Sitting of 3 December 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PRE-WAR PENSION (O. PEARCE, EASTON).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether it was; with his approval that a letter was sent to Mr. O. Pearce, Easton, reference No. 3.294/Fu/M, Who is in receipt of a pension as a single man, and has been married since discharge, informing him that he must forward a certificate from his wife's employer, showing the exact amount of her earnings for the 12 months ended 6th October, 1925, including overtime pay and war bonus, if any, board, lodgings, fuel, or other benefit, and threatening that in the event of this certificate not being forwarded the question of discontinuing the increase of pension will be considered?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The case referred to was not one of disability pension under the Great War Warrants (to which any question as to the wife's income would, of course, be irrelevant), but as to the increase of a pre-War pension under the Regulations made in pursuance of the Pensions Increase Acts, 1920 and 1924. Any grant made under those Acts is determined by the total means of the pensioner. For this purpose a declaration is required in the case of a married couple as to the income, and the sources thereof, of both husband and wife, and it was for the purpose of verifying the amount attributed by the claimant to his wife as her income that inquiry had to be made as to the source of the income and as to the name of the employer if derived from earnings. It will be appreciated that
    2476
    the increase cannot be granted unless satisfactory proof is forthcoming that the regulations of the Act are fulfilled.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions in how many unsuccessful applications for a pension on account of tuberculosis the men concerned were diagnosed as having suffered from the malady before entering the Army; and what weight of medical evidence is required to refute the claim by such applicants that they did not suffer from tuberculosis before entering the Army?
    Major TRYON: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. The second part of the question does not admit of a general answer because the evidence required for the support of a claim necessarily depends upon the circumstances in each case. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all available evidence of whatever character is fully considered by the Ministry before a decision is arrived at.

    THOMAS ROBINSON, DENABY MAIN.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Thomas Robinson, 91, Clifton Street, Denaby Main, who was transferred to the Army Reserve in 1918 suffering from hernia, was awarded a gratuity of £52 10s.; that he has only been able to work indifferently for years because of his injury, and that recently he was operated on for hernia, since which he has been unable to follow any employment at all; and that he has been refused a rehearing and deprived of all opportunities to establish a claim for any pension; and whether he will consider an amendment of the War Pensions Act, 1921, to enable this and similar cases to come before the appeal tribunal?
    Major TRYON: The man referred to has received operative treatment from the Ministry and has been supplied with a special truss for the control of his disability. His condition when last examined, after treatment had been given, was not such as to show that his final award was erroneous. No application has been made by the man since his treatment, which would indicate that

    2477
    the results have not been unsatisfactory, but I am causing inquiry to be made as to his present condition, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so

    AREA AND SUB-AREA OFFICES (STAFF).
    Mr. J. BECKETTasked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of whole-time area and area sub-offices on the 1st November, 1921, 1st November, 1923, let November, 1924, and the 1st November, 1925; what was the number of the staff employed in these offices on each date, respectively; whether it is proposed at an early date to reduce the staff in the area offices and area sub-offices by a further 30 per cent.; and, if so, what steps will be taken to ensure new applications receiving prompt attention and pensioners receiving treatment and medical attention?

    Date.

    Number of Area Offices.

    Number of Whole-time Sub-Offices.

    Number of staff employed in Area or Whole-time Sub-Offices.

    1st November, 1921

    …

    No Area Offices had been established under the Act of 1921 at this date.

    —

    —

    1st November, 1923

    …

    146

    87

    4,485

    1st November, 1924

    …

    136

    94

    4,090

    1st November, 1925

    …

    109

    102

    3,377

    The staff of these offices will be adjusted from time to time in accordance with the work, but there is no question of working to a fixed percentage reduction, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the staff will not be reduced beyond the point necessary for the efficient performance of all the duties of the office.

    SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. J. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions what was the number of cases considered by the Special Grants Committee during the period 1st January to 1st November, 1925; what was the amount paid in expenses to the Committee during the period; and what was the staff employed on duties appertaining to the Committee, and the cost of their salaries or wages during the same period?
    Major TRYON: In the short time at my disposal I am able to furnish approximate
    Major TRYON: As the information desired by the hon. Member contains a number of figures, I propose, with his permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. BECKETT: I quite agree, but can the Minister give us any assurance that the present longer delay in dealing with these cases is being remedied?
    Major TRYON: I do not agree that there is longer delay, and my recent inquiries in all parts of the country suggest that the cases ere going through well, and in some cases more rapidly than before, but in every case the first consideration is an adequate staff for dealing with the cases, and the second consideration is that the staff is not being retained any longer than it is wanted.
    The following is the answer:
    figures only. The total number of cases dealt with in the. Special Grants Committee in the first ten months of this year was 34,000. The amount paid to members of the Committee for expenses during that period was £370. This sum represents, of course, out of pocket expenses only. The total clerical and supervising staff employed on the 1st November, 1925, in the Special Grants Committee was 116, and the cost of salaries and wages during the 10 months was £24,300.

    CHILD'S PENSION.
    Mr. BAKERalso asked the Minister of Pensions, whether, in the event of a child of a War widow obtaining a situation on reaching the age of 14, a part or the whole of the child's pension is withheld; if so, under what article of the Royal Warrants is this practice followed; and whether, as in some cases his Depart-

    2479
    merit has stated that the pension will be withheld until the child reaches the age of 21, he will say whether in these cases the child will receive the arrears of pension with compound interest?
    Major TRYON: I am not quite clear as to the class of case the hon. Member has in mind. No general rule such as that suggested on the matter in question is in operation. It is, however, the case that in certain exceptional instances, e.g., of neglected children who are statutorily placed under my care, or the children of widows whose pensions have to be administered in trust under the auspices of the Special Grants Committee, the whole or a portion of the allowance while the child is earning may be temporarily withheld and administered in such a manner as best to secure the exclusive interests of the child. In these cases the balance accumulated remains at call for any exceptional expenses of emergency required for the child, and the balance is paid out on the advice of the War Pensions Committee and the Special Grants Committee as and when required. The balance, if any, is not reserved until the age of 21, except in the interests of the child. In some cases a portion of the balance, if any, accumulated is from time to time invested at interest. I am at present considering the general administrative arrangements in this connection.

    UNCLAIMED PENSIONS.
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Pensions the amount of unclaimed money awaiting claimants in respect of men killed during the Great War; and will he consider the advisability of having a list compiled and deposited in every Post Office in order that all publicity may be given in this regard?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, exact figures cannot readily be given, but the amount is estimated at over £100,000. As regards the second part, under the provisions of the Regimental Debts Act every unclaimed balance is published once a year for seven years in the "London Gazette," and for several years after the War the "London
    2480
    Gazette" lists were exhibited in all the principal post offices, and notices drawing attention to these lists, with instructions how claims should be made, were shown in all post offices. In this way, and by notices in the Press, these estates have been widely advertised, and I do not think the method suggested by the hon. Member would be more effective. The amounts undisposed of after seven years are handed over to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the benefit of relatives of deceased soldiers.
    Colonel DAY:Is it not a fact that, if these lists were given more prominence at the post offices, and notices put on them that the names of the dependants could be inspected, then there might be more claims made for this unclaimed money?
    Captain KING: If the hon. and gallant Member will read my answer, he will see that that was done for several years, and they are still published every year in the "Gazette."
    Colonel DAY: And will be?
    Captain KING: They are being.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (ESTABLISHMENT).
    Colonel DAYasked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to increase the establishment of the Metropolitan Police in order to meet the need following the extensive erection of houses and the multiplying duties of the police?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a reduction was made in the strength of the police as a measure of economy in 1922. I have had the position under review and, having regard to the growing demands upon the Metropolitan Police, I have felt justified in authorising the Commissioner to slightly accelerate recruiting. I have, however, to keep in mind the continued need for economy.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that London is continually growing more law-abiding?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That does not seem to agree quite with the question on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the Commissioner of Police himself recommends increasing the establishment of the Metropolitan Police?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, that is so, but the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Secretary of State, and I have to consider the question of economy as well as the police.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not a great deal of the cost of the Metropolitan Police fall on the local rates, which have therefore to be considered?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree; I have to consider all questions, both central and local.

    ALIENS (DEPORTATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what were the offences charged against the Russians Edward Getz and Joseph Kilnas, on which he recommended them for deportation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As explained in the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member last Thursday, I made deportation orders in the case of the two aliens referred to because, after careful consideration, I was satisfied that it was conducive to the public good to do so. In accordance with the powers entrusted to me by Parliament, it is within my discretion, if I am so satisfied, to make a deportation order, although no offence against the law may have been committed. I am not required to state the. reasons for my decision, nor do I think it would be desirable for me to do so; but I may add that in any such case I consider carefully the whole circumstances and weigh the public advantage against any possible hardship to the individual concerned.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's power, but why does he object to telling me what the offences were?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not see why I should make a personal favour to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I need hardly tell the right hon. Gentleman that I meant the House, of course, and not me personally.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I say I do not think it would be in accordance with the public interest to give the reasons why these powers are exercised in any case.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the fact that the right hon. Gentleman can issue his ukase and pick out anyone who happens to be a foreigner and send him out of the country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is exactly the power which Parliament has entrusted to me. It remains for me to exercise those powers in such a way as to secure the continued confidence of Parliament.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the Home Secretary has the powers he says he possesses, will he not exercise them somewhat more drastically than he is doing with regard to those foreigners who are carrying on the dope traffic and the procuring of foreign women into this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should be most grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would give me details of any of those cases. I have during the current year deported several cases of dope traffic and of prostitution traffic as well.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there any way by which we can challenge the action of the Home Secretary other than across the Floor of the House of Commons, and is he to be exempt from our criticism because he says he is not required to give us an account of the deeds done in the body?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can move to reduce his salary, or even to extinguish it.

    REVOLVER LICENCES.
    Major GLYNasked the Home Secretary how many licences have been issued by the police authorities in England and Wales to persons desiring

    2483
    to purchase revolvers for the period 1st September, 1924, to 1st September, 1925; how many applications have been refused; and on what grounds are permits issued to persons other than those whose connection with one or other of the fighting services requires them to be in possession of such weapons?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information asked for is not in my possession, but is contained in the records kept by the various police forces. Its extraction and collection would involve an expenditure of both time and trouble. The circumstances in which Firearm Certificates may properly be granted by Chief Officers of Police are indicated in the Firearms Act, 1920.

    INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BURSITIS).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if a decision has been reached in regard to the inclusion of bursitis in the schedule of industrial diseases for miner's beat knee?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Proposals for amending the present descriptions in the schedule of miner's beat knee and miner's beat elbow were referred by me in July last to the Mining Association and Miners' Federation for observations, but neither body has so far furnished me with its views on the subject and at the present moment when they are so much occupied with other matters I should be reluctant to press for a reply.
    Mr. TINKER: What information does the right hon. Gentleman want?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want the views of the two bodies named, on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, as to whether this disease shall be included in the Industrial Diseases Schedule; I want the fullest information before I take action.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that as a result of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, the qualifying period for the ordinary insured
    2484
    worker is only two years, whereas under the Police Act, 1921, a policeman must have five years' service, 1st September, 1918, in order that his widow may become eligible for a pension; and whether he will take steps to see that the policeman is not penalised in comparison with the civilian and have the Police Act amended accordingly?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware that the scheme of widows' pensions provided by the Police Pensions Act, 1921, while on the whole not less favourable than the provision made by the Act passed this year is less favourable in certain details and more favourable in others The points of difference will be taken into consideration at the first suitable opportunity, but there is no possibility of legislation on the subject being introduced this Session.
    Mr. J. BAKERasked the Minister of Health whether or not the number of applicants for widows' pensions has reached the estimate of the actuary who advised the Department; and, if not, can he say if he has any information showing that widows receiving Poor Law relief are not applying for pensions owing to a fear of losing such relief if they do so?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The number of applications for widows' pensions has not yet reached the estimate, but I would remind the hon. Member that claim forms have been available for less than three months. It has been suggested that certain widows may be deterred from claiming by the fear of losing Poor Law relief, but I have no specific information on the point. A circular has, however, been issued to boards of guardians with the object of removing any misapprehension which may exist on this matter.

    SHOP HOURS ACT.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the objectional method used by some of the inspectors under the Shop Hours Act, by which traders are induced to commit breaches of the law and are then prosecuted; and if he will take such steps as are necessary to prevent the obtaining of convictions by such means?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have received no recent representations on the subject, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will tell me to what he refers.
    Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand from the answer that the suggestion is that no such procedure has been taken?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman will remember that shop inspectors are officers of the local authorities. I have only received one complaint, and that was in April; but if there are any further complaints I will look into them.

    ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Home Secretary whether, in the interests of economy and in view of the fact that the spring register of electors is very rarely used, he will consider altering the law so that one register only shall be required, thereby effecting a saving of nearly £500,000 every year?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. The Government has considered this suggestion for effecting economies but there is, I fear, no chance of passing the necessary legislation in this Session.

    ESCAPE OF ELEPHANT, WHETSTONE.
    Mr. CADOGANasked the Home Secretary whether he can take any steps to prevent the recurrence of the incident which took place in Whetstone on Sunday, 29th November, when an elephant broke loose from its conveyance in the Great North Road and caused considerable damage to neighbouring property?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Home Secretary whether he has information as to the recapture of the elephant which broke loose on Sunday-while being conveyed in a float from the Barnet menagerie to Whitechapel; what casualties resulted; what damage was done; whether the elephant has now been safely removed to its destination; whether he will take immediate steps to test and ensure the sufficiency of any conveyance to be used for the tranport of wild or potentially dangerous animals; and whether he can give an assurance that adequate powers exist and
    2486
    will be exercised under his own or other authority to secure the safety of the public from the escape of wild animals in course of transit?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I propose to answer these two questions together. I have no information other than what has appeared in the Press, and no power to interfere in the matter. As far as I am aware, there are no statutory provisions governing the subject. Any person who keeps a wild or potentially dangerous animal is liable for any damage it may cause; and the theory of the law is that this is sufficient provision for the safety of the public. I am afraid I cannot promise to introduce any special legislation.
    Mr. CADOGAN: Have any steps been taken to prosecute this company, or whatever it is, for bringing an elephant into my constituency?
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to have the elephant taken up for mutiny?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no evidence up to the present of the political views of the elephant.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Now we know!" and "Political bias!" [Interruption.]
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Cannot this elephant be sent to the Isle of Lewis, where they want wild animals?
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is this not only one of the animals of the menagerie, and has not serious trouble been caused before in this establishment by a zebra and other animals breaking loose in this way, to the consternation and danger of the public?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that these violent aliens are deported?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, N. (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), all I can say is that I have heard of similar trouble in regard to these menageries. So far as I know, or can find out, the police have no powers to prevent menageries travelling, the only condition being, as I say in the original answer, that anyone who keeps wild animals is responsible for any damage that they do.

    ARRESTED PERSONS (POLICE REGULATIONS).
    Brigadier-General BROOKEasked the Home Secretary whether he has communicated to the authorities controlling the police outside London, as well as to the Metropolitan Police, the instructions issued as to the facilities for communicating between arrested prisoners and their friends; and, if not, whether he will take such action without delay?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The position of the provincial police forces differs in many respects from that of the Metropolitan Police, but I propose to take the first convenient opportunity of addressing a communication to them on several points arising out of the recent inquiry.

    FASCISTI ORGANISATION.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the. Home Secretary if he will publish the terms of his recent instruction to the police that the law was to be fairly applied as from that date?
    Mr. DALTONasked the Home Secretary on what date he recently issued instructions to the police that equal justice was to be meted out to all; whether such instructions were in writing; if so, whether he will communicate the text to this House; and, if not, how they were issued and what was their substance?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On learning of the seizure of the "Daily Herald" van, I gave personal instructions to one of the Commissioners of Police that if there was reason to think that any Fascist organisation had, in fact, instigated this action, every effort should be made to obtain evidence which would lead to the conviction of those responsible, since, of course, the law must be administered with complete impartiality. My view was acted upon by the police.
    Mr. BECKETT: Would the right hon. Gentleman use the same methods of finding out what the Fascisti are doing, as he uses to find out what is done by the Communists?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Put some one under the platform.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) will give me any information at all, or tell me of anything suspicious that will lead to the conclusion that there is a reasonable opportunity of finding out that the Fascisti or any other organisation is about to commit crime, it will be my duty to investigate it to the utmost of my power.
    Mr. BECKETT: May I put it, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for me or others to give the Home Secretary information. It is his place to find out?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Are not the Criminal Investigation Department aware that a pictorial newspaper published a photograph of two of these armed gentlemen in arms, with black shirts, and everything else? No action has been taken in regard to them at all. Why should not the same trouble be taken to find out the doctrines of these gentlemen as is done about the Communists? Put people at their meetings—spies and so on?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a large point for a supplementary question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Department of the right hon. Gentleman ever intercepted letters, correspondence, and work of these organisations?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That, I think, is really a question which ought not to be put, either to the Home Secretary or other Minister.

    CLUBS (METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Home Secretary how many clubs have been raided by the police during the past three years; in how many cases convictions have been secured; how many permanently closed; and the aggregate amount of the fines imposed; whether their stocks of spirits, etc., were sequestrated; and, if so, in what way are such stocks disposed of and to what account are the proceeds of sale placed?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I assume the hon. Member's question refers to clubs in the Metropolitan Police District. On this assumption, I have obtained the information for which he asks, but as a full reply would be long

    2489
    and contain a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman circulates these figures will he distinguish between what are generally known as night clubs, and other clubs?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman who put the question consents I will endeavour to do that.
    Mr. YOUNG initiated assent.
    Following is the reply promised:
    The following are the particulars as to proceedings against Clubs in the Metropolitan Police District between 1st December, 1922, and 30th November, 1925.

    (1) Number of clubs entered by virtue of a Search Warrant

    (a)Registered

    107

    (b)Unregistered

    8

    (2) Number of clubs in relation to which convictions have been obtained

    107

    In addition, proceedings are pending against 5 of the clubs shown in (1).

    (3) Number of cases in which the premises were temporarily disqualified

    69

    (4) Total amount of (a) fines and (b) costs imposed upon the persons responsible for management and control.

    There is no power to close a club permanently. The Act provides for the die-qualification of club premises for a limited period only.
    Stocks of liquor were sequestered in seven of the above cases. In four, the liquor, which was of trifling amount, was destroyed. In one case a decision is now pending regarding the disposal of the property. In the remaining two cases considerable amounts were seized and sold by auction, the proceeds being credited to that portion of the Police Fund Account devoted to Police Court expenses.

    MAINTENANCE OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Home Secretary the amount which the organisation for the maintenance of essential services mentioned by him at Isleworth is costing per month, and if any Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to meet the expense; and, if not, whether he can state to what Vote those expenses will be charged?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total expenditure which is being incurred at present in this connection is estimated at approximately £l,000 per month. The expenditure of each of the Departments concerned is being charged to its own Vote, and it is not anticipated that any-Supplementary Estimate will be required on this account.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the expenses of this organisation, which are being covered by several Departments, be set down in the Votes of each of these Departments specifically as money devoted to this particular organisation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid the hon. Member must ask the representative of the Treasury as to that. I am not responsible for the Estimates of other Departments. The Treasury look through them all.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But with regard to the Vote of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, will his accountants see to it that the expenses which his Department has to bear on behalf of this organisation are stated specifically, so that we can have a definite Debate upon the expense of this organisation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to the question of debates I must refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury or the Prime Minister. All I can say is that an officer of my Department, an officer of the Board of Trade and officers of other Departments are engaged on a certain amount of work in connection with supply and transport organisation, exactly as was the case under previous Governments, and if the hon. Member desires to raise the work of those officers I take it he can do that on my Vote, or the Board of Trade Vote, or Votes of the other Department.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether any money has been paid over to the Organisation for Maintenance of Supplies?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, no. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) was questioning me about the official Government organisation.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: No. It says the organisation for the maintenance of supplies.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The voluntary organisation to which the hon. Member refers in his supplementary question is not subsidised in any shape or form by the Government.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the Government are not going to finance these people who volunteer service?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question ought to We put down.

  EDUCATION.

    STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (CIRCULAR 1,371).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education why a circular has been issued to education authorities stating the Board's intention to reduce the grant by 30s. per child for children attending school under five years of age; and whether the suggestion has been made by the Board of Education authorities to give only partial instruction to children between the acres of five and six years of age?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I assume that the hon. Member refers to Circular 1,371. As regards both parts of the question, I would refer him to the first paragraph of the Note to the Appendix on page 4 of the Circular.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not this amount to a suggestion that the contribution from the Board of Education is to be reduced from 30s. to 5s., and will it not have the effect of discouraging educational authorities from keeping these children at school? Will not that affect in particular very poor districts, because it is only in very poor districts that these children are sent to school, on account of the very bad home conditions there? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in pressing forward this Regulation?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the mothers who will now have to look after these "under fives," who may have had to work to help to earn the living for the home, be regarded in these circumstances as not genuinely seeking work?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Members who put their supplementary questions will refer to the circular they will see that I have already had those considerations very much in mind, and have drawn attention to them in the circular.
    Mr. PALING: May I ask the Noble Lord whether he did not put this reduction in operation for the express purpose of discouraging parents from sending to school their children under five years of age?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will refer to the circular he will see that that is not the case.
    Captain GEE: Is it not clear that people who live in good residential districts are taking advantage of this, although they could well afford nurses to look after their children?
    Mr. COVE: In view of the tremendous-criticism that this circular has met with, especially the part dealing with children under five, will the Noble Lord now consider withdrawing it?
    Lord E. PERCY: There is a question on that point later on.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that children under five ought not to attend school?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education the number of children under five years of age now attending the public elementary schools; and also the corresponding figures last year and in 1913?
    Lord E. PERCY: The numbers (on the registers) are as follow:

    31st March, 1925

    221,797

    31st March, 1924

    211,348

    31st January, 1913

    300,899

    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the Noble Lord got any figures to show the number of local authorities that allow children under five years of age to go to school?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, I have got figures.
    Mr. THORNE: Would the Noble Lord mind supplying Members with them?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will see whether that can be done.
    Mr. HARRIS: Do not these figures suggest that this grant has not been unduly taken advantage of, and that education authorities have only used this discretion where it was really necessary, where poverty required special treatment?
    Lord E. PERCY: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. PALING: Does the Noble Lord consider those figures too high?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we can argue that now.
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education, whether Circular 1,371 cancels the provisions of Circular 1,358 issued on 31st March last; and, if not, Low does he propose to meet the progressive expenditure involved in the plans demanded from local education authorities by Circular 1,358?
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of the stereotyping of the Government grant proposed in Circular 1,371, he intends to withdraw Circular 1,358, of 31st March of this year, which called for programmes of a progressive and continuous character from local education authorities, which were not required to be submitted till the end of this year or even Easter 1926, or whether he has any schemes in view for making such programmes effective without increased assistance from the national Exchequer?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will, if I may. answer these questions together. As regards the relation of Circular 1,371 to the programme procedure, I would refer the hon. Members to the last paragraph but two of the Circular. While the grant which it is proposed to fix for the year 1926–27 will be guaranteed as a minimum for not less than three years, it does not follow that the grant will necessarily be limited to that amount during each of the years falling within the programme period contemplated in Circular 1,358. I
    2494
    think, indeed, that Circular 1,371 makes it more, rather than less, necessary that local authorities and the board should review the whole field of their responsibilities, both as regards existing expenditure and as regards necessary new services, and I anticipate that the discussions which I have invited local authorities to hold with me in the immediate future will, in fact, be based upon the programmes which they have been engaged in preparing.
    Mr. COVE: Is it the intention of the Noble Lord to have a consultation with the local authorities individually, or in their collective capacity through their national organisations?
    Lord E. PERCY: In the first instance I have asked the three English national organisations and the Welsh national organisations to meet me collectively. Of course, I shall be consulting individual authorities.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this has an effect on Scottish education, will the Minister consider consulting the Scottish authorities?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, I have considered that, and I have consulted them.
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the Circular issued on the 25th November by the Board of Education to local education authorities, stating in effect that they proposed to abandon the method of awarding grants on the 50 per cent. basis, and that the Board had decided to award grants in future at the discretion of the Board, he will say when it is proposed to introduce legislation with a view to repealing the provisions with respect to grants contained in the Act of 1921; and what saving to the national Exchequer is anticipated?
    Lord E. PERCY: The legislation necessary for the introduction of a block grant system will be laid before the House at the earliest practicable date after Christmas. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Penistone, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. COVEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to reduce the grant to local

    2495
    education authorities by a sum of 30s. in respect of each child under the age of five years whose name appears on the school register on 31st March, 1925; and what sum he estimates the national Exchequer will save thereby?
    Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given to-day to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Herbert Williams).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this circular is likely to retard the building of new schools and retard the development of the mining districts.
    Lord E. PERCY: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's question, and, as he knows, I have been over the ground myself. I do not think that that will be the case, and I certainly do not intend that to be the case. He may rest assured that I am considering very closely the peculiar position of the West Riding.
    Mr. COVE: Will the noble Lord agree to withdraw this circular until he has considered all these relevant matters, and until he has consulted the representatives of the education authorities?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member seems very anxious that I should answer that question before the question on the same subject which is down on the Paper.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Board of Education have intimated to local education authorities that they propose to introduce a new code, he will say whether the regulations under this code will be confined to the minimum requirements for the purpose of grant; and whether he can state what are the minimum requirements which he contemplates embodying in the regulations?
    Lord E. PERCY: The Board are reviewing all their regulations, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the form and contents of the revised code.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the importance of Circular No. 1,371, will the Minister consider laying the contents of that circular in the form of a White Paper?
    Lord E. PERCY: Copies of the circular have been in the Vote Office for the last two or three days, and if there are not sufficient there I will see that more are provided.
    Mr. COVE: Does the phrase "minimum requirements" mean that there is an intention to limit the curriculum, scope and functions of elementary schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, on the contrary. I hope to have a great deal less interference with the curriculum by the central authorities than in the past.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Will the light hon. Gentleman also put into the Vote Office the explanations which he has issued from day to day to the newspapers as to what the circular means?
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that his recent Circular on education finance has caused considerable alarm amongst local education authorities on the grounds that, if its proposals are carried out, either the present standard of education must be reduced or an additional burden will be placed on the local rates; and, with regard to the proposed reduction in the grant for children under five years of age, will he consider the possibility of exempting industrial areas from this change?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member may rest assured that I am in close touch with local authorities. In reply to the second part of the question, I can only say that I shall be ready to discuss the details of the new proposals in their application to the area of any particular authority.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Education if, considering the effect of the Circular 1,371 issued by his Department on the education of young children, he will withdraw the Circular until such time as the House may have an opportunity of considering the questions involved?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. The fact that in Circular 1,371 I have asked for

    2497
    the advice of local authorities on its contents is the best guarantee that the problems indicated by the hon. Member will be fully considered.

    ADULT EDUCATION (TUTORS).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education how many, at present, full-time and part-time tutors, respectively, are engaged in adult education outside universities for which the Board of Education accepts financial responsibility; the number of men and women students receiving tuition from these tutors; and an analysis of the subjects taught; and whether he has any plans for the extension of this work?
    Lord E. PERCY: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The reply is as follows:
    During the 12 months which ended on the 31st July last, 613 tutors were engaged in local classes recognised by the Board under the Adult Education Regulations. I understand that 20 were staff tutors.
    The numbers of students were:

    Men

    12,861

    Women

    9,592

    Total

    22,453

    The subjects taught have been analysed as follows:

    Number of classes.

    1. Economics (including industrial history and geography)

    313

    2. Literature and language

    243

    3. History

    108

    4. Sociology

    105

    5. Æsthetics (music, art, drama)

    99

    6. Philosophy

    97

    7. Natural science

    28

    8. Other subjects

    5

    998

    The Board are providing for an increase of 467 classes during the 12 months ending 31st July, 1926. As regards future years, I am at present in consultation with the responsible bodies.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES (BURNHAM SCALE).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the policy of the Government to see that all local education authorities pay their teachers in accordance with the Burnham scale of salaries; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to ensure this being done?
    Lord E. PERCY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my published letter of 15th June last to Lord Burnham, and as regards the second part, to my reply of 26th November to the right hon. Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Trevelyan), a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he proposes to take these steps?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not think I can make any announcement on that subject. At least as everyone who is in touch with this question knows, I have ever since the Burnham Award been taking steps of this kind.
    Mr. CHARLES CROOKasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board accepted the allocation of scales of salaries to local education authorities which were agreed by the Burnham Committee; whether Essex was allocated Scale III in the schedule of such scales; and whether he has proposed that allocation should be varied without reference to the arbitrator or the Burnham Committee?
    Lord E. PERCY: As regards the first part of the question, the Board accepted the allocation of scales for the purpose of their recognition for grant of the expenditure involved thereby. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is that I made no such proposal, as I was only concerned to determine whether the action taken by the authority was or was not so unreasonable as to call for any adjustment of the grant.
    Mr. COVE: Is that decision not a violation of an arbitral award arrived at by agreement? And I would like to ask whether the Government is now going to support decisions of an independent arbitrator such as Lord Burnham?
    Lord E. PERCY: My decision was one taken on my responsibility to this House for the distribution of grants to local authorities voted by this House, and anything I do in discharge of that responsibility cannot be a violation of an arbitral award.
    Mr. COVE: When an award is arrived at by a process of arbitration, should it not be put into effect?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member knows that, or should know, as I have already stated that I have consistently taken steps to that effect ever since the award was issued.
    Mr. PALINasked the President of the Board of Education why he has advised the local education authority for Essex and the teachers of the county to enter into local negotiations to determine their scale or scales of salaries, having regard to the fact that Lord Burnham's arbitral award was accepted by the Board of Education and is of national application?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have nothing to add to my published letter to the authority.
    Mr. PALINasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has recommended the local education authority for Essex and the teachers to consider a settlement of their salary dispute on the basis of more than one scale for the area; and, if so, whether there is any provision in Lord Burnham's arbitral award of the agreement between the two panels of the Standing Joint Committee on the Salaries of Teachers for such an arrangement?
    Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the first, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given to-day to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Mr. Charles Crook).

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the parallel existence of separate Departments for the administration of war pensions, old age pensions, and
    2500
    widows', orphans' and old age contributory pensions; and whether he will consider the amalgamation of these separate services under one Department with a view to economy?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): These three pension systems are being administered under wholly different sets of Regulations and, apart from the actual process of payment, which is already being carried out in all three cases by the Post Office, I am inclined to doubt whether amalgamation in one Department would lead to any economy. The suggestion will, however, be borne in mind.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE ECONOMIES).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the nature and extent of the administrative economies which the Board are undertaking in their own administration, as stated in Circular 1,371?
    Lord E. PERCY: The details of the proposals in question are still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject, beyond that contained in the Circular itself.

    CUSTOMS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any increase in the number of men employed in Customs work since March last; and whether any men have been lent for this work by other Departments; and, if so, how many?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 23rd July last and the 24th November. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    INSPECTORS OF TAXES' OFFICES (GRADING).
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that numbers of writing assistants and shorthand-typists employed in the offices of the inspectors of taxes are engaged from time to time

    2501
    on work appropriate to the tax-clerk grade without additional payment; and whether he will look into the position with a view to the proper grading of the work concerned and the payment of acting allowances to members of lower grades employed thereon?
    Major HENNESSY: I understand that the nature of the duties appropriate to these classes and actually performed by individual members of them is the subject of an inquiry recently instituted by the Inland Revenue Departmental Whitley Council. A report will be made in due course to the council, but from the nature of the inquiry some time must elapse before the investigation is complete. In the meantime I must not, of course, be taken as assenting to the hon. Member's statement.

  POOR LAW.

    CASUAL WARDS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether his inspectors exercise their powers of inspecting the casual wards of workhouses; and whether he can inform the House of the reports made by his inspectors of casual wards occupied by casual paupers at the time of inspection?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 26th November.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report by Mr. Frank Gray upon the casual wards of certain workhouses; and whether he will inform the House as to the nature of the report and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Devon-port on the 1st December last.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether officials from his Department have inspected the casual wards of the workhouses in the County of Oxford in recent times; when they did so; and whether he is satisfied with their condition and conduct?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The inspections have been made at various dates within the last 12 months. I am not in all cases satisfied with the condition and conduct of the wards, and, where necessary, the matter has been brought to the notice of the guardians with a view to securing improvement.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about this matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is the first step and I will see what happens after that.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to state whether he considers the present dietary scale prescribed for men and women who become inmates of casual wards is sufficient for the maintenance of normal health and strength adequate to enable such persons to perform manual work?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the dietary in question is sufficient for the purpose mentioned.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health the number of casual and tramp wards in England and Wales; the number of inspectors, including women inspectors, whose duty it is to visit such institutions; and the number of visits expected to be paid to each ward during the course of the year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are 527 casual wards in use in England and Wales. The total number of general, assistant and women inspectors whose duties include the visitation of these wards is 36. There is a rule that every such ward shall be inspected at least once a year, but in many unions, especially during the last two years, inspections have been more frequent.
    Mr. J. JONES: Are they inspected during the night?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Occasionally they are.

    GUILDFORD INFIRMARY (NURSES' RESIGNATIONS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the conditions existing at the infirmary of the Guildford Union;

    2503
    whether he is aware that 15 of the nursing staff resigned during August and September this year; that six are under compulsory resignation now; and that five have tendered their resignations in sympathy with their colleagues; and will he consider the holding of an inquiry by an inspector of the Ministry at an early date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. Member has been misinformed. Certain changes in the staff of this infirmary are necessitated by its conversion into a training school for nurses. The total number of nurses who have left, or received notice on this account, is 12. One, in addition, has been dismissed for insubordination. I see no grounds at present for the holding of such inquiry as is suggested.
    Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago an inquiry was held, and that the conditions then found to exist have not been improved upon; and that in the case of these resignations the nurses have no remedy unless the Minister orders some inquiry to be made?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member must be entirely misinformed as to the reason for the resignations, which is that this institution is being converted into a training school for nurses.
    Mr. HAYES: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with information that the case is otherwise, will he do his best to have the matter reconsidered and an inquiry held?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall certainly be prepared to look into any representation that the hon. Member may make.

    RELIEF LOANS (DEDUCTION FROM WAGES).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that workmen who have contracted loans with boards of guardians, as a form of relief, are having deductions made from their wages; and will he consider legislation with a view to bringing this practice to an end?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Section 69 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, expressly authorises this method of recovery of relief advanced on loan, and, though I
    2504
    am not aware that extensive use is now made of the powers given by the Section, I am not at present aware that there are good grounds for the introduction of amending legislation.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it permissible that a deduction should be made from a man's wages at the source in respect of whatever sums he may previously have received as loans during a period of unemployment and distress?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Is not this practice a violation of the Truck Acts?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; it is in accordance with Section 69 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Are not the Truck Acts later than that?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Act I have quoted has not been repealed.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the considerable number of complaints with regard to this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries of the boards of guardians and see to what extent this practice is being carried on at the present time?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member would desire that, in lieu of this practice, these people should be taken into the County Court. That is the alternative.

  HOUSING.

    BRITISH BRICKS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Minister of Health whether British bricks are always specified for Government works and housing schemes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As details of local authorities' housing schemes are not submitted for my approval I have no knowledge whether British bricks are always specified. I may mention that the Government have urged local authorities to arrange that all contracts for or incidental to works carried out by them should in the absence of special circumstances, be placed in this country. As regards Government works I would suggest that the hon. Member should

    2505
    address a question to the Ministers of the Departments which let contracts for works.
    Captain GEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to withdraw the grant unless local authorities use British goods?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no power to do that under the Act.
    Captain GEE: Will you amend the Act?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he can give an estimate of the production of bricks this year, in continuance of the estimate for 1924 given on 15th December, 1924?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Returns which have been obtained by the Building Materials Committee indicate that the annual output of common building bricks in England and Wales is now about 5,115 millions.

    UNHEALTHY AREAS.
    Mr. GROTRIANasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities are being deterred from representing areas as unhealthy owing to the unfairness of paying nothing for buildings which in themselves are unexceptional, but which happens to be within an unhealthy area; and whether he will consider the repeal of Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925, and the putting into force of the recommendations of the Report of the Unhealthy Areas Committee, 1921?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot accept the suggestion made in the first part of the question that no compensation is paid for buildings which in themselves are unexceptionable. Payment on the basis of site value is prescribed by the Act for buildings which are included in a scheme on account of their sanitary condition or because the premises are dangerous or prejudicial to health. I am closely watching the operation of this section, but I am not in a position to make any statement as to future legislation at the present time.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: Was not the right hon. Gentleman himself the Chairman of this Committee and does he not think that
    2506
    that is an additional reason for putting its admirable recommendations into force?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not for gotten that.

    WEDNESBURY TOWN COUNCIL.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Health the number and area of suitable sites for the erection of municipal houses which exist within the Borough of Wednesbury; and, if not, will he invite the town council to make a survey with a view to such information being available?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for is not in my possession, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by my requesting the local authority to make a special survey of the kind suggested. The council have a certain amount of land in hand on which they propose to erect houses.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Health the nature of the difficulty which has delayed the erection of 30 houses by the Wednesbury Town Council on land situated in Holyhead Road; whether the difficulty has been surmounted; and, if not, what further action does he propose to take to ensure building operations being speedily commenced?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to my reply to a question asked by him on this subject on the 16th July. Since that date the Corporation have entered into a con tract for the erection of 18 houses on the Holyhead Road site, of which a number has already been commenced. I do not think there is any action which I can usefully take in the matter.
    Mr. SHORT: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first part of my question, which he certainly did not answer some weeks ago, as to what was the nature of the difficulty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find that in my previous answer.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of new

    2507
    houses erected by the Brierley Hill Urban District Council, Rowley Regis Urban District Council, Quarry Bank Urban District Council, Amblecote Urban District Council, and Kingswinford Rural District Council, and by private enterprise, respectively, since 31st March, 1925, to date?

    NUMBER OF HOUSES COMPLETED.

    —

    With State Assistance between 31st March and 1st November, 1925.

    By Private Enterprise without State Assistance during 6 months ended 30th September, 1925.

    By Local Authorities.

    By Private Enterprise.

    Brierley Hill Urban District

    …

    57

    —

    2

    Rowley Regis Urban District

    …

    8

    8

    —

    Quarry Bank Urban District

    …

    —

    —

    —

    Amblecote Urban District

    …

    —

    6

    1

    Kingswinford Rural District

    …

    —

    5

    3

    BUILDING (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the total number of houses built in England and Wales without public assistance during the six months ended 30th September, 1925?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A few returns are still outstanding, but an estimate based on the returns already received shows that some 32,400 houses were built in England and Wales without State assistance during the half-year ended 30th September last.

    ISLE OF WIGHT.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Health whether the two complaints sent in this year with regard to housing accommodation on the part of the rural district council of the Isle of Wight were made by the Isle of Wight Committee of the Agricultural Workers' Union; whether copies of all correspondence between his Department and the local authority have been sent to the complainant Justice; and if, in view of the fact that the two previous statutory complaints sent in on behalf of that committee were found on investigation to be justifiable, he is prepared to order a further investigation in response to these fresh complaints?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am arranging for the statement asked for by the hon. Member to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The following table shows the number of houses completed in each district since 31st March, 1925:
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The complaints referred to were made by a Justice of the Peace, who stated that he was acting on behalf of the body mentioned. I do not think it necessary to send copies of all correspondence with the local authority to the complainant. I am pressing the council to expedite their scheme for the erection of houses, but I do not consider that there would be any advantage in a further investigation at the present time.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical officer's report for this area covering the year 1924 showed that there were then more houses out of repair than there were in 1923, and that generally he reports a, very deplorable state of things in this area; and will the right hon. Gentleman look through that report and press for further investigation in this area?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have looked through the report, and I am satisfied that very considerable improvement has taken place. So long as that improvement continues to take place, I do not think it is necessary to make further investigations.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a proof of improvement that there were considerably more houses out of repair in 1924 than in 1923?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the only thing in the report.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENTERTAINMENT RATE).
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Health if he will give the name of each town of the country which possesses by legislation power to raise money for entertainment purposes above the statutory rate of one penny, and indicate the adopted rate in each case, as well as the amount of money which is raised by the entire rate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The answer is as follows:
    Since 1900 the following places have obtained by legislation power to raise

    Borough or District.

    Purpose under which Expenditure on Entertainments is included in the Returns.

    Expenditure falling on Rates for purposes specified in Column 2.

    Amount in the £ of Rate levied to meet Expenditure.

    1

    2

    3

    4

    £

    d

    Bath

    Hot mineral baths and entertainments

    5,898

    3·5

    Bexhill

    Provision of music

    660*

    1·0

    Folkestone

    Bands

    1,400

    l·2†

    Lytham St. Anne's

    Municipal orchestra

    911

    1·0†

    Morecambe (l925–26)

    Entertainments, undertaking and advertisements.

    2,800

    6·8

    Southend-on-Sen

    Public bands

    3,900

    1·2

    Tunbridge Wells

    Public bands

    1,530

    1·1†

    Erith

    Bands

    215*

    0·3

    * Column 3.—Calculated from amount in Column 4.

    † Column 4.—Calculated from amount in Column 3.

    INFANTS (MEDICAL WELFARE).
    Colonel DAYasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that no provision exists for the medical welfare of children over two years of age and under five years; and, in view of the danger of children between these ages being exposed to the risk of preventible diseases, will he cause arrangements to be made in order to close the present gap?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The arrangements made under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act do not exclude any category of children below school age, and my Department loses no opportunity of impressing upon the local authorities in charge of maternity and child welfare schemes the importance of maintaining a continuous supervision over children up to the age at which they attend school.
    money for entertainment purposes in excess of a rate of one penny in the pound, viz.: the boroughs of Aberystwyth, Bath, Bexhill, Bridlington, Chesterfield, Dewsbury, Folkestone, Hartlepool, Hastings, Hornsey, Lytham St. Anne's, Morecambe, Oldham, Ramsgate, South-end-on-Sea, Tunbridge Wells and Worthing, and the urban districts of Clacton, Erith, Exmouth, Filey, The Matlocks and Whitby. The following statement shows, as regards certain of the places, the amount of expenditure on entertainments falling on rates in 1924–25, and the corresponding amount in the pound of the rate for the purpose. As regards the other places, the returns made to my Department do not distinguish the expenditure on entertainments.

