Sitting of 24 February 1932

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Kettering Gas Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 3rd March.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ARTICLE 19).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any change has taken place in the policy of the Government since the announcement made on 22nd January, 1930, by the rate Foreign Secretary, that the then Government were in favour of Article 19 of the covenant of the League of Nations being made effective use of in appropriate cases?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No, Sir.
  Mr. THORNE: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any Government connected with the League of Nations has considered the advisability of refusing to supply munitions of war to Japan and China?
  Mr. EDEN: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the advisability of sending a note to the Chinese and Japanese Governments declaring that this country will in no circumstances recognise any situation or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or other
  360
  treaty obligations to which it, as well as both Japan and China, are parties?
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will inform the Japanese Government that it does not intend to recognise any situation, treaty, or agreement in respect to China which may be brought about by means contrary to the obligations of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922, and the Pact of Paris of 1928, to which covenants and treaties both China and Japan as well as Great Britain, are parties?
  Mr. EDEN: I do not think that a further Note on this subject would, even if it were addressed to both parties as suggested by my hon. Friend, serve any useful purpose. His Majesty's Government have already made their position sufficiently clear and the Japanese Government have given definite assurances that they have no territorial ambitions and that they will uphold the principle of the Open Door.
  Mr. MANDER: Am I right in assuming that die policy outlined in the question is indeed the policy of the Government?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member would be more correct if he assumed that the Government's policy is the policy outlined in my answer.
  Mr. COCKS: As a similar note has been addressed to Japan by the United States of America, should we not take our stand by the side of our cousins across the ocean?
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government intend to treat the relations existing between China and Japan as tantamount to a state of war?
  Mr. EDEN: There has, up to the present, been no declaration of war, and the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter must depend on the way in which the situation develops. No statement can therefore be made at present.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not the case that every country which breaks the Covenant of the League of Nations is automatically at war with every other member of the League?
  Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member had better refer to the findings of the Committee of Jurists at the time of the Corfu dispute, Where he will see how the situation stands.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it not deplorable that such mischievous questions as these should be asked?
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not deplorable that this war should be allowed to continue?
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the assault on Captain Kennedy, a British subject, Assistant Police Commissioner in the International Settlement, in the Hongkew district on 20th February?
  Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. I may add that an account in the Press of another assault on a British subject was found, on inquiry, to have been much exaggerated, and in the absence of any report from His Majesty's Consul-General, I think that the hon. Member may rest assured that the incident can scarcely have been of the grave character suggested.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information regarding the formation of an independent State of Manchuria during the Japanese military occupation of that province; and whether, seeing that on 8th February His Majesty's Government stated that they regarded Manchuria as being a part of China, and that they had engaged under the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922 to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial and administrative integrity of China, he is taking any steps in the matter?
  Mr. EDEN: According to my information, a declaration of an independent State consisting of the four North-Eastern Provinces of China, was published in Mukden on the 18th of February. An Administrative Council has been formed which is to formulate details of the organisation and constitution of the new Government. As regards the second part of the question, since this declaration has been made by the local Chinese authorities there does not appear to be any ground for action by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922.
  Mr. COCKS: Is it not obvious that this State has been formed by Japan and will His Majesty's Government not take action?
  Mr. EDEN: This is not the first State that has been set up in China as an independent State, nor is it the first State since the Nine-Power Treaty set up under the auspices of another Government.
  Mr. COCKS: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Can the Under-Secretary say what increase in our armed forces would be necessary if we followed out all these suggestions?

  CHINESE RAILWAY LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representation and, if so, of what nature has been made by him to the Chinese Government during the present year with regard to the default of payment of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway and the Hukuang Railway loans?
  Mr. EDEN: I have no information whether such representations have been made in the present year, but no suitable opportunity for pressing the just claims of British creditors of the Chinese Government will be neglected.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What is the reason given by the Chinese Government for this default?
  Mr. EDEN: A Note was actually addressed on the subject by our Minister in November, and I am afraid I have no later information.
  Captain MACDONALD: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to address another Note to the Chinese Government?
  Mr. EDEN: I do not think the present is a very opportune moment.

  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.
  Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number

  363
  of individuals with diplomatic immunity attached to the Embassies or Legations in London of the following Powers: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Belgium, Norway, and Sweden?
  Mr. EDEN: The following is the number of officials, diplomatic and clerical, attached to the foreign Missions specified by my hon. Friend, and regarded by His Majesty's Government as entitled to claim diplomatic immunity: France, 23; Germany, 26; Italy, 17; Spain, 10; Soviet Union, 20; Belgium, 13; Norway, 5; Sweden, 19. These figures do not include wives and children of the officials concerned, nor domestic servants.
  Sir A. KNOX: Is it not the case the Foreign Secretary gave the figure of 36 as the number in the Soviet Embassy?
  Mr. EDEN: Perhaps that figure of 36 covered the Trade Delegation.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    Loss OF SUBMARINE M 2.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the time of receipt at Fort Blockhouse of the reported absence as overdue of submarine M 2; the name of the officer on duty at Portsmouth Dockyard at that time who had executive control of all measures of rescue work; the nature of the latter's immediate action, if any; on whose authority, and on what grounds, all rescue work was confined to surface craft; whether, in view of the nature of the discretion allowed under King's Regulations in such an emergency to officers commanding and of the known reliability of methods of sound detection for use by submarines in underseas conditions, he can state why such a step was not ordered forthwith by the officer commanding; and whether at the official inquiry this aspect will be particularly inquired into, and opportunity provided for competent engineering and commercial authority other than officers of the Royal Navy, to assist the inquiry on this point?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HALL: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether the first part of the question will be the subject of particular inquiry?
    Lord STANLEY: I think the hon. Member when he reads the answer will find that the specific question to which he refers does not arise. I can give him an assurance that the inquiry will be very comprehensive.
    Following is the reply:
    His Majesty's Submarine M.2 was exercising from Portland and her Commanding Officer, before leaving Portland, had expressed his intention of carrying out a long endurance dive for the purpose of training the crew. The report from the Captain-in-Charge, Portland, that Submarine M.2 was overdue was made owing to the fact that the M.2 had neither returned to harbour nor been sighted and the "Titania" was unable to establish communication by wireless telegraphy. The report was received at Fort Blockhouse at 7.47 p.m. on 26th January. The Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, who is the officer responsible, put into operation forthwith, the measures laid down for such an emergency; these comprise the despatch of salvage craft, minesweeping and anti-submarine vessels and aircraft to the scene of the reported position.
    The Captain-in-Charge, Portland—the responsible officer on the spot—at the same time as he made his report to the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, ordered two submarines, minesweeping and antisubmarine craft, all normally stationed at Portland, to sea without waiting for the order from the Commander-in-Chief, Portsmouth, which was received later. The implication in the question that the rescue work was confined to surface craft is thus without foundation as also the suggestion that steps were not taken immediately by the Commanding Officer on the spot. The fullest use was made, moreover, of all methods of detection. The last part of the question accordingly does not arise.

