Sitting of 15 December 1925

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire Electricity Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

VIVISECTION.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to present a humble petition from 2,567 persons resident in Torquay, praying this honourable House that the practice of vivisection may be discontinued.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS,
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES (PORTUGAL).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Portuguese Government have under consideration the question of increasing the import duties on woollen and worsted piece goods; and whether representations can be made to this Government pointing out the injurious effect such increase of duty would have on the textile industry of this country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that the Portuguese woollen industry has been making efforts to
    1162
    obtain an increase of the duties. Representations in the sense suggested by the hon. Member have already been made to the Portuguese Government.
    Mr. RAMSDEN: In the event of the Portuguese Government again increasing their tariff, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the abrogation of Article 6 of the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Convention, under which the Portuguese have a virtual monopoly of the trade in certain wines?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I must have notice of that question.

    IMPORTS (RETURN).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, have prepared a Return showing the total imports of goods for each of the last 25 years and the percentage of unemployment for each year in the same period?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will have a statement prepared on the lines indicated by the hon. Member, and sent to him as soon as it is ready.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the statement be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, certainly.

    GERMAN GOODS (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if, as stated by Herr Trendelenburg, certain alleviations are being considered in the application of the new duties to goods of German origin; and, if so, what these alleviations are?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): In view of representations recently made by the German Government, certain minor modifications of administrative practice in respect of Customs duties are under consideration, and, should it be found possible to adopt them, they will, of course, apply to goods of whatever origin.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Shall we have some indication of the nature of those modifications before we conclude the discussion on the Safeguarding of Industries Bill?
    Mr. McNEILL: The modifications of which I am speaking have nothing to do with that Bill.
    Captain BENN: Will the House be informed what these modifications are?
    Mr. McNEILL: It will, of course, when any negotiations which are in progress are completed.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPBUILDING (GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE).
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the directors of the Silver Line, Limited, are also directors of Joseph L. Thompson and Sons, Limited, and James Laing and Sons, Limited, the builders of the steamers for the Silver Line, Limited, the debentures of which company, amounting to £1,107,000, have been guaranteed as to principal and interest by His Majesty's Government; whether, in view of the prices agreed to be paid to the builders, he will say if tenders for these steamers were obtained from other builders and, if so, state the prices; whether His Majesty's Government, under the Trade Facilities Act, confine their guarantees for advances on shipping to companies building ships with internal combustion engines; and, if so, why this course is adopted?
    Mr. McNEILL: I am aware that the chairman of the Silver Line, Limited, is also chairman of Joseph L. Thompson and Sons, Limited, and of James Laing and Sons, Limited, and that one of the other directors of the Silver Line, Limited, is also a director of James Laing and Sons, Limited. The remaining two directors of the Silver Line, Limited, are not directors of either of the other two companies. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but the Advisory Committee were satisfied that the prices were reasonable. They are well acquainted with the prices of similar ships, and of the ships previously supplied by the builders. The answer to the third part is in the negative and the fourth part, therefore, does not arise.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices agreed to be paid for these steamers are regarded by those acquainted with shipbuilding as excessive; and having regard to the connection between the owning company and
    1164
    the shipbuilding company, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it prudent that His Majesty's Government, before guaranteeing large sums, should satisfy themselves that the prices are correct prices and competitive prices?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have already said that the Advisory Committee satisfied themselves as to the prices.
    Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman said, at the same time, that tenders were not obtained. How is he to satisfy himself as to the prices?
    Mr. McNEILL: By the knowledge of the Advisory Committee.
    Sir R. THOMAS: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already put two Supplementary Questions.
    Sir R. THOMAS: On another point, which has not been elucidated, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as this matter is exercising public opinion—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must be brief and quick.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at the present time 6,750,000 tons of British shipping are idle; and, having regard to that fact, does he think it prudent for His Majesty's Government to guarantee money to build new steamers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument, not a question.

    SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement with reference to the dispute between certain shipping companies and the wireless operators; and whether any steps are being taken to end it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): My Department is having a further meeting to-day with the Association of Wireless and Cable Telegraphists, but I am not able at present to say whether any progress can be made towards a settlement of the dispute.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman also been in touch with the shipping companies, and, if so, with what results?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think that arises out of this question, but in view of the fact that the House is rising shortly, it is entitled to have all the information at its disposal before we separate. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question before the House rises.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The question I asked was whether any steps are being taken and I think the point does arise as to whether the shipping companies have also been seen by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that fully-qualified wireless operators are available at rates of pay in force prior to the 1st December; that certain shipowners are taking advantage of the waiving of the Regulations not to pay those rates, and that shipowners now paying those rates are having no difficulty in obtaining fully-qualified wireless operators; and whether, in view of this fact, he will discontinue giving permission for the sailing of ships without wireless operators?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that some ships are paying the old rates and are unaffected by the dispute. As regards the ships which are affected by the dispute, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hull Central (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 30th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in touch with the shipowners at all, in connection with the dispute?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As regards the dispute and the issues involved in it there are questions entirely for the Ministry of Labour, and the Board of Trade has never interfered in such matters. The duty of the Board of Trade is to be entirely impartial in any such dispute and to exercise its functions under the Merchant Shipping Act.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it good policy to set
    1166
    aside all laws and Regulations when there happens to be a dispute?

    STEAMSHIP "DELILIAN."
    Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the death of Robert Wilson, of Liverpool, fireman, s.s. "Delilian," and to the allegations by members of the crew that the meat and water were tainted, and that six of the crew were taken ill in consequence; and whether he will order an inquiry into this matter with facilities to owners and crew to state their case?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No information on this matter has been received by the Board of Trade, but I have obtained a newspaper report of the inquest on Robert Wilson, and observe that the medical evidence was against the theory that his fatal illness (typhoid) was due to tainted ship's provisions, and that the verdict was one of death from natural causes. The log of the s.s. "Delilian" does not bear out the statement that six of the crew were taken ill, there being , only one case of illness recorded during. the voyage in question, nor does it contain any complaint in regard to the food. I will see whether any further information is available, but the case as it stands is not one for a formal investigation.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for the report from the Board of Trade superintendent?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. I am making further inquiries
    Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the coroner's verdict had reference only to the typhoid, and had no bearing at all on the complaint of the food and water being tainted?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is difficult to discuss this matter by question and answer. I have seen the report, and I think the medical evidence was that the typhoid could not have been due to the food and water or there would have been an enormous outbreak among the crew.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made from those members of the crew in Liverpool who are, I understand, still under doctors' treatment for illness alleged to have been contracted from the food and water?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will make any inquiries which will throw any further light on the matter.

    WHEAT PRICES.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the result of any investigations made by his Department into the recent rapid rise in the price of wheat?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the Food Council are holding a public meeting to-day on this subject, and their examination of the question should disclose the causes of the rise in price.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: How many days' wheat supply are normally kept in this country?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not arise out of the question. I should like to see it on the Paper.
    Mr. PALING: If the existing powers of the Food Council prove insufficient to prevent this rise in prices, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving them extra powers?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the rise in prices due to the increased cost of labour or to other causes?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Before making any pronouncement on this matter I should very much like to see the result of the meeting of the Food Council to-day.

    PETROL PUMPS (TESTING).
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called by local authorities to the necessity of conferring powers upon such authorities for testing petrol pumps in their areas; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BECKETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to introduce legislation conferring upon local authorities the necessary powers for testing petrol pumps in their areas?
    Major AINSW0RTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large and continuing in-
    1168
    crease in the installation of petrol pumps throughout the country, the Government will consider the necessity for immediate legislation conferring upon local authorities the necessary powers for testing such petrol pumps in their areas?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given on 9th December to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) of which I am sending them copies. It will be seen that the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, which I have already introduced, provides for the making of the requisite regulations. As the hon. Members will understand, it is not possible to proceed further with the Bill this Session, but I intend to reintroduce it next Session.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    BOARD OF TRADE.
    Mr. MORRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a, position to state what economies he has effected in the administration of his Department; and whether such economies will result in decreased Estimates for the coming year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am considering the matter in conjunction with the Cabinet Committee on Economy. I expect that the sum required for the administration of the Department during the next financial year will be less than that required during the present financial year. As the hon. Member is probably aware, there are contractual obligations with regard to zinc concentrates, which figure in the Estimates, but which it is not within the power of the Department to vary.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Does that answer mean that there is to be a re-grading of the Staff of the Board of Trade; and is it proposed that there should be any reduction of salaries?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be quite impossible for me to answer anticipatory questions as to the Estimates or to deal with these points until the Estimates are presented.
    Mr. MORRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much less the cost will be this year, compared with last year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the hon. Member had better wait and see the Estimate.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is there any overlapping of duties between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport?
    Sir P CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I do not think there is. I have tried while in office to avoid overlapping everywhere.

    STAFFS.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Prime Minister whether in the Government inquiry into economy special attention is being given to the cost of salaries and expenses of Government Departments other than the Admiralty, War Office, and Air Ministry, with especial reference to considering such reduction of administrative and clerical staff as may be possible without endangering efficiency?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The administrative costs of all Government Departments are under careful examination, and no opportunity will be lost of effecting such economies as may be compatible with the efficient discharge of public business.
    Sir F. NELSON: How can economies such as are indicated in this question be carried out except by imposing on the permanent staffs of the various Ministries the somewhat invidious duty of suggesting cuts in their own Departments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: You may have cuts in the Departments which lead to economy, but it is extraordinarily difficult to secure economy by discharging civil servants, as the hon. Member would know if he had had to face up to that question.
    Sir F. NELSON: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that he might favourably consider appointing an independent committee, with one or two Members from the back benches of his own party, who are only too anxious to assist in work of this nature?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree, but it would be impossible, even for the back benchers, to do away with the pension rights of civil servants.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider ceasing all recruiting for the Civil Service until the numbers have fallen to the appropriate level?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, is another question, and obviously it is one which deserves examination.
    Sir J. NALL: With a view to facilitating economy in the Fighting Services, will my right hon. Friend consider the appointment of a separate Estimates Committee for the Fighting Services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that when the Government has done with the Fighting Services there will not be much work for the Estimates Committee.

    SUPER-TAX DEPARTMENT.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of officials and staff employed in connection with the Super-tax Department; and what is the approximate cost of this Department?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I fear that figures cannot be given, for the reason that much of the work in connection with the Super-tax is not in the hands of a staff specially and exclusively devoted to that duty.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to amalgamate the two Departments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether at the present time the Income Tax and Super-tax Departments work in conjunction with each other in making the separate assessments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Super-tax is charged on the total income of an individual as charged to Income Tax for the preceding year. Particulars of Income Tax assessments are therefore made available to the Special Commissioners for their use in making assessments to Super-tax. The officials of the two Departments also co-operate with each other in other directions so far as the circumstances of individual cases may require.
    Sir R. HALL: May I ask whether one is to understand it is quite unnecessary to make out two returns?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend will receive much evidence to the contrary if he persists in that view.
    Sir R. HALL: How far does the cooperation of the two Departments go? One has to send two returns to two different Departments which are supposed to be working in co-operation.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The system of Income Tax and Super-tax has grown up over a period of years, and no one who looks at it can feel that it represents the maximum of simplicity and convenience. I can assure the House I have carefully studied the question with a view to seeing whether some easier and simpler arrangement could be introduced in a way which would not be detrimental to the Revenue, but I can make no pledge that I can solve the problem.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be before the Budget?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not like to commit myself to any fixed date for achieving an object so difficult and distant.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that everybody makes a proper and correct return?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am satisfied they make a more proper and correct return in this country than in any country with which I am acquainted.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a Committee to report on the economies which could be effected by arranging for one form to be used for both Income Tax and Super-tax assessment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend's question seems to be directed to one aspect of the general proposal which he put forward in the question which I answered on the 8th December. As I then informed my hon. and gallant Friend, the matter involves extremely difficult problems, to which, however, I am giving consideration.

    CINEMATOGRAPHY (TECHNICAL ADVISER).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the position of technical adviser on cinematography is a, whole-time position and paid as such; and whether all arrangements for the taking of films where Government assistance and/or facilities are required are made by the technical adviser with the private companies concerned?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affimative. As regards the second part, arrangements such as are described would normally be made either on the advice, or by the agency, of this officer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But in practice are they made through the agency of this officer? Is this officer at the present time doing the whole thing in connection with all the Departments?
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not think there have been sufficient transactions of this kind to say there is a normal practice established.
    Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that applications to any Government Department will have to go to this officer?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, I would not like to say that.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the obviously unsatisfactory position, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to promise the House some improvement?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot possibly say what may be obvious to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

    STATIONERY OFFICE (TELEGRAPH FORMS).
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many telegram forms have been requisitioned through the Stationery Office during the last 12 months?
    Mr. McNEILL: The approximate number was 272,500,000, of which about 89,000,000 were dispatch forms and 183,500,000 delivery forms.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the gross extravagance in these forms used in the various Government Departments; and is he

    1173
    satisfied that there are some people in these offices who control the enormous expenditure on stationery?
    Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that I am satisfied at the present moment, but I am looking into the matter.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Colonel DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is proposed to give permanent appointments to the ex-service men who were successful in the examination held some months ago?
    Mr. McNEILL: As stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Pontefract on the 10th December, the Civil Service Commissioners hope to issue the results of the Southborough examination for the Clerical and Departmental Clerical Classes early in 1926. The assignment to permanent posts of successful candidates will be made as soon thereafter as the inquiries necessary to ascertain their eligibility for establishment can be completed.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the reasons for the delay in notifying the candidates as to the result of the examination?
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon and gallant Gentleman will understand that in a matter of 20,000 candidates it is not a matter that can be very quickly gone through, if it is to be efficiently done. I cannot say more than that, so far as I know, no unnecessary delay has taken place.
    Colonel DAY: Have any notifications been sent to the candidates as to how they have been placed in the examination?
    Mr. McNEILL: Intimation of what?
    Colonel DAY: An intimation of failure or success.
    Mr. McNEILL: They will know as soon as the results are known.

    WAR OFFICE (CLERICAL STAFF).
    Mr. J. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for War whether ho is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the ranks of the clerical employés in the out-station offices; and will he receive a deputation of the employés association with a view to removing the grounds for complaint?
    Captain KING: Yes, Sir.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how far, in sanctioning the new appointments in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, they have been able to carry out the recommendations in paragraph 9 of the Re-organisation Report as to ensuring equality of opportunity between men and women?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. Only one new permanent appointment has so far been made on the indoor staff of the Ministry for work in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. When the time comes for settling the permanent staffing arrangements for this work the recommendations in paragraph 9 of the Re-organisation Report will be carefully borne in mind. A number of additional appointments have been authorised for the outdoor staff, and the men and women appointed have been given similar duties on the new work.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING SUBSIDY.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) if he will give the comparative prices per foot of superficial area for the four different types of houses selected for special subsidy, and the prices per foot of superficial area for the Glasgow roofing house, the Braithwaite house, and the Atholl house, quoted for in respect of the special subsidy;
    (2) if he is aware that, after including normal roof, washing basin and tub, the price of the Coralite house passed for special subsidy works out for Coralite three-room flatted type of an average of 587 feet super at 14s. 6d. per foot super, while the Atholl all-steel house of 772 feet super of similar type works out at 11s. 5d. per super foot, or 3s. 1d. cheaper than the Coralite house; and, seeing that one is a Dutch patent, giving little employment, and the other a Scottish product, giving considerable employment in the engineering, steel and coal trades, he will consider the giving of the special subsidy to the Atholl steel house;

    1175
    (3) whether he is aware that the flat roof of the Coralite house, that has been passed for special subsidy, is guaranteed by the makers to last only for three years, and if he will insist upon a normal roof for this type of house; and, if so, what will be the difference in price?
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSasked the Secretary for Scotland (I) if he is aware that, in proportion to size and accommodation, Atholl steel houses, as offered to the Scottish Board of Health under special subsidy condition, are less costly than one of the types selected; and, having regard to the fact that Atholl steel houses were passed by the Moir Committee and also that the Atholl Company offered to comply with the other conditions as to labour, etc., will he state his reasons for excluding Atholl houses from the four selected for special subsidy;
    (2) if he is aware that according to Form 7, 23rd November, the Coralite house provided for flat roof and did not provide for lavatory basin and tub; that the cost of these items to place this house on a par with the others is £26; and that if he adds this extra cost in computing his total cost the Coralite house is more expensive than the Atholl; and, in view of this, will he state why the Atholl house was excluded from the four types selected?
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Secretary for Scotland the cost per superficial foot of the four types of houses selected for the special subsidy and for the other types of houses for which prices were obtained?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The final selection of types of houses was made after careful consideration of all the relevant facts and the Atholl house, among others, had to be ruled out on the ground of cost. I cannot accept the basis on which the rates per foot of superficial area are arrived at and compared. This rate varies inversely with the size of the house, because certain fittings are common to all sizes and are not appreciably affected by an increase in superficial area. The tenders submitted for the different types are not uniform and, therefore, the comparative figures asked for by the hon. Member are not available. With regard to the Corolite
    1176
    house, I am advised that the roof, as tendered for, is satisfactory, and that the guarantee referred to is merely a guarantee of maintenance by the contractors and should not be confused with the life of the roof. It is correct that the inclusion of additional items would increase the cost of Corolite house, but I see no reason for insisting on these.
    Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that some of the local authorities have turned down the approved types of houses altogether, will the Secretary for Scotland give them the option of having the Atholl house?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No. As I have already explained, the houses submitted to the local authorities under the additional subsidies scheme were distinctly defined on the question of price.
    Dr. SHIELS: Why is it that we on these benches have to stick up for the Duke of Atholl against the Conservative Government, and is it not the case that the Weir house is really being pushed on the local authorities by the Government because by that means they hope to attain the breaking up of the trade union rates of wages.
    Mr. KENNEDYalso asked the Secretary for Scotland what local authorities have now accepted houses with the special subsidy, and the types and numbers of houses which they propose to build?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the county council elections took place on 1st instant, and district committees could not be reconstituted in time to allow of consideration of the matter of the special subsidy by 14th instant, it became necessary to extend the time for submission of their proposals until 31st instant; and I am not, therefore, in a position to supply the information asked for in the question.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary for Scotland the cost of the houses in each case of the four firms which have been selected for the additional subsidy of £40 per year; and what the cost of the Atholl house would have been if that firm had been selected for this purpose?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular issued on 23rd ultimo by the Scottish Board of Health containing the cost of

    1177
    all types of houses included in the approved list. I am also forwarding to him particulars of the tender prices for the various types of the Atholl house.

    ASSESSMENTS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent it is the practice in Scotland for the same assessors to be appointed by both the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the local government authorities, and for the same valuations to be used for both Income Tax under Schedule A and local rating?
    Mr. McNEILL: Inspectors of taxes are appointed assessors under the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Acts in 15 counties and 33 burghs in Scotland at the present time; in these cases valuations made for rating are binding for Income Tax under Schedule A. In other cases, the values for rating fixed by local assessors, who are not inspectors of taxes, are not necessarily or invariably adopted for Income Tax purposes.

    INSANITARY HOUSES (RENTS).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary for Scotland the number of houses that have been built in Scotland and Glasgow, respectively, since the 1st November of last year, and how many under each of the Acts concerned; and whether, in view

    —

    Scotland.

    Glasgow.

    Under the Act of 1919

    …

    …

    …

    3,080

    170

    Under the Act of 1923—

    (a) By Local Authorities

    …

    …

    …

    894

    4,374

    243

    426

    (b) By Private Enterprise

    …

    …

    …

    3,480

    183

    Slum clearance schemes

    …

    …

    …

    1,351

    486

    Under the Act of 1924—

    (a) By Local Authorities

    …

    …

    …

    406

    409*

    18

    18

    (b) By Private Enterprise

    …

    …

    …

    3

    —

    * Of the houses included in this total 208 were transferred from the 1923 Act as at 31st October, 1925.

    With regard to the last part of the question, I have given this matter much consideration, and it was also reviewed by the Constable Committee, but I am not in a position to make any statement regarding legislation.

    HOUSE BUILDING, GLASGOW.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has made inquiry
    of the slow progress that is being made, he will consider the introduction of legislation to prevent owners receiving rent for houses declared by the sanitary authorities as unfit for habitation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the reply to this question involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last part of the question?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As to the last question, I have given this matter consideration. It was also reviewed by the Constable Committee, and I am not in a position, therefore, to make any statement beyond what I have made.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Do I understand from that that it will be possible in the new Session that the Minister may take some stops with regard to these insanitary houses, and the rents that are being extorted for them?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I cannot give any definite undertaking.
    Following is the tabular statement:
    The figures for the period from 1st November, 1924, to 30th November, 1925, are as follow:
    into the position of house building in Glasgow under the Housing Acts, and the number of unemployed building workers; and what action, if any, he has taken?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As the result of inquiries that I have made since the hon. Member's question of 8th instant, I have ascertained that the shortage of plasterers is still more acute than was then stated.

    1179
    I am informed that on the 12th instant there were only six unemployed plasterers in Glasgow, of whom three are about 70 years of age and two between the ages of 60 and 65. If the shortage of plasterers could be overcome considerable expedition of house building could be achieved. The Glasgow Corporation, as the result of a deputation which they recently received from the building trade workers, have made a special remit to their housing committee to consider how housing schemes can be expedited. I am prepared to give any proposals the corporation may put before me the fullest consideration, and I am keeping the matter generally under close observation.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary for Scotland if the Committee at present making inquiry into the claims of necessitous areas are considering the position in Scotland; what representation there is on the Committee from Scotland; and, if not, whether he will state what steps are being taken to inquire into the position of necessitous areas in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers has been appointed to consider and report on any scheme which may be submitted to them for special assistance from the Exchequer to local authorities in necessitous urban and quasi-urban areas. It includes two Members representing, respectively, Scottish burgh and county authorities, and one member representing the Scottish Office, and will be prepared to consider schemes submitted from Scotland.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes. They are Sir Henry S. Keith, Mr. John Train, and Mr. P. B. Moodie.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman never think of appointing on these committees a representative of the trade unions and of the working people?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a matter which primarily concerns the local authorities, and I have asked the advice of both burgh and county local authorities.

    EDUCATION GRANTS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary for Scotland the estimate of his advisers as to the amount of reduction in Scottish education grants for 1926–27 as a result of the new policy set forth by the Minister of Education in Circular 1371?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to his question of 9th December. But I should like to add that a Circular dealing with the whole matter more fully is being issued to education authorities to-day. Copies are being sent to all the Members of the House who represent Scottish constituencies.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Are we to understand from that answer that in this new Circular just issued to the education authorities the right hon. Gentleman has given some idea of the estimates that his advisers have formed in regard to the amount of the reduction that will be involved?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will wait till he receives the Circular he will see the full situation set out there.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not tell us if he has got a definite figure from his advisers as to the reduction that this will involve on the education authorities? We are entitled to get an answer here, definite figures, and not from the education authorities?
    Sir J. GILMOURAs regards definite figures they are only being given in the Estimates.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that this Circular shall be available at the Vote Office the same as Circular 1371, for the use of those interested in the matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Well, I will consider that.
    Captain BENN; In the consultation with the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education, did he not go into the question of what Scotland was going to lose under the new policy?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, that matter had full discussion.

    IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BOOTH BYasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to set up the Executive Commission recommended in the First Report of the Imperial Economic Committee; and whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the Report before any action is taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 23rd November in reply to questions on this subject. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 17th March last in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham (Major Sir G. Wheler).

    MONEYLEADERS BILL.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to give facilities for the passing into law this Session of the Moneylender?. Hill [Lords], in view of the fact that it has been fully considered and amended by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that a substantial measure of agreement seems assured?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I see no prospect of time being found for this Bill before Prorogation.
    Mr. WELLS: Will the Government give facilities for this Bill during next Session, or reintroduce it as a Government Measure?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any pledge as regards next Session, but I hope it may be possible. I regret that it has been impossible to find time for it this Session.

    ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Prime Minister if, on reviewing the terms of reference of the Estimates Committee, he is prepared to strengthen these terms next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have again considered this question, but I remain of the opinion I expressed on the 7th instant that the present procedure should be maintained.
    Sir J. NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether that Committee could be set up quite early next Session with a view to reporting on at least some of the Estimates before they are considered in Committee of Supply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

    GREAT POWERS (MILITARY FORCES).
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to make any statement on the relative strengths of certain Powers' military forces?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The statement in question was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 11th instant.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is there stated in that Report the tremendous increase in the military forces of about 15 great nations, both in expenditure and in men?
    Captain KING: If the hon. Member will look at the statement, he will find it gives the numbers of the various forces and of the ancillary forces. I do not think it shows the money.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether there is an increase both in regard to men and expenditure?
    Captain KING: I would require notice of that question.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War the effective fighting strength, according to the latest information available to his department, of the armies of the French and German republics, respectively?
    Captain KING: The authorised strength of the French Army, excluding reserves, is 654,000. The strength of the German Army is fixed by the Treaty of Versailles at 100,000.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what proportion those figures bear to the populations concerned?
    Captain KING: No, I am afraid I could not do that without notice.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SANDHURST AND WOOLWICH (CADETS).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that of the students who passed into Sandhurst and Woolwich, respectively, at the same date and the same examination, the Sandhurst cadets pass out owing to the shorter course at a date which gives them the old rate of pay while the Woolwich cadets, of like entry but with a superior educational standard, will receive only the new rates; and if he will consider the matter with a view to remedy?
    Captain KING: I am aware of the situation to which the hon. Member refers, but I regret that it has been found impossible to recognise a claim to the old rates of pay for any class of officer commissioned after the governing date fixed by the Army Order.
    Sir B. FALLE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is a good way of getting high-class, well educated officers?
    Captain KING: I do not think that arises out of the question. I was giving my hon. and gallant Friend a reply to his question.

    DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET (PURCHASE).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the negotiations for the purchase of the Deptford Cattle Market area have been completed; and, if so, what is the amount to be paid to the Corporation of the City of London?
    Captain KING: The arbitration to fix the purchase price of the Deptford Cattle Market is expected to take place early in the new year.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that a similar question was asked two years ago and that the arbitration is no nearer a settlement now?
    Captain KING: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because the arbitration will take place early in the new year, and none of the delay has occurred on the part of the War Office.

    TREATY OF LOCARNO (MILITARY OBLIGATIONS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War if arrangements are now being made for military conversations with the French and German authorities consequent on the new obligations assumed by this country through the signature of the Treaty of Locarno?
    Captain KING: No. Sir.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is it contemplated that such conversations will take place in the future?
    Captain KING: I am afraid I cannot speculate on the future.

    INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the policy of the Balfour Note, in regard to debt settlements, has been abandoned in view of the fact that the combined payments of France, Italy and Germany cannot possibly in any one year equal our annual debt to America?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is to change in the general policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to inter-Allied debts, as stated by me to tin's House on the 10th December, 1924, and the Balfour Note remains the broad foundation of our policy. But the House must not infer that His Majesty's Government can give a definite undertaking that, whatever happens, the objective of the Balfour Note will be integrally and absolutely attained. The detailed settlements with the various debtor Powers must obviously depend on a number of different considerations, particularly on the estimate we may reach of their respective capacity of payment: and only when all the settlements have beer completed will it be possible to strike a balance between on1 payments and receipts. The House may rest assured, however, that His Majesty's Government will conclude no settlement that does not, in its opinion, carry care the principle of the Balfour Note to the fullest extent that is practicable or expedient.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When was the policy of adjusting debts to capacity of payment adopted by the Government? Is this not quite a new departure?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly never contemplated that we were pursuing a policy of collecting debts which excluded the capacity of the debtor to pay.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that to adjust the debt according to the capacity of the debtor is an absolutely new departure which has not yet been adumbrated by the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On the contrary, I think that the collection of debts and reparations having regard to the capacity of the debtor to pay, has been from the very outset the foundation of the policy we and all other nations have pursued.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that not exactly what the French Government have been pressing us SO long to do, which hitherto the right ion. Gentleman has resisted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There were three points of substance which were not settled at the time when M. Caillaux visited this country, and which were not capable of settlement. I have been waiting for a further discussion with some French Minister of Finance, and have addressed myself to several, but without arriving at an opportunity for discussion.
    Miss WILKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry out that same principle with regard to the Russian debt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been carried out, apparently, to an extent which leaves nothing to be done by me.
    Captain CAZALETasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government of the United States of America have made any suggestion in regard to altering the rate of interest which the British are paying on their debt to the United States of America, in view of the fact that the terms of the British debt are approximately 14 times as heavy as if they had been settled on the same basis as the American-Italian debt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the negative.

    PLUMAGE IMPORTATION (ILLEGAL CONSIGNMENT).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
    1186
    have inquiries made as to how the Customs authorities disposed of the consignment of illegally imported plumage consisting of 325 bunches of osprey feathers, valued at £1,555 10s., which was seized by them at Tilbury Docks in October last, and inform the House of the result of these inquiries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The plumage referred to has been destroyed.

  INCOME TAX.

    RETURNS (WEEKLY WAGE-EARNERS).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the labour involved upon all employers of labour in filling up twice a year returns for Income Tax purposes of the wages of every weekly wage-earner employed in manual labour whose wages, etc., exceed £80 per half-year; and whether, in considering the finance for the ensuing year, he will bear in mind the desirability of simplifying this procedure in view of his recent statement that a remission of Income Tax on all incomes below £300 a year would only involve a loss of about £3,000,000 to the Exchequer, whereas such a remission would involve some diminution of the cost of the Inland Revenue Department, as well as a reduction of the clerical staff employed by many firms, with a consequent reduction to such firms of their overhead charges?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me at this juncture to express an opinion on his proposal, in relation to which many factors obviously re-quire to be taken into consideration. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that, in order to effect economy in the cost of administration and a saving to employers in the making of returns, this year's Finance Act changed the system of Income Tax assessment and charge in the case of manual wage-earners from a quarterly to a half-yearly basis.

    NATIONAL DEBT (INTEREST).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of interest paid on the National Debt during the first year after the War in which our

    1187
    Budget was balanced, namely, 1920–21, and during each subsequent year, and the amount expected to be paid during the current year exclusive in the relevant years, of the interest on the debt due to the United States, so that the figures may be comparable; and will he state

    NATIONAL DEBT INTEREST (DEADWEIGHT DEBT).

    Year

    Total interest paid (exclusive of U.S.A. Government loan)

    Cost of Living Index Number.

    Equivalent of interest on the basis of present prices

    Yearly Average.

    Present.

    £

    £

    1920–21

    …

    …

    325,785,481

    255

    176

    224,855,840

    1921–22

    …

    …

    298,486,392

    206

    176

    255,017,488

    1922–23

    …

    …

    273,133,269

    179

    176

    268,555,584

    1923–24

    …

    …

    276,165,826

    174

    176

    279,340,160

    1924–25

    …

    …

    278,002,047

    175

    176

    279,590,600

    1925–26

    …

    …

    274,047,000

    —

    176

    274,047,000

    Budget Estimate.

    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in connection with the preparation of the next Budget, he will recommend legislation for the reduction of interest by 1 per cent. on ail War Loans contracted by the Government during the late world War and not yet redeemed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have no intention of repudiating the contractual obligations of the State.

    GERMAN REPARATION (SHIPPING).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the value of the reparation obtained from the sale of German shipping is included in the Government statement that the share of the United Kingdom to July, 1925, is approximately 22 millions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to allocate precisely specific receipts from Germany by the United Kingdom as between reparation and prior charges such as Armies of Occupation. The reparation figure of £22,000,000 is a net figure after deducting the prior charges.
    the value in present prices of the interest paid in 1920–21 and in each subsequent year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With my hon. Friend's leave, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the Statement:

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if it is proposed to present any Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year in connection with the British Industries Fair?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Over seas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. It will be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the British Industries Fair for the grant of £25,000 which His Majesty's Government have sanctioned mainly for the purpose of securing full publicity for the fair at home and abroad.

    NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number and total value of the national savings certificates taken out and repaid, respectively, in each of the financial years 1918–19 to 1924–25, inclusive, together with the total balance due to the holders at the end of each of the said financial years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

    Year ended.

    Number of Certificates taken out (in £ units each year.

    Value of certificates taken out (purchase price) each year.

    Value of certificates repaid (principal only) each year.

    Number of certificates repaid (in £ units) each year.*

    Balance due to holders at end of each year (including accrued interest)*.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    31st March, 1919

    …

    126,349,959

    97,921,218

    8,700,001

    11,225,800

    238,471,000

    31st March,1920

    …

    92,283,189

    71,519 471

    24,949,700

    32,193,100

    297,540,000

    31st March,1921

    …

    53,156,062

    41,195,948

    29,741,245

    38,375,700

    319,995,000

    31st March, 1922

    …

    120,435,316

    93,337,371

    36,193,73l

    46,701,500

    387,139,000

    31st March,1923

    …

    49,593,813

    39,675,050

    27,966,804

    35,854,800

    418,847,000

    31st March,1924

    …

    56,509,235

    45,207,389

    32,915,500

    42,199,300

    446,139,000

    31st March,1925

    …

    40,281,930

    32,225,544

    29,529,291

    37,858,000

    458,835,000

    * Approximate figures.

    POST OFFICE AND TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS DEPOSITS).
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts actually deposited with and withdrawn from the post Office and trustee savings banks, respectively, in each of the calendar years 1913 to 1924, inclusive, together with the net amount of the deposits standing to the credit of the depositors on the 31st December in each year of the said years?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    STATEMENT OF AMOUNTS deposited and with drawn in each year from 1913 to 1924, inclusive, together with the amount standing to the credit of depositors at the end of each year.

    I.—Post Office Savings Bank.

    Year ended 31st Dec.

    Deposits

    Withdrawals

    Amount including interest, standing to credit of all open Accounts at close of the Year.

    £

    £

    £

    1913

    …

    51,165,624

    50,397,407

    187,248,167

    1914

    …

    47,915,600

    49,120,021

    190,533,208

    1915

    …

    54,328,429

    63,003,924

    186,327,584

    1916

    …

    56,178,119

    50,370.029

    196,655,159

    1917

    …

    60,537,740

    58,488,710

    203,262,059

    1918

    …

    79,492,928

    53,255,698

    234,633,323

    1919

    …

    167,726,035

    142,029,842

    266,348,366

    1920

    …

    101,322,778

    107,425,194

    206,508.032

    1921

    …

    83,299,484

    91,945,200

    264,156,529

    1922

    …

    87,491,582

    89,770,204

    268,143,235

    1923

    …

    83,561,187

    85,095,632

    273,070,983

    1924

    …

    81,056,398

    80,357,763

    289,373,433

    The figures for 1919 include transactions ill connection with the payment of gratuities to Demobilised men of the Navy, Army and Air Force.

    II.—Trustee Savings Banks.

    Year ended 20th Nov.

    Deposits.

    Withdrawals

    Balance due to Depositors at close of the Year including Interest Earned.

    £

    £

    £

    1913

    …

    15,291,856

    16,197,143

    54,258,861

    1914

    …

    14,749,101

    16,424,677

    53,943,271

    1915

    …

    17,779,269

    21,640,292

    51,412,370

    1916

    …

    19,498,978

    18,624,949

    53,783,998

    1917

    …

    25,337,421

    28,518,200

    52,350,107

    1918

    …

    29,080,728

    22,800,335

    60,984,049

    1919

    …

    39,2 5,448

    31,086,212

    71,918,350

    1920

    …

    39,597,516

    39,522.365

    75,084,360

    1921

    …

    31,528,485

    36,732,908

    73.082,993

    1922

    …

    34,546,717

    35,142,311

    75,784,364

    1923

    …

    34,080,154

    33,702,681

    79,566,355

    1924

    …

    34,146,073

    34,887,308

    82,284,550

    LOCARNO TREATY (FILM).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any consideration was paid, or is to be paid, and whether any royalties will be paid, by the company which obtained the exclusive right to make the cinematograph film of the signing of the pact of Locarno; and what are the sum or sums so involved?
    Colonel DAYasked what consideration or payment, if any, was paid to the Government for the exclusive rights of filming the cinema film of the signing of the Locarno Treaty at the Foreign Office on 1st December?
    Mr. McNEILL: No royalties were payable in respect of the making of the film referred to, since, as I have already explained, the right was not granted to any company, but was retained by His

    1191
    Majesty's Government. The distribution of the film was entrusted to the company concerned, who paid a sum of £150, being the estimated actual cost incurred by His Majesty's Government in its production.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that nothing accrues to the Government at all for the right So make this film, apart from the expenses of the Foreign Office?
    Mr. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman understands perfectly correctly.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he is losing an asset that ought to accrue to the Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: I take full responsibility for what was done on. this occasion, but I am perfectly willing to admit that I might do better another time.
    Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large sums are being paid for the hire of films, and will he consider, in view of the importance of these films, something being done?
    Mr. McNEILL: I will not make any promise, but I will consider the matter.

    COAL MINING INDUSTRY (WEEKLY OUTPUT RETURNS).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines if he can arrange to state in connection with the weekly output returns the number of men on the colliery books who were also registered as unemployed because they were temporarily stood off?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): The weekly returns in question are made by the colliery owners, who would not know how many of the men on their books and temporarily stood off were in fact registered as unemployed. I will go into this further with the Minister of Labour to see if anything can be done to meet the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that apparently some 50,000 men are returned weekly in one return as being employed, and in another as being unemployed?
    Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir. I was not aware that the discrepancy was so big as that, but I am going into the matter.

  TRANSPORT.

    MERSEY TUNNEL (LOCAL LABOUR).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that applications for employment on the work of the new Mersey Tunnel are being made by non-local men; and will he give an assurance that before outside labour is obtained a certificate shall be obtained from the local Employment Exchanges on the Merseyside that no suitable local labour was available?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have no information as to applications made for employment on the Mersey Tunnel works. The hon. Member has already been supplied with the Clause inserted in Contract No. 1 regulating the engagement of labour.
    Sir J. NALL: Is it not the fact that 50 per cent. of the cost of this work is collected by the Road Fund from selected grounds in the whole of the country, and will the Minister undertake that not more than 50 per cent. of local men are employed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Oh, no; I think it is right that local men should be employed.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Will the Minister undertake that no man is employed for this scheme who has not been resident in the. place for five years?
    Colonel ASHLEY: He has got to be resident for 12 months.

    RURAL ROADS (TARRED SURFACES).
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the serious and frequent accidents which occur to cattle and horses on many of the rural roads in the country due to these roads being completely coated with a smooth tarred surface, thus rendering it difficult for animals using the roads to obtain a secure footing; and if he will arrange for all roads to have, a margin free from tarred surface, on each side of main roads or upon one side of roads which are not sufficiently wide to permit of a

    1193
    margin on each side, so that cattle, horses and horse-drawn traffic may use these roads in safety?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the difficulty referred to by my hon. Friend, and am encouraging highway authorities to make some provision for live stock, where practicable, though this may not take the form of an untarred strip of carriageway.

    FORTH-CLYDE WATERWAY.
    Mr. COUPERasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the continued unemployment, the Government are prepared to reconsider the question of the development of a waterway between the East and West of Scotland, from the Forth to the Clyde, which, in addition to providing employment, would develop the industries on the route and form a permanent national asset?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This matter has been carefully considered by previous Governments, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by reconsidering it further at the present time. Such information as is available indicates that the receipts from such a canal would not be likely to be sufficient to justify the very heavy cost of its construction.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Do I understand that the Government absolutely refuses to have anything to do with this scheme— this Tory Government?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not refuse to have anything to do with the scheme, but I like, when a scheme of the kind is put forward, that we shall have a reasonable return for the money expended.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister say if there is any possibility of the Tory Government going on with the scheme, inasmuch as practically all the Tory candidates in Scotland put it forward at the last General Election as a solution of unemployment?

    RAILWAY STATION, DENBIGH.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations from the town council of Denbigh with reference to the unsatisfactory condition of the railway station; and what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The reply to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have, as the hon. Member is aware, been in communication with the railway company, and have furnished him with a copy of a letter from the company, dated the 23rd June last, explaining their position and suggesting that he might care to discuss the whole matter with the General Manager. I understand, on inquiry, that the company will be pleased to arrange for this interview on hearing from the hon. Member. The case is not one in which I have any compulsory powers.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have made two applications for an interview which have been refused?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am very sorry indeed to hear that. I am surprised to hear it. If the hon. Gentleman will communicate with me privately and give me the facts I will communicate with the railway company.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say he has no compulsory powers? The Railways Act of 1921 expressly empowers him to make an application before the Railway Rates Tribunal for better facilities.
    Colonel ASHLEY: That is primarily a matter for the traders to do.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Yes, primarily: but is it not the fact that if the traders neglect that duty it is imposed upon the Minister?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the accommodation is so insufficient as indicated in the question surely the traders would do so.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: If the traders neglect to do so is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has power to take steps?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I have the power, but in the present circumstances it is, primarily, the duty of the traders.

    GLAN CONWAY RAILWAY STATION.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations with reference to the dangerous condition of the platform of the railway station at Glan Conway, in the County of Denbigh; and whether,

    1195
    in view of the fact that several accidents have already taken place, he will compel the railway company to take steps to remove the danger to which passengers are now exposed?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I recently received some representations with regard to this matter, and am in communication with the railway company upon them.
    Mr. DAVIES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has power to compel the railway company to take steps to prevent these accidents?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I should not like to answer a general question such as that, but if the hon. Member will put a specific case I will give him an answer.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there were two specific accidents at Glan Conway, and has he no power to take any steps to prevent future accidents?
    Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will put down another question dealing with them, I will give him an answer.

    ROAD FUND REPORT.
    Mr. G. PETOasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Road Fund Report for the 12 months ended 31st March, 1925, is not obtainable is this House either free or by purchase, although he announced in the Press on 8th December that it was for sale through any bookseller; whether he will in future make such Reports available to Members at least as soon as to the general public; and whether he will arrange for such Reports to be issued in future less than nine months after the end of the year under review?
    Mr. McNEILL: A copy of this Report, although not in the category of Parliamentary Papers, will be sent free to any Member requiring it for his Parliamentary duties on application to the Controller of the Stationery Office. In the normal course, Members can obtain non-Parliamentary publications immediately they are put on sale either at the Stationery Office sale offices or through their bookseller. As regards the last part, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that the compilation and collation of the information contained in these Reports involve a
    1196
    large amount of labour, and every effort is made to issue the Report as early as possible.
    Mr. PETO: Could it not be made possible for us to obtain a copy in this House without having to write to an outside office for it?
    Mr. McNEILL: I will consider whether that can foe done.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the secretary of every trade union has to make a report to the Registrar-General not later than May; otherwise he is fined?

    LONDON DOCKS ROAD.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to commence the new docks road shortly, or whether this project is now to be abandoned?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 17th November to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    ROAD WORK (FOREIGN MATERIALS).
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Minister of Transport whether, before granting money for road work for unemployment schemes to any public authority, he will inquire whether they intend to use foreign slag?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is a condition of all grants towards road works expedited for the relief of unemployment that all contracts for works, materials, etc., must be placed in this country, unless my approval to the contrary is obtained. I do not consider it necessary to make the special inquiry suggested by my hon. Friend.

    WOODFORD-ILFORD ROAD.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to complete the arterial road to Woodford and to commence the continuation of the road to Walthamstow?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I assume that the question relates to the new road between Woodford High Road and Ilford, which has been open to traffic for the past nine months. I am not in a position at present to make a grant from the Road Fund

    1197
    towards the extension of this road, nor have I received any indication of contributions being forthcoming from the highway authorities.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.

    ACCIDENTS (RURAL DISTRICTS).
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents involving public motor passenger-carrying vehicles occurred during the months of June, July, August and September, 1925, in the rural districts of Great Britain; and how many people were killed and injured in these accidents?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply. No separate figures for rural districts can be given. In the year 1924 the number of street accidents caused in England, Scotland and Wales by mechanically propelled omnibuses and motor coaches was 459 fatal and 6,014 non-fatal. No figures for the present year are yet available.

    OMNIBUSES (OVERCROWDING).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to overcrowded seating accommodation in the new type of General omnibus and the inadequate passage room between the seats when the omnibus is full; and if he will approach the London General Omnibus Company with a view to discontinuing the building of this type of omnibus in the interest of the comfort and convenience of the public?
    Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am advised that the accommodation provided is reasonably adequate, and I see no occasion for any special representations on my part to the company.
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when these omnibuses are partially full there is plenty of room, but when they are quite filled that they are overflowing, and the passengers flow on to one another, rendering it extremely uncomfortable and most difficult for a conductor to collect his fares?
    Captain HACKING: I understand that there is 16-in. of seating space for each
    1198
    passenger, and I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that is not too much. If we keep that the same and wish to enlarge the gangway, it means having to make the total measurements of the omnibus larger, and if that were done I am afraid the Minister of Transport would be up against the Home Office for increasing the congestion of the streets.