    MEDICAL REGISTER (DR. WILLIAM LLOYD).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the General Medical Council in striking off the medical register one of its members for what is described as infamous conduct in a professional respect; whether he is aware that the General Medical Council is now composed wholly of medical members; and whether, seeing that the statute does not require that the General Medical Council should be composed exclusively of medical men, he will in nominating members of the council take steps to add members representing the public?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first and second questions is in the

    2511
    affirmative, except that the practitioner to whom I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to refer was not a member of the General Medical Council. The answer to the third question is that members of the council other than those representing certain bodies specified in the Acts are nominated by His Majesty with the advice of his Privy Council. The Minister departmentally responsible is the Lord President of the Council.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no appeal whatever against the punishment inflicted by the Council, and will he, therefore, set up a Committee to investigate the procedure of the Council and its relation to modern usage and methods?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not worth while taking steps to make the Trade Disputes Act apply to these people?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the answer to the first supplementary question is that I am not the Minister departmentally responsible.
    Sir W. de FRECE: May we ask who is the Minister responsible?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said in my answer that it is the Lord President of the Council.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who represents the Lord President of the Council in this House?
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the action of the General Medical Council in removing the name of Dr. William Lloyd from the register of medical practitioners for having given treatment to certain patients; and whether he will consider the necessity of introducing legislation restricting the power of the General Medical Council to strike off the medical register the names of practitioners who have not been proved to be guilty of actual misconduct and giving him power to replace on such register the name of any person which, in his opinion, has been capriciously or unreasonably removed?
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I have consulted my Noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council on this matter, as responsibility rests with him
    2512
    and not with me. The name of Mr. William Lloyd was not, as I understand it, removed from the Medical Register by the General Medical Council for having given treatment to certain patients, but for having sought to obtain patients and promote his own professional advantage by unprofessional methods. I am. furnishing my hon. Friend with a copy of the charge on which Mr. Lloyd was summoned to appear before the Council. In answer to the second and third parts of the question, I am advised that the General Medical Council have statutory power to direct the erasure from the Medical Register of the name of a practitioner who has been convicted in England or Ireland of any felony or misdemeanour, or in Scotland of any crime or offence, or has after due inquiry by the Council been judged to have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. I am further advised that there is no evidence that the Council have directed the erasure of the name of any practitioner without his having been thus convicted or thus judged after due inquiry to have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, as defined by Lord Justice Lopes, Lord Justice Davey and Lord Esher. In regard to restoration, it has been the practice of the Council to replace names on the Medical Register when they are satisfied that such a course will not be prejudicial to the public interest. My Noble Friend has no reason to believe that the Council has acted capriciously or unreasonably, and as at present advised does not consider that the introduction of further legislation is necessary, there being already power under the relevant Acts for the Privy Council to issue its directions to make good any defaults in practice of the General Medical Council.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we to understand from that reply that this is a penalty inflicted on Dr. William Lloyd for having acted as a blackleg to his trade union?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that questions which come within the purview of the Lord President of the Council are answered in this House by the Minister of Health, and, if not, to whom should we address questions affecting the public which can only be answered on behalf of the Lord President of the Council?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is that question addressed to me?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot answer it without notice. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it to me later, when I have had time to look into it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will raise it on Monday.

    SILK DUTIES.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for drawbacks or refunds on goods exported, made or partly made from real or artificial silk, have boon made up to the end of October; and what is the total amount of money repaid or paid over to exporters or traders by the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Payments of drawbacks in respect of exports of silk and artificial silk goods amounted to £56,424 up to 31st October last. I regret that I am unable to state the number of claims for drawback received up to the same date, as this figure could only be ascertained by detailed inquiry at Customs and Excise offices throughout the country.
    Mr. HARRIS: Am I right in assuming that there are a great number of small claims, and that the sums distributed are small sums paid to a great number of people, causing a lot of trouble and labour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member seems to have more information on the subject than I have.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a Gobelin tapestry imported by Messrs. Trollope and Colls, of London, has been held up at the port of Newhaven for several weeks by the Customs authorities, who now demand a duty of £270 13s. 1d., which they assert is a third of the total value of the tapestry; and, as the article contains only a few pounds of silk, what he proposes to do in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that it is not the case that this article
    2514
    has been held up by the Customs authorities for several weeks. It was not imported until the 11th November, and was not presented to the Customs until the 20th, when the officers were asked by the importer's agents what duty would be payable. The officers stated that the article was liable to duty at 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. Since then no action has been taken by the importer to clear the goods. If the importer desire to contest the charge to duty, it is open to him to appeal to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a document demanding that duty here now?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of that particular point, and, consequently, am not able to appreciate its significance, but I certainly propose to give my personal attention to the cases which have been raised in regard to works of art.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the imposition of a duty amounting to £270 odd on a few pounds of old French silk?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will, at the proper time, enter into a discussion of the actual working of this Act, but I say without any hesitation that in the months that have passed since the Act came into operation a number of subsidiary cases, which were not contemplated at the time the duty was put into force and could not have been foreseen, have arisen, and will, in my opinion, require comprehensive treatment before the next Finance Bill is passed.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does this mean that the Government are willing to put a tax on, say, masterpieces of painting, because they contain a few ounces of silk?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of luxury taxation—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now go into this large question.

    FIGHTING SERVICES (GREAT POWERS' EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. SHORTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total expenditure on military, naval, and Air Force services for 1919 to 1924,

    2515
    inclusive, by Great Britain, Germany, France, United States of America, and Japan, respectively?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I feel some doubt whether the information at my disposal will enable me to supply comparable figures, but I am having the matter looked into, and will communicate with the hon. Member in a few days.

    UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).
    Captain CAZALETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the difference would be in the amount which the British Government is due to pay to the United States of America this year if the British debt had been funded on the same terms as the American-Italian debt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the British debt to the United States of America had been funded on the same terms as the Italian debt to the United States Government, the amount payable by His Majesty's Government to the United States Government during the present year would be approximately $11 millions instead of $160 millions.

    CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS (RESIDENCE ABROAD).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of money paid in pension to Civil Service pensioners resident in foreign countries, and the number of such pensioners?
    Major HENNESSY (Lord of the Treasury): The number of such pensioners is 210, and the annual amount paid to them in pensions is £45,220.

    SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the exact total return which will be secured by a holder of 100 original war savings certificates who agrees to hold them for the extended period; how this compares with the return which would be secured by the same person selling and
    2516
    reinvesting in the new issue; and whether he will explain the reason for the difference?
    Major HENNESSY: As the reply is a long one, and contains a number of detailed figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    1. Each certificate increases uniformly in value by 1d. a month, which equals on 100 certificates £5 in the first year, £10 in the first two years, £15 in the first three years, and so on.
    The length of the extended period depends on the date of the certificate: for a certificate originally bought on 31st March, 1921, the maximum is one year; for a certificate originally bought on 31st March, 1920, it is two years, and so on. In the extreme case, rare in practice, of a certificate bought on or before 31st March, 1916, the maximum is six years, but a holder may desire and is entitled to cash his certificate at any time within that period.
    2. The current (third) issue of certificates increases in value by 3d. in the first year, and thereafter by 3d. every four months. If 100 certificates of the first series, which have been held for 10 years, are sold and the proceeds reinvested in the current issue, the investment increases in value in the first year by £2 0s. 6d. only; in the first two years, by £8 2s.; three, £14 3s. 6d.; four, £20 5s.; five, £26 6s. 6d.; six, £32 8s. It is evident that this would be an unsuitable scale for the extension proposals, the small increase in the first year acting as a serious deterrent. Moreover, conversion would not meet the case of holders of more than 307 certificates, since that number of ten-year certificates at 26s. gives the purchase price (£400) of 500 certificates of the current series. Under the plan actually adopted the holder can keep the full value of his certificates (£650) invested free of Income Tax.

    SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTES).
    Mr. T. KENNEDY(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Board of Trade officials at Manchester and

    2517
    Newcastle have approached the principal of the wireless training school at each of these places suggesting that students holding restricted wireless certificates should communicate with the local Board of Trade office as positions are available; whether he will state what positions are available; and whether it is a function of the Board of Trade to supply labour, efficient or otherwise, to shipowners or wireless companies during a trade dispute?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Board of Trade have no information as to the action stated to have been taken at Manchester and Newcastle. Their invariable rule is to maintain strict impartiality in trade disputes, and this is well understood by the local officers. I have telegraphed to the officers concerned for a report, and will inform the hon. Member as soon as I know what the facts are.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Did the right hon. Gentleman have timely notice of the question?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I first saw this question at ten minutes to two when the Cabinet adjourned.
    Mr. KENNEDY: May I ask if, in view of the regulation which restricts the engagement of unqualified wireless operators on vessels of 1,600 tons or over, the waiving of the regulation now applies to those operators engaged on vessels of that sort?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. KENNEDY: I will repeat it to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister state what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the present position of business and the desire of the Opposition that the Government should find time to discuss certain subjects in which they are interested, I am afraid I shall not be able to give the business for next week until to-morrow except to say that on Monday we shall proceed with the Safeguarding of Industries Resolutions.
Mr. MacDONALD: I am not sure that I quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman said. Does he propose on Monday to proceed with these Resolutions?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure until after to-night what stage we shall be taking.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: With regard to the Ways and Means Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he undertook to put the Resolution on the Paper for the convenience of Members. I observe that the Resolution on the Paper was put down in accordance with his promise the day before yesterday and appeared yesterday. It was then withdrawn and a new Resolution was put on the Paper this morning. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this is the last and final form in which they are to appear?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Perhaps I may answer that?
Captain BENN: No. On a point of Order. A Ways and Means Resolution, I submit, is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is always supposed that the Government is one and indivisible.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I really am not furnished with the details of this particular proposal and, unhappily, the Financial Secretary, who was dealing with this branch, is laid up by illness. Therefore I am not able to answer this question myself, but I will ask the House to accept the answer on my behalf from the President of the Board of Trade, who is fully acquainted with the details and with whose views on the matter I am in entire accord.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right in one sense. That is to say, the Resolution which is now on the Paper covers exactly the same articles as were included in the Resolution that was on the Paper yesterday, but there is a variation proposed in the rate of duty. I think it would be convenient if I were to deal with the proposals when we come to the Paper Resolution, and not to deal with them by question and answer at present.
Captain BENN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one further question, in view of the happy state of unity which appears to exist among members of the Government? May I ask whether, in accordance with the immemorial practice of this House, he intends to adorn our Debates this evening?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that it has been the immemorial practice of the Opposition to prescribe in advance what members of the Government should deal with any particular matter.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the Prime Minister say whether, when making his programme of time, he has made any provision for discussion of the Motion placed on the Paper by the right hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher) on the subject of the recently issued Education Circular?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think the answer to that question is comprised in the answer I have given to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Am I to understand that the Resolution which is down in the name of my right hon. Friend will be discussed according to arrangements made with the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is implied in what I said. I cannot state until to-morrow what will be the business for next week.
Motion made and Question put.
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 241: Noes, 129.

Division No. 453.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Greene, W. p, Crawford

Albery, Irving James

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Gretton, Colonel John

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Cope, Major William

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Applin, Colonel R V. K.

Couper, J. B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hammersley, S. S.

Balniel, Lord

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

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

Haslam, Henry C.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

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

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Berry, Sir George

Drewe, C.

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

Bethell, A.

Duckworth, John

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Betterton, Henry B.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Henn, sir Sydney H.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Blundell, F. N.

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Hilton. Cecil

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Elveden, Viscount

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

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

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

Brass, captain W.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Hopkins, J. W, W.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Everard, W. Lindsay

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Briscoe, Richard George

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

Buckingham, Sir H.

Fielden, E. B.

Huntingfield, Lord

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Finburgh, S.

Hurd, Percy A.

Bullock, Captain M.

Fleming, D. P.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

Caine, Gordon Hall

Forrest, W.

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Jacob, A. E.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Frece, Sir Walter de

Jephcott, A. R.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Ganzoni. Sir John

Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Gates, Percy

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Chapman, Sir S.

Gee, Captain R.

Lamb, J. Q.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Goff, Sir Park

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Clarry, Reginald George

Gower, Sir Robert

Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Grace, John

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Grant, J. A.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Pielou, D. P.

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Lumley, L. R.

Pilcher, G.

Templeton, W. P.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Macintyre, Ian

Preston, William

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

McLean, Major A.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir w. Mitchell

Macquisten, F. A.

Radford, E. A.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Raine, W.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Malone, Major P. B.

Ramsden, E.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Margesson, Captain D.

Remnant, Sir James

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Rice, Sir Frederick

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

Meyer, Sir Frank

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Rye. F. G.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Salmon, Major I.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Watts, Dr. T.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Wells, S. R.

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

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Savery, S. S.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Murchison, C. K.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Nelson, sir Frank

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

Wise, Sir Fredric

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

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

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Skelton, A. N.

Womersley, W. J.

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

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Nuttall, Ellis

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Oakley, T.

Smithers, Waldron

Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Pease, William Edwin

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Pennefather, Sir John

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Colonel Gibbs.

Penny, Frederick George

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

NOES.

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Scrymgeour, E.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

Hardie, George D.

Scurr, John

Ammon, Charles George

Harris, Percy A.

Sexton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hayday, Arthur

Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)

Baker, Walter

Hayes, John Henry

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Sitch, Charles H.

Barr, J.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Smillie, Robert

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, G. H.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Snell, Harry

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W,

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Briant, Frank

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Stamford, T. W.

Broad, F. A.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Bromfield, William

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Sutton, J. E.

Bromley, J.

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

Taylor, R. A.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Buchanan, G.

Kelly, W. T.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, T.

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

Clowes, S.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Cluse, W. S.

Kirkwood, D.

Thurtle, E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lansbury, George

Tinker, John Joseph

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lawson, John James

Townend, A. E.

Connolly, M.

Lee, F.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Cove, W. G.

Livingstone, A. M.

Varley, Frank B.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lowth, T.

Viant, S. P.

Dalton, Hugh

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

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

MacLaren, Andrew

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Day, Colonel Harry

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dennison, R.

March, S.

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

Dunnico, H.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Montague, Frederick

Weir, L. M.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Morris, R. H.

Westwood, J.

Fenby, T. D.

Murnin, H.

Whiteley, W.

Gillett, George M.

Naylor, T. E.

Wiggins, William Martin

Gosling, Harry

Palin, John Henry

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Greenall, T.

Paling, W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Potts, John S.

Windsor, Walter

Groves, T.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wright, W.

Grundy, T. W.

Ritson, J.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

Warne.

Question put, and agreed to.

WITHDRAWAL OF STRANGERS.

  OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I wish to raise a question and to obtain your general ruling, Mr. Speaker, relating to certain things which are done in this House, or may be done in the future, when a specific Motion is moved. Standing Orders 88 and 90, which I will not read, refer to the exclusion of strangers from Debates in this House. I wish to know from you, whether the terra "strangers" is to include officials of the House whose salaries come out of Votes of this House, who are sitting in this Chamber all the time that hon. Members are in this Chamber, whether the exclusion affects those officials, whether only a certain section of officials are affected, or all of them. I should like your ruling upon that point because, as the matter stands, I think it is in rather a vague position. When strangers are asked to leave this House, Peers who may be present in the Gallery are permitted to remain, and even ladies who are in the Ladies' Gallery need not withdraw unless they like, according to precedent in this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member's question has reference to the Official Reporter and his staff, and as to whether or not they stand in any different category from the representatives of the Press in the Gallery. I have looked into that matter, and can find no reason, as things at present stand, for making any differentiation. It seems to be quite clear that, if the House decide, or the Committee decide, that, strangers must withdraw, that must include the whole of the reporting staffs.
  Mr. MACLEAN: If the whole of the reporting staffs, including officials of this House, must retire, and if the term "strangers" includes all these reporters, then does not the term "strangers" include also the messengers who so about this House, to whom attention was drawn last night when they were moving about the House, and whom the Chairman stated were excluded from the term "strangers?" I have asked for your ruling on the point whether only one section of the officials of this House are to be classed in the term "strangers," and excluded, while another section is not to be excluded, and, if so, which section is to be included within the term
  2524
  "strangers" when strangers are again spied, and which section is not to be included in the term "strangers?" We can then have the matter cleared up.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I note that when Standing Order 90, which is the one relevant, was recently amended, making provision for members of the other House to be here, the other points were not dealt with and, therefore, the Chair is bound to go by the previous practice of the House. That, I think, must stand until the House itself decide on some change. It may be that the Standing Order should be reconsidered, but I do not express an opinion. The Standing Order is quite clear in itself, and its implications are bound up with the practice of the House, which goes back over a long period.
  Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Have you considered this aspect of the matter, that this House gave instructions that its proceedings shall be reported? In carrying out that instruction it employs servants. Are these servants, here by the instruction of the House, to be regarded as servants who are here because the House has endowed them with certain privileges?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That matter has been present to my mind. If the House had so intended when the duties of "Hansard" were taken over by the House, and performed by the Official Reporter and his staff, then a change ought to have been made in the Rules. That is why I suggest that there may be a case for a reconsideration of the present Standing Order.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw your attention to this point—that other officials were allowed to remain in the House, while certain officials were asked to withdraw? Standing Order 90 makes no reference to officials in general, to all officials, or to some officials, who may be asked either to withdraw or to remain when strangers are spied. All that the Standing Order refers to are "strangers," who must leave. What I wish to have made clear is whether all officials of this House are to be looked upon as strangers and, if so, why they should not all have to withdraw? If they are not all strangers, which section if officials of this House is to be looked upon as "strangers" and have to withdraw?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly, the intention of the House when the Standing Order was passed, and when it was amended was, that on such a Motion, the proceedings of the House should not be reported, and the change from "Hansard" to the Official Reporter and his staff has not affected that position, in the absence of any expressed instruction of the House. There the matter stands.
  Captain BENN: In the event of the Official Reporters withdrawing, in accordance with the Motion of the House, "That strangers do withdraw," what provision is made for a record of the formal proceedings of the House, the rulings from the Chair, and so forth? If you say that the Votes and Proceedings thereupon become the only official record of the proceedings of the House, may I ask whether there is any opportunity available for any hon. Member who wishes to suggest that they are not full, or that they are inaccurate, to raise the point?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Votes and Proceedings remain the only record of what has taken place. Of course, if any hon. Member represents to me that the Votes and Proceedings are inaccurate, I will certainly look into the matter.
  Captain BENN: I need hardly say that I am not impugning the accuracy of the Votes and Proceedings, but I am asking you what provision there is for taking an official record of the rulings of the Chair, which in secret Session assume an importance even greater than in public Session.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no record. That shows that the House ought to be a little careful about spying strangers.
  Mr. MACLEAN: May I put this further point to you? Are we to take it that, if any Messengers are to be seen in the Chamber, or if only the Official Reporters, during an all-night Sitting or at any other time, are seen in the Press Gallery reporting the Proceedings, any hon. Member can draw attention to the fact that there are strangers in the House, and have this Motion put?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is so. It is the ancient practice of the House. There were one or two Select Committees which in past years considered the question, and they declined to recommend any change in the practice.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I want to give notice that I shall raise this matter next week when the printed record of the Proceedings until the Press had to withdraw will be in the hands of Members.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Lieut.-Colonel the Right Hon. WALTER EDWARD GUINNESS, D.S.O., for the County of West Suffolk (Bury St. Edmunds Division).

  SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
  "That the period of suspension from the service of this House of Mr. William Murdoch Adamson do terminate this day."
  The House is well aware that, owing to a failure in the drafting of a Standing Order, whenever a Member has been suspended, he can be restored only by the vote of the House on the Motion of the Leader of the House, and the somewhat difficult and invidious duty is left to the Leader of the House, who must take into account all the circumstances of each individual case, and at the same time interpret, as he is best able, the feeling of the House, because this is essentially a matter for the whole of the House. I feel that I ought to begin by apologising to the House that I was not present when this unfortunate episode occurred, but I happened to be very much occupied in Conferences over Irish affairs and with regard to the reception of our foreign guests, who have now left the country. I hope to do better in future.
  I have been at pains to acquaint myself with the fact of what occurred, and I am quite clear in my own mind, and from my knowledge of the hon. Member himself, that this was not a case of premeditated infringement of the manners and customs of the House. I am quite convinced that it arose from one of those temporary losses of control which occur to most people and which most of us regret heartily as soon as the occasion has passed, I fancy, and I think his demeanour under his punishment was such, that we may feel that he at once felt the regret which he has very properly expressed in a letter. Therefore, it is my duty to-day—I may say my

  2527
  pleasure—to move this Motion, and I am quite sure that it will commend itself to the House. Before I sit down, I should like to say, although this has nothing to-do with the hon. Member, that the circumstances have carried in their train one question on which the Minister of Pensions would desire to make a personal statement, and I am sure that the House would be willing to hear him.
  Major TRYON: By leave, I would respectfully thank the House for the opportunity of making a personal explanation of the position. The case to which the hon. Member for Cannock endeavoured to draw attention on 1st December was that of a Mr. Birch, who had been in receipt of a pension of 12s. a week for himself and 3s. for his wife for eye troubles. As the result of an independent report from Mr. Birch's own doctor, an examination was held and he was found to be suffering from a serious disorder, which affected his mental condition, and this necessitated his certification as insane. To establish the connection between this fresh development and Mr. Birch's war service, naturally required careful investigation by the Ministry's medical advisers. A favourable decision, accepting the disability as aggravated by war service, was, however, arrived at on 19th November. Authority for payment of treatment allowance to Mrs. Birch was given on 24th November, and payment was actually received by her on 27th November at the full rate of 38s. 6d. per week. The above facts show that the statement in a Labour newspaper this morning, to the effect that the action of the Ministry was a sequel to the hon. Member's question on 1st December, is entirely untrue. On the contrary, the method of raising the question had actually the effect of preventing the Minister giving the facts to the House, as he could, and would have done, if he had been questioned in the usual way. I would add, in justice to the hon. Member that at the time he had not been informed by the Ministry that that was he case.
  Ordered, "That the period of suspension from the service of this House of Mr. William Murdoch Adamson do terminate this day."

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [No. 268.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1890, relating to Campbeltown Harbour and Gas." [Campbeltown Harbour and Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

  CAMPBELTOWN HARBOUR AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BTLL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of tli5-Workmen's Compensation Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 2nd December.]
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I beg to move:

  "GLOVES."
  "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:
  Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding;
  Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing."
  This Resolution relates to gloves, which have also been the subject of exhaustive examination by a Committee of Inquiry under the White Paper procedure. In one case, that of leather gloves, a great deal of the evidence was put forward by the Joint Industrial Council. The glove industry, as the Committee find and as common sense would dictate, really is one industry. The leather glove industry is one of the oldest in the country. The fabric glove industry is a new industry, a War and post-War industry. But, new as that industry is, it is interesting to see from the Report of the Committee that, as far as capacity goes, it has been making considerable progress. The Committee say in paragraph 8 of the Report:
  "We are satisfied, however, that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products during the past few years, and we are of opinion that the types of fabric gloves now produced in this country are fairly comparable in fit and finish with those at present manufactured abroad."
  That is an important finding, because it will be remembered that when this industry was discussed here some years ago there was a great deal of criticism of the
  2568
  industry on the ground that it was doubtful whether it had the capacity to turn out a suitable article, reasonably comparable with that of foreign competitors. To-day I do not believe that anyone has any doubt that the industry is fully capable of producing an article which compares favourably with that of any other country.
  Mr. P. HARRIS: In price?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that the hon. Member will let me develop my argument. I am speaking about quality, but I will come to price in a minute, and the hon. Member who, I am sure, has read the Report, will see that the whole Report shows that, in price, the British manufacturer cannot compete. The Committee will also remember that the applicants put forward a claim for a safeguarding duty, not only in respect of fabric gloves, but in respect of glove fabric also. The latter the Committee rejected on its merits, and no proposal relating to it figures in the Resolution. The Committee say in paragraph 12:
  "We have considered the question of glove fabric, and are of opinion that the Applicants have not established a claim for a duty. We are satisfied that British manufacturers can produce glove fabric comparable with that manufactured in Germany."
  They go on to say:
  "An additional reason for refusing the claim for a duty on glove fabric is that in the event of a duty being imposed on fabric gloves, employment is likely to be more substantially increased by permitting imports of fabrics to British glove manufacturers."
  I should say, in fairness, that one member of the Committee dissented from that finding, and the other two members were in favour of it. The Government did not feel justified in proposing a duty in the case of glove fabric.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: This is the first case where we have had a minority finding. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, as he attaches so much importance to the findings of the Committee, exactly what weight is to be attached to the finding of the minority member? Does that minority finding carry any weight with him at all, or no weight?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It depends entirely on circumstances. Generally the

  2569
  Report of a majority will carry more weight than a Report of a minority. As a vote of a majority carries more weight than a vote of a minority, one would certainly be called upon to justify by a full explanation the adoption of the proposals of a minority rather than the proposals of a majority. However, that does not arise here, because the Government accepted the proposal of the majority in this case. I am entitled to make this observation with regard to the findings. The fact that the Committee refused to recommend a duty on glove fabric is strong evidence of the thoroughness of the inquiry. One comes next to the question whether the industry is one of substantial importance. The leather glove industry employed over 10,000 people, and the fabric glove industry, while it used to employ a good many thousands, to-day employs only 1,800. The glove industry, taken as a whole, undoubtedly is an industry of substantial importance, and the Committee have so reported.
  Then we come to the question of com-petition. Both in regard to leather and fabric gloves the Committee report that the rate of imports is abnormal, and I think that on the facts which are set out in the Report there is no doubt that they were correct in that conclusion. The trade returns of imports since the time when the Committee reported show the tendency to abnormality, and they have been increasing and increasing considerably. The Committee draw attention, in paragraph 15 of the Report, to the tremendous increase of imports from Italy, and. to a much less degree, from France and Czechoslovakia. The Report was made some months ago. When one follows up the imports during more recent months, one finds that the imports of leather gloves have been at an even more excessive rate.
  For instance, if you compare June, 1925, with June, 1924, the figures are 115,000 dozen pairs, as against 71,000; in July, 99,000, as against 80,000; in August, 121,000, as against 79,000; and in September, 100,000, as against 96,000. If you take the imports up to date, in the first three-quarters of the year 1925, the total imports of leather gloves were 887,000 dozen, and if you assume from the increase of imports that there will be a similar rate for the remaining three
  2570
  months, you get a rate of 1,183,000 dozen gloves. Considering that, as the Committee found, the consumption of gloves has gone down since before the War, that shows that there is a steadily increasing and abnormal importation into this country. The Committee point out another aspect of their case which is very relevant. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said yesterday: "You have to look at the general trend in these matters." The Committee point out, in paragraph 18, that though the general consumption of gloves in this country has risen by 100 per cent. since 1920, the British manufacturer has only maintained his 1920 production. That is a very remarkable fact. The imports are still rising.
  Mr. SEXTON: If the imports are increasing, how can the right hon. Gentleman pretend to safeguard industry?
  Sir P. CUIMLIFFE-LISTER: Because I propose to put on a countervailing duty in order that the British industry may be able to compete on equal terms. The imports are progressively increasing, and if we were getting our fair share of the total trade in this country, we should be doing a great deal more than we were doing in 1920. If the House assents to this duty, I have no doubt that we shall in future years do a much larger proportion of the trade. The Committee considered quite properly whether the gloves which are coming in are, generally speaking, gloves which this country can manufacture, and they found that that is, generally speaking, true. In paragraph 19 the Committee report:
  "The evidence submitted to us indicated that there are many types of gloves imported which are not at present produced in this country, but we are satisfied that many of these were produced here before the War, and could be made to-day if the industry were safeguarded from unfair competition."
  Then the Committee reaffirmed that the importation is in abnormal quantities. They go on to consider fabric gloves and they say that this must be treated as a post-War industry—a very reasonable statement. I may remind the Committee in this connection of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) last night that we had to look not at 1913, but at the years after the War. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to that in all cases, but in the case of an industry

  2571
  which has developed during the War or which has been established during the War—a new industry—it is certain that what you have to look at is the general trend of the post-War years. The position was this: that in 1920 this industry which had built itself up during the War, was producing 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom consumption and the imports were 16 per cent. To-day the position is more than reversed, because in 1924 11·8 per cent. of the United Kingdom consumption was British manufacture, whereas 88·2 per cent. was foreign manufacture. The rapid rate of the increase in imports in this industry is shown in the tables in the Report up to the date at which the Committee was holding its investigation, but in the first period of this year no less than 1,730,000 dozens of these gloves were imported into this country as against 954,000 in 1924, which is a very excessive importation.
  Then we come to the question of prices. The committee find as a fact that the prices at which these gloves are being sold is in fact below the cost at which the British manufacturer can make them, and they find that these prices apply to gloves which are either directly competitive or are alternatives. They find, in paragraph 25, that unemployment in the industry is serious, is great, and is growing and they set out figures which show that to be the case.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: I thought that was denied.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it was not denied even by the opponents of the duty.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Do not the Government deny that there is an increase in unemployment?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The fact that trade is improving in other industries surely makes out all the stronger case for this industry. If, in spite of a rise in the trade barometer, this industry is still in a state of depression that is surely an additional reason for safeguarding it. With regard to the leather glove section, the Joint Industrial Council state that, whereas in 1913 there were 9,321 workers on full time, in 1924 that number had fallen to 7,032 who were only working 40 hours a week. That is borne out by the figures showing the number
  2572
  of apprentices in proportion to the number of cutters in the trade now, as compared with the period before the War. The figures in regard to fabric gloves are far worse. Whereas in the boom period of this industry about 11,000 people were employed, it has fallen to under 2,000 and the committee find that wages are lower in Italy, Germany, Belgium and France. They find in addition that longer hours are worked in those countries and that there is a much greater proportion of outworkers in the leather glove industry, which means that overhead charges are lower in Italy because the factories are proportionately smaller.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is that because Mussolini destroyed the trade unions?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that it has been the custom and the habit in Italy under the Socialist-Radical and Mussolini regimes. Whatever may be the cause, it is a fact which has a distinct relation to competition in this country. The Committee find that both leather and fabric glove industries are efficient and that a duty imposed upon cither leather or fabric gloves could not and would not injure any other industry. Obviously there is not an industry which uses gloves in its process of manufacture. They find on the other hand that the greater the production of gloves the more help is given to several subsidiary industries, such as box-making and button-making. It will be remembered that this duty was under consideration on a previous occasion, and the question was raised as to whether a duty on fabric gloves would not possibly inflict an injury on the Lancashire yarn trade. It was a remarkable claim, because it seems very obvious that the Germans bought yarn in Lancashire, not because of any peculiar wish to confer a favour upon Lancashire, but because it was the best yarn. Therefore it paid the Germans to buy it, and they were not likely to buy inferior yarn merely because their gloved were taxed. It was also pointed out that, in so far as gloves were going to be made in this country instead of in Germany, the yarn would be consumed here, and in so far as they were not made here the yarn would still be sold in Germany.
  The fear that the yarn trade would be affected has not been borne out by experience, because those who follow the

  2573
  general trend of exports in the cotton trade will have observed—and it is not a very satisfactory thing to observe—that whereas exports of piece goods are not at all on the scale on which they were before the War, it is the export of yarn of the finest kind, such as fabric glove yarn, which is the most successful branch of the Lancashire trade. I remind hon. Members of that fact because, although we went into it before and although the House of Commons then came to the conclusion that the fear expressed was groundless, experience has borne out the judgment which the House of Commons pronounced. The Committee considered whether a specific duty or an ad valorem duty should be imposed, and they came to the conclusion that an ad valorem duty was at once the fairest and most workable, and I am bound to say that all Customs experience confirms that view on both grounds. They say in the Report:
  "The Applicants both for leather and fabric gloves asked for a specific duty, but on carefully examining their proposals we have arrived at the conclusion that on account of the wide range of prices it would be extremely difficult to arrive at an equitable rate. … After an examination of the prices of many kinds of British and foreign leather and fabric gloves we consider that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would be reasonably sufficient to countervail the unfair competition. We therefore recommend that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem should be imposed for at least five years."
  I think that is a reasonable finding and after considerable consultation, I am advised that not only would a specific duty put a small tax on the most highly-priced article and a relatively large tax on the lower-priced article, but that if you were to try to make it proportionate you would have such a complicated duty that it would be almost impossible to administer it and in administration what you want is simplicity and speed. Therefore the Resolution proposes that the duty should be the ad valorem duty recommended by the Committee, and that it should apply to leather and fur gloves —fur gloves were treated throughout the inquiry as leather and they are always made of leather and fur—with the exception that it is not intended to tax-woollen gloves which only have leather bindings and trimmings or astrakhan gloves—gloves made from an imitation of astrakhan wool fabric.
  Captain BENN: Will motor-drivers' gloves be taxed?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-L1STER: If they are made of leather or of fur and leather, yes.
  Captain BENN: Will housemaids' gloves be taxed?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: it is also proposed to charge the duty on fabric gloves as recommended. The condition of this industry is well known to many hon. Members. In the case of leather gloves it is, as I say, an old established industry; in the case of fabric gloves the industry has built itself up recently and has been progressing and making itself more efficient. I submit that a clear case has been made out in respect of both classes of gloves and that the Committee should pass the Resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed further it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something as to these Amendments and as to the course I suggest. It will be remembered that yesterday, on an Amendment as to duration, I allowed a general discussion, not only on the particular Resolution then before the Committee, but on all the Resolutions. Of course, that ruling will not apply on the present occasion, and if I call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others, to leave out "during a period of five years" and insert "for a period of twelve months," the discussion would have to be limited to the question of duration. Lower down on the Paper the Committee will note that there are two Amendments, one to leave out lines 5 to 7 and the other to leave out lines 8 to 10. These lines refer to the different classes of gloves, and I suggest that on the first of these Amendments a general discussion should be taken and that, as has often been done before, there should be separate Divisions on the two Questions.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think we might agree with the suggestion which you, Sir, have made, on condition that the discussion of these other Amendments is not altogether prohibited, but that you will allow at least some discussion on them.

  2575
  The Chairman said just now there should be two separate Divisions. I assume he did not mean to exclude discussion?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I also point out the disadvantage the Committee will be under if the suggestion you, Sir, have made, be adopted? The President of the Board of Trade has quite rightly taken the opportunity to make a general statement on the whole question of the new duty to be imposed on leather and fabric gloves. If there is to be no general reply until we come to the last two Amendments on the Paper, it may mean that the general reply cannot be given, perhaps, until early to-morrow morning, and there will be no record outside this House of the discussion that has taken place, and it does put those who are criticising the duty under a very grave disadvantage. May I also, with due respect, suggest to you that when you say we might have a general discussion on the last two Amendments, the general discussion should be permissible on these without any special privilege granted to us from the Chair. It is necessary that we should, as far as possible, deal with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade at the earliest possible moment. For that reason I hope you will not rule too harshly the limits under which the discussion may take place on the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
  The CHAIRMAN: There are two principles I have to bear in mind. The first is that there cannot be the same discussion on two different Amendments, and the other is that I can only allow a general discussion on a specific Amendment which does not cover the whole field, by general consent. I should not mind if there were a general discussion on the first Amendment, but if that be so, I should have to confine the discussion on the two last Amendments to the differences between the two different kinds of gloves, and the incidence of the duties on them in particular. But if it be the general wish and for the convenience of the Committee that we should take the general discussion on the first Amendment, I am quite ready to meet the general convenience.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope the Committee will adopt the view you have just
  2576
  explained. In that case, may I take the opportunity of moving the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Before that is done, may I ask when there will be an opportunity of discussing the proposals as a whole? Supposing there were no Amendments moved, and the right hon. Gentleman moved this Resolution, I take it we would be able to discuss it as it stands I want to ask whether Members will have the opportunity of discussing the proposals without being obliged to move an Amendment?
  Captain SHAW: Will that not mean a general discussion on the Resolution now, and then a general discussion on the first half and a general discussion on the second half? Could not both be discussed at the same time?
  The CHAIRMAN: That was my suggestion, but I cannot waive the rule of Order except by general consent. if there were no Amendments, we could forthwith have a discussion on the Resolution, but, as I pointed out yesterday, that is a very unsatisfactory procedure where there are any Amendments, because at any moment an Amendment may be moved, and that would limit the discussion. I want to suggest some form to meet the general convenience.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It seems to me a rather immaterial point on what Amendment a general discussion takes place, but I quite see the point raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) that it would be better if we could have the general discussion first, because if Amendments are moved on which a general discussion is not permitted, I am afraid the speakers will find a good deal of difficulty in keeping strictly in order. I have, therefore, no objection to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Swansea.
  The CHAIRMAN: I will take it that that suits the convenience of the Committee.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Do I take it that on the first Amendment we could discuss the proposal as a whole?
  The CHAIRMAN: That would be so.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "during a

  2577
  period of live years," and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of twelve months."
  In moving this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I may, perhaps, be allowed to make some general observations on this duty. The first observation I desire to make is that we must note once more the absence of any representative of the Treasury.
  Sir P. CUNL1FFE- LISTER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an explanation at Question time this afternoon that he was unable to be present owing to important negotiations which he has in hand. The Financial Secretary is ill in bed.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited for a moment, I should certainly have expressed sympathy with the Financial Secretary. We all know what he has been through in recent times, and nobody in this House has a larger need of our sympathy. But I cannot help pointing out that there is no representative of the Treasury, and that, again, is a departure from the precedent of three generations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite true, has other important work elsewhere, but none of his work anywhere transcends the importance of his work in the House of Commons, and if it be inconvenient that his work elsewhere should lie on one side, then the Order Paper of the House should have been amended, and the subject put off until a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was free. I am afraid I do not see any attempt on the part of the Government to make arrangements to facilitate his presence here, for a very obvious reason. It is well known the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not sympathise with Protection, and, what is more, he has expressed himself so strongly in recent years on the subject, that I must remind the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues of exactly what was said about his proposals, even so recently as the year 1923. In dealing with some of the proposals then before them, he pointed out how foolish he thought the Protectionist doctrines. He talked about the tendencies, which are obviously present in the minds of the President of the Board of Trade and other Protectionists,
  2578
  of the constantly flowing stream of imports into this country, and he used, amongst other things, this rather characteristic sentence. He said:
  "The Protectionists see the river flowing to the ocean. They wonder anxiously how long will it be before the earth is all drained up."
  And then he went on to say to his hearers in Leicester—this was in 1923—
  "His advice to his hearers is to pause before they adopt any of these half-baked, ill-thought-out adventurous schemes. The idea that unemployment is caused by foreign imports is absurd."
  It is with that evidently ringing in his ears still, but I have no doubt with a warm place in his heart, he finds it inconvenient to be here to support the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to get up at Question time and say he accepts everything the President says. If he does accept everything the President says, then I congratulate the President on having made a very distinguished convert. But there are a great many Members on his own side of the House who are not quite sure of his conversion, who are not quite sure of their man, and one reason why the President of the Board of Trade has to deal with this matter, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it obviously is, is that they know the President is a sincere Protectionist, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been everything by turn except a Protectionist.
  This matter cannot be dealt with merely on the merits of whether leather gloves are more worn or less worn, or whether fabric gloves are imported in larger or less quantities, or whether the Bolton spinners are to find their consumers here or in Chemnitz. The question is whether or not we are to have our Revenue used mainly for trade purposes, and not for Revenue purposes. The object of this duty is not to add to the Revenue. If it were, this would have been the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is because the right hon. Gentleman hopes there will be no revenue from it, and that it will keep foreign goods out of the country, that he is advocating this duty to-day. But it is none the less a Revenue Measure, and one which is likely to bring far less to the Exchequer than it will extract from the consumers of these arti-

  2579
  cles. As my hon. Friend pointed out on the Resolution relating to cutlery yesterday, the amount coming into the Treasury will be a trivial sum compared with the rise in price that these duties will bring about. The tendency, therefore, of this financial arrangement is to place a burden on the subject here out of all proportion to the revenue gained to the Exchequer. The matter of the volume of trade is one which the President has gone into this afternoon, and the Committee will observe that in arguing these cases, there is no one standard to apply to all of them. For instance, the figures of 1913 are not to be taken as the standard for each one of the five duties. That is not convenient. The year 1913 is inconvenient for one, so the year 1920 has to be taken. The year 1920 is inconvenient for others, so they revert again to 1913.
  5.0 P.M.
  There is no recognised standard. There is a jockeying of the dates. The standards are put up or down simply to suit the argument that has to be faked in order to make out a case for these separate articles. The case that is made for the glove industry as to abnormal imports is one of the thinnest of the whole lot. If 1913 be taken, it is a very remarkable fact that the present foreign imports into this country are far less than in 1913. It is quite true there are fewer gloves being worn in this country than in 1913, but import duties or the absence of them have nothing to do with that. One reason why people did without gloves during the War was that they were far too dear, and there was a considerable change even in the habit as to the carrying of gloves during that period. It has nothing to do with whether they were foreign or British commodities. These abnormal quantities, which appear to be the only justification the Committee could find for placing an import duty on these gloves, can only be reached by using the year 1920. If the year 1913 be taken, the whole case breaks down. Let the Committee realise what this means. It means that an industry of this kind, and the users of the commodity, are to be the victims, not of a great change in policy, not of the adoption of one set of great principles or another. They are to be the victims of a choice between one year and another, whether 1913 or 1920. Surely a move flimsy ground on which to base
  2580
  a change in the custom of our finance, in the price to consumers could scarcely be conceived. The mere choice of one year or another is to decide the whole thing. The President of the Board of Trade goes through the Reports, and he adopts throughout the findings of the Committee I am afraid that is not likely to bring conviction to the minds of people who like myself, realise how the Committee is composed. I have the greatest respect for my friend, Sir Charles Stewart, but he has always been a convinced Protectionist. The other members of the Committee are not people of impartial mind at all. I must say that the lady who was a member of the Committee seemed to take a far wider view of British industry than her two colleagues, for she was wise enough to suggest that if you put import duties on fabric gloves, you should at least protect the interests of others who are supplying the raw material for these industries, and insist on making provision for these industries. Whenever we embark on one of these experiments of imposing a duty in the direction of helping one industry, you injure some other industry.
  The fact is you are distributing your benefits without any equitable ground whatever, and that is done partly because the organisation of the particular industry concerned is good, partly because it has advocates who state its case effectively, partly because owing to the luck of the last General Election the President of the Board of Trade happens to be a Protectionist, partly because he sticks to his principles and selects a Protectionist committee to deal with this trade which seeks to get an advantage.
  Let us look at the direction from which the danger is coming. It does not appear yet to have come in any great volume from Germany, though I presume that-German gloves will be one of the topics which the President of the Board of Trade will have to discuss once more with the representative of Germany when he is dealing with the German Treaty. In 1924 Germany sent us 34,600 dozen pairs of leather gloves as compared with 341,000 dozen pairs of leather gloves in 1913. France in 1913 sent us 466,000 dozen pairs, and in 1924 the figure dropped to 210,000 dozen pairs. The imports from Austria

