages? Trade is going down, unemployment is increasing. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says: "Supposing there are no wages?" Well, we will all be on the Poor Law, everybody, including Members opposite, and then we shall have to live by taking in one another's washing. The net effect upon the people whom I represent, members of the working class that I am very proud to be associated with, will be, that there will be a reduction in their wages, because there will be an increase in the cost of the goods that they have to get in order to live. That will be the net effect.
  I want to put this to the Tory Government, that if the Conservative Government really believe in Protection, if they really believe that Protection is the panacea, that it is the be-all and end-all of the philosophy that they came into this House to express, they ought, at all events, to be honest and say: "Never mind about the pledges we made, and the promises that we will not introduce a general scheme of Protection"; they ought to go right out and say, "We will safeguard, and we will protect every

  2311
  industry there is in this country, but in order that the workers shall not suffer "—because it is only a theory at present in the minds of hon. Members opposite that our people will not suffer because of increased prices—"we will safeguard not only the producer, but we will also safeguard the consumer. We will fix a level of living, of wages, and of the cost of living, below which no person shall go, and for a period we will put Protection into operation, but we will safeguard at the same time the wages, the bread and butter, of the people with whom we live!" With the Members opposite it is a theory. If it does not come off, you are no worse off than you are at present, but this theory, if it comes off disadvantageously to the working class, ours are the people that will suffer, ours are the people who will have to have reduced wages because of the increased cost of living. For this reason, I oppose these Motions and will vote against them.
  Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a most interesting, and I am sure a very sincere. speech as his contribution to this Debate. He opened his remarks by painting himself, as I understood it, as a champion of the consumer, but I do suggest that the first consideration of this country, after the pitiable history of the last five years, ought to be the worker, and not the consumer. We have a great deal talked about considering the consumer, but I am surprised at the Socialist party becoming champions of the lilies of the field and not realising that we in this country ought to have very little use for those who are consumers, and who are not engaged in productive industry of some kind or another by doing some kind of service to the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew I would have hon. Gentlemen with me, because I am voicing their views. Therefore, in considering a question of this character, our first object is to consider the producing classes of this country. The hon. Gentleman said: "If you protect these industries, you will lower the wages of the worker." I am very glad to find this conflict of evidence between two parties who are shortly to be married—which will be understood from the Press a few days ago—because up to this date the Liberal party have
  2312
  always maintained that the disastrous results of any form of protection is that it raises the wages of the people.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I hope the hon. Member will please not misquote me. I said it would reduce the wages of the workers as expressed in the prices of the articles he has to purchase.
  Sir H. CROFT: I quite accept that statement. I did not want to suggest for one moment that the hon. Gentleman said something he did not say. I heard him deliberately say that the result—I hope I am not misquoting him—of Protection was to decrease the real wages of the people. I assume every one of the workers in this country who migrates from this country and goes to a country where there is Protection does so in order to better his condition. I do not want to get away from the subject, but I ask him if he would suggest for one single moment that the real wages in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or in the United States, rather an important country as an industrial concern, are lower than the level in this country.
  It seems to me that His Majesty's Government are in rather an unfortunate position this evening. They have had two attacks made on them, one from the Liberal party, which was generally expected. I can assure, any hon. Gentleman who has any doubts on this subject, that on no subject whatever will the Liberal party ever change. I am absolutely convinced of that. We all remember Lord Oxford when he was leading this country during the Great War. I remember he uttered a famous phrase. He said this country was placed in the position where we were dependent upon foreign countries for our necessities, and he said in his most solemn terms: "Never again" must that happen. He is no longer Prime Minister, and he is no longer in a position of responsibility, and he is entertained by those who are practically almost suggesting: "Always again will we place ourselves in that position."
  On the other hand, we have the Socialist party. I know why they are opposed to these Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman who was speaking just now from the front Opposition Bench quoted the Prime Minister in his speech where he said: "… moaning what we

  2313
  say, and saying what we mean …" I think I know the real difficulty with regard to the Socialist party, they passed a Resolution. Of course, we know why they oppose the Government this evening; they are Prohibitionists. It is an extraordinary thing to me that, when the unemployment Debate was on, they did not mention their policy. Not one single breath! As a matter of fact, I understand that, as regards any goods which are produced in countries where there is a lower social level, lower wages, sweated goods—and I suppose that means, sweated compared to your own people— they are prepared not only to put on a duty, a trifling thing like that now proposed, but to prohibit the import altogether. I am not sure that they are not more nearly right than His Majesty's Government on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor in the last Government, I must say, apologised for making a personal attack on the Prime Minister in his absence, and I am only sorry that he is not here now, as ho also referred to myself. Ho said one or two words in regard to the honour of the Prime Minister. I do not think that it is very necessary, at any rate in our party, to defend the honour of the Prime Minister.
  I must say this, that I do think that the honour of the Prime Minister would have been involved if he had failed to carry on this policy of safeguarding upon which he had the support, and the enthusiastic support, of the whole of his party. I hope I will be exonerated from any flabbiness on this question of safeguarding. I attended a meeting of the Carl-ton Club immediately after the General Election, when we were not "overwhelmingly defeated," as the right hon. Gentleman put it, but when we polled a bigger vote than has ever been polled in this country for Protection since the unfortunate days when we were suffering from a mental aberration from which we have only just recovered. The Prime Minister made a speech at the Carlton Club when he assumed the leadership of the Conservative party, his very first speech after the General Election, and he laid it down that he intended to safeguard these industries which fulfilled the conditions which are clearly laid down. I think it is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman should have questioned
  2314
  the honourable conduct of the Prime Minister in this connection. Strangely enough, in the speech which he made this evening he informed us that after the General Election the Prime Minister substituted for the policy of general Protection that of safeguarding. Need anything more be said upon this subject? Even if it was necessary, we have had from the right hon. Gentleman himself that it was made clear, and really we must not be accused of breaking our pledges. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway think so much evidence is going to be gained from the result of these duties that the country is going to demand the full policy of Protection. That has nothing to do with the question at all. We pledged ourselves to safeguard these industries, and I congratulate His Majesty's Government upon doing as much as they can.
  The right hon. Gentleman in his attack on the Government tried to make great play with the effect upon those industries which have been recently given some small protection. It really seems to me hardly statesmanlike, if I may say so, to quote the results of the safeguarding of the lace industry when we remember the very late date on which that industry was safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman did me the honour to quote some remarks I made in my speech. If my memory be correct, I said that, as a result of the Silk Duties, I believed I was correct in saying that there was not a single silk worker in Macclesfield unemployed. He seemed to think that the silk industry was a case which ought to be quoted in this connection. He stated that I had said that there would be not a single worker in the lace industry unemployed. I think, if he looks up my speech, he will find that I said that in regard to the silk trade, and that I hoped that the same might be said shortly of the lace trade. And so I do. I believe if yon give, confidence and security to the industry of the country we are more capable of production than any country in the world, and if you can achieve these astounding results in America, why cannot you do it in this country, where employers and employed are determined to see that production shall be the first policy of the people of the country?
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that wages have not been increased. There, again, that is rather surprising,

  2315
  because it is contrary to the predictions of the Free Traders. He was talking about actual wages. It is a very short period that we have had the operation of these duties to see any great change in industry. The real facts, as everyone knows, are that in the two or three months prior to the imposition of the duties there was such a flood of imports into the country that there was likely to be some temporary unemployment. For instance, in the motor industry I do not expect we shall see the result for many months. It was very unfortunate that we did not ante-date those duties. The fact remains that there was this great flood of motor-cars that camp into the country, I do not think it will appeal to the country, but we realise these facts. I will not labour statistics and figures, but as far as the motor trade and the lace trade and clocks and watches are concerned, there has never been such an importation as there was in those two or three months prior to the imposition of the duties.
  But the question is a bigger one than that. It seems to me we ought to make any effort to find a solution of our unemployment. Hon. Members above the Gangway are always complaining that nothing is attempted, and when anything is attempted they form this unholy alliance with a party which is really not worth allying themselves with, and they deliberately come out and support them in their hostility to what may be a small thing, but what is at any rate in the right direction. Does the Socialist party, or does it not, believe it is desirable, when you have over a million unemployed, that employment in industry should fall to the extent that it has fallen in the cutlery industry since 1913? That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman deliberately omitted from his figures the pre-War figures. We were engaged in a great War. We had great difficulties. Are we satisfied that we should not regain at least the pre-War position? If the figures are studied hon. Members will see that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman only quoted the figures for the last three years, the total employed in the industry in 1913 was 11,686 and to-day it has fallen to 7,697. I want to see that figure rectified. This is a small step, and, if we want to make any kind of experiment at
  2316
  all in order to improve the position of the people of the country, even if it may be an experiment, is it not worth doing rather than doing nothing?
  Captain BENN: We have had, as always, an extremely interesting speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He has rebuked, or chaffed, hon. Members above the Gangway on their alliance with the small party below the Gangway. I can remember the day when the great Conservative party was content to make an alliance with the very distinguished party of which the hon. Baronet was the leader and the sole member. He used to lead his party undivided and indivisible into the Division Lobby. I was sorry to interrupt him about the Silk Duties. He was explaining the great advantage which the protection afforded by the Silk Duties was going to give to industry, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained most carefully that it was not a protective duty at all. I only interrupted in order to prevent him getting into conflict with one of the leaders of his own party. In this interesting discussion we have heard a great deal as to what the result of these tariffs will be on prices. I will ask any hon. Member if he is prepared to say that a duty imposed upon goods does not raise the price of the article. We contend that it does, and we intend to prove it. I will not take any illustration from this country, because everyone can say, "I know something that was taxed and for one reason or another the price has not varied." We must deal in general terms, and it would be far better to take illustrations from other countries, and then we can find whether or not it is true that these taxes we are imposing will in fact raise the cost of living and thereby create instead of abolishing unemployment. I will take the evidence I propose to put before the Committee from strictly unbiased sources. I take, first, an extract from an article by the New York financial correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," two years ago, speaking of the United States tariff:—
  "The amount of the duty has been added to the imported goods and within a very short time domestic goods of a similar kind were marked up to an equally high figure. Silk goods, cottons and other such manufactured articles are arriving in much smaller quantities than a year ago. This serves as a

  2317
  special subsidy to the particular industries concerned, but it also raises prices all round."
  I think everyone will agree that that is evidence from a perfectly impartial source. Let me give another example from the United States. Sir Arthur Balfour bears a name of great authority in this country. He was dealing with the United States trade outlook. We are not dealing with domestic issues which excite controversy. We, are. dealing in vacuo, with no preoccupations or party feelings:
  "Undoubtedly the whole situation has been very much aggravated by the Fordney Tariff. I am told the farmers this year, as the result of the Fordney Tariff, will pay about £175,000,000 more for their machinery plant and general farm requirements."
  That is the second piece of evidence. Now let us take an extract from an article by the Johannesburg correspondent of the "Times":
  "Commercial circles here say that the proposed changes in the Union tariff, are mostly on the lines expected. They will increase the cost of living in the Union."
  That is South Africa. Now let us take the German case. Here is a further quotation from the "Times":
  "When the Government agreed to purchase the support of the agrarians with a high traiff on food, it told the German workman that high prices did not matter."
  Because they had a scheme for controlling prices. They admitted that prices would rise. The article concludes:
  "Meanwhile prices rise and wages actually fall in purchasing power."
  That is the German example. Now we will take an example from Australia. Mr. Pratten, the Minister of Customs, only a month ago admitted that the duty temporarily increased prices in some directions, and the "Times" speaking about that same tariff said:
  "The present charges, while substantially increasing the duties upon certain classes of goods, contain a considerable number of reductions of duty apparently designed to set off any increase in the general cost of living, which the higher duties might otherwise have entailed."
  The Manchester correspondent of the "Times" in Australia says:
  "Under the new Australian scheme, cotton tweeds are subject to a tax which, it is contended, means an increase in the selling price in Australia of somewhere about 100 per cent."
  2318
  Again, reverting for a moment to Germany, the "Times" says:
  "The Minister for Economic Affairs in Germany admits that the new tariff has had the effect of raising prices at least by the amount of the new duties."
  These are not illustrations taken from pamphlets and organisations in this country supporting this or that fiscal view. They are impartial observations made by correspondents in foreign countries, and they prove, completely that we are right in saying that what the, right hon. Gentleman and the Undersecretary are doing is raising the cost of living of the poor in this country and thereby reducing the amount of money they have to spend and creating unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It will be better to see the evidence that is brought forward and to controvert it. "No" in itself does not constitute an argument.
  On the point of procedure, I contend that it is an infringement—it is more, it is the destruction—of the practice and custom of Ways and Means Committee that a Finance Bill should be introduced and piloted by people who have nothing whatever to do with the finances of the country. The reply of Mr. Deputy-Speaker was that he did not know whether it was going to be a Finance Bill or not, but the President of the Board of Trade, when he explained the scheme under which these duties were going to be imposed, told us frankly it was going to be a Finance Bill. The Prime Minister has repeated that the scheme, instead of the old Safeguarding Bill that was introduced by the other Government, was to be a scheme under a Finance Bill. This is a point that does not concern one party alone, but every party interested in the procedure and the privileges of the House, and it is one of substance. The finance of the country should be under the control of the Treasury, and it is an improper thing that in Committee of Ways and Means a minor official, such as the President of the Board of Trade, should take the place of a major official, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing taxing. Measures.
  I should like to ask supporters of the. Government what they think about these safeguarding proposals. We had an impassioned speech from the hon. Member

  2319
  for Sheffield (Mr. Storry Deans), who said, "Here are men out of work. A tariff will put them in work, and I am going to vote for a traiff." In every constituency in the country there are men out of work in many industries. Why do hon. Members hesitate to say they will have a general tariff? Do they say it? They will not say it, because they know they would sacrifice their belief in a general tariff to the chance of sitting on that side of the House instead of on this side. That is all there is to it. They believe that no party can grow, however small it may be, unless it sticks to its convictions. As far as numbers are concerned, we can certainly be derided.
  If hon. Members opposite believe that a general tariff will do good, why do not they go into the country and say, "We will have a general tariff, and we will remain out of office until you consent to it?" Instead of that, and in order to keep in office—[Interruption]. Yes, to keep in office. Why was the Prime Minister's very bold step in 1923 retraced, if not in order to gain office? Of course it was retraced. Every hon. Member opposite knows that all the time it is a question of giving a little bit to satisfy pressure from behind, and it is necessary to give this little bit and that little bit in order that the mass of their supporters may feel that they are progressing along the road to a general tariff. I think the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) believes that there should be a general tariff. What does he say about iron and steel? Does he say they should have a tariff? If so, why does not he and his friends make the Government give an inquiry into iron and steel and to propose a duty for iron and steel? They are not very bold in the House of Commons. They could turn out the Government to-morrow if they wanted to force them to do these things, but they will not do it.
  There are many hon. Members who represent agriculture. Do they think it is fair to tax everything that the farmer uses, and not give the farmer protection?
  Major PRICE: Yes, if it gives employment.
  Captain BENN: Will it give employment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] A
  2320
  tariff for agriculture will give employment? Then, are they entitled to have Protection for agriculture?
  Major PRICE: The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. I say that if you give general employment by a tariff, it will help agriculture, by increasing the market for agricultural produce by increasing the purchasing power of the working people.
  Captain BENN: I am much obliged. Do I gather that the hon. Member is in favour of a general tariff which excludes agriculture?
  Major PRICE: Quite.
  Captain BENN: Now, the Bury St. Edmunds electors will know.
  Major PRICE: We have already explained it to Bury St. Edmunds, and yon have the result.
  Captain BENN: It is a very significant thing that the supporters of the Government now avow that they are in favour of a general tariff on everything that the farmer uses and yet they will not give the farmer a tariff to protect his own product. I do not think an opinion of that kind is likely to command very much support in agricultural centres.
  I want to ask one or two questions about the proceedings in these Safeguarding Committees. I want hon. Members to dismiss from their minds the idea that there is any authority behind these Safeguarding of Industries Committees. They have no authority at all. The President of the Board of Trade might just as well have called together a committee of the Tariff Reform League or of the Free Trade Union, or a private party in his own house, for all the authority that these Committees are entitled to carry in the House of Commons. I do not like to use such a word as "contemptible," but it is a reprehensible and cowardly act on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, instead of defending these duties and producing his evidence, and saying, "I, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, propose to ask Parliament to tax this, that and the other, and here is the evidence on which I base my proposals," to shelter himself behind private bodies of advisers.

  2321
  He has no more right to shelter himself behind these so-called Committees than to say, "My permanent secretary advises this," or "My private secretary advises that." He is the man responsible for defending these duties, and it is not enough for him to say, "I have set up a Committee, I have vaguely instructed them in a White Paper, I have corrected the White Paper by supplementary instructions and now, because they have decided this, that or the other"—whether on evidence or not we do not know, because we have not seen the evidence— "it is enough for me to say that this Committee has recommended these Duties." There is no authority whatever behind these Committees. They sit in camera. We do not get the evidence. At any rate, they do not take sworn evidence, and many witnesses are excluded.
  I would ask the President of the Board of Trade one or two specific questions. Has he ever written to the Committees to tell them the meaning of the words "substantial importance"? Has he sent to the chairman, or communicated with him, directly or indirectly, because there is this story about "under 5,000 being not substantial" and "over 5,000 being substantial"? Has he himself directed the attention of the Committee to that point? Has he, in addition to the White Paper, given to the Committee any directions whatever as to what is meant by "abnormal competition"? The definitions of abnormal competition vary widely as between one Committee and another. Some think the comparison must be post-War; that if you can find one year in which the import was less than in the present year, you have already established abnormal conditions in the industry. Some think it is a pre-War comparison. This particular committee goes back to the time of Julius Cæsar. If you can show that the import of razor blades was greater this year than the import in the time of Julius Cæsar, you have established your case for abnormal competition.
  I would ask the President of the Board of Trade a question about evidence. If he is going to base any claim upon the work of the Committee, the Committee must have been accessible to any party which alleges that it is affected by these
  2322
  duties. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is always most courteous—
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope I am.
  Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is always most courteous, and his Parliamentary Secretary, basing himself on the excellent model of his chief, has always shown the greatest courtesy towards Members of Parliament. In reply to a question, he informed me that any industry that was affected by the duties would have the right to go before the Committee. He said it was the whole basis of the scheme, that a hearing would be given to everybody. What is the fact? The fact is that—I do not know whether they were acting on instructions given by the President of the Board of Trade or on their own initiative—these committees have excluded evidence. Take the case of lace. I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would permit people whose income was going to be affected by the Lace Duties, the people who buy lace and will have to pay more for their lace on account of the duties, would be allowed to go before the Committee, and ho said "certainly not."
  Take the question of wage conditions abroad. Is it a fact that any local evidence—that is to say, foreign evidence, because you can only get evidence about foreign wage conditions from foreigners-is discouraged and not permitted to be given? It is a fact that the steel manufacturer in Sheffield cannot be allowed to come forward and give evidence before the Razor Blade Committee? These are very important points. The Committee will not consider that the man who supplies the steel to the Germans to make the razor blades has any locus before the Committee. The Bolton manufacturer who sends his stuff to be made up into fabric gloves got a special Committee because it was said that the taxation on fabric gloves would hit the firms that were supplying the material for the gloves. Why was the Sheffield steel manufacturer not able to come before the Committee? The Committee say that the Germans should not be able to put "Best Sheffield Steel" on a blade, even if true, because they say that that would advertise German knives. It would also advertise Sheffield steel.

  2323
  What is the rule as to the admissibility of evidence before these committees and what instructions have been given by the right hon. Gentleman? Does he say that he gave no instructions beyond the White Paper? Perhaps he will answer later. He gave us to understand that the White Paper was his final word to the committees. That is not true. I mean that it is not true in a Parliamentary sense. In the case of gas mantles, instead of merely leaving the committee to judge the ease according to the vague and not very intelligible drift of this White Paper, and because it appealed that they could not find a case for a duty on gas mantles, according to the terms of the White Paper, he comes forward and says, "We approved the White Paper and we have approved the procedure," and then he issues a supplementary instruction to the Gas Mantle Committee and says: "You have 1o take into account something quite different from the things mentioned in the White Paper. You have to take into account the fact that in time of war the gas will be stripped and gas mantles will be a national necessity.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the White Paper, he will see that it refers either to numbers or character.
  Captain BENN: Am I to understand, then, that this is not a question of safeguarding industries, but a question of the new Key Industries Act? That is a very important matter. The argument that all you are going to do is merely to safeguard industries and to help them is now changed, and the right hon. Gentleman, by a very ready and courteous, although, I think, a very unfortunate intervention, has so extended the scope of the matter that it becomes not merely a question of protecting these industries for the purpose of safeguarding them from competition, but on the. ground that he alleges that they are of national importance in time of war and. I suppose, on any other ground. "Number or character!" "Character" is very wide. If that is the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I am more than satisfied that this scheme is simply opening the door wide so that the right hon. Gentleman can ask his friends to meet together in the form of a committee,
  2324
  appointed by himself, subject to no control, so that they can recommend tariffs and bring forward reports, behind which, although they have no authority, he shelters himself in this House.
  Take the question of the German Trade Treaty. We have been negotiating with the Germans for a trade treaty. It is very interesting that although we have no tariff in a general way—we have little patchwork tariffs —we were able to make better terms with the Germans than the French or the Spaniards, who have tariffs. This is very interesting, because the Protectionist argues that if you have a tariff, you can always make better terms than if you are a Free Trade country. We have been able to make a trade treaty with the Germans, which has been exceedingly helpful to British firms. The Germans, under the protocol of that Treaty, sent a deputation to this country, and they said: "This safeguarding of industries, so far from being a general tariff, is specially aimed at our trade." We know in these Debates how far that contention of the Germans it true. In nearly every speech that is made we are told that it is the Germans that we are aiming at. What is the effect of this British scheme to put a halfpenny on gas mantles and a penny on the shoemaker's knife? It has jeopardised all the advantages which this country has secured through the German trade treaty. It is very unfortunate that, while we here are talking about fabric gloves and other things, the Germans have gone home, the conference having broken down, to consider what retaliatory steps they may take in consequence of this two penny-halfpenny legislation which we are considering to-day. Let us see what that retaliation may be. They may tax our coal, and that is a very serious thins when the export trade in coal is one of our greatest needs to-day. Further than that, they may so alter their general tariff as to hit the textile trade of this country, which had greatly benefited under the terms of that Treaty.
  I sincerely hope that, especially on this point of our trade with Germany, which must be restored if the prosperity of this country is to be recovered, the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give a detailed and I hope encouraging reply,

  2325
  because, if not, it will show that in order to placate his supporters and pretend to be Protectionists when they have not the courage to introduce a general tariff, they are bringing in this legislation and thereby imperilling a branch of British export trade which is extremely important and on which the employment of hundreds of people depends. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making a note of some of these points and I hope he will gratify me by giving some answer in the course of his reply.
  Mr. HANNON: This House is always edified by the delightfully discursive speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentle man. His long catechism to the President of the Board of Trade was characteristic of his general attitude towards the De-bates in this House. One is not surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got very much support in this country in these days either for his party or himself, because on every occasion on which he has spoken in this House, he has always identified himself with those people who are antagonistic to the interests of British production.
  Captain BENN: Rubbish!
  Mr. HANNON: He may say in his polite way "rubbish," but all the time I have listened to him in this House he has never lost an opportunity of decrying the interests of British producers. I am not finding fault with him at all, having regard to his traditions in this House as a protagonist of the exploded shibboleths of Free Trade. The hon. Members with whom one has to find fauls are the hon. Gentlemen above the Gang-way, who are so closely identified with the Labour organisations of this country, and who, through some extraordinary obtuseness which it is impossible to understand, always filly themselves with the small wing of Free Trade Liberals below the Gangway.
  The test of the real value of these proposals lies in the extent to which they afford opportunity of employment to the people of this country in the respective industries concerned. That is the test, and we had the other day a very striking instance of what has happened in recent years in the United States of America. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who was at
  2326
  one time President of the Board of Trade, is now in the House, and I would respectfully submit to him that he has considerably modified his views with regard to these proposals since the time when he held a responsible post in His Majesty's administration. We look back to those days when, in the grinding necessity of war, speeches were made in this House pointing out how necessary it was that the industries of this country should be placed in a position in which in the national interest we should never be subject to the difficulties experienced in the days of the War. The other day a most interesting report was circulated by a. captain of industry in this country, Colonel Willey, who was a former Mem-of this House, compiled after an exhaustive examination of the economic conditions which now obtain in the United States. What has Colonel Willey set forth in that report? Up to the present moment, notwithstanding the wide publicity given to it, not one single statement in it has been challenged. It says, first of all, that American industry is flourishing on all sides; secondly, that the American working man enjoys high wages and a high standard of living; and, thirdly, that industrial peace prevails throughout the whole country.
  Mr. BATEY: Is there not a coal strike just now?
  Mr. HANNON: I am giving the statements embodied in the report of a distinguished man in this country, not one single one of which has been challenged since the report was circulated.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Have not. they got their own unemployed?
  Mr. HANNON: To what circumstance is that attributed? It is attributed to the fact that the American nation has taken the precaution of preserving its own home market for its own productive Population. Is there any single nation in Europe that is not. taking care to protect the industries of its own people, and are we to be the only nation who can continue to carry this load of unemployment upon the body politic without taking some definite and practical means of relieving that unfortunate state of affairs? We had this afternoon a very remarkable but characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). Of all the

  2327
  speeches I have ever heard from him, always clever speeches, I would most respectfully say in my judgment they are always poisonous against the best interests of the working class of this country. I have never heard him make a speech in this House—and I am sorry he is not in his place—in which he did not attack, by his curious affinity with all Free Trade dogmas with which he has been so long associated, the best interests of his own working people.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. P. Croft), referring to the effect of these very small Measures of safeguarding which have been produced recently, proved that the figures of unemployment which were still shown were really due to the abnormal volume of imports into this country since the importers realised the duty was to be imposed. You had a striking example in the case of motor cars after the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and another example in pianos and watches, as we know to our cost and it will take a considerable period of time before the industries now happily receiving some measure of relief under the recent schemes of safeguarding, can really be in a position to show results from the measure of concession which has been made to them.
  There is this also, that in some of the industries affected, such as the motor trade, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley quoted the figures of a seasonal period when employment is generally at its lowest. It is a very unfair comparison to take the conditions of employment in the motor trade in July as against the beginning of October. A good deal of the criticism from the other side was made with reference to what they called these irresponsible Committees which made these Reports. I believe that the House ought to be grateful to these Committees for the very valuable work they have done and the time they have given to the investigations, and to getting all the facts upon which they could found a sound and accurate judgment as to what had best be done.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member is one of those who is always seeking for further enlightenment. That is a worthy purpose in life, but I am perfectly satisfied that the one lady and two gentlemen who constituted the Committee of Inquiry in the case of cutlery, for example, were just as competent to form a judgment on the evidence they received as the hon. Member opposite.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: We have not the evidence. We should like to have it.
  Mr. HANNON: I would point out that the Committee was able to form a perfectly clear and reliable opinion on the evidence put before them. The Committee had the assistance on behalf of the importers, of very distinguished counsel, a former Member of this House, and an associate of Members below the Gangway. Docs anybody imagine that our old friend, whom we all respected and admired in this House for so long, Mr. Pringle, whose resource was the admiration of everybody in the Debates in this House, would have lost a single opportunity which he could employ of putting any argument to convince the Committee of the validity of any objection which he raised. No, all this argument of there having been not sufficient opportunity to prepare the case on the part of the importers has not a shred of foundation. The fullest opportunity was given to every interest which could reasonably and properly be considered to state the case in opposition to the application before the Committee. Indeed you had this condition of affairs which could not, I venture to suggest, have taken place in any other community in the world. You had the various committees of the London Chamber of Commerce instructing counsel to appear before the Committee's inquiry and fight against the British manufacturer in asking for reasonable, protection for British industries.
  In asking the Committee to agree to the acceptance of this proposal—and indeed as far as I am concerned these proposals are only the fringe of what is necessary—we are only asking for protection, and I am not the least ashamed to use the word, for the working man engaged in productive enterprise. If it is a fit and proper thing for organised labour to protect itself, and nobody objects to the admirable means by which

  2329
  it does so—[An HON. MEMBER: "You do!"] I do not—why should not organised labour itself and above all those who represent it in the House of Commons identify themselves with proposals which make for the improvement of the conditions of the worker himself.
  8.0 P.M.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite quoted evidence from some financial editor whose statement had appeared in the "Daily Telegraph." Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman or any Member of his party suggest a single party of any size, not forgetting the magnitude of his own, in the United States, that asks for the modification of the Fordney Tariff? Are the American people so foolish that they suffer increase of prices, as this report quoted by him says, and to sit down without making any protest? Is there a single member of Congress or of the Senate in the United States to-day who calls himself a Free Trader? Not one. There is not a single organisation which has been evolved in recent American politics in the interests of promoting Free Trade or even a modification of the present tariff policy in the United States. There is one reference in this Report to which the attention of this Committee ought to be called. The Committee of Inquiry did not content itself with receiving statements from the manufacturers concerned, but took the opportunity of getting full and ample evidence from representatives of the trade unions whose members were affected. The Committee report:
  "We received valuable evidence on the subject of employment from the witnesses from trade unions."
  The figures indicate that the trade unions themselves, were only too anxious that some means of this kind should be introduced so as to safeguard employment. The only fault I have to find with the proposals of the Government is that they do not go far enough. The proposals ought to be on a much more comprehensive basis. I suggest to the Minister that these examinations by committees could to some extent be either disposed of altogether or at all events their findings accepted. The Board of Trade has in its own possession all the material evidence necessary to decide whether an industry is entitled to safeguarding or not. There ought to be
  2330
  no possible opportunity given of such leakage of information with regard to any application which comes before the Board of Trade or a committee, as to enable an importer to take advantage of whatever concession might be made. I know that my right hon. Friend has taken every possible precaution. I know that, so far as he can, he has made the consultations of the committee watertight. But, with a committee of that kind, you cannot keep the whole of the information detached from outside interests. The consequence is that there is grave danger from time to time of the trade secrets of manufacturers getting into the hands of other people.
  I associate myself very warmly with these proposals. I ask hon. Members who represent labour whether they could go down to their constituencies to meet the workpeople engaged in the industries affected, and ask them whether they would support the rejection of these proposals. I do not believe there is a single constituency where an hon. Member would get such support. I see the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) present. His work for labour is beyond all praise. He has given his whole life to the service of the people. I ask him whether he can identify himself with opposition to proposals which will provide facilities for greater employment, higher wages, and a higher standard of living for the people than could possibly be achieved under the lop-sided conditions under which we live to-day.
  Mr. WEBB: I rise, not for the sake of covering the whole field, but to take advantage of this general discussion to put two points not hitherto sufficiently raised. We shall have a discussion of cutlery later. The Committee is now considering, not the application of the Safe-guarding of Industries Act to this or that industry, but the whole policy of the Act. I wish to put before the Committee one consideration which has not been dwelt upon at all. At first sight it may seem to have very little to do with the subject. When I was at the Board of Trade the last thing I had to think about was the renewal of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty. The honour of concluding that Treaty did not fall to me, but to my successor, and I congratulated him at the time on having achieved a Treaty which seemed to me far and away better in its

  2331
  general clauses than any Treaty that this Government has ever been able to conclude. That Treaty included, as usual, the most-favouved-nation Clause, and that Clause has been a most valuable protection of our trade. It secures us against any gross discrimination of duties.
  We have had to complain in the past frequently that, while that Clause was not in terms contravened by nations, yet, as a matter of fact, Governments have so altered their tariffs that, while not in so many words contravening the Clause, they have so chosen the duties which they imposed against all comers, as to penalise in particular various articles of our commerce. Many have been the representations made to foreign Governments about that. The right hon. Gentleman was able to secure from the German Government a much better provision. It was an additional Clause, which said, in effect, that, quite irrespective of the most-favoured-nation Clause, which prevents discrimination between nations in Customs duties, both the contracting parties would observe that Clause in the spirit as well as in the. letter. Whilst, of course, each party reserved to itself the fullest rights to alter its Customs tariff in any way it might deem necessary, yet each of the contracting parties undertook not to impose duties or alter tariffs so as to penalise in particular the other contracting party. Provision was made that, if by inadvertence any such thing were done, the other country could make representations and. ultimately, go further in the matter.
  That, Treaty was concluded by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in early January of this year. Very shortly after January, what I might call the spiritually Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, as distinguished from the technically Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, was ignored, and we began to have the Safeguarding of Industries proposals. I do not want to dwell too much on history, but when I read this particular batch of proposals I could not help noticing that in every case one country particularly was aimed at, and that that country was Germany. I could not help wondering whether we were quite keeping faith with Germany by altering our Customs tariff—quite within our rights, of course—in such a way as to
  2332
  make it appear to the German people that we were deliberately penalising exports from their country to this country. I do not want to be misunderstood. I shall be told in answer that the Clause carefully reserves to the contracting Governments the fullest possible right to alter their tariffs. So it does. I am not in the least suggesting that it contravenes those words. But I defy anyone to read that Clause, to take the spirit of it, to realise what was in the mind of the contracting parties when it was agreed to, without feeling that, at any rate, it is somewhat unfortunate that in all the months that have passed there has been a series of tariff alterations which somehow nearly always manage to hit Germany more than any other of our competitors. It may be a coincidence, but it is an unfortunate coincidence.
  Our object, as it has been the object of the Board of Trade for generations, has been to prevent other Governments introducing Customs' legislation which penalises our export trade. I cannot help regretting that the action which has been taken by the Government will not tend to induce the German Government to carry out in the spirit that additional Clause which it was the great glory and honour of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to have been able to insert in the Anglo-German Treaty. I am exceedingly sorry because of what happened yesterday, on the signature of the Locarno Pact. Whatever that is worth, its worth comes of the spirit of amity with which we hope it is associated. If we are going to embark or; a Customs policy which necessarily treads on the toes of other countries—we are probably entirely justified in doing so from the legal point of view—we shall reduce the spirit of international amity on which a great deal more depends. It is a drawback of all these proposals that they seem to be chosen in such a way that it is Germany in particular, or for the most part, at which they aim.
  I pass from that to my other point, and that is that in all the work of these committees under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, there has been almost a total disregard to what is not an unimportant part of the industry of this country—the export trade. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that every interest had been

  2333
  represented before these committees. Not merely was the consumer not represented, but the export trade was not represented. I do not think it ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that the export trade should be represented, and by the export trade I mean all the industries which manufacture for export. I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of thinking that it did not occur to him that industries manufacturing for export had any interest in the matter. I suppose I am an old-fashioned person. I have been accustomed all my like to being in a minority, but in this particular matter and in this particular argument, I can claim to be with the majority of those in this country who have dealt with the subject. I urge that every attempt to reduce the volume and value of the imports into this country, whatever effect it may have upon the particular industry concerned, does inevitably tend to reduce the aggregate exports from this country and cannot avoid doing so. Consequently, if you consider solely the state of a particular industry, you lose sight of another consideration which you should take into account. It is not enough to say, "Here are men unemployed in this particular industry; therefore we will put on a protective tariff." The real question is the effect which the tax will have. It is not enough to say, "In the United States everything is flourishing; therefore their protective tariff must be the cause." There are all sorts of causes at work.
  This afternoon we have had an extraordinary exhibition of logic. Member after Member has risen to say, "A certain state of things exists; therefore let us put on a protective tariff." But there is a gap in their reasoning. They have not shown that putting on a Customs duty is, in any sense, going to reduce unemployment, and after listening to and reading the arguments on this question, I must say, so far as my knowledge and experience goes, there is not a shadow of validity in the argument. No consideration has been given to the total effect upon unemployment. It has already boon pointed out that the cutlery trade itself produces more for export than for home consumption. Nevertheless. the arguments all through the report of the committee are centred upon home consumption without any regard to the effect which the duty is likely to have upon the
  2334
  export market. If you place a duly on cutlery you are bound to produce a series of effects upon all the export industries of the country. You will have the effect upon the cutlery trade itself. You are going to try to keep out German cutlery which has hitherto been imported into this country. In so far as you succeed in doing so that German cutlery will not cease to be produced; it will not be thrown into the sea, but it will be sent to neutral markets where our cutlery has been filling a large place in the aggregate up to now, and where it will now meet with the competition of that German cutlery. Once in Pekin I wished to buy a pocket knife. I wont to the only available shop, and being shown a knife of unusual shape, asked where it came from, and was told it came from Germany. I discovered that this shop was supplied entirely with cutlery from Germany. That is the sort of thing which you will find increasing if you attempt to divert imports of cutlery now coming into this country to other countries.
  That is the more obvious side of the question, but the effect to which I was referring is not the effect on the export trade in cutlery, but the effect of an import duty on cutlery on the export trade in other articles. Some hon. Members seem to find it impossible to imagine how an import duty on cutlery from Germany could have any effect on the total amount of this country's exports in other articles—in coal, for instance, or boots, or garments—but, if they consider the matter further, they must realise that the German, who sends goods to this country and sells them here, has, therefore a credit in this country. As the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) pointed out some months ago, he cannot possibly take away the proceeds of the goods which he has sold in England, in any form other than goods which he buys in England, and that is why this country has had such an enormous export trade. It is because we have, of necessity, been large importers of some kinds of goods that we have been able to export other kinds of goods. The difficulty is that you cannot say which particular export trade is going to suffer if the Sheffield cutlers are protected by an import duty. All you can say is that some export trade will suffer. It may be coal, it may be garments, it may be boots, it may be something else.