    PUBLIC VEHICLES (UPHOLSTERY).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that public vehicles are upholstered in rep, velveteen, and other soft and clinging material; and whether, as such material collects dirt and disease germs and broadcasts them amongst the passengers, he will take steps to ensure the use of leather or other washable material in future?
    Colonel ASHLEY: This is a matter for the individual licensing authorities, but I will bear in mind the suggestion that my hon. and gallant Friend has made.
    Colonel APPLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this, because I am not referring to the pulex irritans harboured in these omnibuses, but to really serious germ diseases which are spread to people riding in dirty omnibuses?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but the hon. Member must realise that the ordinary passenger would rather risk the germs than not have soft material to sit on.

    ELECTRICITY DEVELOPMENT.
    Captain BOURNEasked the Minister of Transport whether he can state if the Report of the special commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the future development and control of electricity has yet been presented; if so, is he in a position to make any statement on the subject; and can he say whether it is proposed to publish this Report?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am not in a position to add anything to the previous statements which have been made to the effect that the Report as been received and is under consideration.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the complaints being made by residents in the Richmond, Surrey, area, who have been waiting in many cases for nearly six months for telephone installation; and what steps are being taken to deal with the inconvenience so caused?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The position at Richmond, Surrey, of which I am fully aware, has arisen through the exhaustion of underground plant following a sudden and unexpectedly large demand for telephone service in that district. An extensive development scheme at an estimated cost of £20,000 is in hand, but progress with the duct work has necessarily been governed largely by the requirements of the road authorities. The work is now approaching completion and, should no unforeseen difficulties occur, all applications for service will be met early in the New Year, and thereafter further applications should foe met without difficulty.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTEasked the Postmaster-General how much of the sum, averaging £1,000,000 a month, which was voted last July for telephone development, has been expended; and what proportion of this amount has been expended in rural areas?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As there was an unexhausted balance from the previous Act, it has not yet been necessary to draw upon the capital authorised by the Telegraph (Money) Act, 1925. Approximately £1,000,000 a month is being spent upon telephone development, but it is impracticable to furnish an analysis of this expenditure between rural and other areas.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any definite scheme for the expenditure of the sum granted last July for telephone development; and whether he has placed orders for equipment well in advance so that the manufacturers can keep their men steadily employed?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is a definite scheme for the expenditure of the bulk of the money authorised
    1200
    by the Telegraph (Money) Act, 1925. Orders for telephone equipment are necessarily placed in advance owing to the time occupied in manufacture and subsequent installation in exchange premises; speaking generally, telephone manufacturers in this country are able to keep their staffs steadily employed.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is great delay and difficulty in obtaining new telephone facilities in the Exeter district; and whether, in view of the loss and inconvenience caused to traders and others, he will take steps to improve the efficiency of the service in this area, especially in the rural districts?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There have been one or two instances in the Exeter district where, on account of difficulty in obtaining suitable premises, or for other reasons, the opening of a new rural exchange has been delayed, but otherwise I am not aware of any abnormal delay or difficulty in obtaining telephone facilities in that district. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with definite particulars of any case which he has in mind, I will have inquiry made.

    ADVERTISING..
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether he contemplates any extension of the advertising plans of the Post Office?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The possibilities of increasing revenue by extensions of Post Office advertising are constantly under review. I have no special statement to make on the subject.

    PENNY POSTAGE.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make any statement regarding the prospects of a return to penny postage?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir.

    WAR PENSIONS (NEURASTHENIC CASES).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of officers

    1201
    and other ranks that have been in receipt of pension for neurasthenia for four years or more; how many of these are in receipt of life pensions; and whether he will arrange for the men not in receipt of a final award to be boarded with a view to the award of life pensions, having regard to the psychological effect that a permanent pension would have on their disability?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon); The number of pensions at present in payment for neurasthenia is about 32,000, of which about 12,000 have been awarded for life. Of the balance, about 17,000 pensioners have been in receipt of pension for four years or more, and I can assure the hon. Member that the possibility of making final awards in these cases is constantly kept in view in connection with the medical re-examination of cases.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Pensions the number of men in receipt of institutional treatment for neurasthenia; where the hospitals are situated; and what is the estimated total yearly cost of providing treatment for pensioners suffering from neurasthenia?
    Major T. C. TRYON: The number of men in receipt of in-patient treatment for neurasthenia in the first week of the present month was 1,809. I will cause the list of hospitals to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The yearly cost of the treatment given in Ministry hospitals for this class of case is approximately £250,000.
    Following is the list of hospitals:
    Craigleith, Scotland; Edenhall, Scotland; Castle Leazes, Newcastle; Harrowby Camp, Grantham; Saltash, Plymouth; Coombe Park, Bath; Ewell, Epsom; Orpington, Kent; Leopardstown Park, Dublin; Craigavon, Northern Ireland.

    MEXICO (FOREIGN DEBT).
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if and when he will be in a position to publish the terms of the new settlement under which the Mexican Government is to resume payment of the foreign debt in January next?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The settlement to which the hon. Member refers was arranged directly between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers. The question, therefore, of its publication seems one for arrangement between the two contracting parties.

    TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTION (BLAISE CASTLE).
    Captain GUNST0Nasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the proposal of the Corporation of Bristol to use Blaise Castle as a tuberculosis institution for advanced cases is strongly opposed by the inhabitants of Henbury, whose; houses, school, etc., surround Blaise Castle; and will he have this matter further inquired into?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the Henbury Parish Council objecting to this proposal. In the event of the Bristol Corporation applying for his approval to the use of the premises for the treatment of tuberculosis, this objection will be considered. My right hon. Friend is advised, however, that there is no ground for considering that a properly conducted institution for the treatment of tuberculosis is in any way a danger to the health of the community among whom it is situated, and that no risk is incurred by living in the immediate neighbourhood of such an institution.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Would the Board of Trade have any information upon this?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. It is a matter for the Ministry of Health, not the Board of Trade.

    TEA (PRICES).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the wholesale price of tea has risen by 6d. per 1b. since September; that further rises are threatened, involving a rise in price to the poorest consumers; and that this condition of affairs arises owing to restriction of supplies; and what steps he intends to take to put an end to this state of affairs?
    Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: I am aware that the wholesale price of tea has risen by approximately 6d. per lb. since the early part of September, and I am asking the Food Council to inquire into the causes of this increase.

    MEAT STOCKS (COLD STORAGE).
    Mr. BOOTH BYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any action has yet been taken to put into operation the recommendation of the Royal Commission on foodstuffs in regard to the publication of all stocks of meat held in cold storage in the United Kingdom?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This would require legislation, and it has not so far been found practicable to introduce a Bill into Parliament.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (BRUSHES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the Report of the Committee on Brushes; and whether he proposes to publish it?
    Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: The Report was published on Friday last.

    COMPANIES ACTS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can report any progress in the deliberations of the Committee investigating proposals for the reform of the Companies Acts?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 17th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Walthamstow, a copy of which I am sending him. I am informed that the Committee are now engaged in the preparation of their Report.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the Report of the Committee on this matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be wise for me to wait until I have seen the Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement in regard to the business to be taken to-night and on the remaining days of this Session? May I also ask whether we can be informed to-day as to the day on which the new Session will begin next year?
The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to to-night, I have put down a Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in the event of the Committee stage of the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Bill not being completed, solely for the purpose of obtaining the Committee stage of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment Bill. I understand there is no controversy about that Measure, and there are no Amendments on the Paper, and I hope it will be got through in good time,
With regard to the business for the rest of the week, to-morrow we shall take the Third Reading of the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Bill; the Third Reading of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment Bill; the Report stage and Third Reading of the Government of India (Civil Services) Bill [Lords]; the Report and Third Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill, and other Orders, if any
Thursday: The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and, at the conclusion of that stage, the major part of the Opposition will initiate a Debate on Education.
Friday: The Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and if that is finished in time, the other party in Opposition will initiate a Debate on Housing.
Monday: The Lords Amendments to the various Bills which have passed this House, and other business necessary to clear up the work of the Session.
I do not think I can say definitely the date of the commencement of the new Session, but I think, probably, it will be the 2nd February.
Mr. CLYNES: With regard to the business on Monday, does the Prime Minister

1205
consider that the Lords Amendments will be available in time to afford private Members an opportunity of raising questions on which they are specially interested?
The PRIME MINISTER: If that happens, I think it will be a question whether it will be more convenient for the House either to Debate or prorogue.
Captain BENN: With regard to the business for to-morrow, would it be possible to give the Scottish Education Bill a better position. It has been put last on the list, and as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, most Scottish business has been pushed into untimely hours?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think anyone can say that we have neglected Scottish business. I do not think there is anything in the Scottish Bill which would cause a prolonged discussion.
Mr. STEPHEN: Will it be possible, in the discussion on housing, for the Scottish Members to get an opportunity of raising the distinctive Scottish position in regard to the extra £40 subsidy?
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, that is a matter which rests with the House.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do we understand that the Forestry Bill will not be proceeded with?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business 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, 232; Noes, 119.

Division No. 488.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Harrison, G. J. C.

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

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

Hartington, Marquess of

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

Haslam, Henry C.

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Hawke, John Anthony

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Dixey, A. C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley

Drewe, C.

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Duckworth, John

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

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Eden, Captain Anthony

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Elveden, Viscount

Hills, Major John Walter

Berry, Sir George

England, Colonel A.

Hilton, Cecil

Betterton, Henry B.

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

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Holt, Captain H. P.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

Blundell, F. N.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Fermoy, Lord

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Fielden, E. B.

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

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Fleming, D. P.

Jacob, A. E.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Han. Cuthbert

Briggs, J. Harold

Forrest, W.

Jephcott, A. R.

Briscoe, Richard George

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Ganzoni Sir John

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

Gates, Percy

Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

Bullock, Captain M.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Knox, Sir Alfred

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Gee, Captain R.

Lamb, J. Q.

Burman, J. B.

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

Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Goff, Sir Park

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Grace, John

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

Campbell, E. T.

Grant, J. A.

Lumley, L. R.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Grotrian, H. Brent

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

Christie, J. A.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Macintyre, Ian

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

McLean, Major A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John.

Cope, Major William

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

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Couper, J. B.

Hanbury, C.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry

Malone, Major P. B.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Harland, A.

Margesson, Captain D.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Meyer, Sir Frank

Remnant, Sir James

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Waddington, R.

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

Salmon, Major I.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

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

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Morrison, H (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sandon, Lord

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Murchison, C. K.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Savery, S. S.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

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

Watts, Dr. T.

Nicholson, O (Westminster)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Wells, S. R

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

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

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Skelton, A. N.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Nuttall, Ellis

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Oakley, T.

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

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Smithers, Waldron

Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Pease, William Edwin

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Windsor-Clive,. Lieut.-Colonel George

Pennefather, Sir John

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Womersley, W. J.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Pielou, D. P.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Plicher, G.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Wragg, Herbert

Preston. William

Templeton, W. P.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Radford, E. A.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Raine, W.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Ramsden, E.

Tinne, J. A.

Colonel Gibbs.

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

NOES.

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

Grundy, T. W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Alexander. A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

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

Sexton, James

Ammon, Charles George

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

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Baker, Walter

Hardie, George D.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Smillie, Robert

Barnes, A.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow).

Smith, H B. Lees (Keighley)

Barr, J.

Hirst, G. H.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Snell, Harry

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Snowden, R . Hon. Philip

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda. West)

Stamford, T. W.

Briant, Frank

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stephen, Campbell

Broad, F. A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Bromley, J.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Sutton. J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kennedy, T.

Taylor, R. A.

Buchanan, G.

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

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

Cape, Thomas

Kirk wood, D

Thomas, Sir Hobert John (Anglesey)

Charleton, H. C.

Lee, F.

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Livingstone. A. M.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lunn, William

Thurtle, E.

Connolly, M.

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Cove, W. G.

MacLaren, Andrew

Townend, A E.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

March, S.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dalton, Hugh

Montague, Frederick

Varley, Frank B.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Morris, R. H.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Day, Colonel Harry

Murnin, H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Dennison, R.

Naylor, T. E

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dunnico, H.

Oliver. George Harold

Westwood, J.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Paling, W.

Whiteley, W.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Gillett, George M.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

Gosling, Harry

Potts, John S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M, (Lanark, Hamilton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Riley, Ben

Windsor, Walter

Greenall, T.

Ritson, J.

Greenwood, A (Nelson and Colne)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Rose. Frank H.

Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes.

Groves, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 14th December.]
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It might be for the convenience of the Committee, Captain FitzRoy, if you would be good enough to indicate now the main Amendments you propose to take. If the Committee were in possession of that information, it would then be easier to allocate the time as between different Amendments, in relation to their respective importance.
  4.0 P.M.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether I am correctly informed, but I understand that Members in various parts of the House are agreed that the discussion on this stage of the Bill should end about midnight, and, if that be so, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could come to some arrangement to bring the discussion on the First Schedule to an end about half-past nine or ten o'clock so as to give adequate time for the discussion of the Second Schedule. My idea was to call the second Amendment on the Paper— First Schedule, page 3, line 8, column 1, at the end, to insert the words
  "and any knife used normally as part of the material or equipment used in any trade, industry, or occupation pursued as a means of livelihood "—
  standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and others, then the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander)—page 3, line 11, column 2, to leave out the words "thirty-three and one-third," and to insert instead thereof the word "five"—and after that one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith)—page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 12 and 13. Then there are several Amendments in this Paper which deal with questions which we discussed at some length on the Resolution, so the next Amendment I pro-
  1236
  pose to select is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton)—page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 16 and 17—and then the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett)— page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 18 and 19. With regard to the Amendments referring to other articles in the Schedule, I am in the hands of the Committee as to what they would like to discuss on that part of the Schedule. Perhaps in the course of the Debate they will let me know.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, column 1, at the end, to insert the words:
  "and any knife used normally as part of the material or equipment used in any trade, industry, or occupation pursued as a means of livelihood."
  The object of this Amendment is apparently the same as that which the Government had in view when they inserted in this part of the Schedule the exception which would free surgical knives or knives for use in machines from duty. The reason the Government have left these out is, of course, quite clear. They do not wish to place any duty upon knives which are used for the beneficent purposes of surgery, and they exclude knives for use in machines because they do not wish to lay themselves open to the charge that they are adding to the expense of the equipment of factories or workshops. We have from time to time, in the Committee stage and on the Second Reading pressed the point that to whatever use cutlery is put the duty ultimately falls as a. burden on the consumer; and there is no distinction in principle between placing a duty upon that which is used by a private consumer and upon tools which are used by a firm or company. They are in exactly the same position,
  The reason it is necessary to move this Amendment, as will be seen, if the different categories of cutlery are taken, is that a very large number of knives and scissors are used by workmen in the course of earning their livelihood. In the list which was put before the Committee by the Sheffield Cutlery Manufacturers' Association it was clear, for instance, that butchers' knives, included in this list, knives used for the purposes of skinning,

  1237
  sticking, boning and so on, are knives which are used in one process of one industry. Butchers' steels are, of course, in the same category. Knives which are used by plumbers are as much a part of the equipment of their trade as if the knives found their way into the machines which are used in some branches in the textile and other trades. The case of putty knives was raised yesterday in Committee, for the putty knife is an essential part of the glazier's trade; and the shoe knife, obviously, is part of the equipment of the bootmaker. There is a large number of other knives in this list which would come under the same heading as being essential parts of the equipment of a man who is working either as a separate workman or as an individual in a factory employing a large number of men or women.
  In the second category—those knives with shut-up handles which are used in trades—the most important, and perhaps the moat striking, are those which are used in the industry of agriculture. It is a remarkable fact that this Safeguarding policy has never at any stage been able to do a single thing for the industry of agriculture in any one of its numerous branches. All that the Safeguarding proposals of the Government have done up to the present have been to place a slightly increased burden upon the various branches of agriculture, and, particularly, upon those which are dependent upon cutting instruments of various kinds. If the Committee will turn to Schedule B of Appendix I of the Report they will find pruning knives, grafting knives, hacking knives—unless they are used in the treatment of animals —and the whole of these will be dutiable. The farmer, therefore, will be justified in saying that the Safeguarding policy gives him nothing and adds a duty to some of the materials Which are essential to his industry. It is equally true of scissors. Even the horse clip, under the Safeguarding policy, is to come on to the dutiable list. Pruning knives, pruning scissors, and so on are all included. It is quite clear that the Government have not thought out even the exceptions they provide for in their Schedule. I am stating it quite seriously, for the very reason that I am certain that they would not have put in the phrase "other than surgical knives or knives for use in machines " unless they had believed, if a
  1238
  duty were placed upon them, that it would be either extracting a duty out of the surgeons who use them and the hospitals in which they are used, or upon the factories or workshops where the knife is an essential part of the machine.
  The President of the Board of Trade may hold the view, and his colleagues may possibly express it, that these duties are not likely to raise the price of the articles on which they are to be placed. In, the Debates that we have had, now covering a good many days, we have heard less and less of the theory that if you place a duty on these articles you increase the output of them at home and tend to reduce the price, for it is now very clearly admitted on every hand that the object is to raise the price, and to raise the price to such a level that the imported article will never be put at an advantage over the home-made article; that is to say, whenever you impose a duty, you will raise the price of the article on which it is placed. That is undoubtedly what the Government had in mind when they exempted surgical knives and knives for use in machines. The object which we have in view is to put in exactly the same category the tools of workmen in various industries, because they are just as much entitled to exemption, and, although the burden may not amount to very much—only 2d. or 3d. or it may be 5d. or 6d. per article—yet it is a duty which ought not to be imposed upon workmen in pursuit of their trade. If anybody is to be mulcted by it, the Government have usually held the view that the consumer, who is not organised and scarcely vocal except in this House, should bear the whole brunt of their new crop of duties. I cannot believe that the President of the Board of Trade can resist the appeal that is made to him to-day on behalf of the British workman, and it is in that spirit that I move this Amendment.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only want to add a word or two to what my right hon. Friend has said, and I particularly want to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to a very old principle in Common Law by which the tools which a man requires for his livelihood are not permitted to be distrained for debt. This attempt to tax workmen's tools, if my right hon. Friend's Amendment be not accepted, is quite contrary to that old-established rule

  1239
  of British law, and requires the special consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. I only wish to add a couple to the special cases quoted by my right hon. Friend. First of all, take the case of sailors. Sailors' knives are included in Schedule B of the Report; they are going to be taxed. Looked at from the point of view of revenue, or, for that matter, from the point of view of protecting British industry, what is the use of putting a tax on an article which the sailor can buy at every port he touches and which he will buy? All that you do is to take the trade away from your own people in your own seaports. The sailor will say: "I will wait until I go to the next port abroad, and I will buy there." That is all that will happen.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the case of the farmer, and I would like to reinforce what he said. Pruning knives, grafting knives, knives used in husbandry generally—these are all going to be taxed. You are doing nothing for agriculture. You have not produced an agricultural policy of any sort, except to relieve some rates on farm buildings. There is no constructive policy for our greatest industry, employing the greatest number of people of any industry, and yet you are going to tax the equipment of the farmer, of the shepherd, the gardener, the nurseryman, the man who makes his living by pruning fruit. They are part of his means of livelihood, and I think it is iniquitous that this House, representing as it does the more comfortable and wealthy classes, should propose to tax these poor men in this way, partly to satisfy their natural craving for Protection, and partly to safeguard the pockets of their wealthy, and, in many cases, inefficient friends.
  Mr. CHARLETON: I would just like to put in a plea for one or two knives used by workmen. One is the glazier's hacking knife. It is used for cutting out the old glass and putty. They have to use a hammer with it, and this knife wears out very rapidly, because, beside cutting out the putty, they are up against the brads which are used to keep the glass steady while the putty is hardening. These wear out very rapidly, and if any increase in price is incurred through these taxes, as it undoubtedly will be, there will be a good deal of hardship on these men.
  1240
  The carpet layer is another class of man who uses knives and has to provide them himself. He uses what is known as a lino knife for cutting linoleum. This has a sharp point, which also wears out very rapidly, and he has to keep a whetstone constantly by him to put a new sharp edge on his blade. Here again if these things are taxed they will cost a third more, or more than that, because there will be the profit of all the hands it goes through, so you will be having agitation for better conditions and higher wages and, I suppose, the accusation from the other side that it has all come from Moscow. There is another class of man who uses a goodly number of table knives. The signal fitter and cleaner on the railways has to keep the signals clean. Oil and dirt congregates round the cranks and other pins and makes them stick. These men find the most useful knife to use for this purpose is a table knife, and they buy table knives themselves. They are not provided. When you are continually scraping iron with table knives they do not last very long. This again means that if the knives go up 33 per cent. on entry the different hands through which they pass add their percentage of profit, and considerably more than a third will be added to the selling price when it ultimately reaches the working man who purchases the goods, and again we shall have the Executive Committee of the National Union of Railway Men asking for an increase of wages. Already the railways are in a very bad way, at least so they say, and cannot give us anything. If these men get angry again I suppose we shall be told, as I was told in the Lobby yesterday, that Russian gold is at work in making men dissatisfied. As a matter of fact most of the dissatisfaction comes from the terrible conditions under which the workers have to live, and we have to fear that more than Russian gold. I urge the President of the Board of Trade to consider excluding from the tax all these knives—many others could be added—which the workmen use in getting their living.
  Mr. MORRIS: This duty serves as a very good illustration of the length to which supporters of Protection are prepared to go. It has been a principle of the English law to exempt from distraint the goods that the workman uses in the pursuit of his labour. These duties abro-

  1241
  gate that principle, which has been established and long observed upon the basis that it is necessary to enable the work-fan, in order to discharge his debt, to have the tools for his work at as low a price as possible and free from distraint. What is this new principle which the right hon. Gentleman introduces? be penalises the very tools the working man uses in order to obtain a livelihood. These duties are very often substantial. They are not merely the 2d. or 3d. which may be imposed by the duty alone. Take the pruning knife that they use in agriculture. We all know what happens when they come to be sold. Not only is the duty added on by the salesman, but an additional and substantial amount over and above the duty, and very often the knife costs 6d. The trouble with these duties is that they are not only duties upon the article which they purport to be duties upon, but they are really duties upon a number of other commodities. They are an extra duty upon shoos, upon agricultural produce and upon houses. They add to the price of boots, houses and agricultural produce.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Not appreciably.
  Mr. MORRIS: Then on what principle does the right hon. Gentleman exempt surgical knives and knives used in machines? If he is exempting these two classes of goods, on what principle can he decline the Amendment?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I really would ask hon. Members to try to maintain some sense of proportion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has said there is no distinction between a man using a knife in a machine and a man using a knife individually for trade purposes. In the first place—possibly he has heard this said before—the applicants for this duty specifically excluded the machine knife from their application, and during the hearing they explained that they did not include surgical knives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Surgical knives are not the produce of the cutlers' industry, which is one good reason, nor as far as I know, are machine knives. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the hardships inflicted on the poor workman by
  1242
  having possibly to pay a higher price for the knife he uses in his work, and he used as, an instance the putty knife. I would refer him to Clause 41 of the Committee's Report where they explain that very considerable examination has been given to the subject of the shoemaker's knife, which I imagine may be classed with the putty knife. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am neither a shoemaker nor a glazier, and I cannot distinguish between the two. [An HON. MEMBER: "One cuts and the other does not."] I find by the Report that the price of a shoemaker's outlay on knives in a year may be estimated at 4s. If the cost of this annual outlay on tools is increased from 3s. to 4s., or from 4s. to 5s., I do not think that can be seriously advanced against a measure which we are trying to introduce to benefit an industry, the figures of which the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I, where unemployment is most serious in one of our oldest and most honoured industries. He advances an absurd and trifling argument, to use the expression so frequently used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who sits above him—
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I have never used the words.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: Not one word have I heard in any of the four or five speeches that have been made of sympathy for the people who are unemployed in this industry. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We have been treated lately to some more of the eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the country, in the course of which he described the Socialist party on one occasion as a stupid party, and on another as having soft heads, and so on. I think he might direct a little attention to his own party, for if the case for protective tariffs is the case that has just been put, surely those are the people who ought to be described as stupid and soft headed. They come along and argue the case for a duty upon cutlery, and the advocate of the tariff in the House does not know the difference between a putty knife and a shoemaker's knife. That is just the kind of fallacious basis upon which tariffists have always based their arguments, and we are glad the hon. Gentleman has been so frank as to expose

  1243
  his position to us once more. He has not answered a single one of the logical and reasonable arguments that have been put up in support of the Amendment. He tried to draw a distinction between machine knives and other forms of knife. He cannot have made many inquiries as to the attitude of the distributive trades on this matter to make such a statement as he made then. We use all kinds of blades in the distributive trades, and by the way, I ought to mention that far too little consideration has yet been given to the distributive trades in these matters. It seems to be overlooked that there are over a million workers engaged in the distributing trades, and we find in shops that whilst they use machines with knives they also use a very large supply of hand knives, every one of them part and parcel of their trade equipment. If it is logical to exclude surgical knives, it is logical for us to ask the Government to exclude any form of knife which has to be used in following a particular trade or occupation.
  Then I notice the hon. Gentleman followed up the policy of the Government as displayed all the year with regard to agriculture. Ho simply ignored it. All this Session the Government have paid no attention to the arguments put forward on behalf of agriculture. I suggest that the representatives of the Board of Trade should make some inquiries of the National Farmers' Union as to their attitude with regard to these safeguarding duties. I wonder whether their attention has been drawn to a report of a speech made a few weeks ago by the President of the Farmers' Union, which somehow did not get reported in the ordinary Press. I discovered it in the "Mark Lane Express." After twitting the. Government, as I think they deserve to be twitted, about their total neglect of the interests of agriculture, he spoke about these safeguarding proposals of the Government. "Here," he said, "are some of the blessings that you might reasonably expect from the Cabinet." The first was that the scheme for the safeguarding of industries of substantial importance, should either be abandoned or else the embargo upon applications in respect of articles of food should be removed. Why does the President of the Farmers Union take that attitude?
  1244
  Simply because they get no help at all from the Government, while all the time the Government are piling up the farmer's costs of production by ever-increasing lists of duties upon the things he requires in his business.
  This is not the first new burden upon agriculture in connection with tariffs. We reimposed in the Finance Bill of this year duties upon articles which are absolutely essential to the farmer. Now, we are putting on a further burden. The right hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that if we refer to the list of articles submitted by the applicants for these duties, we shall be amazed at the large number of implements which come within them, and a very considerable quantity of them are articles which are used at some point or other of his work by the farmer. Anyone who has visited a farm, even though he may not have much knowledge of agriculture, and has seen the daily occupation of the farmer, knows how he has to be skilled in all kinds of jobs, and that he has to have a whole range of tools for his occupation. This Bill will place a considerable additional burden upon the back of the farming industry, and at the same time there is to be no countervailing help, apparently, from the Government.
  From the point of view of agriculture, from the point of view of the distributive trades, and from the point of view of the productive industries which have been mentioned in this Debate, it is essential that the Government should accept this Amendment, and cease putting taxes upon production. In the old days of the Protectionist propaganda, we were always told that the tariff proposals would be scientific, and that they would never attempt to put a burden upon anything which was by nature of being a raw material. What is a raw material? Is an instrument required in production raw material? It may not be classified as such, but it is just as important as the actual raw materials to be worked up into the finished article. If there were anything at all in the original Protectionist case, the Government ought to be logical on this occasion and exclude the3e trade requisites from the duties proposed in this Bill.
  Mr. VIANT: I support the Amendment. The differentiation made between a knife that may be used in machines and a knife which is to be used by the ordinary workmen, is a differentiation that should not be supported. I can well imagine that the exemption has been made in respect of knives of machines, because a good case has been put up showing that, if these knives are taxed, the price of the knife will increase, and that, ultimately, will mean an extra charge as far as overhead charges are concerned, which charge must, ultimately, fall upon the consumer in the way of an increased price for the commodity produced.
  I am associated with an industry in which the workman spends anything from £20 to £30 as an initial expense for tools. Among these tools there is a considerable number of knives. The difficulty has been pointed out this afternoon of our being able to define exactly what is a knife. I could produce at least a dozen articles this afternoon and I could guarantee that, in keeping with the definitions that have been offered, the Parliamentary Secretary and very few Members in this House would be unable to decide whether they were knives or not.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: Hear, hear!
  Mr. VIANT: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gives his assent to my statement. The fact of his assenting to that statement shows the difficulty which is likely to confront the authorities whose duty it will be to impose this new form of taxation. The Committee ought not to assent to a duty of this kind unless hon. Members have very clearly in their minds precisely the things upon which the duty is to be imposed. We ought not to allow this Schedule to pass out of our hands until strict definitions are laid down.
  The workmen to whom I have referred have to provide tools at an initial expense of anything from £20 to £30, and they have to supplement those tools with new took. The result of this duty will be that those of us who are acustomed to carry out negotiations in regard to wages on behalf of these men engaged in this particular industry will have to take into consideration the increased expense incurred as a result of this taxation, and
  1246
  put up a case for increased wages. That will react upon the cost of production as far as the industry is concerned. It is no uncommon thing for a man engaged in that industry to be compelled to make a purchase of knives or tools made in countries other than our own, simply because the producers in this country are not making the article they require. That is evidence that the cause of the trouble is inefficiency in industry.
  I hope that before the Schedule is allowed to pass we shall have a stricter definition of what is meant by a knife An invidious distinction ought not to be drawn between the owner of a machine and the owner of a simple tool. The principle is entirely wrong. Am I to assume that the Federation of British Industries has brought sufficient pressure to bear upon the Board of Trade, and even upon the Committee which advised the Board of Trade, to say that these machines should be exempt in the interests of the mill owner and the factory owner, and at the same time they are prepared to place an unjust tax upon the ordinary common workman? Am I justified in assuming that? Many people outside this House will assume it. Many workmen will assume it. Is that likely to create a spirit of peace and good will in industry? I fear not. I hope the House will insist upon this Amendment being incorporated in the Schedule, otherwise the workman who is compelled to purchase his tools will ultimately be compelled to resort to asking for higher wages to meet the increased charges for the tools. On these grounds, I hope the Committee will insist upon the acceptance of the Amendment.
  Commander WILLIAMS: Those of us who have tried to follow to a logical conclusion the arguments of hon. Members opposite, must realise that hon. Members opposite are taking up a very curious position. Their complaint against the Government now is that they have not taxed enough things. We are told that they have omitted to tax machine knives. Surely, the only remedy for that would be to place a duty on those, knives also, but I do not want to see that done at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
  Mr. GROVES: Why not, if it is a good thing?
  Commander WILLIAMS: I will come to that point if the hon. Member wishes me to. I was pointing out that hon. Members opposite are now complaining that a duty is not placed on machine knives, and they now ask why not. In regard to the putting on of these duties it is for the people engaged in the industry to come forward and to make out a case that the duties should be imposed. If you begin taxing parts of a machine you will in all probability have to extend the tax to other parts of the machine, and I do not want that.
  It is said that this tax will bear in the main on the hand workers. There are hon. Members in this House who in one form or another have used the articles which are mentioned in the Schedule. I have used a considerable number of them at one time and another, and I have always found from my own experience and from the experience of other people that it is best to buy the British article. If the hand worker wants any knives he will find that if he purchases knives made by British manufacturers they will last ten times longer than a similar article made abroad. That being the case, it is advisable to do everything in our power to encourage the British manufacturer to produce cheaply and to give a good sound article which will last a considerable time. If the worker buys the inferior article, it will not last long, and it means that the purchase of the inferior article really adds to the cost of production.
  It was said many years ago by Mr. Chamberlain, when he introduced his tariff proposals, that the Unionist party would bring in a tariff, and that when it had been brought in. after a certain number of years, the Unionists would be fighting the Socialists for the purpose of decreasing the tariff. There are evidences of that to-day. We see it now in the changed attitude of hon. Members opposite. Not long ago we listened to a series of wonderful speeches from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I suppose he is preparing his way by his silence to-day to take action when the time comes, when he may have to devote himself to a tariff of some sort. This Bill is not a Budget exactly, but it has something in it of the nature of a Budget. It is something in the nature of
  1248
  ordinary legislation, and on these occasions it has at times been the policy to make slight concessions. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to make one concession. Hon. Members opposite have, very kindly, looked after interests which appeal to those of us on this side; although they are very modest and retiring in looking after our supporters. I will, therefore, do something on their behalf.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has noticed in the Schedule one article which was mentioned last night of the existence of which I was unaware. If he could make one concession in regard to this particular article it would perhaps remove obstacles out of the path of hon. Members opposite, and perhaps they might support him. I refer to an article which appeals to hon. Members opposite very much. Could the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of appeasing hon. Members opposite, remove champagne knives from the list?
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) sat down before he finished his speech. We should be very interested to know why he objects to taxing machinery. The hon. and gallant Member told us in the earlier part of his speech that he would tell us why he objected to taxing machinery.
  Commander WILLIAMS: I should object to taxing machinery because there are limits to the taxation we want to raise in. this country. After the Report, you have got ample evidence that there are certain forms of inferior stuff used for machinery which would be better not used, and good sound British stuff used instead, which would produce much more cheaply and much more efficiently.
  Mr. THOMSON: Why not tax inferior machinery? It seems to me that we agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his objection to taxation, only he stops short. We want to exclude everything in the way of manufacture of bad tools, and as it seems sound sense to draw the line at bad machinery it is equally sound to draw the line at bad tools. We want to know where we are going to stop. The Parliamentary Secretary said there were two reasons, in answer to the arguments put forward from these benches. In the first place,

  1249
  he said the applicants themselves did not desire taxation for surgical knives or knives used in machines. Surely it is an extraordinary reason to give to this House, which has to legislate for the consumers as a whole, that because the manufacturers do not desire protection against the manufacture of surgical knives or knives used in machines, therefore, this House has to follow their behest. No reaons have been shown why it should make this distinction, exempting one class of tool from taxation, and taxing another.
  Reference has been made on this side to the workmen's tools, and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether this description includes the blades of planes, and other articles which go to make up a workman's kit? If so, it will mean very heavy expenditure on an ordinary joiner and cabinet maker's kit, which he has to supply. The other reason the Parliamentary Secretary gave was that really the tax was so infinitesimal, that it did not really matter. Thirty-three percent, is not a small proportion, and although the amount may not be stupendous in each particular item, the number of items involved are very considerable. Think of the millions of people who are using these articles, and then you get the measure of the tax which you are going to place on industry. I gather that the Government do not propose to tax machine knives, because there are so many of them, but surely there is an equal number of hand tools? They are used by millions of people, instead of being used by one or two wealthy employers. I submit that there have been no answers whatever to the argument put forward from this side, and that this tariff is going to raise the cost of the tools of the individual worker. The cost of production will he a very heavy burden on the consumer. Therefore, for that reason, we resist it.
  Mr. RILEY: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade exempts machine knives and puts the duty on knives used by individual workers in industrial occupations. I gather he said the obvious reason was that we wore dealing with cutlery, and that in order to protect the cutlery industry that distinction has been drawn. Well, really, that is a distinction which has no substance, for this reason, that many machine
  1250
  knives are made in Sheffield and therefore, if we want Protection in regard to the material contained in these, they require Protection for the knives made for commercial purposes. Some reference has been made this afternoon to the inconsistency of the Government in imposing these duties, and the distinction they have drawn between the taxing of machine knives and the knives used by hand by workmen in their trades. I want to suggest to the Government that really they have lost a great opportunity, in connection with their stupid policy of duties and Protection, in failing to get established the principles they have been advocating for many years with regard to the importation of foreign machinery. What are the facts? Machine knives are used to a very large extent in the printing trade, with regard to guillotine cutting machines, and large numbers of guillotine cutting machines are imported into this country from other countries.
  The Conservative party say they want to be consistent and protect industries, but in the distinction they have drawn in this Bill between machine knives and knives used by workmen they have exempted the machine knives in guillotine machines, imported from a foreign manufacturer, and penalised the British workman for the work knife he uses. There is no kind of consistency in a policy of that kind. May I also go one step further and ask on what ground is the distinction drawn between large tailors' shears, which are to be subject to duty in this Schedule, and the small knife in a machine performing the same operation? There is no distinction which can be drawn. But what does appear is, as has been suggested already, that one is used by the workman and the other is part of an employer's equipment and therefore has to be exempt. In other words, the principle underlying this policy seems to be to penalise and to curtail, the spending power of the workman to the utmost extent. It is only another instance of the impossible situation in which we are landed once we have got on to the slippery slope of Protection. I hope, so far as this Amendment is concerned, that the Minister will see that it is utterly indefensible to eliminate or exempt only machine knives and that he will decide to extend the same exemption to all forms of industrial knives,
  Mr. MARCH: I wanted to ask the Minister one or two questions, before he replies. One is, if he would explain how-far he is going to tax the knives and implements that agricultural workers use. I find that the agriculturists in this House appear to be pretty well satisfied. Probably the farmer has been satisfied to know that the blade used in his mowing machine will not be taxed. I want to know what is going to happen to the labourer who uses the scythe and the hedge hook—which is a knife bent for the purpose of trimming hedges, ditches and the side paths. I would like also to know what is going to happen to the agriculturist who uses a knife for cutting rods. They are a kind of instrument for cutting rods, which are used in market gardening, especially when most of the goods are bunched with roas and the man has to have a special knife for cutting the ends off and trimming them up. Also the agricultural labourer has to have a knife for trimming mangel-wurzels and cutting lettuces, in season, and many other things that the market gardener supplies to the consumer. All these instruments are purchased and owned by the agricultural labourer himself. If these instruments are going to be taxed to this extent, presumably the farmers consider that the tremendous high wages they are paying to the agricultural labourer will enable him to pay something extra for these commodities which he uses in his work. But I do not think so. Their wager, are low enough now. The Parliamentary Secretary says that quite possibly it might mean two or three shillings in a year; but it does not work out like that. It is not possible for these men to be able to save up to pay 2s. or 3s. in the year. These things have to be bought out of a week's wages and the wages are small enough as it is, without having to spend 3s. or 4s. for the purpose of an implement with which to do his work. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give us some answers to these question.
  Mr. T. HENDERSON: I would like to ask what the President of the Board of Trade means by " workmen's blades"? Does it apply to the joiner's iron, as was stated by the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), or the draw knife, which every joiner uses as part of his kit? We want to know exactly
  1252
  what his definition is. The President perhaps not aware that every joiner is entitled to the return, as the annual of the upkeep of tools, of the sum of £3 15s. If you put 33⅓ percent, on the price of the tools, then you are charging him at least £l 5s. per week more than he is at present paid. We want to find out exactly what this covers. I would like to say in reply to one of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke from the back benches as to the reason why every user of edged tools does not buy the home manufactured edged tool, that it is because neither in durability or finish can it equal the American tool that you are going to tax.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): the first question raised was why were we not going to tax knives in machines, I can not think that hon. Members would agree for one moment to tax something for which there was neither a claim nor a recommendation. Their general course throughout these Debates has been to say: " You have not made out a sufficient case for the article you propose to tax," though the taxes will be justified in this House and though they have gone through a process of inquiry before a Committee and the claimants have been examined at length by learned counsel and cross-examined and every opposition to the pro-position that at one time, and another has been advanced. But if we are challenged on a case like that for imposing a I would like to know what hon. Members would say if we should produce for duty under a safeguarding proposal an article which has not only not been recommended by a Committee, but has not claimed?
  Captain BENN: It is down in the Schedule.
  Sir P. CUNLIRFE-LISTER: No, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. There is nothing included in the Schedule which is not included in the appendices of the Report
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Where do carving forks appear?
  5.0 P.M
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-USTER:I think I am right in saying that carving forks do appear. I think that is. included in the general recommendation of the Report, if not in the particular Appendix.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman says he does not see any reason for inserting in this list of duties articles which were not asked for by the applicants. I think he will find if he looks up " carving forks," they appear in the body of the Report and not in the Schedule on pages 18 and 19, put forward by the Sheffield Cutlery Manufacturers' Association as their request. They put it in because it was in the body of the Report. It was not asked for.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman will see that carving forks are included right at the top, where it says
  "Sets of carvers, including steels and forks."
  There is no article which is included in this Schedule which is not included in Appendix I of the Report. I am not saying that one might not be able to make out a good case for taxing things which the Committees have not recommended, but I am quite certain that there would be very strong opposition from the right hon. Gentleman if I made such a, proposal under the Safeguarding procedure. Then the right hon. Gentleman said: " Why do you include these particular articles, even though they are recommended by the Committee? " He drew a picture of certain things which would be included, and said this was harsh and unconscionable, but he did not say how far, as a matter of fact, his Amendment would go. His Amendment would make mincemeat of the whole proposal, because it would extend not only to such things as shoe knives, but even to cutlery such as a restaurant proprietor uses, and would exempt it. Of course, that would be a proposal which the right hon. Gentleman would accept, hut it is not a. proposal which we for one moment could accept, because our purpose is to safeguard the cutlery trade, whereas obviously his purpose is to make the duties as ineffective for their purpose as he can. I do not think there is any real reason to suppose agriculturists are anxious or dissatisfied with this policy. They have had an opportunity at two recent by-elections of expressing their opinion upon it, both at Bury and Ripon, and I see nothing in the results of either of these elections to suppose any section of the agricultural community is anxious as to these specific proposals or
  1254
  as to the general policy of the Government.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that we cannot find in the Minister of Agriculture's election leaflets and propaganda any reference to Safeguarding at all?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman does his party and the Liberal party less than justice. Both, candidates were at every single meeting subjected to the closest cross-examination on the subject of Safeguarding, and emerged from it unscathed. I remember reading more than one speech and many answers given by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) in the contest in which he was the candidate.. [An HON. MEMBER: " He said be was not a Protectionist! "] Exactly. But if the hon. Member had read his speech he would see he said:
  "I am in favour of safeguarding."
  That is exactly where we stand, and it is the Prime Minister's pledge. We do not propose to introduce a general tariff, but we do propose to safeguard. That is exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend says. He did not find it a slippery slope, but found it a perfectly straight pathway to realities and back to this House, and we are glad to see him. The articles included are the articles set out in Appendix I of the Report. I have one more thing; to say.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: If I may interrupt on a very important point, may I ask whether planes are included?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have just said that they are not.
  Mr. VIANT: On a point of Order, may I press this? Will the knife of a plane be subjected to the tax?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, that is exactly what I said, a plane is not a knife. It is a tool of quite a different kind. Neither the plane nor its blade under this would be subjected to the tax. It has been represented, quite wrongly I think, that the general object of workmen is to buy foreign goods rather than to buy British goods. I do not believe that in the very least to be their aim. We have had it represented to us that here are a band of workmen anxious to buy foreign goods rather than British goods. I remember seeing a couple of

  1255
  years ago an appeal made in Sheffield by the trade union officials to other industries to buy the products of their industry in the interest of employment rather than to buy foreign goods. It was an appeal by trade unionists saying they were subject to severe unemployment in the Sheffield district and many more were on short time, and that unemployment would be very much reduced if purchases of tools were of British-made goods. They said these were equal to or bettor in shape, finish, appearance, quality and durability than any imported brand, and they ended with an appeal to support home industries and to help to reduce unemployment. They did not say the way to reduce unemployment was to get more and more foreign articles imported in order that the workman might use them. They said the Sheffield workers could help themselves and each other by using British goods rather than foreign goods. I believe the vast majority of workmen in this country are only too ready to give this help to their fellow workmen. The hon. Member for Hills-borough said that on this side of the House we had soft heads. I am sorry to think that he and his followers have apparently still hard hearts.
  Captain BENN: In spite of the interesting address to which we have listened, there is still very much to be cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the steel manufacturers in Sheffield and law they were going to suffer loss of ex-sports of their steel owing to the imports of goods made of their steel being stopped. Will he deal with that? The right hon. Gentlemen seemed to imply that the word " cutlery " was not part of the Act of Parliament at all and that it had nothing whatever to do with what Parliament was doing. The operative words begin on line 5 with the word " knives." I repeat the question, which so many Members have asked, What is meant by " knives." The President of the Board of Trade thinks that if you cut out knives which workmen use, you are going to make mincemeat of the whole proposals. Why will it make mincemeat of it?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. You get
  1256
  many cases where a man gets an ordinary table knife and uses it for a particular purpose. Quite obviously in cases like that the knife used by the workman is quite indistinguishable from an ordinary knife.
  Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman says that the effect of the Amendment is that if you exclude knives purchased by the employer- for use in the factory you can do that, but you cannot exclude the knives purchased by a workman out of his money, for his use as a workman. Ho says if you exclude the workman's knife you make mincemeat of the proposal. I want to ask with regard to these knives exactly what the definition is going to be What about the blades of planes? Or spoke-shaves? I repeat that question. I represent a port where very many shies were built at one time, and where there are still some repairs. The shipworkers use a good many knives. Apart from the initial cost of the outfit, which I am told is about £50, there is the cost of repairs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade accepted quite frankly that the effect of the tariff would be to raise prices. It was pointed out to him that it represents 25s. in the year. How far is it to go? Why does the President of the Board of Trade say that the knife of a plane will not be taxed? On whose authority does he say that?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said it on the authority of the Customs.
  Captain BENN: since when is the President of the Board of Trade the representative of the Board of Customs in this House? He does not know anything about it.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is simply playing with the Committee. He knows quite well that when a Minister of the Crown in charge of the Bill says on the authority of the Customs what the effect of a Statute is, that is the proper answer to give.
  Captain BENN: I know perfectly well that a Court of law and all Customs officials would take no notice of what he says. You might quote the OFFICIAL REPORT or the Financial Secretary, who ought to be here. The only thing anyone takes any notice of is the Act of Parliament. To quote a casual remark of even

  1257
  so distinguished a Minister as himself has absolutely no relevance in the Statute in dealing with the Customs, and anybody who deals with them knows perfectly well they do not take any notice of these things. Wherever they can, by the narrowest interpretation, they collect the maximum amount of duty. The President of the Board of Trade does not imagine, I suppose, that the blade of a plane comes in the wooden frame. It comes separately. The wooden part is much more permanent than the blade, which has to be renewed. I think the Committee is entitled to ask for an assurance from the proper Minister—the representative of the Treasury—that these things are not going to be taxed.
  What about a knife with two handles such as a spoke shave which is worked with two hands? Is that a knife within
  the meaning of the Schedule? It is called a draw-knife in the trade. Apparently there is nobody on the Treasury bench qualified to answer the question. It may be a suitable subject for silence on the part of Ministers, but it is a serious subject for the working men who will have to pay this tax. We will leave it at that. Apparently spokeshaves or draw-knives are going to be included, and the only things to be excluded are planes—not necessarily with the blades in them. So it will go forth from this Debate to all persons concerned, that the implements of their trades are going to be taxed, and I do not think they will thank the Government for it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 244.