  2581
  and Hungary have almost disappeared. Yet in 1913 they sent us 369,000 dozen pairs. That is qualified by the fact that there has been an increase in imports from Czechoslovakia, but since the War the imports from Czechoslovakia have risen to only 115,000 dozen pairs. The total for all three countries is less than one-third of the amount sent by Austria and Hungary before the War, and Austria and Hungary are sending practically nothing now. There is a very large increase in the quantity of gloves sent from the United States of America and from some of the other foreign countries, including Italy. The whole case for this proposal is based on Italy and practically on nothing else.
  It cannot be based on the United States of America. No representative of the Board of Trade would suggest that wages in the United States of America are lower than in Great Britain or that the American exchange is depreciated. It is impossible to say that the burdens thrown on American manufacturers are less than those thrown on manufacturers in this country, so that a case cannot be made against the United States. You cannot base the case on Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia because the volume of business is down and not up. It cannot be based on France because the imports from France are less than half what they used to be. It cannot be based on Germany because the imports from Germany are only about one-tenth of what they were. It can only be based on Italy. So the whole of this proposal is really aimed against Italy. The case against Italy is not enough to justify a general tariff. This is a general tariff. It applies to all countries. It is remarkable to find the President of the Board of Trade taking the line now that because there is, according to his ideas, a case against Italy, therefore we should apply the duties to all the other countries to which not one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper can be applied.
  There is another aspect of the matter which we did not discuss yesterday, and which ought to be brought to the mind of the President of the Board of Trade. That is, the effect of the accumulation of small duties upon the rapidity with which our trade can be
  2582
  done. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that one effect of the silk duties has been to choke up many of the warehouses of the Port of London. One thing that has been the making of the Port of London has been the rapidity with which cargoes can be shipped and transhipped. Now this is interfered with because the Customs authority find it so difficult to get through all the goods that have to be examined, and large numbers of bales of goods are being held up, to be subjected to examination, and the warehouses are chock full of goods which cannot be moved so rapidly. In Manchester and Liverpool exactly the same thing is taking place. You have got the same thing at Hull, and yet there is no representative of the Customs present to tell us anything about it. It is the business of some representative of the Treasury. We might have had at least the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to let us know about this and explain to us how the Customs have been running during the last 12 months.
  The right hon. Gentleman is going to put sand into the machinery of trade. He is going to impede trade. Whatever little benefit may be done to the individual trade by the proposed duty, the fact is that every one of these duties will have the disadvantage of adding to the friction of trade as a whole. I am not thinking merely of a few bales of gloves being held up, but of all the rest of the goods which are held up behind them. These proposals taken as a whole, in conjunction with the silk duties embodied in the last Budget, have done a great deal to necessitate an additional amount of working capital being incorporated into every business. You cannot have goods lying waiting for months without having a large amount of working capital with which to handle them. The proper direction to take, both by the President of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, is to facilitate transfer of every kind and the exchange of commodities with the greatest possible rapidity. That higher speed would add to the prosperity of this country far more than the cumulative effect of all these duties, and achieve what is in the minds of a great many people who do not care a. fig about cutlery, gloves or anything else, but who

  2583
  are anxious for a large turnover of our trade as rapidly as possible.
  I object to these duties as a whole. The whole tendency of this policy is to turn the mind of the business men, the manufacturer, away from the vital matters of their industry. They are being taught not to think of keeping back a large amount of their profits to add to the capital expenditure on their works. They are not being encouraged, under this scheme, to renew their machinery. There is no incentive under any of these arrangements to incorporate into their staff in their partnerships and as directors or managers the very best brains they can buy. They are told that the difficulties and deficiencies can be made up by import duties. They are practically being invited not to deal with the real fundamentals of a successful business but to go to the Board of Trade with a specially prepared brief, and press on the President by every means in their power that they want to get assistance through import duties. Then the next thing which they have to do is not once more to improve their machinery, to get the best tools that the world can produce, but to get hold of the best counsel which money can buy in the Temple, and then they have to come to Palace Yard and state their case, when they ought to be working out their own problems in their own works and warehouses.
  It is the diversion of such great numbers of business men from the real basis of prosperity to purely political channels which is one of the most deleterious results of the policy on which the Government has embarked The Committee was the committee selected by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that it has worked to the best of its belief in an equitable and impartial spirit, but directly you get into the region of import duties you must shut out of your mind all idea of being impartial. I would not dream of standing up in this House and saying that I was impartial on the subject of import duties. I believe them to be most objectionable and I shall say so on every possible occasion, because I believe that they will check the advancement of great industries, that they will place obstacles in the way of trade as a whole and that they will divert the attention
  2584
  of business men from purely business to political channels, and will lead to the corruption of our electoral as well as of our administrative system.
  Sir ROBERT SANDERS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down shows by his remarks that he and those associated with him have learned nothing and forgotten nothing as a result of what has happened during the last few years. It is only on the occasion of a bye-election that we find their accredited representatives coming forward and advocating a purely Protective duty, and doing so with a very singular want of success.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Hear, hear!
  The CHAIRMAN: As he was approaching his peroration the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) got somewhat outside the terms of the Motion under discussion, and I was about to intervene just as he finished, but I think that I may give a warning on the subject to other right hon. Gentlemen.
  Captain BENN: Would it not be in order for the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) to give us his view about the extension of import duties to agriculture?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.
  Sir R. SANDERS: What I should be interested to know is what is the attitude on this question of the official Opposition, because this case was brought before the Committee by representatives of the workers. They have a Joint Industrial Council in that industry, and the case in favour of the duty was put forward by that Joint Industrial Council. There were three unions involved, the Glovers' Union, the National Union of General Workers and the Workers' Union, and representatives of all those unions supported this application for the imposition of duties and they went further. I am always very glad if anyone expresses sympathy with the objects which I have in view, but I am much more glad and much more convinced of his earnestness if he not only gives me his sympathy, but gives me a subscription for my association, and that is what the representatives of these unions have done, because the expenses

  2585
  of making this application were borne, not only by the manufacturers, but also by the trade unions concerned. On the first day on which this application was argued, the actual representative of the industry was not a manufacturer, not a paid counsel, but a representative of one of the unions concerned. It is true that afterwards, when counsel were briefed by the opponents of the application, it became necessary to brief learned counsel on the other side as well, but in the initial stage the case was actually conducted by a trade union representative.
  The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated fully and clearly on what the case is based. There is no doubt whatever about the stringency of foreign competition in this case. The figures prove it clearly enough. It is a curious instance, because you have at the same time a declining home consumption and very largely increased foreign imports. The reasons why the foreign manufacturer is able to beat the English glove manufacturer were all brought before the Committee. They are because the foreign hours are longer and the foreign wages are lower, and it is the fact that in the past the English industry had already been cut out in the lighter forms of gloves, but up till now it has been able to hold its own with the heavier leather gloves, and it is only in recent years, since the War, that the competition in these heavier leather gloves has become so strenuous as to make it necessary that a duty should be imposed if this trade is to be preserved for our people at all. The Committee found that the home factories were efficient. Discussing the case of cutlery yesterday, an hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench stated that the conditions in the cutlery factories were not all that they should be, but as far as I know—and I have seen something of them—the conditions in the glove factories, at all events in my county, are certainly efficient and up to date, and I have never heard the slightest complaint in the county about the accommodation of the workpeople in those factories.
  Mr. KELLY: Does that apply to outworkers as well?
  Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, they make their own conditions. I will say a word
  2586
  about that in a moment. The Committee found the case proved. The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) adopted an argument which I think was hardly worthy of him. As the Committee has decided against his case, he abuses the Committee. He says that it was not really an impartial Committee. Well, I do not like the spirit which abuses the umpire when he gives a decision against you.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not abuse him. I said they were Protectionists, and well known to be Protectionists, before they were appointed.
  Sir R. SANDERS: You said they were not impartial.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is no more abuse to describe a gentleman as a Protectionist than it would be for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to describe me as a Free Trader.
  Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite ready to withdraw the word "abuse" if the right hon. Gentleman objects to it, but I do not think you can cast any worse reflection upon a Committee that is set up for a judicial function than to say it is not impartial, and I think it is an unworthy thing to say. At all events, this Committee has found that the case is proved, and I do not see how they could arrive at any other conclusion. The conditions had been laid down for them. The conditions that they had to decide in a judicial manner had been before this House and decided by this House, and all that the Committee had to do was to decide whether the case was proved or not. They have decided that it was proved, and I do not see, as I say, how they could have arrived at any other conclusion on the facts before them.
  I want to say a word about the opposition. The opposition which came before this Committee sprang entirely from the big wholesale houses. The retailers considered the matter and formally arrived at the conclusion that they were not going to oppose an application. I do not pretend that this is a big industry, or that a duty such as is proposed in this Resolution is a big thing, but it does affect a few thousand workpeople, and it does affect what I think we ought to promote in every way we can, and that is a country industry. I believe that it

  2587
  is for the good of the country that we should have these industries, not only in our black, smoky towns, but in the countryside as well, and when you find an industry that is already established in an agricultural county, as this gloving industry is established in Somerset—and about half the gloves produced in this country are made in Somerset—I think that all those who talk about bringing people back to the land, or keeping people on the land, which, I believe, is the latest anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman's party, ought to grasp every means that they can, when they get a going industry and an efficient industry established in a country district, of seeing that that industry should be enabled to remain there. It is good for the people who work in the industry, it is good for them that they should live in healthy surroundings, among green fields and not in the smoky towns, and it is good for those in the surrounding districts as well.
  One of the worst troubles—and I am sure this will appeal to the Opposition— in the country districts is the low rate of wages paid to the agricultural industry. If there is one thing that can tend to raise those wages it is a competing industry in the villages that is well paid, and you get that in the gloving industry. Having an industry of that sort raises the standard of life in the whole district. The glover is drawing £3 and £4 a week. The village that I know best, where the gloving industry is going on, is the most prosperous village of its sort in the whole neighbourhood.
  Mr. KELLY: What is its name?
  Sir R. SANDERS: Milborne Port, and if you speak to anyone in that neighbourhood they will tell you so. The fact that men are able to earn high wages in the factories, and that the wives and daughters of those engaged in agriculture are able very often to earn a bit by doing out-work from the factory, raises the whole standard of living in the district. I do not think we ought to throw that away if we can possibly avoid it. It has another effect as well. Having a manufacture of this sort in a country neighbourhood tends to keep the local arrangements of that neighbourhood up to date, and at this village of which I am
  2588
  speaking, directly the housing scheme came on, houses were started on a business-like footing, and I think it was one of the most successful housing schemes that was initiated in the whole county.
  Another reason why we ought to do everything we can to keep these village industries going is the question of apprenticeships for boys. We do not want boys to leave the country if they can possibly make a living there, and this gloving industry gives them a chance of doing so. At the present time they can barely take on one in 20 as apprentices, because the trade is actually going down month by month. By the agreement of the industrial council, the standard number to take on is one in five, and those who are engaged in the industry inform me that, if this duty is put on, they will be able to take on one in five as apprentices from the putting on of the duty. Who will be the worse, supposing this duty is put on? A few people may have to pay a little more for their gloves. I am not going to dispute that— it stands to reason that it should be so— but if they do, I think the sacrifice they will have to make in paying a little extra for their gloves will be very well compensated, indeed, by giving more employment and prosperity in a whole district, and whatever expense that may be, it will be very cheaply bought.
  Mr. KELLY: I had not intended to join in the discussion at this early stage, but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, I think it is only fair to the Committee that a different view, as to the action of the joint industrial council, should be placed before it. We were told that the trade unions were unanimous upon this question.
  Sir R. SANDERS: I did not say so. I said that the trade unions supported it and subscribed towards it.
  Mr. KELLY: I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the trade unions were not unanimous.
  Sir R. SANDERS: I did not say they were not unanimous. The hon. Member is not right to misquote me. I do not know whether they were unanimous or not and I have no means of knowing.
  Mr. KELLY: I quite accept that. It shows, at any rate, that this Committee is not asked to accept that the whole of the trade union people and the workers employed in the gloving industry have expressed a desire for this Safeguarding Act to be operated in their interests. I am an officer of the union that probably has the largest number of people employed in the gloving trade. I have had some connection, too, as a candidate—I do not know whether it is permissible to say that here—in the part of Somerset to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I can say that the executive of the trade union has never at any moment during the years that it has been connected with the gloving trade agreed with a demand or a claim being made for the application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to the gloving trade.
  Sir R. SANDERS: They have subscribed, anyway.
  Mr. KELLY: I will deal with that in a moment, If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had known something about the Joint Industrial Council he would have been much more careful in his statement. We certainly are a member of that Joint Industrial Council. We have, I think, four or five representatives. On occasion I myself have attended meetings of the kind referred to. The majority of those present decided that they would subscribe to some of the expenses consequent upon this particular application. The employers are also members of that Council. The majority decided to find a portion of the expenses, and, accepting majority rule, we have had to pay our share of the expenses, whilst disagreeing from the whole scheme.
  Sir R. SANDERS: Majority rule!
  Mr. KELLY: The majority of the representatives on the Council, not the majority of the workpeople! We were told that the case was presented by a member of a trade union, an officer. I would have liked to hear the name of that representative. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to give us the name; probably I might be able to guess it. I do not know whether it is permissible in this House to do so, but I should imagine that it would be the Secretary of the Council who happens to be a member of a trade
  2590
  union, and who, I believe, did appeal before this particular Committee. I have had some experience of that particular representative if he is the one to which reference has been made. At a bye-election in Yeovil some years ago that particular gentleman assisted a friend of the right hon. Gentleman across the floor by opposing me at that particular time. There are people, even trade unionists, who make mistakes sometimes, and there are others—I am not suggesting members of the Conservative party—and a mistake has been made on this occasion. Certainly, so far as we are concerned, we are opposed to the present proposal, not only because we see no advantage in it for Somerset, but no advantage in it for the glove makers of Oxfordshire, or Essex, or Devonshire.
  I was hoping that, we would have heard from the President of the Board of Trade how this 33 per cent. is going to help these glove makers. If this 33 per cent. is placed on, it wall increase the price of the gloves. Does that mean that we are going to have the opportunity in this country of manufacturing more gloves? The answer to that, I think, is contained in the Report. We find in the Report— I do not mean that I have waited for this "Report, because employers have told me of it. They do not complain so much of foreign competition as of the retailers in London. These retailers charge something like twice the amount that they pay to the manufacturer when they purchase the gloves—twice the price for gloves that have only travelled from Yeovil to London, or from Oxfordshire to London. Then we are told that we cannot carry on this industry unless there is this tariff of 33 per cent. placed upon the foreign gloves. It is not a tariff for which the employers are asking. What the employers want is to keep out the whole of the gloves made in any other part of the world. They have said that quite openly, while at the same time they have neglected to help forward their own export trade. They have lost it by not taking care of it in those parts of the world where they have had some control in the years that are gone.
  But I was interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to why we should favour these country industries. One would imagine that in all these glove works, these men, women and girls

  2591
  are living and working under ideal conditions. One would imagine that everyone of these people working in Somerset were under much happier conditions than, to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman himself, "Those who were working in the smoky towns." People in that part of the world are living under conditions of housing as bad as anything you can find in the towns.
  Sir R. SANDERS: Do you see that in the Report?
  Mr. KELLY: I see that in many parts of the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen conditions in Somersetshire as bad or worse than those that can be found in any of the big cities. But that is not to say that we should save a particular industry because it is a country industry. One, however, would imagine that the wages paid to these people are of such a level that we can feel proud of them. I notice that neither the President of the Board of Trade or the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke told us what were the wages paid in this industry. Neither told us about the wages paid in other countries. Neither have told us of their long hours. We had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who told us, though he could not prove it, that the workpeople were engaged for 40 hours a week abroad. When we questioned that statement we were told that the Department had no means of knowing how many hours a week were worked by the outworkers engaged in making gloves, or of the material that they took away from the factory. It is upon that kind of evidence that this Committee of Ways and Means has to come to a conclusion—when they do not know the condition of the outworkers, or how long they work. Despite that fact, and that the Committee have no knowledge as to how long the outworkers in other countries are working, we are asked to pass these proposals! And that is the kind of evidence that we are asked to support this Committee's findings on. It is not fair to the House. It is not fair to the workpeople. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite would appreciate it if they had anything to do with the industry. It is not fair
  2592
  to the workpeople to hold out to them hopes that this industry is going to be a prosperous one in the sense of making huge profits, and prosperous in the sense of finding plenty of work. We have been told that as the first object is to find work for the workpeople, that if the 33 per cent, tariff is imposed, then the glove cutters will be benefitted, and that instead of there being one apprentice for every 21 working, there will be one apprentice for every five. Where is the evidence of that? Who has told hon. Gentlemen that? If the custom of the trade is as suggested opposite, how is it that these are not already employed? In reference to Yeovil and the places round about it, can hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they have not had good work during the last seven or eight years?
  Mr. GREENE: Trade is going down!
  Mr. KELLY: I should, at any rate, like your evidence on that. I should like to hear some of the employers whom I have met in various places. I should like to hear them. To make the statement that a 33 per cent. tariff is going to help us at this time is deluding the people, and is unfair to those engaged in the industry.
  Mr. GREENE: After the sitting of last night, I am sure it is the general wish that speeches should not only be few, but short. I feel, however, that as a representative of a district which is perhaps the chief centre of the gloving industry in the country, it is desirable that I should say a few words on the subject now before the Committee. Let me begin by referring to the two points put before the House by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). One was the damage that would be done to an industry in its export trade by protecting it. In order to prove this point he quoted the lace and the silk industries. Then he told us that every manufacturer was in favour of Free Trade for other manufacturers, but desired Protection for himself. Therefore it seems to me, Mr. Hope, that these two arguments are mutually destructive, unless we come to the conclusion that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer alone knows how the manufacturers ought to carry out their business, and unless he is prepared to say that no manufacturer really under-

  2593
  stands his own business. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor would hot have made these remarks if he had really studied the history of the glove industry. It is a very long history extending over 700 years. With the permission of the Committee I will refer to several periods in that history to show the result of the greatest form of Protection, namely, prohibition of foreign imports, and of mild Protection and Free Trade. In doing that I will give a certain amount of pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for W. Swansea (Mr. Runciman), because he seems to have a rooted objection to any particular year being specified. I will give him the chance to take any year he likes in the 700 in the history of the glove industry.
  First of all, I would like to point out that the gloving industry was considered so extremely important for the welfare of the country that, in the 15th century, Parliament actually prohibited the importation of foreign gloves. The result was that trade did so exceedingly well that in the 17th century they could scarcely find enough leather to provide for their output, not only that for home consumption, but for export. The Guild of Leather Workers found it necessary to forbid bootmakers and saddlers to use sheepskin, because otherwise the glovers would be unable to fulfil their home and foreign contracts. I rather stress this point in order to show that protection of an industry does not kill its exports. From that time on the industry became more and more prosperous, and I find that in my own constituency, which in 1808 had a population of only 19,000, there were 6,000 glovers, and a few years later, in 1825, my constituency and the surrounding districts had no less than 30,000 working glovers at work and no unemployed at all. In the following year that panacea beloved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), that panacea for all ills, Free Trade, was introduced, and immediately the gloving industry came to an absolute standstill. Representations were made to Parliament on the matter, and the answer given was that this was a gesture to France, and that it was hoped France would return the compliment. France admired the gesture immensely, but not to the extent of nattering it by
  2594
  imitation. After several years my predecessor in the representation of Worcester (Colonel Davis), in the year 1832, persuaded Parliament to put a duty on the importation of foreign gloves, and the immediate result was that the industry regained a third of its previous prosperity, but, unfortunately, half the workers remained without work and the other half found themselves on short time. In my constituency the rates doubled.
  Coming to later times, I find that in 1842 that tariff was reduced, and in 1860 was abolished altogether, since when the decrease m the prosperity of the industry has been nothing less than calamitous. In the City of Worcester, which I believe to be the biggest gloving constituency in England, there is at the present time only one cutter-apprentice, a most serious thing, because, if that is not remedied, in a short time we shall have neither apprentices to take up the work of those who taught them, nor shall we have those who taught them, because they will have passed on. In the last 100 years the number of glovers in England has dropped from 60,000 working (on full time) in 13 different centres, to less than 10,000 working in only three large centres, at the present time. The output of gloves has dropped from 1,000,000 dozen pairs 100 years ago to less than 500,000 dozen pairs now. When wanting to protect anything, one is generally confronted with the argument that the reason for the decline of any particular industry is a lack of demand. I have been told that with respect to the glove industry by people who have not studied the subject, but 100 years ago, when gloving was at the height of its prosperity, the total demand for home consumption and for export was 1,000,000 dozen pairs, and now that demand, instead of having decreased, has greatly increased.
  Mr. THURTLE: Would the hon. Member tell me if there, has been any increase in population in that period?
  Mr. GREENE: I thought that was so very obvious that it was hardly necessary for me to point it out, nor need I stress that that is the reason for the increase in the demand. In 1913 the demand had increased to over 2,000,000 dozen pairs, and at the present time, in spite of the effects of the War, trade depression and the

  2595
  smaller buying capacity of the people as a whole, the demand for home consumption and for export is a million and a third dozen pairs. It is for these reasons that I wish to support the Resolution, but before I sit down I should like to answer one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He said three or four things I was very glad to hear, because they are all directly in support of the Resolution. He talked about the opinion of the workers them-selves, the members of the unions. I would like to inform him and the Committee that in my studies on this subject —and the advice I have received has come entirely from working glovers and members of glovers' unions—I have found they are strongly in favour of a Resolution such as this. I meet these people personally, I consult with them, and I see them in their works and in their homes, and I can tell this Committee as an absolute fact that in my constituency, at any rate, they are absolutely solid. The hon. Member knows more about Yeovil than I do, because he had an, unfortunate experience there.
  Mr. KELLY: No, quite a fortunate one.
  Mr. GREENE: He tells us that the glovers in Yeovil are dead against this safeguarding. The hon. Member himself is against safeguarding, his opponent was for safeguarding, and the glovers of Yeovil chose his opponent. Having chosen his opponent they have since then had two opportunities of reconsidering their decision, but they have stuck to their first choice.
  Mr. KELLY: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to know if his observation applies to the man whom I first fought, one of the finest men who ever entered this House, the late Mr. Aubrey Herbert. Was he in favour of safeguarding?
  Mr. GREENE: I am afraid I was not in the House with Mr. Aubrey Herbert. I only knew him personally as a friend, and not politically, but I will refer to more modern dates with which, I think, the hon. Member cannot disagree.
  Mr. KELLY: Two years ago only!
  Mr. GREENE: The hon. Member also stated that the introduction of this duty
  2596
  would cause an increase in the cost of gloves. He kept asking us for proofs and evidence, but he gave absolutely none himself when he made that statement. I am told by supporters of mine who are interested in the gloving trade as much as he is, that if they can get the works going full time the overhead charges will come down, and as these are reduced so will the cost on each pair of gloves come down, and it is more than probable that owing to this duty a pair of gloves will be sold cheaper than before. That is merely a prophecy. The hon. Member has prophesied one thing, and I tell him my supporters prophesy another thing.
  The hon. Member also referred to ideal conditions of working. God knows the conditions are not ideal under which many of these poor people work. I have been in the homes of some of these outworkers and seen poor old women working with their glasses on in a bad light at night sewing, sewing, sewing, doing their best to earn a living; and that is absolutely no reason why we should refuse to give them the help which we believe this duty will give them. The hon. Member wanted to know what hours outworkers worked. It is very hard to discover, but I am informed by the Chairman of the Joint Industrial Council that in my constituency gloving has come to such a pass that in many cases the outworkers only get about two full days work in three weeks; and in addressing the Committee this evening I am hoping to get them to understand the point of view of those who want to do something for the workers of this country. These duties can do absolutely no harm to anybody at all. Gloving is not a key industry. No industry will be ruined if—I say if—the cost of gloves goes up; but, on the other hand, good will be done to other trades—the sheep raisers, the tanners, the button manufacturers, the box manufacturers; and, above all, good will be done to the actual workers in the gloving industry, a people who do not know the meaning of the words ca' canny.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am sure the House will appreciate the zeal and I think I may say the affection with which the hon. Member has spoken of his constituency. I would like to explain to him what is our point of view with respect to the difficulties amongst his constituents,

  2597
  of which he has been telling us. He and the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him stated that there is unemployment among the makers of leather gloves. It is significant that the Committee which inquired into the subject gave no figures of the actual degree of unemployment in the industry. They satisfied themselves with a statement that there was unemployment in gloving centres, but they gave nothing to indicate that unemployment in the leather glove industry is as great as the unemployment in our great export industries in which the workers will be penalised for the sake of the specially selected case. There is no proof in this Report, and as that was one of the subjects into which the Committee were asked to inquire, we are entitled to say that if they select one industry to be treated apart from other industries we ought to have figures which give some indication that the industry is entitled to exceptional treatment.
  Mr. GREENE: Surely you are given figures.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: There are no papers giving figures of unemployment. There are figures of a falling off in demand, which I will deal with in a moment. Our point of view is that although there may be depression, a certain degree of depression, in this industry, this very Report itself contains the proof that that depression is not due to any abnormal import from foreign countries and will not be cured by the duties which this Report suggests.
  Mr. GREENE: May I ask what a normal import is?
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I shall explain what it is, because that is one of the very questions which this Report discusses, and I have risen to call attention to the finding which the Report presents to us. This Report shows, by the figures on page 7, that what has happened has been a fall in the demand for leather gloves, both in the foreign trade and in the home trade, a fall which one would expect as the result of the general loss in purchasing power since the War. There is nothing remarkable in that, but what this Report also indicates is that a duty of 33▴ per cent. will not in fact touch the causes of that fall and will impose a hardship upon the
  2598
  poorer sections of this country who cannot afford to pay more for their gloves and will in many cases have to go without gloves altogether. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene) asked me what I meant by "normal imports" and "normal competition." The answer is given by the President of the Board of Trade who laid down the conditions into which these Committees had to examine. Abnormal competition was competition which was abnormal taking as the standard the ordinary normal competition before the War. I say that this Report shows by that test that, so far from the competition being abnormal competition relatively to 1913, it is less to-day than it was before.
  The whole thing is very clear. This Report shows that the demand for the sale of gloves has fallen off by 500,000 dozen pairs in this country. It also shows that that has only fallen to the extent of 50,000 dozen pairs in regard to home manufacturers, and the remaining 450,000 dozen pairs fall in the sales has to be taken from the imports into this country. The result is that here you have it in the table that, whereas the imports for consumption of gloves in this country was 75 per cent. in 1913, it has fallen to 67 per cent. to-day, and the proportion of the home consumption according to our home manufacturers has increased in a similar ratio. So that as a matter of fact, according to the very best evidence in the White Paper itself, the whole case breaks down on these grounds alone. These Committees were not asked to inquire whether there were imports of foreign articles into this country, but simply to inquire whether the imports were abnormal and unprecedented in proportion to 1913, and that is found to be contrary to the facts according to the figures given on page 7 of the Report itself.
  May I now come to the question of unemployment. It is perfectly clear that there is a certain degree of unemployment and depression in the glove trade. The reason there is that unemployment and depression is simply due to the falling off in the export trade. Hon. Members will find all this on page 7 of the Report where it says that in the exporting trades exports of British manufacture have fallen from 230,000 dozen pairs in 1913 to 40,000 dozen

  2599
  pairs in 1924. That is to say, it is the export trade in leather gloves which is in a depressed condition. It is that trade which now represents only one-sixth of the quantity and value that it had before the War, and that reduction of exports by five-sixths is, in itself, a complete explanation of the unemployment in that trade.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) quoted and himself suggested that the fall in the export trade in leather gloves was partly due to the fact that the manufacturers of leather gloves had not concentrated sufficient attention on that part of their trade, and therefore the depression is due to the negligence of the manufacturers in this respect. I have just read in the "Manchester Guardian" an interview with the manager of Messrs. Phillips and Company, well known as suppliers to the general drapery trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I quite realise why this evidence was not permitted before the Committee, and I think it is evidence which this Committee ought to have. It is worth while reading that opinion to this Committee as to what is the reason for the fall in the export trade and what is the real cause of the unemployment. This manager says:
  "The English manufacturer should help himself by developing his business on proper lines and taking advantage of the unlimited opportunities awaiting him elsewhere. My duties take me into many countries, and I say emphatically that there are markets for English gloves. The complaint of those who have to buy at present from people who simply speculate in English leather gloves is that no English manufacturer calls upon them. Before the War we had a fine export business with America, and we have lost it through neglect, and it will not be regained by methods of Protection and the raising of prices."
  That is why the export trade in leather gloves has fallen to one-sixth of its pre-War dimensions. Here you have men in the trade complaining that the manufacturers are losing that export trade through their own unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities that offer, and here you find this Committee reporting that this depression is due to excessive imports which as a matter of fact are lower than they were before the War. Under these circumstances, I cannot see that the Report of this Committee justifies the conclusion at which it arrives. There is one further fact
  2600
  brought out in this Report. The Report suggests that even if you did attempt to keep out some of these cheaper gloves the fact remains that they are not gloves in effective competition with the heavier and more expensive gloves which we make in this country, and that if you kept them out it would not mean that gloves of a similar quality would be produced here.
  I see that a gentleman, named Fownes, gave evidence before the Committee, and he said that, so far as a large proportion of the gloves coming into this country were concerned, he did not make them and he could not make them, because it would take years to arrange for his workpeople to make them. It means, that gloves, corresponding to those gloves which are now imported, would not be manufactured in this country. The workers of this country will not say: "Because I cannot get the cheaper gloves, I will buy the expensive ones," and the result will be that the imposition of this kind of duty will mean that a certain number of the poorer people will suffer a little more discomfort and the manufacturers of gloves will receive no corresponding advantage.
  Captain W. W. SHAW: I consider that the introduction of these Resolutions is the most important thing the Government have done. I believe they will be a great help to our industries and will relieve unemployment. I only wish that the Government had adopted them a little earlier. We all know that hon. Members opposite are very much opposed to these duties. Of course, they opposed the McKenna Duties, because they did not believe in them. I and a good many of my hon. Friends, owe our success at the last election to our advocacy of the imposition of the McKenna Duties. We are often taunted in this respect about being Protectionists, but the renewal of the McKenna Duties is something very different from the general policy of Protection which was rejected in 1923. On that occasion the electorate were made to fear Protection because hon. Members brought forward the story of the big loaf and the little loaf, and they told the people that under Protection they were going to have only the small loaf, while under Free Trade they would have the big loaf.
  Another point is the contribution which will be made to the Treasury by these

  2601
  duties. I think it was the Leader of the Liberal party who said, "After all, what did the McKenna Duties bring in? It was only a question of a few millions."
  The CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order in a Debate on the Glove Duty.
  Captain SHAW: I know that hon. Members were allowed to wander far and wide yesterday, and I thought I might be allowed a little latitude to-day.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, we agreed to have a general discussion yesterday, and that is all the more reason why we should not repeat it to-day.
  Captain SHAW: These Resolutions are a great protection for our industry and for labour. Many workers are now realising the importance of it, and they are asking for this form of protection. I come across a great many in my position, and they are constantly pointing out to me how this unrestricted competition is causing wages to fall because the manufacturer cannot afford to pay them. Other countries have adopted Protection, and therefore we have to protect ourselves against the kind of labour we meet with abroad. I do not agree that a higher price for the articles will necessarily follow, but, even if it did, in certain oases, mean a higher price for the articles turned out, I say it will be a splendid thing for our country, because it means employment, and, after all, that is what we are after. We had a wonderful speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), giving a picture of what the dole was and the misery that it brings. Surely—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now going into an economic discussion like that which we had yesterday, and may, perhaps, have again on the Second Reading; but this is only a question of the Glove Duty so far, and I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to adhere to that.
  Captain SHAW: I will endeavour to do so. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was talking about our exports, and saying that the great trouble was that we were losing our exports to America, and that possibly it was through our manufacturers' neglect. Let me point out that America, when she started the manufacture of gloves, had to start a new
  2602
  industry, and started it under Protection, by protecting her own workmen and her own industry. In the result she has built up such an enormous trade that she is able to export in competition with the rest of the world. As regards the import of gloves, I see that the imports into this country from France between January and September of this year were nearly as much as they were in 1924. With regard to the exports in 1913, the exports of leather gloves were 229,000 dozen pairs, whereas in 1924 they were only 41,000 dozen pairs. We want to build up a strong home trade. By doing so we are able to compete with the rest of the world, and are able to export gloves, which is exactly what we want to do, and what, as the hon. Member for Keighley was pointing out, we have lost to such a large extent. I believe that by this protection we are going to build up a stronger home trade, not only in this, but in all the other industries that we protect, and then we shall be able to increase our exports.
  I think the warmth of the statements of the Opposition is really in proportion to their hatred of the manufacturer. The idea they have is that by putting duties on these goods money is going to be put into the pockets of the manufacturers and capitalists, but really that is an absolutely wrong idea. It is putting money into the pockets of the employés, of the workers, and that is exactly what we want to do. We want to find them work and we are going to find them work by these duties that we hope will be put on. The delay between the passing of these Resolutions and the time when the. Finance Bill will become law is unfortunate, because of the time that will be allowed to importers of gloves in which to import tremendous quantities. We had that in the case of motor cars. When the duty was going to be put on they came in in tremendous numbers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, unfortunately, misjudged the matter, and he had to acknowledge that that hiatus meant a great loss to the Exchequer. In the same way, there will be a hiatus now, and I wish the Government would do something in that direction. I suggest that, if it be possible, they might make these Measures—certainly I would ask them to do so in regard to the Measure relating to gloves, and I hope they will in the case of the others also—they might possibly see their way to make these Measures retroactive.

  2603
  Then we should not lose the duties on immense importations of gloves between the time when it was known that the Committee had reported favourably on it and the time when the duty actually comes into force.
  Mr. HARRIS: We have had from the other side some very interesting and, if I may say so, rather significant speeches. I think I am right in saying that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, although he did not make it quite clear, has an important glove industry in his constituency, and certainly the first two Members who spoke from the other side made it clear that they spoke, not so much from the point of view of the general interests of the country, not so much from the point of view of the well-being of the whole community, but in order to feed the flame of the glove industry, because that was one of the important industries in their constituencies. That is a novel feature in the proceedings of the House of Commons of this country, although it is common, in particular, in America. In fact, in America it is quite common for Members specially to be described by the names of the particular industries in their constituencies: and it is a fact that such Members actually speak as "the Member for boots," "the Member for hosiery," "the Member for silk," and so on.
  Now we have had the spectacle in the House of Commons during the last two days and the earlier hours of this morning, and again this afternoon, of Members coming down and speaking, not so much as members of great parties dealing with a great Empire and dealing with great problems, but as "the Member for gloves," just as yesterday we had Members speaking as "the Member for cutlery," and no doubt we shall have others during the next few days. This will become an annual feature of our proceedings. We shall have Parliament asked to spend many hours considering special claims, special privileges, special requests from favoured industries to get special protection and special rights to dip into the pockets of the community by raising their prices owing to the removal of competition. That is a thing which must undermine the respect and weaken the moral authority of the—
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Could the hon. Member quote any case of a duty where the price has been increased?
  Mr. HARRIS: That remark is quite irrelevant to what I was saying. I am talking about gloves at the moment, and the whole purpose of this duty is to raise prices. If the hon. Baronet will read the Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade—who is a Protectionist—he will see it is made quite clear that the only purpose and the only desire underlying this proposal is that English manufacturers may get higher prices. It is pointed out throughout the Report, as it was in the Report we discussed yesterday, that the whole object of coming to the House of Commons in order to propose a duty of 33▴ per cent, was not to keep prices at their present level, but to increase them by as much of that percentage as possible. I do not think the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is relevant. If the result of putting on a tariff is that the price of the articles concerned is not to be raised to as high a figure as the public are willing to pay, the manufacturers wilt not give you a "thank you," because they say they cannot produce at a profit at the present moment.
  Sir H. CROFT: Surely, the hon. Member must realise that, if a glove factory can turn out three times as many gloves as before, the price will not be increased, but will come down.
  Mr. HARRIS: That is not necessarily so, in our experience of the matter. It is very easy to interrupt a Member and put him off his line of thought, but I think the hon. Baronet has not taken the trouble to study this particular industry. If he had, ho would have found that during 1920, as the Report says, there was, for special reasons, an immense growth of the glove trade. They had their opportunity then to standardise their products and reorganise their industry, and I see that one or two big firms like—I do not think I am giving them an unnecessary advertisement—the National Glove Company did reorganise their industry and standardise their products, and as the result of that they have been able in some particular lines to produce a very good article. Talking

  2605
  particularly of the fabric glove trade, that is a German industry. It was started in Germany, one might almost say it was invented in Germany. The Germans had an immense start, and were especially favoured by the conditions in the manufacture of this, after all, comparatively small and unimportant article, compared with the big staple industries like the cotton, textile and woollen industries; and it is impossible, as the Report says, to compete against them without artificially increasing prices.
  I thought it was not unreasonable, in order to find out the exact position of this industry, to make inquiries in the City, and I got a man, who was not a politician, to go and inquire this very morning, not from the point of view of the speech I was going to make here, but in order to get the actual facts and find out the difference in prices and in value between the German imported glove and the English manufactured glove. I have no doubt that the hon. Baronet will say that the English glove is very much better, but I took the trouble to get a couple of these gloves, and perhaps, as he has shown such a great interest in them, I may hand them to him across the Floor of the Chamber. Here is the English glove. The price is 30s. per dozen from the manufacturer. Here is the German glove. I, of course, not being an expert, am unable to distinguish the difference, but the price is 15s. a dozen. The hon. and gallant Member would say, "Raise the price." That is the whole purpose—to make the poor unfortunate working woman in the East End of London, whose circulation is often very bad, who has to go out in all weathers, and very often suffers from chilblains, pay double or treble the price—
  Mr. STORRY DEANS: Will the hon. Member tell us at what price the German glove is sold—what the poor, wretched cold-fingered woman in the East End of London has to pay for it?
  Mr. HARRIS: I agree. I think that one of the most interesting and significant things in this Report is that it shows that there is far too much profit put on by the middleman and the retailer. No doubt there is too much both on the English and on the German gloves.
  Mr. DEANS: It is much less on the English gloves.
  Mr. HARRIS: There is no reason to believe that our tradesmen and shopkeepers are not patriotic. On the contrary, the retail trade said that they were not considering this as a political problem, and were not willing to give evidence in this inquiry, but I think it is an unfair suggestion to make that the poor shopkeeper is anxious to push and sell German goods rather than English goods. On the contrary, a great campaign has been going on throughout the country, "Buy British Goods." I hope it will be a success, because I personally have a natural prejudice in favour of wearing and using British articles. It may be sentiment, but there it is; but it is not fair or reasonable or proper to go to the poorest of the poor in this country and say to them, "We will treat it as a crime, when conditions are bad, when trade is disorganised, and when there is a large amount of unemployment, if you buy a cheap article from abroad, and we are going to tax you because you do." Of course, it is absolute nonsense, because these very German gloves, we know, are made from yarn spun in Bolton. The Lancashire spinners, who have been going through a very bad time, and suffering a large amount of unemployment, have shown great courage, which should be an example to other manufacturers, and have not asked for Protection. On the contrary, they have sought to put their house in order and re-organise their industry, and both masters and men have faced the situation with courage and fortitude and imagination. They have not come whining to the House of Commons for protection. Now you are going, against their wishes, to interfere with their legitimate trade of exporting their yarn to the Continent to be made into gloves.
  Sir H. CROFT: It would not affect the Lancashire trade.
  Mr. HARRIS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is full of assumptions. He must have it drummed into his head once more that exports pay for imports. The Germans are not making these gloves for nothing. They have to be paid in some way. We do not pay in gold, and we have to pay in manufactured goods or coal. One of the troubles with the coal

  2607
  industry is that imports are not coming in, and the foreigner cannot buy our coal. Why put artificial barriers in the way? You will not help; on the contrary, you will hinder the home trade, because if you increase prices you decrease the consuming capacity of the people. If people have to pay double the price for their gloves, they have less money left to pay for stockings, shoes, and the other articles that make up the household budget and that fill our shops, warehouses and factories.
  But as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, there is a more serious side to this. I recognise the sincerity of hon. Members opposite who believe in Protection. They are as anxious as the whole Committee is to help employment, and they think that by singling out this and that industry, giving a favour here and a favour there, they are going to find work for a few hundred men in this or that factory. If I were satisfied that that policy would add to the total employment of the country, I should be the very last, at a time like this, to put difficulties in the way of supporting it, but British trade is a much larger thing. It has always been the miracle of the whole world that this little island, with 40,000,000 people, is able to do the most important foreign trade in the world. Here we are with very few raw materials. We have only one real advantage—coal as a raw material, and the courage and enterprise and initiative of our people, which have enabled us to build up this world-wide foreign trade on free imports, because the absence of Customs barriers has enabled manufacturers to buy in the cheapest market without the interference of the State. Now the Government come forward interfering here and there. I notice that in one of these samples there was some silk. Already the tariff that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth is so keen on is beginning to work. There is a tax on the English manufacturer which the foreigner who competes in neutral markets has not the disadvantage of.
  Then there is perhaps another aspect. I represent a London constituency. London is a very remarkable place. There are 7,000,000 of population congregated round the River Thames with
  2608
  no great industry and no great staple trade. Its existence is built up on the fact that it is a free port. It is the warehouse centre of the world. In Wood Street and St. Paul's Churchyard are the great merchants' warehouses that supply not only our home market, but up to a few months ago the world with a great part of its demands in textiles. These warehouses are not only filled with wares from our own country, but they draw their supplies from almost every country in Europe. There are great warehouses famous throughout the world for their gloves. It is the great glove department where merchants from Australia, New Zealand and South America come and see displayed before them the gloves of our own and other countries and do their trade here in London. That explains the thousands of offices, warehouses, carmen, packers, dockers and other people connected with trade round the River Thames. Now the Customs officer has been forced to interfere. Goods which used to come to London have been diverted to Hamburg. Already the Metz trade, which used to come through London, is going direct to our Dominions. Supplies that used to be handled in London, brought by our own ships, have been diverted to other ports, and London is suffering a large amount of unemployment already. I should like to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman down to the docks to see what is going on. He would find that a large amount of the goods that used to come to London not coming to London at all.
  Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Can the hon. Member tell us how many gloves went to Hamburg?
  Mr. HARRIS: No. They used to come to London so as to so to our warehouses and be distributed all over the world. Now they are not coming to London. They are going direct to Canada and South America, and our dockers, warehousemen and packers are done out of a job. This is a disastrous policy. It is going to injure our trade and weaken our status as a great industrial nation. This is only one clumsy example of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman. I know he is naked and unashamed. He is an honest Tariff Reformer. The Government as a whole pretend to have repented of their economic fallacies and

  2609
  have assured us that they have given up Protection, in this Parliament, at any rate. Now through a side door—a dozen duties, next year a dozen more—they are trying to impose a general tariff. They have deceived the nation. I think when the time comes there will be a day of reckoning.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): Perhaps it will be as well at this stage for me to deal with some of the points that have been made. I have done that showman's business that the hon. Member has been doing, and it lost me an election. I remember in the 1923 election going round with pots and pans. It nearly lost me my seat, and the hon. Member is about as ineffective now.
  Captain BENN: Did you give up your belief?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: What I am concerned with is this, that here you have an industry of which, on the leather glove side, 60 per cent. is going to the foreigner and on the fabric glove side, 84 per cent. We may do a great deal with figures and statistics and theories, but that is the cold fact, that the great bulk of these two industries is in the hands of foreigners and our people are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) spoke of the consumers being made victims. The fact is that the Committee have made their Report as the result of such evidence as was available to them. I am not saying the consumers are going to be the victims of anyone. I am not going to enter into the controversy as to where the tax is going to fall, but I do not admit by any means that the consumer is going to be the victim he depicts. I have heard it said often in other parts of the House that you are going to ruin this industry if you put on this tax. I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman says you are going to help the industry, though he also says you may injure another in doing so. I do not mind him saying that, but I am very glad to hear from such an eminent authority that you are going to help this industry which you tax, and that will be something for the hon. Member, who is one of those who say you are going to
  2610
  ruin industry. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) mentioned the effect that these Customs duties are having up to the present in the congestion of our ports and loss and discomfort generally. Can he name one instance; can he name any place where ho knows there is what really might be called port congestion owing to the administration of the Silk Duties? I really do not think he can, except that here and there a package has been held up or a consignment delayed.
  Mr. HARRIS: I can give the hon. Member some information afterwards if he will give it attention.
  Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I know that hundreds of tons of cotton rags consigned to this country for paper-making have been held up in the Port of London because a few remnants of pink or blue ribbon were mixed with them.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: Then the importer has made out his invoice incorrectly. If he had made a simple statement, the delay would not have happened. I come to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). I was delighted to hear him say something on behalf of these committees. I have not yet heard any criticism from this side of the House of any of these committees which have turned down a duty. I have only heard criticisms of the committees which have reported in favour of a duty. Why is it that the committees which turned down the Superphosphate Duties and the Aluminium Holloware Duties have not been criticised? It is unfair. It is quite foreign to our standard of British public life that we in this House should take the view that committees appointed in this way should not be able to act impartially. I entirely disagree with my right hon. Friend when he spoke of bias.
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. I presume that hon. Members on this side will be entitled to discuss the reports of the Aluminium Holloware Committee and the Superphosphates Committee in reply to the hon. Member?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): If hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House will only make such short reference to those subjects as