  2335
  but if you multiply your import duties and exclude one import after another, or tend or try to exclude one import after another from this country, inevitably you strike a blow at the industries which manufacture for export. Consequently, you must take into account the unemployment which you are causing in those exporting industries simultaneously with your attempt to put Sheffield cutlers into employment.
  Various hon. Members have asked why the Labour party should take up the Free Trade position. The Labour party takes up a position against a Customs tariff on imports not because it is in favour of laissez faire, not because of many of the arguments with which the Whigs and the Liberals backed up Free Trade, but because of the economic argument which has been borne out by experience, that for this country to place an import duty on commodities, even if it is confined to manufactured and luxury articles, will inevitably—I do not say raise the price of these articles; I put it more guardedly—but will inevitably make the price to the consumer of those articles higher than it would have been had there been no duty. Consequently the effect of the duty is pro tanto to reduce the real incomes of the people. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) taunted this party with caring for the consumer, and said he was astonished that we should care for those persons who consumed without producing. I confess we do not care very much for those who consume without producing. What matters to us is the interest of the whole community. Nearly all the community are producers. A section are not, and even those who do produce are only producers for a certain number of hours in the 24, and we are all consumers for all the 24 hours. Therefore, the interest of the people as consumers is at least as important to the four-fifths of the population who are weekly wage-earners as the amount of their wages or the amount of their employment—and we think it is even more important.
  I remember once, five and twenty years ago, in the time when Protection was first revived in this country after so long a lapse, mooting two or three of its leading exponents at table, and I suddenly said: "If you will guarantee that the real
  2336
  wages of the wage-earning community as a whole shall not be reduced by your protective tariff or preference, shake hands; I am prepared to make a treaty. "But, of course, they would not guarantee that the real wages of the wage receivers would not be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will not guarantee it, and the whole of the Conservative party will not dream of guaranteeing it. On the contrary, many of them say frankly —and many more think and are careful not to say—that the real wages of these four-fifths of the community had better be reduced, that industry would be healthier, trade more prosperous, profits larger, and so on. It is because we are afraid that this policy, largely because of its interference with the industries which manufacture for export, will reduce, not only the volume of employment for the whole of the community on balance, but also the prosperity of the community, and especially the real wages of the community, that we are opposed to it.
  The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) wondered why the Labour party should place itself in opposition to a protective tariff, and he attributed it to some recent change in its policy. Surely hon. Members opposite are not quite so ignorant of the Labour party as that; surely they must know, if they take any trouble, that the Labour party has, from the very year of its formation in this country, during the last 20 years or more, repeatedly, almost every year, declared itself opposed to a protective tariff in its conferences, over and over and over again. I do not associate myself in any way with any aspersion on the honour or the honesty of the Prime Minister, but I think we may, without undue presumption, call upon him to explain what he meant when he said he would not introduce a protective tariff by a side wind under cover of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The hon. Member for Moseley wants to extend this long list of Customs duties which have already been imposed. Is there anything in the policy of the Safeguarding of Industries Act which would prevent the extension of these duties, one by one, to practically every manufacturing industry in the land? So far as I can see, there is nothing. Whether or not the limit in the

  2337
  mind of the President of the Board of Trade of an industry of substantial importance is 5,000 employés, there is hardly any industry in this country which can be called an industry which does not have 5,000 employés in the whole of the United Kingdom, and consequently the requirement that it shall be of substantial importance has already been completely whittled away. Any industry can come in under that condition, like that of fabric gloves which has fewer than 2,000 employés.
  Secondly, it is to be an industry which is subject to unfair competition. I have passed some years of my life on the Continent of Europe, and I have been interested to hear, in the various countries in which I have lived, of the terribly unfair competition to which they were exposed on the part of England. It was England that they thought was unfairly competing with them. They did not assert that English wages were lower, but that we had such an advantage by our capital, by our commercial organisation, by our machinery, and by our great start that it was quite impossible for their infant industries to compete against the unfair competition in this country, and, of course, the United States of America said the same against us. There is hardly any industry in this country which could not show that in some country or another wages are lower, hours are longer, currency is more crooked, railway favours are given to the export trade, and this, that, and the other, in order to be brought in under that heading, and we are entitled to ask, on the general discussion, how these industries that are picked out for us to vote on to-night are separated and marked off from the other industries of the country. It is only lack of time, as the hon. Member for Moseley pointed out, that prevented them being brought forward.
  To the 15 or 20 separate industries which are already the subject of protective duties, there are added these five, and at what point do we approach what could be called a general tariff— the phrase is incorrect, because it means something quite different, but as a matter of fact, as understood in this country now, it is apparently a Customs tariff on all manufactured articles—which, we have it on the authority of the Prime Minister, shall not be undertaken in this
  2338
  Parliament and shall not even be attempted under the guise of the Safeguarding of Industries Act? Certainly those associated with me in this matter will oppose these duties from beginning to end by all the means in our power, not because we are heedless of the miseries of those who are unemployed in these industries, though they are not the worst industries, the industries which have the most unemployed, but because, while we doubt very much whether the enactment of these Customs duties will have any beneficent effect on the unemployed in these particular industries, we say that, even if there may be some slight improvement, it will be far outweighed by the adverse effect which the tax cannot fail to have upon the rest of the community, upon the export trade, not only in the industries concerned, but in all the other industries as well, and particularly upon the shipping trade and, therefore, the shipbuilding trade, and the marine engineering trade, and the other industries which are still so severely suffering.
  For that reason, we not only protest against this step as really in violation of the Prime Minister's pledge and in contradiction of the votes of a considerable majority of the people who voted at the last two elections, but also because we think it will have worse consequences. On the other hand, we have the satisfaction that we shall have something to fight on at the next General Election in regard to which we can carry a campaign of instruction throughout the country. I am an economist, and have been ever since I was adult, and in the domain of economics I am not afraid, and I have no doubt that in the constituencies of this country we shall get a majority of votes even if not of Members on a question of this nature.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Debate has ranged over a very wide field, and I will briefly deal with such of the points as can be treated as at all relevant to either the general principle or its particular application. The first criticism which was advanced was that of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), and also by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and related to procedure. I do not know why procedure, because the procedure which it was announced to the

  2339
  House would be followed, and on which the House voted on a previous occasion, is also the very procedure which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) advocated when the late Safeguarding of Industries Act was in operation. He said it was unprecedented to give to the President of the Board of Trade the power of imposing a duty by an Order, and that you ought to apply it by a Finance Bill. That is what we are doing. It is untrue to say, therefore, that you are leaving it to the President-of the Board of Trade to impose the duties. As I said when we were debating this matter earlier in the year, Reports would be presented, and it would rest with the House of Commons at all stages to pronounce upon the recommendations in those Reports, and those the vote and verdict would be the vote and verdict of the House of Commons. It is perfectly fantastic to suggest that, by this procedure you are vesting an unconstitutional right in the Minister.
  The right hon. Member for West Swansea also said it was a departure from precedent for the President of the Board of Trade to appoint the Committees. He must settle that with his leader or colleague the right hot.. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), because when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was Prime Minister be introduced the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and under that Act it was the President of the Board of Trade who was to set up the Committees.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY rose—
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is at once a leader and follower, but I am not sure whether he leads or follows. But the right hon. Member for West Swansea must settle that constitutional point with those who, at any rate for the time being, provide both the leadership and the sinews of war for his party. Then I was asked whether I had given any instructions to committees. I have given instructions to committees which are laid down in the White Paper, and I have given no other instructions of any sort or kind to any committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you give any instructions to the Gas
  2340
  Mantle Committee?"] The only instructions to the Gas Mantle Committee were those set out in the White Paper. One of the things they have to find out is whether the applicant industry is of substantial importance by reason of the volume of employment engaged in the production of goods or by reason of the nature of the goods produced. All that I said when moving the gas mantle inquiry was that it was referred to the Committee because it was argued that there was a prima facie case on account of the character of the industry. That was the ground on which I found, as I am entitled to find under the. White Paper, a prima facie case, and that was the case referred to that Committee. Then the question was raised, I think by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, as to whether there would be publication of evidence. No. Sir, and I cannot understand why there is all this amount of talk about it, except, of course, that I realise that the more material for obstruction there is provided the longer hon. Members who oppose these duties can prevent people getting to work.
  I am asked why I do not provide more material. I have provided more printed and published material than has ever before been provided for discussion under a Finance Bill. I am following exactly the precedent laid down by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in the original Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I propose to adhere to it. When duties have been proposed in a Budget, whether upon land values or on anything else, never has any White Paper relating to evidence and so on been laid. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes counsel with various interests and makes inquiries before he introduces taxation, but it has never been suggested that he should lay papers dealing with every discussion he has had. These are duties founded on Ways and Means Resolutions, and, go far from withholding information from the House, we are giving far more information than it has ever had before in any Finance Bill.
  Then there were various specific points raised which were more relevant to the-particular question we are discussing to-night, as to whether there should be a duty on cutlery. It was said it would

  2341
  injure the Sheffield steel industry if you put this duty on Gillette blades. Of course, it will do nothing of the kind. So far as steel blades are made in America, that steel will still be exported to America. Insofar as they are made in this country instead of being made in America, exactly the same amount would be used in this country.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman not overlooked the fact that Sheffield steel used to work up Gillette blades in America is not only used for the supply of blades here, but all over the world?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Not in the least. Then it was said there was no unfair competition by Germany, because the rate of interest, at which Germans can borrow money to-day, is high. But that single factor is more than counterbalanced by the advantage which German firms have obtained by equipping factories on borrowed money repaid in heavily depreciated marks; so that these assets stand in their balance sheet to-day practically at a nominal charge, and if you have the advantage of having your fixed capital written down to nothing you get so great a reduction in your overhead charges that you can afford to pay a little more for your money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley referred to the lack of data about German wages in the Report, and subsequently pointed out that no one came forward with rebutting evidence against some of the statements made in the Report. I am not going to make again the speech I made in opening this Debate, but I think it may be assumed that if there was no rebutting evidence brought forward then that which was put forward was true. If there had been rebutting evidence in respect of foreign competition it would have been brought forward. Where there was a case there was no hesitation on the part of opponents in bringing evidence forward, as the Committee will see from the Gas Mantles Report. In these circumstances I think we may agree that if wrong evidence, or incorrect evidence, had been given by the advocates for Protection, the opponents would have been present with rebutting evidence.
  2342
  When the right hon. Gentleman dealt with another argument which I shall deal with in a single sentence, the right hon. Gentleman accused the British industry of inefficiency. He said a tariff-created inefficiency. But the examples of efficiency he cited in contrast were all places where tariffs are in operation. Next, he said: "Do not let us take 1913 as the standard of comparison to start from." That is very interesting. Generally it is said by the other side when comparisons are made, "You are taking post-War industry, but what about 1913?" I am content in this particular case to take both pre-War and post-War and see the general trend of the years, and to base my case upon either. Of course as regards cutlery I am entitled to take 1913, because this industry was one of the earliest established industries in this country; but I shall remember and recall the right hon. Gentleman's dictum that the 1913 production is not a thing upon which a comparison ought to be based when we discuss the case of gas mantles. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) raised the question of the German Treaty.
  No question whatever arises under the Treaty. Let us be perfectly clear upon that. In the first place, as I explained to the House when we first discussed the way in which safeguarding of industries should be carried out, we proposed to abandon discriminating duties, and to go for general duties, and for the very reason that if we were to go in for discriminatory duties, as distinct from general duties, we should be breaking the pro-visions of the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties. Therefore, I say there is no possible breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties in putting on a general duty. Let me carry the matter a step further, because the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman show that he has not read the whole of the Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) is, of course, an omnivorous reader, but I do not think he has quite mastered the provisions in the Protocol.
  When we were negotiating the Treaty and the Protocol it was made abundantly

  2343
  clear that we stood by the policy of safeguarding, otherwise we should be false to our election pledges, and, of course. we were not going to negotiate a Treaty which put it out of our power to do one of the things we were returned to office to do. We did not negotiate the Treaty under false pretences. We made it abundantly clear to the German negotiators exactly what we were going to do when we were negotiating the Treaty. But we do not rest merely upon such a statement, explicit though it may have been; we set it out in the Protocol. In Article I of the Protocol the principle of the Most-Favoured Nation Treaty is set out, and reaffirmed. We also put in these words:
  "While maintaining their right to take appropriate measures to preserve their own industries."
  These words were put in specifically, reserving in terms our right to safeguard. It is fantastic to suggest, therefore, that there is any breach of the letter of the Treaty or of the spirit in which that Treaty was negotiated. Observe, too, the relative position of the two countries. We have here and there a duty, but there is nothing like a general tariff or approaching it. They have a general tariff; and so has nearly every other of the countries with whom we have Treaties. No foreign country is going to like us less or respect us less or be less willing to do business with us because we preserve, where necessary, our own industries.
  Captain BENN: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that may I ask him whether there is contemplated in the negotiations with Germany any modification of the McKenna Duties?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not in the least arise on the present issue.
  Captain BENN: No?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, but so far as those duties may be discussed, it is a matter that is in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I certainly am not going to answer a question across the Floor of the House about the McKenna Duties. If the hon. and
  2344
  gallant Gentleman wishes to have information and he puts a question down he can do so. He has been quite long enough in the House to know that.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the General Treaty, will he say whether the Germans have made representation on the Protocol arising out of this proposal indicating that they accept the view of the Protocol which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to us now?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, certainly. I think so. What they wished was that we should refrain from doing something under the Protocol which was contemplated by the Protocol. There were only two other points put to mo. One was directed to the balance of trade. The trade balance is far more adverse now than before the War. We are doing a vastly larger import trade than before the War. We can very well afford to reduce the balance of our imports, and we shall not in the least suffer by doing so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley said that if we restrict imports we lessen trade. Is that the reason why the Labour party to-day stand for complete prohibition of a large number of imports when they are produced under sweated conditions? I exclude the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham, of course, because he has dissociated himself from the so of his party.
  Mr. WEBB: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. The only point of my objection has reference to "a large number of imports." No one has proposed prohibition of a large number.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the document which his party have prepared. recommending, not a duty here and there, but recommending prohibition of every article that is made under sweated conditions.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is the Socialist position.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quite appreciate it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is wrong with it?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is a bit extreme, but if I am more modest in my demands, if I am not yet going the whole way, then come with me into the Lobby to-night. I am but a timid adventurer in this matter, where others are gay buccaneers.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You come with us, and we will do you good.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I say in conclusion, as I said in opening, with respect to challenges as to pledges, that our pledges were perfectly plain, and they were that we would not introduce a general tariff, but that we would safeguard industries. In the last General Election a number of people were going about saying we could introduce a general tariff by safeguarding—so apparently the electors were warned—but the Prime Minister has not the least intention of doing it. The pledge is positive as well as negative, and he means to keep it on the positive side as well as on the negative.
  Major CRAWFURD: The speech to which he have just listened more than justifies the full discussion that has taken place on the general principle of these duties. A few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman was a little impatient because I was on the point of making an interruption with regard to the evidence respecting conditions in the cutlery trade in Germany. I hope he will not regard it as offensive language if I say that what he said then is typical of the kind of way in which this case has been produced—with slipshod argument, evasive language, and an entire absence of relevant facts. The right hon. Gentleman was saying at that moment that the Committee had had knowledge of the conditions of the cutlery trade in Germany. In the Report of the Committee I find a statement about the wages of the Metal Workers' Union of Cologne and district, but the Committee go on to say:
  "We endeavoured to ascertain whether wages in the cutlery industry in Solingen were, in fact, the same as those for the metal industry."
  The only wages that matter in this inquiry are the wages in the industry in Germany, which is similar to the industry in Sheffield, and that industry is carried
  2346
  on in the very district where the Committee say:
  "We endeavoured to ascertain."
  In other words, they did not ascertain.
  Mr. REMER: Read on.
  9.0 P.M.
  Major CRAWFURD: I have read on, and I shall have more to say on this matter. They were unable to obtain the only figures which would enable them to say whether this industry was suffering from such competition as, by the definition of the White Paper, is unfair. This brings me to one question which, I think, needs to be ventilated. The right hon. Gentleman said he has given us more evidence, more facts, more data than has ever been given during the discussion of a Finance Bill. I entirely sympathise with the objection which was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that we were being asked to take this decision in the dark. Take this very case. How is anybody opposing one of these applications to give the truth with regard to the conditions in, say, German factories. Clearly it is only by producing somebody who knows those conditions and who can give the facts, and he must inevitably be a foreigner. Those who have had anything to do with these applications know the amount of prejudice that would be created by introducing a foreign witness to give evidence before one of these Committees. If there be any doubt about that, let me quote a passage from another of these Reports, that of the Committee on Wrapping Paper. On page 12 it says:
  "A leading witness for the opponents belonging to a firm of agents for foreign mills"—
  not a foreigner, but a British agent for foreign mills—
  "gave us what purported to be"—
  what purported to be—
  "exact details regarding establishment, machines, quantity of output,"
  and so on. They go on to say:
  "Apart from this, the particulars given did not admit of check either by this Committee or by the witness himself; and they were ultimately, of course, supplied by foreign manufacturers deeply interested in the result of this inquiry."
  Are hon. Members opposite satisfied with that? Does the hon. Member for Maccles-

  2347
  field (Mr. Remer) believe that is a proper thing to put in the Report?
  Mr. REMER: Yes, certainly.
  Major CRAWFURD: What the hon. Member says is that any evidence given by an Englishman who happens to be an agent for a foreign mill and carrying on commercial work in this country is to be discounted because the figures are ultimately supplied by foreign manufacturers deeply interested in the result of the inquiry. If the hon. Member is dissatisfied with that, how can he or any Committee ever get the only figures which will tell them the truth about the conditions in foreign mills? Let us turn to the Report of the Cutlery Committee. On page 9 figures are given dealing with employment. This is a case very much to the point on this question of evidence. There you have figures which purport—I am copying the language of the other Report—to give the figures of employment. There is a table giving the record for six-years. The members of the Committee say in that Report:
  "We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment."
  Why have they been unable to obtain them? Surely the right hon. Gentleman could have communicated with the Minister of Labour, and surely inquiries could have been made so that official figures could have been given.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: The reason is stated, if the hon. and gallant Member will read a little further on.
  Major CRAWFURD: The hon. Member draws my attention to the language of the Report. I am merely contrasting the treatment of the figures given on one side in one Report with the figures given on another side in another Report. Here because they are figures which may ultimately have been supplied by foreign people the language of the Report says that these figures "purport" to come.
  Mr. HERBERT: The hon. and gallant Member quoted (he Report as saying that we had been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment, and he asked why they did not go to the Ministry of Labour. May I point out that they give the reason, which is that
  2348
  they are included in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette."
  Major CRAWFURD: I only suggest that as these figures are obviously vital to the argument, it would not have been too much for the Ministry of Labour to have assisted by having a special inquiry. Is there anything unreasonable in that?
  Mr. HERBERT: Was it possible?
  Major CRAWFURD: If it is impossible to get the accurate figures for unemployment it is most improper to print in the Report an ex parte statement put in by the applicant. My information is that before the Committee concluded its sittings another table was handed in showing a declining figure for unemployment, and that table has not been printed. Take that case alone. How is the Committee to make up its mind? How are hon. Members who are anxious to know the facts to make up their minds if they do not get the evidence? I know the President of the Board of Trade said that more information was given in these Reports than had ever been given before in a Finance Act. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not go into the details, and he simply repeated statements made by the Committee. We can only come to a conclusion if we are really given the full facts upon which these Reports have been based.
  Take cutlery again. The figures in the Cutlery Report dealing with imports quote the number of dozens of these articles of cutlery imported. The retained imports are put down as 1,770,000 dozens. On that principle the 740,000 dozen blades from the German company are valued at £15,000. I would like to point out, however, that 1,500,000 dozen are American blades, and they are valued at £125,000, and I believe the White Paper says that the unfair competition comes from the country where the bulk of the importation comes from. As a matter of fact, this figure, if it had been brought out, proved with regard to that part of the country that German competition has nothing to do with it, because it is American competition. I think my right hon. Friend showed earlier in the Debate that American competition is carried on under conditions exactly the opposite of

  2349
  the conditions laid down in the White Paper as being unfair competition.
  The President of the Board of Trade, in his reply to the Debate, made some remarks about the irrelevance of some of the criticisms. May I put to the right hon. Gentleman's colleague one or two simple questions that we would like answered? Will the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade ask the President if, during the course of the next general discussion on these duties, he will remember that he has been asked definitely to say what he means by an industry of substantial importance, because that is most vital to all these reports. [An HON. MEMBER: "The question answers itself!"] It does not answer itself. The hon. Member who has interrupted me may have the right answer, but we have not got it. If the question answers itself, it would not be asking too much to ask the President of the Board of Trade to enlighten us, who do not see these things so clearly. Will the Parliamentary Secretary also ask his colleague to give us a perfectly clear answer as to what is meant by "normal competition?" During the Debate earlier in the year the President of the Board of Trade used the word "unprecedented." What does he mean by that? To what standard is he referring? Are we to compare the year 1913 with the year 1920? I know many hon. Members would like us to do that, because 1920 was an abnormal year. We should also like to know what "abnormal" means?
  What is the standard by which the Committees are expected to proceed by, and how are they to decide whether competition is abnormal or not? What is the definition of "unfair competition"? I know there will be other occasions for raising this issue, but I think we ought to have a perfectly clear idea now of what is meant by unfair competition. These Committees are set up with the specific duty of inquiring into the necessity or desirability of placing the duty on a specific article. Are they entitled to recommend a duty upon any other article besides the one to which their reference relates? Take the Committee dealing with wrapping papers. They are asked whether, in their opinion, there should be a duty placed upon wrapping paper.
  2350
  In considering their reply, they have to-consider the effect of such a duty upon other industries such as the paper bag industry. Another set of people may be adversely affected, and they have to be heard, and if this kind of thing is allowed to go on, the inquiries might go on to an. almost unlimited extent.
  In conclusion, I want to refer to one or two things that were said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon)—I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment —with reference to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). He began by saying he did not wonder that my hon. and gallant Friend had found no support in the country for the principles which he advocated on this matter. Let me remind hon. Members opposite that, the last time their party went to the country with a policy of the nature of the one they are now pursuing, they were thoroughly well beaten, and we on this side believe that, if they go to the country again with the same policy, they will be beaten again. That may or may not be an accurate forecast, but at any rate it is untrue to say that the policy of Free Trade which we urge from these benches has not received plenty of support in the country in recent years. In 1923 it received the support of the vast majority of the electorate. I want to take exception to the statement that we who argue in favour of Free Trade are antagonistic to productive industry. We are nothing of the sort. Our position is that industry will be more efficient and more productive under a policy of Free Trade than under a policy of Protection.
  Mr. SANDEMAN: Tell that to the unemployed.
  Major CRAWFURD: I am perfectly willing to tell it to anyone who is unemployed. Hon. Members on the other side, and the Government, during the course of this year, have taken measures to reduce the amount of the payments for unemployment benefit—what is called the dole—and they support that course of action with arguments to the effect that the existence of these payments encourages people to apply for them without giving a fair measure of return for the money and support that they gave I think that that is not a misstatement of the arguments of hon. Members

  2351
  opposite. Our contention is that the giving of a tariff to any set of manufacturers is in principle exactly the same as giving a. dole, but with this difference, that, when you give a dole to men who are out of work, it is done through the House of Commons. The money is raised from the general taxpayer, and the House of Commons has the responsibility of giving it. When you give a manufacturer a tariff, you simply give him permission to put his hand into the pocket of someone else and take a certain amount out of it. On these grounds we on these benches will certainly do all we can to defeat these proposals.
  Mr. REMER: The hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat apparently regards a menace to Free Trade as being on a far higher level than a menace to those unfortunate people who are unemployed at the present time.
  Major CRAWFURD: No!
  Mr. REMER: He has put a number of conundrums to the Front Government Bench about these duties. I wonder if he will answer a question which I will put to him? Can he give us some definition of the position of the Liberal party in the country at the present time? It would seem to me that their policy of undiluted Free Trade, judging from the various elections which have taken place, does not lead them very far as regards support in the country. Furthermore, I cannot understand the hon. and gallant Member's reference to-night to the position in Germany and in other parts of the world. It seems to me that he was standing here in this House of Commons, not merely as representing a constituency in this country, but as representing a set of people in foreign countries.
  Major CRAWFURD: I will let the hon. Member's first statement go by, but I really cannot allow a perfectly offensive statement like his second one to pass. May I be allowed to say that what the hon. Member has just said is typical of the kind of prejudice which, as I said a few minutes ago, is created if you try to get foreign evidence? The whole of my argument on that point was directed to the difficulty that is caused by people like the hon. Member, because, the moment
  2352
  you bring any foreigner into the question, prejudice is immediately raised.
  Mr. REMER: I did not wish to be offensive to the hon. Member, but when one reads the reports of the evidence which was given before these various Committees, and finds that almost everyone of those who opposed these applications come from the same source, and that the opposition is very largely financed by the importers in this country—
  Major CRAWFURD: The London Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. REMER: The importing section of the London Chamber of Commerce.
  Major CRAWFURD: It is an insult to the Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. REMER: —and that in every case the counsel briefed in these cases has been either Mr. Pringle or Mr. Entwistle, who are both very well known in this House as Members of the Liberal party, I think we can dismiss the Liberal party as being of no account in this controversy.
  The CHAIRMAN: It was agreed that this should be a general discussion, but not a universal one.
  Mr. REMER: I have no wish to transgress, but I was tempted to do so by some remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member, and I do not intend to refer to his speech again. I am concerned about the attitude which has been adopted by the Socialist party, because they are the party which is supposed to represent the protection of the working man's wages and the prevention of sweating in this country. How can they come here to-night and say they are going to vote against the duties on cutlery, to name only one instance, when it is shown quite clearly that the wages in the competing country of Germany—[An Hon MEMBER: "And America!"]—-I am talking about the competing country of Germany, which is a very serious item in any case. In the competing country of Germany the wages in that trade are from 8½d. to 9d. or l0d. —I will make the hon. Member a present of the l½d.—while the wages in this

  2353
  country are very considerably higher than that, namely, from Is. l½d. to Is. 6d. in Sheffield. We find, also, that the hours in Germany are 56 per week, as against 47 here. How can hon. Gentlemen opposite come to this House and go to the country and state that they are the people who are obtaining shorter hours and higher wages for the people of this country when they are opposing duties on cutlery imported into this country which are going to be of considerable advantage to the workers of this country? One could go at great length into the same kind of effect which is going to be produced in every one of these trades. In every one of them the competition which the British worker has to meet is that of lower wages and longer hours, and yet here are these so-called champions of the British working man saying that they are in favour of this competition still going on, which will drive the British working man into a state of still lower wages and longer hours and into a state of unemployment.
  It is my belief that not one of these duties will do one man, woman or child in this country any harm whatever, and that they are going to do a great many people a great deal of good. We have the examples before us. The same out. cry is raised about these duties that was raised about the Silk Duties, and we know what the effect of these duties has been. [HON. MEMBERS: "More unemployment!"] The effect on a great many workers in my constituency has been of such a character, as the clerk to the board of guardians told me a few days ago, that the destitution in that town has now been reduced to its normal state, instead of the very serious state in which it was before the duties were imposed. I do not propose to go on to discuss them, and I do not think you, Mr. Chairman, would allow me to do so, nor do I propose to deal with the other taxes that have already been put on. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of those people who say that this is simply a jumping-off ground in order to have further taxes put on. I am not, quite rightly, prepared to accept this as a final step. It is only because I believe absolutely and firmly in the efficacy of the general tariff—I believe in the whole
  2354
  thing. Quite frankly I want to say to the Committee that I believe in the whole thing—and because I believe that the results of these taxes is going to be that they are going to show an advantage to this country that I am prepared to take my chance to see how they turn out. [Interruption.] Apparently hon. Members opposite are not prepared, simply for the sake of some theories, to take the risk, fearing that these duties may be of advantage. If they are of advantage they will lead to other duties, no doubt. But if they are not of advantage they will result in the duties themselves eventually being repealed in this country.
  As I said, I want to see these duties put on to other things, and, speaking for myself, I want to say to my hon. Friends on the Treasury bench that I am not satisfied with the Board of Trade in the slow way in which they have moved in this matter. So far they have listened too much to the conundrums which have been delivered to the Department by such hon. Members as those who have spoken this evening. I should like to see this matter pushed forward instead of being held back; there has been far too much of a restraining influence. So far from criticising the Board of Trade for going ahead, my criticism is that they have not gone forward quickly enough. For those reasons, I for one, if I had two votes in this House, I would give them every time in support of these duties. I would give them because I believe that the duties are going to be of considerable benefit to the working people of this country. They are going to find employment for people who are at present starving and out of work, and give them the opportunity by which they will eventually live happier and better lives. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members do not want them to lead happier lives. Of this I am certain, that I am not afraid of a fight, and I am certain of this fact, that, when the case comes to be heard, as the result of actual experience, of these duties that have been put on, we will see that the country, with no uncertain voice, will say that they are going to have not merely these duties, but something in the nature of a general tariff.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I wish, if I can, to avoid covering the ground which has already been dealt with in this Debate,

  2355
  but I should like to endeavour to reply to such arguments as have been used, and particularly to certain arguments used by the President of the Board of Trade, to which, up to the present, at any rate while I have been in the House, no reference has been made. One fact to which he referred in his speech is this: There were committees set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act in 1922 which reported in favour of tariffs in some of the industries which are now to be granted that treatment. But the peculiar feature of these Reports that have been presented to us is that none of the reasons which were enforced in 1922 are any longer applicable, and that a series of fresh reasons have had to be found.
  In 1922 the one reason that in this case a tariff was imposed was that there was a depreciated currency in Germany, and that that was the reason that Germany was obtaining an unfair advantage. The President of the Board of Trade, in his opening speech, and in both his speeches, attempted to deal with that position, and I wish to examine the argument which he placed before the Committee. His argument is that, although there is no longer any depreciation in Germany, although, as the Committee knows, the German mark at the present moment stands, I believe, as a slight premium as against 1913, Germany is still obtaining an unfair advantage as a result of the inflation which she achieved, and through which she went two or three years ago. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade was this, that owing to that inflation—and this argument is used, I think, in some of the Reports—German industry was able to wipe out all its mortgages, all its debentures, and all its fixed interest charges, and that that gives it an advantage against our manufacturers. Hon. Members will recognise that that is a fair statement of the argument. I am not denying that, but I think it does show, to my mind, the fact that there was a bias in these committees when one realises that, while they put these arguments on the one side, they mentioned not one single word of the corresponding effect, on the other side, which inflation in Germany has now left in its train. Nor did the President of
  2356
  the Board of Trade. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) knows what these effects are. He knows that the result of inflation in Germany is that there is a lack of capital in every industry in Germany. He knows that it is almost impossible to get credit on any reasonable terms, and he knows that the rate of interest is rising to heights which would appear impossible in this country. I believe at the present moment the bank rate in Germany is 2 per cent. per month. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The bank rate is 2 per cent. per month, and he knows in addition—
  Sir F. WISE: Nine per cent. per annum.
  Mr. ROY WILSON: May I interrupt the hon. Member. I think he means the rate of interest on commercial advances, not the bank rate of the Reich Bank. That is not 2 per cent. per month, but 9 per cent. The rate for commercial advances in Germany is 12 per cent. per annum.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member evidently speaks with authority. If it is 12 per cent. per annum it shows that in that matter we, in this country, as the result of having escaped inflation, have an enormous advantage over Germany. In addition, the very fact that the class that lived on these debentures and mortgages has disappeared means that the whole weight of taxation has to be, borne by German industry alone, and that again is a disadvantage as compared with the position in this country. The fact that the Reports mention nothing of these counteracting circumstances, although in the opinion of many persons of much greater authority than I possess in this country they have entirely wiped out the advantages of having dispensed with mortgages and debentures, and that they have come to their conclusion without taking them into their reckoning, indicates that they are biased in favour of the applicants, which is to be seen, not only in this, but in all the other paragraphs the Reports contain.
  May I examine the statement the President of the Board of Trade made with regard to the actual conditions under which the cutlery trade is carried on in Sheffield. It is perfectly evident, if you read this Report, that the Committee