  Division No. 489.]

  AYES.

  [5.17 p.m.

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

  Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rose. Frank H.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hardie, George D.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Harney, E. A.

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Smillie, Robert

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Bromfield, William

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Bromley, J.

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Lansbury, George

  Taylor, R. A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lawson, John James

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

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Lee, F.

  Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Connolly, M.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Cove. W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lunn, William

  Thurtle, E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dennison, R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Duckworth, John

  Morris, R. H.

  Warne, G. H.

  Dunnico, H.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  Murnin, H.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  England, Colonel A.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Westwood, J.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Whiteley, W.

  Forrest, W.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

  Gillett, George M.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gosling, Harry

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonby. Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

  Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert Hutchison.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Pielou, D. P.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Grotrian, H. Brent.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Guinness, Rt. Han. Walter E.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Preston, William

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

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

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Raine, W.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Ramsden, E.

  Barclay-Harvey C. M.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Remer, J. R.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Berry, Sir George

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hills, Major John Walter

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hilton, Cecil

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Sandon, Lord

  Briggs, J. Harold

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Scott. Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Howard. Captain Hon. Donald

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

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

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Bullock Captain, M.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Slaney, Major P, Kenyon

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Burman, J. B.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Smith-Carington. Neville W.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Knox. Sir Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Lamb, J. Q.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Christie, J. A.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Lougher, L.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir' Richard Harman

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lumley. L. R.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Cooper, A. Duff

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Couper, J. B.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Cowan, Sir Wm, Henry (Islington, N.)

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

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Tinne, J. A.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  McLean, Major A.

  Titchfield Major the Marquess of

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

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Waddington, R.

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

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

  Drewe, C.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Warner, Srigardier-General W. W.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Meller, R. J.

  Waterhouse. Captain Charles

  Elveden, Viscount

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

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

  Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Watts, Dr. T.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

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

  Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fermoy, Lord

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Morrison, H, (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford Lichfield)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Ford, P. J.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Womersley, W. J.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Gates, Percy

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Oakley, T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Gee, Captain R.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wragg, Herbert

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

  Pease, William Edwin

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Goff, Sir Park

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grace, John

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Major Hennessy and Major Cope.

  Grant. J. A.

  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move in page 3, line 11, column 2, to leave out the words " thirty-three and one-third," and to insert instead thereof the word " five."
  We have already had a discussion on the principle of this Amendment, but I am very anxious that we should not in a Measure of this kind impose a heavy burden on a great body of consumers without some corresponding advantage to the industry which it is sought to protect. In relation to the particular commodities set out in this part of the Schedule, I am persuaded, and apparently the Committee were persuaded, that if one sought to prohibit the import of such articles, a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would not be efficacious. One of the witnesses in favour of the tariff said that a tariff would be no use if it was less than 150 per cent., and from that point of view, the present proposal is not going to help employment in the industry. At the same time, large numbers of articles are coming in, and if you are going to put on a tariff as high as 33⅓ per cent., it is going to be a very serious matter for the purchasers of those goods. I have been interested to notice the result of the inquiries which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have been making into Sheffield affairs since our previous Debates. He has been producing old circulars of two years ago to show what the opinion of Sheffield was on the question of how to improve employment. I am amazed, in these circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman should have announced to us, as he did last night, that he has not had any consultation with the Balfour Committee on Trade and Industry. Sir Arthur Balfour, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, and who has, I believe, the confidence of the whole business community in this country, is a Sheffield man, and from his experience of Sheffield industry, I thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to draw valuable advice on a matter affecting employment in Sheffield. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has read the Report of the Committee, but if he has, he may have overlooked the following passage on page 12:
  "It is clear that other things being equal, a country like Great Britain which is one of the greatest consumers of imported materials and foodstuffs, must be in a relatively strong position for securing a full
  1262
  share of the export of manufactures by which payment for these materials and foodstuffs is made."
  That is the view of the Committee of which Sir Arthur Balfour is chairman in a Report issued some little time ago. They place a great deal of faith in the argument that if you have plenty of imports you are bound to have plenty of exports, and, elsewhere the Report makes it. clear that it is to the rehabilitation of our export trade that we must look to find the solution for unemployment in this country. That is borne out by an extract from the Board of Trade figures given on page 637. I find from these figures that for the period 1910-1913 the average of imports of articles solely or mainly manufactured was £150,000,000 per annum. In the same period the average exports, including re-exports, was £403,000,000 per annum. Judging by the suggestions which have been made from the other side, you would imagine that the position must have got worse since then, but has it? In 1024, I find, the net imports were £266,000,000 and the exports, including re-exports, £652,000,000. SO we find that almost automatically as the imports of manufactured goods into this country have increased so have our exports, according to the Board of Trade's own figures.
  From that, point of view, some of us fear very much that the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. will interfere very seriously with the volume of imports into this country, not from the point of view that it will help employment in the industries which it seeks to protect, because the goods in most cases are not comparable, but because it will raise the prices of the imported articles to such an extent that there will be a restricted use of those articles. Having regard to the finding of the Balfour Committee that we must depend on a really good volume of imports if we are to hope to get an increase in our export trade and thus provide more exployment. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see with us and reduce the amount of the duty from 33⅓ per cent. to 5 per cent. I do not say this in an offensive way, but it seems rather sharp practice, from a political point of view, for the cutlery industry to be having an inquiry and for pressure to be brought by the Government for that inquiry to be concluded before they had completed all the

  1263
  arrangements which they proposed to make for visiting the centre of the industry and ascertaining the real conditions, while at the same time you have a Committee of this important and far-reaching character set up last year, which has made a provisional Report and which, I believe, will shortly be able to report in more detail still, with regard to the general methods to be followed for improving the trade of this country.
  I hope that in those circumstances we shall get a reduction of this duty, so that too much damage will not be done before the Balfour Committee will have advised the Government in a different way and, I hope, the Government will have seen the error of their ways and have abandoned this rather stupid and futile policy of safeguarding.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will not be surprised if I do not accept his Amendment. Indeed, he was quite frank in proposing it, for he said his object was not to make the duty work, but to make it not work. He said, " You put on this duty with the object of keeping some goods out; I propose to reduce it to a level that will make it sure that no goods will be kept out, and that all the goods may come in." That may be one way of raising a revenue duty of 5 per cent., but that is not what we are here for. We are here to safeguard this industry. I do not propose to follow at any length the very interesting discourse he gave us upon the desirability of increasing your imports, irrespective of their character, in order that your exports might follow. To carry that to its logical conclusion—and he advised me to be logical in his. last speech but one— you would be careful in your ordinary private life to run up any number of bills in the hope, or, I suppose, the. certainty, that there would come to you the means of paying them.
  On that general statement, I would only say this, that it is very dangerous to quote the figures of a single country without seeing what has happened in other countries as well, and while it may be true, and is true, that this country has very slightly increased the volume of its export trade in manufactured articles in the last year—incidentally, not a little, I
  1264
  think, because of the development of trade within the Empire—other countries which do not accept the hen. Member's thesis, such as the United States of America and France and, I think, Belgium, have increased their exports of manufactured articles at a far more rapid rate than this country has. There were some interesting figures cited by the light hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) in a recent Debate, and there is no doubt at all that those countries have increased their export trade at. a far more rapid rate, and in greater proportion than this country has. I do not want to pursue that further, but I would only make that statement in order to show that you cannot draw any very certain deductions from formulae about exports and imports by citing one country alone.
  I think I could have done no greater disservice to the Balfour Committee than to have asked them to undertake an inquiry of this kind. At one time and another it has been suggested that a special thing should be referred to the Balfour Committee, a most valuable body, for an ad ho c inquiry. The Committee have begged me to lot them get on with their job on the broad lines on which they have undertaken it, and the last thing in the world that they want is that they should be interrupted in the wide survey of the whole industrial field which they have undertaken or in the order in which they are approaching their subjects, and I really cannot conceive that anything would have been less welcome to Sir Arthur Balfour and his Committee, for whose work I am intensely grateful, or less useful, than that I should have referred this inquiry to them instead of to an ad hoc Committee in accordance with the ordinary procedure.
  As regards the merits of this Amendment, nobody, I am sure, will pretend that where you have articles of varying prices, where you have between one and another a varying gap, where you have conditions which are not always' and at all times the same, it is possible to impose a duty or a series of duties which are always and in every case going to be mathematically accurate. Nobody will attempt to do that. The attempt to do that is what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Been) was criticising in the proposals of a predecessor of mine in a locked box. Theoretically they had

  1265
  an enormous amount of accuracy, much more than the kind of rough and ready duty of 33⅓ per cent., but in practice they would never work, and nobody would have objected more than the hon. and gallant Member would to constantly varying duties and to a great variety in the rates of duty. What we say is that this duty, while possibly not effective in every ease to exclude, will exclude in some cases, will give an encouragement to this trade, will enable manufacturers to produce on a bigger scale here, will thereby reduce their costs of production, will thereby —
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you believe it?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not merely believe it, I know it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I said that just to get you angry.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member has far sounder economic instincts than a great many other people on those benches, and it is no bad thing for the duty to leave a gap or two. It is a very good thing that some part of a gap is left here and there to be bridged. The House has approved of the principle of safeguarding this industry and has said it- is to be done by a duty. What is the issue before the Committee now? It is whether it shall be 33⅓ per cent., about which hon. Members opposite say that it may not be enough in every case to safeguard, or whether, instead of putting on 33⅓ per cent., we shall put on 5 per cent. That is the issue. The House has approved the principle, and the Committee is certainly not going to stultify itself by giving effect to this principle in a way which would make the principle utterly unworkable.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade quite naturally followed the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) into the discussion of the effect this duty was likely to have upon our imports. If he will forgive me for saying it, I think he took a totally inadequate view of the whole of our export and import problem when he compared it with the expenditure of a household. I should not be in order in describing the whole process of international payments to the right hon. Gentleman, although I feel sure there
  1266
  would be some excuse for doing so after what he has just said, but I would remind him of one simple fact, lie knows quite well that whenever a Frenchman, say, buys goods from this country, he does not pay for them in English gold. He pays for them in a bill, which is drawn either in francs or in sterling. If it is drawn in sterling, he has to buy the sterling in Paris to do it; he buys sterling from a banker; the only way in which the banker obtained the sterling was by turning into sterling what had been received for goods already sold from France to this country. The process is very simple, and well known to every bill broker, and I would urge my right hon. Friend, before the expounds theories on our international trade, to consult one of his bill broking friends in the City and see what actually is done with our bills of exchange. If he did that, he would have an entirely different conception of our international trade and one very different from the household analogy the has just given us.
  The importance of this Amendment is that it does bring the 33⅓ per cent. down from that high level to the level of what might be called a revenue duty. If 33⅓ per cent. is enough to keep the goods out of this country, it certainly would appear to be bridging a far wider gulf, as far as we can toll, than even the manufacturers themselves have asked. The exhibits which were handed in by the Cutlers' Association have been quoted again and again to this House, and the fact is that the differences between the Sheffield prices and costs of production and the prices at which these foreign goods were landed here were in some cases 250 per cent. and in some cases 300 per cent. The 33⅓ per cent. duty does not fill that immense gap. It certainly in those instances is not likely to keep those goods out of the country. Is it likely to bring about exactly what the right hon. Gentleman suggests? I hope, and I am sure, he is dominated by the necessity of providing more employment, and I suggest that the best way in which to provide more employment is by adding to the facility with which trade is conducted, by increasing our national turnover, by removing obstacles to commerce, and so adding activity to our ports and railways.
  The right hon. Gentleman is always thinking in small compartments. His

  1267
  thought now is entirely for those engaged in cutlery. He refuses to think of those engaged in the transport industry, where there is a far greater body of men suffering at the present time from a far deeper degree of unemployment, and anything which would bring more work to men in their thousands would be of far greater benefit than bringing more work to the cutlers in their scores. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to preserve a sense of proportion. I would ask him to preserve it in a very simple degree, and to realise that in our great transport system, railways, ports and docks, there is a far greater body of men effected by any obstacles put in the way of trade than is likely to receive benefit by the barriers he proposes to erect against foreign imports. The 33⅓ per cent has no virtue in it. The right hon. Gentleman himself said it was a rough-and-ready duty; that is to say, there is no scientific method about it. It is not the scientific tariff of the old days. It is not justified in the case of these materials. It has no practical bearing on the judgment of these committees, and, if it had, I do not know we need be guided by the judgment of the committees, because other committees, taking a far wider view of British commerce, have pointed out in their reports the dangers into which we shall fall if we interfere drastically with the flow of trade in and out of this country. Thirty-three and one-third per cent. adds roughly one-third to the cost of all commodities covered in this Schedule. It will add one-third to the cost of the tools of a very large number of men who work with their hands.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the risk of prices rising to the full level of one-third extra will be met by a larger output. He has no guarantee from anybody that they will not raise the price right up to the market level, any more than he has from the employers, that because of this artificial assistance, they will raise wages 1d. a week. The individuals who are affected "by these duties require our consideration, and what we are pleading for is that the duty which they will have to bear in the increased price of their tools shall be reduced from one-third to one-twentieth. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted a passage from the Committee's Report, in
  1268
  which they spoke with a certain amount of contempt of the extra amount which will have to be paid, say, by the cobbler. The cobbler will not take that view of it. He, along with a very large number of people, regard a third added to the cost of their tools as being a burden which ought not to be placed on them for the benefit of anybody else. Let me mention a few of the people affected by this duty. There are the butcher, plumber, painter, glazier, hedger, blacksmith, cobbler, gardener, tailor, sailor, pattern-maker, paper-hanger, weaver, the shipwright and the joiner.
  Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: The Boy Scouts.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Why should we out an extra duty on the Boy Scouts? It is a most excellent movement which the hon. Gentleman should support, and the best way he can do it is to move au Amendment to the Schedule. He has made no contribution to our Debates, and we cannot say we, are indebted to him for light thrown on these rather difficult problems. The President of the Board of Trade, by adhering to a 33⅓ per cent. duty, adding one third to the cost of all these articles, is going to make it a little more difficult—it may not be much—for those who wish to accumulate their tools and equip their households. The house-holder. I gainer, very seldom comes into the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, though, the householder surely requires our consideration. Those who are setting up house find it difficult enough to gather together enough cutlery, just as those setting up in trade find it difficult enough to accumulate the money to equip themselves fully with tools.
  I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has ever realised how sensitive the workman is about his tools-., I used to observe, when I was working: in a shipyard, that there was no misery which oppressed a man so much as when at some period of his career he had to sell his tools to keep his house over his head. It is one of the most painful events in the life of the man who, during an unfortunate period, cannot get enough income to keep his household together. Now the right hon. Gentleman is going to make it more difficult for him to do so. If he wants revenue, it is quite true

  1269
  that 5 per cent. will bring him in a certain amount, but what he will get out of 33⅓ Per cent. no one knows. This 33⅓ per cent. duty, which he said was rough-and-ready, has certainly not been the product of any wise financial brain, and, so far as I can understand, it bears no direct relationship with the trades concerned. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, and, if he does so, let it be clearly understood that those who want to add one-third to the cost of these commodities will have to answer for it to a very large number of workmen all over the country.
  Mr. REMER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is very fond of lecturing the Committee, but I think he might give credit to some others in this House who are engaged in business. The right hon. Gentleman has told us the same thing that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) has told us about this old story of imports and exports, that the more you buy from abroad the more you are bound to export. I am certain, from my experience of business, that the thing we have got to do is to put our export trade right first, and it is as true to say that we are paying for our exports by our imports as it is true to say we are paying for our imports by our exports. I am certain. if we come to analyse it, these duties will not prevent imports, but will change the character of the imports, and it is the change in the character of these imports which is so important in finding employment in our country. While I, personally, as a Protectionist, accept the theory of goods paying for goods, the action of a protective tariff is to dictate the form in which our exports are paid for—the type of imports sent to us; in other words, we shall receive the raw material and foodstuffs we require, and the manufactured goods we do not require will be prevented from coming in. We do not object to imports. What we object to is the character of those imports which is causing great unemployment in our country, and preventing our people having the standard of life which every right-minded person in this country desires them to have.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into the economic profundities he has been discussing. I want, rather, to try to turn
  1270
  my attention to finding out something more about what has led to the adoption of this figure of 33⅓, because the President of the Board of Trade has really given us something more than the Parliamentary Secretary gave us. When we last discussed this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary was pinning his simple faith on the White Paper. Anything that was in the Report was swallowed; anything there he was prepared to take, and I gathered that it was his conviction that the 33⅓ per cent. was the correct amount with which to safeguard this industry, that is to say, fill up the gap between the cost of producing those goods in this country and the cost of producing them abroad. But now we have got quite a different story from the President of he Board of Trade, who tells us that this 33⅓ per cent. is an entirely rough figure. It may not be the correct amount to apply to anyone of these articles. I think, having regard to the very long list of articles that we have in the Schedule, he might have indicated to us how many of these articles would require a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and how many would require a lesser amount.
  In those eases, which, I gather, form a very large proportion of these articles, where there is really no comparison between home production and foreign production, because the articles are entirely different, and the difference in cost of production is 100 per cent. or 200 per cent., it is quite clear that this 33⅓ per cent. cannot take effect at all. But there are some people who seem to be very keen on these duties, and I want to know who are the people who are going to profit by them. The firms in the cutlery trade vary very greatly in efficiency, and the 33⅓ per cent. in some cases may not give enough and in others give enormous profits. It is said that the granting of this 33⅓ per cent. to this trade is going to enable some sort of activity to take place which is going to fill up the rest of the gap. Has anyone ever beard of a tariff of this sort stimulating the improvement of trade? Our experience always has been the contrary. About a year and a half ago I met a couple of American manufacturers, who were actually applying to Congress to have duties taken off their particular

  1271
  trade, on the ground that if only there was a, little foreign competition it would stimulate and be good for that trade.
  Mr. HANNON: Would the hon. Gentleman give the Committee some information about the particular people? We have never heard of this before.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I do not know that at this distance of time I could give the hon. Member full particulars, but I met these people in the lobby of this House. They were introduced to me as manufacturers.
  Mr. HANNON: Was the hon. Member not surprised?
  Mr. ATTLEE: I was, and I expressed my surprise. I have been accustomed to Protectionists of the type of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who is always crying out, " Give, give give," and to find a Tariff Reform Protectionist of a quite different type was startling to me. I have never heard it suggested by anyone. I have heard many speeches of the hon. Member for Moseley, but I have never heard him suggest that, by the putting on of a tariff you were going to give a stimulus to the trade concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that he is in such a hurry to get on with this matter, that he has not been able to wait for the very valuable Report of the Balfour Committee. He paid a very well-deserved tribute to that Committee, but surely, before dealing with this 33⅓ per cent. which he is going to put on the just and the unjust, which he is going to place on articles that do not need it and those that do, it would have been better to have had the Report of the Balfour Committee. If we had had the Report of the Balfour Committee it might have shown whether there was any other way of getting over this gap. It might have given us some other of the factors in the run of the trade. It certainly appears to me that while it might, quite rightly, be wrong from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, to ask the Balfour Committee for certain information on this point, while they are engaged, as he says, on a very large survey, surely the same considerations also apply to their stepping in and putting on a 33⅓ per cent. duty before they have got the Report of the Committee?
  1272
  We have really not had anything from the right hon. Gentleman to justify the 33⅓ per cent. What is the magic of that figure? It seems to me curious that 33⅓ per cent. should be exactly the right amount to apply to cutlery and also right to apply to gloves, although the competing countries are different in the two cases. The industries are entirely different; yet this magic 33⅓ per cent. goes in. I suggest that 5 per cent. would be better, because I believe the approximation, and a certain figure based on a large number of articles as a whole is bad. The only evidence we have had on this matter is from those people who do not understand trade. It seems perfectly clear that the cutlery that we buy and that is involved here is the cheap foreign stuff, which I think we had better be without. When I go into a store and buy cutlery, I want it made of Sheffield steel and of the best. The comparison between the articles made at home and abroad is not a true one. There is no competition between them. As a matter of fact, the 33⅓ per cent. is not going to do anything. What actually is going to happen is, that the people who cannot afford the best articles and have to buy the cheap type of article, the cheap imported article, will have the additional tax to pay on it.
  It is suggested it will be good for British trade. But the people who have to buy these cheap articles are the very poor, and I want to see the reduction of 33⅓ per cent. to 5 per cent. because we have had enough already this year of putting taxation on the backs of those who are least able to bear it. This proposal has been called Protection. It has been hailed with joy by the Protectionists below the Gangway. I do not believe it will achieve its object. It is badly aimed. It is simply a piece of class taxation in which the users of the worst type of goods, who are the poorest, are going to be made to pay heavily. I support the 33⅓ per cent. reduction to 5 per cent. on the general principle of taking taxes off the people who cannot afford to pay them.
  Mr. HALL CA1NE; I. did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I would say how sorry I am to see the Free Trade case going so badly that hon. Members on the Front Opposition Benches think it necessary to vilify hon. Members who have spoken or the Government Benches—
  Mr. ATTLEE: Who did?
  Mr. HANNON: The hon. Gentleman made use of the most insulting expression about an hon. Member near me.
  Mr. HALL CAINE: At any rate, Mr. Hope, it is not my intention to use any insulting words of any Member of this House. I would just like to refer for the two moments that I shall detain the House to one or two points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). He has discovered a rara avis among Protectionists. He is always telling us that hon. Members on the Government side, and those who are manufacturers and Protectionists, are trying to get tariffs put on and kept on as long as possible. I am delighted to hear that he has found two men in. America who wish to see their tariffs reduced. That is exactly my position in the matter. If you give us manufacturers a fair show and a fair chance by putting on a duty we shall be the first to ask that competition shall again be started in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I have lived in Protectionist countries and know something about it and something about manufactures. The other point is this: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman is confusing the question of lower tariffs with what occurred so largely in places like Canada, where, of course, you get the farmer asking follower tariffs because he wants to get his implements cheap.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember that we are dealing with the duty on cutlery.
  Mr. HALL CAINE: I am sorry, for I realise that the question before the House is this Amendment as to whether or not we shall reduce the 33⅓ per cent. to 5 per cent. Any business man, when it comes to the question of considering what the duty on a certain article should be, would, I suggest, do exactly what the President of the Board of Trade has done, refer the matter to an expert Committee to investigate. An expert Committee has looked into this matter, and has given us a full Report, and, if I remember the Report aright, it pointed out that even the 33⅓ per cent. duty would not cover the whole of the question. Five per cent. is a ridiculous figure. In some of the cases in these reports we have seen the amount of the duty has been worked out
  1274
  to a nicety—to a fine point. There are some duties which are at present not before the House where the matter has been argued out to a fine point on the article. The difference in hours and wages, and so on. It is because the only duty which can be put on with any degree of impartiality is 33⅓ per cent. duty that this was suggested here. I certainly hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, for the effect of the proposal will be that the industry will have some fair chance of rehabilitation, and those concerned will have the opportunity of bringing them round to a decent state of protection, so that we may keep up the particular industry to its place in the country.
  Major CRAWFURD: It is suggested that the 5 per cent. proposed in the Amendment is a ridiculous figure. Our contention is that for all practical and relevant purposes 5—or 10 per cent. down in another Amendment—is much more near the proper duty than the 33⅓ per cent. put forward. Over and over again in these Debates we have put forward—I think we have sustained our point—that, the articles imported are not comparable to those manufactured in this country. They are articles of a different class, and of a very much lower price, so that as between 33⅓ and 5 it is likely that the 5 per cent. would more nearly touch the article concerned. I am not going into the list which has been quoted. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench on this side has already quoted it at length. I will just take one; the type of German razor which is now imported at 9s. per dozen, and about which Sheffield claims that if these were manufactured in Sheffield in 1925 they would cost £l 9s. 11d. per dozen. It would appear quite clearly that neither 5 nor 33⅓ per cent.—nor 100 per cent.—duty would be any good in that particular case. So far as that class is concerned, none of these duties we are discussing really apply.
  Our argument is that, whatever duty is put on to that type of cheap article the sole effect of it will be to raise the price to the home consumer. The President of the Board of Trade said the other day in this connection that the conditions in Germany were beginning to approximate to conditions here. Wages were going up, and the cost of produc-

  1275
  tion was going up, and he thought that the Government were taking a very reasonable line, seeing the price of German articles was going up, and so near the price of the English article, and that the duty they proposed would be effective. Might I remind the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) that the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain suggested a maximum 10 per cent.—
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Average!
  Major CRAWFURD: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chamberlain suggested that in a general tariff on manufactured articles the maximum amount that would be necessary would be 10 per cent. These are exceptional cases. We say that 5 per cent.—or if the hon. Member (Mr. Attlee) will allow me, a 10 per cent. duty-would be ample to secure protection to the manufacturers in this country who are making articles which are comparable to the articles which are being imported. Therefore, we say that this Amendment is not ridiculous. It is really a practical suggestion, because it is designed to meet those cases where the imported articles are really comparable.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), who broke the silence from the opposite side and contributed something to the theory of this subject, is, I think, entirely wrong. There is only one reason why goods are exported, and that is because somebody in some other place wants to buy them. There is only one reason why goods are imported, and that is because somebody here wants to buy them. If we keep these goods out we are going to prevent somebody who wants something here from getting it, and prevent somebody who can send something out of this country sending out something that is wanted elsewhere.
  Finally, may I put a question to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon)? I think the hon. Member who last spoke from the Opposition Front Bench has entirely misunderstood the purpose of these duties. They are not to give profits to manufacturers, they are not to raise prices; their sole purpose is to give employment to and increase the wages of British workmen. It is on that ground that they have been arguing. May I ask the hon. Member for Moseley—who we all know is concerned, and very honourably concerned, with great industries in
  1276
  this country, and who in this House speaks on those industries authoritatively and with the support of people engaged in them—is there to his knowledge in the industries now concerned— gloves, cutlery and gas mantles—any arrangement, any plan, any contract, however tentative, that has been come to between employers and their workmen, that if this duty is imposed wages will be increased? I would very much like him to answer that question before we go to a division.
  Mr. DENNISON: This question of a duty on cutlery has excited wide interest. If there is to be a duty of either 5 per cent. or 33⁓ per cent., the Committee ought to be informed by the Prime Minister of the findings of the Civil Re-search Committee regarding the steel trade as a whole. We ought not to come to a decision as to whether we will tax a certain section of the steel trade or not until we know the decision of the Government as to the measure of protection they may give to the steel trade.
  The CHAIRMAN; That would have been a very proper argument on Second Reading, or perhaps on Clause 1, but on this specific Amendment dealing with a duty of 33⅓ per cent. or 5 per cent., I am afraid it is not admissible.
  Mr. DENNISON: I understand that one of the main objects of the tax, whether it be 5 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent., is to increase employment, and I suggest that we are entitled to take the same view of the effect of the duty on cutlery as on gloves and gas mantles. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Basil Peto) said yesterday, if I am quoting him correctly, that since the agitation for the safeguarding of the glove industry, something like two years' supplies of gloves had been imported into this country. Since this agitation, three years' supplies of gas mantles have been imported into this country. But for this agitation a great proportion of these gas mantles would not have come in.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks on that subject should come on the Amendment dealing with gas mantles.
  Captain BENN: On that point, Mr. Chairman, shall we be allowed to discuss the rate of duty on gas mantles? Will you select it?
  The CHAIRMAN: If I am asked through the usual channels to select it, I gladly will.
  Mr. DENNISON: My only point was to know if any evidence has been submitted that there have been the same importations of cutlery from abroad sine the agitation for Safeguarding. It that has happened in the cutlery trade, it will increase instead of decrease unemployment.
  Mr. BECKETT: I hope the President of the Board of Trade may be persuaded to give us a little more information before we vote on this Amendment. I believe this Vote will tell the country and interested persons quite definitely what is the object of the Government in introducing these measures. Last evening we were discussing what would be an appropriate title for this Bill. The vote on this Amendment will show us. I would like to hear from the President of the Board of Trade whether the object of this duty is to enable our own manufacturers, who at present are not able to compete with the very cheap razors, etc., which are imported into this country, to make an effort to capture, that market, and whether it is hoped they will produce cheaper goods when the foreign goods are excluded, and so provide our people with an approximately reasonably priced article? Or is it merely the hope that the extent of the duty placed on the goods will be the extent of the extra profits the manufacturers will 'be allowed to make? If the object of the Government—and it is quite a reasonable one, and there is a great deal to be said for it—is merely to put such a hindrance on goods produced under sweated conditions that our own manufacturers are enabled to produce goods to compete with them, what on earth can be the objection to this Amendment? If we are going to say that, although our industries will make every possible effort to replace foreign goods, it is still necessary to give them a 33⅓ per cent. start over the rest of the world, we are really making to the whole world a lamentable confession of our bankruptcy in industrial efficiency.
  We have heard, at very great length, statements which have not been challenged from the opposite benches, as to the regrettable inefficiency and the bad conditions which are rife in this industry. The Committee ought to pause
  1278
  before imposing such a high tax upon these goods that there will be no stimulus to our industries. If we put on a 33⅓ per cent. tariff, an absurd rate of duty, we take away from the British manufacturer the stimulus to compete in the cheaper classes of goods. We shut out the cheaper classes of goods from abroad. We make it impossible for our people to get cheap knives or razors or gloves, or other things. They, in (heir turn, will find it impossible to live on their low wages when the price of everything has been raised by high import duties, and they will come forward and say, "We must have more wages in order to meet the higher charges which your protective duties are imposing." In paying those higher wages, manufacturers will be throwing away any so-called advantage they may gain from this tariff. If they benefit—[An Hon. MEMBER: "If they benefit?"] The hon. Member opposite will forgive us, in view of the record of his own party, if we are not certain, without seeing it in black and white in the legislation in front of us, that his party have any intention that these people shall benefit. Give us some reason or guarantee. Put up somebody on the Treasury Bench to tell us, so that we can find out if our people are to get any advantage. The Prime Minister is in his place. He has often expressed his hope that the. common people of this country will get some benefit, but he, together with all his chief officers, is signally silent during this Debate. We get no reasons at all. We merely see an automatic majority coming along without argument and imposing duties which are going to put up the cost of living. When the cost of living rises, you have to go on increasing wages or you have a strike, and either of them cost you a lot of money.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have an argument as to the rise in the cost of living on an Amendment dealing with cutlery.
  Mr. BECKETT: Cutlery is a commodity that is used in every home. A very large number of things are going to be taxed, according to the Schedule, and I submit that that justifies the fear that the very narrow margin between extreme poverty and the ability to exist fairly comfortably will be overcome if we agree to this 33⅓ per cent. increase in taxation. I hope

  1279
  before the Committee says quite definitely that it does not care a hang about the consumer, and does not care a hang about stimulating industry, as long as it can guarantee 33⅓ per cent. increased profit to its friends in the steel industry —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—if we are going to commit ourselves to that statement, then not only the few of us on these benches at present, but the many in the country who are watching these increased duties, and these increases in the cost of living with very great trepidation, will know what to think when they hear professions that these duties are imposed not in order to make profits but in order that the poor people of the country may find employment.
  Mr. HANNON: I only rise because I do not wish the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) to think I am wanting in courtesy after the question he put to me. I have no direct connection with the cutlery industry, but I would remind him and the hon. Members on the Labour benches that the strongest advocates of the duty on cutlery before the Committee of Inquiry were the representatives of the trade unions of that industry.
  Mr. BECKETT: May I ask the hon. Member if he, has had the privilege of seeing the evidence?
  Mr. HANNON: I have not had the privilege of seeing the evidence.
  Mr. BECKETT: Then how do you know?
  Mr. HANNON: I have been informed by persons upon whose authority I rely. We have had reports in the newspapers. After all, (his inquiry was held in public, and, if hon. Members were so anxious to acquaint themselves with what occurred during the inquiry, they ought to have sent some representatives to ascertain the real value of the evidence submitted. In this particular inquiry, the extraordinary fact was brought out that the actual remuneration for labour in Germany was only 62 per cent. of he wages paid here, and it was also brought out that the actual amount of labour employed in the production of cutlery goods, taking them as a whole, was 55 per cent. Giving labour its reasonable proportion over German labour, on making
  1280
  a calculation, it is found that the difference would just be met by the 33⅓ per cent. which it is proposed to impose in this Bill. As a matter of fact, in order adequately to protect the cutlery trade we ought to have a duty of about 66 per cent. If I had pleaded for this industry I would have urged the President of the Board of Trade, instead of a duty of 33⅓ per cent., to put on s, duty of 66 per cent. In relation to the cutlery industry we are in the same position with regard to hon. Members above the Gangway as we are on all questions affecting the safety of British industries.
  Major CRAWFURD: I understood the hon. Member got up to answer my question.
  Mr. HANNON; No, I got up to make a speech on this Amendment. If hon. Members opposite will examine the evidence, they will see that the trade unionists connected with the cutlery trade made a strong request in favour of this duty. The Conservative party are the real representatives of the working classes of this country, and when we make a proposal for safeguarding industries—
  The CHAIRMAN: I have to mention for the fifth time that we are now dealing with the specific duty on cutlery.
  Mr. HANNON: Yes, and my argument, Mr. Chairman, is part of the general plan for dealing with cutlery. I am quite prepared to go to Sheffield and justify this Bill in debate. We know very well that the trades concerned in Sheffield and the wage earners there have no sympathy with the attitude which has been taken up by hon. Members opposite of this question, and when they come to appeal to the electorate in Sheffield they will find that the workers will condemn the attitude which they have taken up in regard to this Bill.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I deny the statement that the hon. Member opposite has just made that the Conservative party represent a majority of the working people of this country. With regard to the question of trade unionists who supported, we are told, these proposals, it does seem to me that we are entitled to ask that the evidence given before these committees should be published. It is all very well for the hon. Member who has just spoken

  1281
  to say that we should send our representatives to these committees, but there are other things we have to do such as getting a living. I do not say that that is peculiar to us, and the hon. Member who has just sat down is apparently able to attend the committees. Personally, I think we are bound to take notice when goods are purchased at home or abroad under bad conditions, and I deny altogether that this piecemeal, pettifogging way of dealing with this subject is creditable cither to the Government or to this House. The proper thing to do, if it be true that British industry is being ruined by sweated labour in other parts of the world, is not to single out a trumpery industry like the glove trade, which I am told employs only about 10,000 people, or anyone of these particular industries because we know perfectly well that the great staple industries of the country are not being dealt with. What I object to is that we should be spending all this time discussing a method that history has already proved has not been effective in dealing with this evil.
  I am willing to argue in favour of the total prohibition of the import of goods manufactured under sweated conditions, and, if the Government would set up a Committee to discuss the question from that point of view, I think we should be able to hammer out an agreement, but it must be one that will cover not only these small trades but; the great big staple industries, and it must be an inquiry carried on in conjunction with other countries and other Governments. We have been told that these duties will not keep out the goods which are to be taxed, but at any rate you will penalise the unhappy working people in other countries more than they are now penalised, and is it not a sheer waste of time and contrary to the facts to say that these duties are going to help the unemployed? They will do nothing of the sort, and we all know it, and for these reasons every time I get a chance I shall vote against these duties. Personally, I feel that neither on this side nor on the opposite side of the House are we settling this question in an effective manner.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) said he intervened in the Debate for the purpose of showing that he did not wish to be discourteous by not answering a question which had been put to him. May I state that the hon. Member went right away from that point and advocated the imposition of a duty of 66⅔ per cent., and that carried him away from the main issue. L rise merely to repeat the question and to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member merely referred to certain newspaper reports which nobody had ever seen. Under these circumstances, I think we are entitled to look for our information to the Minister in charge of the Bill, and I ask him whether he has a scrap or tittle of evidence to show that any of the people who will be benefited by these duties intend to set aside one penny of their extra profits in order to improve the conditions of the workers, their hours of labour, or the wages of their employés. If there be any such evidence then it ought to be produced. We hold that these duties are a dole to the manufacturers, and we should like to hear from some representative of the Government what he has to say to the contrary.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: We believe that these duties will stimulate trade and bring about a general improvement.
  Captain GARRO-JONES: But why have no arrangements been made in this respect? I should have thought that the manufacturers would have called their employés together to give an opinion upon this point.
  Captain W. BENN: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that he has brought in a Bill guaranteeing higher profits to the manufacturers, and that he has done nothing to guarantee a higher wage to the workers?
  Question put, "That the words 'thirty-three and one-third' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 132.

  Division No. 490.]

  AYES.

  [6.40 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. B., Skipton)

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Preston, William

  Bourne Captain Robert Croft

  Harland. A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Raine, W.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Ramsden E.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Harvey G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harvey, Major S. E, (Devon, Totnes)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Briscoe. Richard George

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Remer J. R.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Rentoul, G.S.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Burman J. B.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ropner, Major L.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Rusell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hills. Major John Walter

  Rye, F. G.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hilton, Cecil

  Salmon, Major I.

  Cadogan Major Hon. Edward

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Caine, Gordon Hall

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Sandeman. A. Stewart

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

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Sandon, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

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

  Chruchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Clarry, Reginald George

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Cohen, Major J, Brunei

  Jephcott A. R.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Cooper, A. Cuff

  Kidd J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Couper, J. B.

  King Captain Henry Douglas

  Smith-Carington. Neville W.

  Courtald Major J. S.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Smithers. Waldron

  Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)

  Knox Sir Alfred

  Sprot Sir Alexander

  Craig, Ernest (Chester Crewe)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lister, Cunliffe,- Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Crooke. J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lougher, L.

  Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.

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

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Crookshank, Col. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stuart. Crichton-, Lord C.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Stuart. Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

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

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J.H.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Templeton, W. P.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Maclaren, Andrew

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Drewe C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Elveden Viscount

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Waddington, R.

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Wallace. Captain D. E.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Meller, R. J.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Meyer' Sir Frank.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Fermoy, Lord

  Milne, J. W. Wardlaw.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fielden, E. B.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Wells, S. R.

  Ford. P. J.

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

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Murchison, C. K.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wilson, r. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Gates, Percy

  Neville, R. .

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Gee. Captain R.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gibbs, Col. Rt.. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Oakley. T.

  Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Grace, John

  Pease, William Edwin

  Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wragg, Herbert

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Philipson, Mabel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Major Cope and Major Hennesy.

  NOES.

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

  Ammon, Charles George

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Baker, Walter

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Harney, E. A.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Barnes, A.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Sexton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Briant, Frank

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Bromley, J.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smillie, Robert

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Snell, Harry

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy, T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Connolly, M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lansbury, George

  Sutton, J. E.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawson, John James

  Taylor, R. A

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lee, F.

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

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lowth, T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Day, Colonel Harry

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

  Thurtle, E.

  Dennison, R.

  Mackinder, W.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Duckworth, John

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Townend, A. E.

  Dunnico, H.

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  England, Colonel A.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Morris, R. H.

  Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, North)

  Westwood, J,

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Whiteley, W.

  Gosling, Harry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Greenall, T.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Groves, T.

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Grundy, T. W.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring

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

  Riley, Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ritson, J.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

  Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

  Warne.

  Hardie, George D.

  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 12 and 13.
  This Amendment deals with the question of safety razors, an issue which I think has not been dealt with before in any specific Amendment. Safety razors fall into a class of articles quite different from any of the others included in these Schedules. I feel that the President of the Board of Trade himself will probably agree that safety razors are perhaps the weakest part of his whole case, and I venture to say that a very little inquiry into the situation shows that safety razors, on the assumptions of the Government themselves, ought not to have been included in this case. About 75 per cent. or more of the safety razors sold in this country come from the United States, and the Committee will be quite aware why that is so. The safety razor from abroad which is sold in this country is mainly the Gillette razor, which is the razor with quality. The Gillette razor fulfils not a single one of the conditions which the White Paper lays down as the
  1286
  conditions which must be fulfilled before a duty ought to be imposed. It is not sold at a price which undercuts the British manufacturer; it is sold at a very high price. It is not produced under unfair conditions of labour; it is produced under a system of wages far better than in our own country. It is not causing unemployment; there is DO proof that a single man is out of work in this country on account of the importation of the Gillette razor.
  The safety razor manufacturers in this country appointed one of their number, Mr. Rodgers, to give evidence before the Committee, and Mr. Rodgers stated that he had put up works in October of last year, that he could sell from those works all the razors he could produce, and that he was going to put up new works in January next to produce 1,000 dozen razors a week. He stated that there was no unemployment in the manufacture of safety razors, and that there was no difficulty in selling every razor or razor blade that British manufacturers could produce. The Gillette razor, so far from

  1287
  creating unemployment, has created work, because this rising and expanding industry, the manufacture of safety razors in this country, would never have come into existence but for the change of fashion which the Gillette razor brought about. Therefore, the first point that we wish to put to the President of the Board of Trade is that there is no proof that there is any unemployment in this branch of the cutlery trade, and there is no proof that the putting on of this tariff is going to give an hour's extra work to a single soul.
  On the other hand, there is, as the apprehension of firms in Sheffield itself shows, the very gravest anxiety lest the imposition of this tariff is going to throw hundreds of men out of work. What is the position? The Gillette Company buys its steel from Sheffield. It buys steel to produce 40,000,000 blades for sale in the British market, and, having gone to Sheffield, it is now buying from there, in addition, the steel to produce the 280,000,000 blades that it sells in all quarters of the world. In this way, on a rough calculation, it is causing to be distributed in Sheffield wages amounting to about £100,000 a year. If this tariff of 33⅓ per cent. is put on, it is perfectly evident that the Gillette Company, naturally and properly, must somehow economise in order to meet the conditions that the tariff creates. Where are their directions for economy? The firms in Sheffield—and, after all, their views are entitled to be known in this House—the firms in Sheffield who are employing hundreds of men in making the steel for these blades are apprehensive, from what they know, that the most obvious economy which the Gillette Company can secure is to buy its steel from Sweden, where there is reason to believe that, if they would put up with the inconvenience of the change, with which I will deal in a moment, a certain economy, amounting to about 10 per cent., might perhaps be secured. I believe—
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Is that on the value of the steel or on the value of the razor?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: It is 10 per cent. on the value of the steel. During the week-end, since this Amendment was put down, I received, and I believe every Member of the House received, a copy
  1288
  of some letters which had been sent, I think, to the President of the Board of Trade, by two very large firms mainly concerned in Sheffield, and their views certainly ought to be known. One of these firms, Messrs. Jonas and Colver, Limited, writes as follows:—
  "From our own knowledge of our own supplies, in conjunction with the information from Mr. Peter Macgregor, of Messrs. Sanderson Bros, and Newbould, Ltd., Sheffield, we have no hesitation in saying that we have shipped jointly in 12 months to the Gillette Company, of Boston, U.S.A., blade steel to the. value of one million dollars, including the United 3tates duty "—
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: How much is that?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: It is a duty of 20 per cent. It was not raised as much as the others—it is a quarterly tariff—and it is only 20 per cent. Messrs. Jonas and Colver go on to say:—
  "As the business has provided steady work for our furnaces, and for our steel strip and cold rolling, mills, we view with nothing short of alarm the introduction of any factor which might, jeopardise, even in a degree, this trade, which it is important to note is well established."
  Here is another letter, from Messrs. Sanderson and Newbould, of Sheffield. They say:—
  "During the last few years the crucible steel trade in Sheffield has been heavily handicapped by the duties imposed by competing nations, and it has been a God-send to Messrs. Jonas and Colver, Ltd., and ourselves that we have been able to give employment to the extent, we hare in producing safety razor steel for the United States."
  That is the view of the firms whose fortunes are at stake.
  I think I can prophesy the reply which the President of the Board of Trade is going to make. It was suggested in a short speech made yesterday. It is that, if the Gillette Company can save 10 per cent. on the cost of their raw material by buying their steel from Sweden, they will do so anyhow, whether this tariff is imposed or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Exactly, that is the argument, but the point is that that argument takes no account of what is important in business—it takes no account of the force of established connection, of arrangements which have been made and which have been working for years; it takes no account of the very element of good will.