    His MAJESTY'S SHIP "RODNEY (STOKER's DISCHARGE).
    Mr. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why Leading-stoker

    365
    J. W. H. Lee, His Majesty's Ship "Rodney," was dismissed from the service, after 19 years' service, without trial and without pension; and whether, in view of his service, it is possible to grant a modified pension?
    Lord STANLEY: This man was one of 24 men discharged "Services no longer required" by order of the Board of Admiralty. The reasons for discharge were stated in this House in the reply which was given to a question by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on 12th November, 1931. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not the case that the late First Lord of the Admiralty said that there would be no penalisation of men at all in connection with this matter?
    Lord STANLEY: That is true; and there has been no penalisation.
    Mr. HALL: Will my Noble Friend and the Board take into account the special circumstances of these men, and their long service, 19 and 20 years?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why certain hon. Members will not allow Communists in their own party, but want them in the Navy?
    Mr. THORNE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we do not allow Communists in our organisation?

    SUBMARINES (INDICATOR BUOYS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give the result of the trials that have been made in His Majesty's Submarine "Rainbow," as regards the indicator buoys for locating the position of submarines that may sink in consequence of an accident?
    Lord STANLEY: Trials of the indicator buoy in His Majesty's Submarine "Rainbow" have been carried out and are reported to have been generally satisfactory. The results are now being considered in the Admiralty.
    Sir F. HALL: In these circumstances will instructions be given at once to fix something after the style of these buoys on submarines?
    Lord STANLEY: There are a few small points which have to be corrected, but the matter is well in hand.

    BUILDING PROGRAMME, 1929.
    Mr. RALPH BEAUMONTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made with the ships of the 1929 naval construction programme?
    Lord STANLEY: Normal progress has been made on all the vessels of the 1929 programme. Three sloops and a tender to the Mining School have been completed and the remainder are expected to be completed in the next 12 months. Full and detailed particulars will be included in the printed statement to accompany the Navy Estimates, which will be issued in about a week's time.

    SURGEONS.
    Mr. R. BEAUMONTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the establishment of naval surgeons is complete; and, if not, What is the deficiency?
    Lord STANLEY: The establishment of naval medical officers is not complete, the deficiency at present being approximately 60.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Is it proposed to take any steps to make up that deficiency?
    Lord STANLEY: Yes, the whole question of the conditions of service, recruit-merit, etc., in the medical branches of the three Services is under consideration by an inter-Departmental committee.

    SEA SERVICE (CAPTAINS).
    Mr. R. BEAUMONTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the average amount of sea time already served by captains when appointed to command ships during the year 1931; and what was the corresponding service of captains in 1913?
    Lord STANLEY: The average amount of sea time already served by captains in that rank when appointed to command His Majesty's 'ships during 1931 was one year 121 days, and the corresponding service of captains in 1913 was two years 37 days.

    BATTLE CRUISER SQUADRON (COMMAND).
    Lieut.-Commander BOWERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the normal period during which an officer

    367
    appointed to command the battle cruiser squadron holds this appointment?
    Lord STANLEY: It is customary for this and other rear-admirals' appointments to be held for two years. When, however, an officer is promoted to the rank of vice-admiral during the tenure of a rear-admiral's appointment, the question of his retention of the appointment for the full period of two years is specially reviewed.
    Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Would the Noble Lord say whether the super-cession of an officer who has only done 10 months in this appointment may be assumed to be the usual normal change of flag appointments, or whether there is some special reason for this change?
    Lord STANLEY: No, Sir; every case is reviewed on its merits. We have always to bear in mind the desirability of giving experience to other flag officers of the rank appropriate to the command.

    BOYS (TRANSFER TO MEDITERRANEAN STATION).
    Mr. LOGANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that boys are sent to the Atlantic Fleet and thence transferred to ships of the Mediterranean Station without previous notice and without the granting of leave, as is done in the case of other naval ratings; and whether he will issue instructions that in future boys are to be warned and given notice before being sent on commissions?
    Lord STANLEY: It has been a long-established practice to transfer boys from the Atlantic Fleet and the training establishments to the Mediterranean Station in January each year, the boys taking passage in Atlantic Fleet ships. All the boys who were so transferred last month had leave just prior to sailing. The Admiralty already have under consideration whether this system of drafting boys to the Mediterranean shall continue.
    Mr. LOGAN: Does it follow that leave will be given to these boys so that they may have a chance of going home?
    Lord STANLEY: I have made careful inquiries, and I find that on the last occasion every boy had a minimum of 14 days' leave before he sailed?

    SHANGHAI.
    Captain NORTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any further warships, and, if so, what, are being sent to Shanghai?
    Lord STANLEY: No further warships are being sent to Shanghai. It has been arranged, however, for His Majesty's Ship "Berwick," which is due to return shortly to the United Kingdom, to be relieved temporarily by His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire," an 8-inch cruiser from the Mediterranean Station.