  2357
  itself was most dubious, not as to the quality of the Sheffield production, but as to the efficiency of their system of mass production as compared with other countries. So dubious were they that they made up their minds to visit Sheffield before they came to their conclusions, and it was only because at the last moment they were hustled to produce their Report in time for this Debate that their visit to Sheffield never took place, and they gave Sheffield this testimonial without having carried out the investigation they originally intended. That is not in the Report, but it is well known, and it will not be contradicted. The Report refers to the Committee that went from Sheffield to Germany and reported that in the matter of plant, equipment, machinery, specialisation and facilities for massed production, Sheffield was not keeping her place in comparison with her competitors in Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was in 1919!"] I have been able to read the evidence that was given, and I find the chairman of that Committee was examined and he was not willing to say that the conditions in Sheffield had improved since that Report was issued. The President of the Board of Trade in reply to these criticisms in the Report made this defence. He said the Sheffield manufacturers have not the cash with which to improve their equipment and plant. If that is so, the question I should like to have answered is, what did they do with the profits Whey made during and immediately after the War, when Sheffield had a monopoly of the home market? The fact is that you get the most extraordinary impression of a Report which is leading up to one conclusion and then goes on to a recommendation opposite to what the paragraphs would lead you to expect.
  May I make some explanation of the position that we take on these benches with regard to the question of low wages in other countries? That has been put to us again and again, and the Report on sweated imports and international labour standards, for which we are responsible, has been quoted against as. The position has really been entirely misrepresented by the three speakers who have referred to it. These Reports do not say that if you can find that wages are lower in Germany or Czechoslovakia
  2358
  or Italy or France that is a reason for imposing tariffs. If you take that attitude, that is a reason for imposing tariffs practically on all goods that come into this country from every nation except the United States, and it is a reason why the United States should impose a tariff against us. Coal is a sweated industry from the standpoint of the United States, and, under those circumstances the right action for them to take is to exclude our coal from their markets. That, as a matter of fact, is not the attitude we on these benches take with regard to sweating. We recognise, and the report recognises, that you cannot take wages by themselves. You have to reckon with the cost of living, climate, physical necessities and taxation. The definition of sweating we gave in this report was, as a matter of fact, taken from the Versailles Treaty. It is not the definition hon. Members have quoted. The definition of sweating in this report is a standard of wages lower than those that are recognised in the customary conditions of the country, and that is not the definition that is stated by the Reports of the Committee upon which these duties are founded. Moreover, the attitude we take in that Report is that we are only willing to take action against these goods produced under these conditions in other countries if all other countries do so at the same time. Nothing in our Report justifies individual isolated action by this country alone.
  Finally may I explain why we do not accept the argument used by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). Hon. Members continually quote to us the case of the United States and argue that if Protection is good for the United States why should we reject it in this country? The reason we reject it is not a doctrinal or theoretical reason. The reason is that we say the actual commercial and economic conditions of this country are different from the United States and necessitate a different treatment of the problems they present. They are stated in every debate in which we deal with unemployment. It is generally agreed in this country that about half the population are directly or indirectly dependent upon our export trade and can therefore not he assisted, but are

  2359
  only likely to be injured, by any tariff upon imports. Look at the position of employment. At this moment, as every Debate in this House reveals, three-quarters of the unemployed are concentrated in a few industries—iron and steel, shipbuilding, coal, engineering, and so on, industries which are mainly depending for their prosperity upon the export trade.
  The question that we put with regard to these proposals is, what benefit are they going to be to the industries which at the present time are bearing the heaviest burden of distress? None at all. They do not touch one of them. All that they do is to impose a burden upon the workers in those industries, to increase their cost of living, and to compel them to pay tribute to these selected industries, practically all of which are in a more fortunate position than themselves. That is why we say these proposals are inapplicable to our conditions, and are a mere mockery when they are offered to the unemployed in this country.
  Mr. DIXEY: It is a great privilege to me to take part in this Debate. I had hoped to hear a few better arguments from the Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite in support of their extraordinary conduct in not supporting these Duties. As far as the Liberal party is concerned, I do not know whether there is going to be an arrangement, more or less, in the future between Gentlemen like the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)—whose very moderate opinions on Socialism are well-known—and Gentlemen like the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) who, I have no doubt, has probably more in common with the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer than many of the hon. Members who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that all the speeches made to-day from the Opposition benches have been made by moderate Labour men, and have been more or less in accord with the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and his friends.
  Speaking for myself as a whole-hogger Protectionist, I am not ashamed of it. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing
  2360
  matter. It is a mutter that many hon. Gentleman opposite, in years to come, will have to face. There is no question about it, that the people of this country to-day desire to see something done to create fresh employment, and the only way that they see is to give opportunities for fresh work in our industries. These taxes, whether they be big or little, go to show that the Government is taking seriously in hand the, pledge which was definitely given to the people of the country at the last Election. There was nothing more definite than the Prime Minister's pledge. If I may say so, quite frankly, many Conservative candidates at the last. Election would never have supported the Conservative party if there had not been that pledge. There may be hon. Members on this side of the House who do not hold very strong views on this matter, but many loyal supporters of the. Prime Minister do think that the future trade of this country is embraced in the policy of safeguarding industries. We believe that, and no matter how we are laughed at by eloquent theorists— those wonderful business men, many of whom do not get down to the facis and realise that we are losing our trade—we are determined to do the best we can to put our principles into practice and to safeguard our industries.
  I was very much amused at the action of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in reading portions of the Report on Cutlery. He read the Report in so far as it suggested that our manufacturers at Sheffield did not adopt the most improved methods, and that they could learn something from their German competitors. He read that paragraph, but he did not read the other paragraphs which more or lees explain the preliminary paragraph. He read the paragraph which says:
  "Machinery is used to a greater extent than in Sheffield, and the processes of manufacture very much sub-divided. All laborious work is eliminated where possible, machines being used for many operations done by hand in Sheffield."
  It proceeds:
  "The Chairman of the Mission further stated that he had made purchases of machinery in Germany and brought them to England with a view to installing them in some of the Sheffield factories, which had since been done, but with very little advantage to the trade, as he alleged that the use of expensive machinery in Sheffield fac-

  2361
  tories had proved of no avail without an assured home market."
  That makes all the difference. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer is a theorist in business. I do not think he has ever been engaged in the direction of any big commercial enterprise. I have been very deeply interested in running commercial enterprises [Laughter]. This is no laughing matter; it is common sense. I like these sneers from hon. Members opposite. I cannot believe that they care as much about this question of unemployment that they would have us believe, because they are only too ready to sneer at any remedy that we bring forward. You cannot have an improvement in the trade of this country and you cannot attract capital into the big industries until in some of these hard-hit industries you give some guarantee for future markets. I would far sooner—I am speaking quite candidly—have had a really strong tariff on iron and steel imports than I would have these duties in regard to these small industries. A great deal can come from very small beginnings. [Laughter.] Yes, and I wish I could say the same cheery words to my Friends below the Gangway opposite. This is a start which we welcome. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) said he could not understand on what evidence the Committee had reported. What better evidence could he have than the evidence of trade unionists employed in the cutlery trade, who went for the inquiry and were keenly in favour of these duties as were the employers.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I asked the President of the Board of Trade, repeatedly, to lay the evidence so that we could see it. We do not know what evidence has been given.
  Mr. DIXEY: May I refer the hon. Member to page 10 of the Report? I take it that this is a true record of what took place. The Committee say:
  "We received valuable evidence on the subject of employment from the witnesses from trade unions."
  One realises that statements made by trade union witnesses would carry a great deal of truth and would be statements upon which the Committee could rely. The Committee go on to say that there has been a tremendous depletion in this industry, owing to bad competition.
  2362
  When you get evidence of that sort in comparatively small industries such as this, it proves our contention that industry must be protected in this country. To the Government I would say that I shall walk into the Lobby with great pleasure to-night, because these Resolutions show that the Government have realised that they must take this matter in hand. I hope ft is only a small beginning from this point of view.
  Dr. HADEN GUEST: We have all listened to-night with very great interest to a large number of speeches from Members on the opposite side who take the greatest interest, as one hon. Member phrased it, in the unemployment and starvation of a large number of men in this country, but I have waited in vain to hear from the other side, and from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whose two speeches I followed very carefully indeed, anything which would really clinch the matter from our point of view. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—it is perhaps within his memory—that on the occasion when the Safeguarding of Industries was discussed in this House in February last, I put certain questions to him and laid especial stress on the importance of raising the standard of life of the worker. I have got a copy of the Report of that discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough, in reply to what I said, to say that all the reasoning of my speech was at the base of the object of this policy.
  I have listened to-night, and I have listened in vain, for one single definite reference to any attempt whatsoever to raise the standard of life of the worker. There has not been one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who was formerly President of the Board of Trade, put it across the Table to the right hon. Gentleman some little time ago that, if hon. Members on the other side of the House would propose definitely a high standard of living or a minimum, wage—I forget his precise words—then there might be a basis for some kind of a bargain. But this matter is approached in quite a different way. As far as I can judge, the whole thing is approached almost entirely from the standpoint of the manufacturer and not

  2363
  of the worker. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope he will be able to give some kind of an assurance that what has not been said by one speaker up to the present has only been accidentally forgotten.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I say at once that the best thing you can do to raise the standard of living of the worker is to find him work.
  Dr. GUEST: We want undoubtedly to find the worker work and on the previous occasion when this matter was debated in the House I think I gave very convincing proof indeed of my sincerity in a desire to discuss any method by which this desirable object could be approached. But I do not think on this occasion that the Government have made out their case. I do not think that they have answered or even attempted to answer the argument from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) with reference to the lace industry, which seemed to me a very convincing argument indeed.
  10.0 P.M.
  It was asked from the other side tonight why we on this side are opposed to this policy at the present time. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman very plainly why. Because we do not think that your policy will attain the object that you think it will. We do not think it will increase enough the amount of employment and we do not think that it will improve the standard of life. I venture to say that this matter is being approached in the wrong way. You ought, if you are going to make any real progress in this matter, first of all to approach it from the point of view of a guaranteed standard of life for the worker. If the right hon. Gentleman will get up in his place tonight and say he is prepared to guarantee to the workman in any industry the employers of which receive such a very substantial advantage as would be given by a duty imposed under the safeguarding of industries, and if he is prepared to say that he will add to the Bill a provision to guarantee the workers a minimum standard of life, then I think a good many of us on this side would reconsider our attitude towards the matter, but there is no guarantee of that kind whatsoever, [An HON. MEMBER: "What is a minimum
  2364
  standard of life? "] It is as defined by the trade unions in the trades concerned. There are many minimum standards of life already defined, and there is no difficulty about that. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that the President of the Board of Trade is, of course, quite familiar with that particular procedure. We on this side side are not doctrinaire Free Traders, but we are not going to take any kind of suggestion put forward for a change merely because it is a change. It was asked earlier in the course of the Debate by hon. Gentlemen on this side and others: "What is going to be done if these taxes are put on to control a rise of prices?" How are prices going to be dealt with? How is industry really going to be helped? I could not help being very struck indeed on reading the Report of the Cutlery Committee with the paragraph on page 14 dealing with machinery, and I venture to think and I believe all Members of the House who read these Reports, not only that on cutlery but other reports, carefully, will come to the same conclusion, that what a large number of these industries want is a thorough reorganisation not only as regards their machinery but also as regards the organisation of their management. It is in that way that I for my own part would be prepared to attempt to give assistance to industries at the present time. I do not believe at the present moment you are going to achieve anything more than the creation of a series of difficulties by these rather foolish little batches of plasters on our industrial system. You have got a lot of obsolete machinery both in management and actual machinery. You want new machinery, up-to-date machinery, in the organisation and in the management. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know? "] You are not going to—
  Mr. LLOYD: How do you know that is so?
  Dr. GUEST: The hon. Gentleman asks how I know this. Firstly, by a study of these Reports, and, secondly, by a fairly continuous study on the conditions of industry in this country, not only while I am sitting in this House. We on this side of the House are always endeavouring to increase our knowledge of the industries of this country, and it does

  2365
  seem to me rather ridiculous for any Member in this House to get up and suggest, as an hon. Member has suggested, that there are not industries in this country with obsolete machinery and that there are not industries whose management is completely out of date. That is a matter of common knowledge on these benches and in many other quarters. [An HON. MEMBER: "The General Medical Council."] I hear a reference to the General Medical Council. I do not claim, like the last hon. Gentleman who spoke from the other side and who is a solicitor to be an industrial magnate, but I do claim to have been for many years a student of the industries and economics of this country, and the fact that I am in the House of Commons at the present time shows at any rate that I have a certain amount of interest in these subjects and have given them a certain amount of attention, probably as much as any other hon. Member in this House, [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] What I do suggest is that in this matter the Government have not made out their case.
  If they are to get the assent of Members on this side of the Committee to any changes in the direction of the safeguarding of industries, they have to begin not in this way, but by guaranteeing an improved standard of life to the workers One of the reasons why America is so prosperous is that America pays very high wages. When I hear the industrialists on the other side campaigning for higher wages, when I hear them say that there must be no people in misery and destitution in this country, when they realise the elementary fact that the best and the chief market of this country is the home market, and that if that market has not the money to circulate, and if the people living in this country have not the money with which to buy goods, then industry is in a bad way—when I hear them saying that, I shall be readier than I am at the present time to support some of these proposals. I do not believe that these proposals are calculated to help industry seriously, and I do not
  think that they really carry out what the President of the Board of Trade said in his speech on 16th February in answer to myself. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the object of safeguarding was to try to maintain higher standards of life in our works. That, indeed, he said, was the very justification for taking as one of the reasons the unfair competition. I regret that this question of getting a higher standard of life has not up to the present been mentioned from the opposite side of the House.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: A distinct violation of the bargain made!
  Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a perfect scandal!
  Mr. HARRIS: We have had a very interesting discussion—
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On a point of Order. I understood that you put the Motion which I ventured to submit to the Chair?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I put the Question, "That the Question be now put," and I was proceeding to gather the voices.
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Is there anything in the Standing Orders to prevent an hon. Member addressing the House during the course of a Division?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It can be done only on a point of Order.
  Mr. MacLAREN: It is a scandalous business!
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 134.

  Division No. 436.]

  AYES.

  [10.8 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James R.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

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

  Albery, Irving James

  Atkinson, C.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Philipson, Mabel

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Preston, William

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Raine, W.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ramsden, E.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Remer, J. R.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Hilton, Cecil

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Rye, F. G.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Savery, S. S.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew. W.)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Clayton, G. C.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Colfox, Major Wm Phillips

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  smith, R. W.(Aberdn & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cope, Major William

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smithers, Waldron

  Couper, J. B.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Crook, C. W.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Lougher, L.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Davidson, J.(Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Dixey, A. C.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Drewe, C.

  McLean, Major A.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elveden, Viscount

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Meller, R. J.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Merriman, F. B.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Finburgh, S.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Wells, s. R.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Galbraith. J. F. W.

  Neville, R. J.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Ganzonl, Sir John

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

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Gates, Percy.

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Gee, Captain R.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Oakley, T.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Grace, John

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Penny, Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Perring, William George

  Major Hennessy and Major Sir

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Harry Barnston.

  2368

  2369

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

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

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardle, George D.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Barnes, A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Smillie, Robert

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Hirst, G. H.

  Snell, Harry

  Bromfield, William

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromley, J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Buchanan, G.

  John, William (Rhonda's, West)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Clowes, S.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon James H. (Derby)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lansbury, George

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Compton, Joseph

  Lawson, John James

  Thurtle, E.

  Connolly, M.

  Lowth, T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cove, W. G.

  Lunn, William

  Townend, A. E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Mackinder, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Duckworth, John

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duncan, C.

  March, S.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Dunnico, H.

  Montague, Frederick

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Murnin, H.

  Weir, L. M.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Forrest, W.

  Owen, Major G.

  Whiteley, W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Palln, John Henry

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Gillett, George M.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gosling, Harry

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenall, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wright, W.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ritson, J.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Groves, T.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 143.

  Division No. 437.]

  AYES.

  [10.18 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Albery, Irving James

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Crook, C. W.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Cane, Gordon Hall

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cassels, J. D.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Atkinson, C.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Dalziel Sir Davison

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R (Prtsmth. S)

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Davidson, Major-General sir John H.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Ashton)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Dixey. A. C.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Drewe, C.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Christie, J. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Elveden, Viscount

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Cope, Major William

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Couper, J. B.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Finburgh, S.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Savery, S. S.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Foxcroft, Captain c. T.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew. W.)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macintyre. Ian

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony

  McLean, Major A.

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Gabraith, J. F. W.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Gates, Percy

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Gee, Captain R.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Meller, R. J.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Grace, John

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Hall, Capt. W A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Templeton, W. P.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Neville, R. J.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Tinne, J. A.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Oakley, T.

  Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hilton, Cecil

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Perring, William George

  Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb,, N.)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Preston, William

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Radford, E. A.

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Raine, W.

  Wells, S. R.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Ramsden, E.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Rees. Sir Beddoe

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Rye. F. G.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Locker-Lampson, G (Wood Green)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Captain Hacking and Major

  Lougher, L.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Hennessy.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Clowes, S.

  Gillett, George M.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gosling, Harry

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Compton, Joseph

  Graham, Rt. Hon- Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Baker, Waiter

  Connolly, M.

  Greenall, T.

  Barnes, A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Barr, J.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Groves, T.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Briant, Frank

  Duckworth, John

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Broad. F. A.

  Duncan, C.

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

  Bromfield, William

  Dunnico, H.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bromley, J.

  Edwards, U. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hardie, George D.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  England, Colonel A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Buchanan. G.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Cape, Thomas

  Forrest, W.

  Hayes, John Henry

  2372

  2373

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Palin, John Henry

  Taylor, R. A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Paling, W.

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Thomson Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Potts, John S.

  Thurtie, E.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ritson, J

  Townend, A. E.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Eland)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Viant, S. P.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Kennedy, T.

  Scurr, John

  Warne, G. H.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sexton, James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Lansbury, George

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lawson, John James

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Lowth, T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Weir, L. M.

  Lunn, William

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Westwood, J

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Smillie, Robert

  Whiteley, W.

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Mackinder, W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Snell, Harry

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  March, S.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Windsor, Walter

  Montague, Frederick

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Wright, W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Murnin, H.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Stephen, Campbell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert

  Owen, Major G.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Hutchison.

  Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I want to move this Motion to draw the attention of the Committee to the very unfair way in which this business is being arranged by the Government. I do not at all want to get away from the decision which you, Mr. Hope, gave in the Chair for the convenience of the Committee that we should proceed to the first Amendment on the Cutlery Resolution, and have our general discussion on the first Amendment. But there were none of us who imagined that, when we agreed to that, the Government would move the Closure on such an important Debate as was taking place at 10 o'clock.
  The CHAIRMAN: It has been ruled by Mr. Speaker, and by previous Speakers, that once a Closure Motion has been passed, it is not in order to comment upon it. It is the act of the House, and no comment either upon it or the action of the Chair can be made except by formal Resolution.
  Captain BENN: Although, of course, I recognise that your ruling is supported by many precedents, may I draw attention to a very recent precedent in a ruling given by your Deputy in the Chair, Captain FitzRoy, to the effect that while you cannot discuss the conduct of the Chair in giving the Closure, you may discuss the
  2374
  propriety of the Government's action in moving it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have not in mind the ruling in question, but the bulk of the precedents is against that view, and certainly I am bound by them.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I fail to see how we can make any real progress in order to maintain the rights and privileges of the House, unless after such action we can comment on the propriety of the Government's action.
  The CHAIRMAN: The only protest that can be made is to put down a Motion of Censure against the Chair, as was done recently.
  Mr. THOMAS: Surely the action of the Government is not only most unfair, but it reflects, or rather suggests that the Opposition is reflecting upon the Chair. But our complaint is not upon the conduct of the Chair. Your duty was to accept the Motion. You have no alternative but to accept the Motion made by the Government. Our protest is not against you, but against the Government. We are merely, by way of suggestion, asking what means are open to us, not to protest against your conduct, Sir, but the conduct of those who have deliberately—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Speaker has ruled that anybody can move the Closure

  2375
  at any time, and that it is entirely within the responsibility of the Chair as to whether or not it should be granted. I am only now stating what has happened throughout the course of my Parliamentary life from time to time and probably will happen in the future.
  Mr. THOMAS: We quite appreciate the magnanimous way in which you are saving the Government, Sir, but your magnanimity does not in the least—
  The CHAIRMAN: My duty is not from motives of magnanimity or otherwise to carry out a certain line of action, but to carry out the Rules of the House. Mr. Speaker has laid down again and again that any censure on the Chair can only be by formal resolution.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: We have no desire to comment upon the action of the Chair, and I have, no desire to prolong what I have to say from that point of view, but certain of us, especially those of us who represent Sheffield, wanted to speak upon the points that relate to the trade of Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman opposite allows one Member of his own side to be called on, and then the Closure is moved before the Opposition can make any reply to the points raised. I think it is a perfectly unfair action.
  The CHAIRMAN: It has been held over and over again that it is entirely in the responsibility of the Chair as to the acceptance or otherwise of the Closure.
  An HON. MEMBER: And they know it.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I do so on quite different grounds to those already stated. We are now deal-
  ing with proposals for adding to the revenue of the year, and for imposing charges on the subjects. That is not a matter which concerns the Board of Trade alone. It is primarily the concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be engaged elsewhere on important duty, but it is contrary to the custom of this House-I should say for at least three generations-that a matter of this sort should be discussed in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not been here since the beginning of the sitting to-day. If he could not attend owing to the pressure of other duties, he has at all events the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is specially charged with the duty of introducing Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. We have been labouring under the disadvantage of no guidance whatever from the Treasury, and the revenue which will be raised by these duties, if they go through, will tend to disturb the balance of the year. No statement has been made. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade cannot make a statement on the subject, as it does not come within his province. He cannot be expected to do it. The only man capable of doing that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in his absence and in the absence of any other representative of the Treasury, I beg to move.
  The CHAIRMAN: Under Standing Order No. 3, I will now put the Question to the Committee.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 137: Noes, 259.

  Division No. 438.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Edwards, John H. (Accringion)

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Buchanan, G.

  England, Colonel A.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cape, Thomas

  Fenby, T. D.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Charleton, H. C.

  Forrest, W.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Clowes, S.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Baker, Walter

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gillett. George M.

  Barnes, A.

  Compton. Joseph

  Gosling, Harry

  Barr, J.

  Connolly, M.

  Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Batey, Joseph

  Dalton, Hugh

  Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Greenall, T.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Briant, Frank

  Duckworth, John

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Broad, F. A.

  Duncan, C.

  Groves, T.

  Bromfield, William

  Dunnico, H.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

  Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)

  Stephen, Campbell

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

  Murnin, H.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Hardie, George D.

  Owen, Major G.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Palin, John Henry

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Paling, W.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Thurtie, E.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  He person, T. (Glasgow)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Townend, A. E.

  Henn, sir Sydney H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ritson, J.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Viant, S. P.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

  Warne, G. H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Scrymgoour, E.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Kelly, W. T.

  Scurr, John

  Weir, L. M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Sexton, James

  Westwood, J.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Whiteley, W.

  Lansbury, George

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Lawson, John James

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Lowth, T.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Lunn. William

  Smillie, Robert

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Windsor, Walter

  Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Wright, W.

  Mackinder, W.

  Snell, Harry

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  MacLaren. Andrew

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  March, S.

  Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

  Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert

  Montague, Frederick

  Stamford, T. W.

  Hutchison.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Couper, J. B.

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Albery, Irving James

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Crook, C. W.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Atkinson, C.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Bethell, A.

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Dean, Arthur Wellesley

  Hilton, Cecil

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Drewe, C.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Elveden, Viscount

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Fleming, D. P.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Cane, Gordon Hall

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lamb, J. O.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Gates, Percy

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Christie, J. A.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Loder, J. de V.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lougher, L

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Grace, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Lumley, L. R.

  2378

  2379

  Mac Andrew, Charles Glen

  Radford, E. A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Raine, W.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Ramsden, E.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Macintyre, Ian

  Reid, Capt. A. S.C.(Warrington)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  McLean, Major A.

  Remer, J. R.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Roberts, E. H. G.(Flint)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.A.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Meller, R. J.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Merriman, F. B.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Samuel, A.M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J.T.C.

  Savery, S. S.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W.(Carlisle)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)

  Wells, S. R.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Neville, R.J.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

  Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Williams, Com. C.(Devon, Torquay)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Oakley, T.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.- Colonel George

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Perring, William George

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Pilcher, G.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Preston, William

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Major Cope and Major Hennessy.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the words "thirty-three and one-third," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
  The whole basis of this extraordinary White Paper is an increase in German imports. I hope the representatives of the Government, who have so speedily brought the general discussion to a, conclusion, will tell us, when they reply on this Amendment, what else they expected to happen as a result of the Dawes plan -whether it is not to be expected, if reparations are paid by Germany, that German imports into this and other countries, of cutlery as well as other articles, will increase. I submit that this increase of German imports is no ground for putting on this duty. Further, looking at page 6 of this document, I find that figures are quoted regarding the increase of German imports, in the first place during the years of the depreciation of the mark. It has, however, become known to the Committee of three wise persons who drew up this Report that the German mark has become stabilised, and attention is drawn to the fact that the stabilization of the German mark—
  2380
  I am now quoting from the White Paper—has—
  At this point Mr. Churchill left the Chamber.—[Interruption.]
  Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is it in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give the working classes such an exhibition of ca' canny as this?
  Mr. DALTON: I quite sympathise with the painful feelings which this discussion must arouse in the breast of the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his past utterances upon this topic. I was observing, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer left the Front Bench-[Interruption]-I shall speak in my own time, and not in the time of hon. Members opposite. Interruptions from the other side will merely prolong my remarks. I am quite prepared to speak in the intervals of hon. Members' interruptions, until such time as the Government shall again move the Closure on the discussion, instead of making a reasoned reply. I was saying-[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"]
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The House is bad enough, but they are not daft enough to make you speak up!
  Mr. DALTON: I was pointing out, when the hon. Member enlivened our proceedings, that the stabilisation of the mark has come to the knowledge of the three persons who signed this Report. I believe it came to their knowledge after they had the Report in draft. They observe on page 6 that
  "The stabilisation of the mark has been too recent to permit the testing of the course of imports under these new conditions."
  If this be so, I submit that this Report should not have been issued at all until we had had some opportunity of testing the course of imports under the new conditions. That admission itself is quite enough to knock the bottom out of the case for a 33⅓ per cent. duty. Continuing on the same page, we find certain figures set out which are supposed to show the proportion of the home production of cutlery to the export trade. The Committee practically admit that they were unable to obtain any reliable figures on this point. The utmost they could do was to obtain a few of what they called sample figures from one or two. firms, eight firms in all, and they admit that this is not an ideal method of obtaining the figures of production of an industry, with which I entirely agree. They say that in the absence of an official census of production since 1907 they could not do any better. I believe the President of the Board of Trade has been arranging for a census of production to be issued before long, and it might have been better to postpone this Report, until the accurate figures were obtainable. On the figures, such as they are put in here, I submit that no proper case can be made out for this 33⅓ duty.
  Turn to page 8 of the White Paper. It appears that a number of the goods imported from Germany in the cutlery line belong to a class altogether inferior to those manufactured in this country. The argument was quoted here to show that these goods are not supplementary to Sheffield goods at all, but that they satisfy a new market which has only been brought into existence since the War. It therefore follows that the result of putting on this duty, so far as that line of
  2382
  argument is correct, will not be to give any assistance to the British cutlery industry at all, but will simply be to knock on the head a market in cheap cutlery established since the War for the benefit of poorer purchasers. The effect of this duty, in other words, will not be to benefit the industry, but to penalise a number of working-class purchasers who have been able to buy a number of these cheap foreign goods although they were not able to buy the Sheffield product. Farther than that, we have always been told that it is not the object of the Government to give protection to any industries which were not efficient. We should have looked therefore in this Report for some evidence of the efficiency of the Sheffield industry. The utmost we get in this direction is an admission at the bottom of page 8 that under present conditions "much of the machinery is modern and highly efficient." What about the rest? What have the great captains of industry been doing in Sheffield, whose machinery is, according to this Report, neither modern nor highly efficient? They are to share the benefit of this duty with others, when they have not been doing their duty by keeping their machinery and processes up to the mark of modern requirements.
  If we turn further to page nine, we get an argument based upon unemployment— or I will not say an argument based upon employment but an argument supposed to have some connection with unemployment. This Committee of wise men, or of two wise men and one wise woman, who have drawn up this Report, say:
  "We have been unable to obtain the actual figures of unemployment in the cutlery industry."
  They give reasons why not, and they say further that there are difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics at the present time. On the basis of that very flimsy argument, they say that they are
  "satisfied that the acuteness of the present unemployment is directly due to the competition which we have found to exist."
  I submit that a case which is so loosely argued as that is not deserving of any consideration from this House.
  I think that I shall be within the Rules of Order in adding this observation that, in so far as there is unemployment, and admittedly there is great unemployment

  2383
  in Sheffield at the present time, one of the main reasons for that has not anything to do with this German competition at all. One of the main reasons is the very high rates which are being charged in Sheffield, as in other necessitous areas, and Sir Arthur Balfour has continually stated that the industry of Sheffield is being depressed at this moment more by this factor of high rates than by anything else. It is in the relief of those rates that the relief of unemployment is to be found.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be in order to suggest any such method as affecting the cutlery trade.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. I am concerned with your ruling, because of the specific case of Sheffield. Are we to understand that in discussing what is put forward as the specific remedy of the Government for the great unemployment so prevalent in the city I represent, we are not entitled to comment on alternative methods of curing unemployment?
  The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in Order.
  Mr. DALTON: The sole point I was desirous of making was that in so far as this duty which I am proposing to modify, is put forward on behalf of the Government as a remedy for unemployment in Sheffield, it is not a remedy which will touch the spot. That was as far as I proposed to proceed in developing that particular line of argument. But there is a very remarkable passage on page 11 of the White Paper, in which attempts have been made to develop the supposed advantages which Germany possesses at present in competition in the cutlery industry. Reference is again made to the depreciation of currency.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that the only matter before the Committee is the effect on any portion of the country, including Sheffield, of the difference between 5 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent.?
  The CHAIRMAN: Obviously, as I understand the hon. Member's arguments, they were directed to showing that there was no need for a protective duty. I do not know whether he is going to
  2384
  proceed to argue that it would be a good thing to put on a revenue duty.
  Mr. DALTON: Do I understand you to say it would or would not be in order to ask for a revenue duty?
  The CHAIRMAN: I would not shut the hon. Member out if he wishes to argue in favour of a revenue duty.
  Mr. DALTON: Although it was not clear to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), it was clear to most other Members that what I was arguing was that there was no case made in this White Paper that a protective duty of 33⅓ per cent. is going to be any cure for unemployment or for the ills from which Sheffield is suffering under a Tory Government. I was drawing attention, when the hon. Member interrupted the Debate, to a statement on page 11 which purported to show certain advantages that Germany possesses in competition with this country. In order to make it clear to the hon. Member, who did not understand the trend of my argument before, I hasten to say the purpose of the argument I am going to address to the Committee is to show that the alleged German advantages on page 11 in competition with the Sheffield cutlery trade are not advantages which justify a protective duty such as is now proposed. One of the points here mentioned relates to social insurance. This is given as an argument in favour of a protective duty. "The difference in social insurance payable by the employer between the two countries of 10d. per man per week, a difference shortly to be increased by the payments under the new Pensions Act." That is a most extraordinary argument to produce in this connection. It is one in no way peculiar to the Sheffield cutlery industry. It might be used for the protection of any "British industry whatever, regardless of any other circumstances, against any imports from Germany.
  11.0 P.M.
  I can only suppose that one of the purposes behind the introduction of the Pensions Act, if this argument were followed, is to justify the safeguarding of every industry on the ground that the new Pensions Act, passed by this Government, imposes so heavy a burden upon employers that they are no longer able to

  2385
  maintain their markets under Free Trade. I have no doubt that that argument, if used in future oases, will enable the Government to safeguard every industry in the country without bringing in a Measure of general Protection. In the opinion of one of its supporters, it would justify the Government in safeguarding every industry. The Prime Minister has just entered the House. He will be glad to hear the interpretation placed upon the pledge given by him in good faith at the last General Election, which implied an admission that there was a great difference between Safeguarding and Protection. This argument has no reference whatever to the Sheffield cutlery trade as distinct from other industries, but refers equally to the whole of the industries in the country.
  The last point I will submit to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear! "] I am encouraged by hon. Members opposite to proceed to deal with one or two more points. In view of the appreciation shown on the benches opposite, I venture to expand the argument suggested by the Chair, that a Revenue Duty on cutlery might be a legitimate weapon for raising money for public services. That is a point which may commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary. I can well understand that after the last Budget, in which very large remissions of taxation were given to the Super-tax and the Income Tax payers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now searching for other means of imposing Duties upon articles consumed by the poorest people. That is very intelligible,. particularly when we look at the state of the revenue accounts, in which the deficit up to date is somewhere in the neighbourhood of between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000.
  The CHAIRMAN: That point is not relevant to this Amendment.
  Captain BENN: May I respectfully submit that the character of the duty levied will govern the amount of the tax collected and has a direct relation to the deficit.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot take the occasion of the discussion on this Amendment to go into the question as to whether there will be a
  2386
  probable deficit or surplus at the end of the financial year.
  Mr. DALTON: With great respect, the argument I was endeavouring to put was that in the very critical circumstances of the moment, which have been growing more critical in recent weeks when the deficit has been increasing owing to the bad estimating of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in contrast with the very accurate estimating which we enjoyed last year under the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is very natural that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look more favourably than he might have done a little while ago at the possibility of raising revenue by a duty of this character, in order that he might make up the very large and growing deficit which every week expands, and horrifies the readers of the financial Press. I am hopeful that we may yet hear from the Chancellor himself his own view upon this very grave matter. The final point to which I was coming a little while ago, when hon. Gentlemen opposite encouraged me to proceed further—and if they wish me to introduce further points I shall be delighted to take up any case— was to draw attention to the "Times'' report issued the day before it was announced that this protective duty was going to be imposed, in which a number of Sheffield manufacturers loudly proclaimed that this duty would be no use to them at all. That is a point which we should surely bear in mind in considering this. The Sheffield manufacturers are not at all agreed that the 33⅓ per cent. duty is what they want. They say it is not nearly enough, and that in order to safeguard them against the troubles from which they suffer the duty should be far more than 33⅓ per cent., and in view of that I venture to submit that the Government should reconsider the whole matter.
  In the meantime the Amendment I am proposing gives them an opportunity to accept 5 per cent. in order to reconsider the whole matter in consultation with their friends the Sheffield manufacturers, and of bringing in at a later date a much better thought out and carefully prepared plan. For these reasons I have much pleasure in moving the Amendment.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): May I at once say that the