  2611
  has the hon. Member on the Front Bench, they will not be out of order, but other references would be out of order.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: I wish I had the command of language and vigour of expression which is possessed by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in order to reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). The hon. Member for Rochdale stated that he is one of the principal officers of the Glovers' Union, which has never been in favour of a tariff on gloves. The view I take of it is that the sooner the hon. Member's union get rid of him as one of its representatives, the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" and "Hear, hear!"] I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member. I am merely expressing my views, having regard to what I think would be the benefits of a tariff for this trade. He went on to say that it is false to argue that this industry wants a 33⅓ per cent. duty for protection purposes. He says that what is wrong with the glove industry is that the middlemen's charges are so excessive. How mixed the hon. Member gets.
  Mr. HARRIS: It was an hon. Member on the Government side of the House who said that, in an interruption.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: At any rate, that is one of the difficulties which was pointed out by the Committee. It is not the manufacturers' prices that govern the cost of gloves, but the retailers' prices, and that profit goes into the pockets of people other than the manufacturers, and the worker gets no benefit from it. This question of the manufacturers' position is one that we must consider when we are thinking of those who are engaged in this industry by way of their capital, whether that capital be labour or money invested.
  I would like to refer to the most interesting and excellent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene). Hon. Members opposite ask us to give evidence, and they say that such and such a thing will happen if we put on a duty. The only speech we have had which gives evidence from historic experience is the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester. He surveyed the history of the glove industry in his constituency from early days in a speech which, I am sure, would appeal to every
  2612
  hon. Member, and he gave remarkable evidence of the effect of tariffs and the absence of tariffs in his own district.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) proceeded with the old argument that the duty will do no good. I would refer him to the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who says that it will do good. The hon. Member for Keighley asked for evidence that the duty will do good. He has had evidence, and far more evidence than he could give to us as to the bad effects of a duty. He says that there are no figures of unemployment in this industry. The Ministry of Labour have not got the figures of unemployment in this industry separated from the general figures of unemployment, and, apparently, that is the reason why the Committee have rot had any figures before them; but I would point out that 67 per cent. of our leather glove trade is in the hands of foreigners, and 84 per cent. of our fabric glove trade is in the hands of foreigners.
  Captain BENN: We are very much indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for the frank and confiding way in which he always deals with public affairs, and for his great courtesy. He extended the subject of Debate so much that I am sure there will be many hon. Members anxious to participate in the fields of exploration which he opened up. He spoke of the Aluminium Hollow-ware Report. That Report was an attempt by a few interested manufacturers to get a tariff put upon the pots and pans of poor people. The fact that that proposal was too much for one of his committees is not a circumstance that will recommend the composition of the committees to Members of this House. He spoke of the Superphosphate Committee. That is a very interesting committee. There are agricultural Members present, and it would be very helpful to the House—I do not know whether it would be necessary to have a Secret Session in order to get the confessions of hon. Members opposite on the subject—if we could hear what agricultural Members opposite think of the proposition that fertilisers used by farmers should be taxed by a Conservative Government.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When the hon. and gallant Member asked me a

  2613
  question a few minutes ago, I thought he was asking for information, and I gave him information to the best of my ability, but he does not seem to have taken my advice.
  Captain BENN: I am very sorry if my powers of compression are not equal to those of the Parliamentary Secretary. I will not pursue that point. He told us that in 1923 he went before his constituents to urge a general tariff. He said that he went surrounded by pots and pans, like a showman.
  Sir R. CHADWICK: One of the hon. and gallant Member's friends had been trying to convince us by holding up silks and gloves.
  Captain BENN: The difference is, that when the hon. Member opposite had expounded his views on Protection, and he found that they did not achieve success at the poll, he promptly gave them up; but my hon. Friend who expounds his belief in Free Trade is going to stick by it whether it wins or loses. That is the difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary made a surprising statement. He said that the proposition he was putting before the Committee was supported by a mass of evidence. We would like to have that mass of evidence. I have read this Report of the Gloves Committee, and if there is one feature more than another which is noticeable it is that there is not a tittle of evidence in the Report. There are a number of assertions, but not one is supported by evidence. One of our grievances is that the President of the Board of Trade has appointed this Committee, has given them leave to sit secretly, and has given them leave, or perhaps he has instructed them—he will not answer us on this point —to exclude witnesses, and then we are told that there is a mass of evidence in support of these proposals, when a great body of opinion in the trade could not be heard. We have not seen the evidence, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely unwilling and has most steadily refused to lay before the Committee of Ways and Means the evidence on which he is proposing to put this tax upon the people.
  The Parliamentary Secretary went on to controvert some statements made as
  2614
  to the congestion at the ports. We recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary has a very wide experience and that he is a man of great achievements in many walks of life, but I do not think that he would challenge the argument which has been put forward by men of experience in these matters, who allege that the ports are congested, not only because of the duties but because of the ridiculously impracticable character of the duties which are now imposed. It may be said that the Minister speaks with knowledge. What knowledge? Is there anyone in the Board of Trade whose duty it is to measure the flow of traffic into the ports or to take the figures at the Customs House? Nobody. That is the reason why we constantly ask that there should be on the Treasury Bench when we are discussing this subject some representative of the Department which is responsible for the entries into the ports of the country. We have appealed in vain. We cannot, with all our appeals to precedent, get what we want in that respect. We have utterly failed to get in Committee of Ways and Means a single representative of the Treasury. Of course, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury represents both the Customs and the Inland Revenue Department, and if he were here—[Interruption]. I will give the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane-Mitchell) opportunity, if he likes, to criticise me, if he cares to make a speech, but I do not pay regard to sotto voce interruptions, even from so distinguished a source.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is it in order for an hon. Member to catch the eye of the hon. and gallant Member instead of your eye, Mr. Deputy-Chairman?
  Captain BENN: The fact is that however much importance we attach to statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and we do attach great importance to what he says, he is not speaking officially when he denies congestion at the ports. He does not represent the only Department that knows anything about the condition at the ports. He complains because we say that these Committees are not to be trusted. What are these Committees and how are they set up? They are supposed to be set up under the conditions of the

  2615
  White Paper. The White Paper has absolutely no authority. It is a paper laid in just the same way as any other Government paper is laid; just like the obiter dicta of any Minister might be laid in the form of a White Paper. It is not an Order of this House. It is not under any Statute. It is a few ideas of the President of the Board of Trade as to how he can introduce tariffs by a side wind. Supposing a number of eminent economists, men in public life, met together to consider the iron and steel industry, and supposing after they had heard evidence they decided that it was necessary that a duty should be put upon iron and steel—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is going back to the general discussion which we had yesterday. Under this particular Amendment, the discussion has to be kept to the question of gloves.
  7.0 P.M.
  Captain BENN: May I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman in his speech made a general defence of the composition of the Committees, and he said to us, "You attacked the composition of the Committees in general." He mentioned the Superphosphate and Aluminium Committees and he proceeded to defend the Committees. All I am asking is in special reference to the Report of the Committee on Gloves that I should be allowed to reply to the hon. Gentleman's defence of the character of this Committee, if you like, which recommends a duty on gloves.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the course of Debate criticism has been thrown on this particular Committee, and the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench is bound sometimes to stand up for the Committee upon which he proposes to base his case.
  Captain BENN: I shall endeavour to observe any ruling you give, but I understand the lattitude permitted to the hon. Gentleman is now restricted, and I am not permitted to attack the character of the Committee.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Some criticisms have been made, in consequence
  2616
  of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made an answer which I allowed.
  Captain BENN: In deference to your Ruling, we shall have to leave the unsupported statement of the hon. Gentleman as to the impartiality of these Committees. The first point I would mention in reference to this question is this, that in the Debate of December, 1924, in this House on the Motion in reply to the Gracious Speech we were told that these Committees were to answer these questions in the affirmative, and, if they did not answer them in the affirmative, then the Government would find themselves unable to recommend a duty on the particular article. I think it was in May of this year that the Cabinet decided to alter this proceeding. The "Times" newspaper, which was obviously inspired from official sources, pointed out that the answers to these questions in the desired sense was not essential, and once that was decided by the Cabinet the Committees, of course, took instructions from the President of the Board of Trade, who is a member of the Cabinet, and consequently there was no use us persuading ourselves to believe that these Committees set up by the President of the Board of Trade were in any way hound by the questions or indeed compelled to answer them in the affirmative before a duty could be recommended.
  Let me take one or two of these questions with strict regard to the question of gloves. The first is this: We understood that the purpose of the safeguarding scheme was to safeguard industries and not to create a new industry. If you are going to extend that and say, "We will create such a tariff barrier as will enable us to plant, practically for the first time in this country, a new industry," yon are going far beyond anything originally intended in the safeguarding scheme. This has a very important bearing on the negotiations with Germany. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the German delegates said, "We can understand you imposing tariffs for the purpose of safeguarding certain industries: what we object to is a tariff for creating new industries, especially in industries directly aimed at our own export industries."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now raising the whole argu-

  2617
  ment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That cannot be permitted on this occasion.
  Captain BENN: Let me assure you I never mentioned the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I mentioned the White Paper on which this Committee on gloves is acting and I have no desire to extend the scope of the Debate, but I ask permission to examine in its widest aspect the investigation into gloves which this Committee was appointed to secure.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On that point of Order, there was a Ruling given by the Chairman yesterday that there should be a long discussion on the general policy, pledges, White Paper, and so forth, and it took place—and it occupied six hours—on the understanding that all further discussion should be confined strictly to the merits of the particular duties on the particular articles.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite true and is exactly what I was endeavouring to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn).
  Captain BENN: I shall confine myself to the application of the White Paper to the case of gloves, and I will not go wittingly one inch beyond that. I am going to attack the endeavour of this Committee, under the guise of safeguarding an old industry, to create a new industry. This new industry, the fabric glove industry, is aimed especially at the German fabric glove industry, and in these negotiations between the British and the German delegates which have just broken down this is a case in point. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he did not say in these negotiations that he was prepared not to propose legislation for the creation of a new industry, such as the German fabric glove industry. If the report in the "Times" is correct, it is quite clear we are doing a thing which is directly threatening our growing and increasingly important export trade to Germany. The question shows that it must be so, that there is an import, in competition, of the same article or similar articles. In this Report it is pointed out that these gloves which come from abroad are not the same articles. High-class gloves like high-class cutlery are an especially British product and cannot be beaten by anything in the
  2618
  world. It is a very high class thing and not suitable for ordinary, wide, popular consumption by people who have little money to spend. Turn to page 4, for example, of the Report on leather gloves. They do not say on page 4 that the manufacturers in this country are able to produce, or are producing a similar article, but I beg hon. Members to remember that that was the test—that there is something being made here, there is something being made abroad, and competition from abroad has killed that article here. What do they say?
  "The Applicants contended that their industry was highly skilled and had existed in this country for several centuries."
  Going back to Julius Cæsar, like the razor.
  "They claimed to be able to produce any kind of glove which is now imported, provided that they were protected from unfair competition."
  I am missing three lines which are not relevant to the argument.
  "Further, they submitted that even if all the imported gloves had been of a different type from the British, they would be substitutes for the latter."
  That means that our articles are not the same. It means that these people said it is true, we are not making what the Germans are making, but if we get a duty we can make what the Germans are making. They cannot answer in the affirmative the question proposed that they are suffering from competition in articles of the same class imported from abroad. Let me come to the question of efficiency. It is no good the hon. Member below making scornful laughter; we are just as much concerned with the greatness of our commerce as he is, and we think that we have a sounder economic view than he has. I do not know whether Members have read the Report on gloves issued in 1921. In 1921 it was made quite clear that this glove industry was a small post-War industry created on the back of a totally different War industry. It was an effort to use the machinery and factories which had been made for the one thing, in a new industry. It was not very successful, and the people engaged in it would have been better to direct their efforts in the channels in which they would have achieved greater success with the natural advantages they possess. I ask hon. Gentlemen who are following the

  2619
  argument to take pages 4 and 5. Page 4, paragraph 8, says at the bottom of the page:
  "It is no doubt true that the gloves produced by several British manufacturers up to 1919–20 were not of the same standard as that obtaining in Germany"—
  that is to say not so efficient—
  "but this is largely accounted for by the fact that the industry had been established in Chemnitz for a long period of years, whereas the British industry developed during the time of the War."
  That is no doubt an explanation and extenuation. It does not alter the fact that the committee found that there was disparity in conditions. The most they say is that they are satisfied that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products. That is the best this Committee, which is recommending a duty, can do in reply to the question: Is the industry conducted with efficiency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"]
  "We are satisfied, however, that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products during the past few years "—
  It must have been bad before—
  "We are of opinion that the types of fabric gloves now produced in this country are fairly comparable in fit and finish with those at present manufactured abroad."
  That is not exactly a high testimonial to efficiency. Does the hon. Member wish me to continue?
  "The applicants maintained that they were unable to meet Continental competition, principally on account of the lower wages"
  and so on. This committee with all the goodwill in the world, and all the reluctance which everyone would feel to decry any British product, does declare that they are fairly comparable, and, i hold, show some improvement. If a school report says there is improvement, it is not quite so high as the schoolmaster would wish it to go.
  Let me come to the next question, namely, whether there is an abnormal import. That is very important. I repeat the question which has been put in all these cases to the Government: What do they mean by "abnormal import"? What is the definition of "abnormal import"? The words used are the same for all these committees, but the interpretation is different for
  2620
  each committee. It has been said that the Minister has given instructions as to the meaning of the words "abnormal import." The right hon. Gentleman will not say that he has not given such instructions. I pause for the reply. Has he given the committees instructions?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday, I have given no committee any instructions except the instructions laid down in the White Paper.
  Captain BENN: That is a matter to which we will come on the Report of another committee, the Gas Mantle Committee, where special terms of reference, outside the terms of the White Paper. were laid down. The right hon. Gentleman has to assess and appraise and to determine what he will do on the reports of these committees. In his view what is the. correct interpretation of the term "abnormal import"? Does he mean imports greater than pre-War imports? Does he mean a pro-pressive increase of imports? Does he mean imports greater than the post-War imports? What does the term mean? Clearly, if you take the widest definition, as some of the committees do, and say, "If we can find one year where the import of these goods is greater than that of another year, then there is an abnormal import," there is not a single industry in the country which does not show an abnormal import within the terms of such a definition. Let us turn to page 7 of the Report. This matter has been investigated by the Gloves Committee. Let us deal first with the growth of the import in the year 1925. One of the effects of all this campaign about safeguarding, the setting up of all these semi-private committees, the small paragraph in the newspaper saying that an application had been made to the Board of Trade, a short announcement that the committee was to sit—all that has a definite effect on the foreign exporter. The moment he sees that there is to be a committee set up he says, "Well, in case they put on a duty"—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have followed the hon. and gallant Member and I cannot find that he is referring to gloves at all. He is referring rather to the general question, which has been fully discussed.
  Captain BENN: I have not cited a single instance which was not taken from the Glove Report. It is perfectly true that I am illustrating the general question, but I am doing it from the Glove Report, and surely the object of the discussion of any Resolution is to see whether, in the case of the article on which it is proposed to put a tax, the general conditions are fulfilled?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That was settled yesterday in the general discussion, which included all the articles mentioned in the different Resolutions. That cannot be repeated to-day.
  Mr. LANSBURY: At the beginning of this discussion yesterday, I asked your predecessor whether we could discuss the general question on a Resolution, and he said in effect, "Certainly, if that were agreed." It was agreed generally that that was what should be done. I told the Chairman distinctly that I wanted an opportunity to discuss the whole question.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Member will bear me out when I say that the point which was put to the Chairman yesterday was that I had, as was stated, quite properly opened with all the facts on the particular Resolution, and that an hon. Member should be permitted, on the Resolution, not only to speak of the rate of duty and so on, but to speak of all the relevant factors in relation to the particular proposal; but no suggestion was made that we should go beyond that, nor did I go beyond it in my speech by engaging again in a general discussion of policy.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I endorse what the last speaker has said. That was certainly the understanding reached in the discussion at the beginning of these Debates. What has been pursued by my hon. and gallant Friend I understand is this: The argument that the 1920 figures are not useful for deciding on this question, for the simple reason that, there having been a previous announcement in regard to the setting up of these Committees, foreign exporters have taken note of that fact and have rushed their goods into this country. The only thing that appeared to be lacking on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend was that he did not use the word "gloves" in
  2622
  every other sentence. Every argument led up to the examination of the figures, and that was quite relevant to the ruling of yourself and your predecessor.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the contrary, that is how the hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to get himself in order— by using the word "gloves." General policy cannot be discussed on this Motion.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not want to press the point. Am I to understand that it is not in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to make the point that publication of the notice that this Committee was to be set up had led to an abnormal import of gloves in the period before the Committee reported? That was the point I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to be making. Is that in order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discuss the general policy of this Safeguarding of Industries Act. The only thing that is in order is to discuss whether gloves are to be included in the Resolutions or not.
  Captain BENN: I assure you sincerely that I have been endeavouring to keep within the strict rules of debate, and I am trying to illustrate from the Glove Report, and from no other document, the arguments that I wish to advance against the proposition. Let me come to the question whether, in the case of gloves, there is an abnormal import. In the White Paper there is a very useful table at the foot of page 7, where are shown the percentages of total United Kingdom consumption of gloves, with the figures for British manufactures and foreign manufactures. We find that whereas in 1913 the British manufacturer enjoyed 26 per cent. of the trade in gloves, in 1924 he enjoyed 32·5 per cent. of the tra3e. How can the President of the Board of Trade, in face of those figures, contend that the foreign manufacturer is making an abnormal import? The share of the foreign manufacturer has decreased from 74 per cent. in 1913 to 67·5 per cent. in 1924. I contend, therefore, that the answer to the question put to the Glove Committee, "Has there been an abnormal import?" is that in this particular article, so far from the proportion of British manufactures having declined, it has positively advanced in the market.

  2623
  Now I come to another question that was put to this Committee, namely, whether the foreign manufacturers are selling at prices lower than the prices at which the same article can be profitably manufactured in this country? I ask hon. Members to turn to page 9 of the Report. The Committee say that they have examined many types and grades of fabric and leather gloves and are of opinion—
  "that in the classes of goods manufactured in this country our manufacturers are meeting severe competition from comparable goods which are being sold or offered for sale at prices at which British firms cannot profitably manufacture them."
  That is a categorical statement. But it is not supported by one tittle of evidence. It was not supported by the evidence of the President of the Board of Trade in his speech to-night. We cannot lay our hands on a single statement of a qualified individual in support of this conclusion. It is merely the Committee who say that they are of opinion that these gloves are coming in and are being sold at prices with which the British manufacturer cannot fairly compete. We are the Committee of Ways and Means, and if we are to impose this duty we require the evidence to be laid before us. If the President of the Board of Trade could say that the evidence was available in the Library, that might be some answer, although it might involve an abrogation of the very ancient functions of this Committee. But merely to take the unsupported testimony of three individuals who have been made members of the Glove Committee and who ask us to say that foreign goods are being sold here at prices with which our people cannot compete—though that statement may be true, it is not proved.
  The next question is, whether employment in the glove industry is seriously affected? I ask hon. Gentlemen to turn to page 10 of the Report. They will find in paragraph 28 a statement as to the numbers employed. We find that whereas in 1913 there were 2,400 people employed in this industry, in 1924–25, or when the Report was issued, there were 1,800. That shows a considerable and lamentable decline of 600. Yes, but it cannot really be said that with the prevailing unemployment in this country this is an industry which you should single out.
  Mr. HANNON: To provide employment for only 600 is very important.
  Captain BENN: It is, indeed, extremely important, but the hon. Gentleman does not follow my argument. He, of course, is perfectly logical. He would extend this specific to all the industries of the country. He never denies it. No doubt the bulk of hon. Members opposite are of the same mind. But that is not the basis of this application to gloves. The basis of this application is that here is an industry which, even in these bad times, is much worse than the rest, and, therefore, is entitled to the duty.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the lines above the one he has mentioned? It states that in July, 1919, there were 10,948 employed.
  Captain BENN: In 1919 there was no import at all, and the reason for that is obvious, for 1919 might almost be called a war year. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the figures for 1916 and 1917? I say that to the question, Is unemployment in the glove industry abnormal? according to all impartial observers the answer is in the negative. I want to come now to the question of competition from other countries. Hon. Members will see this mentioned on, page 11 of the Report. The question put to the Glove Committee was, whether exceptional competition in this industry comes largely from countries where the conditions are different? The Report purports to set out examples of conditions differing so as to render competition unfair. If hon. Members read paragraph 29 they will find a large number of statements, but they will not find, from beginning to end, one jot of evidence. They will find that the secretary to the Committee, at the bidding of the three members, has made a number of assertions, but there is not a single piece of evidence to support the assertions, and the President of the Board of Trade will not give us any evidence. He shelters himself behind these assertions, and I contend that such assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot possibly weigh with the Committee of Ways and Means which is asked to impose this duty.
  I remember the duty which was put on fabric gloves in 1922, and I remember the

  2625
  Report of the Committee which examined the state of the industry in 1921. They said that the industry was being affected by German imports because of the inflation of the mark. That was the gravamen of their case—that the low value of the mark created conditions with which British industry was unable to compete. It was pointed out that it was only the exclusion of gloves from Australia and the fiscal preferences of Canada which prevented the German manufacturers getting a foothold in those two markets. Now this Committee recommends the duty but not on that basis. The mark has now been stabilised, and the price of manufacture in Germany is steadily rising, leaving aside the question that the German manufacturer has to borrow capital at exorbitant rates of interest. The Committee do not mention the fact that the preferences in Australia have been still more heavily weighted in favour of the home manufacturer, and instead of that they base their case for the duty—
  Mr. GREENE: Is it not the implication of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party that Colonial Preference is quite useless to us because the preferences are not sufficient for us to get in our goods?
  Captain BENN: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to join issue with the hon. Gentleman, but of course it is obviously impossible to do so within the ruling given by the Deputy-Chairman. Although I do not in the least shirk it, I cannot at this point enter into an argument on Colonial preference. I say that, despite this increase in the Australian preference and despite the stabilisation of the mark, this committee on gloves goes back to the decision of the old committee on gloves and insists that there is a case for the duty, although they are not able to support it by any material evidence. In this case of fabric gloves we have an opportunity of examining the facts in the light of experience, because for a short period—happily terminated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—fabric gloves did enjoy a duty, and by looking at the tables in the Report we are enabled to see what happened when that duty was enforced. Let us take figures
  2626
  in paragraph 21 in relation to the duty which existed from August, 1922, to August, 1924. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in their contention, that duty should have done much to check the import of foreign fabric gloves. Did it? Here are the figures. The percentage of the total United Kingdom consumption enjoyed by the foreigner in 1922 was 87. After two years of the duty he had 88 per cent. Does not that show that the one experiment we have made in this direction wan a complete and dismal failure?
  Mr. REMER: It only referred to one country.
  Captain BENN: Yes. but everybody knows, and nobody better than the hon. Member, that in fabric gloves it was the Saxon competition which mattered, and that the Act as originally drawn covered everything which could be said to originate in Germany. Therefore, I contend that even tested by the conditions laid down by the Government and judged by the assertions of the Committee, the case for the duty absolutely fails. In this Report it is pointed out that Italy is one of the chief exporters of these gloves to this country. I regret more than ever that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his right place on the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged in debt negotiations with Italy. How does he suppose he is going to get his debt paid by Italy unless it comes in the form of Italian gloves or some other goods? It is idle for hon. Gentlemen to try to have it both ways. It is idle to say "We will have our foreign debts paid," and then when things like these gloves come along to say "We will not have the gloves." It is a complete confusion of thought, and hon. Members must make up their minds that they cannot reject foreign goods and have foreign debts paid. There is a further point in this Report, although it did not seem to be within the proper scope of the inquiry, and that is the question of prices. The Committee say that the price of these gloves is very high. Paragraph 29 (h) is extremely interesting because it shows that if you raise the price of these gloves by putting a duty on them, there is going to be a percentage profit on that duty as well as on the cost of the glove, at every stage of dis-

  2627
  tribution. It is pointed out that the manufacturer in the first place adds the cost of the duty. The wholesale distributor puts his profit on to the cost of the article plus the cost of the duty and then the retail distributor takes the price of the glove plus the duty plus the profit of the wholesale distributor and on top of that accumulated total puts his own profit.
  I must confess I am not hopeful of Government interference) in these matters, but I think more practical sense would be shown by the right hon. Gentleman if he were to say, "This Report reveals gross profiteering on this article and I propose to devise something to stop that profiteering." Then the right hon. Gentleman might be said to be doing something in the interests of the consumers. There are minor points which will arise. For instance, if a glove has a little silk in it, is a double duty to be charged? Further, what is the yield of the duty? Do hon. Members think it consistent with their self-respect to sit here as members of a Committee imposing a tax, and for the first time in history the responsible Minister does not know what the yield of the tax is going to bet If there is a little silk in a glove, is the right hon. Gentleman going to make it liable first to the silk duty on the total value of the article, and then add a 33⅓ per cent. duty on to that? If so, will it be added on to the c.i.f. value? That is what happened in connection with the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. When such a glove comes in, what is the aggregate figure on which the Customs Department will charge? These are very important questions, and they do not arise only in the ease of gloves containing a little silk. There is also the case of motor-drivers' gloves. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me with authority, because it is not his Department, but are not motor drivers' gloves regarded as motor accessories and liable as such to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. already? We cannot have a Treasury official here to tell us whether the gauntlet glove for the motor cyclist or the owner of a small car, is going to be subject to 33⅓ per cent. as a motor accessory, and to another 33⅓ per cent. on the price plus the first 33⅓ per cent., because it is a glove.
  2628
  It is quite impossible to consent to these tinkering tariffs on twopenny-half-penny articles which are going to re-create the long list of dutiable goods swept away by this country in the early part of last century—little duties producing little revenues and causing infinite hardship to the trade of the country. Of course, it is not going to stop at gloves. Lady Askwith, who sat on the Committee, expresses the opinion that a tax having been imposed on imported silk glove fabrics, it will operate unfairly on that industry should cotton glove fabric come in free. When the Report on the paper industry comes along we shall find that the result of putting a tax on in that case will be a demand from at least 30 other industries claiming to be damaged by that duty. It is the beginning of a general tariff, and a very bad general tariff, a tariff which is merely a collection of articles—not even that which is humourously called a scientific- tariff. It will be a tariff suggested by little interests coming together for the purpose of exploiting the consumer and persuading the President of the Board of Trade, hot in open debate but in secret Committee, to propose these Measures to the House of Commons.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I have listened to this Debate all the afternoon, and as one who held no political views in pre-War days and only took an interest in polities because of the state of the country, I am filled with amazement on listening to the academic ingenuity of hon. Members opposite, which has for is sole object, as far as I can see, keeping British men out of employment. That this is, in fact, the case is fairly evident so far as the Labour party is concerned, because during a large part of the Debate there has not been a single back bench Member of that party present.
  Mr. LANSBURY: There are not many of your own party.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: We have a great many more than the Labour party.
  Mr. CHARLETON: Where were you last night?
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was working on my housing scheme.
  Mr. CHARLETON: We were in the House of Commons.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That shows how stupid hon. Members were to stop here instead of going home to bed.
  Mr. CHARLETON: We were looking after the interests of the unemployed.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: No. You were simply trying to obstruct Government business, and you know it. Hon. Members are well aware that all-night sittings are perfectly useless for the business of the country.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to accuse other hon. Members of obstructing public business? I have heard rulings from the Chair on that subject.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member, was going further than he ought to have gone.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I apologise if I went beyond the rules of the House, but I do feel that in the present condition of the country we should do everything to increase employment, and if. I did speak with a little bit of feeling I hope that I shall be forgiven. Let us take the whole speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). What do we find? First he attacked the terms of reference to the Committee, then the constitution of the Committee, and then the impartiality of the Committee, but he did not once address himself to the question whether or not more persons will be employed by the imposition of this duly, whether the cost of gloves will go up, or whether the increased trade will bring revenue to the Exchequer. Every single argument he produced was one of academic economics. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are academic economics?"] Academic economics are those advocated by persons who have never had to conduct a business.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to deal with the question before the Committee, namely, gloves.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was endeavouring to keep on the track of gloves, but I was continually interrupted. If one may turn to the question of gloves, surely there are only three questions
  2630
  before this Committee to-night. We are not discussing whether or not the Safeguarding of Industries Act should have been brought into force or otherwise, but whether or not gloves should be brought under that Act, and there are three questions to be asked. The first is, will the cost of gloves to the consumer be increased or decreased by their being brought under this Act? The second question is, will more British people be employed by the imposition of this duty or not? And the third question is, will the revenue be increased or otherwise by the increase of trade? Let me deal with the first point, because many of the arguments that have been addressed to the Committee by hon. Members opposite have been based on the assumption that the price of goods will be increased. I entirely disagree, and I would like to give some actual figures. I will take the figures from the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Supposing we take a. pair of gloves costing the manufacturer 5s. to produce. Hon. Members opposite have told us that the retail price is at least 100 per cent. more than the wholesale price, and, therefore, that pair of gloves we are considering would not be sold under 10s.; but the duty is levied upon the manufacturing cost, and not upon the retail cost, and, therefore, the increase in the price of those gloves, other things being equal, would be. 1s. 8d.
  There is another factor to be brought in, namely, that the charges are not entirely for labour. Where machinery is employed in a large degree, the overhead charges are greatly in excess of labour costs, and, therefore, if there is an increase in output, and those overhead charges are reduced by an amount greater than the duty imposed, the cost to the consumer is bound to be less with the imposition of that duty than it would be without the imposition of that duty, for the simple reason that output has gone up, and therefore the cost of production has gone down. That is amply illustrated in this very question of gloves. America put an import duty on gloves, and continued to increase that duty, with the result that two firms were able so to increase their output that they actually attracted the men from this country who were put out of work here by the competition of those factories, and went to America, with the result that they took the whole of the export trade

  2631
  from us. I see the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and I would suggest to him that that is what will always happen with any industry which is protected, and which is capable of the application of mass methods of manufacture, because if the article be protected, the output is increased, and the overhead charges come down to such a degree that it matters very little what the wages are. Let me take one or two examples without going outside the limits of the Debate. I believe Mr. Morris is paying his men something like £7 a week. That is one example of the fact that the cost of labour does not very much matter when you get real mass production. Take another case in which I happen to know the figures are accurate.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is going too much into general policy.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I was endeavouring to prove that if the cost of labour were to go up, the actual cost of the gloves would be less, but as I cannot pursue that argument in any detail, I think it can be proved without doubt that if the output be increased by 50 per cent., the overhead charges will fall by an amount more than sufficient to compensate for the duty, and the result will therefore be, that in so far as cost is concerned, the gloves will be produced and sold to the consumer at a cheaper price with the duty on than without it, for the simple reason that the reduction of overhead charges goes to our factories instead of to the foreign factories. With regard to the question of labour, surely if we increase our output by 50 or more per cent., it is quite certain we shall employ more labour. The third point is, shall we obtain more revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the imposing of these duties? I submit that we shall obtain that increased revenue on three grounds, the first by whatever imports may be levied on the goods which still come to this country. Further, we shall obtain it by the increased Income Tax and Super-tax levied upon the shareholders and the manufacturers, and we shall obtain it by the increased Income Tax which is paid by the extra workmen who are employed, [An HON. MEMBER: "Who pays it?"] They pay it if they get high enough wages.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is an argument concerning a general tariff. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will confine himself to the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I will endeavour to keep entirely to the question of gloves. Therefore, on the three questions which we have asked ourselves, if this duty be put on gloves, namely, will the cost go up or down, we can answer quite definitely that the cost to the consumer will go down; we can answer, secondly, that we shall employ more British persons in the industry; and, thirdly, that the revenue of the State will be increased. Therefore we have only to consider as ancillary matters to these three major issues as to what is the extent of the market which is open to us, and we see from the figures in the White Paper that we are to-day producing, approximately, one-third of the total quantity of the articles required. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) stated that the duty would not, in fact, touch the essential reason of the contraction of the glove trade, which was the reduced purchasing power of people in this country. But what I suggest to him is that it will touch the essential factor of the glove trade in this country, because if there is only a certain market to be obtained, the higher the proportion of the market that the British industry can obtain, the better will British industry be able to overcome those difficulties, which, otherwise, it would be unable to overcome. I do not think it can be argued, that because the industry as a whole is contracted, we in this House should not take such steps as we may to ensure that, in so far as the British market is concerned, the British manufacturer should obtain whatever remains of that contracted industry. For that reason, the fact that the industry is contracting is only one more ground why this duty should be imposed. If we turn to the question of exports, we shall again find that as the cost of production will be reduced owing to decreased overhead charges, we shall be enabled to regain that export trade which we have lost. It is on these grounds that I do hope the Committee will not be guided by pre-War theories as to what the various parties should support in regard to tariffs. Surely what we in this House

  2633
  want to do is to try to put more persons into employment if we can do it without affecting the consumer. I submit the consumer will be assisted and not hurt by this duty, and I sincerely hope the party opposite will sink their prejudices and support the Government in these Resolutions.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I think we have all listened with great interest to the very sincere speech of the hon. and gallant Member and his examination into what he would call "practical economics," but which, I am afraid, has convinced me of the superiority of what he calls "academic economics." I do not wish to follow his arguments in detail; they seem to be based on a series of assumptions which would take me too long to analyse in detail. I would, however, like to refer to the Report itself, because I understand the Government base their case entirely on this document. With a simple and pathetic faith in documents of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to swallow them whole. I find some difficulties. It is proposed to protect leather and fabric gloves, but not to protect glove fabrics. The first Order which was issued under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1922, did protect both fabric gloves and glove fabrics. I am now placed in this position. I do not see that the economic situation with regard to glove fabrics has changed any more than that with regard to fabric gloves, and if in 1922 it was right to protect glove fabrics, yon cannot say that they should not be protected to-day. But there is this difficulty always in these matters: They depend very much on the mood and temper of the people who happen to be inquiring into the question. It is just possible that, if there were another Committee next year, it might recommend that glove fabrics should be protected, and the lady who signed the reservation to the Report was quite right in suggesting that the matter could not be allowed to rest where it was.
  The facts, so far as they are adduced in the Report, show that, whatever the reason, there is a restricted national consumption of gloves, and that there is a restricted foreign market. If these two
  2634
  facts be stated correctly I do not see how it follows that any kind of expansion of the home or foreign market will follow from the imposition of these duties. On the contrary, it might be shown that the market might be further restricted. It is impossible for the trade to expand its home market, which is admittedly the root of the trouble from which it is suffering, by any plan which will make gloves more expensive.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) suggested that the price of gloves might be less, but the whole immediate object is to raise the price of gloves to the British consumer. It was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that the conclusions of the Committee are not supported by evidence. That, I think, is true. One sees that particularly in paragraph 29, dealing with foreign competition. It says first, that one of the reasons why competition should be regarded as unfair is because of low wages in most of the competing countries. For example, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France. Will the President of the Board of Trade give the Committee the rate of wages of the different grades of workers in the fabric glove and leather glove industries in those four countries, and put the wages of English workpeople side by side with them, and will he go back to pre-War days and give us the rates of wages of glove workers in this country and those four countries? I ask that, be ause I think the Committee is entitled to that information. It might have been given in the Appendix to the Report.
  Frankly, I do not believe in this argument. It is true that, before the War, wages in most manufacturing industries in those countries were below the wages paid to equivalent grades of labour in this country. That was at a time when there was very little outcry for Protection. If, in the interval, wages have increased in those countries to the same extent as they have in this country, British manufacturers, on that ground, have no cause for complaint, and I am convinced that, in a number of industries allied with the fabric glove industry in Germany and France, the increase in the rate of wages of labour in the past 10 years has been greater than it has been in this country, and it is absurd therefore to attempt to take currencies which are

  2635
  more or less artificial and translate the wages into sterling, which make them look as if they are less per week, when the only fair ground of comparison is over a period of years to see to what extent wages have increased.
  If it be true that wages in this country have increased more since the beginning of the War than in those countries which have been specified, to that extent manufacturers here would have a case, but, with no information to go upon, the Committee is unable to come to any decision as to how far that particular argument is a fair one or not. I make no complaint about the Committee. I am. sure that it acted according to its rights, but I do think that in paragraph 29 it does show an unwillingness to put all the facts. For example, take the question of depreciated exchanges. On that point I understand that at least nine-tenths of the yarn used in the manufacture of fabric gloves is manufactured in Lancashire, and most of it is exported to the other countries. It may be true that a depreciated exchange acts as a bounty upon the export of manufactured articles, but a depreciated exchange acts in precisely a contrary direction as regards the import of raw materials, and while a depreciated exchange may be an asset to a country for exporting goods it is a hindrance to its trade when it wishes to import goods, and yet nine-tenths of the raw material of these fabric gloves comes from this country and depreciated exchanges to that extent do not help the foreign fabric glove industry.
  I am sorry if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks this strange economics. I should have thought that it was an accepted doctrine of economics that depreciated exchange is a bounty on exports, and a hindrance to imports. I will leave it at that, and the hon. Gentleman may reflect on it a little longer. Then reference is made to hours of labour. I see that very little evidence was given in support of that point. The only reference is that in Germany the hours of labour are longer than in this country, but they do not say what the difference is. It may be that there is a difference between the hours worked in this country and those worked in other countries. How is that problem going to be modified by the imposition of a tariff upon goods
  2636
  coming from those countries? I conceive that if a tariff is put on, the foreign manufacturer, anxious to maintain the market, may increase the hours of labour further, and workers in this country will be met by employers with the argument that therefore hours should be increased here. But if our Government are anxious to meet this difficulty of varying hours of labour in different countries one very simple and effective way of doing it would be to ratify the Washington Hours Convention, and then to persuade other countries to do the same. This tariff proposal will not succeed in achieving that object.
  The fabric glove industry, it seems to me, is condemned in this Report. It is said that the German industry is an industry of long standing, which is very efficient. I think that it is true in recent years that the industry in this country has improved, as the Report points out; but it is quite clear that while, with every desire not to let the trade down, the Committee has stretched its words, it does not admit, and cannot admit, that the goods imported into this country and the goods produced at home are of the same quality. It is implied, in two places in the Report, that the British article is inferior to the imported commodity. What, therefore, we are asked to do is to subsidise an industry which is producing an inferior article, to enable it to put up its price beyond the price at which the superior article can be obtained. It is significant that the Committee referred to the cost of distribution. Many hon. Members opposite—
  Mr. LANSBURY: Where are they?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It is a great weakness of the economic system—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There is an interesting section in this Report dealing with the cost of distribution. On that I think that we shall carry many hon. Members on the other side with us. Instances are given of the manufacturers' selling price being doubled by the time that the article—fabric gloves—reached the consumer, That is a problem that we ought to have considered by the Government, but none

  2637
  of us on this side of the House see how the cost of distribution would be reduced by the imposition of a duty. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last suggested that the whole of the cost of the duties would not come on the price. My view is that a pair of gloves, where the manufacturer's price is now 5s. and the retail price 10s., will become 6s. 8d. by the addition of the duty and 13s. 4d. in the retailers' stores, because, of course, the retailer insists, if he can get it, on 100 per cent, profit, and as the manufactured article goes through the hands of middlemen—
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The import duty is paid by the foreigner. There is no duty on British gloves, and therefore the price will not be increased. The price of foreign gloves is merely increased by the import duty, but the British gloves are not increased by the import duty at all.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish the hon. and gallant Member were right, but I should imagine it is a part of the motive behind the Government in bringing this Resolution forward to make the industry prosperous, to enable it to pay higher wages. It, therefore, needs more money,
  and will get it by higher prices. I should say that the manufacturers would be more than human if they did not take advantage of the duty imposed on the foreign article to increase the price of the home article, and in either case, whether we are dealing with foreign gloves or British gloves, it is quite clear that the 33⅓ per cent. duty will be increased proportionately by the addition of retailers' charges. We would suggest that the way of dealing with this question is not by way of a tariff duty. I think those who have read this Report carefully will agree with the criticism that has been put forward that the case has not been proved, and that the Committee has not furnished this House with the information necessary for it to form a judgment on the merits of the case.
  Several HON. MEMBERS having risen,
  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, 221; Noes, 131.

  Division No. 454.]

  AYES.

  [8.18 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

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

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Albery, Irving James

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Gower, sir Robert

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Cobb. Sir Cyril

  Grace, John

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Apsley, Lord

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cope, Major William

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Atkinson, C.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Gunston, Captain D. w.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Balniel, Lord

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

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Barnston, Major sir Harry

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Bethell, A.

  Drewe, C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Blundell, F. N.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

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

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

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

  Finburgh, S.

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

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Frece, Sir Walter de

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Cassels, J. D.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gates, Percy

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Gee. Captain R.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Chapman, Sir S.

  Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

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

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Neville, R. J.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

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

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pease, William Edwin

  Storry Deans, R.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Perring, William George

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Pilcher, G.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Templeton, W. P.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Preston, William

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Radford, E. A.

  Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

  Lougher, L.

  Ramsden, E.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Remer, J. R.

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

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Remnant, Sir James

  Warner, Brigadier-General w. w.

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Macintyre, I.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Wells. S. R.

  McLean, Major A.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Rye F. G.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Salmon, Major I.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Womersley, W. J.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sandon, Lord

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Savery, S. S.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

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

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

  Viscount Curzon.

  NOES.

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

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Baker, Walter

  Hardie, George D.

  Scurr, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sexton, James

  Barnes, A.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barr, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Smillie, Robert

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromfield, William

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

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

  Clowes, S.

  Lansbury, George

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lawson, John James

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lee, F.

  Thurtle, E.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lindley, F. W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Connolly, M.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Townend, A. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lunn, William

  Varley, Frank B.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mackinder, W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Warne, G. H.

  Dennison, R.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Duckworth, John

  March, S.

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Montague, Frederick

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Fenby, T. D.

  Murnin, H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Gosling, Harry

  Palin, John Henry

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenall, T.

  Paling, W.