    ENGINE ROOM ARTIFICERS, ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Mr. MUNROasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons for the recent alterations in the conditions of the annual retaining fee paid to engine-room artificers in the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Lord STANLEY: No recent alteration has been made in the Regulations for the payment of retainers to engine-room artificers, Royal Naval Reserve.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (EXPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state in which of the colonies, protectorates, and mandated territories there are export duties in force and in respect of what commodities; and whether, seeing that these duties tend to hinder the export of such commodities to the United Kingdom, he will bring this question before the forthcoming Imperial Conference at Ottawa?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The list is a long one, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have not received any evidence that export duties in force in any Colony hinder the export of their products to this country. If the question arose with regard to any particular duty, I should take the matter up direct with the Government of the Colony concerned.
    Following is the list:
    STATEMENT showing the Colonies etc. where export duties are charged and the goods on which such duties are chargeable.
    Colony, Protectorate etc.: Goods subject to export duty.
    Bahamas.—Slips and suckers of pineapples, sisal plants and wrecked goods.
    Bermuda.—Malt liquor, tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, alcohol, arrack, brandy, cordials, gin, peppermint water, whisky, rum and wine.
    British Honduras.—Mahogany, cedar, logwood, chicle, coconuts, sponges, beer, porter and malted liquor, wine, potable spirits, bitters, cordials and liqueurs.
    British Solomon Islands.—Copra, trocas shell and ivory nuts.
    Cayman Islands.—Coconuts, spirits, wines and spirituous liquors.
    Ceylon.—Cacao, thanks, elephants, tea, and whale oil.
    Falkland Islands.—Wool, guano, whale and seal oil.
    Federated Malay States.—Coconuts, copra, gambier, rubber, gutta-percha, pepper, sugar, tapioca, fish, various kinds and salted and dried fish, oysters, mother-of-pearl shell and beche-de-mer, various forest products including camphor and kepong bark, gold, tin, tin-ore and tin slag, scheelite, wolfram and all other metals and metalliferous ores, *china clay or Kaolin, *soda and potash felspar, *china-stone, horns, hides, skins, bones and tallow, elephants.
    Fiji.—Trocas shell and beche-de-mer.
    Gambia.—Ground-nuts.
    Gold Coast.—Cocoa, kola nuts, diamonds, mahogany, cedar and Baku.
    Gilbert and Ellice Islands.—Copra.
    Grenada.—Cocoa, cotton, cotton seed, nutmegs, mace, limes and lime products, whale oil, whale guano.
    Jamaica.—Spirits.
    Leeward Islands, Antigua.—?Sugar.
    *Export prohibited except under licence.
    Colony, Protectorate, etc.: Goods subject to export duty.
    Dominica.—Horned cattle, bay leaves, essential oils, canoes and canoe shells, citrate of lime, citric acid, cocoa, coffee, charcoal, farina, manioc, fresh fruit including bananas and plantains, grape fruit, limes (green), oranges and tamarinds, fruit preserved including jams and jellies and limes pickled, ginger, hides and skins, lime juice, nuts and kernels including coconuts and copra, starches, syrup, tobacco, turtle-shell, vanilla and wood.
    Montserrat.—Animals including asses, cattle, calves, horses, mules, pigs, sheep and goats, bay leaves, cart felloes, naves and spokes, cocoa, coffee, cotton, essential oils, hides and skins, lime juice, limes, molasses, onions, paine, peas, beans, poultry, starches, sugar, syrup and tamarinds.
    St. Christopher and Nevis.—Cotton and coconuts.
    Virgin Islands.—Animals including horses, asses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and fowls, charcoal, building lime, sweet potatoes, yams and tanniers, bananas, eggs, hides, hard woods, cotton and wreck.
    Malta.—Objects having an antiquarian, archaeological or artistic importance.
    Mauritius.—Sugar, molasses, aloe fibre, goods exported from bond, excluding rum exports from the Excise Warehouse, goods landed in transit for other ports, excluding goods transhipped direct from vessel to vessel, goods landed from vessels in distress and re-shipped or transhipped.
    New Hebrides.—Coffee, cocoa, cotton, copra, sandalwood, trocas and other shells, all other products.
    North Borneo.—Agricultural produce including rice, coconuts, copra, sago, tobacco and coconut oil, jungle produce including timber, firewood and beeswax, live stock and animals, sea produce including turtle and fish dried and salted, birds nests, brass-ware, charcoal, hides and skins, ivory, all other goods except those on the free list.
    Colony, Protectorate, etc.: Goods subject to export duty.
    Nigeria.—Cocoa, groundnuts, palm kernel oil, palm kernels, palm oil, tin and tin ores, wolfram, lead and lead ores, zinc, iron and iron ores, gold, other precious metals, all other minerals.
    Northern Rhodesia.—Elephant ivory, hippo teeth and certain game trophies.
    Palestine.—Antiquities.
    St. Helena.—Fibre and tow.
    St. Lucia.—Bay leaves, bay oil, charcoal, cocoa, coconut oil, coconuts, copra, firewood, hard wood, lime products, log wood, molasses and syrup, pimento wood, sugar, whale oil and fish oils.
    St. Vincent.—Cotton, cotton linters, cotton seed, arrowroot, starches, cocoa, corn, peas, peanuts, copra, sugar, syrup, molasses, rum, horses, horned cattle, mules, asses, pigs, goats and sheep.
    Seychelles.—Guano, mangrove bark, cinnamon bark, whale oil, prepared fertilisers, tortoise shell.
    Sierra Leone.—Kola nuts, palm kernels, platinum, gold and other minerals.
    Somaliland Protectorate.—Animals, beeswax, birds, bones, charcoal, coffee, condiments, curios, dyes, eggs, fat, feathers, fibre, fish and fish products, ghee, guano, gum resin, gums, hides, ivory, leather, sandals, precious stones, provisions, salt, shell, skins, stone, tallow, wood and timber.
    Togoland under British Mandate.—Kola nuts.
    Tonga.—Coin, copra and mares. Trinidad.—Asphalt.
    Turks and Caicos Islands.—Sisal plants, spirits, wines and spirituous liquors.

    IMPORT DUTIES BILL (COLONIES).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the nature of the replies received from Colonies and Dependencies in response to the cabled message addressed to them following upon the adoption of the Financial Resolutions to the Import Duties Bill by this House?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given
    372
    to the hon. Members for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) and Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) on the 10th and 17th instant, of which I am sending him copies. I should add that the Governor of Ceylon has informed me that Ministers intend to propose a resolution in the State Council in favour of the principle of reciprocal preference. I have also received telegrams from the Governor of the Seychelles and the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific intimating that they hope to submit proposals for the introduction of preferential tariffs in areas under their jurisdiction where preference has not hitherto been granted.
    Mr. HANNON: Following that very satisfactory reply, can my right hon. Friend say that the gesture made regarding the future relations with Colonial Empire has been general satisfaction?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: universally.

    JAMAICA (TRADE COMMISSIONER).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can make any statement with regard to the trade commissionership in Jamaica?
    Mr. HURDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the representations from Jamaica as to the desirability of retaining the British trade commissionership in that Colony in view of forthcoming inter-imperial trade development?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am glad to be able to announce that it has been found possible to make arrangements for continuing for the present the office of the Trade Commissioner in Jamaica.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in order to give members of the public who are at work all day an opportunity to visit the British Industries Fair and view the special display of Empire produce, he will make arrangements for the fair to be open to the public later than the present closing hour of 7.30?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is carefully considered in connection with the arrangements for next year's fair. The existing closing hour was settled after careful deliberation in consultation with the exhibitors' advisory committee, and the decision was in accordance with the views of the majority. Exhibitors have signed contracts on the basis of existing hours of closing, and I am afraid in all the circumstances that it would be impracticable to make a change which would involve extra expense now that the fair is running.

    FRANCE (BRITISH COAL).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a further statement as to the present position with regard to the removal of the 15 per cent. Surtax oh British coal imported into France?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).

    IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS).
    Mr. JANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantities and values of imports from British and foreign countries, respectively, during 1931 of foodstuffs preserved in airtight containers in their several categories?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend will find particulars of the imports from British and foreign countries respectively of the various tinned, canned and battled foodstuffs for the year 1930 in Volume II of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for that year. I regret that similar information for the year 1931 is not yet available.

    SILK DUTIES.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fall in the value of raw silk since the Silk Duties were imposed in 1925 from 26s. per pound to 11s. per pound, approximately; if he is aware that the duty of 3s. per pound, which was approximately 11 per cent. in 1925, is now an ad valorem duty of 28 per cent., whereas the duty on the full manufactured
    374
    article remains at 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem; and in view of the unemployment in the silk industry, what action he intends to take to amend the Silk Duties?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I am aware of the fall in the prices of raw silk since the duties were imposed in 1925. As regards the last part of the question, I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.
    Mr. LEVY: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that Great Britain is the only country in the world that imposes a tax on the prime raw material of the silk industry?
    Major ELLIOT: I have said that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the Chancellor, in preparing the Budget, take into account the fact that employment in the silk trade since the imposition of the Silk Duties has fallen from 140,000 to 37,000?
    Major ELLIOT: The Silk Association and the British Celanese Company have already sent a request for a revision of the Silk Duties, and this will be taken into consideration.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the ad valorem duty includes freight, commission, and insurance?
    Major ELLIOT: All these duties are imposed on that basis in this country.
    Mr. LEVY: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that France is at the present moment sending 40 per cent. of her total output into this country?