  2387
  Government cannot accept this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For one reason and another 33⅓ per cent. has been advised by the Committee. I want to say in reply to the reference made by the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), as to the effect of the Dawes scheme on German reparations, that under the Treaty provision is made to pay ourselves and others some part of the reparation payments stipulated for by the Treaty, and if we are to receive such payment it will either add to the excess of our imports over our exports, or we can acquire titles to property abroad, and should that property be remunerative it will in due course involve actual payments.
  Mr. BARNES: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Dawes Report or the question of the 33i per cent. duty?
  The CHAIRMAN: It has been contended that a duty of this kind was contrary to the policy of the Dawes Report.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: I am replying to the question put to me by the Member for Peckham. These additional imports need not come here direct from Germany. Germany may develop her exports in other countries and she would in turn receive the equivalent value in goods. I am not going to make a long speech, but will only say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I was hoping that there was one thing which the hon. Gentleman would have given, and that was some reason for the 33⅓ per cent. The remarkable thing about the two reports that we are getting is the curious non sequitur between the arguments and the conclusions. We have a mass of writing produced, and then at the end the paper. But I have not seen any suggestions relating that figure to anything that we find in this document. I want to apply my mind and the mind of the House to this important question of the amount of duty. I turn first to page 11:
  "The main evidence advanced by the applicants was under sub-heading (c) in respect of wages and hours of work,"
  and it is on the basis of the difference in wages between the British worker and the German worker that 33⅓ per cent. is put forward. Let us see the evidence. The Report says:
  2388
  "We endeavoured to ascertain whether the wages in the cutlery industry in Solingen were, in fact, the same as those for the metal industry generally."
  "We ascertain from the Ministry of Labour that, so far as they were aware, no wages data regarding the German cutlery industry proper were published."
  "We had to assume, therefore, that the metal workers' rates applied to cutlery workers."
  There is not as much evidence in this Report as would serve the Home Secretary to charge the Communists with high treason. What we have here is some vague reference to the wages of certain workmen in Germany, who are not the workers concerned in the cutlery trade. We are not given anything relating those figures to the figures of the workers in this country. We are not shown what the workers' conditions are, and in the wage contract, after all, you have to consider conditions as well as money. The Report is very vague on the subject of hours; there is no information at all as to how many workers get this wage and how many get that wage. Then at the end the Report says that
  "the conditions in Germany are so different as to render the competition unfair."
  That is one of the most remarkable conclusions that any Committee has ever reached on such extraordinarily scanty evidence.
  Let me take a further point with regard to the condition of the Sheffield industry. I do not happen to come from Sheffield, but I am accustomed to trying to appreciate evidence, and I see no evidence here to show whether the Sheffield industry is efficient or inefficient. I do know that Sheffield is in a bad way to-day. I also know that the Sheffield capitalists are people who did uncommonly well out of the War. I want to know something about the overhead charges in the Sheffield industry. There is not a word from beginning to end of this Report as to the financing of the Sheffield industry. After all, what is the conclusion to which the Report came? It is Chat without this duty they cannot carry on their industry at a profit. What do they mean by profit? Does profit mean the remuneration of the people who are actually working in the trade, or a profit on the capital invested? If so, we are entitled to have here something with

  2389
  regard to the capitalisation of the industry.
  Everyone knows that in other industries that are hard hit, notably the coal, iron and steel industries, over and over again the capital has been watered and watered. Then these manufacturers and capitalists came crying out: "We cannot make a profit on our enormous watered capital.'' There is not a word as to that here. Therefore, when we come to look at the figure of 33⅓ per cent. it has to stand by itself as some kind of blessed number. I suppose it must be some number that is particularly dear to the Tariff Reformer's heart. There is no evidence here in support of 33⅓ per cent. The Committee say;
  "We consider a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would be reasonably sufficient to countervail the unfair competition, and we recommend that such duty should be imposed for a period of at least five years."
  There are no figures to show the difference in the prices charged. There is no evidence to show that 33⅓ per cent. will exactly countervail the difference in wages. There is no evidence to show that these wages are stabilised; there is no evidence to show that prices are going to be stabilised. We have got nothing from the Parliamentary Secretary. He made no attempt to defend the duty, and we had not the pleasure of hearing the President of the Board of Trade. I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary was extremely wise because we got nothing from the President of the Board of Trade. This Committee is asked to put on this heavy duty, on the strength of this extraordinarily flimsy Report. I am not blaming the people who were called upon to do this job, but I do say that if hon. Members opposite wanted a Report on an indutry as to how it was carried on, and if they put an employé on to the job of making such a Report and he produced a thing like this, they would give him "the sack" at once.
  Captain BENN: The Parliamentary Secretary has made one of his very willing and helpful speeches and has told us what, in his opinion, would be the effect of this new duty on the Dawes annuities. That point is worth examination because a great many issues hang upon the punctual fulfilment of the payments due
  2390
  under the Dawes scheme. As the Committee will remember, after the London Conference of last year, a new Scheme was instituted for the extraction of reparations from Germany. In place of the old scheme by which Germany paid one sum in respect of reparations through a Commission and paid separately for Commissions, armies of occupation, sundry charges for private debts and so on, the whole indebtedness of Germany was consolidated and made payable to an Agent-General for reparations, who himself has to transmit the reparations collected to the various creditors of the German Reich. That was the situation in 1924, and a certain figure was fixed, rising ultimately on the basis of an increase in prosperity to £165,000,000 a year, in which we participated—
  The CHAIRMAN: I presume the hon. and gallant Member intends to show the bearing of this upon the question of whether the duty should be 33⅓ per cent.
  Captain BENN: I am coming to the point. Of the total annuity, which at present runs to about £50,000,000—I have not the exact figure—we are to get under the Spa percentages, 22 per cent., and the remainder is to be distributed among our Allies, France getting the major share. The hon. gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. If they want reparations they must have German goods. If they do not want German goods, they cannot have reparations—and that is the bearing of the Dawes Scheme upon this proposed duty of 33⅓ per cent. What does the Board of Trade want? Is it desired that these goods should come in, but in less quantities? I put that question to the President of the Board of Trade—or perhaps I should address it to the Parliamentary Secretary who seems to be less pre-occupied. Is it, in his view, right that German goods should come in to the same extent? Does he anticipate the same flow of German goods? If he wants the reparations, he must have the same flow of German goods, and then he cannot assist the Sheffield makers. If he is going to prevent the inflow of German goods by imposing this heavy, this primitive duty of 33J per cent., he is himself destroying the efficacy of the very Dawes plan to which so many people attach importance and with which indeed the future peace of Europe is very much

  2391
  wrapped up, because if there is default in the Dawes annuities, there is great likelihood of disputes between the Allies, so that the bearing of the Dawes annuities, as the Parliamentary Secretary rightly apprehended, is very close to the application of such duties as these to Gentian goods.
  This duty is one of the same amount as is levied on a great number of other articles which come from abroad. Under what used to be called the McKenna Duties and under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, 33⅓ per cent. was the normal duty. I have heard it stated that the right hon. Gentleman is using these duties for the purpose of bargaining with the Germans in connection with the Commercial Treaty. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) made a very eloquent speech earlier in the evening, in which he said that there was a great improvement in the piano trade because of the 33⅓ per cent. duty imposed upon foreign pianos by the McKenna Duties. Is the hon. Member aware that it is said that his leader, the President of the Board of Trade, is at this moment negotiating in order to get over the harm which this proposal is doing to Anglo-German commercial relations, to lower the duty on pianos, and when I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is true he is not prepared to get up and give us any information or even to deny the rumour.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should have to stop the right hon. Gentleman if he attempted to make any such statement.
  Captain BENN: I am sure he would be very grateful for your protection. Now, I come to a further point, and that is whether or not this 33⅓ per cent. duty can be supposed to effect in any way the purpose which the President of the Board of Trade desires, and whether it would not be wiser to adopt the suggestion in the Amendment, and, if you must impose a duty, impose a Revenue duty of 5 per cent. I will take some of the articles mentioned in the Resolution, and tell the Committee what the cost of production of these articles is in Sheffield and what the wholesale price is of the articles coming from Germany. I say that the articles are not the same. I say that there is no comparison between a
  2392
  first-class pair of Sheffield scissors and the cheap scissors you can buy at a 6d. bazaar. The President and the Committee say they look the same, and therefore they are the same, but that is not a sound argument, of course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may look like a Protectionist and be a Free Trader. That is one of the problems which hon. Members opposite have to face, and the hardship of his absence, though it bears very heavily on us, must be far more disquieting to those hon. Members who see in his retreat a definite dissociation of himself from this scheme of duties proposed by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Let me take some of these articles. Take a razor. If it is manufactured in Sheffield, £l 9s. 11d. a dozen is the wholesale selling price in London, and the wholesale price of a German razor is 9s. a dozen. A 33⅓ per cent. duty on a 9s. razor would bring it up to 12s., and how can the President argue that by raising that price to 12s., which he admits that you do, it is going to help a Sheffield manufacturer? I will take, for the special benefit of the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine), another similar case. Let me take another case— a German razor. Here, again, the figures are similar. The wholesale selling price for the article supplied by Sheffield manufacturers is £2, whereas that of the German article is 15s. 9d. With the 33⅓ per cent., the price is brought up to £1. How can the President of the Board of Trade say that the 33⅓ per cent. is going to do anything for the Sheffield firms? It is going to do nothing for them. What it is going to do is to raise the price of the razor to the poor man who buys a cheap razor. It is not going to be of the least assistance to Sheffield firms who are making a different razor of a much higher class, which people who have the means would far rather buy than the cheap German article.
  Take the case of manicure scissors. Here, again, we have the Sheffield people telling us that the price before the War was 22s. 8d. a dozen. Since the War it is 36s. 8d. The German scissors, which are described as being the same, but are in reality different, are 7s. 9d. a dozen. We may think it is very wrong for the Germans to supply our poor people with cheap scissors, but, really, are we going

  2393
  to assist the Sheffield manufacturers by asking poor girls who buy these manicure scissors to pay 10s. instead of 7s. 9d.? The Sheffield firm cannot possibly compete, as the price there is 36s. 8d. What you are doing is not assisting Sheffield, but taxing the poor. Hon. Members have never really faced the issue that Germany is supplying something really different from the British article. There is as much difference between the best Sheffield cutlery and German cutlery of this cheap sort as there is between a Titan and an olio. They look alike, and hon. Members may say they are alike, but they are different articles, and you do not improve the position of the Sheffield manufacturer by putting on a tax, while, at the same time, you make it very much harder for the poor people who have to buy these goods.
  I have just one further word upon the rate of duty. How much is going to be raised? Here we are going to have a revenue duty imposed without a single man on the opposite front bench who can tell us how it is going to be collected! What is the yield going to be? The matter of these various duties is one of importance for the House of Commons. It must be remembered that in 1860 all these pettifogging revenue and finance duties were brought together by Mr. Gladstone. We are now witnessing the breaking-up of the system by a number of separate and small Bills. It is going to be a serious thing for the House of Commons if to-day the President of the Board of Trade, to-morrow the Minister of Transport, and the next day the Minister of Agriculture is to be permitted to come to a Committee of Ways and Means, the most solemn assembly of all our assemblies in the House of Commons, and is going to ask us to impose taxes, and we are going to have the transient appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to desire to show his contempt for the whole of the scheme! How much is this going to yield? Does the President of the Board of Trade know? He cannot answer! It is not his business to answer! All I do know is that if the result is going to work out on the basis of the imports of last year, valued at £367,000, against £1,750,000 exports—the figures of the White Paper—a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will give a revenue of, roughly, £100,000. If it is to be effective it will
  2394
  mean a rise in the cost of the home production. What does that mean? That means that this Resolution may be putting £100,000 into the pockets of the Treasury, and that a proportionate sum will be taken out of the pockets of the Consumer.
  Mr. GEORGE BALF0UR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has given us, in his usual engaging manner, some of the old arguments. What are the real facts of the case? Is it true what he said as to the poor girl that went into a shop to buy a pair of scissors? Certainly not! She goes into the shop, quite innocently, to purchase, what she believes the article she requires, and probably imagines that it is of British workmanship. I know many cases of hardworking girls who would scorn to buy if they knew the article came from a German workshop. I would forgive them if, in fact, they obtained the benefit of the difference between 10s. a dozen and 20s. or 30s. a dozen. Do they? They get a paltry few pence difference in price, and are deceived between the British and the German article. When the plea is made from the Radical Benches opposite that they wish to give the consumer a cheap article, let me ask these honourable enthusiasts where the people obtain the money which they pay across the counter? It comes from their wages. Where do their wages come from? [Interruption.] Hon. Members above the Gangway opposite are not responsible for the provision of the employment on which wages depend. We have to see that industry is maintained that money may be put into the pockets of the people with which to purchase these articles.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is pursuing a general argument. We are on the subject of cutlery.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am profoundly sorry that I have strayed from the subject. The arguments which I submitted relate to the maintenance of a duty of 33⅓ per cent., which has been arrived at, it is quite true, in a very rough and ready fashion—as a trial—to see whether or not it will meet the case—whether by the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. or some such duty, we shall be able so to sustain our industries that our workers can get wages to pay across the counter the price of a good, honest British article

  2395
  made by British workers in British workshops. That, I trust, is an argument well within the scope of the Amendment before the Committee. The real business before the Committee is the Amendment to the Government Motion. The object of the Government Motion is to give support to British industry in order that workers may be kept in our workshops and have wages which will allow them to buy something, preferably British goods.
  There is one other thing, and it is the last word, for I have no intention of making a speech. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Go on"]. I have not the slightest intention of responding to the desires of hon. Members opposite. In these concluding observations I simply wish to say that I hope every working man in the country will pay strict attention to the levity on the Socialist benches. I challenge hon. Members on those benches to produce one solid, reasoned argument to which we can respond. In all seriousness, have they put up in opposition to our view one single reasoned argument as to what we could say that we were entitled to reflect upon it and change our views? They have not submitted one. A final word. Where, on the benches opposite, is there a single hon. Member who has been responsible by his own energy for the provision of employment in this country?
  The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member again that we are dealing with a duty on cutlery.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I will conclude with this simple observation, that hon. Members who are putting forward a plea for the introduction of these articles should have regard to the opinions of those men, whose probity is unchallenged, and who carry the burden and responsibility of giving employment in this country, and who are entitled, in advancing their arguments, to have attention paid to them by reason of the burden of responsibility they have carried in the past.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member who has just sat down did not tell us what was going to be done with the people who were in the habit of selling to girls German articles as English goods. No Government in this country has ever had any consideration for the consumer, and we certainly do not expect any from a Government which is now engaged in
  2396
  tariff-mongering. The main result of the Resolution we are now considering, and the other Resolutions to follow, will be that the great mass of the consumers will have to pay almost double for certain articles without having any effect whatsoever upon the industries which the Government have set out to protect. I that advisedly from the point of view of Sheffield. That is a point which I should have made if we had not been so promptly "gagged" by the moving of the Closure, and that is the very case upon which the Committee based their recommendation for this tariff. There-is a variation in price of 7s. 6d. and 36s. in regard to the article which competes with the German article. Under these circumstances, is there any reason for believing that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will be a cure? In those shops where such goods are stocked they will have to charge the consumer the exact amount of the duty charged by the Government, and there will not be a single incentive to buy one of the Sheffield goods, and consequently not one single bit of help will be given to trade in Sheffield.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: Sheffield can make those goods.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I should be glad to to see the evidence that this particular class of goods can be made in Sheffield.
  Mr. ROBERTS: You will get it when the duty is put on
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Again, with regard to the amount of the duty, the President of the Board of Trade, apparently with the consent of the Prime Minister, denied the House the right of examining the evidence put before this Committee, but we have some means of finding out the kind of thing that was stated before them. There is the case of a witness in favour of 'he duty being examined as reported in the "Sheffield Telegraph." He was asked what he regarded as a necessary import duty. He replied that he considered a duty of 150 per cent. was necessary. What earthly reason can there be for fixing an arbitratory figure of 33⅓ per cent. with regard to this industry? The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there is going to be no remedy in this duty for any part of the unemployment in the country. He has had considerable experience at the Board

  2397
  of Trade. He has had experience of the working of the old duties under the previous Safeguarding of Industries Act. Can he reply—he did not attempt to do it just now—and the specific challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)? Can he give us a case in which he has had experience of the operation of one of these duties where there has been any gain to the industry that has been safeguarded under the measure? I will give way to him if he will give me a case. He does not attempt it. He knows he has not a case in his experience under the Safeguarding of Industries Act where the operation of a duty of this kind has had any effect upon the trade or the employment in the particular industry.
  Then I say with very great regret, as a Member for the City of Sheffield, that, in spite of what the Report says, the Committee have not satisfied the test laid down in the Government's White Paper as to the industry being efficient. I know dozens of men in Sheffield who are really expert cutlers. They work under the most vile and hampering conditions one could possibly imagine. It is all very well for the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Storry Deans) to make the kind of speech he made to-night. I agree with him that there are lots of our cutlers in Sheffield who have to take unemployment pay and take it reluctantly and want work, but one of the main reasons why the work is not there is that the industry is so badly organised and inefficient. Do not take my word alone for that. I quote here from the last report of the medical officer of health. He says:
  "The conditions under which many of the men in the cutlery trade are employed are still profoundly unsatisfactory. They will never, in my opinion, be as they should be until the present antiquated system of this trade is reformed and the system of giving out work to lessees of little, dark, insanitary 'wheels' is abandoned in favour of large and economically organised factories, where proper equipment for ventilation, etc., would be provided and adequate supervision made possible. It is at present impossible to prevent the practice of spitting in these places. Ventilation ducts for the removal of dust are not infrequently blocked up to prevent 'draughts,' and 'dry-racing' of grindstones is sometimes practised in con-
  2398
  travention of the regulations. The system of having three stones run 'tandem-fashion' means that men employed on the hindermost stones are often working in the dark, which promotes uncleanliness, lowers the individual's resistance to respiratory and other diseases."
  Anyone interested in the welfare of the working men employed in the cutlery trade in Sheffield knows from his study of the statistics how thoroughly inefficient the industry is by the result on the health of the men in the industry, who are not by any means unanimous in supporting the evidence given by certain trade unionists before this Committee. The medical officer says:
  "The large amount of unemployment which still prevails in these trades, although in other respects so regrettable"—
  What a comment this is upon an industry that wants Protection!
  "has probably had some effect in reducing tuberculosis, as a large number of grinders and others, employed in the dangerous sections of these trades, are not at present exposed to the risk of damage to the lungs which occurs while they are at work."
  Simply because there are so many of the factories in Sheffield that are absolutely unfit, not only badly organised from the point of view of production, but filthy from the point of view of the health of the workers. You will never get an efficient production in any industry under conditions like that, and it is not the type of industry that ought to apply for protection in circumstances like these.
  Let me give one other piece of evidence, not my evidence, on the same point. I take this from the last Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories, concerning Sheffield. What did the Inspector of Factories say?
  "Many of the older factories have grown from dwelling houses. Starting with the front room downstairs as a warehouse and the back room as a work room, the whole house has been taken over as the business flourished. Then the houses on each side have been absorbed, and so on, until the building contains perhaps 30 or 40 wooden-partitioned small rooms crowded together and leading to narrow ill-lit passages. The original houses were not always of the same size or on the same level, hence structural alterations to provide emergency exits or outward opening doors have been difficult to obtain, particularly during the recent years of trade depression."
  There is the evidence of the Government Inspector himself as to the inefficient organisation of the industry. We

  2399
  say that from that point of view the President of the Board of Trade ought not to accept an application for the 33⅓ per cent. duty on the test, laid down in his own White Paper, that any industry which comes along for a tariff must be an efficient industry.
  In putting these facts before the Committee to-night, I am not reflecting in any way upon the craftsmanship of large numbers of cutlers in Sheffield, I am reflecting upon the organisation of those who are so often at the head of industry in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, speaking last week upon the Rating and Valuation Bill, said that we were far behind countries like America, because employers of that class in the past had been content to take out of the surplus of the year what they regarded as profit, but which ought to have been used in the development and re-organisation of the business to keep it up-to-date. That has been the case in this industry, and it has resulted in the inefficiency which is absolutely a mark of the industry to-day.
  I want to say some other things at later stages in the debate; I shall have another opportunity to. In regard to the amount of this duty, I want to say a general word with regard to the relation of production to consumption. Some of the hon. Members on the other side of the House have taunted us once or twice to-night about our attitude on this matter, but some of us take quite a large view of it. We do not necessarily become wholehearted free-traders, as I am, simply from the old propaganda basis that went on through the Free Trade Union 30 years ago. From the cooperative consumers' point of view I take the free trade platform to-day, because I view the whole problem of industry and of employment—
  The CHAIRMAN: Like his predecessor, the hon. Member is embarking on a general discussion of economic conditions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, but I am bound to say it seems to me to be rather a narrow one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I am trying to show the Committee why we object to the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. duty, which this Amendment seeks
  2400
  to reduce to 5 per cent. It seems to me, with great respect, that we are entitled to show what we think the effect of it will be.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to cutlery, and must not adduce arguments that can be applied to any of the other duties or to any duty whatsoever.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member, in discussing this point, not entitled to bring forward a point that applies to other industries as well, if it affects this one?
  The CHAIRMAN: We are now discussing cutlery, and if the hon. Member's point affects cutlery he is entitled to put it.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I will confine myself to cutlery. I had cutlery in mind when I mentioned the problem, but I must remind the Committee that the Government are bringing forward this proposal with a view to curing unemployment in a Sheffield industry, and the point we want to put is that we stand for freedom from a tax of this kind because we believe the problem that faces the Cutlery industry and every other industry is how to relate consumption to the increasing powers of production. There is apparently, no problem in the cutlery industry with regard to production; their problem is to find a market for their goods. Our case is that to put a 33⅓ per cent. duty on this or any similar article means a further handicap to our being able to adjust consumption to the industry's increasing powers of production, and that point of view, in view of your ruling, I hope to elaborate at a later stage. I stand absolutely against the policy of the Government in putting on this 33⅓ per cent. duty.
  If there had been any efficacy at all in the argument, we should have seen the dire results of 1909–13, which were prophesied by tariff mongers, who are coming again to the House for help. The cutlery industry is part of a far greater staple industry, the iron and steel industry, and I remember, that we were asked, in 1908, 1909 and 1910 to put a duty on iron and steel. It is a little significant, if I may say so, that, although this cutlery industry is so intimate a part of the great staple industry of iron and steel, the Government seem to be rather

  2401
  afraid of dealing with the larger industry. It has been suggested—I do not know whether it is true or not—that the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the Government to deal in a similar way with the iron and steel.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that, while his remarks might be in order on the Second Reading of the Bill, they are certainly not in order on this Amendment, which is a very limited one.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I will repeat my remarks on the Second Reading. I will only say now, that, if there is any effect at all in the arguments that have been used in favour of this duty, we ought to have seen, in the years 1909–13, the dire results we are told to-day will happen if these duties are not put on. What are the facts? Without a duty, in 1909, the imports of iron and steel were £1,226,000, and the trade union percentage of unemployment was 7·7. In 1913, four years after, imports were up, being £2,343,106—
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On a point of Order. How is it relevant in a discussion limited to whether there should be a duty on cutlery of 5 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent., to cite what were the general imports of iron and steel in the year 1909.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member has already been told that the speech he is making is more in keeping with a Second Reading Debate. I must ask him kindly to confine his remarks to the Amendment, which is a narrow one.
  12 M.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is the reason why I protested on another matter earlier in the evening, and perhaps that is why the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to raise points of order of that kind. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman knew that he would be able to raise a point of Order like that.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to answer in that way.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: If it is thought to be a reflection upon the Chair I withdraw it at once. Here is a proposal to levy a duty of 33⅓ per cent. for a specific purpose. Are we not entitled to show that the results in a similar industry, iron and
  2402
  steel, under Free Trade, have disproved the reasons given for imposing this duty? I am quoting the fact that for 1909–1913, without a duty, the imports of iron and steel increased from 1¼ million tons to more than 2½ million tons, and the percentage of trade union unemployment went down in those years from 7·7 to 22 per cent. Corresponding with the increase of imports, again, without a tariff, in the same period the exports of iron and steel went up from 4,300,000 tons to over 5,000,000 tons, with a proportionate decrease in the trade union percentage of unemployment.
  The real fact is that the Government have no case for coming to the House of Commons and asking for a duty on this particular industry. We did not get from the President of the Board of Trade much of an answer to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley on the question of procedure in these Committees. Some of us think that there was a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the dice being loaded against the opponents of this duty when they sought to put their case. Where will this policy of asking for 33⅓ per cent. duty lead us? It is cutlery now; any day we may awake to find a new notice in the Press of another inquiry into—
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is not this relevant to the general discussion which we have had?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been warned several times to confine his remarks to cutlery and the particular Amendment now before the Committee. We have had a general discussion.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I am keeping cutlery in mind all the time. The procedure in regard to the imposition of this 33⅓ per cent. duty is such as to prevent any organised consumers, such as the people I have the honour to represent in this House, 4½ millions of them, who met in open conference at Southport last June, over 2,000 delegates—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member continues to discuss a question that has already been disposed of. The question now is. whether it should be a 33⅓ per cent. duty or a 5 per cent. duty on cutlery.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: What I was going to say was this. The thing is done without us being able to protest effectively against the Government putting a 33⅓ per cent. duty on cutlery, and against the protests of a great body of consumers made last June against such duties. Under this procedure we are unable to protest effectively. I will reserve the other remarks I have to make until later on.
  Mr. HARRIS: The Committee will agree that the hon. Member who has just spoken has made a remarkable and courageous speech when they realise that he represents a Sheffield Division, and therefore if there are vested interests with axes to grind by getting this duty they will very naturally try to prejudice his position. But I believe his constituents will support the very strong case he has made out against this duty. If we have to have a tariff because it is necessary to discourage imports, then I would say that 33⅓ per cent. is quite out of reason and not a duty this Committee should counsel. Even in the wildest days of the tariff reform agitation never was it put forward that 33⅓ per cent. was a reasonable duty. In the interests of the consumer, if a duty is necessary it should be brought to a reasonable figure that will not needlessly raise the price of cutlery to the consumer. I am not one of those who are prepared to give unqualified criticism to the efficiency of Sheffield industries. Sheffield cutlery still has the reputation of being the finest that can be produced. The guarantee of a good knife is the Sheffield standard and that still remains good, but where Sheffield fails is in producing articles by mass production, cheap articles produced by machinery. They are the kind of articles that this duty aims at. It seems to me that if we propose a duty we should propose it on a different scale. The rich people who can afford to buy a good Sheffield knife will not be affected by this duty because the article does not compete with the German knife. The cheap article that is required in the poorer districts of our towns will be affected and the price increased to our consumers. In the east end of London you see cheap scissors and knives sold in large quantities. It is often a mystery to me how the house-wife makes ends meet in these difficult times of unemployment and short time. Somehow or other
  2404
  they manage to pull through and grave discontent has been prevented. The extraordinary patience of the people can best be explained by the cheapness of all those articles necessary to carry on the home. I know it is sometimes suggested that some articles of cutlery are a luxury. You are going to raise the price of knives and scissors, which are necessities and not luxuries, by one-third.
  Sir H. CROFT: Is that what happened in the motor trade?
  Mr. HARRIS: I am talking now of the cutlery trade. British manufacturers say that they cannot produce these cutlery articles at a competitive price. They ask for a duty, not of 33⅓ per cent., but of 200 per cent. They say that the difference in price between the foreign article and the British article is 200 per cent., and that nothing less than 33⅓ per cent. duty can be of any use. They want to charge higher prices to the consumer, and that is the whole purpose of these duties. For anything less the manufacturers will not thank the Government. Their whole case is that present prices are too low for the Sheffield manufacturer. The history of this trade is that while Sheffield produces the good knife of ground steel, manufacturers abroad specialise in mass production, just as in the United States the Ford car is produced. You cannot compare a Ford with a Rolls-Royce, and in the same way you cannot compare the cheap foreign knife, or razor, or scissors, with the highly finished Sheffield article. The last speaker showed what was really wrong with the industry in Sheffield. It is organised on the wrong basis for mass production. It is largely an industry of small manufacturers. The old-fashioned Sheffield worker has been rather slow to adapt himself to new conditions. The right way to keep this new industry for the production of cheap cutlery is not to give artificial protection, but to recognise that re-organisation is necessary, to make cheap electricity available, so that the factories can get cheap power, and to provide the conditions that the German manufacturer gets in that direction. That would be far better than this clumsy, discredited, old-fashioned blunderbuss of a high tariff.
  Mr. KELLY: In supporting this Amendment I must say that I

  2405
  had hoped that by this time we would have had some reason from the Minister for the choice of the figure of 33⅓ per cent. We have had no justification of that figure. The nearest approach to it was the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), and I am surprised that one who is connected with civil engineering, like the hon. Member, should be prepared, at this time of day, to support the adoption of a figure which he can only describe as a suggestion and as a rough and ready figure. The hon. Member said we might experiment with it and see what would happen to the industry. If that be the sole reason for proposing it, if we are simply taking a leap in the dark, would not a 5 per cent. duty suffice at present? Personally I would prefer to see the figure of 33⅓ reduced by 33⅓, and I do not believe the cutlery trade unions of Sheffield have made a request for this safeguarding scheme. That members of trade unions have appeared before the committee, I am not prepared to deny, but as I will be able to show when other industries are under consideration, the trade unions have not asked for it despite the statements in the White Paper.
  We are told that a 33⅓ per cent. duty will help the industry. How is it going to do so? The hon. Member for Hamp-stead said he and his friends wanted to find more work and better conditions for those employed in the industry. Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to state that if this duty is put into operation the position of those engaged in certain branches of the cutlery industry the position of those engaged in the manufacture of edged tools—is going to be improved? Why, I find that in taking this leap in the dark, the Government are leaving out of account the manufacture of knives used in machines. Why are they doing so? The people engaged in this branch of the industry have been suffering from lack of employment any time this last few years:. they have been and they are receiving wages below the subsistence level—somewhere from 30s. to 40s. per week. Why have they been left out? I would expect the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to make a stirring appeal for them but he is supporting a proposal that these people who are under-paid and under-employed should be excluded from
  2406
  these safeguards. Surely if it is good for one section employed in the cutlery industry it is also good for this section?
  Sir H. CROFT: Will the hon. Member put down an Amendment to include them? I will support him if he does.
  Mr. KELLY: The hon. Member seems prepared to support any proposal to which people attach the label "Safeguarding of industries." Yet I venture to say he does not understand this particular industry. I imagine that up to a few moments ago he did not know that the people in the cutlery industry to whom I have been referring were in such a bad way. Even at this late hour we should hear from the President of the Board of Trade some justification for this 33⅓ per cent. duty, and some justification as to why he is operating this in the case of one section and leaving another section out; as to why, as this is only an experiment, he is not prepared to experiment with 5 per cent. rather than play with this 33⅓ per cent. Something has been said about the people who prepared this Report. They may have endeavoured to sift the evidence that came before them, but I suggest that they cannot find anything in the evidence to justify them in making the suggestion that such a figure should come into operation so far as this particular industry is concerned. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment for all the reasons that have been given from hon. Members on the other side, and, if you are going to make an experiment, experiment with 5 per cent., and not 33⅓ per cent.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I should like to put to the President of the Board of Trade one or two questions on this Report, and if he does not intend to answer the Debate on this Amendment I hope he will consider these questions, because I shall raise them in connection with a later Amendment on this Resolution. What puzzles me about this Report is the extraordinary position which the Government have taken, and I wish for information as to the reason that they have included in these duties a proposal for a duty on safety razors. I find, in looking at the figures and at the Appendix on page 20, that about half the imports into this country, measured in value, come from safety razors.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the exclusion of different articles, and if that other Amendment is to be taken and dealt with, it seems to me it would be more appropriate to discuss then whether or not the particular item should be included.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: If you happened to be in the House at the moment, Captain Fitzroy, you will recollect what took place at the beginning of this Debate with reference to the general arrangement for it. It was well known that there would be detailed Amendments moved with regard to different items of cutlery, but by an arrangement with the Chairman of Committees, which was agreed to by the President of the Board of Trade, it was arranged that we should have a general discussion on the Safeguarding Duties as a whole on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), and that on this Amendment we should be permitted a general discussion on the Cutlery Duties. That arrangement was made in the full understanding that there were further Amendments dealing with details. I therefore suggest that we are entitled to discuss cutlery in general now, although we are going to discuss details at greater length in connection with further Amendments.
  Captain BENN: I would like to ask whether there is any ruling of the House which prevents the President of the Board of Trade from limiting his contributions to the Debate to three points of Order and moving the "Gag."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think I need make any reply to the last point. With regard to the other points, it is quite true that at the commencement of the Debate the Chairman of Ways and Means did come to some arrangement with the Committee as to the course that the Debate should take, and it is obvious that we cannot have a Debate bringing in all the different articles separately as well as have Debates on separate Amendments which deal with separate articles. On this particular Amendment the whole question of the 33⅓ per cent. and the amount of Duty that is to be imposed on the import of cutlery can be discussed, but if hon. Members choose to specialise
  2408
  in particular items they cannot do so again on subsequent Amendments.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: If I do not in my remarks at present make reference to safety razors, may I understand that the Amendment dealing with them will be subsequently called?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do intend to call subsequent Amendments on specific articles, but a limited debate should take place upon them.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Under these circumstances I will not make remarks upon safety razors. I will ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can reply to certain questions put by myself when he was absent. He has in his speech justified the manufacturers of Sheffield against criticisms that their business is not being conducted with the efficiency which this White Paper ought to require. The argument he used has been, not they lack quality in their production, but that they lack the efficiency of mass production. We notice in this report that the reason given was that they had not sufficient capital to spend for this purpose. That is said in the paragraph which seeks to justify the manufacturers, and it appears at the same time to condemn them. There is in paragraph 39 set up in defence of the manufacturers the amount of money they have spent upon the equipment of their factories in the last 12 years.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the earlier discussion the hon. Member made a speech on the whole matter, and members must not make again the same speeches which they made on the previous Amendment, but must confine themselves to the duties to be imposed.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Surely it is in order to advance reasons whether the duty should be 33⅓ per cent. or 5 per cent. or should not be imposed? Those who took part in the general discussion are surely entitled to deal with cutlery. I submit that the purpose of this Amendment is to fix the amount of the duty, and speakers are in order in advancing reasons why 5 per cent. should be imposed in preference to 33⅓ per cent., or even why no duty should be imposed.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. A speaker is not entitled to argue whether a, duty should be imposed at all. That