  Windsor, Walter

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wright, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Sir

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

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

  Godfrey Collins.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. F. C. THOMSON and Captain Viscount CURZON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. LANSBUEY and Mr. BUCHANAN Tellers for the Noes. But, on the Tellers coining to the Table, it appeared that Sir GODFREY COLLINS and Mr. LANSRURY had acted as Tellers for the Noes.
  The CHAIRMAN: I received the names of certain Tellers in this Division—the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Other Tellers appear at the Table. Under these circumstances I can only hold that these Tellers have not been authorised—at least, one of them has not. The Tellers will withdraw and resume their seats.
  Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I feel that a personal explanation is due to the Committee and to you, Mr. Chairman, for my action a few minutes ago. An hour or so ago I handed in at the Table my name and the name of a colleague to tell on this Amendment, and therefore thought that when the Division was called my hon. Friend and myself would be Tellers. It is through no lack of respect for my hon. Friends above the Gangway that I acted in the way I have done. If I have contravened the Rules of the House I apologise. I thought what I was doing was in keeping with my action an hour ago on an Amendment which was on the Paper, and that I should be entitled to tell as I have done.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: As I have been involved in this, may I also say a word in personal explanation? I understood no names had been handed in to tell; and if no names had been handed in the Division would have been declared void. There having been no names before you at the time, I took the opportunity, because I wanted a Division, to hand in the name of my colleague, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and myself. I understood those were the only two that were notified to you to act as Tellers. I retired from the door on understanding from the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) that the thing had been adjusted. Not being used to acting as a Teller, I did it, I am afraid, rather innocently. I hope that nothing I have done reflects on the conduct of my colleagues.
  Mr. LANSBURY: In order to clear my character, and to repudiate the cries of "Coalition," I want to say that I consented to act as a Teller to save, as I thought, the situation. Apparently, I have added to the gaiety of the House, and I am very pleased, indeed.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can only say that all parties to this episode emerge from it with unblemished characters. A mistake has been made. Tellers can only be named and accepted after a Division has been called, and therefore I must put the Question again.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 127.

  Division No. 455.]

  AYES.

  [8.39 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Albery, Irving James

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Apsley, Lord

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

  Dalziel, Sir Davison

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

  Atkinson, C.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Campbell, E. T.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Drewe, C.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Elliott, Captain Walter E.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Bethell, A.

  Chilcott, Sir Warden

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Finburgh, S.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Cope, Major William

  Fleming, D. P.

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Lamb, J.O.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Rye, F. G.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Gates, Percy

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Gee, Captain R.

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

  Looker, Herbert William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

  Sandon, Lord

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Lougher, L.

  Savery, S. S.

  Grace, John

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Lumley, L. R.

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

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

  Grotrian, H. Brent

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Smithers, Waldron

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

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

  Malone, Major p. B.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Mitchell, Sir W. Line (Streatham)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Henderson, Capt. R-R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

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

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

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

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Morrison-Bell Sir Arthur Clive

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

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

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

  Neville R. J.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wells, S. R.

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

  Pease William Edwin

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Penny Frederick George

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Perring, William George

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Preston, William

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)

  price, Major C. W. M.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Radford E A

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

  Ramsden, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jacob, A. E.

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Remer, J. R.

  Viscount Curzon.

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  NOES.

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

  Dunnico, H.

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Kennedy, T.

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Baker, Walter

  Fenby, T. D.

  Lansbury, George

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Forrest, W.

  Lawson, John James

  Barnes, A.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lee, F.

  Barr, J.

  Gosling, Harry

  Lindley, F. W.

  Batey, Joseph

  Greenall, T.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lowth, T.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lunn, William

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Groves, T.

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

  Broad, F. A.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Mackinder, W.

  Bromfield, William

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Bromley, J.

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

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Brawn, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  March. S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Cape, Thomas

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Montague, Frederick

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hardle, George D.

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

  Clowes, S.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Murnin, H.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Naylor, T. E.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Compton, Joseph

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Palin, John Henry

  Connolly, M.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Paling, W.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hirst, G H.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Potts, John S.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Day, Colonel Harry

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Ritson, J.

  Dennison, R.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Duckworth, John

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  2644

  2645

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Taylor, R. A.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Westwood, J.

  Scurr, John

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Whiteley, W.

  Sexton, James

  Thurtle, E.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Smillie, Robert

  Townend, A. E.

  Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Windsor, Walter

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Wright, W.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Viant, S. P.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Snell, Harry

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Stamford, T. W.

  Warne, G. H.

  Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Trevelyan Thomson.

  Sutton, J. E.

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

  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the Committee on future occasions, whether it is not the case that the Ayes, having properly appointed their Tellers in the Division which has just been declared off. have the right to claim the Question without a Division?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think not, because the Tellers for the Noes had been duly appointed, but other gentlemen had quite unconsciously usurped their places.
  Mr. HERBERT: I submit that the Tellers duly appointed did not tell, and therefore there were no votes for the Noes.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that suggestion does great credit to the hon. Member's ingenuity, but I cannot agree with it.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: Supposing this error happened two or three times, would that mean that there is no limit to the number of Divisions on the Question?
  The CHAIRMAN: I never seek to meet trouble half-way. The next Amendment I select is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander).
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Are we to have no discussion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), to leave out "33⅓" and to insert "5"? I submit that in Committee of Ways and Means a proposal for the reduction of a duty is one of the most important that can be put from the Chair. I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, under what Rule you pass over this Amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have more than one thing to say about that. In the first place, I have an absolute right of selection; in the second place, this is an
  2646
  enabling and not an enacting Resolution; and, in the third place, the Motion to reduce the duty to 5 per cent. would practically mean a negative of the whole Resolution. I am quite willing to waive my right of selection if any of the hon. Members whose names are down to this Amendment will say that they are seriously desirous of imposing a duty of 5 per cent.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I respectfully press you, Mr. Chairman, to allow this Amendment to be moved. I would like to put one or two considerations. In the first place, you have in the Amendment at the top of page 3565 of the Order Paper, two Amendments relating to the period of time. The second Amendment, to which my name is attached, relates to the financial question, and lower down the Amendments refer to the articles concerned in the resolution. If you rule out the Amendment standing in my name, we cannot discuss the financial provision, and that is a very important question.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will give me the explicit assurance which I have asked for, then I am prepared to waive my right of selection.
  Mr. DAVIES: I will do that with pleasure.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then I may take it that the hon. Member seriously wishes that there shall be a 5 per cent. duty on imported gloves.
  Mr. DAVIES: I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that those who have attached their names to this Amendment seriously desire a discussion upon it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that does not satisfy my condition.
  Captain BENN: This Resolution proposes to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and I desire to give reasons why it should be 5 per cent.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not gather that the hon. and gallant Member says that he wishes to impose such a duty.
  Captain BENN: Do I understand that it is within the province of the Chair to invite professions of fiscal opinion?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not say that, but it is within the province of the Chair to select Amendments without giving reasons.
  Captain BENN: Then I will give shortly my reasons for supporting this Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not the point. The hon. and gallant Member may give a short explanation, but it rests with me whether I accept it or not.
  Captain BENN: I know you have a right, Mr. Chairman, to permit us to make a statement or to decide the question without a statement. Some of these duties now being proposed are to be imposed on articles which are already dutiable, and if we impose this 33⅓ per cent. which is now proposed, the aggregate on some articles might amount to 66⅔ per cent. We have devised an Amendment which will cover this point. Motor accessories, gloves and silk content would be subject to this double duty, and consequently it is of the first importance, and for these reasons I submit that we should be allowed to discuss this Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I will give full weight to the hon. and gallant Member's considerations if he will put down a similar Amendment when the Bill is before the House in Committee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. Do you not think, on reflection, that it is only—I do not want to use a wrong word—that it is only fair to the House that we should have the opportunity, in dealing with the enabling Resolution on which a Finance Bill will be framed, of voting specifically in such a way as will limit the scope of the Finance Bill upon this particular duty? It seems to me, from my short experience of the House, that we have always had the right, on previous Ways and Means Resolutions, to take a vote of the Committee in order to limit as far as we can the scope of the
  2648
  Finance Bill which is to follow. We shall not have that privilege if your ruling is adhered to.
  The CHAIRMAN: Many Amendments of greater or less importance may be put down, but, on the first stage of a Measure like this, as it is only an enabling Resolution, I feel less inclined to allow unlimited scope than if it were an enacting Resolution.
  Captain BENN: May I put to you a contingency which, if it arose—I do not say that it will—would, in view of your ruling, rob Members of the Ways and Means Committee of their rights? Supposing that the Government, having carried this Resolution for a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and you having ruled that an Amendment to reduce the duty to 5 per cent. was not one that you would select, and if, then, the Government introduced a Bill which only imposed a duty of 4 per cent., you will observe that then we should have been robbed of the opportunity of discussing the smaller duty, as we have on this occasion.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can hardly imagine a case in which a Government, having taken such wide powers, would content itself with so very moderate an exercise of them.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Might I put this point to you, Mr. Hope? This appears to me to be a very important precedent, which may affect the procedure in Committee of Ways and Means in future years. The proposal on the Paper, as I understand it, certainly in so far as I was responsible in putting my name to it, was not that I wished to have a duty of 5 per cent. Indeed, I am not sure whether the Government wish to have a duty of 33⅓ per cent. All that they ask in this Resolution is that they should have authority from the Committee of Ways and Means to impose in their Finance Bill a duty not exceeding 33⅓ per cent. That I understand to be the meaning of the Resolution. The desire that I had was to limit the discretion of the Government, not to 33⅓ per cent., but to 5 per cent. I wished to deprive them of discretion to the extent of 28 per cent. That was my object. I should like to know whether, in the future procedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, you would regard a

  2649
  Motion of that kind, limiting the discretion of the Government, as being a Motion not important enough to be selected by you.
  The CHAIRMAN: It all depends on the circumstances—on the terms of the Motion and all the surrounding conditions; and, having given full attention to all of these, I think that there are other Amendments which are more important, and my decision will not in the least prejudice the Committee on the Bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, to leave out lines 5 to 7 inclusive.
  I desire to leave out the words
  "Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding."
  9.0 P.M.
  The first thing I want to say about this Amendment is that the leather gloves referred to in this part of the Resolution are a very large part of the total sales of gloves in this country, and I say quite frankly that I am very interested in what the position will be as regards the shops and the people of this country as the result of the imposition of this duty. The movement with which I am connected forms part of the retail trade of the country, and they have always found that, whenever duties of this kind are placed upon a particular article, they are bound to pass the duty on to the consumer; and there is not the slightest doubt that as a result of the inclusion of these articles in this Resolution and in the Finance Bill there will be a very serious increase in the charge to the users of these articles. That is the first ground of my objection to the inclusion of these articles in the Resolution. In the second place, I object to their inclusion because, having read the Report of the Committee, I do not feel that the conditions of the White Paper have been satisfied in the case of these particular kinds of gloves—leather gloves, fur gloves, and so on. As has often been pointed out in the course of our Debates on these Resolutions, one of the things that the White Paper lays down in its rules of procedure is that the industry which seeks protection under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure must be able to show that there are abnormal
  2650
  imports. I take the Report of the Committee itself, and I find that, although of course there is a considerable amount to be said for the view of the Committee with regard to the increase in imports during the last four or five years, yet in 1924 the number of dozen pairs of leather gloves imported was only 901,221, as compared with 1,463,943 in 1913. Therefore, in 1924 the imports were something like half a million dozen pairs less than they were in 1913, and it is difficult to understand why it is suggested that there is abnormality in the imports of this particular kind of gloves.
  There is another point on which I should like to have a word from the Government. The words which I am seeking to delete from the Resolution include, I notice, fur gloves. I have read the Report of the Committee very carefully, and I cannot find that they make any reference to fur gloves at all. Could we ask whether any request was made by the special manufacturers of fur gloves, if there are special manufacturers, for inclusion in the duty? I put that point specifically because in the Debate yesterday on another Resolution, on our asking why certain action was not taken on the recommendation of the Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary replied: "The people concerned did not ask for it, and that is that." I would ask him, did the people concerned ask for a duty on fur gloves? If not, why is the action of the Government in including fur gloves so different from their attitude on the other duty with regard to which the Parliamentary Secretary answered last night? I should like to have specific information on that point.
  Another to which I want to draw attention with regard to these imports which it is sought to restrain is that although since 1920, as I have already pointed out, there has been a considerable increase in the imports of gloves—they have increased from 259,000 in 1920 to 901,000 in 1924—there has been a far less marked increase in the value of the gloves imported. I think it is generally well known that the leather gloves manufactured by the British industry are always of a somewhat better quality and are sold at a higher price than those which are imported, and the values which are expressed in the figures I have just mentioned, as compared with the imports,

  2651
  would seem to show, ipso facto, that these goods are not comparable with the goods that it is sought to protect by these duties. That is another reason why we should ask the Government not to include this particular kind of gloves, because it has not satisfied one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper, that there roust be a serious difference in price on a comparable article. I think the position is quite clear that the gloves which it is sought to keep out are not comparable with the British article, and that therefore the duty ought not to be imposed.
  Then I am not satisfied that when this duty of 33⅓ per cent. is placed on gloves the Government will also take proper steps to protect the consumer. I mentioned just now that the increased price would be charged to the consumer. Of the trades in the country to-day probably none is more flourishing than the distributive trade, especially in the large London stores, and I have not the slightest doubt that in respect of leather gloves, for which there is a great demand, the great stores will be able to make a very much larger margin of profit out of the consumer on the increased amount of turnover. There has been no indication yet from the Board of Trade that they are prepared to take adequate steps to protect the consumer from any undue charges made as the result of the imposition of the duty under the procedure which has been laid down by the Board of Trade. For that reason I should want to omit these particular articles from the Resolution in the absence of any statement from the Government as to the steps they will take adequately to protect the consumer. I mention that especially because I notice in a pamphlet—
  I agree I have not a very authentic basis for it—which has been circulated on the Safeguarding of Industries that the statement is attributed to the President of the Board of Trade that the Board of Trade is not concerned with merchants' profits. I think that is a rather serious position. If the Board of Trade are going to impose duties for the benefit prima facie of producers, and those duties enable a larger profit to be made out of the consumers, it is a very great pity that we should have a public announcement from the Board of Trade that they are not concerned with merchants' profits, although apparently they will be able to give protection to the actual producers of the commodity on which the duty is proposed.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter that is relevant to any one of these duties. The sole question now is whether this description of gloves should come under the duty or not. The hon. Member's argument would really apply to the price of any article under any duty similar to that which is now proposed. It is an argument for a general discussion.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I accept that at once. I was concerned to move this Amendment because of the position of the user of leather gloves. I know something about the extent of the trade in the country. But in view of what you say I will not pursue that point except that it will be a further ground of my objection to the inclusion of these lines of gloves in the Resolution.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 126.

  Division No. 456.]

  AYES.

  [9.10 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Boothby. R. J. G.

  Chapman, Sir S.

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Albery, Irving James

  Sowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Apsley, Lord

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Cope, Major William

  Atkinson, C.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Caine, Gordon Hall

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

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Campbell, E. T.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Cassels, J. D.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Bethell, A.

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

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Drewe, C.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Blundell, F. N.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

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

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Rye, F. G.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Finburgh, S.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Loder, J. de V.

  Savery, S. S.

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Lord, Walter Greaves-

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

  Ganzoni, sir John

  Lougher, L.

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

  Gates, Percy

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Skelton, A. N.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Lumley, L. R.

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

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

  Grace, John

  Macintyre, Ian

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

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  McLean, Major A.

  Storry Deans, R.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Grotrian, H Brent

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Gunston, Captain D. w.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

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

  Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Haslam, Henry C.

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

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Neville, R. J.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wells, S. R.

  Holt, Captain H. P.

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

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

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

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Perring, William George

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

  Pielou, D. P.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

  Preston, William

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Huntingfield, Lord

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Ramsden, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)

  Rees, Sir Beddoe

  Lord Stanley and Captain

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Remer, J. R.

  Margesson.

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  NOES.

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

  Dennison, R.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Duckworth, John

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Baker, Walter

  Dunnico, H.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Kelly, W.T.

  Batey, Joseph

  Fenby, T. D.

  Kennedy, T.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Forrest, W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gillett, George M.

  Lansbury, George

  Broad, F. A.

  Gosling, Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Bromfield, William

  Greenall, J

  Lee, F.

  Bromley, J.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Lindley, F. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Buchanan, G.

  Groves, T.

  Lowth, T.

  Cape, Thomas

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lunn, William

  Charleton, H. C

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

  Clowes, S.

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

  Mackinder, W.

  Cluse, W. S.

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

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  March, S.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

  Compton, Joseph

  Hurdle, George D.

  Montague, Frederick

  Connolly, M.

  Hartthorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

  Cove, w. G.

  Heyday, Arthur

  Murnin, H.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hirst, G. H.

  Palin, John Henry

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Paling, W.

  2654

  2655

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Snell, Harry

  Warne, G. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Potts, John S.

  Stamford, T. W.

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

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Ritson, J.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Weir, L. M.

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

  Taylor, R. A.

  Westwood, J.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Whiteley, W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Thurtle, E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Scurr, John

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Sexton, James

  Townend, A. E.

  Windsor, Walter

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C P.

  Wright, W.

  Smillie, Robert

  Varley, Frank B.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Viant, S. P.

  Smith. H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

IRELAND.
  TERMS OF AGREEMENT.

    PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I understand that the Prime Minister wishes to make a communication to the House regarding what has been done in connection with Ireland to-day. In order to enable him to do so, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I think it only right to take the earliest opportunity of communicating to the House the exact terms of the Agreement which was signed just an hour ago by representatives of this Government, of the Irish Free State Government and of the Government of Northern Ireland.
    AGREEMENT amending and supplementing the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland to which the force of law was given by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922.
    WHEREAS on the sixth day of December nineteen hundred and twenty-one Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland were entered into:
    AND WHEREAS the said Articles of Agreement were duly ratified and given the force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922:
    2656
    AND WHEREAS the progress of events and the improved relations now subsisting between the British Government, the Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of Northern Ireland, and their respective peoples, make it desirable to amend and supplement the said Articles of Agreement, so as to avoid any causes of friction which might mar or retard the further growth of friendly relations between the said Governments and peoples:
    AND WHEREAS the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State being united in amity in this undertaking with the Government of Northern Ireland, and being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship, hereby agree as follows:

    1. The powers conferred by the proviso to Article XII of the said Articles of Agreement on the Commission therein mentioned are hereby revoked, and the extent of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of the said Articles of Agreement, shall be such as was fixed by Sub-section (2) of Section one of that Act.

    2. The Irish Free State is hereby-released from the obligation under Article V of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned.

    3. The Irish Free State hereby assumes all liability undertaken by the British Government in respect of malicious damage done since the twenty-first day of January, nineteen hundred

    2657
    and nineteen, to property in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of the Irish Free State shall repay to the British Government, at such time or times and in such manner as may be agreed upon, moneys already paid by the British Government in respect of such damage, or liable to be so paid under obligations already incurred.

    4. The Government of the Irish Free State hereby agrees to promote legislation increasing by ten per cent. the measure of compensation under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, in respect of malicious damage to property done in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State between the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty one, and the twelfth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and providing for the payment of such additional compensation by the issue of Five per cent. Compensation Stock or Bonds.

    5. The powers in relation to Northern Ireland which by the Government of Ireland Act, 1020, are made powers of the Council of Ireland, shall be and are hereby transferred to and shall become powers of the Parliament and the Government of Northern Ireland; and the Governments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland shall meet together as and when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common interest arising out of or connected with the exercise and administration of the said powers.

    This Agreement is subject to confirmation by the British Parliament and by the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, and the Act of the British Parliament confirming this Agreement shall fix the date as from which the transfer of the powers of the Council of Ireland under this Agreement is to take effect.
    Dated this 3rd day of December, 1925.
    2658
    The Agreement is signed on behalf of the British Government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for India, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself.
    Signed on behalf of the Government of the Irish Free State by Mr. Cosgrave, President, Mr. O'Higgins and Mr. Blythe.
    Signed on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland by Sir James Craig and Mr. Blackmore, Secretary of the Cabinet of the Government of Northern Ireland.
    I will only add that legislation will be necessary, and I hope it may be possible to pass that legislation as speedily as possible before we rise. I cannot say more at the moment. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to make this statement.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I assume that it is the desire of the House to take the Prime Minister's statement as an intimation, and that they will now allow me to withdraw the Motion.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Member must allow me to put the Motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" "Runciman!"]
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I only wish to say a few sentences. In the first place, the details of the Agreement are, obviously, of great importance, and no doubt the House would wish to examine them at their- leisure, but I should like to say that I feel quite sure the Agreement which has been reached between the British Government, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Free State will have been heard with relief and pleasure by the whole of the English-speaking world.
    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, to leave out lines 8 to line 10 inclusive.
    Broadly, the purpose of this Amendment is to omit the duty upon fabric

    2659
    gloves. This Resolution, as a whole, deals with leather gloves and fabric gloves together. The Amendment which has just lately been moved by my hon. Friend below me was for the purpose of omitting any duty upon leather gloves. That Amendment has now been defeated, and I now move to omit the duty on fabric gloves. The hon. Gentleman who is speaking for the Government is now in his place. I express the hope at the beginning of this discussion that the Amendment from this side of the Committee shall, on this occasion, have some reply from the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that the Debate collapsed rather speedily, but the fact remains that the reason for that was that we were keeping our ammunition in order to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say in reply to my hon. Friend. When he remained silent, as happened on a larger occasion last night, the Debate naturally collapsed. On this occasion I hope he will give a reply to the points I wish to bring before him.
    This question of fabric gloves raises a point which opens up the whole principle on which the Government are acting in connection with these Committees, and the instructions that it has been giving to them. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the first essential condition which any industry has to fulfil, according to the statement and the pledges of the Government, before it can obtain a tariff, is not that the industry has simply to prove that there is a large number of imports coming into this country. That would lead to a general tariff which would break the pledge which the Prime Minister has given. The specific condition which must be fulfilled under the safeguarding proposals is that the amount of imports coming into this country now must be abnormal. They must be unprecedented in comparison with previous standards taken before the War. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what the interpretation of this has been. The President of the Board of Trade was asked on the first Debate on this subject, "If you are going to say that imports are at this moment abnormal—abnormal compared to when?" The answer he gave was that in all ordinary cases the meaning of the Government was abnormal as compared to the period of 1913.
    2660
    When these Committees are appointed we find that, as a result of their investigations and the figures put before them, some of those industries cannot obtain a tariff under those conditions. Fabric gloves is one of them. That industry cannot obtain a tariff because, as the Report of the Committee shows, the proportion of imports from abroad coming into this country this year is smaller than the proportion in 1913, therefore, according to the conditions of the Government originally laid down, the whole case breaks down and no tariff ought to be granted.
    What has been done? The President of the Board of Trade explained this afternoon in his opening speech what had been done. What has been done is that because 1913 does not give the result, the year 1920 is taken instead, and if it can be proved that imports are greater now than in 1920 that fulfils the condition of unprecedented competition. I wish to take the argument that the President of the Board of Trade used, and see what it means. His argument was this. If you have an industry which was small before the War, in 1913, and which has expanded, then it would be unfair to penalise it on that account, and therefore we will take 1920, a post-War year, as our standard in that particular case. That is the argument. What does that mean? That moans that this condition which practically amounts to a pledge makes the difference between safeguarding and a general tariff. This condition is rendered absolutely meaningless and ridiculous. What does it mean? You have a small industry, an industry which before the War was conducted on a tiny scale, employing people who only fill a corner of Westminster Hall. War breaks out. During the War it has a monopoly of the markets, and all the raw materials which no other country can obtain. The result of that is naturally that a group of new firms arise. Then in 1920 that industry naturally reaches its peak—its maximum production. But the whole thing is forced. It is an artificial incubation, and at the end of it the Government says, "What we are now going to say is that, as the result of this artificial extension leading to the maximum of 1920, the year 1920 is now normal, and any imports which come into this country because trade resumes its usual channel are all

    2661
    abnormal." You are going to calculate industry on this artificial peak for ever. If you are going to juggle with your figures like that, it renders this test meaningless and it turns Safeguarding Duties into duties based upon the principle of a general tariff which the Prime Minister stated he was not going to introduce.
    There is one further fact. Hon. Gentlemen speak as if they could do almost anything by means of a tariff. I believe that any business man will recognise that, even if you can get a tariff, there are things that a tariff cannot do. In practice a tariff cannot continue in existence an industry which has been built on an artificial and unreal basis. Moreover, you may injure industry as a whole and you do not assist the trade that you have in mind. Look at this industry of fabric gloves; look at the history of the tariff there. It is all given in this Report; everything I am saying is contained in this Report, which supplies all my knowledge of the subject. In 1913, there were just six rather small firms in this country making fabric gloves. They would not have filled Westminster Hall. The War broke out. They got this industry going under artificial conditions. The industry had a monopoly of Egyptian cotton, and the consequence was that a number of new firms arose. But an industry cannot be maintained on that basis; it has not the genuine foundation.
    The Government are now trying to maintain it by means of a duty. Owing to causes beyond my own control, I was not in this House when that duty was imposed, but I read the Debates rather more carefully probably than if I had Been here. This is what happened: In the attempt to maintain the industry the duty was kept in being from August, 1922, to August, 1924. The results of the duty on the industry are shown in this Report. I see that in the year before the duty was imposed, 1921, foreign imports to this country represented 60 per cent. of the total consumption. In 1922, the first year of the duty, foreign imports rose from 60 to 87 per cent. In this last year, for which figures are given, they have risen to 88 per cent. That shows that a tariff cannot do these unnatural things. It shows that in spite of a duty there is a genuine and powerful demand
    2662
    for these foreign goods, which the people must have, and the demand is such that it becomes perfectly clear that the duties cannot counteract natural consequences.
    I read the Debates, and every hon. Member is familiar with the facts. The facts are that this industry of the manufacture of fabric gloves, insignificant though it is in this country, has been planted for generations in Chemnitz. There were six little firms in this country. In Chemnitz there are 500 that have been there for generations, working under massed production and with relations with each other. A duty of this sort cannot and ought not to be able to exclude goods which are coming into this country and which we are buying, not because of low wages or anything unfair, but simply because of the fact that by generations of acquired experience, this industry is conducted in Saxony with a skill which almost amounts to a science. In the circumstances, this duty merely injures the general public. It cannot work against these natural forces and is bound to fail.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I rise at once this time, for fear of missing my opportunity. I assure the hon. Gentleman who proposed the last Amendment that it was out of no disrespect to him that I did not reply. As a matter of fact I saw the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) get up to contribute to the Debate, and I felt that that would be an opportunity for me to absorb for a few morn moments what had been said by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and before I knew it the hon. Member for Shoreditch had concluded, the Question had been put, and I was rather caught. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) speaks of the establishment of this old industry of glove making in Chemnitz and of the firm foundation on which the industry stands by reason of its age, the experience gained, and the fact that it has passed on from generation to generation. Almost in the words of the Report he would indicate that it is practically hopeless for an Englishman to try to compete with these people. If that be in his mind, it is a doctrine which does not carry any kind of weight with me.
    The hon. Member may recall a speech made earlier in the Debate by the hon.

    2663
    Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), who traced the industry through the ages in Worcester. He may recall that the hon. Member spoke of the industry as employing over 30,000 people in Worcester over 100 years ago, before we dropped a, duty which had been imposed on foreign gloves. Then, during some negotiations with France, we gave away our duty, in the hope that we would get some reciprocity, which was not forthcoming. When we gave away our duty we gave away the Worcester glove trade, and we have never got it back again. May not that explain the position of the industry in Chemnitz? What is the duty on gloves going from Germany into France? I think it is about 190 francs per kilo—at any rate it is an enormous duty. The hon. Member opposite argued against a tariff in any form, but I think he will find it difficult to establish the argument now put forward that because a trade is so firmly established in Germany, we are not entitled to make an effort on behalf of our own people at home to whom this trade is not by any means a new one, but to whom it belonged many generations before we were here dealing with those matters.
    Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us more details of this duty of 190 francs per kilo.?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I have already said I am not quite sure what the duty is, but I know it is a big duty. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the fabric glove industry as an artificial innovation and a War production which came into being when we had no foreign goods and he seemed to ask, why should we maintain an industry which came into being in those circumstances. In effect, he asked, "Why should we maintain it? It has no right here. It is not our trade. It is true that at the end of the War instead of 1,800 people it was employing 10,000 or 11,000, but it is only an artificial War-time product and let us do away with it." I do not understand the attitude of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. I stand here as a representative of Labour—like most of my hon. Friends on this side—and trying to divest myself of my political views just for a moment and trying to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite on common ground in this
    2664
    matter, I fail to understand why even if this proposal were not as sound as I think it is, they should resist an opportunity of trying to do something to foster these trades. I cannot understand why they should object to such an effort, knowing in their own minds that there can be no harm to anybody in doing so—even putting it on that low level. How can the hon. Member opposite stand up and say "Let this industry and go and let these 10,000 or 11,000 people go," simply because from his own political point of view entirely, and without any experience, he believes that certain harm may be done in other directions? We have enough of the attitude which is expressed in the words "It cannot be done." We are going to see if it can be done and I am sure that hon. Members on this side intend that at any rate it will not be possible to say later on that there was any want of trying to do it. I think I have dealt with the points put forward on this Amendment and also the points which were raised on the previous Amendment.
    Captain BENN: The speech of the hon. Gentleman does credit to his heart but does not carry us much further. Let me put a few questions to him. His speech amounts to this "You say it cannot be done. I say it can be done and we are going to try to do it." How is he going to try to do it. Does he mean sincerely that he has found something which will save these fabric glove people from unemployment?
    Sir B. CHADWICK indicated assent.
    Captain BENN: Then if it is to be applied to the fabric glove industry, why not apply it to every other industry? The hon. Gentleman will not answer that question, and we can quite understand his reluctance. I can understand that he does not relish the zeal with which we have been asking these questions. The hon. Gentleman would have it appear that he has a specific which is going to save these people; that we are the heartless wretches who will not save them, but that he is determined to strike out and do something for these workers. I do not like to say that his professions are not sincere, but I say that, judged by all the political actions of the Government, that plea on their behalf is not sincere. If they believed in it, they would say,

    2665
    "This is going to rid the country of unemployment, and we will preach it in the country until we convert the country to it, and thus render a great national service."
    Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in order in referring to the general question of tariffs?
    The CHAIRMAN: I must say that my ear was occupied otherwise at the moment, but I will follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with greater interest and attention henceforth.
    Captain BENN: I thank you, Sir, and if you desire I will give you a slight sketch 01 outline of my remarks up to this point. I was trying to reply to the earnest speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I say that the test is whether he and his friends are prepared to apply this specific, not only to facric gloves, but elsewhere. I judge that they are not prepared to do so, and that, I submit, is a complete answer to the plea of sentiment. If his specific is all he claims it to be, why does he not apply it all round? He will not do it because ho knows, and the Government know, that the thing is economically unsound. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of the industry in Worcester 100 years ago before the commercial treaty with Prance. May I ask, does he regard those as "the good old days," because he spoke as though he regarded the treaty negotiated with France as a disaster? He said that the French promised to give us something which they did not give. Does he think that the French commercial treaty was a mistake? Can he tell us if it is intended to turn backward to those golden days when we had some thousand of duties —before they were abolished in the middle of last century. It is important that we should know that, because while there may be nothing much in a decision as regards fabric gloves, there is a great deal in knowing the road on which the Government is determined to direct the country.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that the position of the industry in Chemnitz was the result of generation after generation of operatives having practised it. Therefore, does he wish to copy the Saxon model in this country? Undoubtedly he does, and in that case he does not wish to have this as a five years'
    2666
    duty. Why does he not say it is to be permanent? When you test this, it shows that the Government programme is a sham. They are professing not to do the thing that all their supporters would like them to do. Their supporters in their hearts would like them to do it, but they would not have their supporters in their constituencies with them if they attempted to do it. As we said before in this issue, we are not operating in vacuo here. We are dealing with a case which has been tried, and I think there would have been more logic—I hope not at the expense of the sentiment in the hon. Gentleman's speech—if he had explained some of the grave defects in the working of this duty when it existed. In 1921 there was a Committee which went into this case, and at that time the plea v as that the German exchange was so inflated that a duty was necessary. In 1924 another Committee sits, and although the German exchange is no longer inflated, but stabilised, they still recommend a duty.
    I ask the Committee to consider whether it is not really necessary for the hon. Gentleman, before he requests us to put on a duty which he pretends is for five years, but which his plea is that it should be for ever, to tell us why it was that such a duty when it existed had no effect whatever in reviving the industry. We have got his own figures. He will not challenge the figures, even if from time to time we do. Why was it that, whereas the foreigners had 87 per cent. of that trade before there was a duty, after the duty had been in operation for two years the foreigners had 88 per cent.? When ho tells us, "Here are the men unemployed; let us do something for them," he appeals to our hearts. But the thing has been tried, and so far from diminishing the foreigners' share of the trade, it has actually increased it by 1 per cent.
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that during that period of which he is speaking the mark had depreciated from I do not know how many hundreds to millions of millions?
    10.0 P.M.
    Captain BENN: But does the hon. Gentleman say that this tariff device did protect this market, or does he say the foreign share of the trade increased in that period? [An HON. MEMBER: "It

    2667
    was not able to!"] That the duty was not able to achieve its end? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not against such a depreciation!"] The hon. Member knows that that was the year when the increase was 88 per cent. That was the year when stabilisation had begun—namely, 1924. If anyone looks at the figures of German exports, the depreciation of the mark did not at all act as a bounty on German export. Their exports were constantly declining while their marks were sinking. That was the year when stabilisation took place, and, in spite of the tariff, there was an increase in the share of this trade of 1 per cent. We cannot, much as we should like to do so, agree with his warm and sympathetic appeal, until he has explained why this same device at the same rate of duty spread over two years had exactly the reverse effect that he said it is going to have. That must be explained by someone; if not by himself, perhaps by one of his ardent supporters. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "Why not let us try this scheme? Why stand in the way?" He considers there is some petty or academic doctrine which stands in the way. We have practical humanitarian reasons. It is a very unfortunate thing that the Glove Tax happens to synchronise with the very cold spell of weather. Hon. Members after the late sitting might have seen hundreds and hundreds of poor people marching over the bridges like an army going into the city to their work. How do those people keep their hands from the cold? They cannot afford expensive gloves, but have to buy the cheapest form of gloves, and they walk because it is cheaper than to take the omnibus. I know, having represented one of these East End divisions many years in this House, and although we do not realise it, it is a fact that to many people there is a choice of taking an omnibus or having the money actually for some necessary. The hon. Member is putting a tax of 33⅓ per cent. on a pair of gloves which, I believe, you can now get for 7d. or 8d. Why should you tax these poor people? Why put a bounty on chilblains? This is a small example. There are many examples, but let hon. Members understand this. We believe economically these taxes are unsound, and that from a humanitarian standpoint they
    2668
    are cruel, because they tax the very necessities of the poor people.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: It is somewhat difficult for us to resist the attitude that was adopted throughout, at any rate, this part of the Debate. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Government (Sir B. Chad-wick) made a very earnest appeal, in which he assured us that he had taken off his political coat, and was standing on the same ground as ourselves in an effort to secure more employment. I accept the earnestness of his desire, but I would remind him that you do not get employment by desires of that kind. Indeed if the hon. Gentleman had been more careful in his study of recent history—
    Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member has not said a single word on the Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself more strictly to the point under discussion.
    Mr. HUDSON: Coming directly to the point of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, if he had studied the two years of history during which the duties were levied on fabric gloves, he would have seen that although at the beginning, when a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was imposed there were 25 manufacturers in this country, on the confession of the manufacturers, who are appealing for this protection, at the end of the two years, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) made the arrangement by which that tax came to an end, the number of employers in this industry had been reduced to 13. The hon. Gentleman, it is true, made the point that there were difficulties in regard to foreign exchange in that period. But are there not likely to be difficulties in regard to foreign exchange in the future? Considering the position in France we can understand what may be likely to happen in France, and what is likely to happen is a reaction in other countries. It is more than likely that we may repeat, with regard to general European trade, exactly the conditions which we experienced a little while ago. Therefore the proposals which are now being made are not more likely to guarantee employment than were the proposals which were acted upon from 1922 to 1924.

    2669
    The desire of employers for a return to the tax which was adopted some years ago has nothing to do with the earnest desire of the hon. Gentleman for more employment for the workers. The period during which they had these taxes was a period of swollen profits. It was a period during which they exercised their greed to the utmost, and bled the people of this country with high prices for the commodities which were sold, and now they are looking again for an opportunity to secure prices which are beyond what is justified by the cost of producing the article. We are not prepared, even though the hon. Gentleman's desires for employment are absolutely sincere, to embark on a policy which, it is plain from the figures which are given, will not guarantee employment, but is likely to guarantee higher profits for those who do not deserve them, and to place on the consumers a burden that the consumers should not bear.
    I agree entirely with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that what is going to happen is that the people who to-day can buy gloves, however defective they may be, however much they may be prevented from getting fur gloves or leather gloves or other types of gloves, will have no gloves if there be a repetition of the powers which operated from 1922 to 1924. And I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman will again take off his political coat, and will try to stand with us and will consider the interests of all the working classes, he will not risk embarking upon this scheme on the flimsy protest that a little employment might be obtained, when at the same time a very heavy burden would be placed upon large numbers of workers throughout the country. It is for this reason that I support the Motion before the Chair.
    Mr. DREWE: Coming from a county which makes fabric gloves, the first, I think, in this country in which fabric gloves were made, I think it only right to express my views in favour of these Resolutions which the Government are putting forward.
    I want to bring this issue down to what I believe is exactly the one and only reason why the Government have brought forward these proposals. It is simply and solely to help relieve unemployment in
    2670
    the different industries to be covered by these duties. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has made considerable fun of the fabric glove industry. He told us, in his earlier speech, that this industry was not an efficient one in this country. I am perfectly prepared to say that the fabric gloves produced in this country are second to none anywhere in the world, and if the hon. and gallant Member is taking a holiday at any time, and likes to come to North Devon, I will conduct him over a fabric glove industry where they make the finest fabric gloves in the world.
    Captain BENN: I do not know whether the hon. Member is making his first speech in this House, in which case it would not be in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette to interrupt him, but, with his permission, I would like to ask him whether this flourishing and efficient industry is in this flourishing and efficient condition without the aid of a duty.
    Mr. DREWE: That was the point I was trying to make to the Committee. We are bringing forward these Resolutions because we want to improve employment, and that is the one and only reason, in my opinion, why they are being brought forward. We are told that there is not very much difference between the number of men employed in 1913 and the number of men employed to-day. There is practically only a difference of 600. It has (been pointed out that in 1920 there were some 10,000 men employed in the industry, whereas, to-day, there are only 1,800. I say there are 8,000 trained men and women in the glove-making industry who are out on the streets to-day, on the dole, or earning their living in some other way for which they were not trained, and if this industry is given the necessary encouragement and help to meet the grossly unfair foreign competition, there is not the smallest reason why we should not get these people absorbed in the fabric-glove industry again at the present time.
    Hon. Members opposite have made some play with the fact that the duties in 1921 did not do the industry any permanent good, but I thought that point was answered by the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. It is certainly a fact that, when the duties were put on in 1921, the German mark stood at about 900 to the £. Within a few weeks of

    2671
    those duties being imposed, the mark collapsed and went down to some millions to the £, and that is the reason why those duties did not have any far-reaching results. There was for a few months, possibly for the first year, some reaction in favour of better trade, but immediately the results of the depreciation of the mark were felt the whole of the benefit went away from the industry. I am quite prepared to expect hon. Members of the Liberal party to oppose Resolutions like these every time they come up, but, as a new Member of this House, I fail absolutely to understand how hon. Members of the Socialist party, who never hesitate to tell us, inside and outside this House, that they, and they alone, represent the true interests of the working people, can come down here and oppose these duties, which must have the effect of getting a larger number of men absorbed in the various industries which are suffering at the present time, and suffering only because of the grossly unfair foreign competition. During the speeches on the Locarno Conference, the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan) referred to the conditions of the German workers, and that is where we are suffering in the fabric glove industry to-day. It is from Germany, and from Germany alone practically. The right hon. Gentleman said in his speech:
    "We are actually now being told that the hours of the British workers must be increased and their standards lowered to the level that has been reached in Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November 1925; col. 530, Vol. 188.]
    I would like to ask hon. Members opposite what they think is going to happen to the standard of workers in this country, in the various industries which are suffering as they are from this unfair foreign competition, unless they are given some safeguards, and that is what we on this side of the House are asking for. I am not for one moment prepared to argue the merits of Protection or Free Trade as they existed before the War. What I do say is this: that I am perfectly prepared to say, and those who are responsible for the conduct of this industry are prepared to say, that the industry is practically to-day at a standstill simply and solely because of the lower standard of living and the greater
    2672
    number of hours worked by our competitors who make fabric gloves in Germany.
    All that those occupied in the industry are asking for is fair play. They do not want any privileges. They do not want to be put into any special position of favour above other industries. They want to be given the opportunity to compete on perfectly fair terms. I have always maintained in the country, as I am now prepared to maintain here—I am perfectly confident of it—that the very large majority of British workers are prepared to do an honest day's work to earn an honest day's wage rather than eke out their living by means of unemployment relief. I have ample evidence from the little town of Torrington, in North Devon, where this industry began. I can give ample evidence that there are men there who have been trained all their lives as cutters in the fabric glove industry, and now find that there is no more work for them to do. They have had to accept work as navvies on recent new railway construction and accept work at breaking stones at the road side. These are skilled cutters in the fabric glove industry.
    Are the Committee, I ask, going to sit here with folded arms and tell these men that they will have to wait until something better turns up? Hon. Members opposite, Members of the Socialist party, may be prepared to do that. So far as we on this side are concerned we stand by and support the policy of this Government which says: "We want to do everything possible to improve the standard of life of the workpeople of this country." We honestly do believe that a Measure such as this for safeguarding industry is to the good. We believe that in the case of an industry which can prove that it is suffering from grossly unfair foreign competition this is a very practical way of dealing with the matter. I only want to make a reference to what was said earlier by a right hon. Gentleman. This industry is very much, as he said, a rural industry. A very large number of workers have been employed, and I think that is possibly lost sight of. I just want to quote one or two figures. In the old days when this industry was prosperous, outwork was taken into cottage homes over a radius of 30 miles from the town where the factory was situated. At the present time in Torring-