  1289
  The fact is that the Gillette Company have practically, so to speak, trained these two firms in Sheffield to produce this particular type of steel, according to a formula which they themselves have provided.
  Colonel APPLIN: Will the hon. Member tell the Committee why Mr. Gillette should not do what Mr. Ford has done, namely, bring his factory over here and make the razors here on the spot where the sales are made?
  Mr. T. SHAW: Because we had not the sense to keep Mr. Gillette in his own country.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to develop the point I am making. I am developing the point that there is a threat to the work of some hundreds of men in these two firms. Will he allow me to deal with these men on whose behalf I am speaking, and not go into larger issues of the protective tariff?
  Colonel APPLIN: Will you answer my question?
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, I am going to answer that question. I must deal with the question whether a protective tariff does induce foreign manufacturers to come to this country.
  Colonel APPLIN: It has in the case of Ford.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is a particular point referring to this razor, and I was answering the argument which has been made why, if that razor company could economise by going to Sweden, they do not go there now? My answer is that they have built up this connection. They have practically educated two firms to produce their steel according to the formula which they have invented. They might go to Sweden. Going to Sweden would mean considerable inconvenience and trouble. It would mean a loss. They would have to train new firms in Sweden. It would mean, at any rate for a time, perhaps the risk of a deterioration in the quality of the steel out of which their blades are made. Therefore, there is at the present moment a specific disadvantage in making a change. The point is that if this duty is imposed and they are com-
  1290
  pelled to economise, then they are in the position in which it becomes to then interest to consider whether this disadvantage should be faced and an alter native source of cheaper supply should not be opened up. Hon. Members may argue as to the degree of risk involved, but nobody will deny that there is some risk, and the point the Committee have to consider is that we are taking this risk of imposing a tariff on an industry in which there is not a man unemployed in the land. That is why we say this particular article stands in a category quite different from those which have been included. What the Government are doing is to impose a duty which will not give extra employment to a single man. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because the trade is full of work already, and, in doing this, they are jeopardising the employment of hundreds of men who are fortunately in work to-day. For that reason I ask that this duty should be withdrawn.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have listened to an interesting economic discourse from a supporter of the Fordney tariff in the United States. I am concerned to defend this proposal from the point of view of industry in this country rather than from the point of view of industry in any other country I say this advisedly. I defend this proposal on the positive ground that it is necessary in the interests of the cutlery industry, and on the negative ground that there is no possible reason for acceding to the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Gentleman. We take the positive side first. In the first place, we are dealing with the cutlery industry as a whole. You have firms which are not confined to making one class of article. The hon. Gentleman cited Messrs. Rodgers, a firm well known. They are by no means confined to one class of commodity. I should have thought if one thing was plainer than another it was this, that, if you are going to secure an industry which has many items in its different processes of manufacture, and that, broadly speaking, as here, a case is undoubtedly made out for this industry, then it is essential in the interests of the employers and of the workers in that industry, who are not always engaged in the same process, and as fashions change may find it most

  1291
  necessary to pass from one manufacture to another, that your duty in its purview should cover the general field of the industry. It would indeed be unwise on that ground alone to omit a very important item, that of safety razors and safety razor blades.
  It does not rest on that general problem alone. The hon. Gentleman said that Sheffield was faced with competition from Gillette blades. That is not the problem with which Sheffield is faced. The problem as presented to the Committee is not that we cannot face in Sheffield the competition of the Gillette factory—I think we can—but what we cannot face with present conditions of hours and wages and so on is the competition of the German blades. The hon. Gentleman has said that they are small in amount, £15,000; a very large number when you come to consider the articles that compose a £. When if suits them to quote value it is value; when it suits them to quote volume it is, volume, and when it suits them to quote neither they go into general principles.
  But our proposal docs not rest on the amount of importation which exists at the present time.
  The hon. Gentleman invited me to carry my investigations further into the report of the Committee. I have done so and I find this—I do not think he can deny it. Go and ask any man in Sheffield, and you will find that, low as the importation of German blades has been up to the present time, at this moment you could obtain offers in Sheffield from Germany of almost unlimited deliveries of these blades on a scale which if you had no safeguarding against it, might very well overwhelm not only the Sheffield production, but the American sales in this country as well. Therefore, I say, on the general ground, that it would be most unwise to exclude. from the Cutlery Duty this important article, and, on the particular ground of the competition which the industry has to face in regard to these articles, the case is fully made out for the imposition of this duty. There are Members representing Sheffield who, I think, will probably say that given this duty the production of these blades in Sheffield would be much larger than it is at the present time. Therefore, I say that the case for the duty is made out.
  1292
  We are asked to reject this duty on a most curious ground, a ground set out in a circular which has been kindly sent to Members of the House by an American company, the Gillette Safety Razor Company. We are told that this company has bought largely of Sheffield steel in the past, but that it will cease to buy Sheffield steel in the future. I have yet to learn that any American company, or any foreign company at all, for that matter, buys goods in this country out of motives of philanthropy or for any other reason than that it pays them to do so, and is good business to do so. I have yet to learn that they will cease in future to be actuated by that motive. If it paid them to do it in the past and it pays them to do it in the future, they are not likely to be guilty of the indiscretion of cutting oft their nose to spite their face. It is remarkable that an appeal should be made to us to be so careful in our consideration of American interests. Every country has full rights to take whatever steps it thinks in the interests of its own people.
  When we come to consider what has been done in America, what do we find has happened? This country which is resenting the action taken in a very limited degree by the British people introduced the highest tariff in the whole world. I am not saying they were wrong, and they certainly were entitled to put their tariff on any level which suited them. Then came -he Fovdney tariff. But what was the result of the Fordney tariff? In practically every respect it greatly increased the rates of duty that were in force before.
  I am told that if we have this duty on this limited range here the Americans will turn to Sweden, because Sweden treats them so well. Do hon. Members realise that Sweden is a country like the United States, which has a general tariff also and which puts a duty on to, I think, every single article: that America produces? Let us come down to facts and probabilities. The first fact I will give you is that hitherto the Gillette Razor Company have bought their steel in Sheffield, because it was the best steel for their purpose, and I think their manager would be the first to admit that, as long as that is the case, they would not be such fools as to do anything else, and, so far from their turning to alter-

  1293
  native sources of supply, as long as we can produce the best article for their purpose, my inquiries lead me to think that it has not been a case of buying from hand to mouth, but that they have bought Sheffield steel on such a scale that they have in America now something like a year's supply of it. If exports sag a bit, it will not be because they do not find Sheffield steel suitable, but because they have laid in such a perfectly colossal stock. That is the information I get from the people who sell Sheffield steel to them. I got it from a representative of one of the firms.
  We have been told that people will go elsewhere for their commodities merely because we pay them the compliment, on a very limited scale, of imitating them in the way of putting on a duty. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite are never tired of telling us to apply business principles. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has said business is business. I believe business is business, and I have yet to be convinced that, if it pays the country to buy a particular article here because it suits them, because they find it pays, they are going to refrain from that and adopt a course of action which is deleterious to their manufacture and disadvantageous to them financially merely because we, in a very limited field, take the natural step, which they have taken over the whole field, of safeguarding one of our own industries. On both the positive ground on which the duty is framed and on the negative ground of there being no indirect reason which should lead us to do otherwise, I ask the Committee to support me in this proposition.
  Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of the supply of steel, and no doubt his opinion is of very great value. But the opinion of those who have been supplying that steel for manufacture in America is surely also of value, and the strange thing is that, while ho can explain what the course of trade is going to be, the people who are engaged in the trade are not half as confident as he is, and they have met again here the same difficulty that was met with in the case of the fabric gloves. For the sake of some trifling experiment in tariff making, they
  1294
  themselves are risking another industry of importance, or, in the judgment of the people engaged in that industry, they are taking that risk.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also confirm me in this, that the item in the whole of Lancashire trade which showed a steady decrease during the currency of that duty was precisely those counts of yarn on which the duty was imposed?
  Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal more about the business than those engaged in it. They all objected. But they did not know anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman, from a greater height, was able to survey it, and he was convinced that it was all right for them although they themselves, like these steel makers, were convinced that it was all wrong for them. I do not question the right hon. Gentleman's authority. I only say that the people in the trade may be presumed to know something about it. They thought it was a bad thing.
  But there is another aspect of the thing to which I wish to draw attention. The President of the Board of Trade is a Protectionist, and he has made a first-rate Protectionist speech. He said, "If I am going to protect the industry I will protect the whole industry, and not pick and choose this or that product. The whole industry requires protection, and I will give it." That principle can be sustained, and I can respect him for advocating it on the platform, but that is not what we are considering to-day. May I remind him again that there are pledges in this matter. The Prime Minister and he himself have given in the House very definite pledges. We are entitled to ask whether, in respect of these razor blades any of those conditions are fulfilled. It may be an excellent thing to protect razor blades as a general proposition, but that is not what we are considering. We are considering whether, within the terms of the pledges given, these blades should be protected. I propose to refer to the questions the Government themselves propounded, and on the answer to which in the affirmative the case for the duties was supposed to rest.
  Let us ask those questions in relation to razor blades. Is the industry substantial? That may be admitted. Are foreign

  1295
  goods coining in abnormal quantities? I do not think that has been established. Are they being sold or offered for sale at prices below the price at which similar goods can be sold in this country? I do not think that is established. Is employment in the manufacture of these articles being affected? There, again, the right hon. Gentleman is so much better informed than the trade. The only man who gave evidence in the trade said his men were working full time, and he would like to build a new factory. Then we come to the last question. Does the exceptional competition come largely from countries where the conditions are so different as to render competition unfair? If the unfair competition arises from depreciation of currency, does that apply in the case of Gillette razor blades? As to inferior conditions of labour, we know quite well that the conditions of labour are far better in the United States in this trade than in this country. Therefore, apart from the general case for Protection, which may have an application here if you are a Protectionist, there is absolutely not a tittle of evidence to show that in the case of this article any one of the questions which were to be the test of whether the duty should be imposed has been answered in the affirmative.
  May I permit myself one further observation on the right hon. Gentleman's patriotic remarks about tariffs. If he will take a straight word across the Floor of the House, I should advise him to drop it. It is vulgar, and it is very offensive. Does he think that patriotism and Tariff Reform are twins? If he does, he is declaring that more than half the electors who voted for Free Trade at the last election are anti-patriots.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman got quite so far away from razor blades.
  Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we in this country were befriending every country but our own. I think countries are interdependent, and the interest of one is the interest of all. I am sufficient of an internationalist for that. But to say that I defend other countries in preference to my own is a vulgar taunt, which is utterly unworthy of an occupant of the Front Bench, even this Front Bench.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I be allowed to deal with this question of safety razor blades? I think a complete answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with regard to any charge of breach of pledges, even if it was not for the question of German competition, which, undoubtedly, is there, is that you cannot protect the hand razor and leave the safety razor out. They all come within the general category of cutlery, and, as such, it would be unreasonable to deal with them other than as a whole.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman states, with regard to these two firms who have sent circulars to the House, that they are engaged in the trade and they know their business best, and they are, therefore, people whose documents should be taken in a most serious manner by the House. I agree that they should be taken seriously, but they are not necessarily the best judges of their own case. We know one firm that will object to this duty. That is the Gillette film of America. These two firms make large quantities of steel for the Gillette company. The Gillette company is, therefore, their very good customer and their very good friend, and the representative, of Gillette comes to them and says, "We beg of you to send a circular out to Members of the House of Commons saying how much steel you sell to America," and these gentlemen, therefore, in the interest of their best customers, are bound to send out the circular. I think in that way we can discount a good deal that is in the circular.
  May I deal with the question from the point of view of employment? I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that it is not very likely they will get their steel from Sweden, setting up an entirely new source of: supply, unless it is really in their interest to do so, but I want, for the sake of my argument, to assume that they do set up this new-source of supply and ignore Sheffield. I will go so far as to assume that the whole amount of crucible steel that goes to America ceases to go to America, and then we will look at it from the point of view of the employment of labour if, on the other hand, these goods which are made in America could be made in Sheffield.
  I have had some figures given me as to the amount of about that goes into

  1297
  this crucible steel and the total amount of crucible steel that is sent to America. The information I have is that it would take 47 men their full time for a year to melt and roll the total amount of the export of crucible steel from Sheffield. In the crucible steel trade in Sheffield there are about 5,000 people employed. If the whole of that trade was lost, the result would be that there would be a loss of employment of less than 1 per cent. in the crucible steel trade. On the other hand, the Gillette people send to England, I believe, something like 40,000,000 blades. We can imagine what amount of employment it would make in Sheffield if a proportion of those; 40,000,000 blades were made there, instead of in America. The number of men employed would be vastly increased, and would be immensely more than the 47 men who are now fully employed melting and rolling the whole of the crucible steel that goes to America. It is a fact that cannot be controverted that an effort has boon and is being made in Sheffield to meet this great new demand, which is an ever-increasing demand for safety razors and blades. One firm has been making them for a considerable time, and another firm which has just started making razor blades are doing so very satisfactorily. The first firm is making an extremely satisfactory razor, and with a little encouragement and capital I believe the last firm could very shortly be employing at least 1,000 girls in making safety razors. There is a great opportunity for a new outlet of industry in this way, and it is an opportunity which must not be lightly thrown away for the risk that the Gillette firm might not continue to buy its steel in what they find to be the best and cheapest market.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: Can the hon. Member say where he gets the information as to only 47 men being employed in melting and rolling the crucible steel? It seems a very extraordinary figure for an output of £300,000.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I did not want to worry the House with a long series of mathematical calculations. The statement begins like this:
  "One ton of rolled steel makes 600,000 safety razor blades. Seven men melt one ton."
  1298
  And so on. The information was given to me by the Secretary of the Cutlery Manufacturers' Association.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member is very well acquainted with Sheffield. That is why I am listening very carefully to his argument. He knows something about steel. Will he give us his own opinion? Does he think it is possible to persuade the House of Commons that there are only 47 men employed full-time for an output of £200,000 worth of steel?
  Mr. ROBERTS: That is the output for 544 tons of steel.
  Mr. MORRIS: How does the hon. Member arrive at the figure that only 1 per cent. of labour would be displaced if the whole of the Gillette trade was lost to Sheffield?
  Mr. ROBERTS: There are 5,000 people employed now in the crucible steel trade. Of these, less than 1 per cent. are employed in making this steel for America.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to reply to the argument made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) who, I am sorry to say, has left the House. I always admire the moral and intellectual superiority which he presumes to have over the rest of us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not over you!"] Not over me; he only imagines it. He was using the analogy of fabric gloves and glove fabric. He said that the President of the Board of Trade predicted one thing and that the people who knew predicted another. I was not a Member of this House at the time, but I remember the agitation of the Bolton people on this subject. They said that their trade would be seriously affected. Who was right? The President of the Board of Trade or the Bolton people? The President of the Board of Trade was right. The Bolton people did not suffer in any way as the result of the imposition of the Duty on fabric gloves. When the Duty was re-imposed we heard no protest from Bolton. Bolton by their action this time have justified the prediction which the President of the Board of Trade made three or four years ago, when the Duty was first imposed.
  The hon. and gallant Member pointed out, with truth, that in one sense there was no unemployment in the manufacture of safety razors in this country. He drew entirely erroneous conclusions. A change

  1299
  of fashion has taken place, and that change of fashion has affected very adversely the manufacture of ordinary razors. While it may be perfectly true that there may be no person in this country who could be accurately described as a worker in safety blades who is unemployed, that does not mean that the importation of safety razor blades is not causing unemployment in the razor industry. A period of change-over is taking place, and that period of changeover will be facilitated by this duty. It will be much easier to absorb the 90 per cent. of razor makers in Sheffield who are unemployed—assuming that the figures given are correct, and we have no reason to doubt the figures given by the trade union—in the new industry which will very rapidly grow up under the protection of the tariff which is proposed.
  I have received the circular which has been quoted. I resent being told by those who speak on behalf of Protectionist Americans that Protection is very bad for this industry. I should be very much more impressed with the arguments of the Gillette Safety Razor Company if they were addressed to the Congress of the United States, for the purpose of inducing them to remove the tariff which exists in respect of any safety razors going into the United States. It is very much like Satan rebuking sin, when those who speak on behalf of Protectionist manufacturers send circulars to Members of this House for the purpose of persuading; them to vote against safeguarding our industries, because what is good for America is bad for us.
  The argument in regard to special steels is a very simple one, owing to the amazing technical superiority of our people, who have established a predominance all over the world in our special steels. The reason why people buy them is not because they love us, but because they love our product, and they will go on loving our product whatever else they do. It is very extraordinary that whereas in some industries we suffer acute competition in respect of certain products made from carbon steel, such as twist drills and other engineering tools, yet we do not suffer the same competition when these tools are made from special steel because of our predominance in the production of special steels.
  1300
  America will go on baying these products because they want them and not because they love us.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot help feeling that the whole of the arguments from the other side are based upon the assumption that the industry has proved its case before the Committee set up by the Board of Trade. That is a false assumption. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith put several points that were laid down in the procedure of the White Paper which had to be satisfied before a tariff could be imposed. I believe that on all the counts set up on the White Paper the industry of safety razors falls to the ground. There is not a single case in which they satisfy the conditions laid down in the White Paper.
  We are told about the unfair competition from Germany. The President of the Board of Trade laid stress upon that. He said nothing about the conditions in America. He said the real reason for this duty is that the conditions are so unfair with regard to Germany. For how long are you going to put on the duty in the case of safety razors? If the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Report of the Balfour Committee it is a great pity ho has not availed himself of that information—he would have got some better evidence as to the conditions in Germany than were available to those who made the inquiry into this industry. On page 11 of the Report of that Committee it is stated:
  "The wages paid to German workers, when converted into dollars or sterling at current rates of exchange, have been much lower than those paid in the United States or this country. They are, however, being constantly increased, and agitations to this end are still taking place."
  That is the Report of a Government Committee which made an exhaustive inquiry into British industry.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: What is the date?
  Mr. ALEXANDER; This year. It was a very different form of inquiry from that which has been conducted by the three specially selected Committees set up by the President of the Board of Trade, who inquired for a few weeks into particular industries, and were then so rushed by the President of the Board of Trade to present their Report that they were prevented from going to Sheffield to make any inquiry as to the state of the general conditions of the industry there.

  1301
  The President of the Board of Trade sought to show that there was grave fear that there would be severe dumping from Germany of safety razor blades. He has been telling us all through these debates how very much he is in accord with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. I wonder if he is in accord with him when he makes that statement. It is only a year and nine months ago— not so long in a political career like that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not find a single case on record of any British industry being ruined by dumping. Is the President of the Board of Trade in accord with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the statement he has made to-night as to the fear of the ruin of this industry because of the importation of razor blades from Germany? I am afraid that if we went into that matter in detail we should discover there was difference of opinion between the two right hon. Gentlemen.
  This industry ought to be able to show, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the White Paper, that there is unprecedented competition and unprecedented imports. The statistics which were given to us in the White Paper gave us no pre-war figures as to the import of razor blades. I do not know why that information was withheld. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will tell the hon. Member at once. There are no such figures. The figures of the Liberal Administration lump all the cutlery together.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is unfortunate. I do not mind the right hon. Gentleman rebuking a former Administration for not being as efficient as the present one. I should imagine that the import of German safety razor blades was very considerable, even before the War. Taking the statistics which have been given to us in the White Paper, we find that the imports from Germany were only three-fourths of what they were in 1922. That does not seem to bear out the suggestion from the President of the Board of Trade that there are floods of cheap razor blades from Germany ready to come in to compete with the Sheffield product. There is no unemployment at the present time in the safety razor-blade
  1302
  industry in this country, and there are active developments going on. Those developments began to take place before there was a suggestion of an inquiry with a view to a tariff, and whether a tariff was put on or not, that development would have taken place. One firm in Sheffield at the present time is developing the manufacture of safety razor blades and producing a very good blade, which will compete at a cheaper rate with the Gillette blade. I suppose if they put a tariff on, in 12 months we shall be told that the success of that firm is a result of it. That development has been going on for a long period, and they have had to square themselves up, due to the superior organisation and methods of the Gillette Razor Blade Company. A short time ago, how much the condition of the motor trade was increased by letting a little daylight in, in removing the McKenna Duties! [Laughter.] Yes, I think that could be supported, from the point of view of organisation of output, and the figures which have just been submitted by the Minister of Labour as to the state of employment in the industry during the period of freedom from the tax.
  One other question I would like to put, and then I will sit down, and that is that hon. Members opposite have stressed a good deal this question of protecting our industries from unfair conditions. I wish sometimes, as I said the other day, they would look a little into the conditions in our industries as a whole. I am going to repeat what I said the other night about this new industry in Sheffield, of safety razor blades. Girls are being taken on at 16 or 17 years of age at a wage of 15s. a week for a full week's work, and almost at once they are put on overtime and kept on overtime at the munificent wage of 4d. per hour. How much room have we got to cast stones at conditions in other countries, when we allow conditions like that to operate? What single guarantee has ever been suggested from the other side that, if a tariff of this kind is imposed, with all the increased cost to the consumer, the workers in the industries to be protected will get any different conditions than they now get from the employers? Is it not perfectly true to say that the Order Paper was right the other day, when it described, in

  1303
  error, the Bill as a Bill for the "safe guarding of interests" and not a Bill for the safeguarding of industry.
  Mr. HANNON: They have got a trade union organisation
  Mr. ALEXANDER: What is the general view of hon. Members opposite when these trade unions begin to fight for better conditions?
  Mr. STORRY DEANS: Surely the hon. Member knows that the trade union most immediately concerned in Sheffield is strongly in favour of these proposals.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: You can always appeal to immediate and secular interests. The hon. and learned Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry Deans) is quite well aware that there are many other trade unions in the country which are not at all in favour of this policy. I notice that the trade unions in these industries that are concerned more with the supplying of the consumers were never asked to give evidence. Indeed, one point in our case all the way through has been that there was never any adequate provision made through the whole of these inquiries for the consumers' views to be heard.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I have listened with great interest to the Debates that have taken place on this Bill, and I have purposely refrained from intervening because I thought it was inadvisable that we should waste too much time, and in order that my hon. Friends behind me and those above the Gangway should have an opportunity of airing their grievances. We are desirous of providing work for our own people in our own country. I must say I am rather surprised at some of the statements that have been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. There are two firms in Sheffield, which have been referred to at full length, who are closely with the Gillette Razor Company in America, and naturally they are looking to assist their good customers as far as they possibly can, to the detriment of this country. I say here that the duty of Members of this House, representing this great country, is to look as far as we can after the improvement of our own people at home. I have never been one who is
  1304
  ashamed to say, as I say here now, that I am a Protectionist because I believe it is to the advantage of my country that interests should be protected. When we go into the question of saying that we are going to throw the whole of our markets open here to goods that are produced—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is making a speech which is more appropriate to the Third Heading.
  Sir F. HALL: As I said I have not been particularly desirous of entering this discussion in order that my hon. Friends should have a full opportunity of stating their views. I hope I shill keep within the four corners of Order when I say that, in regard to those blades, surely you have got to look round to see if you can increase and improve your trade in your own country. Goods are being made and. sent here without any tariff at the present time, and I have yet to learn that we are not competent to make these goods in our own country. It is perfectly true, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), that in regard to the actual safety-razor trade, qua safety-razor trade, we have no unemployment. But they have no ox-employment because the interests in this country have not had an opportunity of being developed in a way that we are desirous under this present Bill. I do hope that there will not be so much, if I may say so, mud thrown at our own employment and at our own industries in this country, and that we will make up our minds as far as we can. I hope that this Bill will be stretched farther and farther.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going farther than ever from the razor.
  Sir F. HALL: Well, I will keep on the edge, Sir, I have no doubt that if the people in the country were asked what was their opinion they would say, "Go on with your safeguarding of your industries." I hope that this Amendment will be defeated by a very large majority.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is always a pleasure to hear any contributions made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) to our debates, for he lacks nothing in candour and he expresses freely and accurately, without any attempt to disguise his

  1305
  thoughts, exactly what is passing through his mind. He is not a safe-guarder at all; he is a full-blooded Protectionist and it is purely on protectionist grounds that he is supporting this Measure. It is because he sees Protection in it that he is going to vote against this Amendment, and it is because ho sees Protection in it that he will vote for the Bill to-morrow. That is not the view of the President of the Board of Trade. He and the Prime Minister hold the view that this is not a Protection Bill at all. No one need feel at all nervous about it, however much of a Free Trader he may be; it is only safeguarding an industry! The industry which is under discussion now, that is, safety razors, is rather a good example of what happens under a Protectionist or semi-Protectionist system. We have heard quoted to-night the opinion of various sections of the trade. There has been circulated to all Members of this House statements from those who think they will be affected or hope to be affected by the duties which are imposed. In a very short time, if this Bill is to be extended, as ray hon. and gallant Friend thinks it ought, we shall have our post-bag every morning full of the appeals made by interested parties to have a duty put on, or to have a duty kept off, or to shove the price up, or to prevent an industry closing down. This is just an example of what happens in every Protectionist country. If your post-box is not overladen with these interested statements, men come down to lobby you in the hope of getting what they want.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is also an argument which is more proper to the Third Reading.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am applying it, Sir, to the safety razor part of the Bill, and the reason that I am quoting is that we have had a brighter instance of this than we might otherwise have had. The method by which these duties are put on or taken off is one which is a direct reflection of the amount of pressure which is put upon the President of the Board of Trade. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has lost his influence with the Government. He cannot do for the steel industry what the manufacturers of the safety razors have done for themselves with the President. He has entirely
  1306
  failed to get his great industry in. The hon. Member who has been so closely and honourably connected with Sheffield all his life, and who puts the purely Sheffield case, forgets altogether about the hon. Member for Moseley and the other interests of the steel industry. He looks after the one special interest. The vice of this sort of thing is that it rune in the narrow channel of special interests.
  The question whether safety-razors should be in or out has never been decided on any point of practical experience. The only thing in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade is that the safety-razor blade cuts. That is all he knows. It is not a question whether the industry is tottering to its ruin. You cannot say that it is really prospering. But everything that we know of it shows that there has been a remarkable revival in the safety-razor industry. It revived on its merits. I do not know whether the hon. Gentle-man who comes from Sheffield, and sits for some other constituency (Mr. S. Roberts) actually shaves with a Sheffield razor. I hope he does. I can tell him that one of the best safety-razor blades is made in Sheffield. It is a blade which is available, not only for a Gillette holder, but for several other holders. They have had a fight in their market in order that the blade may become not only the most adaptable, but the best blade available. The Gillette blade, I believe, only fits its own holder. This development is not the outcome of anything done in this House or by the President of the Board of Trade. It had nothing to do with it. I do not know whether or not the President has ever seen it. I like to advertise British goods, and I say it is a better article than you can buy in America. What I recommend to the President of the Board of Trade is, not that he should go round saying to his friends in these various industries, "I will enable you to sell your 21s. article for 28s.," but to go round the world saying that you can produce better stuff in Sheffield than anywhere else, and that we hold our own against world competition.
  8.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: In view of the remarks from the last two speakers on the opposite side of the Committee, I would just like to say one or two words. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said

  1307
  that if this duty were brought in, the price of the razors would go up. I wonder how many Members there are who realise what is the actual state of the safety razor industry, so far as the costs of manufacture, advertising, and the profits to the retailer are concerned. I have lately been investigating a very similar article to that which is manufactured on a very large scale, and is sold at about the same price as that blade. The figures were; actual cost of manufacture, 3s. 3d.; actual charge for advertisements, 5s.; actual profit to the retailer, 8s.; actual selling charges on the distributor, 1s. 9d.; and the profit was 2s. I think it will be found that the figures on the Gillette razor are very similar to those figures. The duty will be put upon the invoice price, which will probably be in the region of 3s. or 4s.
  Does the hon. Member opposite suppose that the Gillette Razor Company will alter its price on the market? What will happen is that, except in so far as the razor blades are manufactured in this country, they will pay the whole of the duty. They will not be able to take it oft the retailer for fear he should sell the products of some competitor. They will not take it off advertisement charges, because sales will go down. All that will happen will be that the shareholders of the Gillette Razor Company "will not get quite such a big dividend as they have had. There will be a contribution to the British Exchequer, and I think that, far from the Gillette razor being the worst example, as the hon. Member suggested, of what would happen if a duty were put on, it is the best example, because the difference between manufacturing price and the actual selling price is so enormous that it would not pay the company in any way to increase its price. They would, in fact, reduce their profit to cover the duty which they had to pay. It is for those reasons that I hope the Government will reject this Amendment. This duty will also have the advantage of assisting our own people to start the development of razors of a different type to the Gillette in this country.
  Mr. J. BAKER: I want to correct what might be a wrong impression created by a question asked by an hon. Member opposite from the Member for Hills-
  1308
  borough (Mr. Alexander), which suggested that the unions mostly concerned in this matter are in favour of this Bill. If the hon. Member means the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, I wish to inform the Committee that no one in this House has any right to say that that organisation has come to any such conclusion. Its members have not discussed the Bill. It is true that its members have had the question of the iron and steel trade generally under consideration for the past 18 months and have had referred that matter to their executive council. If this Government were to be guided by the resolution passed by that executive council, they would withdraw this Bill. There are three officers of that confederation in this House, and if they are present when the vote on this matter is taken, they will all vote against the Government, because the resolution passed by their executive asked for the exclusion of sweated goods. The products dealt with in this Bill coming from America cannot bear that description.
  Another wrong impression may have been created in the House by the hon. Member who gave us some mathematical calculations. It would have been much better if, instead of asking someone to give him mathematical calculations, he had gone to the firms who were making the steel, and had asked them how many men it takes to make a ton of this steel In all probability the hon. Member who gave the calculations is being guided by figures which recently appeared in the Press concerning the general manufacture of heavy steel. He argues that there are so many men required to make 100 tons, and that therefore if the two and three-quarter million tons imported this year were made here, you would have employment for 100,000 more men in this country. That might be true so far as the heavy iron and steel trade is concerned, but the crucible trade is an entirely different thing, and the output per man would not approximate at all in any way to that in the heavy iron and steel trade. If my hon. Friend had analysed the figure in any way, he would have seen the fallacy of saying that there are 47 men turning out 350 tons of this steel a year, which is sold for £400 a ton. That means that 47 men are turning out a product that their employer says is worth £140,000 a year. The wages of

  1309
  these men on an average is about £3 a week, or in other words they get £7,232 a year.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like to ask the hon. Member if this refers to safety razors?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, it is the steel. These figures were given as a reason for putting on the tariff so that we could have these blades made in this country, but the hon. Member has said that it does not matter whether we lose this portion of the trade or not. I do not want the House to be influenced by figures that are ridiculous.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: As the hon. Member says my figures are ridiculous, will he deny this 2 Seven men melt one ton of steel in eight hours, 12 men roll one ton of steel in eight hours. In one year 10 men melt and roll 293 tons of steel. It works out that in a year 48 men roll and melt 7S0 tons of steel.
  Mr. BAKER: I daresay the hon. Member believes those figures, but I do not. Take the result, and let the Committee ask if it appears reasonable. He says that 47 men are turning out a product which sells for £140,000, but they are only getting £7,000 for doing it. Why, all the hon. Members on the opposite side would be rushing to make razor-blade steel if they could get the difference that those figures represent. I do not think the Committee ought to be influenced by figures like that. Had I known such a statement was to be made, I would have got into touch with our Sheffield office and obtained the figures.
  I am going to vote against the Government's proposal, and that ought to settle the matter whether my association is in favour of this proposal or not. I am going to vote against it on the ground that the goods chiefly affected are made under good conditions and the workpeople are better paid than in this country. With a sweated section of the trade I have not the least sympathy whatever. I would have been pleased if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had accepted the Amendment to that effect; that would have much improved his Bill to my mind.
  Mr. HANNON: May I explain that when I referred to the trade union—
  Mr. BAKER: I was not referring to you.
  Mr. HANNON: I understood the hon. Member to challenge my statement with regard to trade union advocacy.
  Mr. BAKER: I do not know the name or the constituency of the hon. Member who made the statement, but it was not you.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: One statement of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) cast a serious reflection on two of the firms to which he referred to, Messrs. Jonas and Colver, and Sanderson Bros, and Newbould.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: Not at all.
  Mr. WILSON: The hon. Member, if I understood him correctly, said that these two firms had been got at by the Gillette Company.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I said they would naturally try to help their best customer.
  Mr. WILSON: In other words, that they are more anxious to help their existing customers than the trade of Sheffield generally. That is a serious reflection on those two firms. I do not think it ought to go unchallenged, because they are firms whose honour ought to be upheld. Another matter is the statement by the President of the Board of Trade that he was considering the cutlery trade as a whole. It is remarkable that the evidence before the Committee has been the evidence of the Cutlery Manufacturers' Association, but the Cutlers' Company, a very old company with a high reputation, has not in any way appeared to give evidence. I think that the Committee ought to know the facts of the matter.
  Mr. J. HUDSON: I feel it necessary to make some effort to reply to the point of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). It seems to me that his references to the probable price at which the Gillette razor will be sold has given away entirely the Government case.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
  Mr. HUDSON: That little interlude has had the effect of bringing in the hon.

  1311
  and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), to whom I should like to address this point. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that if a tax were put on the Gillette razor, in the long run the price would be paid by the foreign manufacturer. I do not know that I wish to contest that theory, because I saw recently in a Manchester shop an enormous stock of these Gillette razors advertised at the astounding price of 10½d per razor. I do not know whether there is any question of a middleman coming in between the manufacturer and the purchaser, but it is very evident that the article can be sold in the retail market, if the manufacturers so desire, at a very low price—at a price even so low, as that which I have mentioned.
  Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: May I give the reason? I little while ago, the patents of the Gillette razor having run out, in order to keep their market, the firm altered their article to a new form, and the retailers naturally did not wish to retain the old stocks after the new type had been advertised, and so they put the old stocks out on the market.
  Mr. HUDSON: They did so at prices which practically involved no loss to the firm originally responsible for the manufacture, and so I am in agreement that there is room for a considerable reduc-
  tion in price. If it be true that the Government proposal would result in that conclusion, then where does the protection to the Sheffield manufacturers of safety razors come in? If it be possible for the Gillette Company to reduce their price to 10s. or 5s., or even lower than 1s., what is to be expected in the way of procuring employment for the workers on whose behalf it is pretended that these proposals are brought forward. I submit the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge has made out our case, and that the difference between the cost of the production of these articles and the price charged is such that even with a 33½ per cent. duty; even if the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) could secure his 66 per cent., even if you had 166 per cent. duty, in the long run the foreign suppliers have the power to respond, and you will pro-cure no protection whatever for the trades which you say you are anxious to help. For that reason, I submit that if the Government were honest in their intentions, they would withdraw these proposals as trumpery proposals which will do nothing whatever to give employment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes. 123.

  Division No. 491.]

  AYES.

  [8.20 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Galbraith. J. F. W.

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

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Ganzoni Sir John

  Applin, Colonel R.V.K.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A.D.

  Gates, Percy

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F.W.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cope Major William

  Gee, Captain R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Couper, J. B.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Barclay- Harvey, C. M.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Berry, Sir George

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Grace, John

  Blundell, F. N.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Briggs. J. Harold

  Dawson Sir Philip

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

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Drewe, C.

  Hall, Capt. W. D"A. (Bracon & Rad.)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Hommersley, S.S.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Harland. A.

  Burman, J. B.

  Eleveden, Viscount

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Harvey G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Fairfax. Captain J. G.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Fermoy Lord

  Hawke, John Anthony

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Fleming, D.P.

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

  Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton

  Ford P. J.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Forestier walker, Sir L.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Christie, J. A.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Hennesy, Major J. R. G.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Hilton, Cecil

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Smithers, Waldron

  Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

  Murchison, C. K.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Holt. Captain H. P.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

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

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

  Neville, R. J.

  Storry, Deans, R.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Oakley, T.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Templeton, W. P.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Perring, William George

  Tinne, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Pneston)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Philipson, Mabel

  Waddington, R.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Pielou. D. P

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Lougher, L.

  Preston, William

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Radford, E. A.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Raine, W.

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Ramsden, E.

  Wells, S. R.

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

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Remer, J. R.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  McLean, Major A.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Roberts, E. H, G. (Flint)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Rye, F G.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgewater)

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Meller. R. J.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Wragg, Herbert

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham

  Shepperson, E. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

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

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Bowyer.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

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

  NOES.

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

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Montague, Frederick

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

  Groves, T.

  Morris, R. H.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Grundy, T. W.

  Murnin, H.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Guest, J. (York, Horns worth)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

  Palin, John Henry

  Baker, Walter

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

  Paling, W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Barr, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Batey, Joseph

  Hardie, George D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Potts, John S.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Purcell, A. A.

  Bromley, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley).

  Riley, Ben

  Buchanan, G.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Ritson, J.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Compton, Joseph

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Sexton, James

  Connolly, M.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Cove, W. G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kelly, W. T.

  Smillie, Robert

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kennedy, T.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Kirk wood, D.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lansbury, George

  Snell, Harry

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lawson, John James

  Stamford, T. W.

  Dennison, R.

  Lee, F.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Dunnico, H.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lowth, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Lunn, William

  Taylor, R. A.

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Gosling, Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Greenall, T.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thurtle, E.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  March, S.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  1314

  1315

  Townend, A. E.

  Weir, L. M.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Viant, S. P.

  Westwood, J.

  Windsor, Waiter

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Whiteley, W.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Warne, G. H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

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

  Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T.

  Henderson.

  Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 16 and 17.
  The effect of this Amendment would be to take knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel out of the dutiable list. This may be thought to be a relatively small matter, and I do not propose to spend very long on it. At the same time, I think it is sufficiently important to deal with briefly, and in view of the fact that a knife sharpener is really a tool and may be regarded chiefly from that point of view, I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the fact, which, of course, he knows very well, that the Government does not propose to put any tax upon knives used in machines. Those are distinctly excluded in the first paragraph of the Schedule, and I think we might have a reply from him as to the grounds on which he distinguishes the exclusion of such knives from these knife sharpeners, which really fall, from a certain point of view, very much into the same category.
  There is another point which I think is relevant to this Amendment, which is that in so far as the knife sharpener is a tool or a machine we are really stultifying ourselves in imposing a tax on it so short a time after we have deliberately removed the burden of local rates from machines with the object of encouraging industry. We are really proposing to undo with one hand what we have done with the other, and in view of the fact that that decision has so recently been taken by the House, I hope, as the Parliamentary Secretary says it is a small matter, with little revenue in it, he will accept the Amendment and save the time of the Committee for the discussion of more important matters later on.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: Once when I tried to answer the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) he classified knife sharpeners with machine knives. However, it has been recommended by the Committee that knife sharpeners if made
  1316
  partly or wholly of steel should be dutiable, and the Board of Trade feel that they should be included with other articles under this Schedule. I do not feel that I can say more than that, and I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I am more than surprised at the answer that has been given us, as I thought we should have got some concession from the Government, or at least some definition of a knife sharpener. I am very much interested in agriculture, and I am not so sure that a scythe might not he defined as a knife, and if so, it is of importance in this connection that a certain tool is required to sharpen the scythe. Sometimes the stone used for this purpose will be in a handle, which will be rivetted to the stone by a piece of steel, and under these circumstances it means that you are going to put a tax on agriculture. I notice another hon. Member who represents partly an agricultural constituency, and I hope he is going to vote with me against this attempt to tax agriculture after we have been relieving it in connection with local rates. I should like a definition of knife sharpeners, because there might be a dozen kinds of articles used for sharpening a knife. I have used many things in my time for sharpening knives, and I am anxious to get the Government's definition, so that we can have a full discussion on this matter. It is such an important question in the interests of agriculture that I hope we shall not only get silence from this side, but plenty of talk from the other side.
  Sir HENRY SLESSER: I think there is a point of substance in the question that has been directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The phrase, "knife sharpener wholly or partly of steel," skeins to me to contain many possibilities. Either the whole instrument may be of steel, or the sharpening part of the instrument may be made of steel, or the handle may be made of steel, and the sharpening part not made of steel. Is it intended that in all those

  1317
  three cases the duty shall be imposed? I think it is very arguable that where only the handle is made of steel, you cannot say the knife sharpener as such is wholly or partly made of steel, because the knife sharpener as such, surely, is that part of the instrument which sharpens the knife, and not that part which holds the part which sharpens the knife. I cannot think it is really intended by the Government that the handle which holds the sharpener should be taxed, having regard to the special liability of handles. A series of elaborate and costly law suits, I fear, would have to be considered by the Courts in order to determine whether a knife sharpener partly made of steel includes a handle made of steel and a sharpener which is not made of steel. My own view is that that is not a knife sharpener made of steel, but is a handle of a knife sharpener partly made of steel. I suggest, therefore, that the drafting here is rather faulty, and even at this late hour I do ask the hon. Member to consider the point, which, I think, is worthy of more explanation than he has given.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: In my view, if I understand clear English, a knife sharpener made wholly or partly of steel is the whole vessel that contains what sharpens the knife, whatever that may be made of; that is, that the vessel itself is in the main part made of steel. That is my conception of what we mean here by " knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel."
  Mr. WESTWOOD: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is expressing the view of the Government, or only of himself, because he specifically said "in my view." Is this the view of the Government on this important question?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: My view.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the reply of the hon. Member rather a peculiar one? He talks about vessels; does he mean the vessels that are going to bring the steel over? What really does he mean? The Government are pinning their faith upon solving unemployment by taxing knife sharpeners wholly or partly of steel, which is to be defined as contained in the whole of the vessel which holds the knife sharpener. I really think we shall have to get some Scottish metaphysician to define what the Government mean. I do not see a Scottish official on the
  1318
  Government Bench to-night, but I think their minds might really be helpful in getting the hon. Member out of the difficulty. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) referred to sharpeners with wooden handles and a steel ring round. Are you going to tax the whole of that, because a steel ring is round a wooden handle? There are various other articles coming into this country not wholly made of steel. You get an amazing number of knife sharpeners. The thing that the Government ought to have done was to get hold of something upon which to sharpen their wits. I hope the Government are going to give some good definition as to what they mean by "knife sharpener wholly or partly of steel." How much is to be taxed? The matter ought now to be explained clearly, or else this should be dropped until some definite explanation can be given to convey an intelligent meaning to the people outside who will be using and paying for these knife sharpeners.
  Mr. MORRIS: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that where the greater part of the vessel is made of steel it will be subject to the duty, but if the smaller part of the vessel is made of steel—if I interpret him rightly—it will not be subject to the duty. Will it be an instruction to those whose duty it will be to collect these duties to examine these vessels to see what percentage of steel they contain? The whole position is one of very great difficulty. Will bodies be set up to hold inquiries to determine the percentage, and, if so, what does "wholly or partly mean"? Attention has been called to the possibility of there being a handle and a sharpener not made of steel, but cemented together by a piece of steel. Will that be a wholly "or" partly"? As I understand the interpretation of the Parliamentary Secretary, that will not be subject to duty. Will he instruct the people responsible for the administration of the Act to that effect?
  Mr. HARDIE: What I should like to know is, why the tax is to be put upon a handle. The latest carborundum is a fine piece of work with a nice steel handle, and now the Government say, "f we cannot tax the thing for sharpening knives, we are going to tax the handle, because the handle is made of steel." It seems to me that this must

  1319
  have been drawn up in order to get something new in the place of the cross-word puzzle.
  Colonel DAY: I am in somewhat of a quandary, as the definition given by the hon. Member opposite has not quite dealt with knife sharpeners of stainless knives, where a small piece of stone is fitted with a couple of steel rivets. Stainless knives are used mostly by people who cannot afford the more expensive steel knives, for which the knife machine is used. I want the Parliamentary Secretary, before the Amendment is put, to explain to us the position of the knife machine which sharpens knives, why it should also come into this definition, because the knife machine is partly of steel by a rivet, which goes through the handle, and also the steel setting that it rests upon. Of course, in the knife machine the sharpener is the emery inside. It sharpens the knives, and the steel is in the handle and the rest. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us his definition, and say whether it is his personal view, or that of the Government, why this should be considered a knife sharpener under this Schedule?
  Sir H. SLESSER: I must attain point out that in the last part of the cutlery section in the Schedule the words are
  "or handles for any of the above-mentioned articles."
  How do these words fit in with the words, in line 16,
  "Knife sharpeners wholly or partlv of steel."
  Sir B. CHADWICK: We are dealing with articles made of steel. If an article is wholly or partly made of steel we propose to put a duty on it.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I have not, I am afraid, made myself clear. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if the handle of a knife sharpener was made of steel that would be a knife sharpener partly made of steel, but in line 18 below, reference is made to "the above-mentioned articles." That refers to those in preceding lines. I am suggesting that handles cannot be included in line 16 because of line 18.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: Why not? There may be all kinds of handles not made of steel.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: We must have some explanation. If the handle or a part of the knife is made of steel, if only there is a very small fraction, a shillings-worth of value in a knife, in this proposal you are going to impose a tax upon this particular thing, not upon the amount of steel it contains, that is to say, one-third of the value, you are not going to tax one third of the shilling, the amount of steel in a particular part; you are going to tax the whole of the article and put 4s. upon the article that contains only a shillingsworth of steel; this because the importer has dared to bring in an article that has steel in it! That is the situation. It may only be, as the hon. Gentleman behind me has said, a steel rivet driven in to connect the handle, yet because you have that steel rivet that possibly cost a penny in any ironmonger's or hardware shop in London, because you have that steel rivet in the handle of a knife sharpener, which may cost £2 or £3, you are going to put a tax upon that article of £1. Surely that is impossible! If that is the sort of thing that has been conceived, and shows the extent of the wisdom of the Front Bench, and is all the Government can give, I must submit that the sooner they appeal to the country again and are replaced by the greater wisdom of others the better for the country. As the matter stands just now the ordinary man of the street, if he had even a fraction of common sense, would laugh at the sheer preposterousness of the idea of taxing up to £l every article that only contains a fraction of steel. The sooner hon. Members opposite realise the stupidity of the attitude taken up by the Government and drop this particular proposal the better it will be for their credit.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 120.