  2409
  has already been decided. The particular Amendment we are now discussing is whether it should be 33⅓ or 5 per cent.; not whether a duty should be imposed, but the amount of the duty.
  Captain BENN: May I ask what words have been passed by the Committee deciding that a duty shall be imposed? The only words agreed to by the Committee are, "during a period of five years." That is as far as the Committee has agreed. I was not aware the Committee had agreed beyond this point.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The wording of the Resolution is—
  "That during the period at five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this resolution there shall be charged on the importation "
  of certain articles a duty. This duty has already been passed by the Committee and we cannot discuss it again.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: On that point of Order, Mr. Chairman. On the general discussion it was arranged by the Chair that on this particular Amendment we should be entitled to raise the questions connected with the Cutlery Duty as a whole and particularly the question of the efficiency with which the industry was conducted. That is the subject I am dealing with and not the subject I dealt with in the previous debate.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the arrangement was that in the earlier discussion cutlery as well as other articles might be discussed, but that discussion on the subsequent Amendments, this one among them, should be confined to the subject of the Amendment.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I can only state that it was in reply to a question from myself by arrangement with the Chair, in order to make it quite clear to Members who were to take part in the debate, said they were at liberty to say anything about cutlery when it was raised on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). The point I am making now in connection with the efficiency of the industry was discussed on this Amendment when your predecessor was in the Chair, and if it was
  2410
  discussed by others I presume it is in order for me to discuss it. In order to prove whether this industry has been conducted—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that I cannot permit another debate on the subject. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment now before the Committee.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Am I to understand you rule it is not possible on this Amendment to discuss the efficiency of the industry in Sheffield?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Only in so far as it is affected by the 33⅓ per cent. duty.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: The subject has already been discussed by a previous speaker for 25 minutes. Your predecessor was in the Chair, yet that speaker was permitted to deal with the efficiency of the industry and he was only called to order by the Chairman when he went into other matters. I submit that if it was permitted to that speaker to traverse that ground, then it is in order for any succeeding speaker to relate the effect of this duty, whether 33⅓ per cent. or 5 per cent., to the efficiency of the industry or the increasing efficiency of the workshops that will be manufacturing the articles affected on the imposition of the duty in this Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only thing that is in Order on this Amendment is to discuss whether 5 per cent. is better for the industry than 33⅓ per cent.
  Mr. MACLEAN: If it is to be for the betterment of the industry, is it not for the better efficiency of the industry? Does the betterment of the industry not include the better efficiency of the industry?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not under discussion in the Amendment.
  Mr. MACLEAN: It must be under discussion. My point of Order is this. I have not abondoned hope like some hon. Members. My point of Order is that the question of putting a tariff or duty upon the industry to be safeguarded is bound up with the fact that it is to be fostered and bettered. That I take it is the object of the Government in putting

  2411
  forward their proposal for this particular industry. I want to ask whether we are to discuss the merely relative figure that is down in the Amendment to the resolution—whether it is to be 5 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent.—or whether we are not to be allowed to say how far the application of the duty will be calculated to benefit the industry by giving better efficiency.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot go on arguing this point of Order to an unlimited extent. I have laid down my ruling that the efficiency of the industry was discussed on the previous Amendment, as well as the necessity for the duty at all. That was decided by the Committee. The question now is that in the Amendment, and we cannot discuss anything beyond it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May we take it that your ruling is different from that of your predecessor?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: In view of what you, Sir, have said, I shall not pursue the question whether your ruling is in accordance with precedent. I will reserve my remarks to a later stage, especially in view of the fact that this discussion on the point of Order has taken ten times as long as it would have taken the Committee to discuss the point I was raising.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I submit that the Committee has had no evidence given to it from the Government Benches to show why the 33⅓ per cent. duty is desirable or why it is preferable to a duty of 5 per cent., and I submit there is nothing in the reply to show that one duty is better than another. Before the Committee comes to a decision on this point, we should have some statement from the Government Benches, seeing this is the first of a new series of duties. You are establishing a precedent which we ought to consider very carefully from the public point of view.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I made it clear that the duty was recommended by the Committee and that the precedent of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was followed.
  Mr. THOMSON: We want some guidance on the matter. With regard to
  2412
  this Report, we have no evidence such as the. Committee had to guide them to a conclusion. No doubt the Committee was a most excellent one, but surely this House will not abrogate its discretion and judgment to a Committee set up by the President of the Board of Trade for a particular purpose. The President of the Board of Trade is an avowed protectionist, and will see that the Committee is not weighted against his own avowed principles and beliefs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, Order!"] This Committee surely ought to be charged with the protection of the consumer, and the consumer was not allowed to appear before it. The consumer's point of view was not apparently considered by the Committee. Surely we are charged with the protection of the consumer in this matter, and I submit that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will be a very serious effect upon the great majority of the people in this country who are consumers and not producers. We have to face the fact that we are going to raise the cost of the goods that are bought and also the cost of the goods that are made in this country two or three times. The Treasury may gain £100,000, but it would-be at the expenditure of over £700,000 out of the public pocket, and that is rather a hard bargain for the public to pay.
  It would have been interesting to have had some particulars of the export trade. That surely is a vital point in considering how far this industry requires safeguarding. We have no figures to show how far the export trade has increased of recent years. We have heard a great deal about a scientific tariff. Surely this was a case where the ingenuity of the President of the Board of Trade might have been brought to bear in order to produce a scientific tariff and deal with goods brought in from America, where the conditions of employment are very different from those in Germany. Surely you could have graduated your duty in order to meet the competition of countries where the hours are longer and the wages lower, and countries where the hours are shorter and the wages higher. We want a scientific tariff which will meet these varying conditions. Before the Committee can come to a proper judgment I submit that we should have a further statement from the Government on the question.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I can say, in a few sentences, though I am afraid it will be a repetition, why we prefer a duty of 33⅓ per cent. to a duty of 5 per cent. The object of the duty is to safeguard the industry, and we are asked to substitute for 33⅓ per cent. a duty of 5 per cent. If 33⅓ per cent. is not adequate as a safeguard, certainly 5 per cent. would be far less adequate. If that is the object of the Resolution, and it has been already decided by the Committee, then I submit that we shall safeguard this industry much more effectively by adopting the recommendation of the Committee that the duty shall be 33⅓ per cent.
  Mr. GILLETT: I desire to support the Amendment, but on rather different grounds to those which have been mentioned so far. An hon. Member has said that these Resolutions are a stalking-horse for Protection; that he looked upon them as a "test" in order to see how Protection would work. I do not believe in Protection, and I say that we should have as small a duty as possible. It is quite a fallacy to maintain that these duties are in any sense a test of Protection. Hon. Members say that if this is proved to be a success then that all Protection would be a success. One hon. Member suggested that we should go down to Sheffield and ask representatives of a particular firm whether they wanted Protection or not. It is just as if you went to one industry and inquired whether they would like to have a subsidy.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a repetition, of the debate this afternoon.
  Mr. GILLETT: I had not arrived at my conclusion. My point is this. The hon. Member suggested that this was a test of Protection. I say that if this is a test, then it is better we should have a 5 per cent. duty rather than 33⅓ per cent. Five per cent. will answer this purpose as a test just as well, and from my standpoint would be far less injurious to the trade of the country. If we have 5 per cent. and it proves a failure, then less harm will have been done. That is the line on which I was trying to argue, and it seems to me that it is germane to the question. But if you rule that I am out of Order, I will pass on to another point. I desire to ask what effect this proposal is likely to have on opinion in Germany. It will be very unfortunate, if at a moment
  2414
  when better feeling has been created by the Locarno Treaty, when the Foreign Secretary has said that a new friend has been found, the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt quite unintentionally, should the next day propose to erect barriers against German trade.
  My suggestion is that Germany has already made objections on this point, and as the "Times" newspaper reported a few days ago a conference between the German and English representatives was being held and the Germans had raised objections on the difficulties that the Safeguarding of Industries Act had brought between the two countries. It is on these grounds that I am anxious that we should have 5 per cent. and not the 33⅓ per cent., because 5 per cent. is less likely to create difficulties with Germany than the 33⅓ per cent. which, as I understand from the "Times" newspaper, has already created difficulty. As the "Times" said, the Committee that had met broke up because they could come to no agreement, on account of the Germans having complained of the Acts that were already in existence. Finally, they withdrew, I understand, on some undertaking being given with regard to any future proposals. If that is the difficulty that has arisen in the past, it seems to me to be the wisest thing, at any rate, that we should only have a 5 per cent. Duty in this case. There is another important point with regard to Germany that I do not think has been mentioned, and it is this. How is the President of the Board of Trade going to get his reparations from Germany which it is hoped to get within the next five years if he is going to erect these—?
  Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman straying altogether wide of the mark to talk about German reparations?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: If I thought the hon. Member was out of order, I should have told him so.
  Mr. GILLETT: I think the hon. Member had better leave the duty of chairmanship to the occupant of the Chair. [Interruption.] If we are to have reparations from Germany, they will be in one of two forms; one form is goods, and the other gold. And if the President of the Board of Trade erects barriers of Duties of 33⅓ per cent. against

  2415
  all the German trade, taking this as a beginning-and every one of the proposals largely affects Germany-if he proposes as high a Duty as this, so as to attempt to shut out German goods, how is he going to get the reparations from Germany? We know perfectly well that that is the difficulty that is before the United States of America at the present time. It is being watched most carefully, but the United States will not lower their tariffs in order to allow goods from other parts of the world to come in in the form of the payment of their debt, and they are getting more gold than they want to have. Yet they refuse to lower their tariff wall. If the President of the Board of Trade is going to follow the American policy, he will sooner or later be faced
  with the same difficulty, and therefore although the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) cannot see it, I am attempting to save the President of the Board of Trade from the impasse into which the American people are getting at the present time. If the President of the Board will accept this Amendment it will, undoubtedly, allow more of the German goods to come in. After all, we are settling this question for five years, and during those five years the Dawes Report comes into much more active force than it is at present.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes,71.

  Division No. 439.]

  AYES.

  [12.58 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  England, Colonel A.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Albery, Irving James

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lumley, L. R.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Fairfax. Captain J. G.

  Macdonald, Capt. P, D. (I. of W.)

  Ashmead-Bartlett. E.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Fielden, E. B.

  McLean Major A.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Finburgh, S.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Merriman, F. B.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Monsell, Eyres, Hon. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Gee, Captain R.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Goff, sir Park

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Grace, John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Grant, J. A.

  Neville, R. J.

  Broun-Lindsay. Major H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Oakley. T.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hammersley, S. S.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Penny. Frederick George

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hawke. John Anthony

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Perring, William George

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Preston, William

  Christie, J. A.

  Hong. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Radford. E. A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Raine, W.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Ramsden, E.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Reid. Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Remer, J R.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Cove, Major William

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Cuper, J. B.

  Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

  Roberts, E, H. G. (Flint)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Ruggles-Brise. Major E. A.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Salmon, Major I.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putne)

  Drewe C.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Duckworth, John

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lougher, L.

  Sandon, Lord

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Storry, Deans, R

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Shaw, U.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Walls, S. R.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Wtstb'y)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Templeton, W. P.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Smith-Caring ton, Neville W.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Smithers, Waldron

  Tinne, J. A.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wallace, Captain D. E

  Yerburgh, Major Robert O. T.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  ward, U.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Stanley, Hon. O F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Colonel Gibbs and Captain

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Hacking.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batsy, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Dalton, Hugh.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lansbury, George

  Varley, Frank B.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lawson, John James

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Grundy, T. w.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Westwood, J.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Murnin, H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Paling, W.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hayes, John Henry

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 72.

  Division No. 440.]

  AYES.

  [1.5 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Gee, Captain R.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Christie, J. A.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Albery, Irving James

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Goff, Sir Park

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grace, John

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grant, J. A.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cope, Major William

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Couper, J. B.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Betterten, Henry B.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Drewe, C.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen-H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Holland. Sir Arthur

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Fielden, E. B.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Finburgh, S.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fleming, D. P.

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

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Charter is, Brigadier-General I.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Perring, William George

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Loder, J. de V.

  Preston, William

  Storry Deans, R.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Radford, E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Lougher, L.

  Raine, W.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Ramsden, E.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Lumley, L R.

  Remer, J. R.

  Templeton, W. p.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Remnant, Sir James

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

  Rantoul, G. S.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Macintyre. Ian

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Tinne, J. A.

  McLean, Major A.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Wells, S. R.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Sandon, Lord

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Neville, R. J.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Skelton, A. N.

  Womersley, w. J.

  Oakley, T.

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Smithers, Waldron

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Hacking.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, j. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson. Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Duckworth, John

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  England, Colonel A.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lansbury, George

  Warne, G. H.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Westwood, J.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Murnin, H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hayday, Arthur

  Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Charles Edwards

  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out lines 5 and 6.
  I should like to say that, while I have sat listening to practically all the speeches in this Debate, I am still convinced that the necessity for this import duty has not yet been shown. It seems to me that not only is it rendering no assistance to the unemployed people in Sheffield, but it is calculated to mislead them into a, false belief that they are going to secure some real benefits from the safeguarding proposals. The Report itself proves at all events that comparative inefficiency
  2420
  does exist in the cutlery trade of Sheffield. If we examine the Report closely-every paragraph of the Report- we can see that there has been no real attempt on the part of the cutlery manufacturers of Sheffield to bring their factories up-to-date and up to 20th century standards.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Deputy-Chairman has already informed the Committee that discussion on these items has been confined to the particular articles on which it is proposed to impose a tax. General discussion on the Report or the inefficiency of the trade in general will

  2421
  not now be in Order. The particular item under discussion is knives of various classes as set out in lines 5 and 6.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I raise this point for your guidance? How is it possible to discuss knives without considering the question of increased production of knives and the effect of that increased production on unemployment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The only argument here permissible is to show some reasons why knives should be exempted.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Is it not a germane argument that if knives are not exempted it will increase the number of people employed in making knives, and similarly to rebut that argument?
  The CHAIRMAN: The discussion must be confined to showing why knives should be exempted.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Might I submit that the Report now under review, giving the figures in Appendix 2, particularly indicates that knives of various kinds are the largest proportion of the commodities referred to in this particular proposal. It seems to me that if knives were excluded the whole of the Report would be futile, since the other articles are minor as compared with knives, and that any question of the efficiency or inefficiency of the particular factory where knives are produced must be relevant to this particular argument. I want to submit that in justification for opposing the inclusion of these two lines. The output of knives in 1920 was equivalent in value to the output in 1913, and the output in 1924 was equivalent in value to the output in 1920 or any succeeding year, and it seems to me that there is real hope for the. Sheffield knife manufacturers without this artificial restoration that the right hon. Gentleman is intending to give. I read in one of the Sheffield papers a few days ago an article which rather controverts the submissions made by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly with regard to Sheffield, that said that, were it not for the coal, steel and iron, shipbuilding, and cotton trades, unemployment had reached its pre-War proportion. In other words, were it not for the absence of beefsteaks and spending, people receiving low wages would not know they were in poverty.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has no connection with knives, which is the subject of this duty.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: That may be so. But, after all, beefsteaks involve bringing along with them knives, and if there were no knives there would be no beefsteaks.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is trifling with the Committee. He must confine himself to the matter under discussion.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I want to submit a particular point arising from page 7 of the Report; the proposal is to place a tariff on pocket knives and all other kinds of knives. In the Report on page 7 at the bottom, we learn in support of their case under this head:
  "The Applicants originally submitted samples of three razors, three pairs of scissors, and five pocket knives,"
  but they did not apparently submit any other kind of knife, although for the purpose of this 33⅓ per cent. tariff in all kinds of knives are included. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the knives that are about to be taxed if this proposal is permitted to go through. I do not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman has noticed that putty knives are to be taxed. The hop knife is to be taxed. We have already placed a tax upon hops. Now you are going to place a tax upon the knife with which the hops are cut. It seems to me another indirect tax upon beer. The right hon. Gentleman is going to place a tax upon the knives used by Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. Does he wish to destroy the only bit of glory the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides have? Then, again, I see he is going to place a tax upon Army and Navy knives and to that extent is going to decrease the efficiency of those great services. Then I notice that grafting knives and castrating knives are to be taxed. Manicure knives are to be taxed; pruning knives are to be taxed, which are used in our orchards and will affect indirectly the trade of preserves. This is a very serious proposal, and without attempting to traverse unduly the arguments that have already been used, it does seem to me that the factory owners at Sheffield have not attempted to place themselves in a position whereby they can compete with either Germany or any other nation. The

  2423
  report tells us that they have spent in a period of 11 years £61,000 on machinery and so forth.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment, and is reverting to the general discussion.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Since knives, which are a very large proportion of the articles on which a tariff is to be placed, come within the purview of the factories at Sheffield, and the quantity and quality of machinery used in their production, how is it possible to adopt the validity or otherwise of an imposition of this kind without referring to the machinery by which these articles are produced?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is part of the discussion which took place this afternoon. The Committee has agreed to place a duty on cutlery The hon. Member has to show why knives should be exempt.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I want to suggest that knives, being as they are, ought not to be taxed in any conceivable direction. The Committee of Inquiry tells us, referring to one individual case, that if a particular knife is taxed the individual who uses this knife in carrying on his own employment is only going to be put to the expense of possibly a shilling or so per year. We have been listening to similar stories in this House during the past week, but it does affect very adversely the man who is already earning a very low wage. It seems to me that the question of purchasing a cheap, nasty German knife and the purchasing of a decent Sheffield-made knife is largely determined by the low wages that millions of people in this country are receiving. If you are going to depress further their already small incomes it is obvious that they will continue to purchase the nasty, cheap article instead of purchasing the better-quality article that is made in our own factories. I want to suggest that no case has been made out for the placing of a tariff upon knives at all. Bearing in mind the tremendous injury you are bound to inflict upon diverse individuals who use these knives for various purposes. I contend that both table knives and pocket knives ought to be excluded from this list. Wherever one looks at whatever proposal that happens to be before the
  2424
  House, the intention is to relieve a certain few individuals at the expense of a large number, and this proposal is another of that kind. It is said that the wholesale price is 7 per cent. below the cost of production in Britain. If we are going to change the situation and put this 33⅓ per cent. tariff upon knives, the obvious result is bound to be an increase in the price of the article, and to that extent a decrease in the real value of the wages of these people who are compelled to use knives. For this and many other reasons I am bound to oppose any tariff being placed upon knives.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I might almost leave the Committee to form their opinion as to whether this Amendment should be accepted or not, judging on its merits the seriousness of the objections put forward. In so far as any argument in his speech was really relevant, the Mover supplied practically all the arguments why the Amendment should be rejected. He said if you take a Boy Scout's knife you were going to take from him his chief glory. I see no earthly reason why a Boy Scout should not have a British knife. But he advanced a further reason, which was that this duty would injure other industries which used knives. Now, the Committee have gone into that very carefully. As the Committee will see, there is excluded from the duty knives for use for machines. Those are excluded by the Committee for the reason that the knives are used by other industries in further processes. I am not concerned to say whether that was right or wrong, but it is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's argument that serious injury will be done to the industry. The Committee went into the question whether any other industry would be affected. In paragraph 41 of the report they find that there is no conceivable evidence which would justify them in coming to the conclusion that any industry would suffer. Therefore they answered that in the negative. For all these reasons I think we should follow the Committee recommendations in respect of the industry for which they consider a case has been made out. I submit no case to refute the Report has been made out by the hon. Member.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to draw attention of the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 41 where the Committee states that the knife used by a shoemaker was only one out of thousands of similar knives used by similar people who must have knives for their work. That knife is going to be taxed by this particular Clause.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will read paragraph 41 be will see the conclusion to which they have come.
  Captain BENN: It is hard to understand the tactics adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, because every contribution he makes to the Debate exposes the poverty of his case. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that it is his duty here and now to make a case for the taxation of the knives? It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refuse to father the scheme, but it is really too much that the President of the Board of Trade also declines to father the tax and passes it on to the Committee. As far as I am concerned, I shall never cease to protest against the action of the President of the Board of Trade in transferring his powers to this Committee, whether it is one of his public or private Committees appointed or dismissed according to his own will. He must make a case for the duty if the House of Commons is to be convinced.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must make a case against including the knives.
  Captain BENN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Hope. I have to demand that the President of the Board of Trade shall make out that case.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Motion before the House is to leave out lines 5 and 6. It is for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to argue why these lines should be left out.
  Captain BENN: It is for the President of the Board of Trade to make out his case.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: How will you put the question from the Chair, Mr. Chairman? Will you not put it, "That the knives and forks stand part"?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment proposed is that the knives should be excluded from the Resolution, and that is the question to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman must speak.
  Captain BENN: With very great respect, I venture to submit a consideration in opposition to your ruling. I will lead what the Committee has presently agreed upon:
  "That during a period of live years from the passing of an Act giving effect to this resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article."
  That is all we have agreed on, that is to say, knives. We are only discussing knives and I submit this House has not decided to touch cutlery. The Committee has agreed to a general resolution and we are now discussing the items. I submit it is for the President of the Board of Trade to make a case for taxing knives and not to throw the onus on us, though we are capable of making the case against it. It is his business and we are entitled to ask him to perform his task. Why does he say that knives for machines are not to be taxed? Why not? If you are going to have a duty on, it should it be against production for they would be producted at a lower price. Why should you deprive these people of the advantage you are going to give the consumers in this country? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It is said that the duty would lead to additional men being employed, that there would be greater production and cheaper knives, so why does the right hon. Gentleman explain that the user of the machine knife is going to have a good time because he is being exempted from a duty. There is no case for the taxation of knives at all. If hon. Members will look at the Appendix on page 20 they will see that the import of these knives into this country is not increasing but decreasing. Therefore one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper is not fulfilled. This Committee is sovereign and can do what it likes, but if hon. Members are pretending that they are proceeding under the terms of the White Paper, I say that the evidence given by the Committee is no evidence for putting a tax on knives.

  2427
  In 1920 the total net import was 19,909, and the total net import in 1924, the last completed year, was 79,600. As a matter of fact, the figure is 300 down, and there is no case, therefore, for the taxation of knives. If you take the figures you will find that the best figures are in 1920, when imports were restricted. Let me take one or two cases of the articles it is proposed to tax. Take knives with two blades. Sheffield can produce them for 25s. a dozen. Germany produces them for 8s.; and the 33⅓ per cent. duty will make the German article 10s. 6d. wholesale, and the Sheffield knife 25s. wholesale. Why not admit that you are merely raising the price of the cheap knife, and not pretend that you are helping the Sheffield manufacturer with his much more expensive article. It is the same in many other classes of article. All that happens is to impose a high price on the consumer. When the President of the Board of Trade said he was anxious to assist the working classes by the imposition of these taxes, I was tempted when I saw this reference to knives to turn up a passage from "The Friend of Humanity and the Knife-Grinder."
  "But for my part. I never love to meddle With politics, Sir."
  "I give thee sixpence! I will see thee damn'd first."
  I think that these friends of humanity with their tariffs will receive the same answer from the working classes they are intending to dupe. They may perhaps be driven to make the same stern retort.
  Mr. KELLY: I trust we shall have some statement or explanation, if not a justification, for the demand that is made by the Government, and that the President of the Board of Trade will explain what are the knives that are made of iron. I should like to know why there is a differentiation between knives that are to be used in a machine as against knives that are to be used by hand. I do not see the hon. Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) present. I should like him to have told us something about the difference between knives used in a machine and knives used by hand. He is a member of an establishment in which many knives are used in the many restaurants of his concern in London and the Provinces. I understand steel knives
  2428
  which are made by people in various parts of the country, not only in Sheffield, but in other places as well. Those who are responsible for the people engaged in the industry had no part whatever in the investigations that have been made. But knives which are placed in machines are to be excluded. Those which are used for cutting bread by machinery are outside; but -a knife used for cutting bread by hand is included. If the knife is placed in a machine for the purpose of assisting the butcher it is excluded, but if the butcher uses it by hand it is included. It seems to me that those who have presented the White Paper have given very little consideration to the problem. I hope we shall have some explanation for this difference. The statement made by the Minister in charge of the Bill does not help us to understand the problem in the least. The whole proposition is stupid, and I hope the House will turn it down.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I want to say one or two things about this Amendment. I have been looking at the actual figures of the import of knives and I find them really interesting. In 1920 we imported 202,383 dozen knives. In 1921 they went up a little, and in 1922 they went as high as 668,648 dozen. Rut in 1924 these imports had fallen to 444,000 dozen, and for the first nine months of this year they were 374,000 dozen. It seems to me it is for the President of the Hoard of Trade to show to the Committee that the present figure of importation is in fact abnormal. That is the ground upon which the White Paper lays it down that they will be entitled to put a tariff upon knives, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly tell us, before we divide upon this particular Amendment, what are the grounds for his accepting the view here that the importation of knives at the present time is abnormal. That does not seem to be borne out by the quantity of knives which I have given. Then I would say just a word or two with regard to his remark just now concerning shoe knives. I do not need to dwell upon the paragraph in the Report which he quoted, but I would refer him to paragraph 42. There I find the Committee desires specially to refer to shoe knives, and they say they
  "were asked to exclude these from the classes of cutlery under consideration on the

  2429
  ground that Swedish knives are consistently preferred by shoemakers to the Sheffield knives because of their superior quality, and it was stated that they are actually dearer than the home-produced article. Both these allegations were, as a matter of fact, disputed by the applicants, and we come to the conclusion, from the contradictory nature of the evidence from both sides, that the question of superiority was largely a matter of personal preference."
  Therefore, the Committee is asked to place a tariff upon knives when it is admitted by the Committee that there is a question of personal preference, and because a knife is preferred for use in a productive industry which comes from abroad you ask these particular people to pay more for that knife than the knife that is produced at home. That seems to me perfectly unreasonable, and I should be glad to hear from the President of the Board of Trade if that is the basis of his general policy with regard to safeguarding.
  Another thing I should like to mention is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said in moving the Amendment, knives form a very important part of the cutlery trade, and I notice, in taking the general figures—and unfortunately we cannot get these figures separated—but in taking the general figures for German export of cutlery I find that at the time the German currency was depreciating rapidly, the German export figures for cutlery showed that during that period 15,800 cwt. were exported to the United Kingdom, against 12,000 in 1924 and 14,000 in 1925. But the German currency is now stabilised, and I cannot understand what groat danger there is to fear from the export of German knives, having regard to those figures. It seems quite unreasonable that we should be asked to include these knives under these circumstances. For these reasons I support the Amendment, and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade to reply to me on these points.
  Mr. BECKETT: The President of the Board of Trade in his explanation indicated the precise lines of difference between the two sides of this Committee on this Amendment. The Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in moving the Amendment, suggested that, because there was a very large sale of these imported knives in this country, that was a reason why they should be relieved from
  2430
  taxation. The President of the Board of Trade took the opposite view, and pointed out that because there was a very large sale, that was the reason why they should be taxed. Why is there a large importation of these knives? Simply because, although there are many things which the people of this country are obliged to go without owing to lack of money, a pocket knife of some kind is a thing which our boys demand as soon as they get to a knowledgable age. That is substantiated on page 4 of the Report:
  "We were reminded that Sir Walter Scott in 'Ivanhoe' mentions that even in the reign of King John, Sheffield was celebrated for making knives and whittles, and Mr. Faraday informed us that researches have established the fact that knives were made at Sheffield when Julius Cæsar landed in Kent, and that ever since that time the trade has been carried on in the town with unexampled success."
  2.0 A.M
  It is no fault of people in this country who are obliged to purchase foreign knives because of the inadequate remuneration they receive that they should be deprived of that particular tool which has always been the possession of all classes of this country. This is just an instance where the unfortunate fact that the President of the Board of Trade refuses to allow the House of Commons to see the evidence upon which their verdicts are expected to be delivered handicaps us so severely. The knife is needed in every form, for every kind of odd job, and every kind of handy job. Many kinds of general workers, labourers and casual workers, whose pay is exceedingly small, who have very little money to buy the more expensive Sheffield knives which hon. Members on the opposite side recommend, need these knives in almost every stage of their labours from the time they start their work till the time they have to use their knives to get rid of their dinner. I know hon. Members on the other side are not used to eating meals with knives, but unfortunately all the people in the community are not in that position, and they have to use knives for many purposes which hon. Members, perhaps very properly, do not consider they should be used for. Then we find in paragraph 41 of the Report the most amazing statement that, just because some poor practical shoemaker will possibly only use four knives a year that will only cost him 9d. each, he will only pay 1s. per annum in

  2431
  taxation. We object very strongly to the practical shoemaker being taxed even 1s. on his knives in order to balance a Budget which is giving remissions in taxation to people who are much better able to afford to pay the taxation than by the indirect and, if I may venture with all respect to use the word, the profiteering methods which are being recommended this evening. There is not the slightest justification for this. The right hon.. Gentleman expressed the opinion in his reply that Boy Scouts should buy English knives instead of German knives. So they would if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends would pay the fathers of these boys sufficient to keep their families in decency. Those who have acted as scout masters and assistant scout masters in such areas as the East End know that it is only by extreme self denial that these lads are able to get any kind of uniform at all. I am surprised to hear
  that a foundation is to be obtained for the British Empire by taxing the knives of the Friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are Boy Scouts in their youth and British Fascisti in their more mature years. I hope, in the interests of their young friends, that the gentlemen who have imported this latter valuable weapon into England, will not raise this tax to meet foolish, uneconomical extravagance. If this is to be balanced by taxation it should not be by indirect, unfair and profiteering methods on the vital tools and necessities of the poor; they should look for their revenue in sources nearer home.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 62.

  Division No. 441.]

  AYES.

  [2.4 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Merriman, F. B.

  Albery, Irving James

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gee, Captain R.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Goff, Sir Park

  Neville, R. J.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grant, J. A.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Oakley, T.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.I.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Penny, Frederick George

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Perring, William George

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Preston. William

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Radford, E. A.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Raine, W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ramsden, E.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Christie, J. A.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. a.

  Cochrane Commander Hon. A. D.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Couper, J. B.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Lane-Fox. Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sandon, Lord

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Davidson J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)

  Drewe, C.

  Lougher, L.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

  Skelton A. N.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lumley. L. R

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Everard W Lindsay

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Fielden E. B.

  McLean, Major A.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Fleming, D. P.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Storry Deans, R.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H,

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Watson. Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wells, S. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE SYES.—

  Templeton, W. P.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Major Cope and Captain Margesson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gillett, George M.

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Murnin, H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES ℄

  Hayes, John Henry

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Warne and Mr. A. Barnes.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 62.

  Division No. 442.]

  AYES.

  [2.50 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Drewe, C.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Albery, Irving James

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Elliot, Walter E.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Everard, W, Lindsay

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Barnett, Major sir Richard

  Fielden, E. B.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Fleming, D. P.

  Lougher, L.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Gadie, Lieut.-Cot. Anthony

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Macintyre, I.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Gee, Captain R.

  McLean, Major A.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Grant, J. A.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Neville. R. J.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Christie, J. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Oakley, T.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Couper, J. B.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Pennefather. Sir John

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Perring, William George

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Preston, William

  Radford, E. A.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Raine, W.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C,)

  Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.

  Ramsden, E.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Remer, J. R.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wells, S. R.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfeld)

  Sandeman A. Stewart

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Sanderson. Sir Frank

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sandon, Lord

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Major Cope and Captain

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Tinne, J. A.

  Hacking.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Henderson, Right Hen. A. (Burney)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waite

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Scurr, John

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer. George A. (Broxtowe)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Lute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan Caerphilly

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Day, Colone. Harry

  Kelly W, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kennedy, T.

  Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Fenby, T. D.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Warne, G. H.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lansbery, George

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Gillett, George M.

  Lawson. John James

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

  Linn, William

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Murnin, H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Paling W.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby. Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayes John Henry

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.