  KENYA.

    NATIVE'S SUICIDE.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Inquest No. 10 of 1930, held at the Rendul magistrates' court at Kisumu, Kenya Colony, it was proved that a European employer had withheld wages for four periods of labour from a Kavirondo Native named Asuna, who was found to have committed suicide after a bullock had been taken away from him for the payment of his cousin's poll tax; and whether action has been taken

    375
    by the local government against this employer for withholding wages or what official notice has been taken of this case?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen the finding of the Court which records that Asuna was owed four tickets by a European employer. Summonses had already been issued against this employer in respect of several claims for wages, but the prosecution was dropped on payment of the amounts due. The verdict of the court does not suggest that Asuna's act was in any way attributable to the delay in the payment of his wages.

    EAST AFRICAN POWER AND LIGHTING COMPANY (LAND GRANT).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement as to the developments that have taken place regarding the granting of land at the junction of the Maragua and Tana Rivers, in Kenya Colony, to a company for the purpose of a hydro-electric project; whether provision is in contemplation for the 150 Kikuyu families who live on this area of land; and if he is aware that a ford over the river at this point has been closed to the Kikuyu and Komba, people who have used it from time immemorial?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: An arrangement has been arrived at with the consent of the local native council and the Central Native Lands Trust Board for the grant to the East African Power and Lighting Company of an uninhabited area of 3.80 acres in the Fort Hall native reserve, in addition to about 22 acres of Crown Land. The conditions agreed upon include an addition of approximately 20 acres to the native reserve, and provide for the keeping open of the Mathengeta track leading to the Maragua River. I have no information as to the closing of a ford.

  PALESTINE (LIQUOR LICENCES).
  Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what authority is responsible for the granting of licences for spirituous liquors in Palestine; and what regulations, if any, are imposed by the Government on the granting of such licences?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer is a rather long one, and, with
  376
  the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Licences for the manufacture of spirituous liquors are issued by the Director of Customs after the applicant has obtained a certificate from the police and health authorities. A retail or wholesale dealer in spirituous liquors requires two licences, one of which is issued either by a municipal council or by a District Commissioner, subject to the authorisation of the police authorities, and the other is issued by the Director of Customs. The regulations on this subject are too numerous to summarise within the compass of this reply; but if the hon. Member wishes to see them, I shall be glad to arrange for them to be shown to him.

  KAVIRONDO (GOLD DISCOVERY).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps will be taken in connection with the gold discovery in the Northern Kavirondo reserve to retain for the native community the proceeds from rents, licences, and royalties?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Rents in respect of surface rights of native communities, and compensation for disturbance of such rights on grants of licences permitting exploitation of minerals, are already protected by law, but fees by way of licences and paid as royalties accrue to the Grown, in whom property in minerals other than common minerals is vested.

  CYPRUS.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to act on the recommendation in the Survey of Rural Life in Cyprus, published in 1930, that the percentage of families living on and even below the poverty line should be made the subject of investigation; and what steps are to be taken to carry out the recommendation?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not received any information as to such an investigation. But the Government of Cyprus are undoubtedly alive to the situation, and efforts are being made to encourage agriculture and to raise the

  377
  standard of living of the agricultural labourer by means of financial assistance to various rural industries and by a system of credits from the Agricultural Bank.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what reports he has received on the danger of famine due to the drought in the island of Cyprus; and whether any financial measures have been taken, or are in contemplation, to avert this danger?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the question put by the lion. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on the 17th February. Inquiry has been made of the Governor, and I will communicate with the hon. Member when I have the Governor's reply.

  MALTA.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have considered the Commission's report on Malta; and, if so, will he state what action they intend to take?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The report is under consideration, and I hope it will be possible to make an announcement in the near future.

  AVIATION.

    GROUND MARKINGS (GASOMETERS).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make representations to all gas undertakings in this country with a view to getting them to paint on the top of the gasholders when next repainted the name of the town in which they are situated?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My Noble Friend does not consider that any special representations are called for at this juncture, having regard to the official scheme of ground markings referred to in my reply of the 9th December last to the hon. Member for Central Bristol. I may, however, add that the Air Ministry would welcome any voluntary action on
    378
    the lines suggested as a supplement to this scheme and would be prepared to give advice on the subject to any gas companies interested.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great success of this scheme in the county of Leicester, not only to civil aviation but also to the military service, and is he not prepared to see that the scheme is extended throughout the country?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir; I think the Ministry would welcome a scheme of that kind, but we have already approved a standard scheme of ground markings, in conjunction with the aero clubs and local authorities throughout the country, and I do not think it would be advisable at the moment to recommend any other scheme.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme of ground markings is a very expensive scheme, whereas the scheme of marked gasometers is undoubtedly comparatively cheap?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I know it is a very efficient scheme.
    Mr. PERKINS: Is my hon. Friend aware that every year, or every other year, gasholders are repainted? Would he consider the advisability of asking gas companies to co-operate in any schemed the kind?

    CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AIR SQUADRON.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will state the type of machine used for training purposes by the Cambridge University air squadron; and whether all these machines are fitted with slots?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The types of aircraft used are the Atlas and the Avro 504N; the former are fitted with slots and the latter with Frise ailerons, which have a comparable effect.

    GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state how much of the amounts of £15,000 and £5,000 allocated to the light aeroplane clubs and National Flying Services, Limited, respectively, in the Air Estimates for 1931 has been expended to

    379
    date; and whether he can give any estimate of the total expenditure likely to be incurred by the end of the financial year?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is £9,092 and £1,470 respectively; as regards the second part, it is estimated that the total expenditure for the year will be £12,600, £10,000 to light aeroplane clubs and £2,000 to National Flying Services, Limited.
    Mr. EVERARD: In view of the fact that the Light Aeroplane Clubs and National Flying Services cannot, under the present regulations, earn the whole subsidy granted by this House, will my hon. Friend consider altering the regulations?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The agreements with the Light Aeroplane Clubs expire on 31st July, and meanwhile I had better not say more about it, but the whole matter is being very sympathetically considered by my Noble Friend.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to collect the expenses of this grant back in the way of increased licences for the use of aeroplanes?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I require notice of that question.