    2673
    ton itself there are some 40 men and women getting employment as outworkers. Throughout the whole of the district, where before as many as 200 women were employed in outwork, there are only two.
    There is not the slightest reason why this state of things should not be altered. Anyone who has any knowledge of rural areas at the present time knows that the labourers, under present conditions, do not earn very much. If it is possible to do anything to bring work again into the cottage homes of the women and so help their livelihood I will support it. These are practical reasons why we are asking the House to accept these proposals which have been brought forward by the Government. I do not want to give other figures from the Report. That has been already done; but to substantiate the point as to extreme foreign competition I would point out that whereas during the whole of last year some 954,000 dozen pairs of fabric gloves were sent into this country, in the first four months of this year more than 1,000,000 dozen pairs of fabric gloves came in. I would ask the Committee to get on with the work and pass these duties. If I might make an appeal to the patriotism of the Members of the Committee, why not give our own British workers a chance of a decent day's work instead of allowing the Germans to get the work and our own men to walk the streets? To my mind, that is putting the whole thing in a nutshell. I ask the Committee to support these duties.
    Mr. HARNEY: I do not intend to keep the Committee for many minutes, and a part of those minutes I shall devote to congratulating the last speaker upon what seemed to me to be a very excellent maiden speech, which I hope is only the precursor of many more speeches we may hear from him. Being a very innocent man, I have been looking through this Report. It seemed to me that the idea of the Report was to inform the President of the Board of Trade. In the Report I find this:
    "We have considered the question of glove fabric, and are of opinion that the Applicants have not established a claim for a duty."
    The Report goes on to say that the reason why the Committee consider that the claim for a duty upon the material has
    2674
    not been established is that, as they have found in favour of a duty on the finished article, more employment would be given by allowing the raw material to come in free. That is what the Committee find, and in obedience to their suggestion a Resolution is moved by the President of the Board of Trade that a duty be imposed upon
    "Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves,"
    and that the duty is also to be imposed upon
    "material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing."
    The Committee, having reported that there should be no duty upon the material for such gloves cut out and ready for sewing, I want to know what is the justification of the President of the Board of Trade for giving a blank negative to the suggestion of the Committee which he set up himself? Another point I have observed in the Report is this: The Committee had to deal with several questions set out in the circular. The first question they deal with is whether the applicant industry is, by reason of the volume of unemployment, one of substantial importance. The favourable way to answer that question was to say that the volume of employment was small. Accordingly, they say that the volume of employment is 10,000 persons employed in the manufacture of leather goods, and 1,800 employed in the manufacture of fabric gloves. The answer to the question is intended to be more favourable in order to show that there were many employed. They make the number 11,800, and at a later stage they ask whether by reason of the severity of such competition, employment is being seriously affected. Therefore it would be in the interests of those who favour the duty to show that employment was seriously affected, and accordingly the numbers that were given as 11,800 were reduced to 7,032, when the answer would be favourable to the other side the number was made smaller.
    Here you get a committee supposed to be perfectly imparital when the answer is one that would be favourable to the President of the Board of Trade's view they make the number large, and so they

    2675
    put it as 11,800. Then you have the same body at a later stage asking whether it would favour the views of the President of the Board of Trade to make it smaller and then they reduce it to 7,032. When you see this kind of thing going on one is a little sceptical as to their impartiality. When I was in the House a few minutes before dinner I heard an hon. Member state with great indignation that it was very improper for hon. Members on this side to cast imputations upon the absolute impartiality of this tribunal because it was a judicial body. I understand a judicial body to be one where you have the views upon both sides stated without any impediment and where you have a decision given upon sworn evidence. What is the fact here? You have a body selected not because of its impartiality but because of its presumed partiality. The President of the Board of Trade does not go out of his way—
    Mr. ALBERY: I would like to ask you, Captain FitzRoy, if all this has anything at all to do with the Question before the Committee?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member might confine himself a little more closely to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. HARNEY: I think I am doing so. The reply I am giving is that this is in no sense a judicial body. It is appointed politically by the President of the Board of Trade, who selects those whom he considers to be suitable from his point of view. There is no sworn evidence: those who put forward the ease of the applicant can put it forward in full; those who can be heard on the other side—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that all this was gone into very fully yesterday, and that he need not go into it again.
    Mr. HARNEY: I am sorry; I was not here yesterday. At all events, I only rose to put before the President of the Board of Trade these two points that I have mentioned—firstly, how he can reconcile with the Report of his Committee a Resolution which goes quite in the teeth of it; and, secondly, how he can
    2676
    reconcile with impartiality two figures in the Report, the one enlarged when it would suit his side that they should be enlarged, and the other minimised when it would suit his view of the case that it should be minimised.
    Major CRAWFURD: I only want to raise one brief point in answer to the speech of an hon. Member on the other side, I think the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Drewe), who raised sympathetic cheers from the hon. Members near him, who found in their appreciation of the lot of the agricultural labourer a little relief from the tedium of the speeches on this side. The hon. Member raised sympathetic cheers by pointing out the condition of the agricultural labourer, and suggesting that these Resolutions are being brought in in order to give increased employment to the people of this country; and he adopted, quite rightly, of course, a very serious attitude on that matter. We give him every credit for being sincere in the matter and for believing what he says, and I hope hon. Members opposite will give us the same credit of being perfectly sincere when we say we believe these proposals will lead to increased unemployment, or to retardation of employment, and to economic disaster. The hon. Member was referring, I presume, to his own constituency, and, with your permission, Captain FitzRoy, I am going to refer for two or three minutes to mine.
    I have been this afternoon in the middle of one of the poorest districts in London at a sale of work, organised by a body which consistently caters for the very poor—the people who are, above all, users of fabric gloves. In that sale of work people are coming, as we sit here, to spend to the best possible advantage in no case more than a few shillings, and to get the very best possible value they can for those few shillings. I would ask hon. Members opposite not to disregard this question of the poverty of the people on whom the effect of these Resolutions is going to press hardly, and the argument with which I would follow up my statement is this: If by means of the duties which these Resolutions, if carried into effect, will impose, the cost of these articles is increased—and they are all articles which affect the poor—then the purchasing power of the poor people of this country will be

    2677
    diminished, and the result of a diminution of that purchasing power is going to be to diminish the employment which their money otherwise would have produced.
    If that is our belief, we are bound to examine, and we are right to examine, the proposals which are brought before us on behalf of these industries, and, with regard to this particular one, I am only going to say this: The hon. Member to whom I have previously referred said that he would not refer to the table of figures in the Report, because they had already been discussed. I will follow him in not referring to them, but will simply say that the figures given for employment show that this particular industry, immediately after the War, increased enormously. It grew very rapidly; it was in effect, at that time, what is called a mushroom industry. The figures in these tables prove that the imposition of the duty which was put on before completely failed to bring about the results which were expected of it; and the figures also prove that that industry is now, as regards the proportion of imported gloves to home-made gloves, merely returning to the normal position. I say, in view of that, that this Committee will be right to pause very seriously before they put an increased burden on the poor people whom not only I but very many other Members of the House represent.
    Mr. RYE: It appears to be the fashion to-night to refer to one's constituency, and I should like in turn to refer to mine. I do so in connection with the statement that has been made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that these duties, if imposed, would only benefit the employers and would not benefit the working classes engaged in the fabric glove industry. I should like to give an instance of what took place in my own constituency before the last Election. A manufacturer had installed, at very considerable cost, two machines for the express purpose of making fabric for the manufacture of fabric gloves,
    and when Protection ran off, he found it quite impossible to carry on that business in consequence of the unfair competition from abroad, with the result that the whole of the employés who had been specially engaged to work in connection with those two machines— they had cost about £4,000—had to be dismissed. I saw myself the empty factory, I saw two expensive machines lying idle. I was told those men and women had to be dismissed, and I was told that other employés who derived benefit from their working of those machines had had to go on short time. I think the Committee, knowing those facts, will appreciate that the imposition of these duties will be a benefit, not merely to the employers, but to others who are engaged in that industry.
    Mr. HARRIS: This proposal deliberately goes out of its way, after very careful consideration, to exclude the duty on the fabric itself. Of course there is a minority report, but we understand that the minority report is to be ignored. It is unreasonable to give the manufacturer of gloves a free market to buy where he likes and then put on a tariff to protect him in the article. I could understand an honest, sincere Protectionist who believes that if you put on a tariff it means more employment and more prosperity. If that is the view of hon. Members opposite and of the President of the Board of Trade, it is most unfair, unreasonable and improper to deny to the hon. Member's constituents the protection they are giving to gloves. The whole thing is illogical and absurd. We object to it because it is illogical and absurd. The more you study and explore and experiment with these duties, the more proof you will have that they will be unfair and unreasonable in their incidence.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 457.

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Atkinson, C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Albery, Irving James

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Baldes, Sir George Rowland

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Balniel, Lord

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Apsley, Lord

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive-

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bethell, A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harvey, C. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Perring, William George

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Pielou, D. P.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Preston, William

    Caine, Gordon Hall

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Radford, E. A.

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

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Remer, J. R.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rye, F. G.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Cope, Major William

    Jacob, A. E.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Savery, S. S.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Drewe, C.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Storry Deans, R.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E

    Looker, Herbert William

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

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

    Lougher, L.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Templeton, w. P.

    Fade, Sir Bertram G.

    Mac Andrew, Charles Glen

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macintyre, I.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Finburgh, S.

    McLean, Major A.

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Galbraith. J. F. W.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Merriman, F. B.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Gates, Percy

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Wells, S. R.

    Gee, Captain R,

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Grace, John

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Wilson, R, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W,

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W).

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Neville, R. J.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nuttall, Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

    NOES.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

    Bromley, J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Buchanan, G.

    Dennison, R.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cape, Thomas

    Duckworth, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Duncan, C.

    Barnes, A.

    Clowes, S.

    Dunnico, H.

    Barr, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Batey, Joseph

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Compton, Joseph

    Forrest, W.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Connolly, M,

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gillett, George M.

    Broad, F. A.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Gosling, Harry

    Bromfield, William

    Dalton, Hugh

    Greenall, T.

    2680

    2681

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Snail, Harry

    Groves, T.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    March, S.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Thurtle, E.

    Hardie, George D.

    Montague, Frederick

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Harney, E. A.

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, H.

    Trevalyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Naylor, T. E.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Palin, John Henry

    Viant, S. P.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Paling, W.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

    Weir, L. M.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Westwood, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ritson, J.

    Whiteley, W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Kelly, W. T

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Kennedy, T.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Lansbury, George

    Scurr, John

    Windsor, Walter

    Lawson, John James

    Sexton, James

    Wright, W.

    Lee, F.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Smillie, Robert

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and

    Mr. Warne.

    Main Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 129.

    Division No. 458.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Albery, Irving James

    Craik, Rt. Hen. Sir Henry

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

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

    Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

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

    Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Apsley, Lord

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

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Atkinson, c.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Drewe, C.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Balniel, Lord

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Elveden, Viscount

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

    Barnston, Major sir Harry

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bls)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Fade, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fielden, E. B.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Finburgh, S.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    King, Capt. Henry Douglas

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gates, Percy

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gee, Captain R.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Grace, John

    Looker, Herbert William

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lougher, L.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harmamn

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

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

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hammersley. S. S.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Macintyre, Ian

    Cope, Major William

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    McLean, Major A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Ramsden, E.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Remer, J. R.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Merriman. F. B.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Rye, F. G.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Salmon, Major I.

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

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Morrison. H. (Wilts. Salisbury)

    Savery, S. S.

    Wells, S. R.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Neville. R. J.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Smithers, Waldron

    Womersley, W. J.

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Perring, William George

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Storry Deans, R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Preston, William

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    NOES.

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

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Ammon, Charles George

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

    Ritson, J.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barnes, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barr, J.

    Harney, E. A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scurr, John

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Sexton, James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Smillie, Robert

    Broad, F. A.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Bromfield, William

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape. Thomas

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Charleton, H. C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Kennedy, T.

    Thurtle, E.

    Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tinker. John Joseph

    Compton, Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Townend, A. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lowth, T.

    Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lunn, William

    Warne, G. H.

    Day, Colonel Harry

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

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

    Dennison, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Weir, L. M.

    Duckworth, John

    Mackinder, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Duncan. C.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Whiteley, W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    March, S.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Forrest, W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Garro-Jones. Captain G. M.

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

    Windsor, Walter

    Gillett, George M.

    Murnin, H.

    Wright, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts. John S.

    Smith.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    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
    2684
    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:

    2685
    Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding;
    Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I rise to put a question to the Government. I think Members of the House—except those who slept last night comfortably in bed—will not be anxious for a late sitting to-night. I desire to ask if the Government have any announcement to make now as to how far they hope or expect to go?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have a fellow-feeling with the right hon. Gentleman, and what I would ask the Committee to do is to dispose of the next Resolution upon the Paper, and I hope that, with brevity in the speeches, we may do so within a reasonable time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    MANTLES FOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.
    That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution the following duties of Customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following articles, that is to say,

    s.

    d.

    Mantles for incandescent lighting, whether collodionised or not, the gross

    6

    0

    Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of such mantles, the lb.

    4

    6

    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In making this Motion, I think it will be convenient if, as briefly as possible, I deal with the scope of the Resolution. The Resolution refers to incandescent mantles. This matter was referred to the committee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) indicated, partly in view of the importance and character of the industry. There was nothing abnormal in referring it to the committee because the White Paper, on which he has laid such stress, lays down that the test of the importance of an industry is either the number of people employed or the nature of the goods produced. In the case of gas mantles, he will remember from his experience at the Board of Trade that gas mantles were absolutely vital to this country in the last War, and the Committee in considering the
    2686
    case were impressed by two considerations. The first, which I think was more present to our minds during the War, was that you cannot strip gas of benzol, toluol and other products used for high explosives without depriving it of a great deal of its lighting power. You can only use it effectively if you employ incandescent mantles in connection with it. It was of great importance in the last War, and would be of considerable importance in any future war, though perhaps of 1ess importance than it was in the last War. Secondly, this industry provides the only commercial outlet for compounds of thorium and cerium, which are absolutely vital to a country in emergency, as flame are carbons for searchlights necessitate large quantities of cerium fluoride. They are also needed for the manufacture of special glasses, luminous compounds for aeroplane equipment—which will make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend—for compasses and gun-mountings.
    Obviously, these are all things of supreme national importance, and you can only carry out that work if you have a supply of compounds of thorium and cerium. The only way of maintaining the output is by maintaining the industry which provides the only outlet for it, and that is the gas mantle industry. That, in itself, would alone be enough to justify the proposals we are making, on the ground of it being a key industry. However much we may differ about the advantage of a duty for meeting abnormal competition, even the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, was led to the conclusion that there were certain vital national industries which required safeguarding. The Committee then very naturally go on to consider whether, without the aid of a duty, the gas-mantle industry is likely to continue. They say you cannot take 1913 as a test, and again they are right because, of course, this is an industry which developed in the War, and was carried on afterwards. This industry was comparatively small in this country before the War. Then the Committee considered what was the effect of the duty put on. They say that the duty failed in its purpose because it was only in operation during a particularly exceptional time, when the mark was crashing down by millions and tens of millions at a time, and consequently, at

    2687
    the price quoted, even with the aid of the duty, no manufacturer could hope to compete.
    The Committee then went on to the question of imports, and found that, whereas the imports in 1920 were £78,000 gross, they rose in 1921 to £111,000, in 1924 to £165,000, and this year they are at the rate of anything from £200,000 to £210,000. And they observe in paragraph 20 that during the years 1921 to 1924 importations were at such a rate that British machinery and British factories were largely unemployed. They state that German makers are able to sell at prices with which our manufacturers cannot compete, and they proceed to consider all the advantages which the Germans enjoy. In the first place, they find that overhead charges are lower, and the rate of overhead charges must depend on whether factories are full or empty. They find that labour in Germany is cheaper, and they go into that in some detail in a later paragraph to which I will refer. They find that Germany has an advantage in the cheaper rate of wages, and they say that competition has gravely reduced employment in the industry.
    Then in paragraph 28 they add that the numbers employed had not varied greatly in the last three years, though these years were much below 1921, and with respect to the labour employed were much below the full capacity of the buildings and plant. In another section of the Report they state that manufacturers are being forced to sell at prices which cannot show a profit, and therefore, obviously are not likely to continue even on the scale on which they are producing at the present time. They go into a very careful investigation then, and they set out the wages in tables. The wages in this country are given at 6½d., while the wages in Germany, accepting certain figures put in by the Germans, are 5id. If we accept those figures there is a difference of 17 per cent. There is, no doubt about the British figure. It was not challenged, while with regard to the the German wages, very much lower figures were put in by the applicants, but the Committee also treat with considerable reserve the figures which were put in by the Germans. Even accepting the German figures, there is a difference of 17 per cent. in the rate of wages.
    2688
    They have apparently some difficulty in saying that the competition is unfair. I am not concerned, for the purposes of this particular duty, to prove that the competition is unfair, but I am quite content to found my case on the fact that this is an absolutely vital key industry. At the same time I think that the factors of the lower overhead charges and the difference of 17 per cent. in the wages give a considerable advantage to the foreign exporter to this country. They find, as a fact, that the English manufacturer cannot meet the principal competitor on equal terms. May I read two or three paragraphs from the report? In paragraph 43 they say:
    "We may here summarise the conclusions reached. The British Gas Mantle Industry is certainly not able in its present state to meet its chief foreign competitor on equal terms. We do not think that it is likely to go under, but it may well dwindle into the production of special brands only. The German mantle undersells the corresponding British mantle, not heavily but quite definitely; and the home industry is, in consequence, working much below its full capacity."
    And in paragraph 46:
    "The significance of the mantle lies first and last in the fact that it is practically the sole commercial outlet for thorium, which in its turn has been described to us as 'the bread and butter' of a group of secondary chemical products, 'compounds of thorium and cerium and other rare earth metals'."
    In paragraph 47 they say:
    "Without going into detail on this part of the evidence we accept the broad fact that the continued production in this country of thorium and cerium is imperative; and we are satisfied that if mantles were not made here the economic production of thorium and cerium would go also, as there is apparently no prospect that they would find a sale abroad."
    Also, in paragraph 49:
    "We are clear that it is a choice between giving reasonable help to this industry and maintaining the thorium and cerium industries in some other way of which we have no indication. Should the former course be chosen by the Government a flat rate not exceeding 6s. per gross (equivalent to one halfpenny per mantle) would in our opinion enable the mantle industry, reorganised and concentrated as it might be, to maintain itself in a healthy state."
    That recommendation the Government accept and submit to this Committee. The rate of duty which we propose is 6s., but we take also the equivalent duty of 4s. 6d. a 1b. on the impregnated hose, because plainly it would be im

    2689
    possible to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee if we merely put the duty upon the completely constructed mantle and left free the impregnated material of which the mantle is made. I have only one other thing to add. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Swansea, suggested—I did not quite follow him — that there was something wrong in comprising this duty in this Bill, but why? If we are to put on a duty he would at once say that the proper way to do it was in a Finance Bill, in a duty-imposing Bill, founded on a Ways and Means Resolution. That is exactly what we are going to do, and it cannot be right to put it in a Budget and wrong to put it in this Bill, and we are taking advantage of the first duty-imposing Finance Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution to include this important and essential article. Therefore, I submit that whatever other criticism he may advance, he cannot attack us on the ground of financial precedent or financial purity.
    Mr. HARDIE: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some more information in regard to this question of the manufacture of gas mantles. I note that Page 8 of the Report says that the Committee find that, generally speaking, there is a substantial margin between the prices at which foreign mantles are sold to the wholesaler in this country, and the figures at which similar goods can be profitably manufactured here and sold to the retailer. I should like the President to tell us what were the conditions and arrangements in regard to procuring these things before the War, and after the War. In 1922 we were told in this House by hon. Members on the other side that Germany could produce gas mantles cheaper than we could: that they had all the raw materials. But the history of this matter must not be forgotten. Before the War gas companies were supplying gas at a calorific value of 900 British Thermal Units, and subsequently they were allowed to supply gas of a much less quality. To put forward some of the arguments put forward on the other side is to mislead the House, because the stripping of gas arose through the War, and from the necessity of getting explosive materials out of the gas. But there is no need to do that to-day. Mantles, too were not an invention due to the War, but came about as a natural consequence of
    2690
    development. And if Germany is better able to compete in the matter of gas mantles, which I doubt, it is possibly because she has been able to find a new deposit of monazite sand. In the old days with quality of gas supplied under Act of Parliament, a good light was given by the flat flame burner, but with the decline of the illuminating power, the flat flame burner went out, and the mantle came in.
    I wish when we come to technical subjects like this the President of the Board of Trade would make himself a little more familiar with the details, and not take it that all members are ignorant of the subjects that come up here. I do not know who is responsible for this Report, but if I were looking out for a technical man I certainly would not take this man into my business. If whoever are responsible for this Report have drawn it up from dictation I forgive them, of course, because they had been earning their bread, but if they produced this Report posing as men throwing light on this subject, then I say they are in real darkness so far as this question is concerned. The mantle of light has not fallen on them. With all the money which has been expended, and no matter how high the walls of protection built round an industry, you cannot create efficiency by heightening the tariff wall round inefficiency. On the last occasion the gas mantle trade was before Parliament it was admitted by a Member who had great experience in it that we were incapable of producing the same quality of mantle as did other countries, and that the reason was that we had not gone thoroughly into the science of their manufacture.
    Any one going into a house where they burn gas and use mantles can see whether a mantle has been properly made. A mantle which has not been properly made generally has at its bottom a dark disc. That is where the real science of "pouring,'' as it is known, in the hardening of the mantle, comes in. That has not been developed in this country. To protect inefficiency is, to my mind, the one way of destroying not only industry but trade itself. You can do what you like by Protection, but you will not increase efficiency in that way. Members on the other side of the House are responsible for the cuts made in education. Parliament has been responsi-

    2691
    ble for keeping back that development of elementary education and science that have given to Germany and other countries their "greatest minds." We spoke of them in that way before the War and we have a right to acknowledge the position now. If a country stands against the education of its children on the one hand, and seeks to guard ignorance by tariff walls, the Government of that country cannot be in the hands of intelligent or practical men. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to throw some more light on this gas mantle question.
    Mr. WIGGINS: 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."
    On reading the Report of the Committee it seems to me their chief aim and object has been to emphasise the fact that the two chemicals mentioned there are of national importance to this country. If we admit that they are of national importance to the whole of the population of this country I see no reason why the users of gas mantles should have to bear the whole cost of securing that national advantage. If it is a question of competition, the greatest competitor that the gas mantle has today and will have in the future is the electric light. We are all in our respective spheres advising people to put in electric lighting from the point of view of health and cleanliness, therefore the use of gas mantles is bound to diminish if you tax them. If it be true that these two chemicals are a national necessity, then the nation as a whole should bear the cost. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade—and perhaps he will allow me to congratulate him upon giving us such a full exposition of the White Paper — that if he attaches such importance to the raising of the money he should find some other way of raising it.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to support this Amendment. There are one or two questions which I think it is necessary for us to put, in order to elucidate some of the very peculiar features of this Report which place it in quits a different class from any other Report which the Committee has issued. The main fact about this Report, which was not put
    2692
    very dearly before hon. Members in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, is that, so far as the economic conditions of this industry are concerned, and so far as the questions which the right hon. Gentlemen asked the Committee to answer are concerned, the Committee has turned the application of the gas mantle industry down. The Committee was definitely asked to report whether there were unfair and abnormal conditions in reference to this trade, and they reported that
    "on that part of their case the industry has not made their argument good."
    Therefore the Committee rejected it. Then one finds on the next page a kind of unexpected and surprise paragraph in which the Committee nevertheless still come to the conclusion that there ought to be a tariff, but they come to this conclusion by dragging in considerations which were not put before them in the first Instance, which are quite interesting speculations, but which were quite irrelevant to the examination which they were asked to undertake. This is a most peculiar Report. The Committee were asked to consider whether a certain industry needs a tariff, and after concluding that it does not they report officially that a tariff should be imposed on behalf of other industries into which it has not been asked to report.
    There are some questions which the President of the Board of Trade ought to answer. The first is, if the tariff is to be imposed, not for the sake of gas mantles, but for the sake of those rare earth metals cerium and thorium, we are entitled to know whether a special examination was made of the cerium and thorium industries. These reports are presented to us in order that we may have the facts, but the Report we are now considering gives us no evidence at all about the cerium and thorium industries beyond a mere vague passage in one paragraph, and there is no evidence in the Report upon which we can form an opinion. Surely, if the argument be that cerium and thorium are, as the President of the Board of Trade said, absolutely vital to our security in time of war, there should be some actual evidence by which we can test that statement. Have the military and naval authorities been consulted? Was this placed before the Committee of Imperial Defence? Surely, they are the

    2693
    the body to decide. This, however, has apparently been inserted in a perfectly vague and haphazard fashion at the last moment, at the end of the meeting of the Committee, and we are asked to impose this duty on account of great strategical consideration on which we have no evidence at all.
    If it be true, as the President of the Board of Trade stated, that these rare metals, cerium and thorium, are absolutely vital to our safety in time of war, and that our requisite supplies of them depend upon the gas mantle industry, then I say that this country is in a most precarious position; and, if that is all we are going to depend upon, it is perfectly clear that the next war will find us with a. grave insufficiency of these requisites upon which our security will depend. That is clear from the report. We are asked to provide this tariff because we are dependent for these war requisites upon the supply of gas mantles in this country, but as a matter of fact the output of gas mantles, in spite of the tariff, is going down every year. I see from page 5 of the report that in spite of the imposition of the duty under the Key Industries Act the output of gas mantles now is only two-thirds of what it was when that duty was imposed, and that indicates what the position is. The fact is that the future of gas mantles as an industry is obviously, as we all know from our own experience, dependent upon forces which no tariff can very much alter one way or the other. The future of gas mantles is precarious, because we are all of us turning more and more to ordinary gas for heating purposes and to electricity for lighting. The very progress of electricity for lighting means that the gas mantle industry is bound correspondingly to decline.
    The Government have abandoned the case for protection of gas mantles on economic grounds. That will not be denied. They have put their case simply on the ground of military and naval security, and I venture to say that the case on the ground of military and naval security is largely in the nature of a hoax. I venture to say that if the Committee of Imperial Defence, if the naval and military advisers of the Government really believed that the security of this country was bound up with the future of the Gas Mantle industry, which is
    2694
    declining every year, they would not quietly tolerate that situation.
    These products are quite new to me. I have asked the only gentleman I know who has any authority on these questions and have endeavoured to find out whether in the view of experts it is true the Army and Navy depend on thorium for security in the future.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Might we know what thorium is? Why should we have these strange words? I believe it is a Bolshevik plot.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The President of the Board of Trade told us cerium and thorium are rare earth metals absolutely vital to the country if war breaks out. I have been told that at this present moment the supply of thorium is absolutely insufficient for military necessities, and that the real point is that these luminous compounds that are made from thorium as by-products are better made from radium and that it is on their manufacture out of radium that the Army and Navy mainly depend already. Under these circumstances the President of the Board of Trade has abandoned the case for the duties on economic grounds. He has made no attempt whatever to prove any case for the duty on military and naval necessity and he has not put before the Committee any reasons why the Resolution should be passed.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: I should like to be allowed to reply to those technical questions on thorium. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) seemed to be exercised as to the source of monazite and its possibilities for the future. Previous to the War the complete control of monazite was in German hands, and the British mantle manufacturer was hampered in consequence. As a result of the War, and in consequence of the joint action of the Board of Trade and the India Office, the great monazite resources of Travancore have now been freed from the control of the German mantle cartel and are under the complete control of the British. This great source of thorium and cerium is for all time in British hands. The other great constituents of gas mantles. Ramie fibre, asbestos, and china clay, are also Empire products. Thorium and cerium are absolutely essential for

    2695
    the making of gas mantles. If these two metals were out of our control the whole future of the gas mantle industry would be imperilled. Therefore the President of the Board of Trade is right in saying that this industry depends upon the free ability of the British manufacturers to look to the Empire for the great sources of thorium and cerium in future. Largely relying upon the stability of that industry mills have been built in this country to develop thorium and cerium, but as a consequence of the unfortunate competition to which the right hon. Gentleman has so clearly and explicitly alluded, these mills are now only half employed, and one large mill, built for this purpose is at the present moment out of operation. If thorium and cerium are to be maintained for great national emergency, the future of the gas mantle industry must be maintained.
    I have the honour to represent a Constituency in which 95 per cent. of British gas mantles are made, and I know to the full what the relaxation of the duty has meant to a very large number of my constituents. They have been hampered and unemployment has been rife as a consequence and they are looking forward —a large number of young girls who are in many cases the mainstay of their homes—to the imposition of these new duties. I am confident that the Minister is doing a great service for the unemployed in a very crowded part of South London, in addition to procuring for the nation for all time these invaluable metals which are so vital in war and peace.
    Mr. MacLAREN: One hon. Member who has just been speaking about these mysterious oxides, says that we now control the mineral deposits. It is on these false assumptions that schemes of this kind can be got through. The main project is supposed to be to defend the gas mantle industry, but when you dig into the inquiry you find that it is really to defend the gentlemen who own and control within the Empire the natural deposits from which these by-products are taken. Before the right hon. Gentleman puts on the gag perhaps he will tell us, or we may find out, who are the people who control these natural deposits
    2696
    from which these oxides are made. It is. most appropriate that we should have come down to gas mantles. The more I have listened to these Debates the more I am convinced that in future a Member of Parliament will require to serve his time in some emporium dealing in gas mantles, brushes, cutlery or gloves. He will have to be capable of running a Selfridge's stores before taking a seat in the House of Commons. It is a very sad reflection to the community outside, with the distress there is, that we can fritter away time on such piffling matters as these. If we want to give employment, there are other ways of doing it. The whole performance to-day has been a reflection on the mentality of those who hold and control the reins of Government in this country, and a serious matter for thought, that with the condition of the people outside as it is, there should be those who, like jackasses, support propositions of this kind.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want to draw attention, before the Committee come to their decision, to the fact that the gas mantle industry, as in the case of many of their industries applying for protection, is an instance of the strength of capitalism. There is a perfectly firm ring in the sale of gas mantles in this country. It is responsible for the sale of 95 per cent. of the British mantles in this country, and it is a little enlightening to read the Report of the Committee, who say:
    "In regard to factory on-costs and in regard to general overhead and administration expenses, there is room for considerable improvement."
    I think the general experience is that there is the reverse of economy in this direct and it would be far better to revise the business from the standpoint of efficiency. Wherever combines of this kind grow up, they almost certainly lead to an application for a tariff. Tariff, ring and combine go hand in hand. That is why on previous Amendments I have asked, without getting any answer from the Board of Trade, whether, as a corallary to the policy of piecemeal amendment of the fiscal system by the imposition of tariffs, they are also going to take steps to deal with the trust and combine which always flourish under the cover of tariffs.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been asked to answer the hon. Member

    2697
    for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), although I rather thought he was giving me information. Of course, I cannot accept the Amendment, which would destroy this proposal, and give no security to this industry. The hon. Member said that this industry does not need the duty, but the Committee say it does, and I ask this Committee to take the view of the Committee, against the view of the hon. Member. When the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was in office, he put thorium and cerium as among the essential things for safety and defence founded on the experience, of the War, and it is endorsed by the considered opinion of the Government's advisers. Then the hon. Gentleman said that there are other outlets. If the hon. Gentlemen can discover any commercial outlet for thorium and cerium other than gas mantles, he will probably make a substantial fortune, which he will be able to divide equally with the members of his own party. I wish him all luck in the endeavour. His last argument was strange. He said that the future of gas mantles is precarious; that the trade will probably dwindle still further. Therefore, he argued, let us bring in all the more German gas mantles so as to make our industry smaller still.
    That seems neither wise nor prudent Nor can we count upon radium alone an these matters. We had better make sure of the cheaper material.
    Mr. HADEN GUEST: Is there any possibility of raising the very low wages in the gas mantle industry? The present position is that the workers earn only a miserable pittance.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I very much hope so, but when you have an industry on the verge of bankruptcy, and unable to compete with foreign manufacturers, surely the best way of giving an opportunity to the workers, and giving the unions a fund out of which to draw, is to give the industry a chance of competing on equal terms, and making a profit.
    Mr. GUEST: Is there any suggestion made to that effect?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am now making the suggestion that the Committee should pass this Resolution.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 459.]

    AYES.

    [11.58 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Albery, Irving James

    Courthope, Lieut. Col. Sir George L.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Applin. Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Atkinson, C.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Balniel, Lord

    Drewe, C.

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

    Barnett, Major sir Richard

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Blundell, F. N.

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bridgeman, lit. Hon. William Clive

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fielden, E. B.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Finburgh, S.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Jacob A. E.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Ganzoni. Sir John

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Butt. Sir Alfred

    Gates, Percy

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lougher, L.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Grace, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Grant, J. A.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    MacDonald, R. (Catheart)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Macintyre, Ian

    Cope. Major William

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Remer, J. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Templeton, W. P.

    Margesson, Capt. D.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Russell, Alexander Wert (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Merriman, F. B.

    Rye, F. G.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Watson, Rt. Hon, W. (Carlisle)

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Neville, R. J.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Smithers, Waldron

    Womersley, W. J.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Perring, William George

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Preston, William

    Storry Deans, R.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Radford, E. A.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Mr. F. C. Thomson.

    NOES.

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

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

    Ritson, J.

    Ammon, Charles George

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

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

    Barnes, A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barr, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Broad, F. A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Bromfield, William

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, G. H.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thurtle, E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kelly, W. T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, George

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lawson, John James

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Warne, G. H.

    Duncan, C.

    Lunn, William

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Mackinder, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Whiteley, W.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Murnin, H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Groves. T.

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Sir Geoffrey Collins and Sir Robert

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

    Riley, Ben

    Hutchison.

    Main Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 87.

    Division No. 460.]

    AYES.

    [12.6 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Cope, Major William

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Balniel, Lord

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Campbell, E. T.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Drewe, C.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Bowyer, Capt, G. E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Savery, S. S.

    Finburgh, S.

    Lougher, L.

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

    Skelton, A. N.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Lumley, L. R.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Gates, Percy

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Macintyre, Ian

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Grace, John

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Storry Deans, R.

    Grant, J. A

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Greene, W. p. Crawford

    Merriman, F. B.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Templeton, W. P.

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Neville, R. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Perring, William George

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pielou, D. P.

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Preston, William

    Wise, Sir Fredric

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Womersley. W. J.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Huntingfield, Lord

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

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Jacob, A. E.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Rye, F. G.

    Captain Hacking and Mr. F. C.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Thomson.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    NOES.

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

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

    Ritson, J.

    Barnes, A.

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

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

    Barr, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Hardie, George D.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scurr, John

    Broad, F. A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sexton, James

    Bromfield, William

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Buchanan. G.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Cape. Thomas

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thurtle, E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

    Kelly, W. T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, George

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Lawson. John James

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Warne, G. H.

    Duncan, C.

    Lunn, William

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

    Dunnico, H.

    Mackinder, W.

    Westwood, J.

    Fenby, T. D.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Murnin, H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenall, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Paling, W.

    Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Ho'ghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Riley, Ben

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.

    Henderson.

    Resolved,

    MANTLES FOR INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.
    That during a period of five years from
    2702
    the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution the following duties of Customs shall be charged on the importation

    2703
    into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following articles, that is to say: —

    s.

    d.

    Mantles for incandescent lighting, whether collodionised or not the gross

    6

    0

    Impregnated hose or stockings for use in the manufacture of such mantles the lb.

    4

    6

    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  APPEALS.
  APPEALS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  PENSIONS ISSUED.
  PENSIONS ISSUED.
  VOLUNTARY FUND.
  VOLUNTARY FUND.
  INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT.
  INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT.
  FINAL AWARDS.
  FINAL AWARDS.
  ERRONEOUS AWARDS.
  ERRONEOUS AWARDS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  CHILDREN (EDUCATION GRANTS).
  CHILDREN (EDUCATION GRANTS).
  ADMINISTRATION (NORTH-WESTERN REGION).
  ADMINISTRATION (NORTH-WESTERN REGION).
  MEDICAL TREATMENT AND TRAINING.
  MEDICAL TREATMENT AND TRAINING.
  ORPINGTON HOSPITAL.
  ORPINGTON HOSPITAL.
  NEED PENSIONS (ME. A. STRAIT).
  NEED PENSIONS (ME. A. STRAIT).
  Loss OF SUBMARINE Ml (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
  Loss OF SUBMARINE Ml (WIDOWS' PENSIONS).
BRITISH ARMY.
  DISPENSERS.
  DISPENSERS.
  INOCULATION.
  INOCULATION.
  PHARMACISTS.
  PHARMACISTS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
  AIR STATIONS (RE-OCCUPATION).
  AIR STATIONS (RE-OCCUPATION).
  PARACHUTES.
  PARACHUTES.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFIT.
  CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFIT.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  PERSONS EMPLOYED.
  PERSONS EMPLOYED.
  TAXATION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON)
  TAXATION (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON)
  MCKENNA DUTIES.
  MCKENNA DUTIES.
  NEW IMPORT DUTIES.
  NEW IMPORT DUTIES.
  PUBLISHING TRADE DISPUTE.
  PUBLISHING TRADE DISPUTE.
  PERPETUAL PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  PERPETUAL PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
  COUNTY COURT FEES.
  COUNTY COURT FEES.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (ESTABLISHED CLERKS).
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (ESTABLISHED CLERKS).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (SHORTHAND TYPISTS).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (SHORTHAND TYPISTS).
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  SHORTHAND TYPISTS AND TYPISTS (PROMOTION).
  SHORTHAND TYPISTS AND TYPISTS (PROMOTION).
  TRANSFERRED SERVANTS (EXPENSES).
  TRANSFERRED SERVANTS (EXPENSES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EXAMINATION MARKS).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EXAMINATION MARKS).
  TREASURY DEPARTMENTAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.
  TREASURY DEPARTMENTAL WHITLEY COUNCIL.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS.
  CIVIL SERVANTS' SALARIES.
  CIVIL SERVANTS' SALARIES.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES (REGULATIONS).
  FOOD PRESERVATIVES (REGULATIONS).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DOMINIONS).
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DOMINIONS).
  COAL PRICES, LONDON.
  COAL PRICES, LONDON.
  SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
  SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
  ROAD EXPENDITURE.
  ROAD EXPENDITURE.
EDUCATION.
  MINIMUM SCHOOL AGE.
  MINIMUM SCHOOL AGE.
  GRANTS.
  GRANTS.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  CASUAL WARDS, OXFORDSHIRE.
  CASUAL WARDS, OXFORDSHIRE.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  MEDICAL PANEL.
  MEDICAL PANEL.
  PULMONARY DISEASES, METROPOLITAN AREA.
  PULMONARY DISEASES, METROPOLITAN AREA.
  BRIGHTON INSURANCE COMMITTEE (CLERK).
  BRIGHTON INSURANCE COMMITTEE (CLERK).
POST OFFICE.
  PILLAR BOX, ROTHWELL.
  PILLAR BOX, ROTHWELL.
  WATCHMAN, MOUNTAIN ASH.
  WATCHMAN, MOUNTAIN ASH.
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (PROMOTION).
  LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (PROMOTION).
AGRICULTURE.
  DOGS (SHEEP WORRYING).
  DOGS (SHEEP WORRYING).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES RELIEF ACTS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES RELIEF ACTS.
  PRISONS (WELSH-SPEAKING OFFICERS).
  PRISONS (WELSH-SPEAKING OFFICERS).
  COVENT GARDEN OPERA HOUSE.
  COVENT GARDEN OPERA HOUSE.
  IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  IRISH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND)BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stood appointed for to-day) put off to Wednesday next.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stood appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Wednesday next.

NORTH SOMERSET ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 28th day of July last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ASHFORD ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 5th day of August last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
One Question, Motion agreed to.

BARROW-UPON-SOAR AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
STANLEY ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
LEICESTER ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
GRANGE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 7th day of August last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ALTON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 7th day of July last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, has the noble Marquess the Leader of the House come to any determination on the question of the Committee stage of the Tithe Bill, supposing, of course, that we get to the Committee stage?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, yesterday I promised the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, that I would consider carefully whether it was possible to alter the arrangement of business which I foreshadowed. I suggested that in the event of the Tithe Bill being read a second time to-day we should take the Committee stage on Thursday next. Lord Midleton suggested that it should be taken on Wednesday next. I have considered the suggestion very carefully. It would involve by an Order of the House the displacing of Notices of Motion which stand on the Paper for that day, and I need not say that, after a long experience of the House, I have the greatest reluctance to do that unless it is absolutely necessary. I have been a private Peer so long that I know the extreme exasperation which is produced when you are suddenly upset by an Order of that kind. Twenty-four hours only are involved, and I do not

1105
think it is worth while to incur the very natural and almost appropriate resentment which would certainly be involved. Therefore, unless some strong representations are made to me from influential members of the House I do not propose to alter the arrangement which I foreshadowed yesterday.
LORD PARMOOR: Can the noble Marquess give us any further information as to the Rating and Valuation Bill, and whether it is likely to be here on the day he mentioned?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am in exactly the same position to-day as I was yesterday. I hope the Bill will get through another place to-morrow, and in that event it will be read a first time in this Horse to-morrow afternoon.