  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in line 6 at the end, to insert the words "or for trade purposes."
  It is rather fortunate for me in rising to move this Amendment, that the President of the Hoard of Trade is not here. Had he been present, he would probably not have listened, but, instead, before I had an opportunity of moving the Amendment, he would have proposed the Closure. The only argument the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in his armory in support of these proposals is to gag the discussion. The Amendment that I move is one which would. I think receive the support of the Government had they been capable of understanding the effect of tariffs. If they did accept this Amendment it would be quite consistent with a number of things which have been done recently by are intelligent Ministers than those who are conducting these proposals. This Amendment proposes to exclude from the operation of the duties knives which are used for trade purposes. The object of
  2436
  that is to some extent to lighten the burden on industry. The few lines which we have just been discussing took exception in the ease of knives used in machines. If it would be a burden on industry to tax a knife used in machines, if cannot be less than a burden on industry to tax hand knives which are used for trade purposes. Last week, under the Rating and Valuation Bill, a Clause, was carried exempting the rating if machinery. That was done because the rating of machinery was considered to be a burden on industry. Cannot the Government be consistent at least for once? If it was a good thing and calculated to lighten the burden on industry and stimulate trade to relieve machinery from the burden of taxation, why cannot the Government accept this Amendment and to some extent relieve the industry which would otherwise be burdened by the imposition of a tax? We are hearing ad nauseum from representatives of the employing classes of the great harden upon industry, and the difficulty

  2437
  with which British trade has to meet foreign competition, if there be anything in that—and I think there is something in it—then the last thing the House of Commons might to do is to increase the burden on industry by putting a tax upon the implements of industry. It may be said in the case of hand knives the burden would not be large. There is a reference to that point in the Report of the Committee and they say that the imposition of the proposed duty would only involve increased expenditure in the case of shoe knives by an additional charge of 1s. a year. But the cost would be very much higher. A Customs duty always raises the cost of the article. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was that so in the case of the McKenna Duties?"] The question of the McKenna Duties in this discussion is irrelevant and I am anxious to economise time. My Amendment suggests that you should exclude, not merely knives used in machines but all those that are used for industrial purposes. A great deal has been said in the course of the Debate about the Committee having come to conclusions either without sufficient evidence or with no evidence at all. But there is no part of the Committee's Report which is more grotesque than that part which deals with the suggested imposition of a duty upon knives. Although I am anxious to save time, may I venture to read just one or two sentences from that paragraph dealing with shoe knives. My quotation begins just above the middle of page 16 dealing with the opinion that Swedish knives are regarded in various trades as being superior to the knives that are produced in Sheffield. The Committee go on to say:
  "The whole question was irrelevant "—
  that is, the question whether Swedish knives were better than Sheffield ones
  "unless it could be proved that the main importation came from Sweden and not from Germany."
  Why in the name of common sense should it have been left for the opponents to prove whether the knives came from Sweden or Germany? Surely that was the duty of the applicants, but this biased Committee, having the two most incompetent persons that were ever given the duty of considering these, matters, put the task on the opponents.
  Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in
  2438
  making a reflection of this character on people who cannot defend themselves in this House?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is more a matter of taste than of order.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am quite prepared to leave the question of taste to those to whose opinion I attach some value and some importance.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The bad taste is in the Chairman.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Report goes on to say:
  "In the absence of any separate statistics regarding the importation of shoe knives, we are bound to assume that the trade in them follows that in the general class of knives to which they belong."
  Why had they no statistics? Surely the statistics could have been obtained? But in this case, as in every other, they pave the benefit of the doubt to the applicants. Surely if it were a question of giving the advantage to one side, it was the duty of the Committee to assume that the applicants had not proved their case. Therefore the benefit of the doubt should have been given to those who opposed the demand. There never has been such a collection of flapdoodle before the House of Commons since this institution was founded than this and the other reports. The Report proceeds:
  "We were satisfied from the evidence given by the Applicants that German shoe knives are being sold in this country at prices below those at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured here."
  Now, what is the proportion and the value of the knives which are used for hand purposes or used by hand, and what is the value of the knives used in machines? This is a Finance Bill and we ought at least to have an idea of the amount of revenue that is expected under this tax. For some reason, for the first time in many generations, the Treasury have not considered it to be their duty, or considered it to be a duty which they owe to the House of Commons, to be present to defend these proposals. These are some of the reasons on which I submit this Amendment to the House. There is nothing in the Report to prove whether these imported knives are competing unfairly with the products of Sheffield. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume what the Committee themselves

  2439
  admitted, that the hand knives which are used are quite as fine as those obtained in Sheffield. I do not submit my Amendment with any confidence that it will be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. FENBY: I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not in his place, because I should like him to hear the appeal I want to make to the Committee. It will prove the right hon. Gentleman's geographical relationship with me and our very close connection in a matter which concerns a trade which is an ancient one, and I am proud to say a romantic one also. I notice that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. is to be imposed on the shoeing knife, but there is a knife which comes before the shoeing knife. Nobody has mentioned the farrier's knife. The Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, are spending a considerable sum of money on having demonstration vans up and down the country endeavouring to improve the trade of the village smith, who will be hit by the recommendations of the Committee to a considerable extent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snow-den), in moving his Amendment said that the knife which was to be used for trade purposes should not be subject to the duty. I happen to be a member of a very honourable profession which uses the farrier's knife and I would remind those who know nothing about the art of shoeing horses that, whatever could be done in other industries by machinery, you cannot shoe horses by machinery. Some people say it is a trade which is dying out. It certainly has serious difficulties, and I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade by his Resolution should to-night have put another difficulty in its way.
  There is not a firm in England that has ever made a speciality of manufacturing the tools of the farrier. The knife which the farrier uses, and which is included in this duty, has a competitor which is neither German nor Scandinavian. Most of the things a farrier uses, the raw material and sometimes the finished article, are not to be obtained in this country. Take the nail which he uses. The raw material is Swedish charcoal iron, which has to be imported. The latest and improved type of knife comes from America. The farrier's knife made
  2440
  in Sheffield has a horn handle, and those who know anything of the farrier's trade know that when the smith wants to fit the heated shoe on the surface of the foot of the horse he has to carry it with an iron catch in his left hand, and he has to steady and keep in its place and the heat of the shoe burns the handle away long before the blade itself goes; and the personal touch of the farrier's hand, what is known as the sweep of the handle of the blade goes too. When a farrier wants a new knife he does not order it. He goes and looks at it, and feels it. He purchases one that comes to his grip. The American firm which makes farriers' tools a speciality has made an adjustable handle of malleable iron, in two parts, and when the blade is used the malleable iron handle is as complete and whole as before, because hot iron will not burn cold malleable iron, and therefore all the farrier has to do is to fit a new blade into the old handle; and so he goes on.
  The President of the Board of Trade suggests that knives for surgical purposes shall not be subject to the 33⅓ per cent. duty, and I should like to point out that there is a service which is not medical but which is known as veterinary. If a horse's foot is damaged, the only way to get to the seat of the trouble and relieve the pain is by the farrier's knife. No surgeon, no medical man has any instrument for the relief of horses. Yet the farrier, who uses the knife for the relief of horses, his knife is to be subject to this duty. Knowing the difficulties of this romantic and ancient trade, I want to urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. At the moment the Minister of Agriculture is sending demonstration vans all over the country endeavouring to encourage the industry. The knife which his forefathers have used, and which his sons will have to use, the farrier still has in use. You cannot treat the feet of horses by machinery. I make a special appeal on behalf of this industry, and hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic ear to the claims of an industry that you cannot do without if you keep hunters, that you cannot do without if you are farmers, and that you cannot do without if you are brewers.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley

  2441
  (Mr. Snowden) lashed himself into a fury and has treated us to a crescendo of vituperation, but the hon. Member who has just spoken has relieved the situation by a most interesting and affecting speech about the use of the farrier's knife. What is it all about? [HON. MEMBERS: "Knives!"] The reason why there is to be no duty on knives for machinery is that the applicants did not ask for the duty. That is all there is to that. The only case where the opponents of the proposal have made out any real case is that of the shoemaker's knife which has been referred to already. The Committee found that the shoemaker may be expected to use possibly 4s. worth of knife every year, and they thought that the imposition of The taxation would not be a very great infliction in an expenditure of that sum, whereas it would encourage the manufacture of the knife in the British market. Having listened to this Debate all night, I would like to hear somebody on the other side of the Committee refer to the home market; they have not said a single useful word in regard to home production.
  Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member, who has just made such a magnificent reply only asked about shoemakers' knives. It seems to me that the only knife with which the hon. Member is acquainted is the knife that he reads about in this particular Report. I want to draw his attention and the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a rather curious anomaly that will arise if the Amendment is not accepted. He knows perfectly well, as President of the Board of Trade, that there are many factories in the country where cloth fabric for various purposes is cut up by machinery, in which there is something similar to the band knife in a wood factory, running round and cutting many thicknesses of cloth. In these factories there are also cutters employed, using knives to cut through smaller numbers of thicknesses, and you are going to have a wonderful contradiction. The power-cutting machine is going to escape the duty, but the knife that is need in the hands of the cutter who is operating a hand-cutting knife is going to be subject to the 33⅓ per cent. duty. That is a very strange way of helping industry. The very fact that the Report states that those who made the application for this duty
  2442
  showed that this particular duty would increase the price of these knives, gives away the whole of the case of the Government in bringing this particular tariff before the House of Commons. They admit that it is going to increase the price of the commodity. In addition to that, you are going to have these curious inconsistencies arising. I want to take the hon. Member a stage further—take him into a butcher's shop on a tour of inspection. You will find there a mincing machine with a knife used for mincing up the meat. You will also find an away of band knives along the counter. The mincing knife is to escape the tax, but all the knives that the butcher uses by hand are to be taxed. Really for a Government, of all the intellects— Well, I see some of them look up sharply as though I were insulting them, so I at once withdraw the allegation. They are not of all the intellects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thirty-three and a third per cent."] I think our own Amendment put them at their proper level, 5 per cent. I suggest to the Government that they ought to accept this Amendment for trade purposes. They want to assist industry. They claim that they are going to help trade by putting on this Duty, but let me put this point. I have only cited two particular trades, but I am certain the number could be increased. I could take, for example, the joinery trade, where you have a band saw which will escape taxation because it is a machine. But you also have hand tools which have blades inserted in them, and all these hand tools will be taxed. If your argument is correct, you are going to help one particular industry, but you are going to put an injury and a very severe handicap upon many others by the relief which you claim you are going to give to one.
  3.0 A.M.
  I submit that that is a curious way of lightening the burden on industry. It is a strange way of helping industry by imposing a tax upon almost every industry in the country. Other industries are to be handicapped because suddenly this Government have come to the conclusion that to help out one small industry they are going to impose a tax upon band knives brought into this country. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member who has just replied that they might give this matter

  2443
  further consideration. I am convinced that they would then see that the case of the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Fenby) is unanswerable. Cases could be multiplied, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues will give a little further consideration to this matter, and if they apply themselves strictly to the task of assisting other industries they will accept the Amendment.
  Major CRAWFURD: I think the Committee will be very grateful to the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) for having raised this question in (he form of an Amendment. The widespread effect of this tax is indicated by the list of articles which are to be taxed, which is given on page 18 of this Report. I think the Committee will realise that it brings to light one of the great drawbacks to the particular method which is being adopted in these safeguarding proposals. This Amendment brings out very clearly the hardship which is inflicted during the course of these inquiries by the fact that the consumers' outlook and evidence is not considered at all. I remember that earlier in the Sitting the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) criticised my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Bonn) in this sense— that he complained, unconsciously untruly, that my hon. and gallant Friend showed that he had no interest in the producing industries of this country. We all know that the hon. Member has a very particular interest in industry and represents a Division of a city which produces many different kinds of goods and many different qualities. I have the honour to represent a constituency the members of which are not largely concerned in any producing industry, but they are largely concerned as consumers, and as I look down this list—taking only those articles that the right hon. Gentleman has included in his Amendment—it is perfectly obvious that it will have widespread effects. Neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor his colleague, have explained the effect of this tax. The hon. Gentleman who replied to this Amendment was perhaps a little more equitable and general than his colleague. He enjoys a joke—none so much as his own, and I think I would make a
  2444
  special appeal to the hon. Gentleman. There are cooks' knives, butchers' knives, plumbers' knives, ham and beef knives, pruning knives and even hacking knives —that might have made a warm appeal to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—farriers' knives, oilcloth knives and linoleum knives. The hon. Gentleman says it has been calculated that the shoemaker will only pay 4s. per year for knives. If that is 4s. altogether a small proportion of that will be additional owing to this tax.
  Sir H. CROFT: Butchers' knives! [Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. and gallant Member must not be so easily led away to other subjects not the subject of the Amendment.
  Major CRAWFURD: I was trying to elucidate what was exactly meant by the 4s.—whether it was per shoemaker per year. If 1s. is the additional price owing to this tax, the conclusion of the argument is this, that the amount of knife value per year per shoemaker is 4s., and that at the outside 1s. is represented by the additional price. How much employment is that going to give? Is it going to be worth the disturbance and extra cost which is going to be created and borne by numerous classes of persons? If it is in order, I would like to quote a few lines from another Report. In the Report which deals with wrapping paper——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can only deal with the particular question under discussion.
  Major CRAWFURD: With all due respect, I was only going to deal with the point under discussion. I was going to say that the observations made with regard to the widespread effects of a tax on a certain material—paper—which enters into other industries are equally applicable to a tax on knives which also enter into other industries When they say in another Report that the effects of this tax will be very widespread, exactly the same is applicable in the case of the knife. As in every other case this evening, we seem to have bad no adequate explanation of why this is being done.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and, claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put," That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 57.

  Division No. 443.]

  AYES.

  [3.12 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Raine, W.

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ramsden, E.

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Remer, J. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford}

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Rug Bios-Brise, Major E. A.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Sandon, Lord

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C (Berks, Newb'y)

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westby)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Kennedy, A. ft. (Preston).

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Campbell, E. T.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smithers, Waldron

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Lamb. J. Q

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Christie, J. A.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lougher, L.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cope, Major William

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Couper, J. B.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Templeton, W. P.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  McLean, Major A.

  Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)

  Creokshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Davidson, J (Hertl'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Drewe, C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Frank.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Wells, S. R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Neville. R. J.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Oakley, T.

  Wilson, B. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Franks E.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Penny, Frederick George

  Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goff, Sir Park

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Captain Hacking and Lord

  Grant, J. A.

  Preston, William

  Stanley.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Radford, E. A.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lawson, John James

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Harris, Percy A.

  Lunn, William

  Barnes, A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Barr, J.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

  Murnin, H.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Paling, W.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Potts, John S.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Scurr, John

  Dalton, Hugh

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Kennedy, T.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Gillett, George M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)

  Windsor, Walter

  Varley, Frank B.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  William, T. (York, Don Valley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOSE.—

  Watson W. M.(Dunfermline)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Mr. B. Smith And Mr. Warne.

  Question Put accordingly, those words be there inserted."
  "That The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 161

  Division No. 444.]

  AYES.

  [3.18 a.m.

  Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barnes, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barr, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy. T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Warne, G. H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Windsor, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Neville, R. J.

  Albery, Irving James

  Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Oakley, T.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Grant, J. A.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Boothby, R. J. G.

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

  Penny, Frederick George

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Preston, William

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Radford, E. A.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hawks, John Anthony

  Raine, W.

  Brown, Brig Gen. H. C (Berks, Newb'y)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Ramsden, E.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Remer, J. R.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir O.(St. Marylebone)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Christie. J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Sandon, Lord

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Cope, Major William

  Lamb, J. Q-

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D Mel. (Renfrew. W)

  Couper, J. B

  Lane-Fox Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)

  Courtauld. Major J. S.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hot.. Sir Philip

  Skelton. A. N.

  Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Loder. J de V.

  Slaney, Major P Kenyon

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbre)

  Lougher, L.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Curzon Captain Viscount

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Smithers, Waldron

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd. Hemel Hempst'd)

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Drewe, C.

  Lumley. L. R.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Eden Captain Anthony

  MacAndrew, Chares Glen

  Stanley, Col Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Edmondson. Major A. J

  Macintyre, Ian

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Elliot. Captain Walter E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Erskine James Malcolm Monteith

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Everard W Lindsay

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Stott, Lieut. Colonel W H.

  Fairfax Captain J. G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Fielden E. B.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Fleming D. P.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Foxcroft Captain C. T.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)

  Templeton, W. P

  Fraser Captain Ian

  Monsell, Eyres, Com Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Fremantle Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wells, S. R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Captain Hacking and Lord Stanley.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The grounds on which I put forward this proposal are two. I want the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary to have an opportunity of getting to understand these Resolutions. From the opening of this Debate, and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, who confined his opening remarks to reading a few extracts from the Report of the Committee, it has been quite clear that neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Parliamentary Secretary is capable of giving any reply to the arguments that are put before the Committee, and I am asking that this Debate be adjourned in order that the President of the Board of Trade may consult his advisers, and that there may be some interval during which his advisers can write out and have typed for the use of the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary the replies to the Amendments which will be moved. The second reason why I move this Motion is that the House of Commons, or such Members of the House of Commons as are now present, are engaged on important business. We are engaged in levying taxation upon His Majesty's subjects. I submit that it is nothing short of a scandal that, with only one-third of the Members of the House, of Commons present, the House is voting taxation upon the people of this country. In the last Division the fact was disclosed that just a little more than one-third of the Members of the Tory party were present in the House and, indeed, there are only two of the higher Members of the Government present. Where is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I think it is not merely a scandal but an insult to the House of Commons that there should be carried on for 12 hours a Debate of this character and a proposal for imposing taxation upon the people in the absence of the Minister who is primarily responsible. For these few reasons I beg to make the proposal I mentioned.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has proposed this Motion with characteristic courtesy.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Did you think you were the only one that could be courteous?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman forgets the short time when he and his colleagues were in office. It is perfectly patent to the Committee why this Motion was moved. It is not because there is something more than a quorum present or because a quarter of his own followers have not taken the trouble to sit up. It is not because His Majesty's Government, who want to impose these duties on the exhaustive findings of the Committee, have been challenged in any respect. It is proposed for one reason only, which the right hon. Gentleman gave very early in the Debate, when he said he would exhaust every Parliamentary device in order to delay the passing of the Resolutions. We were charged with violating election pledges. It is said we are slow in helping unemployment. The. fact is that we are anxious by these Resolutions to expedite it.
  Captain BENN: There never was a more reasonable Motion than that moved by my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a curious thing we never get these fine rhetorical displays from the President of the Board of Trade on any matter of substance. When we get to a formal and proper Motion for the Adjournment he declares an attack and talks about election pledges. The plain fact is that, if you allow this sort of thing to go on, we are going to lose the power that the Ways and Means Committee has over Finance Bills. That cannot be said too often. If we allow this to go on too long and the President of the Board of Trade is put in charge of the tax on knives, why should he not be put in charge of the tax on tea or coffee or a tax on incomes? To-night we are setting a new precedent.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Ha, ha!
  Captain BENN: The hon. Gentleman who has been in the House 12 months

  2451
  must not laugh in derision. It is a perfectly serious point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to hang about the purlieus of the House of Commons, but he will have nothing to do with the whole business. Therefore he leaves the President of the Board of Trade, who is a keen man for that sort of thing, to move the Resolutions and carry them in defiance of all precedent. In these circumstances the best the Committee can do is to adjourn the Debate which is being carried on in quite novel and unprecedented conditions. We know that by the orders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the standing practices in the House of Commons is being flouted. Let me say what I mean by that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Manual of Procedure, on page 222. they will see
  "It is the fluty of every Member of the House of Commons to attend the service of the House."
  HON. MEMBERS: Where is your party?
  Captain BENN: As you know, Mr. Hope, we may have to revert to the practice of calling the House over. It may be necessary to ask the Chair to consent to a call of the House if the present procedure goes on. It is not only that hon. Members are absent through the call of duty. They are absent through an organised system of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] In view of the wilful absenteeism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who should be here on a Finance Bill discussion, I beg to support the Motion.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: I think it is not fair to the House that we should let the opportunity go by without protest. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is engaged in a plot. He knows very well he has had no mandate whatever to go forward with a scheme which in the long run means the institution of Protection for which he and his party are pledged.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a reason why I should leave the Chair. If there is a plot about, there is a reason why I should remain.
  Mr. HUDSON: With the idea of helping to prevent a plot I want to suggest that this Motion should be agreed to by the Committee in order that the responsible authority in these matters might be here to explain upon what principles they can justify the proposals now put forward. I entirely agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, above all other persons, should be present. Every part of this Debate has required his presence, and it is a perfectly scandalous thing that the institution of all sorts of taxes, which it will be extremely difficult to get rid of in the future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] —should be proceeded with in Ms absence. Yes, and those cheers are a confession from all the benches opposite of the nature of the plot to which I have referred. Their concern is to rivet upon this country a system which, if they had acted honourably, they would have known they could never consider during this Parliament. We are out to fight with all the means in our power against the game that is being played, and played in the interests of the profits of the classes. There is no concern for the working classes. Their needs could have been dealt with more directly, and in a much better way. They might have been dealt with by an effective scheme of unemployment. This is not in the interests of the working classes; it is not in the interests of unemployment. What actually is taking place is that having been defeated in election after election in an attempt to impose on this country a system which their great leader in the past described as "Dead and damned!" they now prefer to work by subterfuge, and the one man amongst them who knows all the facts slinks into holes and corners while the President of the Board of Trade goes into tantrums because he has no argument to meet the case put forward.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 56.

  Division No. 445.]

  AYES.

  [3.45 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Agn-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Albery, Irving James

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Bussed, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Sandon, Lord

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Comb., N.)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Kirkwood. D.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

  Christie, J. A.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Clayton, G. C.

  Lougher, L.

  Storry Deans, R

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

  Cope, Major William

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Couper, J. B.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Templeton, W. P.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  McLean, Major A.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Merriman, F. B.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Davidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Meryer, Sir Frank

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Drewe, C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Neville R. J.

  Wells, S. R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Oakley, T.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fleming, D. P.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Penny, Frederick George

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Preston, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Goff, Sir Park

  Radford, E. A.

  Captain Margesson and Captain

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Raine, W

  Hacking.

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Ramsden, E.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilliy)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kennedy, T.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Kirkwood, D.

  Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmonth, Bedwellty)

  Lawson, John James

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lunn, William

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Warne.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 157.

  Division No. 446.]

  AYES.

  [3.53 a.m.

  Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barnes, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barr, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Warns, G. H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lunn, William

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J,R.(Aberaven)

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

  Petts, John S.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Hayes.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Remer, J. A.

  Albery, Irving James

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecen & Rad.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Barlow, George (Hampstead)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Barnett, Major Sir R.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dswerth, Putney)

  Barnsten, Major Sir Harry

  Hennessy, Major J- R. G.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Boethby, R. J. G.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watferd)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebene)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Sandon, Lord

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)

  Staney, Major P. Kenyon

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Campbell, E. T.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smithers, Waldron

  Captain Victor A.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden. E.)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Christie, J. A.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Lougher, L.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Storry Deans, R

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Couper, J. B.

  Lumley. L. R.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Stuart, Hon. J, (Moray and Nairn)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  McLean, Major A.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Macmillan Captain H.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Drewe, C

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Wallace. Captain D. E.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Neville, R. J.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Nicholson. O. (Westminster)

  Wells, S. R.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Oakley, T.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Gee, Captain R.

  Fenny, Frederick George

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Preston, William

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Radford, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Raine, W.

  Major Cope and Captain

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Ramsden, E.

  Margesson.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Field, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  4.0 A.M.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I call attention under the Rules of Procedure of the House to the fact that I notice there are strangers present? I call upon you, Mr. Chairman, to take proceedings under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN: I observe no strangers.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: There are: I see them now. Under Rule 272, if there are strangers present, I think it is open to any Member to call your attention, and take steps in connection therewith.
  The CHAIRMAN: I observe no strangers; perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will indicate where they are.
  Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Under the Gallery.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not, for this purpose, form part of the House.
  Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move to leave out lines 7 and 8.
  This Amendment deals with
  "scissors, including tailors' shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel of iron."
  During the course of this evening's Debate the Labour party have repeatedly been told that they have no interest in the state of trade or employment at home. I desire to say that my chief motive for moving the deletion of these two lines is my anxiety to keep trade going in this country. I notice that there has been a number of things excluded from this tax, such as circular knives and knives for use in machines. I also notice that manufacturers of ironworkers' shears did not ask for Protection. I can only conclude that it was considered that it would add to the cost of these instruments, and that the tax would make their use prohibitive and seriously affect industry. I am strengthened in the view when I find that the Sheffield Cutlery Association did not ask that tin-men's snips should be taxed. They are not included because they are a tool in general use; because they are used so frequently that the cost would have gone up. I remember that when the Safeguarding of Industries Bill was first brought in and discussed in this House
  2458
  it was admitted on all sides and the prices of the articles proposed to be taxed would rise. It was said that was the object of the Measure, and I am bound to conclude that that will operate in this case. I want to deal with one or two of these articles which are being taxed. I would say, in passing, that the unemployed are mostly friends of Members on these benches—fathers, uncles, brothers and friends generally.
  I would remind hon. Members opposite who shout so loudly about buying British goods, that if the cars which are stored it Star Chamber Court and New Palace Yard are examined, it will be found that a large percentage of them were made outside these shores. Barbers' hair scissors should be exempted from duty. If they go up in price barbers will not want them ground so often for fear of wearing them away. The price of shingling may go up, as well as the Eton crop which so many ladies are having. Ladies ribbons of silk are also taxed and I can see they are in for a rough time. If there is one industry hon. Members opposite take under their wing it is agriculture. But cattle-marking scissors, poultry scissors, and pruning scissors are to be taxed. The farmers may state that as pruning scissors and fruit scissors are taxed it should increase the price of fruit. Following that, up would go the price of jam. In a further schedule the jam labels will be taxed. To increase the price of jam is against the best interests for the unemployed. If the price of food goes up it is certain that. what the unemployed spent on jam they cannot spend on other things. What they do not spend on other things will cause unemployment in other industries. I see that nail scissors are going up. So far as we are concerned our nails will have to go into mourning. Then I see that poultry scissors are going up. I suppose the Kitchen Committee will charge more for a wing of chicken. Tailors' shears and scissors are to be taxed, and I suppose we may assume that tailors will charge more. You will see what Henry George pointed out long ago —that if you, tax and protect one article it is bound to be done at the expense of other articles. That is why we support this deletion. As to whether cigarmaking scissors should be left out we on these benches are not much concerned. I have not found many of our men,

  2459
  smoking cigars except when they have met some of the hon. Members opposite. I am going to suggest that perhaps your cigars will cost you more and our men will not get one so frequently from you. Then there are paperhangers' scissors. We are having great difficulty in housing. We have a scarcity of bricklayers and we have a scarcity of carpenters. Now, not only shall we have a scarcity of paper-hangers, but I can see two or three paper-hangers working in a house with one pair of scissors between them in order to economise. Then I see buttonhole scissors are to be taxed. That means that the poor seamstress who makes the cheap garments for the working classes will have to pay more. Your buttonholes will cost you more, and we shall not he able to have so many buttonholes. I am not suggesting that that is a blessing or a curse As many of our friends have been called to Order,] will say no more, but move that these lines be deleted.
  Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Your attention, Mr. Hope, was called some time ago to the fact that strangers were present, and you gave a ruling to the effect that the Gallery was not part of the House. I want to call your attention to Standing Order 88, which says:
  "The serjeant-at-arms attending this house shall, from time to time, take into his custody any stranger whom he may sue, or who may be reported to him to be, in any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this; House, and also any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery, shall misconduct himself, or shall not withdraw, when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting; and no person so taken into custody shall he discharged out of custody without the special order of this House"
  Standing Order on, which also deals with this question, says:
  "If at any sitting of the House, or in Committee, any Member shall take notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the Question, 'That strangers be ordered to withdraw,' without permitting any Debate or Amendment: provided that the. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, whenever he thinks fit, order the withdrawal of strangers from any part of the House. Provided that any order made under this Standing Order shall rot apply to members of the House of Lords."
  2460
  In face of the ruling you gave a little earlier in the evening, according to those two Standing Orders, the ruling you gave was not in order regarding the part to which your attention had been drawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: Regarding the first Standing Order, it really has no application to the present occasion. Neither has any stranger misconducted himself, nor has any stranger been observed in any part of the House. Regarding the second Standing Order, the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland raised a similar question during the Budget Debate of 1909, and it was then held that the Gallery to which the hon. Member referred did not constitute part of the House. That is within my own recollection, and I therefore ruled that no action was necessary.
  Mr. MACLEAN: If you look at Standing Order 88 again, you will see that the first part says any stranger who may be seen
  "in any part of the House or Gallery appropriated to the Members of this House,"
  but the other part says
  "any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has not finished the sentence. It goes on to say
  "shall misconduct himself."
  Mr. MACLEAN: No. May I road on?
  "and also any stranger who, having been admitted into any other part of the House or Gallery, shall misconduct himself, or "—
  not "and," but "or"—
  ' or shall not withdraw, when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting."
  Standing Order 90 lays it down that the Chairman, shall forthwith ask strangers to withdraw who, according to Standing Order 88. are seated in any other part of the House or Gallery.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) raised this question, and directed my attention to the presence of strangers in the Gallery. If the hon. Member wishes to move that this be converted into a secret sitting, and to include all the Galleries, which will

  2461
  include the Press Gallery, he will then be in order. That does not apply to the Galleries on the floor only, but to all the Galleries in which the newspapers are represented. If he wishes to move that, I can accept it.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Oh! no. Standing Order 90 gives the form of words in which the attention of the Chairman is directed to strangers being present.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member formally directs my attention, I shall put the Question, with the result that all strangers, including the representatives of the Press, will retire. That Motion cannot be debated.
  Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that if you put the Motion, and the Question that strangers do withdraw is challenged, a Division will have to take place?
  Mr. MACLEAN: In order to carry it out, I move, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."
  The CHAIRMAN: Notice having been taken that strangers are present, the Question I have to put is, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."
  The CHAIRMAN: I call upon all strangers to withdraw.
  HON. MEMBERS: And the Press?
  The CHAIRMAN: Including the Press.
  Strangers accordingly withdrew [at 4.20 a.m.]
  The following record of the subsequent business is taken from the Votes and Proceedings:—
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate arising.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That, the Question be now put."
  The Committee Divided: Ayes 153: Noes, 56.

  Division No. 447.]

  AYES.

  [4.27 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Albery, Irving James

  Fielden, E. B.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Macintyre, I.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Gee, Captain H.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Merriman, F. B

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hacking. Captain Douglas H.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Neville, R. J.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Oakley, T.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Haslam, Henry c.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugn

  Christie, J. A.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Couper, J. B.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Preston, William

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Radford, E. A.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)

  Raine, W.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Kennedy, A. B. (Preston)

  Ramsden, E.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Remer, J. R.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Drewe, C.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Looker. Herbert Williams

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Everarn, W. Lindsay

  Lougher, L.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Sandon, Lord

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Wells, S. R.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Tinne, J. A.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Major Cope and Mr. F. C.

  Thompson

  NOES

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barnes, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Barr, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Batey, Joseph

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pentypridd)

  Thomson, Travelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawford, H. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Warne, G. H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Harris, Percy A.

  Paling, W.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Scurr, John

  Charles Edwards.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 56.

  Division No. 448.]

  AYES.

  [4.55 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Looker, Herbert William

  Albery, Irving James

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lougher, L.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  McLean, Major A.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

  Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Merriman, F. B.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Guntston, Captain D. W.

  Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Oakley, T.

  Christie, J. A.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cope, Major William

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Couper, J. B.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Preston, William

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Radford, E. A.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Raine, W.

  Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Ramsden, E.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Remer, J. R.

  Drewe, C.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Eliot, Captain Walter E.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Loder, J. de V.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wells, S. R.

  Sandon, Lord

  Storry Deans, R.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Templeton, W. P.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Major Sir H. Barnston and Mr.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  F. C. Thomson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Warne, G- H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelty)

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Another Amendment proposed, to 9.—[Mr. Lees Smith.]
  Question put, "That the words pro-
  Posed to be left out stand part of Question.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 449.]

  AYES.

  [5.40 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Edmonson, Major A. J.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Albery, Irving James

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Lamb, J. Q

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Fleming, D. P.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lougher, L.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Lumley. L. R.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Gee, Captain R

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Macintyre, I.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  McLean, Major A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Margesson, Capt. D

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

  Charteris, Brigadier General J.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Christie, J. A.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Clayton, G. C.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Neville, R. J.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Cope, Major William

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Oakley, T.

  Couper, J. B.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  penny, Frederick George

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Drewe, C.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Preston, William

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Radford, E. A.

  Raine, W.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Ramsden, E.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Remer, J. R.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Wells, S. R.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. Q. (Westm'eland)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Sandon, Lord

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Skelton, A. N.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Stanley.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Alexander, A., V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A

  Charleton. H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bodwellty)

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Fenby, T.O.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne

  Another Amendment proposed to leave out. — [Mr. Taylor.]
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question"
  Debate arising—
  Sir PHLIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir PHLIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put"
  Question put, "that the question be now put."
  The committee divided: Ayes, 149: Noes, 54

  Division No. 450.]

  AYES.

  [6.15 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Croskshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

  Drewe, C.

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Edmondson. Major A. J.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Kennedy, A. A. (Preston)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Fielden, E. B.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lamb. J. Q.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R,

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Looker, Herbert William

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Lougher, L.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Christie, J. A.

  Greene. W. P. Crawford

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Clayton, G. C.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Lumley, L. R.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G.K.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Macintyre, I.

  Cope, Major William

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

  McLean, Major A.

  Couper, J. B.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  MacMillan, Captain H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sandon, Lord

  Ward, Lt,-Col A. L. (Kingston -on-Hull)

  Neville, R. J.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts., Westb'y)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Oakley, T.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Wells, S. R.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

  Wilder, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Preston, William

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Radford, E. A.

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Raine, W.

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Ramsden, E.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Storry Deans., R.

  Remer, J. R.

  Stoft, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Stanley.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Henderson, Right Han. A. (Burnley)

  Slesser, sir Henry H.

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barr. J

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keignley)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W, M. (Dunfermline)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Potts, John S.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 451.

  AYES.

  [6.20 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Albery, Irving James

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Drewe, C.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Barnston, Major sir Harry

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Bowyer, Captnin G. E. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Fielden. E. B.

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Looker, Herbert William

  Campbell, E. T.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Lougher, L.

  Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Goff, Sir Park

  Lumley, L. R.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Macintyre. Ian

  Christie, J. A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  McLean, Major A.

  Clayton, G. C.

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Cope, Major William

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Couper, J. B.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sandon, Lord

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Oakley, T.

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Skelton, A. N.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Smith Carington, Neville W.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Preston, William

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wells, S. R.

  Radford, E. A.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Raine, W.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Ramsden, E.

  Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Remer, J. R.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford. Hereford)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Sykes. Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Captain Hacking and Lord Stanley.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Scurr, John

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Hayes, John Henry

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd. H. E.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood. D.

  Warne. G. H.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Fenby, T. D.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H

  Windsor, Walter

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.]
  The Question having been raised as to whether, after strangers had been ordered to withdraw, a Motion for their re-
  admission could be made, the Chairman ruled that the Standing Orders provided no means for their re-admission.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 452.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 a.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Albery, Irving James

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cope, Major William

  Goff, Sir Park

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Couper, J. B.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey. Gainsbro)

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

  Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Drewe, C.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Holland, Sir Arthur

  Campbell, E. T.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

  Cayrer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Cazalet. Captain Victor A.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Fleming, D. P.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Charters, Brigadier-General J.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Christie, J. A.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Clayton, G. C.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Storry Deans, R.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Preston, William

  Stett, Lieut.-Colonel W H.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Radford, E. A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Looker, Herbert William

  Raine, W.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Lougher, L.

  Ramsden, E.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Remer, J. R.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Lumley, L. B.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Mac Andrew, Charles Glen

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Macintyre, I.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Warner, Brigadier-General W, W.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sandon, Lord

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  wells, S. R.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

  Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Skelton, A. N.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Neville, R. J.

  Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)

  Wise. Sir Fredric

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Smithers, Waldron

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Oakley, T.

  Spender Clay, Colonel H.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Penny, Frederick George

  Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

  Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Potts, John S.

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Scurr, John

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Batey, Joseph

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

  brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Kennedy, T.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kirkwood, D.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lunn, William

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Harris, Percy A.

  Paling, W.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Warne.

  Resolved,
  "That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:

  Knives with one or more blades made wholly or partly of steel or iron, other than surgical knives, or knives for use in machines;

  Scissors, including tailors' shears and secateurs, made wholly or partly of steel or iron;

  Safety razors and component parts thereof;

  Razors, other than safety razors;

  Carving forks;

  Knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel;

  2474
  Handles, blades, or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles."
  Resolution to be reported this day.
  Committee to sit again this day.
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after Seven o'Clock, a.m., Thursday, 3rd December.

ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MACHINES AND ENGINES.
  MACHINES AND ENGINES.
  MARRIED QUARTERS.
  MARRIED QUARTERS.
  NEW ENTRANTS (PENSIONS).
  NEW ENTRANTS (PENSIONS).
  SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
  SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
  POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PERSONNEL (VOTE A.)
  PERSONNEL (VOTE A.)
  PAY AND ALLOWANCES (SECOND MATES, CRUISER SERVICE).
  PAY AND ALLOWANCES (SECOND MATES, CRUISER SERVICE).
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (SUPERANNUATION).
  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (SUPERANNUATION).
  ORDNANCE AND ALLIED DEPARTMENTS.
  ORDNANCE AND ALLIED DEPARTMENTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  CUTLERY AND HOLLOW-WARE TRADES.
  CUTLERY AND HOLLOW-WARE TRADES.
  FISH WORKERS (BENEFIT).
  FISH WORKERS (BENEFIT).
  NECESSITOUS AREAS.
  NECESSITOUS AREAS.
  JUVENILES.
  JUVENILES.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
  ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
  LABOUR STATISTICS (REVISED ABSTRACT).
  LABOUR STATISTICS (REVISED ABSTRACT).
  BRICKLAYERS (PAY AND HOURS OF WORK).
  BRICKLAYERS (PAY AND HOURS OF WORK).
SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  BROOM AND BRUSH TRADE.
  BROOM AND BRUSH TRADE.
  CUTLERY AND HOLLOW-WARE TRADES.
  CUTLERY AND HOLLOW-WARE TRADES.
  EMIGRATION.
  EMIGRATION.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
  SILK DUTIES.
  SILK DUTIES.
  HOME-MADE SPIRITS.
  HOME-MADE SPIRITS.
  BRITISH CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
  BRITISH CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
  SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).
  DISARMAMENT.
  DISARMAMENT.
  BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS (BULGARIA).
  PASSPORTS AND VISAS (BULGARIA).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  LONDON OMNIBUSES (FARES, HACKNEY).
  LONDON OMNIBUSES (FARES, HACKNEY).
  COAL MINING INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES, SOUTH WALES).
  COAL MINING INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES, SOUTH WALES).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TAX OFFICE, MAIDSTONE.
  TAX OFFICE, MAIDSTONE.
  POSTS ABOLISHED.
  POSTS ABOLISHED.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House if he can make any statement as to the course of public business?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend. It is as to the Rating and Valuation Bill which I think you will probably be interested. The Tithe Bill is now in your Lordships' hands and will be read a second time, it is hoped, to-morrow. In that case I should hope to put that Bill down for Committee to-morrow week, giving a week's interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. The Rating and Valuation Bill is a very important measure, which reaches us at a very late period in the Session. I am anxious that your Lordships should be afforded every opportunity for due consideration of such a Bill. I cannot speak with any absolute confidence, but I understand through the usual channels that the Bill will be, or might be, received from another place on Friday. In that event I suggest that your Lordships should have a sitting on Friday to receive that Bill and read it a first time. It would be a formal stage. Then I would suggest that the Second Reading of the Bill should be on the following Tuesday. I hope that that will not he too soon after the First Reading. Undoubtedly it is a shorter interval than you generally have a right to expect, but having regard to the very small number of days which now remain before Christmas, and the necessity of having some proper interval between the Second Reading and other stages, I hope that your Lordships will not mind taking the Second Reading on Tuesday next. In that case I should hope to take the Committee stage of the Rating Bill on the Monday following. I hope the House will consent to sit on Monday at this stage of the Session.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess, of course, is aware that the Rating and Valuation Bill is a complicated measure, which is likely to give rise to a good deal of discussion in this House. If he thinks we shall certainly get the Bill on Friday, the Second Reading might be taken on Tuesday next, but considerable time ought to be allowed between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. I understand that for Committee the noble Marquess suggests the following Monday. I have no doubt the House will be willing to sit on that day in order to deal with a matter which is really important, and one with which many of your Lordships are extremely familiar.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the course which has been suggested seems to me entirely to meet the case, but I am not sure that I agree with the opinion just expressed that there is likely to be a great deal of discussion, or that it will be shared in by a great many members of the House, because from what I have seen it is certainly beyond my comprehension, and the discussion which is likely to take place will probably be largely carried on by the noble and learned Lord upon the Front Opposition Bench. I do not suppose that many others are likely to join in the discussion.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Can my noble friend fix a day for the Committee stage of the Tithe Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I dealt with it just now. I thought with the consent of your Lordships that if the Second Beading took place to-morrow, then we could take the Committee stage that day week, giving a week's interval between the Second Reading and Committee.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I would only suggest to my noble friend that it is possible he may run us into a rather tight fix later and that he should consider whether, as the Rating Bill is to be taken on the following Monday, it might not be to our advantage to take the Tithe Bill one day earlier.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I will certainly consider whether any better arrangement can be made, but my noble friend is well aware that
1060
Wednesday is not a convenient day on which to take a Bill, because the Orders of the Day do not come first. I cannot fancy that the Committee stage of the Tithe Bill will be finished under a good many hours. It is a matter which is not only complicated, but one which your Lordships thoroughly understand.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I might suggest to my noble friend that such a thing has been done at this period of the Session as to move that the Orders of the Day have precedence over Motions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will consider the whole matter and make a statement to-morrow.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CAMPBELTOWN HARBOUR AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

BETTING AND TAXATION.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, That with the view of providing an additional and immediate annual revenue and thereby diminishing some of the crushing burdens on industry, as well as of securing its better regulation, it is desirable that betting should be taxed; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of putting into operation the scheme declared to be practicable by the Betting Committee in 1923.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a Motion which is practically identical with one which I moved rather more than a year ago and consequently I have nothing fresh to say on the subject whatsoever. I do not know that I need worry myself about that, because it is very seldom that anybody has anything new to say upon any particular subject, and so far from making any apology for reviving the question, I consider that the necessity for this tax which I am advocating is more evident than it was

1061
when I last moved in this matter. Since I put the Motion on the Paper we have had an additional burden imposed upon us in the shape of the coal subsidy. I consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be extremely grateful to anybody who has any reasonable proposal to put before him, with a view of enabling him to meet the difficulties which are accumulating upon his head.
It will be remembered that in 1923 the Government of which Mr. Bonar Law was then the head, appointed a House of Commons Committee to consider this question of betting, and incidentally I may remark that of all bodies a House of Commons Committee, when it is appointed for the purpose of considering a highly contentious question, is about the most unsatisfactory body you can conceive. Everybody knows perfectly well what happens on these occasions. The Whips hunt about for people who are supposed to understand the question under discussion and very often they choose people who know very little about it. Then, on the other hand, they set out to find people who are opposed to the particular question under discussion, and having collected them they throw in a few others as make-weights, and the result is invariably unsatisfactory. It is perfectly obvious that if you set about an inquiry in that kind of way it is impossible to arrive at a unanimous decision and that gives the Government an excuse for doing nothing at all.
In addition to the unsatisfactory nature of the tribunal the reference, if possible, was still more unsatisfactory. These gentlemen were invited to consider, first, the question as to whether the taxation of betting was practicable, and, in the second place, if it was desirable. It is perfectly obvious that what ought to have been done was that the Government ought to have appointed a Committee to decide whether such taxation was practicable, and ought to have settled the question of desirability themselves. It is not much good discussing those errors now. But although, as I have explained, the form of tribunal was unsatisfactory and no direct result was arrived at, yet at the same time, thanks largely to the efforts of the Chairman, Sir Henry Cautley, who presided with great ability over it, a vast amount of extremely
1062
valuable information was obtained, and that is embodied in a very bulky Bluebook, which really contains much better reading than most official publications.
This Committee established the fact—though most people knew it before—that betting in this country has spread to an almost incredible extent. Every class bets, from the so-called idle rich to the recipients of the "dole." Men bet, women bet, and it came out in the course of the evidence that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the present law vast numbers of children at elementary schools bet as well. This is a circumstance which reflects very little credit upon us as a nation. It was also established that the present law, which I may remark incidentally is founded upon two ancient Statutes, is archaic and illogical, and provocative of much discontent and difficulty because it appears to discriminate unfairly in favour of the rich as against the poor.
I will give some very short facts to illustrate the magnitude of the betting industry as disclosed by this inquiry. There were various calculations made, but this figure was accepted by the Chairman—the annual turnover in betting is something like £200,000,000 a, year. As a matter of fact, there were many people who contended that the annual turnover was a great deal more and it was stated that it reached £500,000,000. About ninety per cent. of this betting is done away from race courses. In Glasgow, for instance, £30,000 a day is expended in betting during the flat racing season. There is one bookmaker—there are probably several—whose bills for telephones amount, in the year, to between £2,000 and £3,000, and it came out that the annual turnover of certain individual bookmakers reached the enormous figure of about £1,500,000.
I turn from betting to what I will venture to call the affiliated industry of horse-racing, and although it may sound rather disrespectful to speak of the sport of kings as an affiliated industry, I maintain that it is a perfectly correct description because, whereas it would be perfectly impossible for racing to be carried on without betting, it is the easiest thing in the world to carry on betting without, racing. This affiliated industry appears to be in just as flourishing a

1063
condition. I happened to come across the other day a well-known sporting publication, and I derived various items of information from it which seemed to me specially interesting It appears that at the present day, in spite of the shortness of money which is supposed to prevail everywhere, the racing stakes are of considerably higher value than they have ever been before. I could not say what the average is, but at all events it is a fact that every race is worth more than it was last year, or any year previously. For the first nine months of this year, out of the enormous number of thoroughbred yearlings which were sold I found to my astonishment that no fewer than 151 realised an average of something like £5,000 apiece. Remember, this is only a fraction of the number of yearlings that are sold. One of these animals, apparently, fetched as much as £12,000 and another £10,500, and the price of £5,000 or £6,000 was not so very exceptional. I find that a mare called "Straightlace" fetched no less a sum than 17,000 guineas, and one enterprising gentleman gave no less than £10,500 for a gelding, a steeplechasing horse.
It will be in the recollection of the House that when the last Derby took place a competitor arrived from France. This horse did not travel in the ordinary way but had a special steamer, with a special band of attendants, and was guarded and ministered to in an elaborate fashion. This horse, I may remark incidentally, was not even placed, and must really have cost its owner almost as much as one or Mr. Lloyd George's expeditions to the Continent when the War was over. As an additional instance of the way in which money is spent I find that although, as I understand, there are only five days' racing at Epsom in the year—I should be glad to be corrected if any racing Lord is present (racing Lords never are here when their presence is required)—yet the Epsom Grand Stand Company pays the enormous sum of £8,000 yearly in rates. On the Epsom Downs there is a gigantic advertisement of a most objectionable character, with an enormous image like the wooden statue of Hindenburg, advertising a particular bookmaker, with the device: "No limit," which conveys a good deal to people who understand what it means.
I saw in the Press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sending abroad a sort of Commission in order to study luxury taxes. But here is obviously a gold mine, so to speak, at his feet. There does not seem to me to be any necessity to send people abroad to enquire into luxury taxes. Here you have everything you want, and, as the gambling temperament is probably more developed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer than in almost any other inhabitant of these islands, I cannot conceive why he does not immediately avail himself, if he has not already done so without my knowledge, of the opportunity afforded him. Nobody has ever disputed that this particular tax would bring in money. The only dispute has been as to the amount which it would bring in, and Sir Henry Cautley adopted as the basis of his calculations the sum which I mentioned—namely, £200,000,000—as the annual turnover. Upon this he suggested that a two and a, half per cent. tax should be imposed. That would bring in a revenue of £5,000,000 a year.
Fortunately, we are in a position in this House, owing to the knowledge of certain noble Lords, to estimate more correctly what a tax on betting might bring in. In the debate last year my noble friend Lord Liverpool, who was Governor of New Zealand, informed the House that the tax on betting in New Zealand brought in rather over £600,000 a year. The population of New Zealand is about 1,300,000. Here the population is, roughly speaking, thirty times as large. Therefore it is not altogether absurd to argue that a tax of this kind, assuming that Englishmen bet as much as New Zealanders—and I cannot conceive of any nation betting more than we do—should realise not a sum of £5,000,000 but a sum of £25,000,000 a year.
When this subject was discussed last year my noble friend Lord Arnold was put up by the Socialist Government to oppose the Motion, and the noble Lord, with the exercise of a certain amount of ingenuity, reduced Sir Henry Cautley's £5,000,000 to a sum, I think, of £3,500,000. This, he said, was a sort of niggardly sum which really was not worth thinking about at all. Incidentally, I might remark, that I think it is only a Socialist Government which would speak of £3,500,000 as a niggardly

1065
and negligible sum. But I was not so much struck with my noble friend's arithmetic as with his arguments, and what struck me particularly was, if I may say so without offence, the ultra-British arrogance which he displayed.
"Here," he said, in effect, "we have not got this tax and we do not intend to have it. Let these miserable foreigners tax gambling as much as they please. Let the benighted inhabitants of the Dominions get as much as they can out of gambling. We will not do anything of the kind. We have the finest system of taxation in the world, and we are not going to alter it for anybody. If we were to alter it we should be inflicting serious damage upon our financial credit and a shock would be given to our financial policy from which it would be difficult to recover." I wondered at the time whether it had ever struck the noble Lord that we have survived even greater shocks than that. I cannot imagine a greater shock to the financial prestige of the country than the advent of a Socialist Government to power, the Government of which the noble Lord was himself a member. We survived this tremendous trial, and it seems to me, on the whole, that we need not be very much alarmed if it is now suggested that we should imitate the example of every civilised country on the face of the globe.
I do not know what sort of an answer I shall receive this afternoon from the present Government. I hope that, I shall not be told I am damaging the financial credit or financial prestige of the country by making proposals of this character. Whenever I hear this subject of the taxation of betting discussed outside Parliament—that is to say, on its merits—the discussion always takes the same form. The advocates of this tax are able to make out a practically unanswerable case. They point out that it is a tax on luxury, that it will bring in a great deal of money, that Government officials say there is no trouble to collect it and that nobody need pay it unless they choose to bet. The discussion always terminates in the same way. Their opponents say: "We have no doubt that you are perfectly right and that this is a most desirable thing in every way; but it is no good talking about it because the Nonconformist conscience will not have it."
I ask your Lordships' House in all seriousness how much longer we are going to put up with this ridiculous bogey of the Nonconformist conscience. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of the Nonconformist conscience, but it always seems to me that, it is easy to measure its importance. I measure its importance and its strength by the number of Liberal members in the House of Commons. At the present moment, unless I am much mistaken, there are fewer Liberal members in that House than there are Liberal Peers who sit behind my noble friend Lord Beauchamp. I cannot help thinking that the Nonconformist conscience has gone out of business or, to use a bookmaker's phrase, it has been temporarily knocked out, and I cannot see why we should any longer have a superstitious fear so far as that particular influence is concerned.
I cannot help thinking that the attitude assumed by the opponents of this particular tax is of a singularly unheroic character. They tell us that betting is a disgraceful thing; that it ought to be put an end to, and that it is, so to speak, a national disgrace. Let me instance the Labour Party. If they had an opportunity, I suppose they would vote against, this tax as one man. Yet, such members of the Labour Party as I am acquainted with are much keener gamblers than I am and are much more ready to risk their money than I should be in ordinary circumstances. What has the Labour Party ever done to stop betting? Have they ever made the smallest attempt to do so? Can anybody quote a Resolution carried or even moved at a Labour Conference, or a Trade Union Congress, to the effect that trade unionists should be turned out of the Party if they betted?
Then, the Labour Press devote a considerable portion of their space to sporting intelligence. They keep tame prophets. The leading daily organ, if I am not mistaken, devotes a whole page practically to gambling, and if that page was suppressed their circumstances would become so bad that they would be forced to rely even more than they are supposed to do upon assistance from outside countries. I should have a great deal more admiration for these opponents of the tax if they endeavoured to do something—if, for instance, they had the

1067
courage to stop the publication of odds in the papers, which would be the most mortal blow that anybody could possibly deal at gambling, at all events at gambling on horse-racing. But they do not do it, and for the most obvious reason—they are afraid to do it; and I admit they have very good examples to quote for taking this very unheroic and undignified course.
Every Government up to now, although it has made a show of disapproving of gambling, and so forth, has been only too glad to take advantage of it, so to speak, on the sly. Governments have always refrained from taxing betting; but they take very good care to make what they can out of it. They make bookmakers pay Income Tax and Super-Tax. There is, too, the Entertainment Tax. And they help them unofficially and officially, in a certain sense, as much as they can, because they place the resources of the Post Office at their disposal. The Post Office is delighted to fit up any number of telephones upon application. The Home Office, not to be behind-hand in the good work, will provide any number of police that may be asked for. As an example of the way in which Government offices try to derive indirect and so to speak, surreptitious profits out of gambling, I may mention that not long ago I saw in the mast conspicuous place on the outside of the back cover of the official Telephone Directory, which, I suppose, is one of the best known works in this country, the advertisement of a well-known London bookmaker. That is typical of the attitude adopted on this particular question by one Government after another, and I think the time has come when that attitude, which only excites ridicule, should be abandoned.
So much has been said on the subject of the morality of betting that I hesitate to add much to it, but at all events we have the authority of a distinguished Prelate, now dead, for saying that betting is not a crime. I will admit that betting is a vice if it is carried too far, but personally I do not know whether it is, because I am a person totally devoid of imagination. I never have been, and never shall be, able to distinguish between the morality of betting upon a racecourse and gambing upon the Stock Exchange. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, who, I understand, in his
1068
spare time is, or was, a stockbroker, will enlighten me upon this point, and explain what the difference is. Equally, I have never been able to understand why it should be moral to bet on credit and immoral to indulge in ready-money betting. In the same way I am unable to distinguish between the morality of backing a horse by telephone or by telegram and doing so by means of a slip handed to a bookmaker's tout.
I can even, if hardly put to it, find something to say in favour of betting, provided it is not carried too far. I have always thought, and have expressed the opinion before, that there is one advantage about betting, and that is, sometimes it is the only method of ascertaining the truth. Apart from that, betting has now become not only a national amusement, but a kind of national occupation, and, although it may seem very deplorable, it is a means of imparting variety to existences which are often very dull and tedious. I will go further and say it may prevent something worse. I am absolutely convinced that if starting-price betting, football coupons, and such things had prevailed in Russia, Bolshevism never would have obtained possession of that country, and from what little personal experience I have had of Soviet Russia, I should infinitely prefer to be governed by bookmakers rather than by Bolsheviks.
The Committee to which I have made so many references this afternoon pointed out that there were three courses before us. The first course, naturally, is to leave things as they are, to ignore as much as you can the evils which everybody knows exist, and at the same time to make as much as you can out of the industry by what I have ventured to call surreptious methods. The second course is to attempt to suppress it by force—that is to say, to increase the police force, to harry the street bookmakers, and to increase the penalties. Anybody who has taken the trouble to read the Report will see that such a course is practically impossible, and nobody seriously recommends it. Unfortunately, owing to the state of the present law, the sympathies of nearly everybody are now on the side of the person who is committing illegal action. There remains the third course, which is adopted in every country but this—namely, that of control and taxation.

1069
I do not for a moment believe that the control of bookmakers and the taxation of betting will increase the volume of betting. On the contrary, I am prepared to believe that it will decrease it and I believe those noble Lords who have experience of the methods adopted in the Dominions will be able to bear out what I say.
I may adduce a further reason, a practical reason, why I think that betting would diminish, and that is that, as the tax would have to come out of somebody's pocket, presumably the bookmaker's, he will take it out of the backer, and, therefore, the backer will get shorter odds, and there will be less inducement to him to bet. I absolutely decline to believe for a single moment in the theory, which apparently prevails, that if you tax betting and recognise it a lot of people will set to work straightway and bet who hitherto have refrained from doing so. I do not believe for a single moment in the existence of a class of that kind. You might just as well argue that there are a number of people in this country who do not travel by train, but who would do so if you were to nationalise the railways. There is much more that could be said on this particular point, but I am not going to say it. I am going to leave it to noble Lords who know much more about this question than I do. I see noble Lords present who are greater authorities than I am. I am not referring to racing Lords, because they very seldom come here, and I have never known them to be here when their presence was required. The noble Lords to whom I am alluding are noble Lords—and there are several present—who have had experience in the Dominions, such as my noble friends Lord Beauchamp, Lord Liverpool, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and others. They have had practical experience of the working of this system, and I sincerely hope that they will give us the benefit of their experience. I should be much surprised if they do not express the opinion that this is almost an ideal tax, and one which, if it is imposed, can only result in benefit to everyone concerned.
When last I brought forward this Motion there were only fifteen noble Lords who voted against it, and they were composed of the henchmen of the Socialist Government, of some obstinate Prelates,
1070
and my noble and learned friend Lord Darling. I fully intend to take a Division on this occasion, because, although all Governments systematically ignore Motions passed in this House, I am convinced in my own mind that on a non-political question of this kind our opinion really must carry some weight in the country. For that reason I am determined to take a Division, and I sincerely hope that its effect will be to embolden the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues to embark upon a form of taxation which, I am not exaggerating when I say, has met with the approval of most of the sensible people in this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That with the view of providing an additional and immediate annual revenue and thereby diminishing some of the crushing burdens on industry, as well as of securing its better regulation, it is desirable that betting should be taxed.—(Lord Newton.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord whose Motion is before your Lordships' House. I do not propose to traverse the ground which I covered in 1924. At that particular time both the opponents and those who supported us in the Division that took place were doubtful whether a tax of this kind would not lead to an increase in gambling generally throughout the country. There were listening to that debate some Australian Ministers and some New Zealand Ministers, and I had the benefit of discussing the matter with them afterwards. I have been to some trouble since then to obtain figures to try to prove that in His Majesty's Dominion of New Zealand, at all events, the tax which has been placed upon betting by the Government, so far as racing is concerned, has not increased gambling in the country. I know figures are always very boring and dry, but I must use them in this particular instance to prove what I have to say. The number of racing days in the Dominion of New Zealand is, roughly, between 284 and 289 days in the year. The number of races there is from 2,235 to 2,285. The amount of stakes varied from £502,000 in 1920, the year I left, to £593,000 in 1924. As to the amount placed on the totalisator, I ought first to mention that the population in 1919 was 1,100,000 and to-day it is nearly 1,300,000.

1071
In 1920 the amount passed through the totalisator was £8,792,570. Last year, with the increase of 200,000 in the population, the amount passed through the totalisator was £7,224,000, or a reduction of rather more than a million pounds.
As regards the tax, Lord Arnold estimated the possible revenue, taking the turnover figure as £200,000,000, at £3,750,000, out of which he would deduct £150,000 for collecting, bringing it down to £3,600,000. I do not quite understand whether he intends to deal with the tax only under the heading of investments in betting, or whether he is going to take the same idea as in the Dominion of New Zealand, where the tax is divided into three portions: on the totalisator investments, the winnings and the stakes. There the Government takes 5 per cent. of the totalisator investments, 2½ per cent. of the winnings and 5 per cent. of the stakes. The amount which accrued to the Government up to July 31, 1923—that date being the end of the racing year—was £592,416 and up to March 31, 1924, the end of the financial year, £618,425. At the end of the financial year, March 31, 1925, the Government got £590,385, showing that there was a reduction of about £28,000 in the amount of taxes received by the Government. Everybody in the House will agree that from a population of 1,300,000 more than half a million pounds is not a bad amount of money for the State to get.
Lord Arnold, in March, 1924, said he did not think the tax was a business proposition, that there was not enough money in it. Even if you take off the tax on the stakes, which would probably not be very easy to carry out here at the present moment, you still would have an amount on those figures of between £18,000,000 and £20,000,000. I do not think that there is any Chancellor of the Exchequer who would be unwilling to accept that sum. Personally I think it would bring in a considerably larger sum, a sum nearer the £25,000,000 which Lord Newton mentioned.
The point was raised whether it would be advisable to have the totalisator in this country. There are two reasons why you could not do it at the present moment. The first is that it would be very unfair to the bookmakers. The bookmakers are not all bad, as some
1072
people would have us believe. Secondly, in New Zealand they allowed the bookmakers to exist for ten years before the, totalisator was instituted. Again, it would take a considerable time to erect the totalisators. The newest one took nearly eighteen months to construct. You would, therefore, have to do exactly the same thing as did the Dominion Government to which I have been referring, to use the means you have at your disposal at the moment; if any Government in the future thinks fit to abolish the bookmaker it can do so, and then we can have the totalisators.
The contention is raised that because the Dominions are new countries they can do things which the Old Country could not do. There were several of His Majesty's Dominion Ministers in this House on the night when that was said. They smiled and said that when they started to do anything new they were met with the same contention, only conversely to that made here. All kinds of difficulties are raised but, although there are difficulties, I do not believe that fey could not with care be overcome so that a very fair income would be provided to the State. On the moral question raised by those who say that all betting is wrong, I have nothing to say at all, except that I do not agree with it. You are not going to abolish betting by a stroke of the pen or an Act of Parliament, but if you clean it up you will improve the effect on the population, particularly in the large industrial areas. Betting does not go on only on the racecourse but in other places, and on other things, too. Once bookmakers are licensed you would have a hold on them and be able to do away with a great many of the very unpleasant points connected with betting in this country.
I had intended to raise the question of lotteries to-day, but it would defer the question before your Lordships' House and I prefer to leave it to another time. We have had so many tries to get this question before the Chancellor of the Exchequer that anything would be unfortunate which would delay it from being included in next year's Budget. If the noble Lord is willing to go to a Division, as he said he was, I shall be only too glad to support him and I hope your Lordships will do the same.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to intervene at this stage on behalf of the Government. Lord Newton has initiated a discussion on a subject which has commanded a good deal of attention during the last few years. He has taken a very great interest in it for a long time. As far back as 1902 he was a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which went into this subject. He has made a very thorough examination of it and has a great knowledge of it. Naturally, I can make no pretence of having studied it in the same way as he has or to have acquired the same amount of knowledge. I noticed in reading through the debate on this subject which took place in March of last year that the noble Lord confessed that he occasionally betted; indeed, that he frequently did so if he saw a good opportunity of winning and getting paid. Although I am afraid I cannot claim to have an absolutely clean record in so far as this vicious or laudable practice, as you like to call it, is concerned, I am afraid the noble Lord has an advantage over me from the point of view of theoretical knowledge and practical experience of the subject.
The noble Lord suggested that there was really only one side to this question. There is no doubt that taxation of betting bas very attractive features indeed, and there are many things to be said in its favour. No one would deny that; but I should like to urge upon your Lordships that there are some very real objections which must be faced and dealt with before such a tax can be imposed. You will remember that this subject was first hinted at by the present Prime Minister in another place, when he said that it was a question which involved a great deal more than the mere imposition of new taxation. The scheme which was placed before the Select Committee of 1923 on this subject contained certain salient features. It was, confined for practical reasons to professional betting; but the main features of the scheme were these—the licensing of bookmakers; the imposition of an ad valorem duty upon all stakes; the collection of the duty from the bookmakers; the registration of betting houses, and, as street betting was to remain illegal, the legalisation of cash betting off the racecourses in any licensed betting house.
1074
I should like to say a word with regard to the comparison or analogy which has been drawn with other countries and particularly with the Dominions. I do not think the analogy is altogether a fair one. Betting in the Dominions is, broadly speaking, limited by law to the race course. Your Lordships know that that is far from being the case in this country. Something like 90 per cent. of the betting which takes place here takes place away from the race, course, and therefore an entirely different problem has to be faced here from that in other countries. I was interested to hear Lord. Liverpool say that he did not think the totalisator could be introduced into and used in this country, at any rate exclusively to begin with. I feel certain that he is correct in making that statement, and I gather that where the totalisator has been introduced it has first been made use of in conjunction with the method of betting we have here—namely, with bookmakers—and with the rather natural result in the course of time that the bookmaker has been gradually squeezed out. I mention that because I do not think the analogy between this country and the Dominions and other foreign countries is one upon which great stress can be laid.
Undoubtedly, the subject which has aroused the greatest interest and controversy in connection with this scheme is the suggestion that there should be registered betting houses. The Chairman of the Select Committee of 1923, to whom Lord Newton has several times referred, made it perfectly clear that the registration of betting houses was absolutely an essential part and feature of the scheme. I suggest that the setting up of such houses, sometimes, perhaps, in close proximity to public houses, is not a prospect, to say the least, that we can look forward to with complete equanimity; and in spite of what Lord Newton has said, there is no gainsaying the fact that it would prove a profound shock to a very large proportion of the community. It is a question that you cannot possibly ignore. But what I really wish to point out in this respect is that if this scheme was adopted it would entail a complete reversal of our policy with regard to this subject for the last seventy years and more, and surely that, is a thing that cannot be easily or lightly undertaken.

1075
It involves, in the first place, a repeal of the Betting Houses Act, 1853, and the repeal of most of the measures in connection with this subject which have been passed since that date. The Betting Houses Act of 1853 was, as your Lordships know, passed because of the grave scandals which occurred in betting houses at that period. Public opinion was so strong on the subject that the Government of that day were compelled, practically, to pass the Betting Houses Act, and it is a possibility which we must face that if this Act were repealed and betting houses were instituted once more throughout our large cities, and perhaps in the country as well, scandals of this description might recur. But registration was considered necessary by the Committee, and for two main reasons—(1), to control the credit bookmaker, and (2), to bring within the scope of the duty the cash betting carried on illegally in the streets.
Undoubtedly the real problem is the problem of this street betting. As Lord Newton has told you, and as your Lordships are well aware, there is a vast amount of street betting indulged in throughout the country, and the question is what would really be the effect of the legalisation of betting on the general character of the population, and also, and this is very important, upon the amount of crime which is at present committed. It is generally acknowledged that a very large proportion of crimes committed by first offenders may be traced to the fact that they have got into debt by excessive betting, and undoubtedly there is a large body of opinion in the country—we cannot get away from it—which firmly believes that these new facilities and wider legalisation of betting would lead to a deplorable increase in betting, with very disastrous results. It is difficult to say whether this view is justified or not. Lord Newton holds the opposite point of view very strongly. I think it depends, to a large extent, upon the spirit in which the law would be administered when it was put into effect.
Obviously, if the main object of the law was to obtain revenue, then every facility, with certain limited restrictions, would be given to people to bet, and the supply of these betting houses would only be limited by the demand for them. Here I may say that I am not quite certain with
1076
what object in view Lord Newton suggests that this tax should be imposed. On the other hand, if his primary object were to diminish the volume of betting in the country, a totally different policy would have to be adopted. In practice, I should think that probably an endeavour would be made to compromise between those two different points of view, and to take a middle course. As I have said, I think it is very difficult to state what the effect of a tax on betting would be. I think that any forecast on the subject must be pure conjecture and guess-work. The noble Lord, as I have said, believes very strongly that it would have the effect of diminishing the volume of betting. So far as credit betting is concerned, I think probably that is the case, but with regard to street betting I think that, if you take everything into consideration, you would say that if it was made as easy to bet as it is now to buy a Postal Order at the Post Office, then the result would not be, to say the least of it, to diminish the amount of betting which is carried on at the present moment. In fact, I do not think it is certain that illegal or street betting would be eliminated altogether. I think it is very doubtful whether the police efforts to suppress this form of betting would be any more successful than now.
There is one other question which I should like to mention, although it has not been referred to, and that is the question of the validation of betting contracts. It is not part of the scheme which was submitted to the Committee of 1923, but it is a subject which is very freely discussed in connection with the whole problem. There would be, of course, objections to a law validating betting contracts mainly for this reason, that the fact that they are not recognised at the present moment is the very greatest safeguard against illegal betting in the streets, because under present conditions the stake which any particular man is able to put on a horse, or whatever other kind of animal it may be, is limited to what the backer has in his pocket at the time. If, on the other hand, betting debts were made recoverable by law, it would give a great impetus to credit betting, and might have very serious results indeed.

1077
Another point to which I want to refer is the question of how such a tax would be received in the country generally. It has been suggested, I think Lord Newton has suggested it this afternoon, that the tax would be a very popular one. I am not so sure that he is correct in making that statement. Undoubtedly, there would be very great objection, as he has already told us to-day, from the Free Churches of the country, at any rate, and to a very considerable extent, I should imagine, from the Church of England as well. Then I know that bookmakers themselves are very strongly opposed to the proposal, and I doubt very much whether it would be popular with a large number of the people who bet. I doubt it very much indeed, for the very obvious reason that if a tax were imposed upon betting they would not be so likely to get such good odds from the bookmakers as they do now, and would quite rightly be told that the reason for that was the imposition of this tax.
May I be allowed to say a word or two on the question of the revenue which is likely to be derived from this tax if it were imposed? Lord Newton has referred to this, and I agree, from my information, with the figures he has given. It has however, been suggested that £10,000,000, and as much as, £20,000,000, might be derived from this tax. That is obviously a great exaggeration. Sir Henry Cautley stated, as Lord Newton has said, that so far as can possibly be ascertained—and I suggest the figure is a very correct one—the volume of betting transacted throughout the country yearly is about £200,000,000. There has been a very great deal of discussion on the subject of the amount of duty that ought to be imposed, but Sir Henry Cautley recommended that at first, at any rate, the tax should not exceed a 2½ per cent. ad valorem duty, and he did so because he felt strongly that it should not be too high at the first, in order that people should not be induced to evade the law, but rather encouraged to come in and try to make the law work. If you put on a 2½ per cent. duty that would bring in £5,000,000 a year, but—and here I wish to fill in a gap which Lord Newton left—in arriving at this figure no allowance is made for the evasion of duty or the exemption of laid-off bets, which I under-
1078
stand both Sir Henry Cautley and the greater number of the Committee were strongly in favour of granting. In the circumstances it is very unlikely that in the first full year of the duty the receipts would exceed £3,000,000. In the first year they would probably be very small indeed.
I have tried to state briefly what the difficulties are in this case. I hope I have not given your Lordships the impression, by what I have said, that the Government do not intend further to examine this question. That is not the case. In these times of financial stress and stringency the Government certainly mean to explore every avenue, in order to try to find new and legitimate sources of revenue; but while they do realise the advantages which are to be derived from such a tax, I wish to point out and emphasise that the Government cannot possibly ignore the fact that there are very serious difficulties and objections. These difficulties must be faced, and they must be dealt with or overcome before a tax can possibly be imposed. I am sure your Lordships will agree that in the circumstances it is obviously impossible for me this afternoon, on behalf of the Government, to give any definite undertaking which would in any way interfere with or embarrass the freedom of decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this matter in view of future Budgets.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, this, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, reminded your Lordships, is by no means the first time that he has brought forward a proposal for a tax on betting. On this occasion, so far as the words of the Motion are concerned, he rests his case upon the ground that a betting tax should be imposed as a fiscal instrument. It is quite true that in the course of his observations he carried his argument a little further than that, and, indeed, it is impossible to confine a speech upon the betting tax entirely to such a tax as a, revenue-raising instrument, though, as far as I am concerned, I shall endeavour to discuss the fiscal side of the problem. The reason why that cannot be done entirely is that changes have to be made, as the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, pointed out, before a betting tax could come into being at all. The tax would require a certain degree of State control, and certain

1079
machinery would have to be set up which would make a great change in the attitude of the State towards betting. The noble Earl has just pointed out that it would be necessary to license bookmakers and to have licensed betting offices. That means that in future betting would be legalised. That is a very great change. Hitherto the State has not regarded betting as fit for legal recognition, but if this tax were imposed legal recognition is necessarily involved and therefore the proposal of Lord Newton is fundamental. Whatever the noble Lord may say about the Nonconformist conscience, or anybody else's conscience, he knows as well as I do that this proposal would evoke very great opposition among large sections of the population.
He twitted me—I am not objecting to it, I always enjoy his badinage; in fact, I regard his speeches in your Lordships' House as one of the greatest pleasures which I enjoy here—he twitted me with having been a stockbroker and asked how I could reconcile that with opposition to the betting tax. This is really rather a personal matter, but I will say that I never bet myself and I am opposed to betting. Although I am not basing my opposition to this tax on moral grounds, I think a very strong case can be made out on those grounds. I do not wish to be drawn into a long dissertation on the difference between betting and transactions on the Stock Exchange, but I will say that the two things are fundamentally different. There is no difference in principle between buying stocks or shares on the Stock Exchange and buying a house and land, and I do not think that the noble Lord will compare the latter operation with betting.
There is a good deal of controversy as to whether a tax on betting will decrease or increase betting. Much can be said on both sides. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, argues that it will decrease betting. It is a little unfortunate for him that several members of the Select Committee came to precisely the opposite conclusion. They did that because they considered that the licensing of bookmakers and the setting up of licensed betting offices would increase the facilities for betting and, therefore, would increase betting. Street betting, which at present is illegal, although it is very largely carried on, could in future be car-
1080
ried on in complete security. Moreover, street betting is at the present time very largely confined to the big towns and the great centres of industry. But if licensed betting offices are to be set up all over the country, it seems very probable that betting will increase largely in the smaller towns and in the rural districts. So I say that it is not surprising that many people take the view that a tax on betting would increase betting.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, spoke about the effect in this regard of a tax in the Dominions, and he put forward certain figures and considerations to show that in his opinion the tax did not increase betting. There is a great deal of difference of opinion and conflict of evidence upon that point. When I was a member of the late Government I had more opportunity for going into this than I have now, and I found that there was a good deal of evidence to show that the result of a tax in the Dominions has been to increase betting, or, at any rate, that betting has increased largely, although there is a tax there. There is also a good deal of evidence to show that in New Zealand, despite the betting tax, the increase in betting has been very much greater than the increase in this country. I would refer the noble Lord to page 323 of the Select Committee's Report, where evidence on that point is given. Mr. Isaac Foot, who is a great authority on this tax, also said that the evidence from the Dominions goes to show that a considerable increase in betting has followed State sanction in any specific way.
I now come to the fiscal side of the question. My task there has been very much lightened by the speech to which we have just listened. I was going to put the matter pretty much as the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has done. I was going back to the figures which I gave last year, because my noble friend Lord Newton challenged those figures, but I do not think that he challenged them in any very close or scientific way. My noble friend cites for his purpose, when he wants it, the Report of the Select Committee on Betting, as he does in his Motion, and then, when he comes to a point—one of the chief points in the whole matter—which has been worked out by the Chairman, Sir Henry Cautley, in his draft Report, and that does not suit the noble Lord, apparently he dis-