    TURKEY (FLYING FACILITIES).
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what action is being taken in respect of complaints which have reached him from British pilots of difficulties in obtaining permission to fly over Turkish territory?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No complaints have reached me of difficulty in obtaining permission to fly over Turkish territory. On the contrary the Turkish Government have shown themselves ready to grant applications submitted in accordance with Turkish Air Regulations. Difficulties have arisen only when civil pilots themselves have failed to comply with the regulations of the Turkish Government.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED (FACILITIES).
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the cost to the Air Ministry of the ground organisation, including the pro-
    380
    vision, maintenance, and lighting of aerodromes, landing grounds, hangars, and buildings, the pay and travelling expenses of traffic and inspection officers, works, and technical equipment of the Cairo-South African route since its inception; and if the full amount of such expenditure would have been incurred if the route had not to be used by Imperial Airways, Limited, but retained for service use only?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the responsibility for the special provision of the necessary ground organisation rested mainly on the Governments whose territories are traversed by the route, and the provision by His Majesty's Government of facilities at existing aerodromes and landing grounds involved no appreciable additional expenditure to public funds. The only cost involved to the Air Ministry is in respect of certain ground staff and the temporary loan of some wireless equipment, and has amounted to date to slightly over £3,000. The answer to the second part of the question is accordingly in the negative.
    Captain BALFOUR: Are the Government prepared to grant similar loans of equipment and similar facilities to other unsubsidised companies?
    Sir P. SASSOON: These facilities] have been afforded, as I said in my reply, by the Governments whose territories are traversed by the route.
    Captain BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question. I asked for information as regards the specific items amounting approximately to £3,000.
    Sir P. SASSOON: As we have to ask the various Governments concerned to give help over this line, it is only natural that the British Government should help a little also.
    Captain BALFOUR: May I press the hon. Gentleman on this point: Will the Air Ministry grant similar facilities to other unsubsidised companies, as are given to Imperial Airways?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would put down a question.
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the cost

    381
    falling on public funds of the ground organisation, including the provision, maintenance and lighting of aerodromes, landing grounds, hangars, buildings, the pay and expenses of traffic and inspection officers, works and technical equipment, on the Egypt-India route for the financial years 1928–29, 1929–30 and 1930–31; and if these sums are in addition to the subsidy to Imperial Airways, Limited, in respect of air services over that route?
    Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the cost to public funds of the ground organisation on the Egypt-India air route for the financial years 1928, 1929 and 1930, was approximately £4,850, 26,220 and £6,690, respectively. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative; this was an essential feature of the agreement, and the amount of the subsidy was determined in the light of it.
    Captain BALFOUR: Are these facilities at the disposal of other unsubsidised lines, in the same way as they are at the disposal of imperial Airways and on the same terms?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down another question.
    Mr. PERKINS: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the time has come when Imperial Airways and the Air Force should be amalgamated under some scheme?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that I could deal with that question now.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    HARLESCOTT DEPOT, SHREWSBURY.
    Mr. DUCKWORTHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air on what date the decision to abandon the mechanical transport repair depot at Harlescott, Shrewsbury, is to take effect; and what arrangements, if any, have been made for disposing of the land and buildings?
    Sir P. SASSOON: This depot will be vacated on the 31st March. Arrangements regarding the disposal of the property are still under consideration.
    Mr. DUCKWORTH: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to disclose what price is likely to be agreed upon, what the sale price is likely to be, in view of the fact that the original capital expenditure amounted to over £500,000, and that a very substantial loss is likely to result from the sale?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The property has not yet been advertised for sale. The retention of the married quarters is still under consideration. I could not give any figure at the moment.

    INSTRUMENT FLYING (INSTRUCTION).
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of Royal Air Force stations at which instruction in blind flying by instruments is given; the number of serving officers who have qualified; and the number of Royal Air Force aircraft equipped for this work?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Instruction in instrument flying is given at the Central Flying School; this is with a view to the qualification of all flying instructors. The subject is also being introduced into the course of initial flying training of all pilots. Instruction will shortly he commenced for Fleet Air Arm pilots at two other stations. The number of pilots who have so far been instructed in this subject is 122 and the number of aircraft already equipped or in course of being equipped for this work is 59.

  TRANSPORT.

    BRIDGE AND ROAD TOLLS.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of allocating annually some small but definite proportion of the Road Fund to the purpose of freeing toll bridges and toll roads throughout the country until they have all been freed?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's interest in the matter and whilst I am not prepared to set aside a specific annual sum for freeing toll bridges and roads, applications with this object from highway authorities will receive my careful consideration, with due regard to the funds which may be available.
    Captain MACDONALD: Is it the case that only two toll bridges have been abolished since that Measure was passed through the House; and is the reason given by the local authorities that the Ministry of Transport refuse to give adequate grants?
    Mr. PYBUS: I can only deal with the position as I find it, and I have to cut my coat according to the cloth.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the funds of the Ministry would be better used in the way suggested in the question than in the destruction of national monuments?

    HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (LICENCE DUTY).
    Sir CHARLES OMANasked the Minister of Transport whether, in consideration of the increasing wear and tear on the roads caused by the multiplcation of the heavier type of commercial vehicles, he will consider the increase of the licence duties on all lorries weighing over four tons unladen; and whether he will take steps to prevent the evasion of the weight tax on heavy commercial vehicles by the use of trailers, three of which may be attached to a lorry for £6 a year?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. As regards the second part of the question, I think he overlooks the fact that only locomotives are permitted to draw three trailers and these vehicles are not charged with trailer duty, but pay an inclusive duty.
    Sir C. OMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these heavy commercial vehicles are rendering certain centres absolutely hopeless both for pedestrians and for smaller vehicles; and will he consider dealing with the matter in some way?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have the matter under very anxious consideration.

    HIGHWAYS (DISTURBANCE AND DIVERSION).
    Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to take legislative action to carry out the recommendations of the departmental committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to the stopping-up and diversion of highways?
    Mr. PYBUS: The matter is under consideration, but I doubt whether any
    384
    opportunity will present itself for promoting legislation during the present Session.

    TRAFFIC SIGNALS, OXFORD STREET.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of accidents that have taken place in Oxford Street since the installation of traffic signals; and the figures for a corresponding period previous to the use of automatic signals?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The traffic signals have been in operation in Oxford Street, between Portman Street and St. Giles' Circus, from 12th July, 1931. I will give the figures of accidents between that date and 11th January, 1932, in comparison with the corresponding period a year earlier. They are as follows: Fatal accidents in the later period, none; in the earlier period, one; accidents resulting in serious personal injury, 12 and 21 respectively; accidents resulting in slight personal injury, 128 and 162 respectively; accidents involving damage only, 1,003 and 652 respectively. There is a satisfactory decrease in the accidents involving injury, and the increase in the other accidents is to some extent attributable to the state of the road in the recent wet summer.

    LONDON OMNIBUSES (ROUTE BOARDS).
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLINasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that inconvenience is still caused to the public by the lack of route boards on the new omnibuses and the indication of the terminal destination only; and whether he will take further steps to have the old route hoards restored on all omnibuses in the Metropolitan area?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Steps have been taken, and are actively proceeding, to restore these route indicators. It is anticipated that in a month from now about nine-tenths of the omnibuses running in London will have the indicators, and the remainder will be dealt with as soon as practicable.