CAMPBELTOWN HARBOUR AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TITHE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, and it is only right that I should tell your Lordships that, although the Bill contains provisions which are not unconnected with the question of finance, it comes from another place without certification by the Speaker that it is a Money Bill. The main general principles upon which this Bill is founded may be summarised as follows:—(1), That all tithe rentcharge, both ecclesiastical and lay, shall be stabilised, and no longer depend upon the price of corn for the time being; (2), that all ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge shall be redeemed by means of a sinking fund at the end of a limited period; (3), that the clergy as a whole shall not be called upon to pay more than they are
1106
paying at present by way of rates, levied upon tithe rentcharge; and, (4), that the relationship of tax-gatherer and taxpayer shall hereafter be abolished as between the clergy on the one hand and their parishioners on the other.
As the Bill definitely and permanently alters the basis of tithe rentcharge as established by the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, it may perhaps be convenient to remind the House what was the purport and effect of that Statute. The payment of tithes, or the tenth part of the produce of the land, towards the maintenance of beneficed clergy, was established before the Norman Conquest, and has been recognised by English law since the eighth century. There are several exceptions to the payment of tithe (as in the case of the abbeys and of Crown lands), and in the course of the centuries persons and corporations other than the clergy have become legally entitled to the receipt of tithes, especially at the time of the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1536 and 1539.
Although originally payable in kind, it was largely the custom at the time of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, for a tithe-owner to accept a fixed sum of money, or a fixed quantity of titheable commodities, in place of the actual tithes. The principle of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, was, as explained by Sir Robert Phillimore in his classic work on Ecclesiastical Law, to make this system general by substituting a tithe rentcharge "permanent in quantity and payable in money, but fluctuating in value, for all tithes which previously belonged either to ecclesiastical or lay persons." The rentcharge was apportioned to all the lands liable to tithe in the parish, and its value fixed at the value of the number of imperial bushels of wheat, barley and oats which the same would have purchased at the average price of such cereals during the seven years preceding Christmas, 1835. Such prices were in fact 7s. 0¼d. per bushel of wheat, 3s. 11½d. per bushel of barley, and 2s. 9d. per bushel of oats, and the actual value of the tithe rentcharge has always been based upon the quantity of each cereal which at that date represented £33 6s. 8d. or one-third of the sum of £100. These quantities were, in fact, 95 bushels of wheat, 168 bushels of barley, and 242 bushels of oats. The consequence is that

1107
the price of oats has a much greater influence on the fluctuation of tithe rentcharge than either wheat or barley. That is a rather significant fact, when estimates or conjectures of the probable future trend of cereal prices are being made, as they have been made during recent weeks.
The current value of the tithe rentcharge is ascertained by taking these numbers in each case, i.e., 95, 168 and 242, and multiplying them respectively by the average price of each cereal over the preceding period of seven years. The aggregate of these figures represents the current value of tithe. Under this arrangement it is, perhaps, interesting to mention that tithe rentcharge has varied in value between 1836 and the outbreak of the War in 1914 from £66 at the lowest in 1901 to £112, the highest figure reached, in 1875. It may be rather instructive to note that it does not necessarily follow that the highest prices of cereals had been reached during the preceding seven years. In fact the highest price reached in the case of wheat was in 1855, the price being 9s. 4d. per bushel, and the highest prices for barley and oats were reached in 1874, the prices being respectively 3s. 7¼d. and 5s. 7¼d.; but as oats, and to a less extent barley, have a greater operation on the value of tithe rentcharge than wheat has, it is interesting to note that the peak was in fact reached in pre-War tithe values during the seven year period of which the year 1874 formed one of the years. That is the year in which oats were at an exceptionally high figure and barley also was very much above the normal.
There was, however, no violent fluctuation until the time of the late War, when corn prices, although under Government control, rose to such an extent that on the 1836 basis tithe rentcharge would have reached in 1922 the figure of £172 for every £100 of tithe. In 1917 the Church, not desiring to take advantage of abnormal War conditions, patriotically initiated a movement for the temporary stabilisation of tithe rentcharge, and accordingly the Tithe Act of 1918 was passed. This provided for stabilisation for seven years at the figure of £109 3s. 11 d., reverting thereafter to the old system of tithe ascertainment, but on the basis of a fifteen years instead of a seven years average.
1108
This seven years stabilisation, which was provided for as a temporary expedient in. 1918, ceases at the end of this year. The fifteen years average, which was intended to come into operation at the end of that seven year period, was intended to ensure that the effect of the high prices consequent upon the War should be spread over a longer period, and their severity thus tempered to the tithe payer. The year when cereals reached their highest price was 1920. It has been realised during the last three years that even on a fifteen years average the value of the tithe rentcharge would rise far above par, and would, in fact, reach £131 next year, with a probability of £133 and £135 in the two following years and £137 in 1930. It was felt that this would impose a heavy burden upon the agricultural community during a period of falling prices and considerable instability.
I may perhaps remind your Lordships that since 1891 the tithe rentcharge has been payable by the landlord, and the landlord has been unable to contract out of that obligation by any arrangement made with his farm tenant. But it is interesting to remember that, as the result very largely of the purchase by farm tenants of their holdings since the War, no less than twenty-five per cent. of all those now occupying agricultural land are, in fact, owners of the land they cultivate—a much smaller proportion, I may remark, than in most other countries of the world.
Negotiations were commenced in 1923 with a view to a new basis of stabilisation combined with compulsory redemption, and were conducted by a Committee consisting of representatives of the Church, the National Farmers' Union, the Central Landowners' Association, and the Land Union, but the negotiators were unable to come to any definite agreement. The Government therefore felt bound to take the responsibility of coming to a decision, and have accordingly provided by this Bill for a scheme of permanent stabilisation which, it is hoped, will be regarded as equitable to all parties concerned. At this stage it may be pertinent to remind the House that the tithe rentcharge is of three different kinds:—(1), That attached to benefices (or incumbents' tithe rentcharge); (2), that owned by ecclesiastical corporations—and, of course, when I speak of corporations in

1109
this connection I mean, not corporations sole, but corporations as defined by the Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act, 1851—and (3), lay tithe rentcharge, which constitutes about one-third of the whole, and which is owned respectively by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by the Welsh Church Commissioners, by various colleges, including very particularly those of Oxford and Cambridge, by schools, by hospitals and other charitable institutions, and lastly by various private individuals. The amount of lay tithe owned by private individuals represents about three-fifths of the whole of the lay tithe.
Under this Bill all tithe rentcharge of every description is to be stabilised at £105, and the first two classes of tithe rentcharge, which are collectively described as ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge, are to be redeemed by an annuity. Consequently, in respect of each £100 of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge, the landowner will pay £105 plus the amount which is required to provide the necessary sinking fund. There is no compulsory redemption by annuity of lay tithe rentcharge. Queen Anne's Bounty has been selected as the central body which will be responsible for collection of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge, thus terminating the present system of the parson collecting his own tithe—a somewhat invidious task, and one not calculated to assist his spiritual work.
For this purpose the country is to be divided by Queen Anne's Bounty into not more than twenty separate areas, and in each area there will be a Committee set up which will be charged with the duty of collecting tithe rentcharge, and the cost of collection in each area will be pooled. Tithe-owning clergy will be duly represented upon these various area Committees. This ought to provide that the collection will be as effective and as economical as possible. A scheme to be made by Queen Anne's Bounty will provide that losses due to failure to collect tithe rentcharge will be pooled and shared by all incumbents alike within the collection area; thus the relationship of tax-gatherer and taxpayer will be completely abolished, with one exception only. Where the incumbent has in the past been in the habit of collecting his own tithe rentcharge, without employing an agent, and therefore without incurring any expense, it is provided by the Bill
1110
that he shall be allowed to continue to do so as long as he remains incumbent.
Now I want to turn shortly to the question of redemption. The annuity which is comprised in the figure of £105 by which ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge will be redeemed does take into account what I may call the "peak" years following the War, but spreads the charge of them equally over all succeeding years for a complete period of eighty-five years in the case of incumbents' tithe rentcharge and 81½ years in the case of that owned by ecclesiastical corporations. The difference in the periods of accumulation is due to the fact that from the figure of £105 different amounts have to be deducted for rates—£5 per cent. in the case of the incumbent's tithe and £16 per cent. for other ecclesiastical tithes. In respect of each £100 of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge par value—the stabilised value of which is £105—it is provided that the sum of £4 10 s. shall, in addition, be payable by the tithe payer into a sinking fund, thus making his total payment in respect of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge £109 10 s. It is estimated that these sinking fund payments will produce, at the end of this period of eighty-five years in the one case and 81½ years in the other, a capital sum which will yield the same net income as that which the tithe owner has previously derived from his tithe rentcharge, which will thereupon become extinguished. This will represent in the case of incumbents £97 10 s.: that is, £105 less £5 for rates and less £2 10 s. for collection expenses; and in the case of ecclesiastical corporations a sum of £86 10 s.: that is, £105 less £16 for rates and a similar sum of £2 10 s. for collection expenses.
It is proposed to vest the sums payable by way of redemption annuity absolutely in Queen Anne's Bounty who will hold them as legal owners upon trust for the various beneficiaries and ecclesiastical corporations respectively. A sinking fund being required for redemption purposes, it is obviously an advantage that the collection, investment and management of the sinking fund should be in the hands of the same central authority. Queen Anne's Bounty will, therefore, undertake these tasks. Queen Anne's Bounty have always received moneys in respect of the cash redemption of tithe rentcharge, attached to benefices, and, since the Tithe

1111
Act of 1918, such redemption annuities as were provided for by that Act. Provision is also made in Clause 8 of the Bill for redemption outright by a capital sum before the expiration of the full period of 85 years or 81½ years, if the tithe payer so desires.
Lay tithe rentcharge—that is, as I pointed out, all the tithe rentcharge which is not either attached to a benefice or belonging to an ecclesiastical corporation—is stabilised similarly at £105, but no scheme of compulsory redemption is proposed in that case. There is a slight modification of the redemption terms in this case under the Tithe Act of 1918, which is found in Clause 17, where an application for redemption is made by the tithe payer. A very material consideration in relation to this Bill is the question of rating.
LORD PARMOOR: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, would be kindly say what is the calculation of the net amount after the deduction of the cost of collection and administration?
LORD BLEDISLOE: Perhaps I may be allowed to mention that later. I was going to mention it in summarising the case for the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that the Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act of 1899 relieved tithe rentcharge payable to incumbents of half the rates. That followed on a similar provision that was made by the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 as regards agricultural occupiers. There has always been deemed to be a rough relation between the cost of living on the one hand and the value of tithe rentcharge on the other, although the former is not immediately reflected by the latter. In 1919 and 1920, owing to the high cost of living, coupled with the limitation upon their tithe income imposed by the Act of 1918 and owing also to high rates resulting from monetary depreciation, a large number of incumbents found themselves in a serious condition of financial embarrassment. This led to the passing of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act of 1920 as a temporary measure. This Act expires at the end of this year concurrently with the Tithe Act of 1918. This Act of 1920 relieved incumbents whose tithe income was less than £300 a year, of all rates. If their income was between £300 and £500 a year it relieved them of
1112
three-quarters of their rates. If their income was in excess of £500 they remained chargeable with half their rates. That is to say, the position remains the same as it was under the Rates Act of 1899, all rates for the purpose of the Act of 1920 being calculated on the basis of the 1918 poundage. At the end of this year all incumbents would ordinarily revert to the payment of half-rates.
This measure afforded much relief to the parsons, especially as the poorer benefices escaped the rate burden altogether. The effect of exemptions contained in the Acts of 1899 and 1920 is that the average amount of rates paid by incumbents—the average amount of rates—is £5 for every £100 of tithe rentcharge and the average amount paid by ecclesiastical corporations is £16 for every £100 of tithe rentcharge. As no Exchequer Grant was provided at the time of the passing of the Act of 1920 the other ratepayers in the locality had to make good the deficiency. This is altered by the present Bill. Incumbents have claimed from time to time that under any new arrangement some provision should be made by Government for the payment of their sates. It is, therefore, proposed to stabilise the rate liability at £5 and £16 respectively per £100 par value of tithe rentcharge and to provide, in addition, an annual Grant from the Exchequer in lieu of the additional burden which has been thrown upon other ratepayers as the result of the Act of 1920. As a matter of machinery the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will, in fact, pay to the local authorities the whole of the rates on ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge and will receive £5 and £16 per cent. respectively from Queen Anne's Bounty. The new money which will be provided by the Exchequer for this purpose will amount to about £292,000 a year, of which no less than £272,000 will be in respect of incumbents' rates.
There is ample justification, I submit, for this proposal. The burden which has been cast on other ratepayers by the Act of 1920 falls very unequally on different parishes. In parishes where there is no tithe rentcharge entitled to exemption under the Act of 1920, there is, of course, no deficiency in rates arising from that Act. In others, where the tithe rentcharge is totally exempt from rates,

1113
and also at the same time forms, as it does in some cases, a considerable proportion of the whole rateable value of the parish, the additional rate required to make up the deficiency amounts in some cases to no less than 3s. in the £. The Bill leaves the total amount payable by way of rates by incumbents and ecclesiastical corporations practically unaltered, but provides for the deficiency being made good by payments from the Exchequer, so far as this is not met under the Act of 1899. This will obliterate the inequalities of the exempting system as between parish and Parish, and will do something to remove the sense of injustice which has been felt by farmers and agriculturists generally in many agricultural parishes, due to these inequalities.
To sum up the main provisions of the Bill: First of all, in respect of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge, the tithe payer will pay a total sum of £109 10 s. for every £100 of tithe rentcharge, and this will be made up in this way. In the case of the parson £100 goes to him, less Queen Anne's Bounty's cost of collection and administration; £5 goes to the Exchequer as representing rates; and £4 10 s. for 85 years to Queen Anne's Bounty for sinking fund. In the case of the ecclesiastical corporations £89 goes to the Corporation, less the cost of collection and administration; £16 to the Exchequer for rates, and, similarly, £4 10 s., but for 81½ years instead of 85 years, to Queen Anne's Bounty for sinking fund. Lastly, in respect of lay tithe rentcharge, the tithe Payer will pay £105 for £100 par value, and no provision will be made for redemption by annuity. In answer to the noble Lord's question put just now, it is not possible to give with absolute precision a figure representing the deduction for the cost of administration. In another place the Minister suggested 5 per cent. as a possible figure, but declined to accept an amendment inserting that figure in the Bill. I am not in a position, therefore, to state with absolute accuracy what will be the net value of the tithe rentcharge in future to the parsons or to the ecclesiastical corporations, as the case may be.
There are other provisions contained in the Bill which are ancillary to or consequential upon those which I have
1114
endeavoured to explain to the House. Some question has been raised, especially I think by those who represent the colleges at the Universities, as to what is to be the appointed date at which this Bill will come into operation. We cannot say precisely the appointed date, but it will probably be April 1, 1927, If it is not that date, it will probably be the day before.
That, my Lords, is the Bill. I am not going to pretend that the scheme which it embodies satisfies fully either tithe owners or tithe payers. The former consider the stabilisation figure too low and the latter deem it too high, and what I may call the margin of dissatisfaction on each side is of about the same dimension. This, perhaps, affords the most convincing claim for your Lordships' favourable consideration of the measure, and is the strongest evidence of its equity and impartiality. The Government, at least, have done their best in this Bill to solve a problem of some considerable difficulty and complexity, which is a source of anxiety and possible friction in our countryside, and we venture to hope that this House which is, by its composition, specially qualified to express an authoritative opinion upon it, will regard the solution which we now submit for your consideration as an equitable one. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That the Bill be read a second time this day three months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the Second Reading of this Bill be put off for three months, I do not do so in any hostile spirit to the general principles underlying the Bill. It is to its details that I object I could not help feeling, when the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture was addressing your Lordships, that he might not have used the words that it was a Bill which had equity and impartiality as its hallmark. I could not help reflecting that in this very Bill there is a great deal of inequality and a great deal of partiality.
Why should there be such a great distinction made between the clerical tithe owner and the ecclesiastical cor-

1115
porations—that is to say, our great Universities and teaching centres—and also, last but not least, such an inequality in the case of the ordinary lay tithe payer, a very different treatment is meted out in these three cases, and I think it might have been better had the noble Lord, instead of claiming impartiality and equity for this Bill, explained upon what ground he justified the treatment accorded to our great Universities, and the treatment meted out to the ordinary lay tithe payer. Certainly it is a question of property, and undoubtedly the Church has a right to her property. So also have the Universities a right to their property, and so also has the owner of the lay tithe a right to his property. Why then should there be this different treatment? How, in the face of this difference of treatment, can the noble Lord say that this Bill is one of impartiality and equity? I am expressing, I think, what is the general feeling in the country upon this question when I say that if the Bill were fair all round we should not object to it so much.
There is one other reason why it is objected to, and that is that it is compulsory. I take it that the majority of noble Lords in this House, whatever their attitude may be towards the general principles underlying this Bill, dislike compulsion. We all know what we suffered in this country from compulsion under D.O.R.A. We were told that these things were necessary to win the War and we put up with all kinds of interference. The noble Lord who represents the Ministry of Agriculture knows very well that the men who hate compulsion more than anybody else are the agriculturists of this country. We even hear them say that they will never accept subsidies from the Government for the benefit of agriculture if these are to be combined with compulsion and control. That is exactly what this Bill is going to impose, for the agriculturists of this country are going to be made to redeem their tithes whether they want to do so or not.
I may be asked why I am moving the rejection of the Bill, instead of endeavouring to insert Amendments. I understand that the Government have no intention of accepting any Amendments. There is another point. It has been said that it would be perfectly possible to obtain a compromise in this matter. I believe that it would be quite easy to find
1116
a compromise that would be generally accepted by both tithe owners and tithe payers, who strongly object to this Bill as it now stands. I should have been glad if the noble Lord had explained here the reason for dropping the Act of 1918. That Act was brought in by a great agriculturist, a great landowner who was then Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture—I refer to Lord Clinton—and in introducing that Bill be said that it was brought forward owing to the abnormal prices to which grain had risen in consequence of the War, leading to conditions which in some cases were almost intolerable. He added that it was possible to provide a scheme for redemption that would be better both for the tithe owner and the tithe payer.
What has altered that condition of affairs? Is there any reason why your Lordships should seek to change this Act of 1918, which was introduced by the then Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture on the ground that it was desirable and would be a protection to both parties concerned? I notice also that the Archbishop of Canterbury, during the debate on the Second Reading of that Bill, said that he believed that your Lordships in passing such a Bill through the House would be conferring a benefit upon both the parties for whom it was intended. The most rev. Primate added that some of the details of the Bill might require consideration, but I have looked up the debate and I see that the Archbishop never raised any objection as regards the details of the Bill, with which, apparently, he was quite satisfied. He also stated that the redemption of tithe might be decided ultimately to be to the advantage of both parties.
All I ask on behalf of the agriculturists for whom I am speaking is a reasonable ground for this change. So far as I am aware, no single argument has been put forward by the noble Lord to show that anything has happened to make it necessary to alter the Act of 1918, which led to a large amount of redemption. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the interesting fact that under the Act of 1918 340,000 rentcharges were redeemed, and I understood at the time—I was myself redeeming some rentcharges—that the Ministry of Agriculture was simply snowed under by applications from all over the country. It is interesting to note that the Ministry of Agriculture, in their

1117
Report upon this question, say that if the number and size of applications for redemption received in 1920 had been maintained yearly the whole tithe rentcharge payable in this country would have been extinguished in about ten years. That is a statement from a responsible quarter. The whole of the tithe rentcharge would have been extinguished in ten years! That would have been a very excellent result, which I am sure would have been welcomed by the Church as a whole and would have been very much better than redemption spread over the long period of eighty-five years.
Then the Rent Act of 1920 was brought in and it stopped redemption at once. It is interesting to note that in 1920 the number of applications was 11,159 and that they fell in 1923 to 1,792, showing that the effect of the Act of 1920 had been to stop redemption and to bring us into our present position. Under the Act of 1918 the average annual payments to redeem tithe over a period of fifty years was £107 12 s.; that is for those people who wished to redeem by an annuity instead of buying right out as they had the option of doing. It is proposed that in eighty-five years the annual rate shall be £109 103. Why should that be so? If, under the Act of 1918, it was considered that an annuity of £107 should be paid by the tithe payer to redeem in fifty years, why this extraordinary change to a figure of £109 10 s, when the payment is to take eighty-five years?
For what reason, indeed, has this Bill been brought in? So far as I can understand it arose out of a deputation of clergy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating that almost alone in the country the clergy had received little or no increase of income during the War. On that very point I should like to quote the opinion of Lord Ernle, expressed in a letter to The Times. He said:—
"No one could contemplate without alarm the bitter hostility which the collection of such sums would have aroused in 1922 and 1923. The feeling would have been aggravated by the facts that, in the national interests, landowners generally had abstained from raising rents and that the net profits of farmers had been restricted. If the sleeping partners alone were left uncontrolled, they would profit disproportionately by the abnormal conditions arising out of the War."
Those of us who happen to have been royalty owners, railway shareholders or
1118
coalowners, know that we also were controlled and, very properly, were not allowed to make excessive profits. There is another class, a very small class, which has been treated very severely indeed—I refer to those who have come under the rent restrictions which apply at this moment and which control a large number of small owners. I cannot see why the clergy of the Church of England should expect to be treated differently from any other class of the community. As regards the hard cases, I must say that I sympathise very much with those clergymen who, like many others with small incomes, have suffered owing to the War in the same way as others have, been hampered by rent restrictions and have not been able to increase their rents, thus suffering considerable damage.
Then again, since January, 1918, tithe has been at £109 3s. 11 d. instead of £15, as it was before the War, an increase of very nearly 40 per cent. That was not an unreasonable increase to enable tithe owners to meet extra expenditure, but they did not seem to be satisfied with that. However, the fact that under the 1918 Act redemption goes on at £109 3s. 11 d. instead of £75, as in 1914, shows that the clergy have had a considerable increase. We ought to remember also, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, how very high tithe has gone up on one or two occasions. I should like to remind your Lordships that the average for the whole period up to the outbreak of War was only £95, and the probability is that over a series of eighty-five years it will fall to an average not higher than £75. At one time it was only £66. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Act of 1920 relieved tithe owners of their rates, in some cases entirely, and one of the grounds given for the introduction of that Act was that it was undesirable that they should have to pay rates at all.
I notice, however, one statement which was made by no less a person than a Cabinet Minister, Sir Samuel Hoare, to the effect that in nine cases out of ten up to the nineteenth century the parson was never rated on his tithe at all. I can answer that very clearly by quoting a statement made by Lord Clinton on this matter. In reply to a Question, the noble Lord said—
"I have no doubt there is a distinct liability on tithe to pay rates.''

1119
Of course there is a distinct liability on tithe to pay rates, because when tithe was commuted a sum was actually added to the commutation to make up to the clergyman for having to pay rates in the future. Let me refer your Lordships to Section 37 of the Tithe Act of 1836, and to a House of Commons Return of 1839, where it is clearly stated how much was given to the tithe owner in consideration of his having to pay rates in the future. There is a case in Essex where the tithe was commuted at £960 and there was added, for rates, £542. Again, in Sussex, there was added £415 to the commutation of £555, showing quite clearly that as far as rates are concerned this was taken into consideration. What is happening now is that not only do the clergy have a sum added to commutation in order to indemnify them for rates, but they are to have a further sum given to them out of the pockets of the tithe payer and of the Imperial Exchequer.
There is another point to which I must refer. The clerical tithe owner is to have his £100 of tithe free of all rates, and it is rather interesting to notice that it is provided that he is to be allowed to deduct these rates from his income although he does not pay them. The tithe payer has to pay £100 to the tithe owner, and also £5 for 85 years in aid of the clerical rates in addition. At the present moment the taxpayer is finding £396,000, not directly from Income Tax purposes, but it is taken out of the Local Taxation Account. The general body of taxpayers lose that money which otherwise would go to the help of local taxation. Now it is proposed to give a sum of £295,000, which is to be found by the taxpayer in the future. As far as I can understand, the noble Lord indicated that the sum which was required to make up the loss on the rates is going to be a fixed and not a variable amount. Therefore the unfortunate taxpayer, if the rates go up as they are generally doing, will have his rates increased because the Imperial Exchequer will not make good the deficiency.
I notice that a question was asked on this point of the Minister of Agriculture during the recent by-election, and Colonel Guinness, according to a newspaper report, said that—
"he had lately seen the Prime Minister and told him that in his opinion it would
1120
be unwise to drop this Bill unless they were in a position to vote more money. The Government are not in a position to vote more than the £300,000 a year for the relief of the two interests in tithe. 'I think it is a compromise which does justice to both sides, and I certainly could not advise the Government to withdraw this Bill.'"
Apparently, the Minister says that not more than £300,000 a year will be voted to meet the deficiency and therefore the unfortunate taxpayer is to be called upon in the future to make good any deficiency in this matter.
I have mentioned the Minister of Agriculture and perhaps your Lordships would like me to take this opportunity of saying how much I look forward to his taking the office of Minister of Agriculture. I am certain he will prove a most valuable asset to the agriculturists of this country. I myself, and many of my friends, admire the admirable way in which throughout the recent contest he would not allow himself to be drawn into any promise to support the interests of any particular class and that he was determined to look after the interest of agriculture as a whole.
Apparently the tithe payer will have to find for redemption a sum of £4 10 s. for 85 years. I cannot understand why it is to be £4 10 s. It seems to me that for redemption purposes £4 is sufficient. I have made a calculation which shows that £4 in 85 years will produce £3,158, and that should be a sufficient amount in this particular case. I have dealt with some of the details of this Bill and I would like to go into the general effect of one or two of the proposals. Mr. Wood, during the Second Reading debate in another place, said—
"One effect of the break-up of large estates has been to multiply the possibilities of friction between the incumbent and the parishioners from whom he has to collect the income to which he is by law entitled. … I think there will be a wide measure of agreement among men of all parties that it is on general grounds desirable to bring to an end the direct relationship between the incumbent as tithe owner and the owner of land as tithe payer, and at the manic time, in doing that to stabilise the sharply fluctuating payments."
I entirely agree, and the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill has the same view. He pointed out that last year 35 per cent. of the owners of land were also occupiers of the land, and there is no

1121
doubt that there has been an enormous increase in this respect in recent years. Very soon the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture in this House will have to talk, not of 25 per cent. but of 50 per cent. owner-occupiers.
I do not think this Bill is going to decrease friction in the next 85 years between the owner-occupier and agriculturists generally. What are the statements made by those who represent agriculture outside this House? What did the President of the National Farmers' Union say when a deputation representing the Land Union, the Central Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union attended on the Minister of Agriculture? Mr. Robbins said that he had never come across a case where property had been valued at the same figure when a reluctant buyer bought from an anxious seller as when property was sold by a reluctant seller to on anxious buyer. If to-day they went down on their knees to the Church and said: "Let me buy this property," the Church said: "You must buy it at the full value, £105." Under the Bill they were compelled to redeem, because the Church said "we do not think we can collect the money next year, but you must still buy on the full value, £105." That was not what he called "a square deal."
And the President of the Land Union writing to The Times, said this:
"The House of Commons ought not to pass this Bill without a satisfactory answer from the Government to the following questions:—
"Why the Government, having compulsorily redeemed the tithe on state-owned land under the Act of 1918 on the basis of a payment, of under £6,000 for every £100 of tithe, including rates over a period of 50 years, now proposes to compel the tithe payers to pay £9,300 for every £100 of tithe, spread over 85 years.
"Why, when they have, at the public expense, relieved the clerical tithe owner of the rates on his tithe, do they under Section 8 of the Bill, charge the capitalised value of this relief upon the tithe payer, and why, after 1920, did they impose a similar charge in redemption which might, otherwise have rendered this Bill unnecessary?"
To this day I do not think the Ministry of Agriculture or the Government have attempted to answer that very pertinent question, put to them by a gentleman so well known to your Lordships and so well known as a supporter of the Government.
Then last, but not least, I come to the very strong resolution which was passed by the Council or Agriculture of England last October. May I explain to your Lordships what that Council represents? It is a body set up originally, I think, during the War by the Ministry of Agriculture, with the object of informing the Minister and the Board and through them Parliament as to the views of agriculturists throughout the country. How is that body constituted? Two representatives from each county agricultural committee in England and Wales are chosen, and I believe the general practice is to appoint one landowner and one farmer. And in addition there are also persons nominated by the Ministry of Agriculture—Labour members and other people interested in agriculture not elected through the county councils. What happened in October at that meeting I A farmer from Hampshire moved the following resolution:
"This Council, while anxious for a fair solution of the tithe question, is of opinion that the terms of the Tithe Bill are very unfair from the tithe payers' standpoint."
What is most remarkable about that resolution was that not a single voice was raised against it, although it is a very strong one indeed, and when it was put to the vote only two members voted against it, so that we may say that for practical purposes it was carried unanimously. Another remarkable feature about the case is that when the Chairman was called away he left the meeting in charge of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, and to the surprise of everybody the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry did not say one word with regard to that resolution. He therefore gave us the general impression that he agreed with this resolution, saying that the Bill was unfair, and that the Council of Agriculture of England was justified in making that statement.
Another point is this, and I think it is very remarkable indeed as showing how unpopular this Bill has become, and how it grows more unpopular every day. On the Third Reading of the Bill recently in the House of Commons the Chairman of the Unionist Agricultural Committee spoke against the Third Reading, and refused to vote for it and only 168 mem-

1123
bers could be induced to vote for the Bill. What does Sir Granville Wheeler say? He says:
"A large section of the Church are not satisfied, and the vast majority of the tithe payers are, dissatisfied, and I think the Bill cannot be regarded as final."
That is what I am trying to put before your Lordships—namely, that the greatest injury is going to be done to the Church of England, of which I am a strong supporter, by keeping open this sore for the next 80 years. Then again we have the Chairman of the whole of the Agricultural members of the House of Commons, Sir Henry Cautley, who said,
"I do not believe that many hon. members know that after this Bill passes one-third of the tithe will remain in existence."
Then he went on to say that the Bill would only cause trouble and irritation, and that if the tithe is redeemed the State no longer contributes to the payment of rates. Therefore there is no inducement to tithe payers to redeem the tithes on the land, because in that case the Government subsidy comes to an end and falls upon the particular parish, which would have to make it good.
Therefore actually the Bill has the effect of doing harm to and not assisting the process of redemption. It is undoubtedly a strong argument that the clergy have suffered since the War like a large number of other classes, but it seems to me that, it is not a sound argument to say that they should be relieved at the expense of somebody else. I suggest that it would be a much better plan for them to put their house in order and pool benefices and dioceses where they have, as in my neighbourhood, one benefice with an income of £1,400 a year and another with an income of only £350 a year. I believe that the Bishops admit that it is very desirable to add small parishes together and so be able to provide a better salary for the incumbent. I feel perfectly certain that it is not in the true interests of the Church to do what is being done at their instigation—namely, to break the settlement which was made in 1836, without the mutual consent of both parties to that settlement. It is a plain case of a Parliamentary bargain being broken. I will end by making one other statement—namely, that this is a very dangerous attack indeed upon property in this country. It
1124
is compulsorily making a man part with his property, and I cannot emphasise it any more strongly than by quoting what was said by that great Conservative Churchman, Lord Hugh Cecil, who, speaking on this Bill, said:
"A Government which purports to be here in order to defend the rights of property is taking away property from the people to whom it belongs."
I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR, who had on the Paper an Amendment to resolve, That it is not advisable to proceed further with a Bill which seeks to deprive incumbents of the benefit of the settlement made in 1836, and to alienate funds dedicated to religious, charitable and educational purposes, said: My Lords, I propose to say what I have to say on this Bill on this occasion, because the terms of my Amendment would be ruled out of order by reason of the form in which the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will put the Question. Therefore, I think it is convenient to say what I have to say in opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. My answer, I think, to what the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary has said is not so much a matter of detail, but when he talks about equity and impartiality he really has forgotten the whole foundation and position of tithe and the tithe question. I need not go back into ancient history, but the tithe owner as a rule is the particular incumbent of a particular parish. He is what is called a corporation sole. It is not so much a question of the Church, where you may wrap matters up and get away from realities, but what I am seeking to raise in my own Amendment is the question of these poor incumbents, many of them really wholly inarticulate and for whom efforts are being made to give them what I may call a living salary.
Apart from generalities and words like "stabilisation," which I suggest means nothing, let us see what is the real fact. As matters stand now, an incumbent receiving, say, £300 a year in tithe would receive twenty per cent. increase next year, that is, £360, and he would receive something more in addition in the two next years, because

1125
his tithe goes up from £131 to £133 and £137, and beyond that I presume the noble Lord does not seek to go into the realms of prophecy. That is an extraordinarily serious matter—an extra ordinary interference with what I regard as the rights of property—to a man who is now having £300 a year and has the greatest possible difficulty in making ends meet. What is the case for depriving him of the additional £60 a year which Vie would get next year if you left the 1836 Act alone, or the additional sums beyond that which you would get in the succeeding years, when you go up to £137? I really think that is a very monstrous proposal.
The one great difficulty in the Anglican Church has been to provide adequate endowments for the various incumbents. All of us who are members of the Anglican Church are cognisant of the subscriptions raised in our own dioceses in order that the clergy may have a living salary. And what are we doing now if this Bill passes? We are taking away money from a man who otherwise would have £360 a year, and keeping him at the £300. More than that, though I do not want to go into matters of speculation, it scorns extremely probable that in the immediate future, at any rate, he would have a larger income. What does that mean? Let us take the case of present incumbents, particularly elderly incumbents, although I believe it will apply in all incumbents. It means depriving a man of a sum of money to which he is absolutely entitled at the present moment, which is the most sacred form of property. No one will question for a moment, that he is entitled to the benefit of the 1836 Act. If there is a form of property which ought to be regarded as exceptionally well secured it is income from tithes which has come down from probably Judaic times, through the Saxon and Norman Kings, and ultimately has been stereotyped, as we know, in the 1836 Act.
The noble Lord uses the word "stabilisation." That is rather a terrible word if it means twenty per cent. off the income you are otherwise entitled to, and when he talks about stabilisation I would reply that you cannot get it. I think probably you had better stabilisation under the old principle of the three cereals than you have under the gold
1126
standard. You are much more likely to have inflation and deflation under what he calls stabilisation than you would if matters were left to the fluctuations of prices under the old conditions. It is, indeed, extremely fair that, as prices and costs go up, so tithe should go up, too. That has been the experience ever since 1836. There was a period, as we know, when the tithe payer only paid about sixty per cent. I never heard at that time that the landowner or any one else asked that that should be stabilised at £100. It has always been the other way, and the tithe payer has come to complain about tithes whenever the tithe average has been satisfactory to the tithe owner.
Let me put another consideration, which I think is very important. If you are going to stabilise tithe and reduce the income of the tithe owners, that is the incumbents, the margin or difference does not belong to the landowner at all. He is not entitled to a single farthing of it. It is a national property, to be used wholly for national purposes. I was astonished at the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. I can well recollect what was said by Lord Salisbury, the father of the present noble Marquess, and what we all said in those days in the Unionist Party—that tithe was a national property. Of course, the incumbent is entitled to it in the first instance, but, if the incumbent is not to have this difference between £100 and £130, to which he is entitled, no landowner is entitled to a farthing of that sum. He had the advantage of the low tithe in the old days, and he has got to take the disadvantage—if it is a disadvantage, because many matters come into it—of a higher tithe at the present time. And, of course, tithe is not a proportion of rent; it is a proportion of produce, which is a very different thing.
What was the last precedent? It is a precedent to which personally I objected in many ways, but still a precedent. The tithe was taken away from ecclesiastical purposes in the Welsh Disestablishment Act. What happened? The money so obtained was divided into eight parts. Two parts out of the eight were given to each of the three Universities, and I know that one other part was given for the formation of a National Library—I forget for the moment what happened to

1127
the remaining one-eighth. That, of course, is quite right. But there is no way by which you can so promote the insecurity of property as by taking it and giving it to people who have no title to it. The whole essence of security of property is to recognise it where it is, and protect it to the utmost. You do the two things here which I think are sins against any true conception of proprietary rights: you deprive the poor parson of what he is entitled to by law, and, having done so, you give it to the landowners, who have no title to any of it. I do not believe landowners want it. They do not want to despoil the Church. All of us who live in the country know the extremely difficult conditions under which the ordinary country parson has to live. We are all trying, as I am sure the noble Marquess at any rate recognises, to raise what is called his stipend to a reasonable living level. Here we are depriving him of 20 per cent. of the property to which he is entitled. That is the point I am bringing forward in my reasoned Amendment could I have moved it.
I believe that his Grace the Lord Archbishop is going to speak and, therefore, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in no way attacking Church principles in this country; indeed, I should be the last person to do so. But this property does not belong to the Church, but to the incumbent. The poorest and most inarticulate man you can find, the man who bore his troubles during the War without any idea of profiteering, is the man whose property is now to be taken in order that it may be handed over to the landlords. I do not, and I cannot, believe that this is justifiable. I know it is suggested that twenty, thirty or forty years hence you may possibly get a reaction the other way, but that is pure prophecy. These people are entitled to this advantage in the next four, five, six or seven years. Many of them are old men. I say that the interest of every incumbent in the country in the tithe payment based on the Act of 1836 ought to be preserved; and I can see no answer to that argument.
Let me go a little further, because I do not want to misunderstand what the noble Lord has said. The amount of the ecclesiastical tithe that we are dealing with may be taken as £1,924,000 and odd
1128
pounds; say, about £2,000,000 a year. That is why I asked the noble Lord, who kindly gave me such information as he could, what the effect of the provisions of this Bill would be upon the income of the tithe owner in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. It occurs to one that the tithe owner does not want a scientific inquiry into matters of this kind but wants the money to which he is entitled for his every-day living. I knew Mr. Nathaniel extremely well, and your Lordships all knew him, and we regret that we have not the benefit of his experience. He aided me greatly when I went to see him on the question of tithe redemption. But, after all, Queen Anne's Bounty has no staff and has none of the administrative facilities necessary in this case. The consequence is that the figures I have go somewhat beyond those mentioned by the noble Lord. I do not want to go too much into detail, but the figures I have show that you have to take 7½ per cent. off the £100; that is to say, 5 per cent. for collection and 2½ per cent. for administration.
Now let me answer what the noble Lord has said. He suggested that there is some great advantage to the parson if he gets his tax gathered—I think that was the expression he used. My experience is quite the contrary. If you collect local money by local means you can generally collect it without friction. But it is my experience that if you collect local money from a central office you will never persuade people that the money is not being taken out of their locality for expenditure in other directions. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, who represents the Ecclesiastical Commission in your Lordships' House, is present at the moment, but I should like to know what his experience has been. How often have I been asked: How can you justify a foreign body like the Ecclesiastical Commission taking money out of our locality for some purpose outside? I have generally replied that I think the idea is incorrect and that the money is not taken for outside purposes. We all have to pay tithes; I have to pay them, and I do not experience any difficulty or friction, because if I am a little late my parson reminds me in a kindly way that the time has come and that he hopes a cheque may be received shortly. I believe that this idea of friction in connection

1129
with collection is a myth, though there may be some exceptional cases. What a man like is to have his local funds collected locally and, if possible—he would not do it directly, of course—by the man who receives the benefit.
I want be deal with two other points raised by the noble Lord which appear to mo to be of great importance. First of all, there is the question of redemption. I have introduced, without much success, one or two Bills for the redemption of tithes. Redemption is a matter for which the money has to be; found, and the conditions attach, not to the tithe owner at all but to the tithe payer. It is the latter who wants it redeemed and he has to pay whatever the actuarial price may be. But the fact that you are going to redeem the tithe is a very cold blanket on the poor incumbent who finds himself suddenly deprived of an addition of some 20 to 30 per cent. upon his poor income. It is very poor consolation indeed, and I do not think it comes into his calculations at all I did not wonder that the noble Lord said, though I thought matters had gone further, that negotiations had been attempted and had failed. If you are to deal with a matter of this kind it should be by agreement after negotiation. That, undoubtedly, is the way in which the matter should be dealt with, and I think it is a very serious factor that figures have been put into this Bill in the way they have been put into it. There was an excellent speech on the subject in another place from the Viceroy-Elect of India, and we know there was no inquiry in the sense that you would make an inquiry if you were really considering exact figures in matters of this kind.
I have said before and I want to emphasise it, that in my opinion this question does not arise because no owner has any title to any portion of his tithe at all. I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his place. I recollect very well that he supported me some years ago in saying that every owner knew perfectly well when he acquired his land that he bought it subject to the tithe obligation, whatever it might be, and had no reason to complain if the figure was worked out in accordance with the Act of 1836.
The noble Lord referred also to the question of rates. It is a very curious argument that you are to take away
1130
from a man 20 or 30 per cent. increase in his income and make some adjustment in the rates which you hope may satisfy him; that is what it comes to. On the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, Sir George Murray, another member and myself—I have forgotten for the moment who it was—did not want the rating of tithes dealt with on what is called the dual system or on the casual revisions which are made from time to time. We said, as I think rightly, that if tithes were properly rated—I admit it would want legislation nowadays—if you made the deductions that ought to be made on what has been called the gross and net rateable value, no harm would be done to the incumbents in the various parishes. I am afraid that in the past the laymen in the parishes have done what they could to put an unfair rating burden upon the incumbent. We need not trouble about it, but it has been done and I have never altered the opinion I expressed in the Report of the Royal Commission somewhere about 1898, that if people would only approach this rating question on the true principle of rating all these difficulties would disappear. Surely this also must be said: that the parson is entitled to a fair system of rating without having to give up 20 per cent. of his income for it. How can that be justified? I think it cannot be justified at all. If the Bill goes through, existing incumbents will undoubtedly be deprived, in the sense that I have indicated, of a portion of their income, and I very much hope that they will in some way be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
There is one other matter, about which I shall say but a few words, because the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, told me he desired to speak about it. This is a matter concerning Oxford. The terms of my Amendment refer to the incumbents, and then speak about alienating funds dedicated to religious, charitable and educational purposes. I think the word alienate is not perhaps quite what I meant. What I rather meant was "diminishing" funds, and I will explain that in a moment. The three educational bodies with which I have been connected that are tithe owners are Winchester College, New College, Oxford, and, in the old days when I was a fellow, St. John's College, Oxford. Why should

1131
you deprive any of these educational establishments of any advantage that they will get out of a rise in rates calculated as they ought to be upon the principles established in 1836? I see Mr. Keynes said the amount involved was about £100,000. No one could have put the case better than Mr. Fisher, who, I understand, so far as New College is concerned, where he is now the Warden, says the amount involved is something like £1,000. What reason is there for the transfer of educational funds of this kind to owners who have no title whatever to the funds? I do not want to speak in the least harshly upon this point, but I feel that it is one of such extreme importance that we in this House should not allow the reproach to be made that we sanction a scheme of this kind.
How can we justify it? Granting everything in the way of taking money away from the incumbent and from these educational bodies. I say that it ought to be dedicated as a national fund to national purposes. That is a view which the late Marquess of Salisbury, the father of the present Leader of the House, pressed more than once. A very deep principle is involved. When he placed the burden of payment on the owner as against the occupier he was asked why he did not go further into this rate question, and he answered: "He would be a very unwise man who attempted to do so." And he showed himself a very wise man. I say, leave the 1836 settlement alone unless, by negotiation, you can get some agreement. Even then do not forget that we are dealing with a national fund, and so far as it is not wanted for ecclesiastical purposes it ought to be used for the common social and educational benefit of all people, and all classes, and certainly ought not to be handed over to a single class.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to express the hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I suppose that in some degree I may be regarded as the natural spokesman for two different bodies of tithe owners, one the ecclesiastical owners (the incumbents, and the ecclesiastical corporations in England) and the other, the Ecclesiastical Commission which, strange to say, though called the Ecclesiastical Commission is not an ecclesiastical cor-
1132
poration but belongs to the lay corporations. I think this distinction should be pointed out, because there has been a misunderstanding. That Ecclesiastical Commission holds about £300,000 worth of tithes, and is an extremely important lay holder of the money that we are discussing to-day. I believe that by passing this Bill you will deal fairly—not generously, but fairly—with the owners of ecclesiastical tithes, for whom I am speaking in this matter.
We have heard two eloquent speeches against the Bill. I think I may leave them to answer one another. I could not rival the stringent character of the terms in which my noble and learned friend (Lord Parmoor) dealt with the arguments of Lord Strachie, but I will leave the matter to be settled between the two, falling back upon something which will not satisfy either of them, but which is, as I have said, reasonable and fair. Lord Strachie thinks that the tithe payer throughout the land is being robbed for the benefit of the Church. Lord Parmoor thinks that the Church throughout the land is being robbed for the benefit of the tithe payer. That is what I understood him to say. I think that both are mistaken as regards there being any unfairness in what is now proposed. The Bill, as your Lordships have been reminded to-night, comes to us, not, so to speak, out of the blue but as a matter of necessity. Some Bill must come. I am not quite sure whether my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor will say that no Bill is necessary.
LORD PARMOOR: If his Grace will allow me to interrupt, I would point out that the 1836 Act would operate. It does not want anything.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: That is what I was anxious to elicit. That means that those in your Lordships' House who are tithe payers now, if they voted with my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, would be offering to pay £130 to £140 instead of the £100 for which they are now liable. I can only say that the ecclesiastical owner would be delighted with that solution, but I could not honestly say that it would be treating the tithe payer quite fairly if the ecclesiastical owner received all that money and put it in his pocket. It would have come about more or less accidentally, and I do not think I should