  Division No. 492.]

  AYES.

  [8.53 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Ainsworth, Major Charles

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Blundell, F. N.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Bullock. Captain M.

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

  Preston, William

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Radford, E. A.

  Burman, J. B.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Raine, W.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ramsden, E.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

  Remer, J. R.

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Caine. Gordon Hall

  Human, C. W. J.

  Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rye, F. G.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Salmon, Major I.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Clarry, Reginald George

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

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jacob, A. E.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

  Cope, Major William

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Couper, J. B.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Slaney, Major p. Kenyon

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lougher, L.

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Storry Deans, R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Drewe, C.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Elliott, Captain Walter E.

  McLean, Major A.

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fleming, D. P.

  Manrtingham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Ford, P. J.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Meller, R. J.

  Waddington, R.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Merriman, F. B.

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

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Mitchell W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Gates, Percy

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

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Wells, S. R.

  Gee, Captain R.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

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

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Grace, John

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Neville, R. J.

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

  Oakley, T.

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wood, E.(Chest'r, Statyb'dge & Hyde)

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Harland, A.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Wragg, Herbert

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Perring, William George

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Peto, G, (Somerset, Frome)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Philipson, Mabel

  Colonel Gibbs and Captain Bowyer.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pielou, D. P.

  NOES.

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

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

  Broad, F. A.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bromley, J.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Buchanan, G.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Baker, Walter

  Cape, Thomas

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Dennison, R.

  Barr, J.

  Compton, Joseph

  Dunnico. H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Connolly, M.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Cove, W. G.

  Gillett, George M.

  1322

  1323

  Gosling, Harry

  Lowth, T.

  Stamford, T. W.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lunn, William

  Stephen, Campbell

  Greenall, T.

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Mackinder, W.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Groves, T.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Grundy, T. W.

  March, S.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Montague, Frederick

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

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

  Morris, R. H.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

  Murnin, H.

  Thurtle, E.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Palin, John Henry

  Townend, A. E.

  Hardie, George D.

  Paling, W.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Hayes, John Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Warne, G, H.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Potts, John S.

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

  Hirst, G. H.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Weir, L. M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Riley, Ben

  Welsh, J. C.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Ritson, J.

  Westwood, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

  Whiteley, W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Sexton, James

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wilson, c. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Lansbury, George

  Smillie, Robert

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Lee, F.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Snell, Harry

  Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson.

  Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 18 and 19.
  One of the chief objections to these duties is the vast amount of work thrown on the Customs. The two lines the deletion of which I am moving deal with
  "Handles, blades or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles."
  If the Customs have to investigate every handle, every blade and every blank that comes in, certain difficulties must at once arise. How are the Customs officials to know whether the blades are actually intended for "the above-mentioned articles," or whether they may not be used for some of the knives that have been exempted in the Clauses already passed? Many things that seem by themselves to be perhaps parts, like a handle is a part of a knife, are found, when you go into the trade, to be used as the raw materials of certain industries. Therefore, I do not see why we can justify these handles and blades having a duty imposed upon them. One of the strange things in the Schedule is the exemption of knives to be used by surgeons and knives used in machines. Here I would like to ask what is the difference between a knife and a blade? A blade that is going to be put into a handle is to have a tax imposed on it. It seems to me that it is unfair to burden the poorer section of the people. Obviously, a knife going into a machine will be used in a large manufactory, and yet
  1324
  it is to be exempt from taxation, whereas a knife coining in to be put into a handle, or a handle coming in to be put on to a knife, such as might be used by a shoemaker or a butcher, is to have a duty imposed on it. Why is there this difference in the treatment of a blade to be used by those who, in all probability, are better off in life and the knives of those who are using their tools for the real necessities of life? It is rather typical of the society in which we live that we have exempted the surgeon's knife, while putting this tax, small though it may be, upon the knives of those who are preparing our food or otherwise ministering to our necessities. Why is this duty being imposed upon blades? We are always thinking of the ambulances connected with hospitals, but why cannot you deal with root evils, and how much better it would be it make it more easy for the children to have good food instead of the hospitals having surgical knives at a cheaper rate. It is on these grounds that I move the elimination of these lines from the Clause.
  I want the Minister to consider the added work which will be thrown upon those engaged in this trade. Only the other day I had a letter from one of my constituents dealing with the delay in connection with the imposition of one of these duties. Every duty on handles, blades, and so forth, throws an immense

  1325
  burden on the business world on account of the examination which has to be gone through in regard to these articles. A man may be importing handles, and he cannot feel satisfied as to what is going to happen, and negotiations would have to take place. All these things constitute a handicap and a hindrance to trade. If the Minister requires the earlier part of the Clause, at any rate, he might accept our Amendment deleting the latter part, and thus remove from the authority of the Customs officials the minor matters mentioned in those two lines.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been asked by the hon. Member who has just sat down what is the difference between a knife and a blade. My answer is that for the purposes of this Schedule I do not think there is any difference, provided that the articles are partly or wholly made of steel or iron. The hon. Member said this duty was going to inflict a great hardship on the poor working glazier who has to import a putty knife. May I again point out that we are imposing this duty in order to put an immense number of people in work who are now out of work.
  Mr. N. MACLEAN: Making putty knives.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: The hon. Member asked me why we are putting these duties on these articles, and he also urges us to relieve the Customs and the Excise officials of the burden that will be imposed upon them by administering this tax. I do not think the hon. Member need have any sleepless moments in regard to the Customs officials, because they belong to a most efficient Department, and he need have no uneasiness upon that score. This is a question of really doing something practical to try and find employment for the people in those particular districts and for these reasons I cannot accept this Amendment.
  Mr. MACLEAN: After the clear explanation we have received, of course this Amendment is going to go the way of most of the other Amendments, and the stalwart battalions of the Government supporters will shortly march up and defeat it. I think the hon. Member representing the Government might easily have improved upon the arguments he used in opposition to this Amendment.
  1326
  The Schedule provides for "handles, blades or blanks." Why is the hon. Gentleman concerning himself so much with blades and knives? This part of the Schedule also says, "blades or blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles," and some of the above-mentioned articles are knives. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment was perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that fact. We have been told that these duties are likely in this particular trade to give employment to 42 per cent. of the unemployed. Is the Parliamentary Secretary referring to the unemployed in Sheffield?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: In this trade.
  Mr. MACLEAN: To say that you are likely to give employment to 42 per cent. of those unemployed is rather a sweeping assertion which has not yet been substantiated. The hon. Member does not give us any idea as to the amount of these articles which are likely to be manufactured, and the number of people who are likely to be employed producing them. We are asked to believe that 42 per cent. of those unemployed in the particular trade embraced by these articles will come up the streets immediately and get employment in the workshops of Sheffield as a result of these tariffs, but we have had very insufficient evidence to support that statement. The third article mentioned is "blanks." I think the minds of hon. Members opposite must be blank if they support these tariffs.
  The very first line of the Schedule provides for "knives with one or more blades," and there is no distinction between a knife and a blade. If the hon. Member in charge of this Measure had ever been a boy and broken a blade of his knife, he would at once know the difference between a knife in which the blade had been broken, if he wanted to exchange a bladeless knife for something that would be of more use to him. We are asked without any justification to tax handles made of steel or partly made of steel, or they may be made of wood or any other material, but merely because they are handles they are to have imposed upon them a tariff of 33⅓ per cent. I think we want an explanation of what blanks are. What are they to be used for? Blanks for what? I will give way if the hon. Gentleman will explain what blanks mean. It is evident that, as I

  1327
  have said already, the minds of the Government are really defined by the term "blank." If they cannot explain that, we can only take them as sitting there as the living embodiment of this term. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman himself is not going to give us a clearer explanation, some of his supporters, who until now have preserved the most wonderful silence in this Debate, will rise and try to do what evidently the Front Bench is not going to do—I do not say they are not capable of doing it, but they have not done it, up to the present, at any rate.
  Sir B. CHADWICK: The blank about which the hon. Member seems to be so obscure is the article which is the raw material—[Laughter]—or rather, I must correct myself there; I should not say the raw material—it is the blank from which the blade or the handle is fashioned by the cutler. There is the razor handle blank, for instance, or the dinner table knife blank, and it is fashioned by the cutler. That is my understanding.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Really, I must submit—
  Commander WILLIAMS: With reference to the rather interesting statement of the hon. Gentleman as to the meaning of blanks, might I ask whether the blank is the piece of steel before it is sharpened, or does it. mean steel in the mass?
  Sir B. CHADWICK: It is the handle.
  HON. MEMBERS: It is steel in a mess?
  Mr. MACLEAN: I must submit that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman leaves this matter as blank as it was before. The blank, he says, is the piece of material that is used as the blank for the handle. But it says here
  "Handles, blades or blanks."
  But if the blank were used for the handle it would not be down here at all. Really, I think this Committee ought not to be trifled with in this way. For a Minister left in charge of a Bill to rise and give us the explanation that the blank is the blank, really leaves the Committee as blank as ever it was. I suggest that the House of Commons ought
  1328
  to be treated in a serious manner, and ought to be taken into the confidence of the Government before it is asked to agree to a tax of this character amounting to 33⅓ per cent. If I thought, Captain FitzRoy, that you would accept it, I would move to report Progress until we get a Minister here who can really explain to the Committee what is actually meant. Might I ask if you would be prepared to accept a Motion to report Progress?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to put that Mot: on if it be moved.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  We must really have a definition of this term "blank," and I therefore move to report Progress, because it is absolutely essential that we should have some responsible Minister here to give us some definite information as to what is actually in the mind of the Government when they want to tax blanks. It is absolutely necessary that the Committee should have that information. The hon. Gentleman has not given the Committee the definition that is required or accepted by it, and I therefore make this Motion in order that some responsible Minister may come in and make good the deficiency.
  Captain BENN: Are we going to have no reply from the Government on this matter? The hon. Gentleman, obviously, is doing his best, But it has been repeatedly pointed our that it is not fair that the Government should leave him in this position. He is a Minister who commands the respect, and, I might almost say, the affection of many Members of the House, but it is not fair that he should be left on the Government Bench on this occasion. To begin with, it is not a matter for his Department. He is not going to tax these things at all. The Customs are going to do that, and it is a matter for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not know any House of Commons that would tolerate a Debate on Customs duties without the presence of a Treasury official. I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman, on this Motion, one or two points. He is proposing to tax blanks: is he also going to tax tengs? I am informed, on the highest technical authority, that, in addition to the blank, the knife-blade has a teng. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tang!"]

  1329
  Some call it a tang, and some call it a teng. Is the tang or teng to be taxed? I think it is extremely important that the hon. Gentleman should enlighten us. Would he consult his advisers? Is it intended merely to tax the blank, or is it intended to tax the teng? If he is not able to answer that, and unless he can give some very good reason for not reporting Progress, I shall certainly go into the Lobby in support of the Motion.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: I think the reason, really, why the Government Bench are not giving an answer to this very difficult question, is that it is quite impossible to tax the blank without taxing the tang as well, because the two are fixed together permanently, and, therefore, it is quite unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Member to try to separate them one from the other. The meaning of the word "blank" is, I think, well known to most of us, and, although I am not actually engaged in the cutlery trade myself, I think it is very obvious that the word "blank" is used as a technical expression in the cutlery trade—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The particular question under discussion is whether I should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. When we have decided that question, we can go back to the blanks.
  Mr. HOPKINSON: The. hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) remarked that reporting Progress was rendered necessary by the lack of a definition by the Parliamentary Secretary of the word "blank." I stand corrected, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) will withdraw his Motion, as we now have the President of the Board of Trade himself here, and he will be able to inform us on this matter.
  Mr. MACLEAN: We have only had an explanation of the tang and not of the whole of the blank.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 230.

  Division No. 493.]

  AYES.

  [9.26 p.m.

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

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

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

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

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rose, Frank H.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardie, George D.

  Sexton, James

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Baker, Walter

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barker, C. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Smillie, Robert

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Broad, F. A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Snell, Harry

  Bromley, J.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Kennedy, T.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kirkwood, D.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Connolly, M.

  Lansbury, George

  Thurtle, E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lawson, John James

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lee, F.

  Townend, A. E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lowth, T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Lunn, William

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Webb, St. Hon. Sidney

  Dennison, R.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dunnico, H.

  March, S.

  Westwood, J.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Montague, Frederick

  Whiteley, W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Morris, R. H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Murnin, H.

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Gosling, Harry

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

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

  Paling, W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenall, T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Windsor, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Potts, John S.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Groves, T.

  Purcell, A. A.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Riley, Ben

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

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

  Ritson, J.

  Warne.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pielou, D. P.

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Harland, A.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Preston, William

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Radford, E. A.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Raine, W.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Ramsden, E.

  Blundell, F. N.

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

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Remer, J. R.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hilton, Cecil

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Holt, Captain H. P.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Burman, J. B.

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Rye, F. G.

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

  Salmon, Major I.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Campbell, E. T.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

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

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Jacob, A. E.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Jephcott, A. R.

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Christle, J. A.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

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

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Storry Deans, R.

  Couper, J. B.

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lougher, L.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Templeton, W. P

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Macintyre, Ian

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  McLean, Major A.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Waddingtton, R.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Malone, Major P. B.

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Fermoy, Lord

  Meller, R. J.

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Fielden, E. B.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Ford, P. J.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Wells, S. R.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  white, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

  Moore Sir Newton J.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  Gates, Percy

  Murchison, C. K.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gault Lieut.-Cot. Andrew Hamilton

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Gee, Captain R.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Womersley, W. J.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Neville, R. J.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)

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

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Oakley, T.

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

  Goff, Sir Park

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Grace, John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wragg, Herbert

  Grant, J. A.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Perring, William George

  Major Cope and Lord Stanley.

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

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  Mr. MACLEAN: I see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is present, and I would like to press

  1333
  the point we have been pressing earlier, to find out whether he can give us an explanation of the definition of the term " blank " in line 18, where it says,
  "blanks or any of the above-mentioned articles,"
  and "the above-mentioned articles" are, I take it, knives, scissors, safety razors and component parts, razors, carving forks and knife shapeners. I should be obliged, and I am certain the Committee will be, if the right hon. Gentleman will give a definition.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, I apologise to the Committee for not having been present. I really think the hon. Gentleman knows much more about this than he lets the Committee know.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I said I knew all about the Tory party.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think he knows all about this industry. This is a very simple and rather disingenuous Motion. I do not pretend to be an expert cutler, but the blank in cutlery is the piece of material which comes in in a form partly shaped and ready to be further shaped and ground, and it is then subjected to further processes. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be, I am sure, the last result that he himself would wish to obtain because, whether we believe in the duty or not, we at any rate want the cutlery industry, as a complete industry from start to finish, to go on, and the only result of putting a duty upon the finished article and un-safeguarding the component parts, the handle or the blank, would be simply to convert the cutlery trade of the country into an assembling trade. I am sure the hon. Member would not in the least want that done.
  Mr. HARDIE: When you read down this part of the Schedule, we are dealing with steel and iron until we come to line 18, and then you begin with handles, and the handle may be made of various materials. Here is a knife that has a brass wall casing that holds the blades. It is ivory or some other composition. [An HON. MEMBER: " Or bone! "] If it is bone we get it from the heads opposite. This handle of a German knife that I hold in my hand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is not a German one, but suppose it was a German knife, and I had broken
  1334
  the handle and wanted to get it replaced. When I get the number that I can get inside the wall, and order a handle, and the handle comes in, I discover that it is neither steel nor iron, as mentioned in the Schedule, and yet on line 18 I am told that you are going to tax that handle. You have not said in the Schedule whether the handle is to be of any particular material, therefore you are going to put a tax upon it. If you take the case of a handle, say, for a carborundum sharpener, it is a very difficult thing to put a handle on to a carborundum tool for sharpening. It is very brittle. There are plenty of engineering gentlemen who know the difficulty of putting a steel handle on to a piece of carborundum, and they will bear me out. The same thing applies here as applies to the handle. You are going to tax a handle that does not contain either steel or iron. In this knife the rivets within the walls are of brass or gunmetal. What is to be the attitude of the Government to a handle like this? Are you only going to tax that which is made of steel or iron, or are you going to prevent me being able to get this handle because it is not an iron and steel combination to fit these blades, since I have broken the handle?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER:If we are to dispose of the other sections which we want to get there must be a limit to the number of speeches I make, but I will answer the hon. Member at once. He has raised three questions. The first was what is going to happen to the handle of a carborundum sharpener. A carborundum sharpener does not come in.
  Mr. HARDIE: Yes, if the handle was made of steel.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: You must not ask me for an explanation and then not accept it. The hon. Member may differ from me, but I will give him my answer. Knife sharpeners are dutiable when wholly or partly made of steel. As the hon. Member knows, carborundum is not steel. I tell him advisedly that a carborundum sharpener is not included and is not dutiable, and therefore the handle for a carborundum sharpener will not be dutiable. The hon. Member says we have not limited handles, blades and blanks by defining them as made of iron and steel. Certainly not, because we did not mean

  1335
  to, because handles are often made of other materials than iron or steel. We intend that handles, blades or blanks of any articles which are set out in the Cutlery Schedule shall be dutiable, whatever material they are made of, but they are only dutiable if they are handles, blades or blanks for one of those articles set out above. I advise the hon. Member when he breaks his knife, which did or did not come from Germany, to buy a British knife.
  Sir H. SLESSER: I would ask the President if this is his final opinion on the matter, because his assistant a few moments ago told us exactly the opposite. The Secretary to the Board of Trade told me that if the handle were made of steel and the sharpener was not made of steel the article would be dutiable. I put to him exactly the argument the President of the Board of Trade has now put to the Committee, namely, that the handle was only dutiable if it were the handle of an article which was itself dutiable, and the hon. Gentleman told me that was wrong. I only want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is right-and I think he is-or whether what his colleagues said a few moments ago was right, that the handle of an article which was not made of steel would be dutiable. We have now reached the position in the explanation of an important duty when two Ministers have given us, within a quarter of an hour, two exactly contradictory explanations of the same thing.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a very skilled cross-examiner and I can well believe that under his cross-examination even I might make a mistake. I do not think there can be any doubt about these "handles, blades and blanks for any of the above-mentioned articles." It really is as plain as a pikestaff and it can only refer to the articles included in lines 5 to 17.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not made quite clear exactly what these words mean. The "articles above-mentioned" are knives and scissors. I want to get an explanation as to what will be the tax on an article of this nature. This is a knife
  1336
  having one or more blades. It also happens to be a pair of scissors. Are we to understand that if the handle comes in without first of all being attached to either the blades or the scissors the tax is to be 3333⅓ per cent., or, on the other hand, is it to 66⅔ per cent. because this happens to be scissors and knife? I have a further point on which to ask an explanation. We have had a definition of blanks-one of the most blank definitions ever heard in the House. The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that a blank is a blank. I want to know what a handle is.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They have handles to their names.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: There are many kinds of handles. My hon. Friend says that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have handles to their names. I have known of complaints being made in this House about handles being purchased at a price", and the price going into the party coffers. Sow, we have the party opposite in favour of nationalisation, because the price for the handles is to go to the National Exchequer. If we can make such inroads into their principles with respect to nationalisation, the time may come when we may be able to make them agree to the nationalisation of something else. I trust we shall get an explanation of what is meant by a handle. This is as important as what is meant by a blank. No doubt, if the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he will make as clear an explanation about handles as he did about blanks.
  Colonel DAY: When we are discussing handles for knives, does the President of the Board of Trade suggest taxing according to the price of the knife? Many knives which come into this country have gold handles and other kinds of expensive handles. One hon. Member opposite said that the unemployment in the Sheffield cutlery trade was 42 per cent. What does 42 per cent. represent It sounds rather terrible, but it may not be a great number in this industry. He also stated that it was proposed to tax raw material. I think that was a slip on his par;, because one of his supporters said that he meant steel in the mass. I do no; know whether he meant steel in the mess. How does the

  1337
  right hon. Gentleman propose to tax handles? Will it be in proportion to the gold or other valuable material in the handle?
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 127.

  Division No. 494.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Goff, Sir Park

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Grace, John

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Grant, J. A.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Barnston, Major Sir Harry

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

  Murchison, C. K.

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Blundell, F. N.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Neville, R. J.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Harland, A.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Oakley, T.

  Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Pease, William Edwin

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Burman, J. B.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Perring, William George

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Caine, Gordon Hall

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Hilton, Cecil

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

  Preston, William

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Radford, E. A.

  Christie, J. A.

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Rains, W.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

  Ramsden, E.

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Remer, J. R.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Cope, Major William

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Couper, J. B.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  Jacob, A.E.

  Rye, F. G.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

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

  King, Captain Hentry Douglas

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lamb, J. O.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lloyed, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Skelton, A. N.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Loder, J. de V.

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Looker, Herbert William

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

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Lougher, L.

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

  Smithers, Waldron

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Fermoy, Lord

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

  Storry Deans, R.

  Fleiden E. B.

  MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Fleming, D. P.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Ford, P. J.

  Macintyre, Ian

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  McLean, Major A

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Tasker, Major R. Inigo

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Templeton, W. P.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Gates, Percy

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Tinne, J. A.

  Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Gee, Captain R.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Meller, R. J.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

  Merriman, F. B.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Waddington, R.

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Wells, S. R.

  Womersley, W. J.

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Sexton, James

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Amman, Charles George

  Harris, Percy A

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Baker, Walter

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Smillie, Robert

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Snell, Harry

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Beckett, John (Gateshead)

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Buchanan, G.

  Kennedy, T.

  Thurtle, E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kirkwood, D.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Charleton, H. C.

  Lansbury, George

  Townend, A. E.

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Lawson, John James

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

  Compton, Joseph

  Lee, F.

  Varley, Frank B.

  Connolly, M.

  Livingstone, A. M.

  Viant, S. P.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lowth, T.

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lunn, William

  Warne, G. H.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Ab'ravon)

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

  Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

  Mackinder, W.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Day, Colonel Harry

  March, S.

  Weir, L. M.

  Dennison, R.

  Montague, Frederick

  Welsh, J. C.

  Dunnico, H.

  Morris, R. H.

  Westwood. J.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Murnin, H.

  Whiteley, W.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Gillett, George M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Williams, David (Swansea, E)

  Gosling, Harry

  Paling, W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Purcell, A. A.

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Riley, Ben

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Ritson, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B.

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  Smith.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move in page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 21 to 27 inclusive.
  I should like to indicate one or two objections that I have to this proposal. May I remind this Committee again of the fact that, when the Committee which inquired into this subject sat, they had, if I remember rightly, some four witnesses before them whose evidence was taken in camera. It seems to me that that is a very significant fact, because after all, if this House is to arrive at a judgment worth while in this matter, it is legitimate and fair that the House should be in possession of the information which these witnesses put before this Committee, and upon which I presume the Committee
  1340
  arrived at a final verdict. If the evidence was necessary for the Committee, surely it was equally necessary for this House, and I therefore ask that this evidence or a summary of it should be placed in possession of the House to-night. I should like to direct the attention to another significant foot. It is this. An organisation which ought really to have some knowledge of this particular commodity and its implications for the trade, namely, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, was invited to give evidence, but specifically refused to do so on the ground as they said that the matter was a purely political one and therefore they did not care to have anything to do with the subject. That is very significant. The

  1341
  Government, apparently, have none of these nice feelings about the matter. They are prepared to use their Parliamentary majority to secure a political victory, regardless of the feelings of the people who are more directly interested in the trade.
  10.0 P.M.
  I would like to direct the attention of the Committee to another fact. The Master Cotton Spinners' Association was invited to give evidence before this Committee, but it thought so little of the opportunity afforded to it that it said in so many words, though not in precisely the words which I am going to give: "Thank you very much for your invitation, but we have already told you as much as we think it is necessary in this matter. You got our evidence long ago, and it scarcely seems worth while to put the case against a proposition which seems so obviously absurd."
  There are one or two practical questions which arise from this proposal. The first is this, as I gather from the evidence given before the Committee and embodied in this White Paper, that it is not suggested that the. British manufacturers are not able to produce a commodity which is not able to compete on equal terms, as far as quality is concerned, with a foreign article. Indeed, they speak with some confidence in the matter. They said the best applicants claim to be able to produce any kind of glove which is now imported, provided they are protected from unfair competition. Therefore it is agreed ground that, from a standpoint of quality anyway, our home producer is as well fitted against competition as the foreign producer. So far, we are agreed. The point therefore arises whether it is necessary, in order to safeguard the abolition of competition, to impose this 3⅓3 percent. duty. The difficulty and the difference arises as to whether a fair condition of competition can be provided by imposing a 33⅓ per cent. duty. May I ask whoever is going to reply on this discussion, this simple question: Is there any guarantee that a 33⅓ per cent. duty will safeguard to the home manufacture this fair condition of competition? Will 40 per cent. do it? How do we know that 33⅓ per cent. will do it? Why will not 30 per cent. or 20 per cent. do it? By what method of calculation is this 33½ per cent.
  1342
  estimated? Suppose we do impose a 33⅓ per cent. duty upon this foreign article; what is the consequence? The only purpose, surely, of imposing a 33⅓ per cent. duty would be either to bring up the foreign article to the same price as the home-produced article or in the alternative to shut it out altogether. Suppose a foreign-produced article is shut out altogether; the question arises, and I have to ask it of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, what guarantee is there to us, when you have shut out the foreign-produced article, that the home producer will not raise the price of the home-produced article to the home consumer?
  We have the right to have that question adequately answered because, after all, it is already admitted—at least, by implication-in the Report of this Committee that it is price that determines and not quality. It is price that determines this matter, because our own people, in fact, are so very badly paid that they are obliged by the very circumstances of their economic position to choose the cheaper quality rather than the better quality. Therefore, I submit that no adequate case has yet been put up by the Board of Trade in favour of this proposal. I ask, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, in order to induce us to vote for this proposal, shall explain to us, firstly, how it is that this particular figure of 33⅓ per cent. is deemed to be adequate and only just adequate for the purpose, and, secondly, if it is adequate, if there is a guarantee that we shall be protected from exploitation by the home producer in the home market.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman has moved to leave out the whole of the safeguarding of leather gloves, which is, surely, not the best way to ensure a satisfactory answer to the various points he has put to me. If the safeguarding of leather gloves were dropped, then certainly these points would be mot in a most unsatisfactory way. His first objection was that certain evidence was heard in camera. It was quite rightly heard in camera. Both under this procedure and under the Act passed by the Coalition Government it was laid down that industries applying for safeguarding should be required to make out their claim in the fullest particulars. That included, and rightly included, questions of costings

  1343
  leading to minute investigations, very often of the accounts of particular firms, matters which it would obviously be grossly unfair to those firms as against their competitors in this country or in foreign countries to disclose.
  It is an elementary act of justice, recognised in our Income Tax legislation and in all our financial legislation, that if one requires from firms disclosures of a confidential kind relating to their financial position, their costs, their trade secrets and all those matters, then they are entitled to rely on a complete guarantee against any disclosure by those who make the investigation. We indeed should be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if we broadcast the findings of a Committee on precisely those kinds of matters which from time immemorial the Treasury departments have always been unwilling to disclose. That is why the evidence was heard in camera. As long as I am in control, we will make the most careful investigations through our Committees and we will give the industries of this country the security that confidential information, which would damage them if disclosed, shall be treated as confidential.
  The hon. Member then asked why we did not insist on making the Drapers' Chamber of Trade come and give evidence. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade said they did not want to come and give evidence because this was a case of pure polities. Surely that shows that they had not got any commercial or practical objections to urge in this matter, but that they were quite prepared to leave the final decision to the Debates in this House. I have not noticed in any objectors, actual or potential, any unwillingness to come forward and tender their evidence, and if the Drapers' Chamber of Trade did not come and give evidence it is because they have no evidence which is very relevant for the Committee. The hon. Member also said that we have had no evidence from the Cotton Spinners' Federation. That is not very relevant to his Amendment. He is moving an Amendment on leather gloves, but they were invited to give evidence on fabric gloves, and their evidence on leather gloves would not be very relevant.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have two Debates on the same matter.
  1344
  If it is agreed by the Committee that we might have a Debate on all forms of gloves on this Amendment, and a Division on this and subsequent Amendments, it could be done, if that be the general sense. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Otherwise the Debate must be confined to leather gloves.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was asked with reference so this proposal why we did not press the cotton spinners to give evidence.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I asked why they refused to come.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He directed the attention of the Committee to the fact that they declined to come in reference to the proposal that he is now putting to the House, a proposal to omit leather gloves, and the evidence of the cotton spinners would not in the least be relevant to the question of leather gloves. If I have the opportunity of explaining to the House why the evidence of the cotton spinners on fabric gloves would not have affected the decision of the House or of the Committee, I shall be glad to do so when the time comes. The hon. Member asked what guarantee we have that home producers will not raise prices. He will have the guarantee so dear to the hearts of hon. Members below the Gangway, if not to hon. Members opposite, that there will be the competition which there is in this trade at the present time in this country, and very keen competition, too! Quite frankly, if you put it to me whether I think that the play of competition in these two competing industries under private enterprise is more likely to be an effective safeguard against a rise in price than the completely centralised and Government control of industries under another economic system, I have no hesitation in saying that prices are more likely to keep down under private enterprise than under State control.
  Mr. BECKETT: What about Australia?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The glove industry is not nationalised in Australia. I agree that if the hon. Member gets control of the glove industry and nationalises it, people on neither side of the House will be able to afford to buy

  1345
  gloves. The hon. Member asked what die justification was. The justification may be found in this simple fact: It is true that fashion has changed and people use less gloves than they did before. Yet, since 1920, the leather glove consumption in this country has doubled, while the British contribution to that glove consumption has remained the same. if that be not a test of abnormal competition, I do not know what is. He suggests that there is no real competition. All I can say is that those, who in this House from their intimate knowledge of the glove trade have endorsed the findings of the Committee, all agree that we not only are capable but that we also have the plant to manufacture those gloves and that, given the proper chance, we can hold our own and manufacture those kinds of gloves in future.
  The hon. Member's last objection was why we should propose this duty of 33⅓ per cent. Was it going to be exactly the right amount in each case? It may be that in this or that case you may be able to advance the argument that the bridge is either greater or less than the amount of the countervailing duty. What is the alternative? The case for a duty is plainly established. The hon. Member's proposal is to put on no duty at all. Whatever arguments may be advanced against the mathematical precision of the duty which I am submitting to the Committee, surely thosely arguments may be entirely disregarded when the alternative is to take no action at all.
  Mr. HARRIS: In reply to the point which was put to him as to evidence at this inquiry being taken in secret, the Minister eloquently pleaded the necessity for protecting the manufacturers of this country from the publicity of an open inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that this committee was appointed as a result of representations made by certain manufacturers who desired protection. They approached the Board of Trade and asked for an inquiry in order to get freedom from competition and security of prices.
  That is quite a different matter from the holding of an impartial inquiry such as the Coal Commission at which the public are invited to give evidence and in connection with which every interest and industry concerned is encouraged to come forward and help an impartial committee
  1346
  to reach a satisfactory conclusion. In this case only one side is completely put before the committee. The industries seeking protection had plenty of time to prepare their case, but it is only by an accident that the case against the duty can be properly made before the committee. AH the paraphernalia of counsel is introduced into these proceedings. The industries which ask for protection have very good cause for engaging counsel because they are after a big prize. On the other hand the consumer who is unorganised has no particular interest in going to the expense of engaging counsel. These inquiries occupy some days and counsel require big fees, and I am told that in a recent case the parties who were organised to object to the duty had to raise £2,000 to provide for the expense of engaging counsel. A very highly organised profession gains from these inquiries, but the unorganised consumer is left out in the cold.
  Mr. HANNON: What were Mr. Pringle's foes?
  Mr. HARRIS: I do not know anything about Mr. Pringle's fees, but these proceedings are spread over long periods, and whoever may be the counsel engaged, the expense is necessarily heavy. That is certainly not the way to carry on these inquiries. The method which should be followed is the method followed by the Coal Commission. The public should be directly represented, and the Committee should visit the various markets—
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member is coming to the Question under discussion.
  Mr. HARRIS: The President of the Board of Trade has tried to make out that it is quite justifiable to hold these proceedings in secret. I say it is not justifiable, because the public have no security that the evidence given is-satisfactory. I say that the method adopted by these Committees must, in the end, prove most unsatisfactory. What is most unsatisfactory in this particular industry is that the Committee has pointed out that the particular glove made in England does not compete with the bulk of the gloves imported from Czechoslovakia, Germany, and Italy. The kind of glove, of good

  1347
  quality sold in Bond Street to well-to-do people has no competitor, and I think it is right, as was pointed out by an hon. Member opposite, that the best gloves in the world are made in certain centres in the West of England, at Yeovil, near Oxford, in Worcestershire, and other centres—the most expensive glove, the luxury glove, the kind of glove sold in Bond Street and Regent Street to the well-to-do. The gloves imported are the cheap gloves that are used by working girls who want to have a little luxury and to feel as well dressed as their better-off sisters. The hon. Lady who has just gone out no doubt uses English gloves when she comes to the House. I have no doubt she can afford to buy English gloves, and the 33⅓ per cent. duty will not affect her, but the working girl, who buys cheap Austrian or German gloves, is to be asked by Parliament to pay 33⅓ per cent. more for her little luxury. It is a thoroughly unsound proposal, the Committee was an unsatisfactory one, its procedure was secret, and even now, at this late hour, it would not be a bad thing to leave out this particular article, for which no case has been made either in Debate or in the Committee's Report.
  Mr. SEXTON: I recognise that the Debate, like the curate's egg, has been good in parts, here and there, but the taxing of leather gloves is a serious matter. There are leather gloves and leather gloves, and so far as the taxing of the luxury glove is concerned, there might perhaps be something to be said in its favour. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are patrons of the noble art of self-defence, and in this case it occurs to me that to increase the price of boxing gloves is simply to put a tax on the tools of an industry. I therefore want to be informed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite if it is intended to interfere with the noble art of self-defence, which; is decidedly an industry. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are most anxious to decrease unemployment, but if this be persisted in, there will be grave risk of the "Stalybridge Infant" and the "Brummagem Chicken" losing their employment. I want to preserve the employment of these gentlemen, and, therefore, I want the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider where he is going, and to give an assurance, before the Vote is taken, that he is
  1348
  not going further to increase unemployment by taxes upon the tools of industry.
  Mr. GREENE: I have listened for many days to many speeches on this subject of safeguarding, and particularly with regard to leather gloves. It would seem that about four objections only have been brought forward. They are that the working glovers do not want protection, that the proportion of home trade enjoyed by our industry is slightly greater than it was in 1913, that the industry is inefficient, and, lastly, that the manufacturers themselves would object to this duty if they understood their own industry sufficiently to be aware that the protection of the industry means the ruin of the export trade. With regard to the first of these objections, namely, that the working glovers do not want to be protected, I might remind the Committee that, a very short time ago, I had occasion to point out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), who said that the working glovers in Yeovil were against safeguarding, that he went down there as an anti-safeguarder and they rejected him, that the hon. and gallant Member who now represents the constituency, and who was for safeguarding, was elected and has held his scat at the two subsequent elections. I also pointed out to the hon. Member for Rochdale that, in my own constituency, the working glovers were solidly in favour of this Measure for Protection. That, I admit, was merely a statement. Hon. Members opposite are always asking for proof. I propose to give them a proof to-night of the opinion of working glovers. I have here a paper which gives an account of a large meeting of working glovers in Worcester, and the occasion of their meeting was to make a valuable presentation to a Mr. Amphlett. a working glover, who, I believe, is the Chairman of the Joint Industrial Council, in recognition of his great services in attempting to bring the glove industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. The paper says:
  "On Monday last a presentation was made by the Worcester Gloveworkers' Association to Mr. Walter Amphlett in recognition of his services to the craft. It looked now as if Mr. Amphlett's efforts were going to bear fruit, because it was known that the Government Committee had reported favourably on the glove trade's case for safeguarding, and it looked as

  1349
  though, in course of time, their trade would be brought under the Safeguarding of Industries."
  Mr. KELLY: Would the hon. Member at the same time read Mr. Amphlett's speech at the end of that report?
  Mr. GREENE: I am asking my hon. Friend on my left to take the paper to the hon. Member, who has asked me to read the passage, in order that he may be in a position to mark the passage he wishes me to read. The second objection to which I have to refer is that the proportion of the home trade enjoyed by the industry was slightly greater than in 1913. That statement was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). What he said was perfectly true. But the comparison that he made was not quite fair, because he referred entirely to home consumption, and did not say one single word to the committee about our foreign trade. During the period he had under review our export trade has dropped from nearly a quarter of a million dozen pairs of gloves in 1913 to only 41,000 dozen pairs in 1924. If you take the two trades together, that is the export trade and the home trade, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the trade, as a whole, has suffered considerably since 1913 and fallen from nearly three-quarters of a million dozen pairs to less than half a million dozen pairs.
  Let me reply to the charge of inefficiency. That charge was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). [Interruption.] He made it in a speech in which he quoted myself as having said that I had been in the homes of the workers and had seen the uncomfortable conditions under which they worked. But those conditions are not caused by inefficiency of management, or inefficiency of machinery supplied in the works. Those conditions are caused by the poverty of the worker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] The poverty of the worker is caused by lack of work. Lack of work is caused by that Free Trade beloved of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The exact words of the right hon. Gentleman were:
  "How can you expect an industry carried on under these conditions to be efficient? It cannot possibly compete against the well-equipped modern factories on the Continent of Europe."
  1350
  I think that when the right hon. Gentleman made those remarks he could not have given due consideration to the Report of the Committee on the Gloving industry. If hon. Members will turn to page 11 they will read this:
  "Whereas in the British leather glove industry practically half the workers are outworkers, on the Continent a much greater proportion are outworkers who are not limited in hours …. therefore they to not need such large factories for their workers, and their overhead expenses are thereby reduced."
  If the right hon. Gentleman had read that he would have found that the efficiency of the foreigners is not to be found in the factories, but owing to the fact that work is done by outworkers. Consequently there are practically no overhead charges; therefore, the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman against the industry being inefficient falls to the ground.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: Hear, hear!
  Mr. GREENE: The fourth objection to which I wish to refer is that the manufacturers would not desire this protection if they really understood their own business, and the fact that protection in that business would kill its export trade. The right hon. Gentleman who made that remark is the same as the one who made (he previous remark, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley. He gave us an explanation of his argument. It was to the effect that if we stopped foreign goods coming into this country the foreigner would flood the neutral markets with his goods. Our exporters would then have to face the greater competition, and be in a worse state than before. I hope to show to the Committee this: Whilst we have two markets, the neutral and the home market, the foreigner has three markets, his own home market, our home market, and the neutral market. If this Bill be successful in keeping out foreign goods from this country the position will be materially different. We will have two markets, the home and the neutral markets, and the foreigner will have only two markets as well—his home market and the neutral market. In other words, we will have a larger combined market, and the foreigner will have a smaller combined market. That should lead to the following result: Our production will be

  1351
  greater and therefore cheaper; the foreigner will have a smaller market and therefore a smaller demand: having a smaller demand he will have a smaller output; and having a smaller output he will have a more expensive output; and we will be in a better position to compete in the markets of the world.
  The last time I spoke I gave many instances of what had happened in this country to the glove trade under prohibition of foreign imports, Protection and Free Trade. I will not repeat what I said on that occasion, but I would like to draw attention to what has happened in the United States of America. Until a short time ago, they were our biggest customer for gloves. Then they put on a duty, with the result that our export-trade was seriously hit, and many of our best glovers, skilled men, knowing all the technicalities of the trade, went over to America and practically founded the two gloving cities of Gloversville and Johnstown. They are at work there, and so are the men to whom they taught the trade— they are now working in America to compete against their fellows in this country. In 1923 the Americans increased their duties, with the result that our export trade to America has been, entirely killed, and America is actually exporting to this country. Before I make my concluding remarks, I will read the passage which the hon. Member has indicated:
  "As regards the result of the application for safeguarding the industry, he did not want them to go away with the impression that immediately a duty was imposed on imported gloves the workers in this country would go on overtime. They would have to realise that there were huge stocks of gloves in the country, and until they were sold they would not feel the benefit of the duty. Ho wished to point out that no trade could have been more unanimous on the question of safeguarding than the glove trade. Out of 60 odd firms in the country, only two had refused to contribute to the expenses of the case. The workers had paid their share, and the Staffs Federation had contributed also, and the accounts had been balanced."
  I would like to take this opportunity of tendering my most sincere thanks to the hon. Member for having caused my speech to be even more successful than it otherwise would have been. In conclusion, I would point out that we have now practically lost our export trade. Of course, there is the exception of the Dominions,
  1352
  to which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) referred a few nights ago. He admitted, and I was surprised to hear him admit it, that we still hold our own in the Dominions owing to the preference which the Dominions gave us. I shall not fail to remind him of that on the next occasion when we discuss Imperial Preference. But apart from the Dominion trade, we have lost our export trade, and unless we keep our home trade, as the foreigner does, by Protection, we will soon find that the home trade has gone, and gone for over.
  Mr. KELLY: I did not intend taking part in this discussion, because of certain things that have happened to-day that did not tend to give one the kind of spirit necessary to take part in discussions in hie House. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene) did not read the part I marked for him to read. It is only a few lines, but he passed them over—
  Mr. GREENE: May I give a personal explanation?
  Mr. KELLY: I gave the hoc Member the opportunity to read that passage and he did not read the part in which the speaker reminded hem that they must not expect too much. [HON. MEMBERS: " He did read that! "and "He read every word of it! "] He did not read that part, and I will road it to the Committee. Probably an earlier hour of the evening might suit some people to understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw! "] I cannot help hon. Members being tired in this House at this time, but if the thoughts of hon. Members run in other directions, then they must wear the cap. I suggest that some hon. Members are too tired to understand what has happened. The statement made was by a Tariff Reformer, and he said that they must not expect too much from the safeguarding of industries, and I suggest that that part, which was the opening of the statement, was not read to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] We were reminded-—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!" and "Read the passage!"]
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to let the hon. Member develop his argument.
  Mr. BASIL PETO: Is the hon. Member entitled to say that the hon. Member for Worcester did not read that passage,