  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Minister of Transport whether the operations of

  385
  the Central Electricity Board have so far resulted in supplying current to the consumer at a cheaper rate; and what the average saving has been in the rates for lighting and power, respectively?
  Mr. PYBUS: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the Central Board can only supply electricity in bulk to authorised undertakers, and not direct to consumers. I understand, however, that the Board is giving supplies under temporary arrangements in certain places, and that in all cases these supplies are given at a cheaper rate than the rate at which the undertakers could have generated for themselves.
  Sir A. KNOX: Can the hon. Gentleman say, on the average, what has been the saving?
  Mr. PYBUS: That is a figure which it would be quite impossible for me to obtain.
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Minister of Transport what is the total number of electrical consulting engineers whose services are retained by the Central Electricity Board; what is the total amount of their retaining fees; and what are their functions?
  Mr. PYBUS: The Central Electricity Board, as stated in their annual reports, have retained the services of three firms of consulting engineers to deal with technical questions in connection with the design and lay-out of the "Grid" and to supervise its construction. I have no information as to the amount of their retaining fees.
  Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible to find out this information, as the general impression is that there are far too many of these engineers?
  Mr. PYBUS: I do not control expenditure of this kind. Parliament has expressly placed on the Electricity Board certain responsibilities and has given the board power to carry out those responsibilities. I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member's point, because in a memorial circulated recently in the House in connection with the London Passenger Transport Bill, which the hon. and gallant Member signed, the one anxiety seemed to be that the Minister
  386
  should have no power to interfere with the board.
  Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Minister of Transport what sum has so far been borrowed by the Central Electricity Board; and whether the task of the board will be completed by expenditure not exceeding the £50,000,000 authorised?
  Mr. PYBUS: I am informed by the Central Electricity Board that stock amounting in total to £26,000,000 has so far been issued by the board, and that the construction of the grid and the standardisation of frequency will so far as can be foreseen be completed for an expenditure of less than £50,000,000.

  DIVORCE LAW.
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to introduce in the near future any legislation dealing with divorce law reform?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

  JUDGES (SALARIES).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to abolish the recent reduction in the salaries of judges; whether the reductions which have been imposed are to be made good; and on what date the original salaries will be restored?
  Mr. BALDWIN: As soon as I am in a position to do so, I shall make a statement on this subject.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when he is likely to make that statement?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would rather not say, but it will be before long.

  DOG-RACING TRACKS.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the growth of unlicensed dog-racing tracks in certain districts which affects the amenities of the respective areas, and to which the local authorities

  387
  and local residents offer opposition; and whether he will give facilities for a small Bill to be passed during the present Session giving local authorities the right of licensing all such tracks with, in addition, retrospective effect?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I understand representations have been received on this subject but the Government cannot see their way to give facilities for a Bill on the proposed lines. Provisions enabling this matter to be dealt with to some extent are included in the Town Planning Act and in the Bill now before Parliament.

  INDIA (PRISONERS' ESCAPE).
  Sir C. OMANasked the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the escape of three dangerous terrorists from the Midnapore gaol, Bengal, and having regard to the fact that one of them was serving a life sentence for throwing a bomb at Sir Charles Tegart in August, 1930, he will consider measures with the Government of India for removing criminals of that type to an escape-proof place of custody such as the Andaman Islands?
  Sir GEORGE PENNY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the arrangements for the safe custody of prisoners convicted of crimes of this nature are generally inadequate. The Government of India will no doubt consider whether any special precautions are necessary to guard against any further escapes. An inquiry is being made from the Government of India as to the circumstances of the case referred to by my hon. Friend.
  Sir C. OMAN: Will the hon. Gentle man assure us that the idea of using remote islands such as the Andamans, the Nicobars, and the Seychelles for criminals of this sort will be taken into serious consideration?

  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Minister of Agriculture what would have been the value of the tithe rentcharge for each year from 1926 to 1931, inclusive, if
  388
  calculated at the septennial average prices under the Corn Returns Act?
  Sir G. PENNY: I have been asked to reply. As the answer includes a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  If the Tithe Acts, 1918 and 1925, had not been passed, the value of £100 apportioned tithe rentcharge, calculated at the septennial average corn prices in accordance with the earlier Tithe Acts, the Corn Returns Act, 1882, and the Corn Sales Act, 1921, would have been:

  £146 14s. 4¾d. in 1926.

  £133 8s. 10½d. in 1927.

  £116 13s. 2½d. in 1928.

  £111 3s. 7¾d. in.1929.

  £109 1s. 6¼d. in 1930.

  £105 14s. 10d. in 1931.

  AGRICULTURE.

    IMPORT DUTIES (IRISH FREE STATE).
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that imports of certain food for cattle and other requirements of the agricultural industry are proposed to be made dutiable on entry into Northern Ireland, while similar imports will continue to be imported duty free into the Irish Free State; and how he proposes to counteract this anomaly?
    Sir G. PENNY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it is not in the Minister's power to take any action in the direction suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

    TRANSIT OF ANIMALS (SHIPPING ACCIDENT).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture what reports he has received from his officials regarding the losses of animal life and suffering during the last voyage of the Steamship "Lady Galway" from Dublin to Preston; if lie can state the cause; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of the cruelty incident to this Anglo-Irish traffic?
    Sir G. PENNY: As the answer is long, with my hon. Friend's permission I propose to circulate it in the OFFCIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HURD: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps are to be taken to prevent a repetition of this cruelty to animals?
    Sir G. PENNY: I would ask the hon. Member to possess his soul in patience and to wait until he gets this reply.
    Following is the answer:
    My right hon. Friend is informed that the Steamship "Lady Galway," carrying 433 cattle and 469 sheep from Dublin, arrived at the entrance to the Channel leading to Preston dock at 8.30 a.m. on 19th February and shortly afterwards ran into a thick fog. In an endeavour to turn the vessel back for Birkenhead she ran aground and as the tide receded listed to starboard so steeply as to cause the animals in each pen to fall on top of each other towards the pen boards, or the side of the ship. The vessel was in grave danger and lay at this angle for some hours until the incoming tide refloated her. Owing to bile steep list of the vessel, little could be done to release the animals from their predicament. None of the fittings gave way and their strength undoubtedly minimised the losses. Of the cattle, 58 were dead on arrival and seven were slaughtered on board on account of injuries, 59 of the sheep were landed dead and 13 were washed overboard on account of the vessel's list. This vessel had recently been re-fitted in accordance with the requirements of the Transit of Animals Order of 1927, which governs the conditions under which animals are carried by sea from Ireland and provides every practicable safeguard against avoidable suffering to the animals. It will be appreciated that no regulations can, however, prevent the occurrence of an accident of the kind which befell this vessel.

    BACON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION COMMISSION).
    Sir JOHN HASLAM(for Mr. KIRKWOOD) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to give the House the names of the reorganising committee for the bacon industry?
    Sir G. PENNY: My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply which he gave on the 18th February to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Wycombe, (Sir A. Knox). He
    390
    will communicate the names to the House in due course.
    Sir J. HASLAM: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that someone will be put on that Committee, say, a wholesale or retail purveyor, who understands the needs of the consuming public?
    Sir G. PENNY: I could not give any pledge.