1133
regard it as a fair arrangement. Notwithstanding the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, some Bill has to become law now with a view to replacing the Act which comes to an end at the close of the present year, the seven years' Act. This Bill has come to us automatically at the end of the seven years, and we have to consider how we can deal with it fairly.
We have been reminded of the facts of 1918, when the War had upset the whole equilibrium, when corn prices had risen enormously, and something had to be done. I should like to quote, for I think they ought to be remembered, words which are not mine, but which came from the Minister of Agriculture when he was introducing the measure in the House of Commons. He said:
"It should be remembered to the honour of the Church that, in the days when there was a good deal of taking advantage of War prices and conditions going on, she deliberately withstood that temptation, if temptation it were, and came forward with an invitation to arrive at a fair basis of measurement by which that might be avoided. It was accordingly at the instance of the Church that in 1918 tithe was stabilised for seven years at the figure at which it now stands, at £109 3s. 11 d., and that, of course, meant a very considerable sacrifice to tithe owners."
It did I stood at this table to advocate the passing of that measure in 1918 be cause I felt that the clergy, so far as I was able to gauge the opinion of the wiser among them, Intensely disliked the idea of being open to the charge of something very like what was called at that time profiteering because of the accidental circumstances—if one may use such a word in such a connection—of the War and the rise and fall of prices bringing to them a payment of something like £130, £140 or even as much as £170 a year instead of £100. They did not wish for that and they felt that some legislation was necessary to prevent it.
I took the responsibility on public grounds of recommending that legislation in 1918, and I take the responsibility of recommending now in 1925 the Bill which is before your Lordships' House. If you do not do something like that which is here suggested, I would again like to quote what Mr. Wood said as to what the result would be. He said:—
"The first result would be that tithes next year would rise to something like, I think, £131 with an estimated rise to £137
1134
in 1930, the rise to £131 next year being approximately a rise of twenty per cent. Without any sure prospect of a compensating rise in corn prices, that could hardly fail to be a very dislocating element in what we may hope to be the more stable poise of agricultural economics at the present time."
I have purposely quoted the words of such a very high expert as Mr. Mr. Wood rather than state the points myself. Something not very different was said by the noble Lord who asked your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
We all agree, I imagine, that logically the argument of the noble Lord who has just sat down is a sound one, that there is a great deal to be said for the arrangement that tithe should rise and fall with the price of corn and that fluctuations should correspond, roughly speaking, with the price of the necessities of life. But we have passed beyond the stage when we can argue logically in that way, now that the number of tithe owners is so enormously increased and we are dealing, not with a few landowners in a parish, but sometimes with hundreds of small payers. To expect them to appreciate and understand the kind of fluctuation which the clergy have had to put up with and which tithe payers have had to put up with—or rather, to be thankful for in most cases, because the fluctuations have generally been upward rather than downward from the £100—to expect that to be workable when the ownership and occupancy of land stands as it does to-day seems to me to be quite out of the question. The fluctuation is fraught, and always has been fraught, with very great disadvantages to the incumbents in the relations with their own parishioners, with whom they have the extraordinarily difficult and delicate relationship of being at one moment their pastor in parochial work and the next moment a collector of tithe for their income. We want to reduce that kind of fluctuation to a minimum because undoubtedly it did more than anything else to exacerbate sentiment.
I recall well the time—your Lordships will recall it too—when £67 instead of £100 was paid by the tithe payer. We are now told that, if we let the matter completely alone, we may rise before very long to a very high figure—something like £130 or more. In 1918, if there had been no legislation. I believe that the actual payment of tithe would have been

1135
£200. That kind of fluctuation is one that it is impossible to expect that an incumbent can handle satisfactorily when he is in his present difficult relation with the tithe payer, and I am anxious, on quite other than financial grounds, to bring to an end if we possibly can, the kind of difficulty which is constantly arising and must, I am afraid, if that fluctuation goes on, continue to arise between the tithe owner and the tithe payer in the parish itself.
We are all familiar with the repeated desire for stabilisation—I apologise for using a word which Lord Parmoor criticised—for the settlement of a fixed figure, and, when I find that the clergy at this moment feel, as Lord Parmoor thinks that they do feel, that they have been hardly used, I would ask them and him to go back twenty-five years in memory and see what would have been felt by the clergy generally throughout England if, in 1900 or 1901, when the tithe was down to sixty-seven or sixty-eight, he had been told that it would be stabilised for the next eighty years, or so long as it lasted, at £109 in the way now suggested. They would all have said that this was more than they had hoped for, and it would have been regarded universally, by the clergy at least, as a gain for which they would have been profoundly thankful. We want to bring about that result now, and to let the clergy receive something like £100 for the £100 at which the tithe is commuted. I think the exact figures are these: that for every £100 which the tithe payer now pays he will have to pay £109 10 s.—£4 10 s. being for the formation of a sinking fund, £5 going to the rates and the remaining £100 going to the parson, subject to the deduction that is necessary, not, as the noble Lord accidentally said in moving the Second Reading, for administration and collection, because administration is going to be entirely in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty, with no expense to the clergy at all the only cost will be that of collection, which will be. I hope, very much less than has sometimes been estimated, though it is desirable not to be too sanguine upon that subject.
Very great powers are obviously put into the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty in this matter. Is that body fit to discharge, this great task? I think it is,
1136
though I quite understand that it sounds plausible to ask whether it is really competent to do it. The noble and learned Lord was, I think, inclined to ask that question. Queen Anne's Bounty is no new and untried body. It has existed for 200 years for administering on a larger or smaller scale this kind of funds. It has had immense responsibility. For example, between 1871 and 1920, that is, for rather less than half a century, Queen Anne's Bounty dealt practically and with general satisfaction with dilapidation money to the extent of £3,000,000. A little later, in 1917, Queen Anne's Bounty held more than £1,250,000, representing redeemed tithe, and it now holds nearly £2,500,000 more, representing tithe, than it did seven years ago. These are enormous sums and the body has not shown itself in the least incapable of dealing with these large matters. They are not very complicated. The sums are large but the procedure is simple, and the work has been exceedingly well done. All that we are doing now is to speed up the process of redemption which was begun in 1836 and accelerated in 1918. The present Bill increases enormously the amount that will come into their hands for that purpose, but it does not change the character of the holding of the money.
Lord Parmoor spoke of the danger of money being collected from a distance rather than by local people with local interests. He spoke of the dangers of centralisation, of what I suppose we may call bureaucracy, in a matter of that kind, and thought it very much better that the money should be collected on the spot. If he means that it is better that the parson himself should be collecting money from his own parishioners, I can only say that I entirely differ from him. I do not believe it to be a good thing and I am certain that it is working less well than it did, now that land has become more widely distributed, and that it does very real mischief. Instead of endeavouring to arrange that the money shall all be collected from an office in London that has nothing to do with local interests, local knowledge or local personalities, the Bill expressly provides that there shall be these twenty areas throughout England, in each of which the tithe shall be locally collected, and that

1137
on the Committee shall sit representatives of the tithe-owning clergy in whose area the work is being done.
Therefore, far from this work being done by a bureaucracy from the centre the arrangements will be carried through by those who know the locality and the people they have to deal with. The Queen Anne's Bounty will administer the finances which are thus placed in their hands. The whole cost of the administration will fall on the accumulated fund, and not upon the clergy or the tithe payer. The actual cost of collection we cannot estimate with any certainty. It will differ in many parts of the country, and differ immensely between places where the tithe is easily collected and places where it is difficult to collect. That will depend on the management of the local Committee, not on the central people, who will reduce to a minimum the cost of collecting the money, and it is only a proportion of the money required for the collection which will fall on the clergy in diminution of the £100 they receive.
As originally drawn the Bill might be said to press hardly indeed on the men who collect tithe and who have no trouble and no expense in connection with it. They may simply receive a cheque twice a year and acknowledge, its receipt, and therefore the cost of collection would be only threepence a year. What is now arranged is that we are going to allow men who have done this to go on doing it as long as they are the incumbents. We do not wish to place men in a difficult position as regards collection, but we only allow it as a kind of life-privilege. Of course, we want to reduce the cost of collection as a whole to a minimum and we think it fair that after the present incumbents, who have been accustomed to do it in this easy way, have died out the general cost of collection should be rendered as small as possible by being distributed over the whole country. Thus the tithe-owning clergy would each bear their share of collecting tithe rentcharge throughout the country. That is the plan and it seems to me a right and fair one.
There can be no question that for many years past tithe collection has been a fruitful source of friction and difficulty. Ireland and Wales give great examples; England too, is not without its examples. Tithe collection has always been a matter
1138
of extreme difficulty, and it is growing greater now as land ownership becomes; more widely distributed. My object is to make the relations between parson and people, between tithe owner and tithe payer, as simple and as free from friction as we can. We believe that this Bill will contribute to that result, and that is one of its many advantages. Of course, there may arise in Committee points of controversy which will have to be carefully discussed, but in the meantime I hope that a Second Reading will be given to a Bill by which we shall, as I believe, confer a real benefit on the Church and on the country.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, we have heard from the most rev. Primate a speech marked by that cool and moderate judgment with which we are familiar in this House. I well remember in 1918, when I had to bring in the Tithe Bill of that year, my many interviews with the most rev. Primate on the difficulties we had to surmount, and I was immensely impressed not merely by the cool judgment but by the great courage with which he was prepared to support a measure which, to many of his clergy, must have seemed in the nature of confiscation. The principles upon which he went then he goes now. It is to bring about kindly relations in every parish between the priest and his parishioner, and I believe, although I do not like this Bill in many points, that from that point of view it is calculated to produce the effect that is hoped for it.
I do not like the Bill for one or two reasons, and on two points in particular I may possibly find myself obliged to move Amendments. One is the position in which educational and charitable corporations are placed under this Bill, and the other is, as it seems to me, the omission of any attempt whatever to effect on a large scale the immediate redemption of tithe. I take the first point—the position of educational and charitable corporations who are tithe owners and who derive from it incomes which are spent for purposes of education or for the relief of the sick and the needy. I speak, in fact, on behalf of Universities and the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, of the schools of Eton and Winchester, of old-endowed hospitals, of which I may mention the hospital of St. Cross at Winchester. Tithe rentcharge forms a con-

1139
siderable part of their endowments. It is perhaps almost the most ancient part of their endowment, and it passed into their hands under what is even now recognised as a principle of law. The spiritual obligation of giving tithes from your estate was discharged whether the landowner gave money to the monastery or to the priest upon his estate, and the result was that large quantities of tithe passed into the hands of the monasteries, and they discharged the spiritual obligation attaching to the tithe by appointing a vicar and allotting to him some portion of the tithe or a stipend.
When the monasteries were dissolved, not, merely the great dissolution to which allusion has already been made, but when the alien priories were dissolved in the fifteenth century, large blocks of tithe passed to the Crown, and the Crown granted them either to private individuals or to colleges, schools and hospitals. In those days I think it was quite possible to say that the provision for religious ministration was excessive, and the principle of law which was adopted was that if it was excessive the destination of the tithe devoted to religious purposes should be followed as nearly as possible by devoting it to educational purposes and the relief of the sick. The most ancient endowments of the Universities, schools and hospitals that I have mentioned are of that origin. They have inherited a portion of the tithes that came into the hands of the Crown at the dissolution of the monasteries.
It is a very large sum, when you come to consider that Oxford and Cambridge have something like £105,000 coming to them from the tithe that they own—from what, is classed as lay tithe, but which I venture to submit to your Lordships is not really lay tithe, but is charged with national services of inestimable value, such as the education of this country. When I say that, I need hardly say that the national services that are discharged by hospitals are equally great and equally inestimable. I make no comparison—naturally I do not wish to do so—between the national services of the religious ministrations of the parochial clergy and the national services of education and relief of the sick, but I do say that they are similar, and so similar that to distinguish them,
1140
as is done in this Bill, practically penally, is a great injustice. What happens to this tithe in the hands of the Universities? Whereas a clergyman, an incumbent, receives upon his £105 a net income of £98 and a member of a cathedral chapter an income of £89, the owners of tithes devoted to such purpose as education and the relief of the sick and needy only receive £70, and over and above that are liable for any rise in the rates that may hereafter follow.
You cannot, when the point is brought home to you, really say that that is fair to our great Universities. Of course, the poverty of the Universities is a relative term. I might mention that forty years ago I was commissioned by an important newspaper to go throughout the country and report upon the sufferings of the clergy from the difficulty of letting their glebes, and subsequently from the anti-tithe agitation in Wales. I went with, introductions from Bishops and Archdeacons, and I saw the inside life of the parochial clergy. I saw men who, to the outer world, had to preserve public appearance, living within their doors on the slenderest margins between poverty and actual want. Therefore I am not comparing the poverty of the Universities with this sort of poverty; but the poverty of the Universities in the sense of the inadequacy of their funds to carry out their great national purposes is very great, and if I may be allowed to say so, I speak upon this point with some confidence. I was a member of the University Commission of 1919, which investigated the financial resources of the Universities. I was chairman of the Estates Commission of the same date, which investigated the management of their estates; and I served on the Finance Committee of the Royal Commission. I believe therefore that I have had unique opportunities of seeing what I may call the relative poverty of the Universities.
You are not dealing here with great wealthy corporations, but with people who are struggling to make ends meet to keep their education efficient, and you are going to strike at them, under this Bill, a blow which is equivalent at Oxford to a loss of an endowment of £60,000, and the loss is very similar at Cambridge. Cambridge owns slightly less tithe, and therefore her loss will be something slightly less. I speak in the presence of the Master of Peterhouse,

1141
who knows perfectly well what is the position of the University of Cambridge, and he will no doubt set me right if I go wrong. The Commission found, I think I may say unanimously, that there was not enough money to keep the education efficient over the very wide field which the Universities are now required to traverse. They found that the fellows were not only overworked but underpaid; that there was not enough money to equip the Universities with the necessary laboratories and to enlarge all the public buildings which the great accession of students in recent years has compelled, and they were so unanimously of that opinion that they recommended to the State that the Universities should receive, fur their national services, and to make those national services still more efficient than they were, a minimum sum of £100,000 a year to each University. The State has not paid anything near that sum. Still they have recognised the services to the nation, and they have also recognised that the Universities' needs are great.
Look at it from the common business point of view, Is it a good piece of business to reduce the income of these Universities with one hand, and supplement it with the other? I think that to take away their income is a very unwise proceeding, and I look with great dismay at the prospect that the Universities may be driven to rely still more upon the State for assistance. After all it is the independence of our Universities that we value. Some day or other there will be conditions attached to the grant of State aid, and I for one should regard that as nothing short of a national disaster. The University is the coping-stone of our education. I do not want to see it measured by the foot rule and squared by the machine of the Ministry of Education. I prefer that it should be shaped by the intellects and by the experience of the men who are in charge of University education. Therefore I cannot think that it is any solution of the difficulty which I now put to you to say that the State may provide further funds.
If I could, I should move that the educational and charitable corporations to which I am alluding should be placed on the same footing as the parochial clergy; that is to say, that they should
1142
receive £98 for every £105 of their tithe. Your Lordships must remember that they are surrendering the claim that has been alluded to by the noble Lord opposite, the claim to £137 at which tithe will some day stand. Therefore, if I were able to do so. I should move that they be placed on the same footing as the parochial clergy. But, failing that, I should move, and move with extreme confidence in the justice of the claim, that they should be placed on the same footing as the cathedral and capitular bodies. If that were done I know that the Universities would be satisfied and would accept that solution of the problem. The cost of it so the Ministry of Agriculture inform me is only, at the outside, something like £40,000 a year to be added to the fund set aside to meet the rates. Of course, I know, in spite of whatever sympathy the noble Viscount on the Woolsack might feel with me, he would be bound to tell me that that would be beyond the powers of your Lordships' House, because it imposes a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
But one point I may emphasise about the capitular bodies. I have no doubt that in fixing the favoured treatment of the capitular bodies something was due to the historic fabrics that are in their charge. I might, perhaps, say that the upkeep of those is often defrayed by public subscription, but I do not take-that point. But I would say that the colleges also are historic buildings; they are our national pride, and the pride of all our Empire, and they are maintained out of the incomes of the colleges themselves. They pay most of the cost by means of a loan, which is spread over a certain period of years with a sinking fund; but, besides those loans, at Oxford they have spent in one year alone, the last year that is complete, £35,000 out of their incomes on the maintenance of buildings. If you put all those points together, and if you reflect what Oxford and Cambridge are doing at the present moment, I think you will feel that a case has been established for relief from what I must say I think is an accidental omission from this Bill.
The Universities to-day are filling a place in national and Imperial life such as they never filled before in the long period of their existence. They are training men for a greater variety of profes-

1143
sions, they are attracting within their walls men of every class of society. They are taking the lead also in the education of women. On all those grounds they make a strong appeal to be relieved from the consequences of this Bill. The only argument that the Ministry really brings forward is that they have no relief from rates under the legislation of 1898 and 1920. But, if it was wrong in 1898 and in 1920, when you are now coming to a permanent settlement, as we all hope, of this great question, why perpetuate the wrong? Why not remedy it now and remedy it in some such way as has been suggested? I cannot, as I have said, move to give to the educational and charitable corporations the same favoured treatment as the parochial clergy or even as the capitular clergy are to receive, because I believe it would be a breach of privilege. I am therefore driven to propose an Amendment, which I shall put on the Paper if this Bill comes to Committee, which will give the Government a breathing space, so to speak, in which they may think of what they can do to remedy what I hope your Lordships will believe is a serious injustice.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, no one could have more fittingly put the case of the Universities than my noble friend Lord Ernle, a former member for Oxford University, and a member of the Royal Commission which sat to investigate the position of the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and if I intervene in this debate it is because I happen at the present moment to be the Chairman of the Oxford Statutory Commission, whose duty it is to endeavour to put into statutory shape the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Ernle and his colleagues. May I remind your Lordships of the genesis of that Royal Commission? In 1919 the two Universities were so crippled by the War that they came to the Government and asked: "Will you give us State assistance?", and the Government of that day expressed their sympathy, but said: "Of course, it must be subject to an inquiry into your resources." As a result the Royal Commission which was presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, was appointed. Subsequently to that, on the recommendation of the
1144
Royal Commission, two Statutory Commissions were appointed to make statutes in general accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, one for Oxford and one for Cambridge.
From the experience I have derived of the work during the past two years I realise that one of the most difficult problems we have to tackle in connection with that work is the serious difficulty of finance. My noble friend alluded just now to the parlous state of the two Universities as a consequence of the lack of money. He said there were certain dangers arising to the Universities from lack of funds. There was, first of all, the under-paying of the teachers and the absence of anything like a pension fund; in the second place, an insufficient number of teachers and inadequate time for those teachers to indulge in research; and thirdly, the inability to maintain the libraries and museums. There is a fourth danger which he did not mention, but which I think is very important at the present, and that is the danger to the accessibility of the Universities for poorer students.
The Royal Commission, having reviewed these dangers, indicated the various sources and possible alternatives for financial relief. They, first of all, put forward the matter of increased fees and dismissed it because they said that any increase in the fees to undergraduates would merely result in the Universities becoming rich men's Universities and being closed to men of moderate means. They then put forward enhanced college contributions, with which I will deal in a moment, and, lastly, they discussed the question of private benefactions, but saw no immediate prospect of any assistance from that source. Then they made the recommendation to which my noble friend Lord Ernle has referred—a grant of £100,000 a year towards the Universities. The point I wish to make is that not a penny of that grant goes to the colleges. It is made entirely to the Universities. It was on the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the colleges, as colleges, should get not one penny of the grant from public funds. The net result to the colleges—I am distinguishing at this moment the colleges from the Universities—at the present moment is that while they have no assistance from the grant given by the Govern-

1145
ment they are expected to pay their teachers better and to establish pension funds, they have to have more teachers and give them time for research, and they are expected to keep down the fees and the expenses of the students.
We regarded the position of the colleges as contrasted with the Universities as so serious that we have had perforce somewhat to modify the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the matter, with, naturally, a resultant loss of revenue to the Universities. But we had this obligation put upon us by the Act of Parliament under which we were set up—that regard should be had, in the first place, to the needs of the colleges for educational and other collegiate purposes; so that in the matter of modifying the recommendations of the Royal Commission we were bound to do as we have done in order to carry out the Act. On the top of all that there comes the further blow to the colleges which will result from this legislation. So that as a Commission we are put on the horns of this dilemma. Either we have to reduce the contributions of the colleges to the Universities, in which case the whole object of the Royal Commission will be frustrated—namely, to find more money for the Universities—or we cripple the college resources by maintaining those, contributions and disobey the direct mandate of the Act that we should care for the position of the colleges.
We are fortunate in having in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, on the Woolsack, who is Chancellor of the University of Oxford, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who is Chancellor of the University of Cambridge They both happen to be members of His Majesty's Government. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we who are connected with the two old Universities should appeal to our Chancellors and ask them to save us from this fate? It can hardly be with the consent of the Chancellors of the two Universities that the crippling blow adumbrated by my noble friend is to be dealt at the colleges. I appreciate the fact, as my noble friend Lord Ernle has pointed out, that it is impossible, from the point of view of privilege, to move an Amendment, but surely the sands are not completely run out and it is open to us to appeal to the Government not to press forward with this particular matter, but so to modify the Bill
1146
in regard to the University colleges that the blow which we all fear may not fall upon those ancient institutions.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, coming as I do from the County of Norfolk, which contains, I suppose, a greater amount of tithe rentcharge than any other county in England. I venture to make one or two remarks which have not yet fallen from any of your Lordships who have spoken. I believe that at the bottom of all our difficulties is the fact that the land in England can no longer support all those who look to get their livelihood from it. There are four classes of persons at least who are interested in the land. There are the landowners, the tithe owners, the farmers and the labourers. There is not enough to go round to satisfy the desires or even the claims of all, and I cannot think that it would be a right policy for any one of those four classes to say: My claim must be satisfied first, and then the other three claimants can discuss among themselves as to what they will do with the remainder.
On the last occasion on which Lord Long spoke in your Lordships' House he impressed upon your Lordships the immense importance of all those who are interested in land working together and not as rivals to one another. It appears to me that the Bill before us makes a fair compromise. As the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, said, the fact that it is criticised from both sides makes one think that it is not extravagant in either direction. Some compromise must, I think, be had, and if any relief is to go to the land is a whole it must come from an independent source, however that is to be done, and no one of those four classes whom I have mentioned ought to secure more than a fair share by impoverishing the other three.
The clergy of Norfolk have had three strong objections to this Bill which, I think, have been shared throughout the country. First of all, they have objected to what they expected would be the largo charge that would be made by Queen Anne's Bounty for administering the whole matter. The most rev. Primate has assured us, and we have it in the Bill, that Queen Anne's Bounty will make no charge. That answers one of the criticisms. Then they have expected

1147
that the cost of collection will be something very great. I have even heard it put as high as something like 10 or 15 per cent. — quite an absurd figure—but what will really happen will be that Committees will be appointed in various parts of the country, and the clergy themselves will sit on these Committees, and they will be able there to look after their own interests. A further concession is made to those who have been collecting their own tithes. For a certain period that will not be disturbed so long as they hold their present benefices.
I cannot think that this is unjust to the clergy, because it would have been almost absurd to think that things might have been left to themselves, for, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has said, the whole complexion of England has altered in the last hundred years. Think of the relations now between tithe and rent as compared with those days. I think there are landlords who find that they have to pay in tithe pretty well the whole rent that they receive. That was never contemplated a hundred years ago.
There is a flaw, I consider, in the Bill—but that I suppose is quite irremediable—that comes from the constantly lowering purchasing power of money. I was reading the other day, somewhat to my amusement, that when Edward I fixed prices for fish in London he settled that oysters should be 2d. a gallon, and best soles should be 3d. a dozen. Steadily since those days has money been able to purchase less and less, and we cannot expect that it will improve very much in its purchasing power. We can, after all, only deal with money, for one would deplore the introduction of averages based on corn and oats.
One more point that I should like to make about the clergy is that nothing has distressed them more that I am aware of since I have been a Bishop, a good many years now, than the fact of their rates. I am quite certain that all over the country we should be most thankful if this rating question were dead and buried. Do not think, my Lords, that speaking as I do, I am making little of the claims of the clergy, so well indicated by Lord Ernle. I see their poverty constantly before my eyes, yet I can say, on the other hand, that in their own interests, with those four claims on the
1148
land which I have already mentioned, I do not think that it is ever likely that in this impossible situation that has arisen the clergy can look to get as favourable terms again. I hope, therefore, very sincerely that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before the debate closes there is a question that I wish the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture would answer. Why is it that in constructing this measure the Government have ignored the fact that they took a directly different principle in a measure which is now on the Statute book, and which was passed in this very year? I speak of the Scottish Act for the redemption of tithes, and I speak of it because I know about it. I was Chairman for a year of the Government Commission which inquired into the whole matter in Scotland. I brought in a Bill here when I occupied the Woolsack, and it was again brought in, in substantially the same form, by the present Lord Chancellor. I confine my question to one point. We were most careful in that Act, and the present Government was most careful, not to treat the Universities and lay corporations worse than anybody else. You did not inflict upon them the penalty that there is here.
I sympathise deeply with what was laid before the House by the most rev. Primate about the necessities of standardisation, but when you are dealing with a system of standardisation, bring it in justly, treat everybody alike, do not fine the Universities, and do not do what you do at their expense and not at the expense of other people. It is a serious point, and one upon which I think people will feel that the Government have acted differentially. What was just, and what was deemed necessary six months ago, cannot have become unjust and unnecessary now and I hope that the representatives of the Government who are responsible for this matter will take into account the strong feeling that there is in this House about the position of the Universities, and even now reconsider the situation. It can be done by a very few words. It all arises under Clause 2 of the Bill. There the tithes are transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to hold them in trust for the benefices to which they belong. That is only the

1149
tithes attached to benefices. If were extended so as to include belonging to educational and corporations then the difficulty met. Because that is not produce an inequality winch great injustice to the authorities.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, in the many speeches that have been made to-night the point of view of most parties connected with tithes has been discussed very fully, but, except for what was said by my noble friend Lord Strachie, hardly a word has been spoken from the point of view of the tithe payer. The tithe payer holds very strong opinions upon this Hill. I am grateful to the right rev. Prelate who spoke recently, and who did put the case which ought to be put before your Lordships: that the position of the tithe payer to-day is extraordinarily difficult, not only because his tithe payments may, as the right rev. Prelate said, sometimes be almost equivalent to his net rental, but because of the altered conditions of these days. When the burden of tithe fell upon the occupier I hen there was a rough relation between the prices he received and the amount which he had to pay for tithe, but now that the tithe falls upon the landowner there is really little or no relation at all between the two, because the high prices charged for commodities to-day have no relation to the prices that were paid years ago. Rentals have been reduced, and the cost of production has greatly increased. I would never argue that we should reduce the tithe, or attempt to reduce the tithe, on account of the cost of production, because I recognise that they have no connection whatever. But it is one of the difficulties which landowners feel at this moment and they must do what they can to get any reasonable settlement of this very difficult question.
Before I proceed—and I shall not speak long—I should like to make one remark upon a matter which occurred in the very able speech of my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, when he spoke of the negotiations which have been going on between tithe owners and tithe payers and regretted that they had not come to any definite agreement. But to us who worked for nearly two years with that
1150
aim he did, I think, rather scant justice. He was followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, who also regretted that there had been no opportunity for agreement. Some of your Lordships will know that you had a Committee representing the Church Assembly on one side and landowners' organisations on the other and while we started at the beginning of our deliberations with our views very wide apart indeed, by really close and careful discussion and negotiation we came very close together at the end. We came to actual agreement upon many of the most important points of this Bill. We agreed, first of all, that there should be compulsory redemption of all tithes in right of benefice; we agreed that the tithe owners should be paid at commutation value free of all rates. We disagreed upon certain points, mainly in connection with the impropriate tithe owner where we found a great deal of support from his brother tithe owners of the Church, and also on certain questions relating to rating, mainly in relation to the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act, 1920, in regard to any new measure that might be adopted. So far as we reported, however, we may say, I think, that our definite agreements are very largely the foundation of this Bill, and I wish the noble Lord had gone a little further in his reference to that point.
The main objection that I raise to this Bill is that it represents a loss of opportunity. You had a magnificent chance. The lithe owner and the tithe payer alike were looking out to find some definite settlement of this question. This Bill deals with it is a timorous way. It does not attempt to deal with the whole of tithes. It attempts to deal with tithe in right of benefice only, and provides that it should be redeemed over the long period of eighty-five years. The figure is fixed at £105, payable by the tithe payer. We fixed the figure at £100, payable by the tithe payer and receivable by the tithe owner. The bill leaves the impropriate tithe almost altogether out of account. I think that the scheme that we proposed would have been in many respects welcome to both parties. We would have redeemed the whole of our tithe at the price of £100 over a period of sixty years. The amount paid by the tithe payer would have been the same as

1151
that received by the tithe owner. The actual sum paid year by year would have been the same over our period of sixty years as over the suggested period of eighty-five years, the whole difference being that the Bill provides that tithes should be paid for eighty-five years without giving the incumbent any more.
The length of the period is of very great importance to the tithe payer. Not only, during the course of the eighty-five years, do you naturally pay in the aggregate a very much larger sum than you pay in sixty years, but there is no significant reversionary value to an estate for an annuity of any kind which has more than sixty years unexpired. The owner of an estate may be paying in redemption of his tithe a sinking fund every year for twenty-five or perhaps thirty years, and, if the estate comes for sale, he will get no benefit from it at all, while if the period were sixty years some benefit would accrue almost immediately.
The whole of this trouble is due to taking the figure of £105. That is, to my mind, an entirely arbitrary figure. It is true that you base it on certain calculations carried out by a Committee appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, a thoroughly competent body. They sit down and fix the price of wheat, barley and oats year by year in perpetuity. They look fifty years ahead and have to say what the price of wheat, barley and oats will be in those years. That is a perfectly impossible task. I admit that they do it very well, but at the same time they would be the last people to say that there is any chance of accuracy. I submit that the figure of £105 that they have taken is £5 too high. The representatives of the tithe payers upon the Committee adopted a different course. We said that it was no use looking forward into the uncertainties of the future. We preferred to take the ascertained facts of the past. That is not an inappropriate way of finding out tithe value. It was the method adopted in the year 1836, when the previous seven years were taken. Fortunately, they were normal years and the value has held out exceedingly well. It is by looking back seven years that the septennial average has been fixed every year since then.
Only last year in your Lordships' House, in fixing the redemption of the
1152
stipend in the Scottish Church, you looked back over the average of fifty years to find the value. I do not see why the same course should not have been taken in this case. The average of all values since the year 1836 is £98 for every £100 of tithe. We did not, for various reasons—I need not go into particulars—adopt that value but we offered, and the Church representatives accepted, the figure of £100 as the annual value in perpetuity. Why should the figure be fixed at £105? It is, of course, entirely a question of rating. The noble Lord said that the clergy receive £105 and pay £5 in rates. No doubt that was quite a proper method of putting it, but I would have put it in a different way. I say that we pay to the incumbent £100 and we pay to the Inland Revenue officer £5. Tithe payers are really paying £5 as the incumbent's rates.
In every case of redemption in the past we have had a fixed value, either a commuted value up to 1918 or an estimated value since then, and from that fixed value you have always deducted your rate before your redemption value has been assessed. Following the same analogy exactly in fixing the tithe at £105, the tithe payer to-day should have deducted his £5 before he paid £100 over to the incumbent of the living. I see no reason why, in order to save the State some expense in carrying out their policy of saving the incumbent from rates, a definite charge should have been put upon the tithe payer, which comes back upon the land from which the tithe issued, so that we are saddled in perpetuity with that £5 rate which you are now taking from us to pay the charge upon the tithe in right of benefice.
I cannot go into more details on this matter at the moment, for it is getting late, but I should like to say that I do see so many objections to this measure that I should have liked to support my noble friend Lord Strachie, who moved the rejection of it. I am bound to say, however, that I shrink from any possible consequences of that action. In my opinion there must be a Tithe Bill this year. I believe that the effect of tithe rising to a high figure next year and higher still in later years, will be that not only will you create great inability to pay, particularly among the many new owner-occupiers, but you will increase

1153
the unwillingness to pay among a very largo number of people who, quite wrongly and illogically, look upon tithe as a tax upon land and as a tax very often for the upkeep of a Church to which they do not belong. It will create a condition in many agricultural parishes of social unrest, and the first brunt of that will be felt by the Church herself. I think that a Tithe Bill of some kind is essential this year. If there was any possibility of postponing consideration while you could fix value over a short period in advance one might be willing to support it, but at the present moment, in view of the possibilities of rejection, I am not inclined to support the Amendment that has been moved.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lord's, this is Second Reading and not Committee and, therefore, I rise to say that I support the Bill both in my individual capacity and in any representative capacity I may possess, and undoubtedly I do represent here the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The fundamental principle of this Bill has not really been attacked except by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor. It is the principle of stabilisation, and the question on Second Reading is whether you admit that, to be a thing in itself desirable. I have not heard anybody except Lord Parmoor object to it. My noble friend says the landowners accept it; and why is it that it is so largely accepted? It is not disputed by Lord Strachie that it is a desirable thing. It is accepted because to dispute it is to ignore the fact that modern conditions have produced a state of things in which a factor has grown which is incalculable to the point of danger. I mean it is the assumption that you can effectively collect a tithe higher than anything like £130. Some of us older politicians were actually spectators of a strike against tithe in a part of these realms. The tithe payer can strike because the value of the tithe has risen too high. It is not possible for the parochial clergy to strike because they cannot get more out of the land, and therefore it is that the rise in value of the tithe beyond what may be called the breaking-point is a thing that a statesman naturally wishes to prevent and avoid if he can.
The second principle of this Bill is the principle of compulsory redemption in
1154
cases selected for it. That opens up the question whether it is desirable for a clergyman to have any pecuniary relations at all with his parishioners. Is it, indeed, desirable that there should be the relations of a mortgagee and a lender, of creditor and debtor, super-aided to that of pastor and flock? It has been alluded to by previous speakers and I will not therefore enlarge upon it. I only rose to make it perfectly clear that the question, whether the sum at which stabilisation has been defined has been drawn at the right place or not, is not raised by the question as to whether the Bill shall be read a second time.
I understand that Lord Parmoor, who has left the House for the moment, said something during my temporary absence, when I was engaged in looking up the historical point raised by Lord Strachie as regards the pecuniary condition made to the compensation given to the clerical tithe owner in 1836. The noble Lord may understand the fallacy of that historical allusion if he did not ignore the fact that it was not given in every case; as, indeed, there was no reason why is should be given in every case. And the reason it was not given in every case was that in certain parishes a composition existed between the parson and the parish under which the parson before 1836 could hardly be said to be liable for rates at all. Therefore, you made an arrangement in 1836 by which you gave a sum of money to make up that deficit. All that was put historically by the Ministry of Agriculture in a letter to the Land Agents' Society, which appeared in The Times of October 3, 1924, and if Lord Strachie has any answer to that letter now it is rather a pity he did not give it. I am totally unaware of any answer to that letter. I only wish to add that I should be very pleased if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, will give me notice of the allegation he was proposing to make about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I shall do my best to answer it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sine your Lordships will have listened to the debate with great interest. It is a further illustration of how, upon a very intricate subject, your Lordships possess talent to enlighten the matter on every side and convince any one who doubts the competency of your

1155
Lordships' House. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment is going to a Division. He is a great authority on agricultural subjects and upon questions dealing with the ownership of land, but I think, if he were successful in his effort to-night, he would not receive much thanks from the land-owning class whom he champions. The only result of the loss of this Bill would be that in a short time lithe would mount up to £130 and £131, and finally—
LORD STRACHIE: Why could you not go on with the Act of 1918?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Thai would require fresh legislation.
LORD STRACHIE: Why did the Government drop it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is in error. That comes to an end. It is a temporary arrangement. He apparently would like a different kind of Tithe Bill, but the only result of the particular action he proposes to take would be to produce the consequences I have foreshadowed. I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who is a very great authority on this subject He made a most interesting speech, and I was gratified to find that he is not going to oppose the Bill, although he spoke of it with a certain amount of regret, lie thinks we have missed a great opportunity and that we might have settled ibis question more fully than we are attempting to do. That is the kind of criticism I have heard very often on Bills proposed to Parliament. It is said: Why do you not do rather more? After a long Parliamentary experience, I have come to the conclusion that it is far better to be satisfied with doing a little and not attempting to do too much.
But in truth we have settled, if this Bill passes, a very great deal. I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been used to-night, but we shall, at any rate, stabilise tithe, and shall get rid for all time of that uncertainty in its amount, that doubt, which upsets everybody, as to how much they will have to pay, or on the other hand how much they will be entitled to receive, from year to year. Then we have settled the redemption
1156
question, so far as some tithes are concerned, or we shall have done so, and that is a very large element in the settlement. My noble friend thinks we ought to have made provision under which all tithes could have been redeemed. I should have been very glad if that could have been done, but do not let the House imagine that there is no provision in the law for the redemption of lay tithes. Under the law as it stands it is open to the tithe payer to redeem the tithe whenever he likes. No doubt he would have to pay a capital sum, and not an annuity, but it is open to him to do so, and even in this Bill we facilitate that process by giving the tithe payer rather better treatment under Clause 17.
LORD CLINTON: There can be no redemption as long as there is fixed value in perpetuity.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We give special advantage under Clause 17. Then my noble friend proceeded to say that we had adopted a wrong foundation figure. I shall not attempt, especially at this time in the evening, even if I were competent to do so, to contest actuarial points with my noble friend, for he is a far higher authority than I am, but undoubtedly the Government do rely upon the figure of £105, which is the foundation of their Bill. That is perfectly true. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend challenges that figure altogether. My noble friend indicates that he does. I admit that it is a matter of estimate. My noble friend may be right, and the figure may not be perfect, but all that can be said is that it is as good a figure as we can arrive at.
We took the only steps that were open to us in order to arrive at some figure. The matter was referred to a Committee which my noble friend admits was a very competent Committee. They fixed, in the first place, £104 as the figure, and that was afterwards modified to £105, but it is founded upon the authority of that Committee, and the Chairman of that Committee, who, of course, had great influence in determining its Report, is a gentleman whom I have the honour to know and who has great experience on the subject. He was Chairman, as I think your Lordships know, of a Com-

1157
mittee which had to do with the fixing of the value of tithe rentcharge for several years past in connection with the ordinary voluntary redemption of tithe under the present law, in regard to which the Ministry of Agriculture have to make certain decisions.
The Government, therefore, had a Committee in order to furnish them with a figure. Sir Charles Longmore was Chairman of that Committee, and in arriving at his conclusion he took a great deal of evidence from very distinguished people. They did not all agree, of course, but my point is that every step was taken which could have been taken to arrive at the truth. The Committee called expert witnesses, and it was only after hearing what they had to say on one side and on the other that the Report was made and the figure was furnished to the Government. What else could have been done? We might perhaps have asked my noble friend to tell us what was the proper figure, and perhaps we would have been better advised, but I do not think that ho himself will criticise us for the course that we adopted, even if he differs from the result at which we arrived.
I turn for a moment to consider whether this settlement is accepted by all parties. I cannot pretend that it is accepted by all parties. It is, in certain elements of it, a compromise, but there is a very large measure of consent. Take the Church, for example. We have heard the speech of the most rev. Primate, and he spoke avowedly as representing the parochial incumbents, and in their behalf he welcomed the Bill. Also you are aware that these matters have been considered by various Church organisations, and on the whole this settlement commands their consent. There is, I know, another body whose members are not so cordial in their approval. They have had very distinguished representatives before your Lordships this evening. I refer, of course, to noble Lords who represent so ably in this House the colleges and Universities. Let me just say a word as to them. I first of all put aside any idea that we are taking anything whatever, on the whole, from the colleges and Universities. If the figure of £105 is a good figure then that means that on the average, in the course of time, it will be found to be a fair average figure. There will no doubt be
1158
a loss during the next few years, but that will be made good in the years which follow.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, made a good deal of what he described as robbing the parson. He did not, I think, use those words, but that was what, in effect, he meant. Undoubtedly there is an element of hardship in the case of the existing parson. He may be an old man and may die before the fat years come. He loses during the lean years and does not get the full advantage of the fat years which will follow. That does not apply to the colleges. The Universities and hospitals are not going to die, and as time goes on—of course, it all depends upon whether £105 is a fair fundamental figure—if it is, then upon the average they will lose nothing. But it may be said, and I think that Lord Ernle in effect did say it, that the grievance did not turn upon the figure £105, but upon the fact that there was not so much consideration for them in the matter of rates as has been extended by the law to the parochial incumbents. That is perfectly true, but there is no novelty of that kind in this Bill. That is under the existing law. Under the existing law Parliament has been very considerate of parochial clergy in the matter of rates. There was the Act of 1899, in which rates were calculated at a half. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, ought to complain of that Act, because the agriculturists whom he represents received exactly the same consideration three years earlier. And therefore it does not lie in his mouth to reproach the clergy because they got their rates halved.
Later, no doubt, further concessions were made to the clergy in the matter of rates, and I think that most of your Lordships would think that thoroughly justified. After all, these concessions were made to the very poor clergy, whose pitiable cases Lord Ernle so properly described. These poor clergy, with their miserable stipends of under £300, were let off rates altogether, and the parsons who had stipends very little better—between £300 and £500—did not get off rates altogether, but they got the former figures halved. I think that your Lordships on the whole thoroughly approved that considerate treatment for these men, who are, after all, doing a great work

1159
for their neighbours, and are most inadequately remunerated for it.
But Lord Ernle said you ought to treat the colleges in the same way. Does he really contend that the colleges ought to be treated on the same footing as parochial incumbents receiving under £300 a year? I cannot believe that he would say that. The colleges and Universities are not so poor even as the clergy receiving between £300 and £500. If, however, my noble friend says to me: "Cannot you give some consideration to the colleges and Universities and hospitals? I confess he moves me. I can assure him that there are many of us who would like to give some consideration in the matter of rates to colleges and Universities, but he must realise that they do not stand alone, but that there are other institutions not so distinguished, nor occupying so exalted a place in the world, yet equally deserving. When one comes to consider these institutions—and it may be, certain individuals—and realises what a precedent we should be setting if we began to make exceptions, I hope my noble friend will not think it very hard treatment if the Government, after all, are not able to help him. Of course, I could not refuse, and should not wish to refuse, to consider what he has said between now and the next stage, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that a remedy will be found. All I can promise him is that I will weigh, and ask my colleagues to weigh, what he and other representatives of the Universities have said, and if there is any possibility of finding a way out of this difficulty we shall be the first to welcome it.
I think I have dealt with all the main points of criticism which have been made in respect of this Bill. I have every reason to be grateful to your Lordships for the reception which, on the whole, you have given to it, and I will only say this in conclusion, that in a subject of this immense intricacy, dealing with interests which are necessarily conflicting, and a solution of which is impossible without the element of compromise, I hope your Lordships will judge us kindly if, when we have gone through the other stages of the Bill, we are not able to please everybody.
LORD GAINFOED: My Lords, I think the last statement made by the noble Marquess, in which he said that he saw no hope of being able to meet what appears to me to be a great injustice done to the Universities, leaves me no alternative but to utter my protest against it. I have no exception to take to the compromise that has been entered into, and I should like the Bill to pass for other reasons, but I do feel that a great injustice has been done to the Universities. My own college loses £1,000 by not being given the same terms as are given to the clergy—instead of £105 they will receive, I understand, only £72. It is only by making a protest, by dividing against the Bill, that I feel that we may influence the Government between now and the Third Reading to do something to remove this injustice, and therefore I propose to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided::—Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Cave, V (L. Chancellor.)

Peel, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

London, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Sutherland, D.

Monson, L.

Newton, L.

Ancaster, E.

Avebury, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Clarendon, E.

Biddulph, L.

Phillimore, L.

Eldon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lovelace, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Danesfort, L.

Somers, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Darling, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Selborne, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Templemore, L.

Spencer, E.

Ernle, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Liverpool, E.

Chalmers, L.

Stanmore, L.

Charnwood, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.