  1353
  when he has told the Committee that he did?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order, and the hon. Member for Worcester will have a further opportunity of explaining the point.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it to be only the privilege of Conservative Members to interrupt?
  Mr. GREENE: On that point of Order. May I say that I have twice given way in favour of the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) and he refuses to give way in favour of me after he has made an accusation against me.
  Mr. KELLY: I have on every occasion given way for any Member who has risen, but when I asked that that statement should be read, I particularly noticed where the hon. Member stopped, and I reminded my colleague that the hon. Member had not read from the commencement of the speech.
  Mr. GREENE: I commenced reading from where the hon. Member had marked.
  Mr. KELLY: You did not. The hon. Member asserted that the whole of those engaged in the glove industry were united with regard to safeguarding. He reminded the House that the result of the Yeovil election warranted him in making that statement, but the curious thing is that in the Yeovil election those concerned in the glove trade were not on the side on which the hon. Member suggested they were when he made his speech to-night. It was not Yeovil as a town that was responsible for the result which was arrived at. The suggestion is made by the hon. Member that there is no inefficiency in the glove trade. I do not know whether he still desires to continue this outworking, with regard to which he had to tell us on the last occasion that they had no means of knowing the conditions under which the work was conducted, the hours worked, or anything else relating to those engaged in it. The nearest approach we have had to that was his statement that he had visited these people's homes and seen them working at all hours, working by candle-light, working under conditions that he held were deplorable. And now he asks us to believe that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. placed upon gloves is going to help these people, whom he found work-
  1354
  ing at all hours and working by candlelight, out of their difficulties.
  The hon. Member did not remind us of certain parts of the White Paper. He did not remind us of the part where it is stated that gloves made by manufacturers in this country were being retailed in London shops at double the price charged for them by the manufacturer. He will find that on page 12. Then he suggests to us that they might still continue charging these high prices in the London shops if only a duty of 33⅓ per cent. is put upon the imported gloves, and that then the glove trade is going to be in a happy position and able to find more employment. But he has not proved, nor has the President of the Board of Trade proved, that this imposition of 33⅓ per cent. is going to bring any further employment to the glove makers in this country. We have been told by some that there is such a large importation of gloves into this country, and remaining in this country at the present time, that further manufacture of gloves is not likely to be required for some considerable time.
  We are also told by the President of the Board of Trade that these inquiries should be conducted in secret, and then we are expected in this House, because three people have heard certain evidence. to be prepared to impose a tariff on any particular article that has been inquired into by them. I think it is unfair to the House of Commons to ask it to be so blindly obedient as to accept the word oil the right hon. Gentleman that everything is all right; that these people, who have had no concern with the glove industry, were able to dissect all the evidence and tell us what would happen in that particular industry. As one concerned with that industry, I am not prepared to take the word of those people. I want the evidence to be submitted to the House: I want the Members of the House, who have to make up their minds, to have the facts that were placed before that Committee. We have not had that evidence, and it is unfair that the House should vote for the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. which, in spite of all the reports in the " Worcester Times," is not going to help the industry, is not going to bring more employment to the industry, and is certainly not going to help these old people who are working by candle-light for all the hours God sends them.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask you whether it is the custom in this House, when a Member of this House, if I may use the phrase, gives the lie direct to a Member opposite, and is challenged to read from a document which is in the House, to do so?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see where the point of Order arises. We are in Committee. There is no question of a Member asking leave of the House to speak several times. If any Member wishes to speak on the point he can do so. Nobody who is in possession of the Committee can be compelled to sit down if he does not wish to.
  Mr. GREENE: On a point of personal explanation. I would like to inform the Committee, that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) marked with ink a certain passage for me to read, and that I read every word of that passage. My hon. Friends around me have looked at the marks made by the hon. Member and they will bear witness to the fact that I have read every word he marked. My only crime in his eyes is that I read something he had not marked as well.
  Mr. KELLY: If the hon. Member repeats that, I certainly accept it.
  Mr. BROMLEY: I intervene in this Debate for a special and specific reason and that is that there is no discrimination made between leather gloves which may be considered something of a luxury and leather gloves which are certainly a necessity for certain people and therefore can be said quite legitimately and fairly to be tools of a trade and occupation. I am supporting the Amendment because I believe that no tariffs, or protection, or safeguarding will help the industry or help the unemployed people of this country at all.
  You cannot keep out produce from abroad and gain anything on a tax, and, if you let it in, our own manufacturers will certainly pass the cost on to the consumer of the article, whatever it may be. If this were an honest attempt to relieve some of the horrors of Worcester which the hon. Member opposite who spoke last from those benches described, I can sympathise with him. I lived in that delectable city for some years, and I know some of the horrible slums under the shadow of the cathedral, which are a disgrace not only to this country but to civilisation. I
  1356
  know how the glove-workers work and the outworkers, and I know of the mismanagement of British manufacturers who charge girls and women who work in their homes 6d. per week for steam because they do not work in the factory where the manufacturers provide the steam.
  No amount of safeguarding will raise those people from the slough of despond they are in and I consider it is unfair if not almost a crime to make them believe that it will. Whatever safeguarding is put against these classes, they will find their position identical with the present, because the capitalist employer never, in my experience, lays all his cards on the table, no matter what the pressure, until he meets a superior force in the drastic operation of a strike. Then, and then only, can you get the facts from him. It is a solid fact and I regret I have to state it here. Therefore this duty is going to be no earthly use to the people we represent. I would oppose it on those grounds but no doubt the House will be weary of hearing this reiterated. If this were merely a luxury tax, there might be something to be said for it.
  What is the Minister responsible for the Bill going to say about those leather gloves that are absolutely necessary in certain occupations? By putting on this tax he is not taxing luxuries, but making it harder for working people to live. What is the position with regard to our railway firemen? They use hot fire irons, their hands dry with the heat and very often rubbed with fine coal dust, swinging a shovel continuously for 150 or 200 miles, wearing out their hands. That reminds me I have got rid of mine. They are more respectable than they used to be. These people use leather gloves for protection against what might cause not only very serious discomfort and disfigurement but actually set up disease.
  There is no exemption for gloves used by these people who are compelled to use them. Their cost of living is to be sent up by an imaginary Protection, or Safeguard, which puts 33⅓ per cent. on to what is supposed to be a luxury. The House, or the railway companies, may be faced with this, that if the cost of living of these people goes up we terrible trade unionists may have to ask for something more to balance it, and then there will be a terrible outcry. The fact

  1357
  remains that this will put such a tax on gloves used for the purpose of industry and the protection of people working in industry, and will in no way discriminate. If the Government wanted to do the fair thing in this they would—and their advisers should have put them alive to it—have discriminated between what is necessary and what may be said to be personal adornment or luxury. Then what of the motor drivers, who are not supplied with gloves by their employers, or the taximen, who have their own taxis or work for employers. They, too, purchase leather gloves to keep their hands sufficiently warm to have perfect control of their steering wheel in the traffic in our big cities. Is there no discrimination for them? Is that to be conisdered again a luxury?
  There are other things which will occur to the minds of hon. Members. There is the rat-catcher and the man who trims hedges and wears leather gloves. I do not want to think that hon. Members opposite are prepared to pursue a pet idea or theory of their own to such an extent as to make it harder in the cost of living of working people who are compelled to use leather gloves for the purpose of physical protection. I feel confident that if the Minister would consider this, few Members on the Government benches would be prepared to say, " No, we have a great machine-made majority and we are going to use it willy nilly, irrespective of any appeals that may be made to us." I am not willing to think that, but my experience is that too often that is done. If the Government want to do the fair thing at least some discrimination should be made between gloves for adornment or luxury and gloves that are an absolute necessity and therefore become the tools of trade. I am afraid it is too late to ask that that may be considered now, and consequently when these pleas are not regarded as seriously as they might be, I feel compelled to vote against the whole thing on the general principle.
  11.0 P.M.
  Captain BENN: In one part of the Report it is stated that there is a great deal of undue profit made in the distribution of gloves. It is obvious that if you raise the initial cost of the article you will raise the price of the gloves, not only by 33⅓ per cent. on the original cost of the
  1358
  article, but by one-third of the cost on each process of distribution. So that, ultimately, when the glove reaches the consumer the price will be very much increased. That makes it all the more necessary to keep the price down. Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether this duty applies to any sort of woollen or worsted glove? That is a very important question, and it is not an unreasonable question.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It applies precisely to the class of gloves named in the Schedule.
  "Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves "—
  leather means leather, and fur means fur—
  "but not including"—
  that means excluding—
  "gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding."
  Therefore, if the hon. and gallant Member is wearing a pair of gloves in which leather is only used as trimming or binding they will not be subject to the duty. Many things in the Schedule are obvious, and I should have thought this was.
  Captain BENN: The point is that there are gloves made partly of wool and partly of leather. These, I presume, will be taxed. They are cheap gloves. I presume that under this Schedule they will be taxed.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene) made a statement that trade unionists support this tax. That is one of the reasons why I am against the whole business. The whole of the Members of this House will be worried and treated like a lot of hucksters who have something to sell. All kinds of interests are going to be put up against us, asking for State aid for this, that or the other. When we on this side plead for State aid for people who are not allowed to work, we are told that we are currying favour for votes from those people. I do not know what has been going on on the other side of the House, but all through these discussions the one thing we have heard from the other side is that it is the duty of certain hon. Members to look after the particular business interests of their own constituencies and to tax the rest of the com-

  1359
  munity in order to benefit particular industries. If that is not what it means, I do not know the meaning of the English language.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have got a long way from the subject of leather gloves.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am opposing the imposition, of a tax on leather gloves which will tax the whole community in order, as I understand it, to keep up inefficiency in certain districts. When it is said that certain trade unionists have been misled, or they have grasped at this proposal like a drowning man will grasp at a straw, I do not blame them. When you are down and out you will clutch at anything, just as a poor man will clutch at the dole or outdoor relief, but that does not prove that these things are right.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: Oh!
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) would speak.
  Mrs. PHILIPSON: I had not intended to speak in the Debate, but I was down in the Worcester Division, and 50 of the very workpeople who did not want the dole and who wanted work in the industry, came to me and asked me to plead for them for the safeguarding of that industry. They came to me, and said that, whereas their people had been employed in the industry, now a certain section of them were kept on to stamp foreign-made gloves with buttons when they were quite capable of making those gloves themselves. I am only pleading on behalf of the workers.
  They do not want the dole. They just want work in the industry in which they are efficient. I am speaking on behalf of these women who want to work in this country. I shall vote for this duty because I have met these workers—poor women whom the hon. Gentlemen are always pleading for in this House. I met these women, and I shall vote for them to get work in the industry, and not a dole.
  Mr. LANSBURY: That is a very long explanation. I would like to tell the
  Committee, and the hon. Lady especially, that many years ago I, too, interviewed people under very much worse conditions than any that can prevail in Worcester or any part of Somerset, the match-box makers of the East End.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that matches and gives are rather widely separated.
  Mr. LANSBURY: There have been industries in as parlous a condition as it is suggested the glove industry in Worcester and Somerset is, and when they were offered what was called " fair trade " and Protection, and tariffs which over and over again it is House put up to them as a remedy for the evils they were suffering from, many of them used the vote for fair trade candidates, just as they vote for safeguarding of industries candidates to-day. But they found their salvation by an entire reorganisation of the industry, in a proper well-equipped factory, and to-day, the descendants of those people are really living decent, wholesome lives.
  HON. MEMBERS: Which industry was it?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I must not tell you which industry it is. I am using it as an example. The point I want to make is first, that you are reducing the House of Commons to a kind of market place, where we are all being approached to give this or that industry a little help out of the public purse.
  What I want to point out is that we have no business to safeguard inefficient industries, and if private enterprise cannot carry them on without being bolstered up by public money and public taxation, then those who are running industry in this fashion ought to get out and let society organise industry for the service of the community.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided; Ayes, 238; Noes, 115.

  Division No. 495.]

  AYES.

  [11.9 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Betterton, Henry B.

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Bird, E. R (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Blundell, F N.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

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

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Preston, William

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Hilton, Cecil

  Raine, W.

  Bullock, Captain M.

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

  Hamsden, E.

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

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

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Human, C. W. J.

  Remer, J. R.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Rice. Sir Frederick

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

  Campbell, E. T.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

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

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Rye, F. G.

  Chadwick Sir Robert Burton

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.

  Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Cope, Major William

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)

  Savory, S. S.

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

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

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Skelton, A. N.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H

  Looker, Herbert William

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Lougher, L.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Storry Deans, R.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South

  Macintyre, I.

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  McLean, Major A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Fleming, D. P.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Ford, P. J.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Tinne, J. A.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Waddington, R.

  Gates, Percy

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

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

  Gee, Captain R.

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Goff, Sir Park

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Wells, S. R.

  Grant, J. A.

  Murchison, C. K.

  White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Neville, R. J,

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Oakley, T.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

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

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Womorsley, W. J

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

  Harland, A.

  Penny, Frederick George

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

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Perring, William George

  Wragg, Herbert

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Philipson, Mabel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Pielou, D. P.

  Major Sir Harry Barnston and Major Hennessy.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  NOES.

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

  Baker, Walter

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

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

  Barnes, A.

  Briant, Frank

  Ammon, Charles George

  Barr, J.

  Broad, F. A.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Batey, Joseph

  Bromley, J.

  1362

  1363

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Smillie, Robert

  Charleton, H. C.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Compton, Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Snell, Harry

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Kennedy, T.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kirk wood, D.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Lansbury, George

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Dennison, R.

  Lawson, John James

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Dunnico, H.

  Lee, F.

  Thurtle, E.

  England, Colonel A.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Mackinder, W.

  Townend. A. E.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Varley, Frank B.

  Forrest, W.

  March, S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

  Gillett, George M.

  Morris, R. H.

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

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murnin, H.

  Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Greenall, T.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Welsh, J. C

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Paling, W.

  Whiteley, W.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Groves, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Potts, John S.

  Williams. David (Swansea, E.)

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

  Riley, Ben

  Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

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

  Ritson, J.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Hardie, George D.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Windsor, Walter

  Harris, Percy A.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Hayes, John Henry

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Sexton, James

  Mr. Alen Parkinson and Mr.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Warne.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 3, column 1, to leave out lines 28 to 33.
  We have just had a discussion on leather gloves, and the purpose of this Amendment is to move out the duties on fabric gloves. I am only going to bring before the Committee two points, which I believe were not dealt with in the previous discussion on this subject about a week ago. The first point is this. During these Debates hon. Members on the other side have, on several occasions, made to us on these benches a certain offer—indeed it might be described as a challenge. They have said to us: "If you believe that these duties are going to be a failure, why are you not willing to allow the Government to adopt them for five years, and at the end of that time, if they prove to be a failure, your prediction will have been verified and the duties can then be withdrawn." The answer is that this experiment has been made and has proved a failure. At the end of it all that very failure is brought forward by the Government as a reason, not for removing the duty, but for asking us to impose it for another five years. It is proved a failure in the case of fabric gloves. There was a duty upon fabric gloves from August, 1922, to August, 1924. When the duty was first
  1364
  imposed, there were 20 firms working in the trade, and at the end of the two years there were only 15. When that duty was first imposed, the amount of imports into this country was 60 per cent. of the total; at the and of the two years, the amount of imports was over 80 per cent. The duty has been imposed; the duty has been a failure. According to the challenge which hon. Members opposite have made, the duty ought to be withdrawn, instead of which we are passing it again now for another five years.
  That is the first point. The only other point I wish to make arises out of an argument which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has very frequently used. He has swept aside all our criticisms by simply saying: "Here are thousands of people in this country who are wearing foreign gloves and who might be wearing British gloves. If you keep out the foreign gloves, they will wear British gloves and will create employment for our workmen." That argument is quite a mistake, a fallacy. Hon. Members opposite take it for granted that if you have thousands of people wearing these inexpensive foreign gloves and you shut these gloves out, they are going to wear British gloves, but they do not take into account

  1365
  the fact that there care tens of thousands of these people who wear the cheap foreign gloves but who cannot afford the more expensive English gloves. The ordinary English leather glove of which we have been speaking this evening is a high class product of which we may well be proud. It is a superior, expensive glove, and it cannot be bought for under about 78. a pair. Hon Gentlemen opposite assume that because you prevent people wearing gloves at half-a-crown a pair from abroad, they are going to wear English gloves at 7s. a pair. That is why I say their argument is a mistake. What is going to happen is that you art going to prevent thousands of the poorer people from wearing gloves at all. That is the effect of this particular duty. It is not going to affect the rich, because they can buy these gloves, but the President of the Board of Trade is putting his hands into the pockets of poorer sections of the community, and he is saying to them that they shall pay a few more sixpences every time they wish to buy these ordinary common comforts of their lives.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only argument which the hon. Gentleman has advanced which he said he had not advanced before, was that the experiment had been tried once, and had failed; but if he had not advanced that argument before, others have done so. The duty before was only on for a very brief period, and that was when the German exchange was crashing down. Now, however, there is a comparatively stable exchange, but we have to face conditions of labour grossly inferior to those which exist in this country. What is the alteration? This industry, which had 10,000 people employed in it, has now something between 1,000 and 1,500, and if hon. Members talk about it much longer, there will be fewer still. The hon. Member says, " Do nothing. Let some more gloves come in. Encourage them to dump more gloves. That is the way to put people into work." The other alternative is to give a chance to this efficient industry by the only practical method, and that is by the duty I propose to the Committee to-night.
  Mr. B. PETO: I should like to call attention to one outstanding fact. The Amendment stands in the names of three
  1366
  hon. Members of the Opposition above the Gangway, and three hon. and right hon. Members of the party in opposition below the Gangway, so that we have at last on this Amendment, which proposes to exclude fabric gloves from the benefit of this Measure, a complete agreement, a united Opposition. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said this experiment had been tried and had failed. On the contrary, the White Paper shows that this little industry practically did not exist before the War. There were only six firms engaged in it then, and it goes on to say that under the complete protection afforded them by the War, those six firms engaged in the industry increased to 60 firms, whereas, as the hon. Member pointed out, in 1921 they were reduced to 20 firms, and are now only 15. The reason for the diminution to which the hon. Gentleman referred is precisely the chopping and changing policy, which we now propose to remedy by imposing this duty for a definite period of five years. Protection has only been granted to this little industry for a period of five years once, and that was in the War period, when the industry was built up with 10,000 engaged in it, and now there are only 1,800 working on an average 30 hours a week. On every Amendment that has been moved, hon. Members opposite have attempted to show that these Measures are not proposed or designed to increase employment in this country, and have asked whether there is any agreement between employers and workpeople for an increase of wages. The best increase of wages that any workman can have is the increase from zero point when he is unemployed. There are 9,000 people now earning nothing, and 1,800 people on half-time. At the time when employment is bad —[HON. MEMBEBS: " Divide "]—and industries are closing down is not precisely a favourable time to try to negotiate by strike or other methods an increase of wages. The first thing you have to do is to put the industry on its feet, which these proposals will do. Then we shall get, not only increased employment, but the increased wages hon. Gentlemen opposite desires. [HON. MEMBERS: " Divide."] Here we have a concrete illustration of the benefits of protection, and the Coalition opposite do not want it continued.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 107.

  Division No. 496.]

  AYES.

  [11.32 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

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

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

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

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Preston, William

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

  Raine, W,

  Barclay-Harvey C. M.

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Ramsden, E.

  Barnett, Major Sip R.

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

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Hilton, Cecil

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

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

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

  Homer, J. R.

  Blundell, F. N.

  Holt, Capt. H. P.

  Rentoul, G. S.

  Bourne, Captain Robert

  Croft Homan, C. W. J.

  Rice, sir Frederick

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

  Roberts, E. H, G. (Flint)

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford]

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hume, Sir G. H

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Burman, J. B.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Campbell, E. T.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Savery, S. S.

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

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

  Cazalat, Captain Victor A.

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Christie, J. A.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Cochran B, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Skelton, A. N.

  Cope, Major William

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Slaney, Major p. Kenyon

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Loder, J. de V.

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

  Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.I

  Looker, Herbert William

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lougher, L.

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Lumley, L. R.

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Lynn, Sir R. J.

  Storry Deans. R.

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Streatfeild, Captain s. R.

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

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

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Macintyre, Ian

  Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray Fraier

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  McLean, Major A.

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  MacMillan, Captain H.

  Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Thomson, Ft. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Tinne, J. A

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P,

  Fielden, E. B.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Waddington, R.

  Fleming, D. P.

  Merriman, F. B.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Ford, P. J.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

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

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Warrender, Sir victor

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Fraser, Captain Ian

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

  Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Wells, S. R.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Gates, Percy

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Murchison, C. K.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Gee, Captain R.

  Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Nelson, Sir Frank

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Neville, R. J.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Goff, Sir Park

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Oakley, T.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wood, E .(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Pease, William Edwin

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pennefather, sir John

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Wragg, Herbert

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Perring, William George

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Harland, A.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Philipson, Mabel

  Sir Harry Barnston and Major

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Pielou, D. P.

  Hennessy.

  NOES.

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

  Hardie, George D.

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sexton, James

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Barr, J.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Batey, Joseph

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Briant, Frank

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kennedy, T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kirkwood, D.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lansbury, George

  Townend, A. E.

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lawson, John James

  Varley, Frank B.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lee, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Walsh, Ht. Hon. Stephen

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Mackinder, W.

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Dunnico, H.

  March, S.

  Welsh, J. C.

  England, Colonel A.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Whiteley, W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Morris, R. H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Murnin, H.

  Wilkinson, Ellen C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Gillett, George M.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Windsor, Walter

  Groves, T.

  Riley, Ben

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ritson, J.

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Rose, Frank H.

  Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Warne.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Captain BENN: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 35 to 38 inclusive.
  I think this is the last Amendment of substance, and I move it for the purpose of omitting gas mantles from the operation of the Bill. It is not contended that the questions put to the Committee to be answered by them under the safeguarding procedure were answered in the affirmative, and if hon. Members will look at the Committee's Report they will find that, in the first instance, the Committee actually rejected the application put forward for the inclusion of gas mantles. Therefore, as far as gas mantles are concerned, no case for their inclusion was made out before the Committee; and as the four main questions were not answered satisfactorily, gas mantles are not entitled to protection. A further application was made to the Committee at the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade on the ground that these articles contained cerium and thorium, and consequently the duty is to be imposed.
  There is another interesting point about the Committee. It is that they were not left to exercise their free judgment, because the President of the Board of Trade told the Committee in advance
  1370
  that they were to find in favour of this case. Of course, there was quite a different attitude adopted towards these two metals a little earlier in the right hon. Gentleman's career, but so far as this Committee, was concerned, in setting it up he told them that they must regard these two things as key articles, in regard to the manufacture of which the safety of this country might depend. In saying that, I think the right hon. Gentleman was going far wide of what the Prime Minister told us in his pledges at the election. Could the Prime Minister now tell us what he meant when he spoke about safeguarding at the General Election? Later, when he made a speech on the subject in this House, did the Prime Minister say that this duty should be put on key industries under the term "safeguarding"? Whatever we may think of the merits of safeguarding key industries, we never understood that such duties as these were to apply to those industries or that this procedure would be adopted.
  It looked as if the President of the Board of Trade was well aware that the gas mantle industry could not establish a case for this duty before the Committee under the usual procedure, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman adopted

  1371
  an altogether new procedure, and ordered the Committee to give him a decision on the ground that this was a key industry. Are these two metals worthy of this protection on military grounds? I think that is an important point, and I can produce as evidence statements made by the President of the Board of Trade himself on this subject. The House will remember when the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, was before this House a statement was made on this question by Sir John Norton Griffiths. He described himself in his constituency as the gas mantle workers' friend, and he came to the House and advocated a duty upon gas mantles. Even the House of Commons, in 1921, was not willing to admit the gas mantle to the protection of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Then, having failed to secure a place on the very grounds now urged, that it is necessary for the national safety, because the President of the Board of Trade, who was then also one of the officials of the Board of Trade, opposed it, and the manufacturers of thorium and cerium, having failed to get their gas mantles in the Schedule under Part I of the Act, applied for these two elements to be included, and they went before the Referee. He said, of course, that he could take no account of anything that had been said in the House of Commons, and he must judge these things on their merits. The President of the Board of Trade instructed his officials to appear before the inquiry, and declared that these two articles were not entitled to protection. Why is it that, in 1921, our national safety made it unnecessary to put a duty either on gas mantles or on thorium and cerium, and why has it become necessary in 1925? That is a question that may well give the right hon. Gentleman a little thought. We want to know why he has changed his attitude. Of course, the fact is that this talk of national necessity is a pure blind.
  These people were determined to have the duty. They could not prove that there was any unfair competition. They could not make out a case in respect of depreciated currency or wages, or any of the other tests, and they fell back on what I think was a very discreditable plea, that they were serving a public interest, when they merely desired to
  1372
  serve their own interest, so they got it smuggled in, on grounds which I think insufficient, as a key industry. Moreover, they have got in with the assistance now of the President of the Board Trade, although on two occasions in 1921, both in this House and before the Referee-, he took the view that they were not a key industry at all. I think I have put some considerations which are worthy of thought and will cause the Minister to think carefully before he refuses the Amendment.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This duty is a direct and lineal descendant of the Paris resolutions of the leader of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party. Whatever else I thought; he disputed, I thought we were all more or less agreed that things that were vital to the defence of the country, genuine key industries and susceptible of protection, and to suggest that the Prime Minister is guilty of a breach of faith because he protects as a key industry something that is vital to the defence of the country is the most fantastic charge that has ever been brought against him. I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman would probably not be here if we had not developed these industries to help him in his air exploits. The logical outcome of his account of breach of faith is that we should repeal all the safeguarding duties which protect our key industries. This duty is proposed because it is vital to give protection to gas mantles. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was wrong on the only other two points he made. He said thorium and cerium were not included in the original Safeguarding of Industries Act. I have the Act here. The Schedule includes " thorium and cerium and other rare earth metals."
  The second allegation he made was that it was improper that the gas mantle industry should be referred to any Committee under the White Paper. But it is referred exactly within the terms of the White Paper. The first question the Committee was required to answer was
  "Whether the applicant industry is, by reason of the volume of employment engaged in the production of the goods to which the application relates, or by reason of the nature of the goods produced, an industry of substantial importance."
  Air, Naval and Military opinion coincide in this that it is of vital importance that thorium and cerium should be pre-

  1373
  served and developed. We have the advice of all advisers in this.
  Captain BENN: That is not the point.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Of course it is the point. Does the hon. and gallant Member seriously say that we ought to disregard the opinion of our expert advisers?
  Captain BENN: Why did the right hon. Gentleman himself oppose the admission of gas mantles, and why does he quote from a schedule which does not exist, but which was a list subsequently compiled in his own office?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is disingenuous. What I have quoted from is the Act of Parliament. It is the Schedule of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. What I am dealing with is much more important, and that is the justification for this proposal. The present justification for this proposal is that it is considered by the Naval, Military and Air authorities that thorium and cerium are absolutely vital. There is a consensus of opinion on this, and I am not ashamed to say that, if we were wrong in 1921 in not including gas mantles as a key industry, we, at any rate, are not unwilling to learn by experience.
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I want to say a word before this Amendment is put. We shall vote against the Government on this point, and for two specific reasons. First, that if it is desired to protect a national interest such as the supplies of
  thorium and cerium, then the Government ought to proceed to do that direct and not by a policy of a tariff. We have always laid it down from this side that if there is any such circumstance by which any industry has to be provided with a subsidy for national purposes, then there should be the corollary that any industry created as the result of this it should be shared by the community as a whole, and should not become the property of those engaged in the industry.
  The second reason why we shall vote against the duty is this: It is not only a question of debating a policy of Protection from the point of view of national safety, but we believe that a flat-rate duty is going to be put on—not an ad valorem duty. A flat-rate tax is going to be put on all sorts of mantles, and the poorest of the poor are going to be charged exactly the same rate as will be charged on the most expensive type of mantles—the very smallest type of mantles will have to bear the same tax as the largest type. That is most unfair and discriminatory in its incidence. For these two reasons we shall vote against the Government.
  Captain BENN: I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I was mistaken about the Schedule to the previous Act, and I beg his pardon. I see that thorium and cerium are included.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 94.

  Division No. 497.]

  AYES.

  [11.56 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Christie, J. A.

  Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Cope, Major William

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Gates, Percy

  Barnett, Major Sir R.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Gee, Captain R.

  Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

  Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

  Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

  Blundell, F. N.

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

  Goff, Sir Park

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Grant, J. A.

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Greene. W. P. Crawford

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Elliot, Captain Walter E.

  Grotrian, H. Brent

  Burman, J. B.

  Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Fleming, D. P.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Ford, P. J.

  Harland, A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Harvey. G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

  Merriman, F. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Haslam, Henry C.

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

  Skelton, A. N.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

  Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxrd, Henley)

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

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Morrison H. (Wilts Salisbury)

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

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

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Hilton, Cecil

  Murchison, C. K.

  Storry Deans, R.

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

  Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

  Hoft, Capt. H. P.

  Nelson Sir Frank

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Homan, C. W. J.

  Neville, R. J.

  Stuart, Crichton.-, Lord C.

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

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Oakley, t.

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

  Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Tichfield Major the Marquess of

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Perring, William George

  Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Philipson, Mabel

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

  Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

  Pielou D. P.

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Waterhouse. Captain Charles

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Watson, Sir F, (Pudsey and Otley)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Wells, S. R.

  Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.

  Preston, William

  White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Radford, E. A.

  Williams Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Loder, J. de. V.

  Raine, W.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Looker, Herbert William

  Ramsden, E.

  Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

  Lougher, L.

  Rawson, Alfred Cooper

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.

  Lumley, L. R.

  Remer, J. R.

  Wise, Sir Fredric

  Lynn, Sir Robert J.

  Rice, Sir Frederick

  Wolmer, Viscount

  MacAndrew, Charles Glen

  Roberts, E. H.G. (Flint)

  Womersley, W. J.

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Wood B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

  McDonell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

  Macintyre, Ian

  Rusell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)

  McLean, Major A.

  Samuel A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Woodcock, colonel H. C.

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wragg, Herbert

  McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

  Sandeman, A. Stewart

  Yerbugh, Major Robert D. T.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Sanderson, Sir Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Makins, Brigardler-General E.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

  Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.

  Malone, Major P. B.

  Savery, S. S.

  Frederick Thomson.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

  NOES.

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

  Hall G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Saklatvala, Sharpurji

  Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

  Hadie George D

  Sexton, James

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Barnes, A.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Slesser, Sir Henry H.

  Batey, Joseph

  Henderson T. (Glasgow)

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwppd (Leith)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, H B. Lees (Keighley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst W. (Bradford, South)

  Stamford. T. W.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hudson J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  John William (Rhondda, West)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Taylor, Rt. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

  Compton, Joseph

  Kennedy. T.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Townend, A. E.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lansbury., George

  Varley, Frank B,

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Lawson, John James

  Warne, G. H.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lee, F.

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

  Day, Colonel Harry

  Mackinder, W.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Dunnico, H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Welsh, J. C.

  England, Colonel A.

  Morris, R. H.

  Whiteley, W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Murnin H.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Forrest, W.

  Oliver, George Harold

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Paling, W.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Gillett, George M.

  Parkinsn, John Allen (Wigan)

  William, T. (York, Den Valley)

  Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenall, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

  Greenwood A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

  Windsor, Walter

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Groves, T.

  Riley Ben

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Grundy, T. W.

  Ritson, J.

  Sir Robert Hutchison and

  Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

  Crawfurd.

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

  Runciman Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZBOY in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE I.—(provisions to be substituted for s. 27 of 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 59.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. ALEXANDER: This is the only question put in Committee on which it will be possible to say anything at all with regard to this Bill. Let me say now, that I am distinctly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble he has taken to clear up one of the points I raised on the Second Reading. I am entirely satisfied with the information he gave me regarding county boroughs, and I trust that, if one or two feel aggrieved, he will follow the course he then outlined. On page 4, in Sub-Section (5) it says:
  "The Minister shall, on such date as may be agreed between him and the council, pay to every council in respect of each half-year a sum equal to the amount, if any, by which the aggregate amount of the small holdings charges payable by the council during that half-year exceeds one-half of the net annual income of the council's small holdings estate for the year ascertained as aforesaid:
  "Provided that, as regards the payment to be made in respect of the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nine-teen hundred and twenty-seven, and in respect of each of the two next following years, the date to be agreed as aforesaid shall be a date not earlier than the first day of the financial year following the year in respect of which the payment is to be made."
  It is clear from the White Paper that that special arrangement is regarded as having reference to the very heavy increase which will be required from the Exchequer in connection with the sugar beet subsidy. I am also indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation he gave on this point the other night. But from my point of view the Bill is not affected in the way to which I referred. It is clear that the
  1378
  Government's provision for agriculture in general is to some extent embarrassed by the very heavy increase that has taken place in the amount to be provided by the Exchequer, for the amount to be contributed. I am not at all clear yet on another point, which I raised before. The Bill provides that there shall be one valuation, in April, 1926. It makes no provision for any subsequent valuation on which adjustments shall be made as between the Exchequer and the local authorities. If the sugar-beet subsidy increases as rapidly as the Bill suggests, it means that the area of sugar-beet cultivation is increasing as rapidly, and I am persuaded that rental valuations in those particular areas will go up accordingly. If that be so, I should like to know if it is not possible for the Minister to promise that he will make provision for a subsequent valuation when the period comes for a. reduction in the subsidy. If that is not done, some local authorities may suffer.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The hon. Member has been most helpful as regards this Bill, and I am most grateful for the way in which he has facilitated its progress. He seems to suspect that the sugar-beet subsidy is going to have a prejudicial effect on local authorities by putting up the value of small holdings in the future, but far from that being prejudicial, surely it will be a benefit to local authorities?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have not made my point quite clear. It is that if you are going to value in 1926, and during the intervening yeans between that and the next valuation, the. area of land is increased, the next subsidy will be reduced and the value of the land will be reduced.
  Mr. GUINNESS: The valuation is not being arrived at with any allowance for sugar-beet. The hon. Member who is in touch with the small holdings movement knows that in recent years rentals have been reduced and that is why a burden has been thrown on the Exchequer. In future we hope county councils will do better. But the point is that the valuation will be based on the rental they are now receiving and will be likely to receive in the near future. If rents are increased, owing to the amounts received by the smallholder

  1379
  for his sugar-beet, then the improvement in the finances will go entirely to the county council, and from that point of view it would be most undesirable to depart from the decision we originally came to, that the valuation arrived at on 1st April next will be adopted once and for all, and that from that valuation you are to arrive at a schedule of payments year to year from the State to the county councils to bridge the gap between the rents received and the annuities which they will have to pay during the period until all loans from the State has been repaid.
  CLAUSE 2 [Short Title] Ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time to-morrow.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  MARRIED WOMEN (TORTS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  FORESTRY BILL.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st March], "That the Bill be now read a Second time," read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and con-
  1380
  firmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Llechwedd, Llangelynin, and Llangwstenin, in the rural district of Conway, in the county of Carnarvon, which was presented on the 16th day of November, 1925, be approved."
  Resolved,
  " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1832 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Botley, Bursledon, Chilworth, Hamble, Hedge End, Hound, and Millbrook, and part of the parish of West End, in the rural district of South Stoneham, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 16th day of November, 1925. be approved."
  Resolved,
  " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply Act. 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Blackburn, Burnley, and Clitheroe, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the l6th day of November, 1925, be approved."
  Resolved,
  " That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Erskine, Inchinnan, Houston, Kilbarchan, Lochwinnoch, and Eaglesham, and parts of the parishes of Kilmacolm, Renfrew, Paisley, Neilston, Eastwood, and Mearns, all in the county of Renfrew, which was presented on the 16th day of November, 1925, be approved."— [Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned ft Eighteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, SHEFFIELD.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, SHEFFIELD.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  WAGES (POOR LAW RELIEF).
  WAGES (POOR LAW RELIEF).
  PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES (LISTS OF DIRECTORS).
  PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES (LISTS OF DIRECTORS).
  EX-ENEMY SHIPS.
  EX-ENEMY SHIPS.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SEAMEN (DEATH STATISTICS).
  SEAMEN (DEATH STATISTICS).
  SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
  SHIPS' WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE.
  SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE.
  DYESTUFFS ACT (BLACKBOARD CHALKS).
  DYESTUFFS ACT (BLACKBOARD CHALKS).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS.
  CASUAL PAUPERS (DEATHS).
  CASUAL PAUPERS (DEATHS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  Ministry of Pensions.
  Ministry of Pensions.
  WAR DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON TRAFFIC (ALDGATE).
  LONDON TRAFFIC (ALDGATE).
  STEAM LORRIES.
  STEAM LORRIES.
  BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES (CAPITAL).
  BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES (CAPITAL).
SCOTLAND.
  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (COMMITTEE).
  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (COMMITTEE).
  HARBOUR FACILITIES, NAIRN.
  HARBOUR FACILITIES, NAIRN.
  FISH PRICES.
  FISH PRICES.
  SPECIAL HOUSING SUBSIDY.
  SPECIAL HOUSING SUBSIDY.
  CEOFT RS' HOLDINGS, CAMSTER AND MELNESS.
  CEOFT RS' HOLDINGS, CAMSTER AND MELNESS.
  POLICE.
  POLICE.
  AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE.
  AGRICULTURAL CONFERENCE.
  GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  IRAQ (DEFENCE FORCES).
  IRAQ (DEFENCE FORCES).
  BEET-SUGAR FACTORY, PETERBOROUGH.
  BEET-SUGAR FACTORY, PETERBOROUGH.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  SUBSIDENCE.
  SUBSIDENCE.
  COAL SUPPLIES, BIRMINGHAM.
  COAL SUPPLIES, BIRMINGHAM.
  ROYAL NAVY (TANKER. FLEET).
  ROYAL NAVY (TANKER. FLEET).
POST OFFICE.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLES.
  STAMPS (CANCELLATION).
  STAMPS (CANCELLATION).
  ALDERNBY CABLE (REPAIR).
  ALDERNBY CABLE (REPAIR).
  AUXILIARY POSTMEN,
  AUXILIARY POSTMEN,
  CHRISTMAS TEMPORARY STAFF (PAY).
  CHRISTMAS TEMPORARY STAFF (PAY).
  COMMUNISTS (EXAMINATION OF CORRESPONDENCE).
  COMMUNISTS (EXAMINATION OF CORRESPONDENCE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (CONTRACTORS AND WAGES).
  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (CONTRACTORS AND WAGES).
  WAR AND GOVERNMENT FILMS.
  WAR AND GOVERNMENT FILMS.
  IMPORT SILK DUTY.
  IMPORT SILK DUTY.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  EXCHEQUER (EX GRATIA CONTRIBUTIONS).
  EXCHEQUER (EX GRATIA CONTRIBUTIONS).
  ARMY EXPENDITURE.
  ARMY EXPENDITURE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  BARRACKS, GRAVESEND.
  BARRACKS, GRAVESEND.
  LAND PURCHASE, COLCHESTER.
  LAND PURCHASE, COLCHESTER.
  CADET COUPS (GRANT).
  CADET COUPS (GRANT).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION' (GERMAN WIVES).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION' (GERMAN WIVES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HORLEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Earl of Clarendon's Amendment to the Motion of the Viscount Peel (moved on Tuesday, December 8), That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th day of July last be approved—namely, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "having regard to the decision of a Select Committee of this House upon the Horley and District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [H.L.] the Special Order be not approved."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, you will see on the Paper Notice of an Amendment to my noble friend's Motion in regard to the Special Order, in the following terms:—"That the debate be further adjourned until the Special Orders Committee have reported whether any further Parliamentary inquiry is desirable before the House proceeds to a decision on the Amendment, and, if so, what form that inquiry should take, and that the Order be recommitted to the Special Orders Committee for the purpose." Your Lordships will remember that we were in some difficulty about this Motion when it came to be debated, because there was considerable doubt in the minds of many noble Lords as to the exact position of the facts. There were, for example, two points upon which there was doubt. One was whether those who had been responsible for the promotion of the Bill, which was thrown out in the House of Commons, had had a full opportunity of stating their side of the case. The other was as to how far the Special Order now before your Lordships had upon the face of it an obligation to give the public a bulk supply.
Those two matters appeared to be in some doubt, and when your Lordships consulted the Report which had come from the Special Orders Committee there was no full guidance upon the face of it
1436
to show the House what course that Committee advised. Nothing was said except that there were special reasons why this body had not petitioned. That was noted; but the Committee did not go on to say what inference should be drawn from that omission, or what were the good reasons for it. When some of us—I was one—made ourselves responsible for recommending to the House the adoption of this new procedure of a Special Orders Committee, it was with the direct view of removing from the floor of the House the discussion of the propriety of proceeding upon the ordinary basis or taking special steps and confining it to a Select Committee. We thought that leaving matters to be discussed on the floor of the House led to various consequences which were not in the public interest. We therefore hoped that the Special Orders Committee would undertake all that work for the House, at any rate primarily, and would make a recommendation to the House so that we might have some guidance as to the course we ought to pursue.
I think it is in strict conformity with the principle which animated so many of us that we should ask the Special Orders Committee to reconsider this particular Special Order, in order that we may gain that guidance which in their Report seems to be lacking. I think they would be able to settle all those questions of fact. They might be able, perhaps, to put them right or, in the alternative, they might recommend some other course to the House. I have carefully abstained in everything I have said this afternoon from indicating in the least in which direction their decision should be. I think if we are to refer it to them we ought to keep our minds absolutely open as to whether the Special Order should be agreed to forthwith, or whether some other course ought to be taken. I believe—though, of course, he will have the opportunity of saying so—that the Lord Chairman agrees to the course which I am now recommending to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the debate be further adjourned until the Special Orders Committee have reported whether any further Parliamentary inquiry is desirable before the House proceeds to a decision on the Amendment, and, if so, what form that inquiry should take, and that the Order be recommitted to the Special