  SCOTLAND (LAND DRAINAGE).
  Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grants are to be available for land drainage in Scotland during the current year?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am anxious that the land drainage scheme should be continued, but I am not yet in a position to say what grants will he available. If the Noble Lord will put down a question next week, I hope to be able to give him an answer.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (IMPRISONMENT FOR DEFAULT).
  Captain WATTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that orders for committals to prison can be made in the courts of summary jurisdiction for nonpayment of maintenance arrears without proof of means; if he will introduce legislation to bring the practice in these courts into line with the procedure in county courts where no committals to prison for debt can be made except on proof of means; and how many men are now in prison in this country for that offence?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Though proof of means is not in law required before a commitment order can be made for nonpayment of arrears under an order to maintain a wife, Justices are accustomed to take into consideration the defendant's means, and as at present advised, I would not be prepared to introduce legislation on the subject. The answer to the last part of the question is 377.
  Sir REGINALD BLAKER: Is it not a fact that before any such order can be made judicially, there must be evidence before the justices of some means on which the order was originally made?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I believe that that is not necessary in law, but that it is the custom in practice.

  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary what action he intends to take with regard to the request made to him for the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate and report upon the whole question of prison administration with special reference to prison industries?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: I am of opinion that the system of prison industries needs review. As I stated recently in answer to a question, a committee was appointed by my predecessor to consider the best methods of dealing with persistent offenders, and I understand that the report of that committee, which is expected to be completed in a few weeks from now, will call attention to the need for the improvement of prison industries in connection with other proposals. When this report is received, I will consider what would be the right procedure to adopt, but, as at present advised, I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be the best means of investigating the somewhat detailed and technical questions that are involved, or would conduce to the speedy action which may prove to be desirable.

  RUMANIA (JEWS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information from His Majesty's Minister in Bucharest as to anti-semitic excesses in Moldavia, near Jassy; and whether he is aware of the growing danger to this minority in Rumania?
  Mr. EDEN: I have no information from His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest concerning anti-semitic excesses in Moldavia, but he has been requested to report whether there have been any developments of the nature described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the Government aware that Professor Jorga, the Prime Minister, and Professor Cuza, the leader of the anti-semites, have now combined to make new elections, and
  392
  that in consequence the position of the Jewish minority is becoming acutely dangerous?
  Mr. EDEN: We have already asked for a report.

  FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT SUPPLIES).
  Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether His Majesty's Government will now arrange for the supply of home-grown beef exclusively to the armed forces of the Crown?
  Sir G. PENNY: My right hon. Friend would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which he gave on the 4th February in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard).
  Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the prevailing distress among stock-raising farmers and in view of the decision of the Government not to tax imported meat, will the Government not now be prepared to reconsider their decision in this matter?
  Sir G. PENNY: I will convey that request to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether all English beef is fed on English-grown fodder?
  Mr. BOOTHBY: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at the earliest opportunity.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. MAXTON: I wish to raise a point of Order on a matter of business. During the time we were doing the second call-over, Mr. Speaker, I was unable, because of the noise, to bear you call Questions 50, 52 and 53. As the time for Questions has not yet expired, is it not within your discretion to go over the Order Paper a third time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Question No. 53 has already been asked, but I cannot, go back again.

WAR PENSIONS (AMENDMENT).
The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
"War Pensions (Amendment),—Bill to repeal section five of the War Pensions Act, 1921."—[Mr. Smedley Crooke.]
Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke), the main object of this Bill is to remove a statutory limitation, which can only be done on the recommendation of the Crown, so that it will not be in order for a private Member to move for leave to bring in this Bill.
Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I submit to your Ruling, but I thought that as the House gave permission to introduce this Bill last July, I should be in order in putting the Motion on the Order Paper. The British Legion for whom I am acting and disabled ex-servicemen will be profoundly disappointed at the decision which you have made.
Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I can only carry out the Rules of the House.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  WORKS COUNCILS BILL,
  "to provide for the establishment of consultative works councils in factories and workshops for the consideration of various matters of mutual concern to employers and employed persons; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Bernays, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Sir Percy Harris, and Major Nathan; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  RIGHTS OF WAY BILL,
  "to amend the law relating to public rights of way; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Holford Knight; supported by Sir John Withers, Mr. Macpherson, Sir E. Graham-Little, Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Hurd, Dr. Salter, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Llewellyn-Jones; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make miscellaneous amendments in the law applicable to Northern Ireland." [Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with regard to the audit of the accounts of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Worksop and their officers; and for other purposes." [Worksop Corporation Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  WORKSOP CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Templeton; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Moore.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IMPORT DUTIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.[Progress 23rd February.]
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  IMPORT DUTIES BILL.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Goods exempted from the General ad valorem Duty.)
    Mr. ATTLEE: Will you indicate, Sir Dennis, the order in which the various Amendments are to be taken?
    The CHAIRMAN: As I stated yesterday these various Amendments, which are in the nature of alterations to the Schedule, including omissions from the Schedule, will be taken in groups of Amendments, each group relating to particular items in the Schedule. There will be a general discussion on the first Amendment relating to each item in the Schedule; then hon. Members who have other Amendments down relating to the same group can move them, and they will be put without discussion. Then at some period, if necessary, if we have not disposed of all these items, the Chairman can exercise his right of selection by at once going to the Amendments to make additions to the Schedule. As far as possible, I propose to follow a similar course in regard to the additions, taking a general discussion on the proposed additions in the nature of human foodstuffs, for instance, and putting the separate Amendments if necessary; and following the same course in regard to animal foodstuffs and so on. With regard to the exact time when the Chair will exercise this right of selection, that must depend on the course of the Debate.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will one group consist of raw materials for various industries?
    The CHAIRMAN: I would not like to answer that definitely before we come to it, but that is the kind of group which I suggest.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 19, line 7, to leave out the words, "beef, veal, mutton, lamb."—[Mr. Hannon.]
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will remember that the arrangement is that, if he wishes to move this Amendment, he can do so, but it is either a case of formally moving or not moving because the Amendment will not be discussed.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out line 11.
    I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer his reason for putting live quadruped animals in the Schedule. The majority of them come from the Empire and would not be subject to duty under the Empire preference provisions. The number coming from foreign countries, I understand, is very small, and it would not be a very great burden if the foreign imports of live quadruped animals were taxed. I believe that the majority of those that come from abroad are polo ponies, and we want to do all we can to help the English bloodstock. A duty of 10 per cent. on American polo ponies would go a small way to encourage our bloodstock. I also wish to point out that there might be a danger of imports of live animals coming from abroad, especially the Continent, to escape a duty on meat, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer change his mind on that question, in view of any possible arrangements that may be made later at the Ottawa Conference.
    Major HARVEY: I should like to support my hon. Friend from another point of view. In the part of the world which I represent there are bred a great many ponies—Dartmoor ponies—which are very suitable for pit ponies. I understand that a number of these ponies are imported, and those engaged in that trade find great difficulty in getting a market in this country. It might, therefore, be worth while the Chancellor considering if he could possibly exclude these from the Schedule, or in some way see that the ponies that come from foreign countries to the detriment of breeders in this country are taxed.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: In rising to make a maiden speech I crave the courtesy and