1081
cards it. It seems rather like "Heads I win, tails you lose." If this Report is such a good one, then I think that the noble Lord ought more or less to adhere to it throughout. The fact does remain however much may be said to the contrary, that the investigations of the Select Committee seemed to show that the annual turnover on betting was round about £200,000,000, and Sir Henry Cautley was strongly of opinion that the rate of the tax should be two and a-half per cent.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, gave certain figures suggesting other taxes as well, arriving altogether at a considerably greater percentage than two and a half, but—and this is vital to a consideration of this matter—those figures were based, I think, entirely upon a tax done through totalisators, and yet the noble Lord destroyed his own argument when he told your Lordships a moment or two later that we could not have totalisators in this country to any extent, at all events for a long time. Even Lord Newton, in his opening remarks, admitted that ninety per cent. of the betting is done away from the racecourses. I should not have put it so high myself.
LORD NEWTON: That is the evidence before the Committee.
LORD ARNOLD: Very well, that does not make it any easier to introduce a betting tax through the operation of totalisators. The conditions in the Dominions are different. The tax there is levied by means of totalisators. If you were going to have a betting tax, and if all the betting in this country—which is not the case, and, as far as anyone can see, never will be the case—were done through totalisators, then I agree that, so far as the rate of the tax is concerned, that could be higher. I dare say you could have ten per cent., because you could get the money by that means. But here it is different. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, pointed out that Sir Henry Cautley had omitted from his draft Report the most important consideration—the evasion that would take place upon this amount of £200,000,000. I think that the amount for taxable purposes would be reduced by evasion to well below £150,000,000. Then there are other considerations which might even bring it below that. On the other hand, it might
1082
be—I am quite prepared to argue it myself—that in rural districts and small towns, owing to the setting up of licensed betting offices, there would be some increase in the betting; so that probably, altogether, we should not be far wrong in taking a figure of about £150,000,000. Two and a-half per cent. upon that amount is £3,750,000, and if you take off the cost of collection you bring that down to about £3,500,000, which is the very figure I suggested last year.
I have always attempted in any financial statement I have made, or figures I have given, to be moderate, but I find that I really put the yield too high, because the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has said, to-day, that the actual yield, at any rate in the first year or so, would not be above £3,000,000. There is not very much between us; but there is a very great deal between us and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, who talked about £10,000,000, or £20,000,000, or £25,000,000. All I will say about that is that the figures which I have given and those which the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has given are the only figures which are based on any real authority. They are the only figures which are based upon the investigations of a Select Committee, and I think they are much more likely to be right than mere guesses, especially guesses made by those who favour the tax and therefore are naturally inclined to guess in a certain direction. For my own part, unless and until these figures are proved to be wrong, I propose to adopt them for the purposes of argument, and I will continue my speech on that basis.
As a matter of fact, if the yield should be a little more or a little less it would not be very material to the argument. And here I will pick my words with great care, because I have been taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as I was last year, on a complete misunderstanding and, indeed, I may say, though it was unintentional, a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I have never said that £3,500,000 was a niggardly sum in itself. Of course it is not, as I will show your Lordships. What I have said is that £3,500,000 is a very disappointing sum and, if you like to use the word, a niggardly sum in relation to the

1083
extravagant estimates which have been put forward as the yield of this tax. That is a very different way of looking at the matter. It is a matter of perspective. If you compare £3,500,000 with £25,000,000 it is obviously a very disappointing result.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, asks in his Notice whether the Government will consider this tax for the purpose "of providing an additional and immediate annual revenue and thereby diminishing some of the crushing burdens on industry." We want to diminish some of the crushing burdens on industry, but you will not do a very great deal in that direction by this tax because of the figures which I have given and which have been confirmed by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. It is clear that as a way out of present difficulties this tax does not open up a very hopeful avenue either to the Government or to anybody else. What, after all, is the financial position of the country to-day? The expenditure this year amounts to £801,060,000—let us say £800,000,000. £3,500,000 is less than half of one per cent. of that annual expenditure. It is a little more than a halfpenny on the Income Tax, and although many persons would not object to a reduction even of a halfpenny on the Income Tax, it is not possible to contend by any proper use of language that any such reduction would, in the words of the Motion, diminish some of the crushing burdens on industry.
While I say that, and it is perfectly true—I am trying to put this matter in its right perspective—I would ask that on this occasion no noble Lord will get up hereafter and say that Labour Peers do not mind about odd millions, or will indulge in the usual and baseless gibe about Labour extravagance. As a matter of fact it is the present Government, a Conservative Government, which is the most extravagant Government of the present time, at any rate since the War. It is the present Government, a Conservative Government, which for the first time since the War has increased the national expenditure. It is the, present Government, a Conservative Government, which is spending many millions more than the Labour Government spent last year. Its expenditure on armaments, for instance, is not
1084
merely extravagant but profligate. So that I ask that noble Lords will not indulge in irrelevant and baseless talk about Labour extravagance.
Let us face the facts. I have always said that £3,500,000 is in itself a sum well worth having, and if it can be got by sound taxation, by all means let it be got, and it will be thankfully received. It will certainly be thankfully received by the present Government with its reckless financial policy, because of the difficulties that are crowding upon them thick and fast. Their sore need of money is becoming more urgent every day. The fact is that the unwisdom, I might say the folly, almost the criminality, of having given away £42,000,000 early in this year to the Income Tax and Super-Tax payers is becoming increasingly evident, and what will be the condition of the national finances hereafter is a problem from which the mind turns wearily aside. The fact is that the financial position of the country is so grave that £3,500,000 is yell worth having if it can be got by sound means, but it will not do very much to help the country in its grave difficulties. I submit that it is not a wise proceeding to ask the Government to set up complicated machinery to reverse the traditional attitude of the State towards betting and to arouse very strong moral opposition in a great many quarters, in order to obtain, when all has been done, if it can be done, a sum of £3,500,000. That is my case, and that is why I said last year and why, with all deference to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, I repeat that it is not a business proposition.
In conclusion, I wish to touch upon a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred. It really arises out of the three fundamental principles of sound taxation, which I may remind your Lordships are that a tax should equitable, economically sound, and productive. A betting tax may be equitable; it is very doubtful whether it is economically sound; but it is not in the proper sense of the word "productive." So I say that a betting tax comes into that category of taxes known as fancy taxes which have not, at any rate in modern times, formed part of the system of taxation of this country. I was rather taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I

1085
had said that our system of taxation was the best in the world. He called me something, I am not sure what it was, but I really do not mind what I am or am not called. If I think we have something in this country which is good—and I often think so—I shall say so. But I say that we have the best tax system in the world, as the experience of the last few years has proved, and for my part I shall oppose debasing—if I may use that word, because that is my opinion of what it will be—that tax system by the introduction of one of those fancy taxes which do not conform to the principles of sound taxation.
Quite apart from other considerations, I honestly believe that the introduction of this tax would, in a certain way, be be injurious to the national credit. I evoked the adverse comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, because I said something of the sort last year, and he seemed to think that the Socialist Government had no particular interest in that matter. I will just say in regard to that, I have not noticed any very particular concern, apart from their words and speeches, which cost nothing, on the part of His Majesty's Government to do anything for the national credit. But the fact does remain that when the Socialist Government came into power many stocks went up, and it is absolutely certain that under the régime of the Socialist Government industry was far better than it has been under the régime of the present Government. There can be no dispute about that. It is not a matter of controversy; it is a matter that can be proved. I believe that the introduction of this tax would in certain senses be injurious to the national credit. Whether the Government will introduce such a tax or not, of course I cannot say. It seems rather doubtful. Personally, as I have said, I very much hope that they will not. You may ask, why will it be injurious to the national credit? Quite apart from other considerations, for this reason, that it would be taken, I firmly believe, as a bad sign both at home and abroad in financial circles, for it would be said that at last we are in such straits that in order to try and balance our Budget, we are driven to resort to one of those fancy taxes which hitherto have been rejected as unworthy of a place in our tax system.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I must confess that, unlike the noble Lord who has just sat down, I cannot pretend to any knowledge of the matter under discussion, and if personal knowledge were, indeed, a criterion, I should be quite unable to add anything to your Lordships' discussion this afternoon. In this state of ignorance I shall not venture to detain your Lordships very long, still less shall I wander into the general discussion as to the extravagance of this or the late Government, upon which the noble Lord who has just sat down embarked. I will only say, in passing, that however often he may say it is wrong for us to accuse the Labour Party of extravagance, I shall continue to say so so long as I think it to be the case. Further, it hardly lies with him, as a member of the Government which supported the new race in armaments by building the new cruisers last year, to charge His Majesty's Government with being much worse sinners than the Government of which he himself was a member. I prefer, however, to keep to the point which is under discussion.
It seems to me, after a perusal of the Blue-book, that it is very important, if possible, that the general question of street betting should be taken into consideration by His Majesty's Government, and that it should be dealt with in some way. The present situation is a most unsatisfactory one. The public sympathy is with the breakers of the law, and that, of course, is always an unfortunate situation. When the Government do come to deal with the matter the question of a tax on betting will certainly arise. It is striking, if you look at the figures, to see the amount of money which was spent by the people of New Zealand upon betting. Let us remember in their case that every difficulty is put in their way. You cannot do any betting except betting on horse racing. You cannot do any betting at a distance, you must do it all through the totalisator. In spite of this fact, we find that something like £7,750,000 was paid by -the people of New Zealand numbering some 1,250,000. That is a very remarkable fact. Circumstances here are entirely different, and they certainly would not change for a considerable period. I think it is quite evident that the facilities which are given to betting in this country, the habits of the people in this country, the fact that they bet upon a great many other things besides

1087
horse races, the fact that they would be able to bet without being present themselves on the course, would make them spend a very much larger sum of money than we see is wagered even by the people of New Zealand at the present time.
Therefore, approaching it from that angle, it seems to me that the sum of £200,000,000, which has been mentioned as the amount that would be taxed, would be very much greater in the different circumstances which exist in this country as compared with New Zealand. I think the sum of £200,000,000 is a perfectly fair sum to take supposing that there were the difficulties which exist in New Zealand, but in view of the facilities for betting that exist here I believe the sum would be very much larger indeed. Although the matter is not wholly proved, I think there is evidence to show that the existence of the totalisator in New Zealand does tend to reduce the amount of money that is wasted in this direction. That, I think, is one of the objects we should have at heart, and try to bring about. In the present state of things it seems to me that the real thing is to find a new source of taxation, and that does make it very desirable that the matter should at least be thoroughly explored by His Majesty's Government. Not only is betting not necessary, but it does positive harm to the people of this country, and anything which can be done to reduce the amount of money that is wasted on betting would surely be a good thing. I believe that taxation will be a step in that direction, certainly in view of the conclusion of the Committee that it was a practical thing to tax betting. Leaving the matter of desirability on one side, it is evident that His Majesty's Government might very well pursue their investigations in this respect, and if, when the time comes, they see their way to propose a tax on betting I am sure no one could be better pleased than I should be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to leave the House in a short time, and I hope noble Lords will allow me to intervene now for a few moments to say one word as to the position in which I stand. I am extremely obliged to the noble Earl who has just sat down for his gallant defence of His Majesty's Government against the assault which it suffered at the hands of the noble
1088
Lord opposite. I think his defence was so complete that I might almost leave it at that. But I was a little sorry that into a very businesslike discussion upon what ought or ought not to be an addition to the fiscal resources of this country the noble Lord opposite should have suddenly plunged into a Party attack upon His Majesty's Government. So far as I am aware, until the noble Lord rose, there was no Party question that had been submitted to the House at all.
LORD ARNOLD: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess, but I think it is important to point out that the words of the Motion deal with the crushing burdens on industry. That is where the relevancy of what I said comes in.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No one denies the crushing burdens on industry. The noble Lord seems to think it is a Party question. We all know it, and we all deplore it, and when the noble Lord charges us with extravagance, I wish he had spent as many hours as I have in the last few months in helping my colleagues to reduce expenditure in all directions. I think if he knew the efforts which we have made, and are making, he would be the last man to accuse us of remissness in the cause of economy. When he begins to trumpet in loud and strident tones the virtues of the Labour Party and the Socialist Government, I would reply to him that the only contribution I can remember his and his friends making to the cause of economy in the present year was an attempt to try to convert the contributory pensions scheme of the Government into a non-contributory scheme. A very much larger sum of money would have been thrown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers if he and his friends had been so fortunate as to prevail upon your Lordships and upon Parliament to agree with them. We are intent at the present moment upon far too grave matters, the fiscal policy of the country and the necessity of economy, to waste further time upon a purely Party issue.
I cannot for myself share the noble Lord's indifference to any considerable sum of money which might be obtained for the Chancellor of the Exchequer by

1089
what he calls fancy taxation. He says that it is only £3,500,000, as if it was only three-halfpence that the Government could possibly gain by this taxation. Whether that be true or not, whether the tax be a good one or not, let it, be quite understood that we do not despise £3,500,000 of national revenue. On the contrary if we approached the national resources in the spirit of the noble Lord, not, caring how many sums of £3,500,000 he lost, then the country, so far from being more economically run, as we are trying to make it, would be ruined and bankrupt. I do not understand what is meant by fancy taxation, but I do know that there is a great analogy—in some respects a rather sinister analogy—between the taxation of betting and the taxation of alcohol. Even the noble Lord would not have the hardihood to condemn the taxation of alcohol as fancy taxation.
We are not disposed to meet my noble friend's proposition with a negative, because we are not going to anticipate what may be the decision of the Government when they come to consider the financial policy of the country in the near future. We are alive to the great difficulties of the situation and, as the noble Earl said who has just sat down, it is our duty to explore every one of these proposals with a view to seeing if something cannot be done upon them. Although we approach it in that spirit and are not prepared to meet my noble friend's Motion with a negative, that does not mean that we do not see difficulties in the road of this taxation. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who spoke so well on behalf of the Government just now, explained to your Lordships in great detail in what those difficulties consist. They are very formidable, formidable partly from the point of view of most legitimate public opinion in this country, but also formidable from the material side—the difficulty of enforcing a tax, the necessary consequences of the tax, all the difficulties which surround registration, the difficulty of the vested interests which must grow up under registration, vested interests almost exactly analogous to the condition of things which prevails in public-houses at this moment. Everybody knows, whatever their views may be on temperance reform or on the liquor question, what an immense difficulty is presented by the vested interests in the liquor trade. All
1090
these things are very difficult and, so far as we have been able to examine the maker, the difficulties do not diminish on being looked into. That will not deter us from exploring every avenue with a view to providing the necessary revenue for the country:
Turning to my noble friend's Motion, may I make one criticism? It does not at present read, a thing which is very unusual in an utterance of my noble friend. What happened evidently was that, my noble friend originally intended to put a question to His Majesty's Government and then, as he warmed to the work and saw what a magnificent speech he was going to make, he turned it into a Motion. He turned the first sentence into a Motion and left the last sentence as a Question. I agree with his Question much more than I do with his Motion, for I do not think that in the present position, after the consideration which the Government have given to the matter, we can pronounce either for or against him when he says that betting shall be taxed. We cannot at this time of the year make a pronouncement which really belongs to the, Budget, and the Government cannot vote in that sense.
If he confines himself to "Whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of patting into operation the scheme declared to be practicable by the Betting Committee in 1923," we shall be very glad to consider it. If he chooses to put his Motion in that form His Majesty's Government will be very glad to vote in the Lobby with him. If on the other hand he definitely wishes to lay it down that betting should be taxed—I do not know what support he has in your Lordships' House—we will take no part in the Division. We cannot vote against him as it would be as bad as voting for him. I suggest that he should be content with the second sentence of his Motion. If he does that the Government will support him; if not, the Government will take no part in the Division.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am not surprised Lord Arnold should have shown in his speech so intense an anxiety to relieve the Socialist Government, of which he was a member, and himself from the charge of financial incompetence. I can quite understand his desire to do that, but when he went on into what I hope

1091
I shall not be considered rude in saying was a totally irrelevant disquisition on the alleged extravagance of His Majesty's present Government, I do not propose to follow him. It was not only quite irrelevant, but quite ill-founded. It had no more relevance to this Motion than if we were to talk about the Communist debate last night or the proposed loan of £40,000,000 by the Socialist Government to Russia last year.
I propose to put aside that very considerable part of Lord Arnold's speech and for a few moments to address myself to the subject of the debate. There is one common ground of agreement which appeared in every speech made to-night, and that is that this tax will undoubtedly produce a substantial sum of money, whether £3,500,000 or £5,000,000 or a larger sum no one can predict. Even the noble Lord who spoke, with his great financial knowledge, declined to pledge himself that it would be as low as £3,500,000. Whatever it is we want to get it, if it is a good tax, and there are no grave objections from any source. Therefore, seeing that it is going to produce money if it is imposed, the onus of showing adequate reason against the taxation is upon those who oppose it.
Let me shortly consider the reasons which have been given against the proposal. The noble Lord talks of a fancy tax. I cannot imagine what a fancy tax means. He gave no definition of it. Let me come to the more substantial reasons which have been suggested against it. One reason, and perhaps the main reason, is that betting is wrong and it would be improper for the State to recognise it by getting money out of it. I dispute both those propositions. Betting certainly is not illegal, except certain forms of it. Personally, I do not think it is wrong, and in this I am speaking all the more freely because I do not care about betting myself, not from any moral elevation but because I have never been able to make anything out of it. The time spent on it has been very badly spent as far as any return is considered. But if is not wrong, and I think it affords, very often a legitimate variety in the dull lives of monotony which many of the people of this country have to undergo. I am speaking of betting in moderation. There are other things which are legitimate and proper in moderation; the vice is found
1092
in the excess. Take drink. Many people, I might say most people, do not consider that drink is wrong. They say that in moderation it is right. I say the same of betting; and if that is so why should the State object to taking money out of it?
What does the State do at the moment? The State already collects enormous sums of money out of telegrams and telephones, without which betting could not go on. I have heard of one firm of betting agents who pay £2,000 and £3,000 a year for telephone purposes alone. And the State already gets Income Tax from the profits of betting, openly and avowedly from the profits, because a man who makes his Income Tax return has to say where his income comes from, and the State has no hesitation in taking its proper proportion from the man who makes a profit by betting. Am I to be told that it is more wrong to get Income Tax from betting at its source than to take it when the contracts have matured and the bookmaker makes a profit? That argument really rests on a certain amount of conscious or unconscious hypocrisy. I am told that if you bad this new system of betting and you taxed it, there would be an increase. There is a great difference of opinion on that point. The really important point is this: Can any one allege that if there was a tax on betting there would be a large increase in immoderate betting? I do not think the moderate betting matters at all. If there was an excess in betting there might be some reason for objecting to the tax.
The last point I desire to refer to is street betting. To me street betting is the worst kind of betting. Men are caught as they come out of the factories and workshops by the betting agents' touts, and very often make bets which they would not have made but for the touts. It is illegal, and unfortunately if, is difficult to stop it, but there is ground for believing that if the recommendations of the Committee were adopted street betting would be largely diminished. On the whole I am glad that His Majesty's Government have not shut out the possibility of getting this money from a tax on betting, money which we badly want, and unless the arguments adduced in another place are stronger than those adduced here by the noble Lord, I hope the proposal will go through.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I have had some personal knowledge of the working of State taxation of betting. In the State in which I lived there was a curious combination, in which the Free Churches took part, with the result that the totalisator was excluded from the State of Victoria. Living on the borders of New South Wales for some years, I visited that State more or less frequently. There I saw something of the operation of taxation of betting which is proposed here to-night. In the State of New South Wales there is a great variety of taxes upon betting and the racing community. The State does not confine itself to taking something out of their pockets by means of a tax on the totalisator. They are taxed, as was said in another connection, from the cradle to the grave; certainly from their entrance on to the race course until they go out of it. There are four or five different forms of taxes imposed on racing men in that State. In the first place the bookmakers have to be licensed by the clubs where they operate, and out of these license fees there is a sum deducted, from 50 per cent. down, to 20 per cent., and collected by the State. That tax alone produced, for 1921, £108,000 or £109,000. When the betting man has got into the race course he has offered to him the option of betting with the bookmakers or with the totalisator. If he elects to bet with the bookmakers his betting ticket has to have a revenue stamp attached to it, again of a varying amount; 3d. in the saddling paddock, 1d. outside the paddock, and 2d. elsewhere; and that same stamp has to be put upon any betting transactions which are conducted by credit with the bookmaker. That small tax amounted in 1921 in New South Wales to £96,000.
Then we come to the principal source of revenue, the taxation on the investments in the totalisator. It is run by the clubs; but there is a deduction from every bet of no less than 13½ per cent. of the stake deposited. One per cent. of that goes towards repaying the capital of the totalisator. According as to whether the club is a proprietory club run for profit or a club which is run as a club, the State takes a varying amount. If the club is run for profit, the State takes 9 per cent. of the stake as a tax. If it is run as a
1094
club, the State takes 5½ per cent. The total thus collected amounted to 1921 to £274,000. That is not the end of the taxation. There is a taxation upon the ticket of admission into the race course amounting to 2d. on the flat—that is, the cheaper places where the general public go on the payment of 1s. of 6d.—rising up to 3s. 2d. for men and 1s. 7d. for women. I do not understand why there is this discrimination between the sexes, but, in fact, under the law women are taxed at half the price that men are in New South Wales. If you are a member of a racing club, or hold a season ticket, you do not escape the tax on the entrance fee, because 40 per cent. of the season ticket and member's subscription is collected from the clubs, and that amount is pad into the revenue, with the total result that £597,000 in that particular year was collected by the State out of the racing community, or a sum equivalent to about 5s. 6d. per head of the population of New South Wales. It is a substantial amount.
I do not propose to enter into the rather wider discussion raised by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, beyond suing this, that he laid down three criteria of taxation. I venture to add a fourth, which I recommend to him and any other founder or inventor of a taxation system. It is that, a tax should be comprehensible, as well as productive and the other things which he mentioned. I think that this tax, whatever faults it may have, at least answers that criterion to a greater extent than some other taxes that I can mention. I could mention other taxes which are far less easy to be comprehended by the taxpayer than this system of taxing betting and racing which has been adopted in New South Wales. It has been said that it would be difficult to raise the same proportion of money in this country as is being raised in the Dominions. I do not know quite why that should be said. There is no doubt that when you have to introduce a tax in the first instance whether it be an Income Tax or any other, it is perhaps wise to begin gently, so as to accustom the eel to being skinned; but the experience of most taxpayers is that while a tax in the first instance is a light one it is possible so to increase it as to bring in a very considerable amount.

1095
So, in the Dominions, taxation on betting has been imposed in the first instance on a comparatively moderate scale, and it has been raised to produce the substantial amount that I have mentioned, and I believe that in this country, too, we may, by beginning with a comparatively small sum of £3,500,000, which Lord Arnold mentioned, ultimately within a few years reach that glorious position held out by Lord Newton, of collecting £25,000,000 a year. Nor is it an answer, I think, to say that you cannot do this without the totalisator. No doubt that does give greater opportunities of easier collection, but they have found it perfectly possible in New South Wales to have a system of taxation whereby those who prefer to bet through a bookmaker do make a contribution to the funds of the State.
May I say a word or two about whether the totalisator increases the amount of betting? It is a matter of opinion, but of opinion which can be formed by observing conditions. I have no absolute figures, and I do not think that any are available on the subject, but I think the experience of those who have watched the operation of betting in New South Wales, where the totalisator is being introduced, would force them to the honest conclusion that there are probably more people who bet where there is a totalisator. It is a machine, and it is always easier to talk to a machine than to a man. There is a certain shyness in going up to a bookmaker, for fear of exposing one's ignorance, and for that reason a good many women abstain from betting; they do not like to face the possible jeers or smiles of the bookmaker. The totalisator cannot put on any expression of contempt. It takes your money, and if you are fortunate it pays out a dividend, and there is no doubt a considerable increase of small betting, because the totalisator takes bets of 5s. and 10 s. and £1. There is no doubt that there is a considerable increase in the number of people who make wagers, but, on the other hand, I think it is very probable that there is less temptation on the part of the ordinary betting person to indulge in excessive betting. It is purely a ready-money transaction. You have got to put in your Treasury note to make your bet, and it has been discovered that, in fact, the ordinary person who bets may take £1, £2 or £3 to a race meeting, and when that
1096
is gone he stops betting, whereas, if he bets with a bookmaker, there is a temptation after he has lost to bet on credit. Therefore, while the number of bets tends to increase, the amount staked has not been increased by the introduction of the totalisator.
We are told, however, that the totalisator can hardly be introduced in this country, and I am inclined to agree that there is a good deal in that. The racecourses in New South Wales are of limited number, and if you are going to introduce a machine you must use it frequently to get full value. You cannot have a machine running into hundreds of thousands of pounds introduced merely to use it on one or two days of the year. In this country we have a large number of racecourses with only one or two annual meetings, and the total expense therefore for a country meeting would be rather prohibitive. But the totalisator is not the only means of dealing with betting. We have been told that if you are to have this system of State betting you must legalise State betting houses. I dare say that is so, but we must face the facts. Any man, woman or child who wishes to make a bet can do so. I do not know whether your Lordships have had my experience of the noises which take place below stairs after some important race meeting, when the evening newspapers come in—the sounds of cheerfulness or the reverse. I do not inquire too closely into what has taken place, but we all know that nearly all menservants in this country, and a very large proportion of women servants, too, make their bets somehow or other. I have never made a bet myself, except an occasional one on the totalisator in New South Wales, but betting is possible and any person who wishes to do so can make a bet.
If that is the case, and I think it is, ought we not to realise the facts as they are? If, in fact, a very large majority of the population do indulge in betting, it will be better to face the facts and to say: "If you will bet, at least you shall bet under conditions which are made honest by means of Government supervision, and you shall contribute something towards the Government of the country by means of taxation." I ask whether, in fact, the legalisation of

1097
betting or the making of betting more easy by means of Government control increases betting. My experience of Australia certainly is this, that betting rises and falls with prosperity, that when people have money in their pockets they bet, and when they have less money in their pockets there is less betting. The takings of the, totalisator in Sydney, and, I think, in every other State where totalisators exist, are very nearly an accurate reflection of the temporary prosperity of the people. When shearing has taken place and the people have money in their pockets the amount put in goes up; when there is a drought the amount falls. The fact is that betting is complementary to prosperity. If that be the case, then I do not think there is any very serious danger in modified State recognition of betting.
At present betting does take place, and you are not preventing it by all your Gaming House Acts and all your legislation. Betting is increasing in spite of that legislation, and will increase so long as people have money to spare. Let us face the facts. Let us recognise that betting is an amiable eccentricity, if you like—I do not think it is worse than that—and out of the amiable eccentricities of the public let us get a contribution to the taxes, which may grow to something very much more as we learn how best to impose this taxation of a luxury. To my mind it can hardly be described as fancy taxation, but it is a very proper taxation imposed upon those who can best afford it.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, the scheme before us, I take it, is a scheme proposed by the Select Committee, and it boils down to this, that a registered office for betting may be set up in every village in the country. It certainly will be set up in all the small towns, and it will make betting very much easier than it is at present. What would be very likely to happen would be this: a big firm of betting men in London would want to increase their business, and they would have agents in nearly every town in the country, working most likely on commission. The more business they do, the more profit they will make, so that they will try to get as much betting done in the town or village as they possibly can. At present betting is easy for the rich,
1098
and not so easy for the poor. I do not look upon that m quite such an ill as some people do, because a great many small people in the villages cannot afford to bet. Still, there is an anomaly, and perhaps an injustice; but, in spite of that I should be very much against providing the facility of a betting office in every little town in the Kingdom. I think it would lead to a great deal more betting and would be a very bad thing.
On the other hand, I think there is a great deal to be said for having a totalisator or a pari-mutuel an the racecourse itself. That does not mean any legislation whatever. The racecourse is a place where betting is allowed, therefore putting up totalisators at race meetings would not interfere with anybody. I should not do away with bookmakers. My principal object is not revenue, although I believe a good deal of revenue would be obtained. My principal reason for advocating this is that the racecourse is now a very rowdy place. There are all sorts of roughs, and they stick at nothing even murder, almost. I think totalisators would do away with a lot of the worst of the betting men and the entourage of low-class betting men, and I believe it would purify the racecourse to a considerable extent I was fortified in that view by reading an article in one of the sporting papers. They are all against legislation for betting, but this article did admit that if you had a totalisator on the racecourse rowdyism would be very much decreased. At the present time it is almost a danger for any well-dressed, respectable man to go on a racecourse. We all know the riots and rows that there have been there. I dare say you might obtain £2,000,000, or £3,000,000, or £4,000,000 if you took 10 per cent. of the money in the totalisators, but, as I say, it is not for that reason only that I advocate this change, but so that the racecourse might become a more respectable and decent place to which people might go.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, as the noble Lord who introduced this subject referred a little contemptuously to the minority which voted against him on the last occasion when this matter was brought up, and I propose again to vote against him, I should like to state one or two of the reasons why I am unable to support

1099
him. I am not for a moment arguing that betting in itself is wrong but I am impressed, as I think most of us are impressed, with the enormous amount of evil and misfortune which arises out of excessive betting. There is no magistrate or police court missionary, no one who is familiar with the lives of the working classes, who is not fully conscious of the enormous amount of evil caused by excessive betting. We were discussing yesterday a Bill dealing with moneylenders. A great deal a the evil caused by people resorting to moneylenders is due to excessive betting. The one question, therefore, which I, in considering my vote, have to ask myself is: Is this taxation of betting likely to decrease or to increase the total amount of betting in the country?
If it were a question of taxation only I should have very little hesitation in saying that taxation would probably decrease the amount of betting. I have no sympathy with those who feel conscientious objections about taking money raised from the taxation of betting. If I dislike a thing intensely I should all the more favour taxing it. Therefore, simply from the point of view of taxation, I am not opposing this proposal, but I do dread the recognition of the very large number of bookmakers who are to be found up and down the country. We are not dealing merely with a few well-known, respectable bookmakers, but with a vast company of men who are to be found in every industrial centre. There is a bookmaker in the background with his touts or runners, as I think they are called, who visit every street regularly. Under those there are people who are technically known in London, at any rate, as "the narks," who watch to see that the proceedings are not interfered with by the police. If this vast body of bookmakers is protected by the State betting will be made very much easier and, as has already been pointed out, there will not only be recognised bookmakers in the great centres of industry, but also in the towns and villages, carrying on their business under the protection of the State. Therefore, I must vote, if necessary with the minority, against the Motion.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise in consequence of the appeal made to me by my noble friend Lord Salisbury to
1100
alter the wording of this Motion. I recognise that it is defective and as the first portion of it is not of essential importance I am prepared to accept his suggestion. At the same time, I cannot help remembering with some pangs of regret that when I moved a similar Motion rather more than a year ago, the whole of the Conservative Front Bench voted wholeheartedly for a direct tax upon betting, as has been suggested this afternoon. It only shows to how much variation one's opinions are liable. I confess that I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Plymouth with a considerable amount of disappointment and I cannot help thinking that when his chief, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, deals with this question he will treat it in a, very different manner, and it will not surprise me in the least if he brings forward this proposal as a new and original idea of his own. At all events, I am satisfied with the debate to this extent—that I have not met with a direct negative and I have considerable hopes as to what the future may bring forth. The Motion, as amended, will read as follows:
"That it is desirable that His Majesty's Government should consider the advisability of putting into operation the scheme declared to be practicable by the Betting Committee in 1923"
Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn, and, on Question, substituted Motion agreed to.

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, it falls to my lot at a rather late hour to move the Second Reading of the Petroleum Bill, a measure which has been urgently required for some time in the interests of public safety. A Bill which came before your Lordships' House in 1923 met with considerable opposition from the various interests concerned. It was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords and objections were raised to a great many of its provisions. The consequence was that the Bill was dropped. This is an entirely new Bill dealing with a very important subject. The controversial propositions have been excluded, and the measure is limited to carrying out certain alterations of the law, which were approved by a Committee of

1101
your Lordships' House which sat on the matter, and as to which it is believed that everybody is agreed.
The original Act was passed more than fifty years ago, and it must be obvious to your Lordships that the conditions of the petroleum industry have very much changed since that time. The Acts passed in the course of more than fifty years are the Petroleum Act of 1879 and a very small Act which was passed in 1881, the Petroleum (Hawkers) Act. The whole position was reviewed in 1910 by a Departmental Committee, and their recommendations have been included in the present Bill. The most important alteration is that contained in the new provisions for the conveyance of petrol by road. At present the only powers to regulate the transport of petroleum by road are possessed by the local authorities and they vary in different cases. This Bill will give power to the Secretary of State to make regulations which will apply universally to the carriage of petrol by road. There will also be power under Section 14 of the Petroleum Act, 1871, to apply these regulations to other dangerous substances, such as carbon-bisulphide. Another important provision in the Bill is that in Clause 2 which relates to the handling of petroleum in harbours. At present there are only regulations regarding the landing of petroleum, but under this Bill powers would be given for securing the safety of the public not only with regard to the landing of petroleum but in the loading of ships and the precautions to be observed while ships are carrying petroleum in harbour. The want of these provisions has led to very serious accidents such as the well-known case of the "Dauntless" in 1921. The third provision of the Bill which is of some little importance is that which relates to the investigation of accidents. All these provisions were not only recommended by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, but were approved of by the Departmental Committees which reported in 1910 and 1913.
In regard to the other clauses, Clause 1 contains what is, perhaps, not quite a
1102
definition, but a description of petroleum. Clause 3 provides that in cases where petroleum has been improperly labelled and a mistake has been made, the penalty shall be defined by the Court, and it will not be necessary, as at present is the case, to destroy the whole consignment. Clause 4 makes a similar amendment in regard to petroleum kept without a licence. Clause 5 increases the amount of the fee payable for a licence which is at present limited to 5s. It is not supposed, for one moment, that the fees charged will really pay for the cost of the administration of the Act, but power is taken to charge more than the 5s. which is required at the present time. The Bill has been prepared in consultation with the representatives of the chief oil companies and is also in accordance with the Report of the Committee of your Lordships' House and the Report of the Departmental Committee. It has also the full concurrence of the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport. At this hour of the evening I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there will certainly be no opposition on our part to the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a useful measure and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, it is drafted in accordance with the opinions of all the experts and other persons interested in the subject.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, as Chairman of the Committee which condemned the Bill of 1923 I very cordially support the Second Reading of this Bill. It is entirely in consonance with the Report of that Committee and with its recommendations.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.