1437
Orders Committee for the purpose.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to what the noble Marquess has proposed, but I desire to point out this. The question is not one of detail; it is a great question of principle, a principle which has been laid down by the Government itself. That principle is that electricity is most cheaply and effectively given from a bulk supply proceeding from a great generating station. That is the principle on which the Electricity Commissioners have throughout proceeded and in proposing this Order they no doubt have had London, probably the Barking station, in their minds. We have the counter proposition that a small place with a gas supply should undertake the service of Horley. I should think that that was a question of principle for the Government to determine. I do not myself think that it is a question for a Select Committee, opening up again the policy which the Government have very distinctly laid down on a number of other occasions. However, as there is some feeling on the subject, and as the noble Marquess wishes that there should be a further Report from the Committee, good and well.
All I wish to say is that, speaking for myself, though not opposing that Motion, I am in no way going back on the principle which is the principle of the Government. If the Electricity Commissioners tell us: "Yes, we considered this; we want to give a bulk supply to Horley and to give it from London," then for one, think they are taking the course which is the only course that is in accordance with that principle. But as there is a desire that there should be some further opportunity given to the Electricity Commissioners to state what their reasons have been, I shall not offer any opposition to the proposition of the noble Marquess.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUOHMORE): My Lords, as regards the principle I do not believe there will be any difference between the noble and learned Viscount opposite and myself, but if I were now to pause to argue how far this principle is before the House or not, I am afraid I should be a great deal more controversial in repeating some of the statements that were made last week. I would prefer,
1438
therefore, for the moment, not to take the fly that has been, though perhaps not intentionally, thrown over me by the noble and learned Viscount. The Leader of the House has said that he understood that I agreed to the course that he has proposed. I not only agree but I cordially welcome it.
I think that this is a matter upon which the Special Orders Committee could greatly assist your Lordships. I do not think we could have done it before, because under the system that we are trying to work under the Standing Orders this Special Orders Committee have not a great deal to do when an Order is unopposed. This order practically was unopposed before us because the parties, as was explained last week, preferred to make their opposition here in the House to making it heard before the Committee No Petition was deposited that came before us when we considered it ill Committee. But I think, by the special reference which is given us in this Motion to-day, a gap is Riled in this particular case, and I think the Committee could very usefully do their best to go into the matter in that way. I am anxious that as little time as 'possible should be lost. It may be to the convenience of all if I say that, if your Lordships pass this Motion, I propose that the Committee should meet at eleven o'clock on Thursday next and that the parties shall, of course, be represented by their agents. I shall be very disappointed if we are not able to report to the House in the afternoon, or at any rate as soon as possible.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I merely rise to say that the electrical authority for whom I spoke last week take no exception at all to this procedure. Their only desire is to have it stated publicly that they take exactly the same view as the Gas Company, and that in the event of the Order not being passed by your Lordships this Session, if the matter is postponed to another Session, residents in the Horley district feel so strongly against the Gas Company having a monopoly that they will feel it incumbent upon them to do their utmost, not merely to prevent the Gas Company from passing an Order into law but to promote either a Bill or an Order to supply the electricity themselves.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PRESTATYN ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
WOODBRIDGE AND DISTRICT ELEC TRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CREDITON ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
MALDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
WHITCHURCH (HANTS) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BRIDGE OF ALLAN ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD ELECTRI CITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CLITHEROE AND DISTRICT ELECTRI CITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
CONWAY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
BLACKBURN, BURNLEY AND CLITHE ROE RURAL DISTRICTS ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
RENFREWSHIRE (WESTERN AREA) ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, Leg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Special Orders which were presented on the 16th day of November last be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 11.
Venue in indictable offences.
11.—(1) A person charged with any indictable offence may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended, or is
1440
in custody on a charge for the offence, or has appeared in answer to a summons lawfully issued charging the offence, as if the offence had been committed in that county or place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the, prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to hare been committed in that county or place:
Provided that, if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this subsection that the accused would suffer hardship if he were indicted and tried in the county or place aforesaid, the examining justices shall forthwith (but without prejudice to their powers under section twenty-two of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848), cease to proceed further in the matter under this subsection.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "it appears to any examining justices." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment should be read in conjunction with the third Amendment on the Paper that stands in my name, to add to the proviso. It deals with a matter which I stated during the Committee stage that I would consider. I propose to accede to the view that was then put forward, but I have put down words other than those which were suggested when the matter was debated in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("it appears to any examining justices").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to take this matter into careful consideration, and I am very much indebted to him for it. I think my short Amendment—to insert after "justices," "or to a Judge of the High Court of Justice sitting in Chambers"—would have worked, but am prepared, in a matter of drafting, to yield to him. The substance has been obtained, and very handsomely obtained. I do not, therefore, propose to move my Amendment, but to accept those proposed by the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "them in pursuance of this subsection" and insert "any examining justices in

1441
pursuance of this subsection—(a) it appears to the examining justices." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("then in pursuance of this subsection") and insert ("any examining justices in pursuance of this subsection—(a) it appears to the examining justices").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: Should not the word "that" after "subsection" disappear? The subsection will not read otherwise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the word should remain, but I will examine it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice of his intention to move in the proviso in subsection (1), after "hardship," to insert "or be put, to additional expense." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this matter was discussed on Committee stage and I was satisfied with the answer which the Lord Chancellor then gave. o I therefore do not propose to move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment standing in my name on this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, after ("subsection") insert ("and
"(b)if the accused applies to the justices to discontinue further proceedings under this subsection on the ground that he will otherwise suffer hardship and the justices refuse to comply with the application, the accused may appeal to the High Court against the decision of the justices, and the justices shall, on being informed by the accused of his intention so to appeal, suspend further proceedings under this subsection pending the decision of the High Court.
"On an appeal to the High Court under the foregoing provision the High Court shall either direct the examining justices to cease proceedings under this subsection or shall disallow the appeal, as it thinks proper").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Provisions as to taking of depositions, and caution to and statement of accused on proceedings before examining justices.
If the accused answer to the question states that he desires to give evidence on his on behalf and to call witnesses, or to call witnesses only, the justices shall proceed to take either forthwith, or, if a speech is to be made by counsel or solicitor or behalf of the accused, after the conclusion that speech, the evidence of the accused, if he desires to give evidence himself, and of any witness called by him.
The evidence which may be given by the accused or his witnesses under this section shall be such evidence only as is material for the purpose of enabling the justices to determine whether the accused ought or ought not to be committed for trial, and, if so committed, for what offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the fourth paragraph of subsection (5), to insert "who knows anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is intended to meet an objection, made by Lord Parmoor who desires to strike out the fifth paragraph of subsection (5). I have considered the matter carefully and I think the object of the Bill would be met if those words are struck out and if we insert the words in the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, after ("him") insert ("who knows anything relating to the facts and circumstances of the case or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor for the Amendment he is now proposing in accordance with the promise he gave in Committee that he would look into this matter. My fear was that the fifth paragraph of subsection (5), which he is proposing to leave out, might interfere with the full freedom of a person who is being charged with an offence, and who is innocent, bringing the whole of his defence to the charge to the notice of the first court before which the charge is heard. In the present Amendment the last words are "or anything tending to prove the innocence of the accused." So long as that is clearly understood I think the position of the accused person is sufficiently safeguarded.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit the fifth paragraph of subsection (5).
Amendment moved—
Page 12, leave out lines 23 to 28.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Enforcement of recognisances to be of good behaviour]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The three Amendments which I have put on the Paper to this clause are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 32, leave out ("fresh recognisanees") and insert ("a fresh recognisance")
Page 24, line 35, leave("give out security") and insert "enter into a recognisance and find sureties")
Page 24, line 36, leave out ("may order that the") and insert ("shall in either case order that the first-mentioned").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 40:
Penalty for drunkenness while in charge of motor car and for reckless driving.
40. Any person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any mechanically-propelled vehicle shall, on summary conviction, be liable in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a period not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"and shall be disqualified to hold a licence to drive for twelve months from the date of the conviction.
"Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act may apply to the justices who made the order to reconsider their decision at the end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the court, after a shorter period."
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will recollect that last year I moved an Amendment the effect of which was to provide that in cases of conviction for drunkenness while driving a motor car, the motorist should suffer, in addition to any penalty that might be imposed upon him, automatically a disqualification to hold a licence for twelve months. The Amendment commended itself to your Lordships and was inserted in the Bill. I hope the fact that noble Lords who
1444
supported me then are now on the other side of the House will make no difference whatever to their views in regard to this Amendment.
I think this is the most appropriate punishment for a drunken driver. He is a person whom you want to remove from the streets, and I am sorry to say that magistrates are somewhat too tender with him. I recognise very fully the Home Office point of view, that one ought not to interfere unnecessarily with the discretion of magistrates. I am very unwilling to interfere with the discretion of anybody who is exercising a judicial function, or to lay down any hard and fast rule which must be followed in passing, a sentence, but this matter of drunken drivers has become so prevalent and is so great a public danger that I think it would be a useful thing, at any rate for three years, to try the experiment of an automatic disqualification for twelve months, whatever view the magistrates might take.
Representations have been made to me regarding a possible improvement. If your Lordships will look at an Amendment which I am sorry was circulated only this afternoon in my name, you will see that I have there provided that the magistrates may reconsider their decision if there is reason for doing so. In ease some of your Lordships have not received the addition to my Amendment I will read it. It is to insert at the end of my proposed Amendment this proviso:
"Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act"—
I desire to make this proviso apply to existing disqualifications—
"may apply to the justices who made the order to reconsider their decision at the end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the court, after a shorter period."
I will tell your Lordships the reason for that suggested proviso.
Suppose that a paid driver has been convicted of drunkenness and disqualified for twelve months; suppose that at the end of three months he is able to satisfy the justices that he has been a teetotaller during the whole of that period, that his livelihood is being endangered and that he is likely to come on the "dole"; and suppose that he asks if 'they will re-instate him. As the matter stands

1445
now, the justices have no sort of power to make any further order. They are functi officio and they cannot in any way restore him. In cases where it is thought by all concerned—not only by the defendant but by the justices and the Home Office itself—that this disqualification should he removed, even the Home Office has no means by which it can restore him, except by the full exercise of the prerogative of mercy, which, after all, is rather an unreasonable and serious constitutional way of remedying a small difficulty.
I think that this proviso, which would give a certain freedom to the same bench of magistrates, who presumably know the man and can hear how he has been going on, to review the matter in a shorter period, if they think fit, takes away a good deal of the harshness, as it might appear, of an absolute disqualification. I think, too, that it should apply not only to disqualifications under this Act but to disqualifications under the Motor Car Act, and that the justices should have Dower, every three months, to hear applications for re-instatement on the ground of good conduct or the absence of a likelihood of the offence being committed again. After all, if we have succeeded in turning a drunken driver into a sober driver, we have achieved the object which we really have at heart. That there should be an imperative disqualification in the first instance seems to me, I confess, hardly desirable, but I think that this Amendment meets the case and I hope that your Lordships will support it this year as you did last year. I propose to move both Amendments together, but the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack mad perhaps find it for the convenience of the House co put them separately, according to the turn that the discussion takes. I hope that your Lordships will not depart from the course that you took last year and will accept this Amendment, which does not interfere with the discretion of the justices. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move the two Amendments together?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, unless the noble and learned Viscount finds it for the convenience of the House to put them separately.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, at end insert ("and shall be disqualified to hold a licence to drive for twelve months from the date of the conviction.
("Provided that a person who is disqualified to hold a licence to drive under this or any other Act may apply to the justices who made the order to. reconsider their decision at the end of any period of not less than three months; or, with the leave of the court, after a shorter period."—(Earl Russell.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I do not wish any more than the noble Earl to use any words but those of disapprobation and detestation of the drunken driver, whom we all know to be a danger note only to himself, but to the general public. We desire to suppress him as far us possible. But I am very glad that the noble Earl has modified his original Amendment in the direction of giving tits justices some discretion. I suggest to the House that it really would be better to leave that discretion to the justices in some other form of words. The noble Earl might modify his Amendment by using some such words ass "shall suspend the licence for a period not exceeding twelve months." Then the bench could deal with every case on its merits and adjust the punishment thereto. After all, there are different degrees of drunkenness. There is a common saying, "sober as a judge" and there is also a common saying, "drunk as a Lord." There are intermediate stages between them. There may be noble Lords who are Judges as well, and what might be regarded as merely affability on the part of a noble Lord who is a Judge might be misinterpreted in the case of a motorist who was merely a noble Lord.
There is the further case of the man who is earning a livelihood by driving—the taxi-cab driver, and so on. The police may have declared him to be drunk, but the police definition of "drunkenness" has already excited a good deal of debate in this country from the purely physiological point of view. The point at which drunkenness is reached is still in debate amongst the most scientific people. Who can say exactly when a man is drunk and when he is sober? I suggest to the House that this is a question to which the bench might he allowed to apply its own discre-

1447
tion. After all, most of us in this House to-day are drivers, and those who are not drivers have a very large experience of the driving of other people, including their own chauffeurs. If a chauffeur were drunk nobody would keep him for a moment. I suggest that chairmen of benches of magistrates, who have had to deal, as I have, with this kind of case for many years past, should be allowed the discretion to impose a penalty up to a maximum of twelve months' deprivation of licence, and I should be wholeheartedly with the noble Earl if he suggested that course, but I think it is desirable that the magistrates should have discretion rather than that the law should lay down that the man must be deprived of his licence altogether and go back to have the question reconsidered.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, so far as I am concerned the only fault that I have to find with the Amendment is that I do not think that it goes nearly far enough. The speech to which we have just listened from my noble friend was really a criticism of the whole clause, because he said that it was difficult to define when I man is drunk in point of fact or in point of law, and that we ought, therefore, to accept a weak clause and to leave the magistrates discretion. I do not think that we have sufficiently realised the great danger that everybody is in from day to day, particularly with the greatly increased traffic in motor cars both in cities and in the country. I do not think that we have yet sufficiently realised what a terrible weapon a motor car on the highway becomes in the hands of a drunken man. No matter how carefully you drive, whether you drive yourself or have a chauffeur, or if you are a pedestrian, there is no way in which you can protect yourself against the drunken driver of a motor car.
I have watched from my own little house in the country the children going along the road to school and back, hugging the side of the road, and the motorists, and especially motor-cyclists, go by in the most dangerous possible way at a pace utterly indefensible. If any one of those men happened to be in a drunken condition or to have taken too much drink, which I think is really what it comes to, there is not a single one of these children whose life is not in danger
1448
on the way to school. What I should like to see in the Bill is a provision that anybody convicted of drunkenness while in charge of a motor car on the highway should have to go to gaol without any option of a fine whatsoever. What right have they to go out and threaten the lives of our subjects under present conditions? What right have they to indulge themselves in drink, if it is their business, as in the case of a taxi-cab driver, to drive motor cars on the highway, and thereby endanger not only their own lives but the lives of everybody else?
We have not yet had brought home to us, at all sufficiently, the necessity for new legislation in dealing with the new circumstances that have arisen in our streets under these conditions. We read almost daily in the newspapers of most terrible accidents occurring, and generally the foundation of them is—and I dare say it is so very much more often than we know—the fact that the driver is drunk, or has taken sufficient drink to prevent him from driving in safety amid congested traffic or even along the high roads, when they will go at the rate they do. I should have been glad if this clause had enacted that the magistrate had no option except to send a motorist found drunk while in charge of a motor to gaol, and I should have been glad if the noble Earl had simply put in "disqualified to hold a licence to drive," fixing no time at all. I do not see why a man who has forfeited his licence for dangerous driving while drunk on the highway should ever get his licence back again. If these people once grow to understand that travelling in a motor car is a serious matter, in which the law is going to protect those who have to walk and those who have to drive, I think we should have a very different state of affairs in our streets in a very short time. I hope that, at all events so far as we are concerned to-day, we shall certainly not weaken the proposal, which seems to me to be a most moderate and mild one, put forward by the noble Earl.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment evidently excites a good deal of sympathy because we are all desirous to do what we can to protect the public against those who drive cars while in a state of drunkenness. I have consulted, of course, the Home Office and

1449
the police authorities on this subject, and I am bound to give the House their view, which is that the adoption of this Amendment will not be in the public interest. I am not sure that all your Lordships know the law as it stands to-day. I say that because of some of the speeches that have been made. The purpose of this clause is greatly to increase the penalties for driving a car while in a state of drunkenness. The fine is increased from 40 s. to £50, and there are other changes, but under the law as it stands, which would not be affected by this clause, the magistrates, in addition to fine or imprisonment, have power to suspend the defendant's driving licence and to disqualify hire from obtaining a fresh licence for such further time, after the expiration of his licence, as they think fit. So that under that clause and the law as it stands the magistrates may to-day suspend the licence and disqualify the man from holding any licence for such time as they think fit.
The noble Earl proposes to take away all discretion, and to say that automatically a conviction shall involve a loss of the licence for twelve months. It is easy to make speeches in defence of very severe penalties of that kind, but I think I am right in saying that experience shows that that kind of thing often defeats itself. There may be the case of a man who has driven a car carefully for years, and against whom no offence of any kind has been charged, and who has no other means of living. He is convicted of this offence, and the proposal is that automatically, without discretion, he shall not be allowed to drive for twelve months. There is a fear lest the effect of that may be that convictions will not always take place. It has been found that automatic penalties, if so severe, are apt to prevent conviction. We had an instance of that only the other day brought to our notice on this Bill. Your Lordships who were present may remember that there is in the Theatres Act a provision that a theatrical manager convicted of a certain offence shall automatically forfeit his theatrical licence. That has been on the Statute Book for many years and has been found to have the very effect which I have described, so that the Lord Chamberlain came down here the other day and gave it as his experience that it was far better to repeal the existing law and put in its place a
1450
discretion of the magistrates. He said he had known cases where the prosecution failed because of that automatic penalty. The magistrates thought that the penalty was too severe for the particular offence) and therefore refused to convict.
Those noble Lords who are anxious, as I have no doubt we all are, to protect the public, ought to consider the matter front that point of view. The magistrates have full power to-day to impose not only the penalty which is proposed in this Amendment but even longer suspension, but you are going to 'out in place of that discretion an automatic suspension. With regard to the proviso to the Amendment I agree that it is an improvement so far as the main proposal of the Amendment is concerned, but I doubt whether it is wise to extend the proviso to all the cases in which licences have been suspended. Every driver who has been disqualified for driving will see a chance of getting his disqualification reversed and the magistrates may be flooded with applications of the kind. But this is a minor point. Upon the main question I have given my reasons for suggesting that the Amendment needs careful consideration.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, I may possibly be pardoned if I intervene, as one of those who have appeared in both the capacities mentioned by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, not that I have ever been in the condition which he imputes to Judges and Peers, with absolute impartiality. There can be no doubt whatever that the history of the administration of the law regarding crime in this country proves that when automatically the Judges had to pronounce a very severe sentence and the juries had to find people guilty of crimes of which undoubtedly they were guilty, both the Judges and the juries omitted to do their strict duty. When a great many offences were punishable with capital punishment. Judges found a great many reasons for evading the strictness of the law. That was the reason why indictments were drawn in such a way as to appear absurd to people who were not lawyers at all.
The history of it was that the lawyers themselves were shocked at the penalty which would follow, and provided the accused with a great many loopholes for escape, and the Judges summed up in a way to give the prisoner chances which

1451
he did not deserve. When capital punishment was abolished with regard to those offences, when discretion was given to the Judge as to what sentence he should pass, there were far more convictions, and to my mind real justice was done. I speak in the presence of lawyers much more learned than myself, but it seems to me that the great difference between our law and the penal codes of many other countries—take France, for example—is this, that far more liberty is allowed to those who are administering the law in this country than is customary among people who are governed by a strict code, where the point at issue is laid down, and where, once the verdict is given, the Judge has no discretion as to what penalty he will award. The genius of our law is totally against that.
I may give perhaps, an instance within my own knowledge. The law was altered, I think, while I was on the Bench, but certainly for a long time, when I was at the Bar in country places, there were often indictments against people for having committed a crime which was sufficiently described in the law books as a crime non inter Christianos nominari. The penalty, on a verdict of guilty, for that crime was ten years' penal servitude. The Judge had no option but to pass it. I have heard Judges pass it most unwillingly. And what was the consequence? In most cases while that was the penalty, the Judges and the juries alike did not give the verdict which strictly ought to have been given upon the evidence. They found a person guilty of an attempt and he received eighteen months' imprisonment. That was altered by law, proper verdicts were given, and the Judge in those cases now gives that punishment which all fair-minded people hearing the case would desire to be given. I think what would happen in the case which we are now considering would be that if you deprived the magistrates of any kind of discretion they would not find a man guilty in some instances where they ought to find him guilty, because they would shrink from imposing the punishment.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must bear in mind the character of the punishments, which were so tremendously severe in old days that both Judges and juries connived at the evasion of their duty to find a particular person guilty. I can recollect very well
1452
hearing from my father that he was cognisant of one of the last cases in which a man was hung for stealing from his master. He happened to be a butler in the neighbourhood where my father lived when he was a young man. The crime he committed was to take a glass of wine out of a bottle, and for that he was hung. I think that abominable punishment, quite out of proportion to the offence committed, was brought to an end by that case.
I do not agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said about sentences. I think he instanced France, but, as a rule, I believe that sentences in this country are heavier than they are abroad. I have studied them in France, Italy and in Germany. But, of course, he is quite right in saying that if you are going to give a discretion there is not the same objection to a heavy punishment that there would be if you were obliged to give the actual punishment itself. I think the answer to what the noble and learned Lord has said is this. What is there either brutal or inconsistent with justice in disqualifying a man from driving for a space of twelve months because he has been convicted of drunkenness whilst in control of a motor car? It is a terrible thing that a man should be allowed to drive who has been convicted of such a crime. It seems to me a form of punishment, admirably suited to the offence. I recollect, in regard to the Traffic Bill, which I had the honour to introduce in this House, that fault was found with us for not putting in a heavier penalty on drunken drivers. The answer to that was that it was a matter which would be dealt with in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, and when the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill was brought forward this form of punishment was inserted in your Lordships' House—I will not say unanimously, but without any Division, I believe. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that this is a suitable punishment, and there is no harm in putting it in the compulsory form rather than giving a discretion to the magistrate in each case. I shall certainly support the noble Earl if he goes to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, my experience, of course, is not equal to the experience of Lord Darling, but I have been a magistrate for some years, and I am inclined to think that if

1453
we enact that if a man is found guilty of drunkenness when driving a motorcar there must be a penalty of twelve months' suspension of his licence, certain magistrates will say: "It is a very hard penalty. His livelihood is involved. I do not think that he really was drunk. There may have been a misunderstanding." There is a danger of that. But, we must remember that there is a proviso, which says that at the end of three months the magistrate may reconsider the question, and restore the man's licence. That being so, I think it would be advisable to pass the noble Earl's Amendment, because I do think we want to bring home to the magistrates that there is an enormous danger at present to life and limb from the driving of motor-cars by drunken or reckless people, and that they must give severe penalties in such cases.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I venture to suggest that there was a certain fallacy in the argument of Lord Darling. He gave instances of cases in former clays in which there were extravagantly severe sentences, and, not unnaturally, when a penalty bore no relation to the offence, Judges and juries were, very reluctant to convict. But can that be said in any sense whatever in the present day? It seems to me that the offence of driving a thing like a motor car when you are drunk is one of the gravest offences you can commit against the community. You are not only endangering your own life and the lives of those in the car, but you endanger the lives of others, as has been shown in numerous instances.
I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Carson, that not only is the penalty a moderate one for the offence, but an absolutely necessary one. My noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam says—though I think this is an answer rather to Lord Darling than to Lord Banbury—that if the penalty is too severe the magistrates will not convict. The same thing may be said of the penalty of sending a man to gaol, which is a severe penalty. My noble friend says it is not arbitrary, and I agree, but it might be said that they would not convict because there is this penalty hanging over the man. Be that as it may, I cannot see why it should be said that this is an un-
1454
reasonable penalty for the offence, and therefore, I shall vote for the Amendment.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I came to the House intending to support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I am bound to say that the course of this debate has entirely changed my mind. The case you are considering now is a very mild case in which the justices might hesitate as to what to do. What we are agreed upon, I think, is that if a man is driving a motor car and his sobriety is subject to the slightest suspicion he ought to be considered as committing an offence which requires some punishment. It is said that the mildest case of intoxication when in charge of a motor car should be dealt with and the extreme case, of course, should be punished with great severity.
I ask your Lordships, many of whom are magistrates, to call to mind the character and disposition of your brother magistrates and the sort of individuals in your neighbourhood, old coachmen and such persons, who are now occupied as drivers of taxi-cabs and for the most part are really sober but are not altogether above temptation. Take the case of such a man who, when in charge of a motor car, was on the border-line between drunkenness and sobriety. He is brought before the magistrates and charged. Clearly the desire of the bench is that they should convict and should mark the offence in some way. But are we not perfectly certain from our knowledge of our own neighbours that in any number of such cases the justices will take a lenient view if they know that the result of a conviction would be that he may be sent to prison for three months?
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, in this case it is hardly a question of deciding whether a man is mildly intoxicated or not, or of whether we want to punish him for driving a motor car when in that condition. It is a case in which we want to prevent a man from driving a car when his faculties are not under control, whether he is mildly or considerably intoxicated. The object is to protect the public. It seems to me to be perfectly wholesome and desirable that it should be understood that any man who, in a state of intoxication, drives a motor car will be subject to this penalty, and that

1455
it will thereby be put out of his power to drive again for three months, so that the public may have even that respite.
In regard to what has been said about the magistrates, I have been for a short time a member of a bench of magistrates who are not at all disposed to favour their old coachmen and footmen. They live on a main road running through a large town, and there is a danger of offences of this sort, and I feel sure from my experience that they always give very proper and correct sentences, having regard to the merits of the case and the necessity of protecting the public. Therefore, on the ground that it is necessary to protect the public from this danger, I shall support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, as far as I have followed the discussion, I am certainly a supporter of those who desire to deal with these offences, and if I understood the noble and learned Lord aright the only issue is as to the best way of bringing that about. I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, in commenting upon the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, called attention to the atrocious sentences that were passed and the feeling against making them effective that arose in the minds of those on the bench. From my own recollection I can give your Lordships a case of a much milder character and that is really the reason for my remarks. When I occupied the position of Director of Public Prosecutions the Bankruptcy Act then in force made it a punishable offence fee a person to obtain credit without disclosing that he was an undischarged bankrupt and it was held that there was no necessity to prove any intent to defraud. I found that the effect of that was that the jury would acquit, in spite of direct evidence that the man charged had obtained credit without disclosing the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt, his defence being that he thought there was no harm in it.
In the case we are considering the magistrates dealing with a man who has driven to the public danger, or recklessly, or whatever it may be, would be prepared to punish him for that offence. But where the issue of drunkenness was also raised and the marl was of good character there
1456
would be a tendeny for them to consider that they could punish him severely without taking drunkenness into consideration at all. And they would give him the benefit of any doubt there was and would not deal with the case of drunkenness.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in saying a word in reply, I might deal first with what the noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, said. If the case is, as he was pleased to say, a border-line case, a case in which there is a reasonable doubt, clearly it will be the duty of the justices to acquit. You do not convict a man of a criminal offence when there is any reasonable
doubt about it. I should be the last person to be in favour of a man being convicted of so serious and, as I think, so discreditable an offence as being drunk in charge of a motor car if there were any doubt about it. And I do not think that justices will be so weak-kneed as to be deterred from doing their duty by the fact that the man has to be punished.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, made a speech with which I must say I almost entirely agree in its general principles, just as I agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down. It is the principle of our law, and a most excellent principle it is, to give the fullest possible discretion to magistrates. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I am very sorry to be departing from that principle in this instance. But this is an offence of a very serious character which has been growing and which, I think, requires to be checked by something rather exceptional. When the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was calling attention to the penalties under this clause, he said that penalties were provided already and that this cause stiffened even them. Be it so. It does in fact happen now, and I am constantly seeing in the daily Press, that people are convicted of being drunk while in charge of a motor car and fined only 40 s. That seems to me in all the circumstances to be an inadequate penalty and I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, that nothing short of a sentence of imprisonment is really a proper penalty.
But when we come to the instances that Lord Darling gave of ferocious punishments, they surely do not apply to a

1457
thing of this sort. This is not a fine, it is not imprisonment, it is merely saying, in the interests of His Majesty's lieges who have not been drunk, but who have been imperilled by drunken drivers, that that menace shall be removed from the streets for a short period. Observe the proviso. Provided the man is of good conduct, and provided the magistrates are satisfied he is likely to drive carefully and soberly in the future, they can reinstate him after three months. I am sorry, indeed, to differ from the general view of the law with which I entirely agree, but in this instance I think we require to do something. The noble Lord, Lord Charnwood, spoke of a mild case of drunkenness. Well, even a mildly drunken person driving a car weighing nearly three tons at the rate of forty miles per hour is a grave public danger.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Ullswater, V.

Harries, L.

Hemphill, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Kilmaine, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Lamington, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Askwith, L.

Lawrence, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Atkinson, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Eldon, E.

Avebury, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Midleton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Northbrook, E.

Biddulph, L.

Newton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Carson, L.

Olivier, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Chaplin, V.

Parmoor, L.

Hadlane, V.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hood, V.

Danesfort, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Novar, V.

Erskine, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Wargrave, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, C. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Astor, V.

Jessel, L.

Devonport, V.

Merrivale, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Merthyr, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Sutherland, D.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bledisloe, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Queensberry, M.

Charnwood, L.

Philimore, L.

Darling, L.

Raglan, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Somers, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Sumner, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wavertree, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Offences triable at Quarter Sessions.
4. Offences under sections fifty to fifty-six of the Past Office Act, 1908.
We are suffering from him. He causes very serious loss of life to people who are quite innocent, and we ought to protect those people. I think that by this we shall be doing something to protect them. Of course, there is the other view, that they may be better protected if we do not pass this. That aspect of the matter has been ably explained by the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill. But we all have oar own views, and I still think that if we have this compulsory suspension for some years it may do good. I shall propose to take the opinion of your Lordships if the noble and learned Viscount does not see his way to accept it.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be inserted:—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 37.
7. Offences under the following provisions of the Larceny Act, 1916, that is to say, section twelve, section eighteen, paragraph (iv) of subsection (1) of section twenty, section twenty-four and subsection (2) of section thirty-three.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out paragraph 4. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to

1459
put His Majesty's Government in the position of being defeated again this evening and I do not intend to press this Amendment. At the same time I trust the Lord Chancellor will see his way to accede to it. The object of the Amendment is to take out of the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions some offences which are very serious in the eye of the law and which may entail the punishment of penal servitude for life. There are one or two other offences which do not entail quite so serious a penalty but still very serious penalties, but the whole should stand together. They are what I call Post Office offences. The Lord Chancellor, on the last occasion, said that he believed there was some difference of opinion between different Government offices and I hope he will come down this evening on the side of the Government office which proposes to leave these matters to Assizes and not submit them to Quarter Sessions. I move the omission of this paragraph in order that they may remain as at present offences triable only at Assizes.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, lines 11 and 12, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, since the last debate I have, as I promised, consulted those who are specially cognisant of this kind of offence and I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to adopt the Amendment. The proposal is that what the noble and learned Lord has called Post Office offences, offences small and great of the servants of the Post Office, public servants, should be all sent to Assizes. Our proposal is that magistrates shall have a discretion if they choose to send such offences for trial at Quarter Sessions. These offences differ very greatly in importance. Some of them are very serious, some are less serious, and on the whole I think it is best to leave justices with a discretion in this matter to commit either to Quarter Sessions or to the Assizes. Under this Bill some of these offences may be dealt with summarily at petty sessions, and it seems somewhat absurd if they can be dealt with by magistrates at petty sessions that they are not to be dealt with by Quarter Sessions. There is this further consideration, that it may mean a long delay if you insist on sending them to the Assizes. It may be that the
1460
Assizes will not be held for many months while Quarter Sessions may be coming on in a few weeks, and to insist on a man being kept until the Assizes may mean that he is kept for a long period without trial. I feel sure that the proposal in the Bill is right and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: It is no good pressing the matter at all, and I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is intended to deal with some defects in the working of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. Under that Act the Railway and Canal Commissioners can under certain circumstances order money to be paid into court. When they have made up their mind to grant facilities but have not ascertained the amount of compensation to be paid, they can order a sum of money to be paid into Court pending a decision. They cannot order payment of the money out of court. They have to go to the Court of Chancery and use the procedure of that Division. This is somewhat inconvenient and unworkable, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commissioners to order payments into court in all proper cases and to make orders for payment of money out of court on which the Paymaster-General will act. The Bill is to obviate some defects in the machinery of the existing Act, and I hope that your Lordships will assent to it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for his explanation. I took a great interest in the original Act and I was not quite clear as to the necessity for this Bill, but I am glad to hear the explanation from the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
Moved, That this Report be now received.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have had an opportunity of communicating the question that I desire to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe. If he will look at the definitions in Clause 24 he will see that
"The expression 'costs of collection' includes all costs and expenses incurred by a committee constituted for a collection area in the exercise of any of the powers (whether of collection or management) …"
I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say upon that point, because I understood that the costs of collection and management were to be differentiated and that, although the cost of collection was to be a charge against the income of the tithe owner, the cost of management was to be found out of the special fund already in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether I am right or wrong. It appears to me that the real cost of management will be thrown, not on Queen Anne's Bounty, but on the income which would otherwise come to the tithe owner, if all the expenses of management as regards the committees constituted in these local areas are to be borne in the way which appears to be suggested in this case. In other words, does he mean that those costs are to fall upon the tithe owner or that they are to be costs borne by the general funds of Queen Anne's Bounty?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I think I can reassure my noble and learned friend on this point. If he will look carefully at this definition clause he will find that it refers only to the costs and expenses incurred by a local committee of collection. It does not refer to the costs of central administration which Queen Anne's Bounty have expressed their willingness to discharge out of their corporate fund. These are simply the costs of, and incidental to, the local collection by the local collection committee, which are not covered by the central cor-
1462
porate fund our, of which the central administrative expenses will come to be discharged.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to make one comment upon that. It means that the real expenses will be thrown upon the tithe owner. However, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer that he has given.
On Question, Motion agreed to and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 4 [Provisions for extinguishment of tithe rentcharge at expiration of eighty-five years.]:
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4), after "As from the," to insert "day following the," and to leave out the first "of" and to insert "for." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the Amendment which follows in my name on the Paper are really drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 3, line 31, after ("the") insert ("day following the"), and leave out the first ("of") and insert ("for").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

Clause 14 [Application to extraordinary tithe rentcharge, corn rents, etc.]:
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("under") and insert ("of").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

PETROLEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Provisions of Explosives Act, 1875, incorporated with Modifications.
1. The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conveyance of petroleum spirit by road, and in particular for declaring or regulating any of the following matters; that is to say,—
(3) Fixing the places and times at which the petroleum spirit is to be loaded or unloaded, and the quantity to be loaded or unloaded or conveyed at one time or in one carriage; and
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (3), to leave out from the first

1463
"the"to "conveyed," and to insert "quantity of petroleum spirit which may be". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and two other small Amendments, which appear in my name, are intended to meet points raised by the London County Council, and the Home Office have no objection to them. So long as the Home Office can regulate quantity, they have no objection to the questions of time and place remaining in the care of the London County Council, who rather fear that the powers may possibly overlap. The Amendments which follow are also designed to meet objections raised by the London County Council on the question of fire arising from petroleum. They fear that without. the Amendment the jurisdiction may be rather wide and will not refer to petroleum spirit alone. Here, too, the Home Office have no objection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out from the first ("the") to ("conveyed") in line 7 and insert ("quantity of petroleum spirit which may be").—(Lord Desborough.)

Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("if the explosion or fire involved petroleum spirit")
Page 6, line 46, after ("shall") insert ("if the explosion or fire involved petroleum spirit").—(Lord Desborough.)
Privilege Amendments made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SANDWICH PORT AND HAVEN BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, as I have had an Amendment on the Paper for some considerable time, I think I ought to explain to your Lordships that it was removed because proposals were made by the Government to the Kent County Council that were entirely satisfactory to the latter.
On Question, Motion agreed to and Amendments reported accordingly.

ROADS AND STREETS IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION GRANT.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR rose to move to resolve, That this House, without raising the question of the principle of the block grant, deplores the proposals contained in Circular 1371, on the grounds that they will entail either a transfer of national burdens to the rates or the abandonment of these schemes of educational development which the Board itself had urged the local educational authorities to prepare.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot preface my remarks with the words that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, used—namely, that he was unwilling to bring the Government face to face with a second defeat to-day. At the same time the Motion which stands in my name is inspired by no Party spirit. Indeed, even if the labour Party wished to make this a Party question, public opinion would not allow them to do so. It is fair to say that the whole thinking portion of the community is profoundly shocked by the provisions of the Circular which we have under discussion. Their reception in what we may call the more respectable Conservative Press has been no more warm than that meted out to it by the journals of the Opposition, while resolutions from all parts of the country, from bodies of all shades of political opinion and non-political opinion, have been pouring in. A resolution passed by the county education committee of which I am a member is only typical, and it condemns this Circular in no weak terms. I refer to that. only because, being a member of the committee myself, I know from personal experience that it is composed almost to a man of good, solid, sturdy Conservatives and, with the humble exception of myself, I do not think there is a single member who can be suspected of having received orders either from Moscow or from the more respectable neighbourhood of Eccleston Square.
The case can be put in very few words and I do not think that it is necessary to detain your Lordships very long. Early this year Circular 1358 was received by all local education authorities urging them to prepare schemes of development covering at least three years. In addition to this particular Circular there were many others sent round, which dealt with specific points upon which the Board desired to lay special stress, but the pressure to go ahead was not confined to these circulars. There were countless letters and personal interviews. Again I only speak for my own authority. Continued progress has been urged. In consequence of this pressure from the Board, committees and sub-committees, composed of busy and public-spirited nice, have been sitting for weeks on end preparing schemes which would both increase the efficiency of elementary education and provide for an enormous increase of secondary education.
Imagine, therefore, the horror with which we received Circular 1371, to the provisions of which I will refer in a-moment, and the irony of having to consider it at the meeting which was called in order to -approve for the Board the products of all our labours under Circular 1358. I ask your Lordships, has any Department ever perpetrated so cruel a joke upon those local authorities, with whom it professes to work in cooperation? Let, us look for a moment at the Circular itself. The first thing we notice about it is that it is most lamentably drawn up and capable of countless false interpretations; but through the fog of loose verbiage emerges three clear facts. In the first place, we are to return to the principle of a block grant. Secondly, these block grants are to be based on last year's grant, 1924-5, lens 1 per cent.; and thirdly, children under five are to be discouraged, or perhaps I should say that the local authorities are to be discouraged from taking children under five, while no provision is made for the extension- of nursery schools.
On the merits of the block grant your Lordships are not asked in my Motion to pass judgment, to-day. It raises such a vast number of technical complexities that I felt it was undesirable to allow the more important question to be sidetracked; but at the same time I hope that the wording of my Motion may not be taken as an acceptance of the principle.
It is quite true that since the issue of the Circular the Minister's statements have been inclined rather to modify its provisions, but he has not withdrawn them. In fact, it is fair to say that he has done very little more than open the door of escape by putting himself into a position to be able to buy off the more powerful and more aggressive authorities. More so far as they really only add to the confusion, by introducing fresh contradictions, we may well ask ourselves why, if the Minister did not mean what he said in the Circular, he ever issued this extraordinary document, and why we are twice told in the Circular that the Board has ever decided—"decided" is the word -he uses—to make these economies.
What exactly do these so-called economies mean? They mean that having driven the lo-cal authorities to prepare schemes of development, the Board now, by changing their basis of making grants, intend to disclaim all responsibility for the expense incurred under these schemes. The local authorities are left in the position of having to choose between paying for the increase them selves or abandoning the schemes. In both cases, the Board is clearly declining to fulfil its duties, in the one case at the expense of the ratepayer, and in the other case at the expense of the child. I assert that neither of these proposals constitutes economy at all. One is a mere transfer of expenditure to the rates, and the other is an example of short-sighted cheeseparing which will have to be paid for by future generations. If your Lordships will allow me I should like briefly to examine these two matters. The first raises financial issues which in a debate on education can only be glanced at. It means the transfer of the burdens of the Exchequer to local rates, and raises therefore precisely the same question as is raised by the projected raiding of the Road Fund—namely, how far shall the false budgeting of the Exchequer be slurred over by transferring expenditure to a sphere—the rates—which does not have to appear in the Budget; and secondly, how far will the country's finances be benefited by such a transfer?
The first question obviously requires no answer. The very suggestion of such a step is immoral. The second is of more importance, and was debated at considerable length in both House of Parlia-

1467
ment during the Budget discussion. The view was then expressed, and could not be seriously disputed, that while Income Tax is an appropriation of profits, rates are a standing charge. Irrespective of profit or loss they have to be paid, and therefore are a definite item in the cost of production. Therefore, while it is admitted by every body that all forms of taxation, both central and local, should be reduced, the method of assessing to local taxation renders it far the heavier burden on industry. The proposals of the Minister disregard this economic fact to an extent which the figures that I will venture to lay before your Lordships will demonstrate. In the West Riding of Yorkshire it has been calculated by the local authorities that this Circular will entail a decrease in grant varying from £100,000 next year to £246,000 in 1929. In London the cost to the rates will next year be £400,000, rising in 1927–8 to over 2500,000. In my own county—a rural county with a very much smaller rateable value—it will mean a total cost to us of something between £35,000 and £40,000, entailing, according to the figures with which the Board of Education have very kindly supplied me, an additional rate of 6¼d. over the whole county. Those of your Lordships who are county councillors, and who take part in local work, can, I know, give parallel cases for the bodies of which you are members. If this really is the Government's idea of how to make economies, I venture to suggest that the country, and, I think, your Lordships yourselves, will probably take a very different view.
But there is an alternative. It may be said that if the rate-payers are unable to raise money to pay for these schemes then let them abandon the schemes, or at any rate part of them. But, if this is the desire of the Government, why has the President of the Board of Education spent almost every day of this year in going about the country making speeches, urging local authorities to go on with their schemes, and impressing on the nation as a whole the importance of education. Why did the Prime Minister at the last General Election join with the other two Parties and give, to use the. words of The Times, "definite pledges that bind the present Administration?" Surely on this occasion, if ever, educationists had a right to think
1468
that the Ministers of the Crown were acting in good faith in making these speeches. I assert without fear of contradiction that it will take years to revive the feeling of confidence, which was only just recovering after the blow delivered by the Geddes "axe," because the course taken by the Government is not only an act of folly, but a deliberate breach of faith.
It is worse than that. It is not only arrangements for future developments that are in danger. Your Lordships are probably aware that it was only after long and protracted negotiation that it was possible to settle the difficulties about teachers' salaries. A settlement was come to, known as the Burnham settlement. That award was agreed to by local education authorities on condition that the existing basis of grants was maintained. That is quite clear, because I will react the clause:
"So far as the education authorities are concerned, any agreement arrived at shall continue to be operative only so long as the present grant system is not altered to their prejudice."
Sir George Lunn was then representing the local education authorities, and I think, therefore, it might interest your Lordships to know what Sir George Lunn is thinking to-day. He should be in a position to judge what is likely to be the effect of this Circular. Speaking at Newcastle, the other day, he said:
"I tell you deliberately, teachers' scales of salary are in jeopardy all over the country."
This point was put to the President of the Board of Education in another place in a Question, and in his answer he said that he would undertake to see that local education authorities did not break away from their contract. But what right has he to say that, when the whole trouble is caused by the fact that he himself broke his side of the contract? Moreover, those of your Lordships who are interested in education will find it very hard to believe in the real devotion of the President of the Board to the Burnham Award, after the manner in which he has just lately flouted it in Essex.
Surely all this is a policy of despair. Are we as a nation so poor in material wealth, so poor in imagination, that we cannot even afford recognition of the claims, economic and human, of educa-

1469
tion? Has our sense of values so far deteriorated that, while we can spend £20,000,000 or more on subsidies to the coal mines, while we can spend £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 or more on constructing a naval base at Singapore, while we can afford over £40,000,000 for the relief of Income Tax and Super-Tax payers, we cannot afford a small percentage of the total of these sums for the spreading of knowledge?
I prefer to take the point of view of the present Foreign Secretary—or at least his ideas as expressed in May of this year. He said:—
"If our commerce and our industry are to hold their own against a host of active rivals, if we are to succeed in making the life of our young people a fuller and richer thing, more open to the higher influences which dignify and lighten the burden of work, it must be by the grown of knowledge in all the various arts and sciences which underlie human progress."
It is to the practical application of those ideals that we must look for hope in the future, not to the confusion of cheese-paring extravagance. This Circular is the very antithesis of those ideas. It is a betrayal of every-one connected with the spread of knowledge. It is a betrayal of the local authorities, it is a betrayal of the teachers, it is a betrayal of the child, and, lastly, it is a betrayal (f the interests of the nation itself. Surely, my Lords, it is for you and me who have had all the benefits of education, who know what it means in our practical everyday lives, and in the mental and spiritual life that forms the background of our practical life, to be among the very first to utter our protest that those who are less fortunate than ourselves should be deprived of those benefits. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That this House, without raising the question of the principle of the block grant, deplores the proposals contained in Circular 1371, on the grounds that they will entail either a transfer of national burdens to the rates or the abandonment of these schemes of educational development which the Board itself had urged the Local Educational Authorities to prepare.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I should like to recall to the House the origin of this percentage block grant
1470
which has been assailed by the Circular just issued by the President of the Board of Education. In 1914 the irregularities in connection with the distribution of education grants were very apparent to every one in the country, and a great deal of trouble was taken by the officials at the Board of Education and those in the provinces to try to discover the best possible system of paying State grants to aid progressive education in the country. A Treasury Committee was appointed, upon which Sir George Murray and others sat. They came to the conclusion that it was desirable Do have a similar system to this percentage block grant, and the words they used when they reported were these:—
"We think it may be accepted that no reform of the present systems can attain to any degree of permanence which does not tend to reduce substantially the existing inequalities of rate and at the same time provide for an automatic expansion of the Government Grant concurrently with an increase in the local expenditure which it is intended to aid."
I want your Lordships to realise that this Treasury Committee recognised that there should be an expansion of the Government grant concurrently with an increase in local expenditure.
It has always been the policy of the Board of Education that when progressive education was being considered by local authorities their scheme should be approved before the State contribution was forthcoming. In 1914 I prepared a Bill carrying out this policy, and, subsequently, when Mr. Bonar Law was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the second Coalition Government, he approved, on behalf of the Conservative Party of that day, Mr. Fisher's proposals carrying out exactly this principle. From that day to the present that principle of a percentage block grant has obtained in our educational system. It was successively approved by Mr. Baldwin when he was at the Treasury, by Sir Austen Chamberlain when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by Sir Robert Horne when he was at the Treasury. It was also approved by Mr. Neville Chamberlain and, subsequently, by Mr. Snowden.
Now there is to be an alteration, apparently, which entirely sweeps away the principle upon which that permanency was expected. Ender Mr. Churchill's pressure a Circular has been issued which

1471
is entirely in opposition to the system which has been established, which, on the whole, has worked very well, and under which progressive education has been placed before local authorities in a way which has been to the general advantage of the community. I part company at once with those, among whom are members of your Lordships' House, who object to public expenditure on education and are even opposed to progressive education supported out of the public purse. I am convinced that the action of the President. of the Board of Education is unworthy of him.
First of all, he is discouraging infant children being allowed to go to school in the infant schools of the country. am one of those who believe that a good home is the best place for the majority of young children up to the age of five; but I recognise that there are slum areas and that if children in those areas are to have a fair opportunity of education it is absolutely essential that they should be under discipline in an infant school, where they can be properly looked after, instead of being left in the gutter, which is their only alternative when the schools are closed. With one sweep, without considering what is the view of the education authorities, without even asking them to meet him, Lord Eustace Percy has reduced the block grant for the infant children from 36 s. per head to 6s. per head. What can be expected of the local education authorities when, having made all their arrangements in regard to their expenditure in the future in regard to these infant schools, they are suddenly told that five-sixths of the grant in connection with those infant schools is to be removed at one fell swoop without any consideration whatsoever for the infant children themselves?
Then, there is the point, which was very-well taken by the noble Earl who preceded me, that only in March last the Government pursued an absolutely different policy to that indicated by the Circular under discussion. They issued a Circular calling upon all education authorities to plan schemes ahead for three years and to place before the Board of Education practical proposals for securing progressive education throughout the country. Those proposals would have had to be fairly considered on their merits, but whilst education authorities
1472
are considering their proposals and their schemes with a view of putting them before the Government, there comes suddenly a suggestion that no contribution whatsoever will henceforth be forthcoming in connection with progressive education because the block grant is really to be a block grant and no longer a percentage block grant.
There are, of course, other points in the Circular which are really retrogressive but upon which I do not wish to dwell. There have been two occasions on which education money in this country has been saved. One was when Sir Eric Geddes was called upon to recommend reductions of expenditure in all Government Departments. Opinion differs, of course, as to whether a reduction in education is really of advantage to the State or not; but even if it is an advantage in certain emergencies to reduce expenditure on education, it ought not to be done in the way in which the present Government are doing it. Sir Eric Geddes reported that the system was a money-spending device. It is very easy to make a statement of that kind, because if money is expended in encouraging any progressive work it is undoubtedly a money-spending device to allow what is practically a pound for a pound to be spent upon education as between the State and the local authorities.
Sir Eric Geddes, however, had no suggestion to make in connection with this system of percentage block grant, but he did ask that an inquiry should be made into this question so as to see whether a better system could be suggested. Lord Meston was appointed Chairman of a Committee which was set up in 1922. For all I know that Committee has not sat for the last two years. It has never reported, and I have been informed by a member of it that 80 per cent. of the arguments that were placed before it went to show that the percentage block grant was the best system that could be devised, and that, therefore. they have not reported. I should like to ask the Government to state, when they reply, when that Committee last sat, and when they expect it is going to report. I can understand the Government at the present time saying that another period has arrived when it is necessary for us to reduce expenditure, and we must have

1473
some halt in connection with the expenditure that we are incurring for education. If that is their view, they ought surely to have invited the local education authorities to meet them, and to have taken them into consultation before suddenly telling them that one per cent. less than they had hitherto received in connection with their grants will in future be paid to them by the State.
At the present moment education in elementary schools gets about a 56 per cent. grant from the Government of its total expenditure; higher education gets 50 per cent.; and the average is something like 55½ per cent. Now that is going to drop by 1 per cent., and all the progressive schemes are going to be discouraged at one fell blow by this Circular which is a sort of axe coming clown upon the expenditure of local authorities. I have received letters from a good number of education authorities already on this question. I am not going to trouble your Lordships' House with them, but one authority tells me that they have been obliged to take in a certain area outside their own district, and therefore there is an immigration, as it were, into the area over which they have control. They find the schools are inadequate, and they have laid out their plans to increase the accommodation. They have also proposed to establish a school clinic and to increase the technical instruction given in their schools. Instead of being supported any longer in those things by the State, they are to be thrown entirely upon the generosity of the ratepayers, who feel that they are already overburdened with rates.
There are three ways by which economies can be secured. One would be by teachers' salaries. But there is no possibility of economy in that way owing to the guarantee the teachers have under the Burnham scale. There are two other ways in which local education authorities might economise. One is in what are called administrative services. Last year these administrative services cost in this country £2,500,000. These services include inspectors and clerks and individuals who are absolutely necessary to see that the children attend the schools regularly. I am informed, speaking generally of the country—I am not alluding to London—that these offices are understaffed, and that if the nation is to
1474
get full value for its money the administrative staff ought to be strengthened rather than weakened. Therefore there is no possibility of economy in that direction at the present time.
Then there are miscellaneous items which come to about £7,500,000 a year. What are those items upon which the educational authorities could save? They are items such as rent. You cannot reduce the rent that you have arranged to pay for your schools. Then there is fuel. You cannot reduce your fuel bills unless you are to freeze the children it the schools. Next there are the rates that education authorities have to pay on many of their buildings. There is, further, the lighting of the schools, the cleaning of the schools, the caretakers' remuneration, the repairs, the books and the stationery. These miscellaneous items amount to a very substantial sum. Repairs, of course, amount to a large sum it is well known to every member of your Lordships' House that if repairs are required to a school building and you put off carrying out those repairs, eventually much more money will have to be spent than if the repairs were carried out at once. In this matter of repairs "a stitch in time saves nine." As to books and stationery, during the War the expenditure on these things fell sadly in arrear, and the arrears have never been made good. If the children are to be properly taught, and justice done to the educational system, instead of less money being spent upon books and stationery than is expended at the present time, rather more ought to be spent. When you analyse these items for local education you will find that there is no opportunity for the authorities to reduce their expenditure.
It is suggested that local elementary education should he reduced with a view to helping higher education. That is suggested in the Circular. But what a fallacy that is. Unless you have a sound ground work provided by elementary education you cannot build up your higher education. You must have elementary education first of all, and you cannot skimp it if you are to secure efficient higher education. The attitude that I think the Government ought to have taken on this matter was not to have issued a circular like this, but to have invited the local education authori-

1475
ties to come to them. The Government could then have said that they thought it was necessary to go somewhat more slowly with the progressive schemes. They should have discussed those schemes with local education authorities, and should not have issued an upsetting circular like this, which has created a spirit, of hopelessness on the part of all those engaged in the educational work of this country. It has done a great deal to set back the programmes for progressive education that the authorities were contemplating, which would have been of practical value to the community. This Circular is one of the clumsiest things that I have ever seen sent out by a Government Department. It is not worthy of such a man as Lord Eustace Percy, to whom I give credit for desiring to secure a good education for the country, and also to see the money well spent.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government for information concerning the change in policy indicted by Circular 1371 recently issued by the Ministry of Education. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I have a Question down on the Paper dealing with the policy of the Government and this Circular, it might help my noble friend who is to reply for the Government presently if I were to make my observations at this stage. The noble Earl who opened this discussion indicated quite clearly that the nation as a whole has taken this Circular as indicating a reversal of the policy that has existed during the past few years—namely, the policy of a gradual expansion of the educational services. This Circular contemplates a reduction of expenditure upon those services and means the closing down of a deliberate policy of expansion with a natural increase of expenditure on education.
I agree entirely with the noble Earl that such a policy as that of this Circular is contrary to the national interest. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to another point that is contained in the Circular, the substitution of a block grant for the principle of the percentage grant-in-aid. As the Circular states, quite rightly, this is a change of a far reaching character. As the noble Lord who has just sat down reminded us, between 1914 and 1018 successive Ministers
1476
of Education contemplated a reversal of the then existing policy of block grant. This policy of block grant is no new policy. In 1914, apparently, the Minister of Education decided to abandon it. In 1918 Mr. Fisher, then President of the Board of Education, did abandon the block grant system. This was done quite deliberately, and as the result of the experience of ten years of administration. The Government found that they were not getting that expansion in our educational services and system which most people thought we ought to have in the national interest, and they adopted the principle of the grant-in-aid on a percentage basis, because they were able to watch the development of other services based on that policy.
As your Lordships probably know, the school medical services have been gradually built up on the grant-in-aid percentage principle, and during the past generation there has been a great expansion in maternity and child welfare services. That has all been done on the percentage basis, and as the result of that expansion the chief medical officer was able, in one of his recent reports, to say that in the year 1924 39,000 infants were alive who would have been dead if the average mortality for the ten years at the beginning of this century had been maintained. That saving of life has been due entirely to the development of the infant welfare and maternity services, and it has been done on a percentage basis not on a block grant. Of course, it has cost money. Any attack on ignorance or thoughtlessness costs money, and I hope that these services are going to be continued, that more money is going to be spent on them, because if more money is spent on them judiciously, wisely and economically, we can save a great many more lives
In 1918 the abandonment of the block grant system was not done precipitously and without thought, or without a comparison of that system with the alternative which the country has had ever since. When Mr. Fisher passed his Bill and gave to the country that policy which we have had for the last six years, the percentage system, the grant-in-aid system, was an essential part of his policy. It was not a detail, it was an essential part of the policy under which our educational system has been expanded ever since. Now, as I understand, it is

1477
proposed to reverse that policy and go back to the block grant system which we had tried and abandoned. I say frankly that I consider this is a victory for reaction. The whole of this Circular contemplates the cutting down of the expenditure on education. If the Minister had said that in the development of new services the Government, owing to the need for economy, did not see their way to give fifty per cent. of the cost and that they must reduce their assistance to forty per cent. there would have been, I think, some justification for such a policy. But I see no justification for a reversal of the policy based on a deliberate desire to cut down the expenditure on education.
Up to now our policy has been a partnership as between the central education authority and the local education authority, and for that is now being substituted the policy of the dictatorship of the Treasury. I say that education is going to suffer by such substitution. What we have to consider is the future policy of this country, ten years hence, fifteen years hence, and twenty years hence. We are faced with world competition on a scale, unknown before the War, and the ability of this country to maintain its position among the leading nations of the world is going to depend very largely on the equipment which we give to our children to-day. The greatest asset which any nation can have is its children. We are sometimes told that local authorities are extravagant. I confess that I have never seen any burning desire on the part of the majority of local authorities to throw money away recklessly on education. After all, the Central Government is not paying the whole cost of the services. Fifty per cent. of the cost of education still comes out of the rates. The education rate is high, and most authorities think well and deeply before increasing the education rate.
The noble Lord who spoke last has also indicated another change of policy—namely, the diminution of control and supervision. The amount of economy which will be effected by this policy is, as far as I can make out, infinitesimal. It will mean less careful scrutiny of the use which is made of the taxpayers' money. I myself have had at different times to deal with local authorities. It was my great pleasure to be the Chairman of a Committee which recommended
1478
a policy to be adapted in connection with the fight against tuberculosis, and I also had something to do with recommending a policy for stamping out venereal disease. In every case we adopted the principle of the percentage grant-in-aid because we realised that that was the way in which to stimulate local authorities. That policy encouraged initiative, stimulated progress, and helped expansion, and at the same time enabled the Central Department to exercise careful supervision on the spending of the taxpayers' money given to local authorities.
The policy of the block grant was recommended by the Geddes Committee. That Committee consisted of able men, men of great business capacity and experience. I looked through their names again the other day and I cannot honestly say as I read through them that I found them to be the names of public men who have been intimately concerned with local government, with the administration of public health or of education, or with any of those services which bring Whitehall into contact with local authorities. On education the Geddes Committee said that the policy should be an increase in the size of the classes. That alone, to my mind, rules them cut and diminishes their qualifications for recommending any basis for our educational system. Their sole consideration—one does not blame them—was cash; to cut down the national expenditure on education. They made other recommendations. They made a recommendation in connection with national defence, and certainly the Chairman of the Committee was eminently qualified to make a recommendation on this matter as he had been First Lord of the Admiralty. They recommended that there should be a Ministry of Defence. They said it would prevent overlapping, duplication and extravagance, and that they "attached great importance to this in the interests of economy." If the Government want to economise, why do they not adopt this recommendation for the creation of a Ministry of Defence rather than cut down on the children?
We hear talk about the growth of class consciousness, class feeling. The Socialists are accused of increasing class consciousness. I have had many talks with people who belong to what are called the working classes. These men and women as they have grown up have

1479
realised that in their youth they were not given something which our children get to-day. As they put it: "You, the ruling classes, are keeping away from the poor, from our children, that which you provide for your own children." I know nothing which is so calculated to create bitterness or class feeling. Education removes the barriers which are associated with birth and rank; educated minds meet together on a common ground. I see great risk in adopting a policy of cutting down on education. We have given a gigantic power to millions of people. The destiny of our nation is in their hands. We are wondering how they are going to use this power. The use they make of the power we have given them depends on their intelligence, on the training we give them, upon their power to detect the fallacies which are periodically put before them by politicians, upon their power of reasoning, and, in short, upon the measure and the nature of the education that we give them when they are young and when they are reaching maturity.
It is the policy of this country to reduce the working hours of its citizens. The margins available for leisure are increasing. It is not when people are working that they get into trouble, but during their leisure moments. We are increasing the amount of leisure time available for the people, and the use which the citizens of this country are going to make of their leisure depends entirely upon our development of those latent possibilities which most people possess. The chief hope of maintaining our position in the world, the chief safeguard against what is generally known as Bolshevism, depends, as I see it, upon our bringing suitable and adequate education to our children. It is because, as I see the matter, the policy which is enunciated in this Circular means the checking of the growth of our educational system, because it is intended to check the expansion of those services through an increase of expenditure, and because it means the reduction of the control of the Ministry of Education over local authorities, that I for one deplore the policy and hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government may be able to announce that the impression which has been created in the country has been a wrong impression.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down
1480
expressed in the last words of his speech a hope which I trust may be fulfilled. The House none the less owes a good deal to my noble friend Lord De La Warr for having brought forward this subject in the form of an impeachment and for having taken it in detail. I myself still share the hope which the noble Viscount uttered. The present President of the Board of Education is respected by those who know him. We like him, we feel that he has a genuine interest in his subject and we know that before he entered upon office he did very good work in connection with the campaign for higher education. I cannot help feeling, looking back on my experience of Governments, that he has yielded a little too soon in this matter. I have no doubt that he was moved by the desire to be loyal to his colleagues. That in itself is a very praiseworthy principle in a statesman and we ought not to undervalue it, but at the same time I wonder whether, if he had persisted, if he had said that he must have sufficient money to encourage the local authorities, his colleagues would have interfered with him.
I remember very well a speech made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to his constituents about six months ago. I read it in The Times. He laid down that there must be economy, but not in education. He said that this nation could not afford economies in education, that the Government had no intention of economising in education. There is testimony indeed, and I think the present President of the Board of Education might well, upon that, have held the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his utterance. I am not sure that, if he had done so, he would not have found the great majority of his colleagues behind him. We have the utterances of the present Prime Minister and of other members of the Cabinet which have been referred to to-day, and beyond them there is the great general consideration.
This nation is going through a very trying period. We can keep the place which we won by the exertions of our forefathers only if we prepare ourselves. There is no business in our days that stands still. Every business has to develop new ideas and to make progressive advances if it is to hold its awn against its competitors. I am putting the case merely on its materialistic side when

1481
I say that, if it were for that alone, you would require education in the elementary schools and secondary schools of as high an order as it is in your power to give, not for the purpose of adding to your expenditure, but for the purpose of saving your expenditure. The most expensive thing we can do is to go down in the scale, and I regard expenditure upon education just as I regard expenditure upon finance, upon the police and upon other necessary things which we cannot avoid. You have to go on developing up to the point which is required if you are to hold your own in the world. To do anything of the kind that is now proposed is, to my mind, very mischievous from the point of view of economy and ought to have been ruled altogether out of the purview of the Geddes Committee, whose members, in spite of their excellence in regard to matters financial, were not, so far as I know, people who have allowed their minds to dwell upon education.
But we have to consider more than the material side of these things. The more you give people chances the more you get that contentment of which the noble Viscount has spoken and the more you prepare them to take such chances as they have—and they are now numerous—of going on to yet higher forms of education. That is the way to make the working classes feel that they have no longer a great grievance to face. This unfortunate Circular has produced a great deal of commotion. I do not think it is final, and my best wish for the Board of Education is that they should not treat it as final or conclusive. I think that the volume of protest which has arisen in the country and, indeed, the support which this Motion seems to be likely to have in this House, are enough to indicate that behind the objection to the principle of the Circular is something very real.
I feel sure that the Government will do wisely to take time to consider this situation further and I am not asking them to commit themselves. I know that the noble Lord who is going to reply cannot commit himself without much consultation. It will be sufficient if the Government will say that they are still prepared to take time to consider this matter when they have heard the local authorities. No doubt the President of the Board of Education will hear a great deal about this point in the other House,
1482
where a debate is to take place on Thursday, but it is a point for us to make here. Take time, review this matter, look at it from that larger point of view from which money spent on education is not merely increased expenditure but is even a method of saving; and then, having looked at it in the light of all that immense body of testimony which is coming forward now from the local authorities and from other sources, let the Government see what they can do to maintain a principle to which we have grown accustomed and on which the well-being, not only of the children but of the teachers and of those who are interested in the system, rests at the present time.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I will, if I may, take the speeches of noble Lords more or less in the order in which they were delivered. I am afraid I cannot hope to compete with my noble friend opposite in the more or less fiery oratory which he gave your Lordships on this subject, for I must stick to facts and I cannot permit myself to express any opinions which are not exactly based on facts. I think the noble Lord who asked me this Question is jumping to a great many conclusions from his reading of the Circular—conclusions which, I think, are quite unjustified. It is true that the block grant is being substituted for the 1918 system, and is being substituted deliberately and not in a hurry. I think I may say, with perfect truth, that the President has considered the block grant as being far more suitable than the percentage grant for some considerable time, and the only thing about the block grant system which may be objected to is that it may be said it has suddenly been sprung upon the local education authorities. It is, however, quite a deliberate policy, and has been decided upon, certainly in the mind of the President of the Board, for a considerable time.
I may say that the system of the block grant and in fact the whole policy of the Circular were originally considerel suitable from the point of view of education, and not from the point of view of economy. It is the deliberate idea of the Government, and it was put forward at the last General Election by the Conservative Party, that the higher education of clever children is really of more value to the State than a great deal of increased

1483
expenditure upon elementary education. But, as your Lordships will see quite clearly from the Circular, the obvious economies which are contemplated make it, I may say, imperative that the scheme should be brought into being as soon as possible. I do not think I need go very much into the present system as compared with the block grant system which will take its place, but the point of view of the Government is that it is a most unbusinesslike proceeding to ask for any particular sum of money, the amount of which is based entirely upon guess-work and is generally very much overestimated.
May I give your Lordships the figures for 1922–23? The forecast made by the local education authorities is asked for in November, it is estimated by the Board in December, and the actual expense does not become apparent until very much later. In 1923–4 the November forecast of the local education authorities was £78,837,837. The real expenditure was £70,078,433, and therefore the figure was over-estimated by the local authorities to the amount of £8,759,404. That does not appear to the Government to be a very business-like proceeding. The same thing occurred in 1923–4. The forecast of the local education authorities was £74,841,245, and the actual expenditure £67,584,660, and there again you have an over-estimate by the local education authorities of £7,256,585. The President of the Board does not like this system. He does not know where he is and also does not know what actual sum he is justified in asking for other educational purposes, and partly for that reason he wishes, and in fact has decided, to introduce the block grant system, where the liability will be defined. I do not think I need labour that point and I think it is quite clear. Indeed, upon that point I do not think there is a great deal of opposition.
The other point is the basis on which the block grant is to be fixed, and there is a good deal of opposition. The block grant has to be fixed upon a certain figure, and the only figure that was at all available was the figure of the last completed year. There has been a great deal of criticism of this. It is said that expenditure has gone up a good deal since then, and that if you take the expenditure of that particular year you
1484
are going to take away from the local education authorities a great deal of money which they were certainly budgeting on and which in all fairness is due to them. Now in the Circular 1358, referred to by the noble Earl, the local education authorities were asked to draw up programmes of their expenditure year by year for a period of four or five years from April, 1927.
I would like to say here, if your Lordships recollect what I said in my earlier remarks, that this system, which is set forth in Circular 1371, has been put forward before it was originally intended to be put forward, for obvious reasons. If the Circular had been published, say, in a year's time, the basis on which the block grant was to be fixed would have been on the programmes and the estimates produced by the local education authorities. But those programmes are not available at the present time. They will not be available—they have not been demanded—until Easter next year, and the consequence of that was that there were no figures or estimates available on which to base the block grant except the last completed year. I think I shall be perfectly right in saying that the policy of the block grant is the policy of His Majesty's Government. They think that it is a sounder and better proposition altogether and that it means that they can ask for a definite sum in their estimates. The rest of the Circular deals more or less with details, and these details are not fixed.
I must point out very carefully that the grant is a minimum grant. There is no question of a maximum grant. The noble Earl who made this Motion suggested that the figure of the grant, as set forth in the Circular, was the maximum grant that could possibly be received under almost any conditions, and that any other form of expansion which was proposed in his particular locality would have to be met by local rates. That is quite unfounded. The President has asked local authorities to meet him, and to discuss the details of this Circular and of the policy contained therein, and there is no hard and fast rule. The amount that any particular local education authority will receive under this Circular is not cut and dried in any way. They will receive a minimum based on the expenditure of 1924–25. Each authority will have to make out its own case, and

1485
will receive the fullest consideration of the President, with a desire to help them in any expenditure to which they are already committed with the approval of the Board, and also to deal with the special conditions of special localities. The President of the Board reserves to himself the full right to discuss these matters and to adjust the grant to what he considers, after such discussion with the local education authorities, to be a suitable figure for their localities. I do not think anything can be fairer than that.
The President insists on the change of system. I am not prepared to argue one way or the other about the block grant or the percentage grant, or, as I have heard it spoken of this evening, the percentage block grant—a term with which I am not quite familiar. But, as far as the block grant is concerned, from the point of view of the taxpayer it is far better to know how you stand, to know that the sum voted is a definite sum, and that you are not budgeting on absolute guesswork and generally on in flated estimates, when the benefit of the inflation will not be received by education because it goes towards the reduction of debt.
Another point made by the noble Earl who moved this Motion is that all the local education authorities in the country are producing figures and complaining that the new policy will cost them so much here and so much there. On behalf of the President of the Board, I must say, as I think noble Lords will have noticed from his answers in another place, that he cannot accept these figures without very careful scrutiny. To judge from the over-estimates that I have already quoted I should think that he is perfectly right. If the local authorities generally have over-estimated to the same extent, the ratepayers of their districts will be very agreeably surprised. My noble friend opposite referred to the commitments that the local authorities have already made on their old programmes. The President will very sympathetically consider the case of a local education authority which is already committed to capital expenditure of that kind, and it will be taken into account in arriving at the basis of the particular grant for that district. On the other hand, it docs not mean that local educa-
1486
tion authorities will be able necessarily to carry out after the year 1926 the complete programmes that they have prepared. These programmes have not come before the Board, and have not been approved of.
My noble friend drew a most pathetic picture of the enormous amount of time which he has expended on a programme, and he foresaw that the whole of his programme would be wasted, and that he would not be able to carry out alt the improvements which he contemplated. That will probably not be the case. The grant here is capable of revision, and is for one year. When the programmes are in, the grant may be revised with reference to the programmes produced by local education authorities. That, I think, is a great point. The President can revise the figure at any time. On the other hand, when he revises it he will still know just what his commitment is. It will not be guesswork, as it was under the old system.
The noble Earl made an impassioned appeal about education. I think he jumped to the conclusion that, owing to the issue of this Circular, the whole education of the country was more or less going to the dogs. I must say that personally I have never been a believer, as some people are, in the idea that efficiency in education is commensurate with expenditure on education, and I am rather surprised that my noble friend does not share that view, as efficiency combined with economy is, I should have thought, a remarkably good axiom. He seemed to think that because there might be some economy in the expenditure on education therefore the efficiency of education would necessarily be impaired. I do not think there are many of your Lordships here who would insist upon that as a truth.
I do not know that I have missed any outstanding points in the speech of the noble Earl who moved, and I should like to turn for a few moments to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Gainford, who I notice is not at present in his place. I will not go into any more details regarding the block grant system. I know that I have gone rather sketchily over the whole thing, but I feel that I am in a subordinate position in which it would be very unwise for me to go into any great detail and to take away the full

1487
value of the remarkable speech which I have no doubt the President of the Board will make to-morrow in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, suggested that the President of the Board had been pressed into this policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a wrong impression to give your Lordships. This policy is the deliberate policy of the President of the Board, and if there has been any pressure at all from that part of His Majesty's Government which is even more attracted to economy, it has merely been to push the system forward sooner than it would otherwise have been. It is the deliberate policy of the President of the Board and of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, asked me about Lord Meston's Committee. I am afraid I have no knowledge of that Committee, but I will try to get the information he requires and let him have it.
I ought to say something about that part of the Circular which deals with children under the age of five. One part of the formula in the appendix concerning the grant mentions the possible exclusion of children under five years of age. It is the opinion of the Government that, generally speaking, children under five should be in the home and not at school. But it is perfectly true, and is very clearly recognised by the Government, that in certain localities and under certain social conditions it is extremely advisable that children under five should be accommodated either wholly or partly in the schools. The President of the Board recognises that this is a possibility, although he considers that it should be discouraged to a great extent as being of little value to the child, except, as I say, in very special localities. He recognises that there are certain localities and certain social conditions in which it is advisable for children under five to be accommodated in this way.
The numbers of children on the register are interesting. On March 31, 1905, from the age of three to five, the number was 583,268. I will not go through all the figures, but the total dropped in 1922 to 158,285 as compared with the 583,000 odd that I have already mentioned. From various temporary causes it has gradually mounted again until, in 1925, it was 221,797, which is less than half of
1488
what it was in 1905. There is a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether there is a general social tendency to send children under five years of age to school, and I should like in this connection to quote the following recommendation from the Report for 1924 of Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer to the Board of Education:—
"That young children under six years of age should be discouraged from school attendance if the distance from school is excessive (or in winter or in inclement weather)."
This naturally has reference only to rural areas because the distance from school in urban areas would not be particularly excessive.
The whole point is that there is not the money available, as has been said on other occasions, for doing everything that educationists want to be done. Mothers and parents generally have to choose whether they think it is more valuable to have their children educated—I use the word "educated," although I do not think it actually meets the case of children of from three to five years of age—and so prejudice, under present conditions, the possibility of there being enough money available later on for them to have a higher education when their time comes. It is a matter of choice, a matter of opinion. The President of the Board is decidedly of opinion that it is far more beneficial to the children to have a chance of being educated in a higher way later on than for them to spend at school what we regard as the somewhat unprofitable years between the ages of three and five. That is his deliberate opinion and, as I think, the opinion, rightly expressed, of His Majesty's Government. They prefer the possibility of training-on at the other end rather than starting too early.
I was asked about the effect of the Circular on the scales of teachers' salaries under the recent Award of the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham. If your Lordships will allow me I will quote an answer given by the President of the Board to a Question asked in another place on Thursday last by Mr. Trevelyan. The answer is as follows—
"I have been informed that the standing joint committee passed a resolution in the sense indicated by the right hon. Member"—

1489
that is, as to the alteration of the grant without prejudice to principle, which was the question asked by the noble Earl—
"but I do not find that it was ever formally forwarded to me. It has, so far as I know, never been claimed that anything said or done in connection with the arbitration proceedings could commit the Government or Parliament in the slightest degree to the continuance of a particular grant formula or grant system, nor could I for a moment admit such a claim if it were made; but I have every intention of making such grants to authorities as will enable them to continue the payment of the allocated scales, and I have already made it clear that such payment will constitute a condition of grant."
I do not think I need add anything to that statement. It explains itself and it is, again, the deliberate policy of the Government that the Burnham Award should be kept as it is.
I am afraid I have dealt very inadequately with the Question raised by the Motion, but I would like to sum up in a few words the impression that I hope to have left upon your Lordships. It is that the policy of the block grant was a deliberate policy, founded on the possibility of there being a better education under it. The grant is a minimum and not a maximum grant, and is capable of adjustment to local conditions. Local authorities have merely to put their case adequately and properly, and to prove it, and I can assure them they will have sympathetic consideration from the Board, and that the grants can be adjusted. So far as the programmes which have been drawn up with great labour by local education authorities are concerned, the basis of grants can be altered to meet those later on when the programmes are submitted. The President has a great deal of lattitude to deal with special cases, of all kinds under the Circular.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: My Lords, the speech which has just been delivered to us on behalf of the Government has given us a somewhat more favourable interpretation of the Circular than is generally held. The noble Lord laid great emphasis on the fact that the figure for the last year will be the minimum figure, and that, therefore, there will be a possibility, and a probability in certain cases, of additional grants when the local authorities make out their case. I think it is regrettable, however, that this Circular was issued
1490
before a conference with the local authorities had taken place. No circular has, I think, caused such a consternation—possibly on a mistaken interpretation—among those who are interested in educational progress as that which is now under consideration. It has caused something like dismay, and the reports from various centres show us that in quite a large number of cases schemes which have been already undertaken have, for the time at any rate, been suspended to see what the final result of the discussion on this Circular will be.
Personally, I am not opposed to the block grant principle. I think there is a great deal to be said for it. But the opposition is not so much to the block grant as to taking as the, figure for it the amount of a year in which economy had, in a very special way, to be practised, and without taking into consideration the developments in education which, almost inevitably, must and certainly should take place in the next two or three years. Take, for instance, one illustration alone. In a number of localities large districts are growing up, numbering not thousands but tens of thousands of inhabitants. In one of those districts that I know within the next two years it is planned that three schools should be built. This will undoubtedly mean very heavy expenditure by the local authority. I hope this is the kind of case to which the noble Lord referred, and that it will be considered with sympathy by the Government or the Board of Education.
But I do want to stress one particular thing, the importance of which I think has not been sufficiently realised by the Minister of Education—namely, the bringing to the schools of the children under five years of age. The Minister of Health apparently holds that this should be discouraged, though in certain districts and in certain instances it might be allowed. I regard this as a very grave matter indeed. If I am asked whether I attach very much value to the actual education that is given to the children under five in schools, I must quite frankly say that if education means simply the imparting of knowledge and information I attach very little importance to it, but on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the education that children are to receive at the age of five is very often rendered impossible by the conditions under which they

1491
have been living previously. Ideally, no doubt, it would be right that children under five should be kept in their own homes and taught there, but we have to face the hard facts of the situation. Many of those children live in overcrowded homes, their playground is a tenement staircase or the crowded court or alley, they are underfed or badly fed, and the result is that when they go to school at the age of five they are at first incapable of receiving education.
I remember an experienced teacher working in a very poor part of a provincial town saying that the first two years of school life had to be spent in preparing the children from that district to receive anything that might be called education. The Chief Medical Officer to the Board of Education, writing in 1924, pointed out that there had been an immense improvement in the practical treatment of defective children who went to school, and he proceeded to say:
"But concurrently there has been little or no change in the causes and origin of disease in school children. Medical examination of children has probably revealed unsuspected defects which in earlier days remain undetected, but that cannot explain the fact that the number of sick children at the commencement of school life is as large as ever. The young child comes to school already diseased. In 1924, 38 per cent. of the entrants in London were found to require medical treatment. This clearly is home-produced and not school-produced."
Therefore the sooner you are able to bring the children into the school premises where, under proper treatment and under proper supervision, you are more likely to make them ready for education and for the teaching that they will receive when they reach the age of five. I do press most urgently on those who are responsible that they should not discourage children under five from attending schools from these poorer districts in which the conditions of life are so extremely difficult.
I quite realise the extraordinary difficulty in which the Government is placed. Everyone is calling upon them to economise, and the moment that they economise in any department they are told that that is a department in which economy is quite impossible. I think that education is possibly one of the very few departments in which we cannot, with safety, economise. I should like to emphasise that education does not affect
1492
only one particular class of interest, it affects the whole of the nation. The whole future of the nation depends upon the kind of education that is being given to its children. There may be differences of opinion as to the merits or demerits of democracy, but I am sure there could be only one opinion that of all politics the worst, the most dangerous, and the most incompetent is an uneducated democracy. For the future of the country and the welfare of its citizens, I trust that the Board of Education will make it perfectly clear that this Circular is not meant to discourage progress in education, and that the Government still stands definitely by the pledges it made at the last Election that national education should have a foremost place in its programme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships would allow me to say a very few words at the end of this interesting debate. I am not going to traverse the ground which was covered by my noble friend who spoke on behalf of the Government. I have nothing to add to what he said in regard to the details of this question, but I do think one or two words might be spoken in order to make the position of the Government clear. I think that the noble Earl who introduced the subject to your Lordships' notice used some very hard language of my noble friend the President of the Board of Education. He can take it from me that that language was wholly undeserved. There is not a more ardent educationist than my noble friend, and it is the measure of the position in which we stand financially that even he has found it necessary to do what he can to help the country in the situation in which we are placed. I hope that will be entirely and absolutely understood. I think there is nothing more unfair than the charges that have been made here and elsewhere against my noble friend.
There is an assumption that everything is rigidly fixed by the exact terms of the Circular which has been under discussion. That is not so. The principles, of course, upon which the Board of Education is prepared to work are disclosed in that Circular, but as regards the details, the amount, and the method of assessment, these questions remain open for discussion; and if noble Lords will read the

1493
Circular carefully they will see that such a discussion is foreshadowed with people interested in education in the localities. There is no desire, I can assure noble Lords, to starve education. That is not at all the policy of the Government in any case; and with reference to what the right rev. Prelate has said any commitments into which local education authorities have entered must be honoured. There is no suggestion that we should say to local education authorities who have entered into contracts that they must break those contracts. Nothing of the kind. There is no such suggest ion on the part of the Government.
But the fact remains that economy, not in the Board of Education alone but generally in all Departments of the Government, is urgent. I thought it a little hard, I must say, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gainford—he is not in his place at the moment, but I must say one word in reply to his speech—use the kind of language he did this afternoon. I do not say that he expressed himself immoderately, he never does, but he seemed to think there was no economic side to this question at all. It is only a few months ago that we listened to a very interesting speech delivered from exactly the same place by the noble Lord's leader, the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, and I should like to remind your Lordships even at this late hour of some of the very interesting phrases used by the noble Earl on that occasion.
Let me quote one. The noble Earl said this:—
"I say to the people of this country and to both Houses of Parliament, in the plainest possible terms, that expenditure on this scale is more than this country can afford."
I should like the noble Lord to have heard this—
"The inference, the inevitable inference, is that there is one and only one way of escape "—
I am making use of some strong language, but it is not my own language and I am not prepared to say that I go the whole length of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford—
"ruthless and relentless cutting down and cutting off of every form of avoidable expenditure."
And the noble Earl went on—
"The spending Departments always have at their disposal a well-filled arsenal not
1494
only of plausible but often of well-founded arguments. Are you going, they ask, to starve national defence? Are you going to cashier devoted and efficient servants of the State? Are you going—an argument which is perhaps more potent to-day than it used to be in days gone by—to cripple or main the machinery and the further and future developments of social reform?"
I hope the noble Viscount below me, Lord Astor, will see the length to which the Leader of the Liberal Party went.
And this is how the noble Earl concluded—
"But all those things, relevant as they are and, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view, difficult as they are, must give way to the supreme national necessity."
That was the argument of the noble Earl, and it is an argument, which has had no effect whatever en the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. He did not seem to appreciate that there was any need for economy; and though, as I have said, I should not perhaps have expressed myself in such terms as did the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, yet in the main he is right. It must be ruthless economy, not only in the Board of Education, in so far as that is possible without doing harm, but in every Department as well. I am quite confident that unless the noble Earl who introduced this subject and other noble Lords realise this they will undergo some shocks as the, policy of His Majesty's Government on economy gradually unfolds itself.
As for the policy on education, my noble friend behind me has already stated that we look to progress in education more in the development of secondary than elementary education. Most of us think that a good deal of money has been wasted on elementary education. It is not that we despise education, but we do not want to waste money, and with less money more wisely spent better results can be achieved. That is the direction in which we hope to move. I do not say that it can be achieved at once. It is a matter which may take many years to develop, but depend upon it, it is not by the lavish spending of money that you achieve great results, and above all, it is not by ignoring the vital necessities of the country that the Government desire to secure a reputation in the country and go down to history as an efficient Government. No. We hope not to spend lavishly but to spend money well, whether it be on education or any other service.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is only because my points have remained quite unanswered that I venture to rise again at this late hour of the evening. The noble Marquess has paid a personal tribute to the character of the Minister of Education, with which all of us must agree. At the same time this is not a personal matter; it is a matter of Cabinet policy. The points that I made, and which still remain unanswered, are, first, that this is a gross breach of faith with local authorities; that local authorities were urged to prepare schemes and were not put in possession of the full policy of the Government. The noble Lord who replied for the Government talked about schemes that I myself contemplated being put into operation and made it appear as though it was a personal grievance of mine. It was not only the expenditure on development that I contemplated, but the development and expenditure that were bring urged on us by the Board of Education itself. Then there was the question of the decrease in the expenditure of the Exchequer at the expense of the rates or of the children. That point was not touched. I am told that I jumped to a conclusion that this meant economy and the restriction of education. I do not think I jumped to a conclusion. All I know is that the local education authority of which I am a member has, since the issue of this Circular, actually put off the building of all its secondary schools, the very type of education which the Government profess to believe in most.
Then we are told that this is only a minimum. There is no mention of the word "minimum" or "maximum" in this Circular. I only take, and the country can only take, the Minister at his word. We are told that
"The President of the Board has decided that in the present state of the national finances he would not be justified in making so large a demand upon the taxpayer …."
and so on. Then we have in small print an appendix dealing with the basis on which he intends to make grants. There is not a word about a minimum or a maximum. We are told that the Minister is prepared to meet local authorities on the question of expenditure to which they are already committed. That may be so, but, to use the words of the noble Lord himself, these schemes which we are dis-
1496
cussing are not approved and therefore, apparently, the Minister does not intend to meet local authorities on the point of these schemes, but only on the point of expenditure which was started before these schemes. That does not meet the point at all.
LORD SOMERS: I think the noble Earl rather misunderstood me. I said that when the programme, or schemes, as he called them, are put forward by local educational authorities, the President of the Board will base the grants which he proposes to give on those schemes, duly considered by him.
EARL DE LA WARR: What the noble Lord first said was that he would meet local authorities with regard to schemes to which they were already committed; but they are not yet committed to these schemes. Moreover, on the further point that he raised, there is no mention in the Circular that the Minister intends to meet local authorities on the point of the future schemes which they have been devising and which are not yet approved. The noble Lord who replied for the Government said that the local education authorities would have a chance of meeting the Minister of Education and putting their views forcibly if they wished to do so. I think I can guarantee to the noble Lord that there will be a most literal interpretation of his words, and that he will find that even his most Conservative friends on the local education authorities will put their view most forcibly to the Minister. He also said that the Minister, to use his words, does not quite know where he is. That is exactly the impression that the contradictions both in the Circular and in his recent speech made upon me, and I would suggest that, for the benefit of those authorities who have to look after the interests of education in this country, the sooner the Minister does know where he is the better.
On Question, Motion negatived.

DAMAGE BY HEAVY ROAD TRAFFIC.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, seeing that considerable time must necessarily elapse before the provisions of the promised measure dealing with roads come into operation, they will consider

1497
the advisability of taking some step to diminish the damage now sustained by owners and occupiers of house property in close proximity to roads used by heavy vehicles, more especially those roads used by omnibuses in the vicinity of the Metropolis. The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the circumstances I do not feel that I am justified in detaining the House, and I will therefore content myself with asking the Question which stands in my name upon the Paper.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I also will deal with this Question as briefly as I can. Generally speaking, the view of the Ministry of Transport is that the remedy lies rather in strengthening and improving the road surfaces, a process which has been pressed forward as rapidly as circumstances permit, than in placing further limitations on the weight and speed of heavy motor vehicles. So far as the Ministry is concerned, little evidence of serious damage to buildings from this cause has been produced, and it is considered that on a properly constructed road in a reasonable state of repair no reasonably sound building would be seriously affected by the traffic. The Minister does not feel, therefore, that any case has been made out on these grounds for reducing the present legal limits of weight and speed for heavy motor vehicles. It may be pointed out that no alteration has been made in the maximum axle weights or speeds of heavy motor cars since 1904, except that the maximum speed of heavy motor cars fitted with resilient tyres with registered axle weights between 6 tons and 8 tons was raised two years ago from eight miles to twelve miles per hour.
So far as the road surfaces are concerned, substantial grants are made from the Road Fund towards the cost of improving the surfaces of roads, to render them suitable for the traffic upon them. Section 7, subsection (4) of the Roads Act, 1920, empowers the Minister of Transport, on the application of the council of a county or a county borough, and after holding a public inquiry, to prohibit or restrict the use of particular classes of mechanically propelled vehicles on roads, in any case in which it appears to him to be proved that a vehicle of that class cannot be used on that highway without endangering the safety of the
1498
vehicle, or the persons therein or other traffic using the highway, or that the highway is unsuitable for use by a vehicle of that class. It will be observed that the factors to be taken into consideration are safety of vehicles and their passengers and the suitability of the road as a road. The Minister is advised that it is very doubtful whether the powers of this section could be invoked merely on the ground that damage to house property by vibration is alleged.
Within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district omnibuses are allowed, under the provisions of the London Traffic Act, to ply for hire only upon routes which have been approved for such purposes by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who, of course, is the licensing authority for the area. In considering whether he should include any particular street or road in a route to be defined for this purpose, he may have regard only to the question of public safety and to the convenience of traffic. This power of the Commissioner does, however, ensure that omnibuses are not run upon streets or roads within the City of London or the Metropolitan Police district unless the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that they are suitable for this traffic. In the legislation which the Minister of Transport hopes shortly to introduce for the better regulation of public service vehicles it is intended to confer upon licensing authorities throughout the country certain powers for controlling, by means of conditions attaching to the licences, the routes of omnibuses and chars-a-banc, subject to suitable safeguards.

DIOCESAN BOARDS OF FINANCE MEASURE, 1925.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, I beg to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Boards, of Finance Measure, 1925, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. This Measure refers purely to administration and is, I believe, quite uncontroversial. It is founded on the recommendations of the Commission that inquired into the property and revenues

1499
of the Church and over which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack first presided, being followed in the chair by Sir George Murray. The Measure has since become urgently necessary owing to the provisions of the Dilapidations Measure, which has become law. The Ecclesiastical Committee has commended it to Parliament and recommended its adoption. I beg to move.
[From Minutes of December 14.]

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.