    403
    indulgence which the House always gives to a new Member on such an occasion. I have not hitherto sought to take any part in the Committee proceedings on this Bill, but I am perforce called upon to do so in view of the Amendment which has just been moved to leave out of the free list live quadruped animals. There is in this country a breed of cattle, originally coming from Holland, which are probably the most valuable cattle we can have from the point of view of giving the greatest quantity of milk, and thereby enabling milk to be produced at a lower cost than is the case with any other breed. If live quadruped animals are taken out of the free list it may mean that when, in the near future, more black and white cattle are imported, as has happened twice during the last 30 years, this duty will prove a handicap. Those who breed the black and white cattle here are not, as is the case with so many other breeds, men of considerable financial standing. In the main they are bred by small dairy farmers, who have not a great deal of capital to put down. Any cattle which may be imported from Holland with a view to improving the breed of cattle, must necessarily cost a considerable sum of money, and if a duty of 10 per cent. is to be charged it may mean that it will be impossible for those particular breeders to import the cattle, which would be very detrimental to our dairy cattle breeding interests. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist the Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member who has just addressed us for the first time has made a genuine and useful contribution to our discussion, and I. am sure that all hon. Members welcome that speech and will he glad to hear him again on a subject of which, evidently, he has a special knowledge. The purpose of including the words "live quadruped animals" in the Schedule was, in the first instance, to bring it into line with the preceding paragraph which refers to "animals which are imported for food in a live state." It is quite true that the great bulk of these come from Empire countries, and that so far as that is the case they will not be subject to duty; if
    404
    there should be special reasons on other grounds for excluding any particular class of animals from the Schedule, that is a matter which could be referred, in the process of time, to the advisory committee. But there is a second reason which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend who has just spoken and that is that it is desirable to put no obstacle in the way of the importation of valuable animals for breeding purposes. The case of Frisian cattle has been mentioned, but the same considerations apply to blood stock horses. It would be very awkward if every time a racehorse was brought over from the Continent a duty of 10 per cent. had to be paid. I think that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will see that if this matter is left to the discretion of the advisory committee there will be ample opportunity for dealing with it.
    Mr. TURTON: In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, to leave out the words "of British taking."
    I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very considerable concessions which, undoubtedly, he has made as a result of Amendments on the Paper. He has shown that he is prepared to listen to us in the sweet light of reason. I want also to congratulate him on his firmness last night in standing up to those who wished to take meat out of the Free List. He said in his speech:
    "What I do say is that in present circumstances and having, in particular, the question of the cost of living very much in our minds we do not consider that this is a time when it would be prudent or wise to put a tax upon the import of meat into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; cols. 330–1, Vol. 262.]
    Those remarks, which refer to meat, apply with even more force to fish. Of recent years fish has become an article of general diet amongst the very Poorest in the land. It is easily cooked, and is a nourishing food. Anybody who is familiar with the poorer quarters of our large towns knows that the fried fish shop discharges a very useful function, and at a time when the struggle for existence is so severe for so

    405
    large a percentage of the population it would be unfortunate if a tax were imposed on fish. Just over £4,000,000 worth of fish was imported into this country in 1931 compared with nearly £5,000,000 in 1929. The quantity imported in 1931 amounted to 2,900,000 cwts., compared with 3,360,000 cwts. in 1929. There was the same state of affairs in the case of cured fish and salted fish—a large decline both in the value and the quantity of the imports.
    The country whose exports would be chiefly hit by this tariff is Norway. Our relations with Norway are of the friendliest character. Their tariff is, on the whole, a low tariff compared with some other countries, and it would be unfortunate if anything were done to give the impression that we were anxious to discourage trade between Norway and this country. There is another aspect of this problem. I quite realise that our fishermen are going through a bad time, and that that will be the argument against this Amendment which will be put up by hon. Members who support this tax. There has been a lot of unemployment in the fishing industry, and owing no doubt in part to the decreased purchasing power of the country prices have been low. If anybody wishes to find a remedy I suggest that he should study the Report on the Fishing Industry, Command Paper 4012, which points out that the real weakness and the main cause of the fall in value of fresh fish, or wet fish, as it is called, while fish is comparatively dear in the retail shops, is bad organisation in the industry and the unsatisfactory marketing arrangements.
    There is a word in the English language that has a sort of significance, "Billingsgate." It is a place not many miles from this House, and I suggest that hon. Members who want an opportunity to help the fishing industry might take an early morning visit to that delectable spot. It is within a few minutes' walk from London Bridge. There they will find clay after day that the whole of the Metropolitan fish consumption is handled, and not only fish caught in British waters. I am sure that this House would be spending its time far better if it dealt with the question of markets, especially the reorganisation of Billingsgate, and of forcing the City of
    406
    London to do its duty in providing a market centre in London equivalent to what exists in Paris, than be spending its time imposing this paltry import duty on foreign fish. Fish is an article of general consumption, and, as I have said, the whole of the case that applies to meat applies with far greater force, or at any rate with equal force, to fish. I suggest to the Minister that this is the very last time to choose for the imposing of a tax on this very necessary article of food.
    Mr. HANNON: One wonders where the hon. Baronet will search next to get some means of striking at British industry. He appears to make it his special purpose to take every opportunity of preventing any branch of British enterprise from meeting with success. From time to time we have had pleas ad misericordiam on behalf of the fishing industry, but the way in which the hon. Member proposes to help the fishing industry in this country is by allowing foreign fish to come in free. Really, one begins to marvel at, I will not use a vulgar expression, but I will call it his cheek—[Interruption]. How the hon. Baronet has the effrontery—[Interruption]. He is not a Baronet? Well, I apologise. I thought he was a Baronet. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is!"] I hope very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not listen to these pleadings these foolish, deluded pleadings of the hon. Gentleman who is asking for the admission of foreign fish—
    Sir P. HARRIS: I was defending the consumer.
    Mr. HANNON: Every pound's weight of foreign fish introduced into this country is against the interest of those engaged in the fishing industry. I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is prevented on account of his official position in this House from taking part in this Debate. I should very much have liked to hear what comment he would make on the speech of the hon. Baronet who wants fish to be put upon the Free List. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do nothing towards acceding to so foolish a proposal.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Baronet founded his argument upon a statement that the whole of the arguments which I had addressed to the ex-

    407
    clusion of meat from the taxation, applied, as he said, with far greater force to fish. What was my argument? My argument was that we had to be very careful not to raise the cost of living, and that the cost of meat forms such a large proportion of the cost of living that it was a particularly dangerous article to experiment with. I expected the hon. Baronet then to bring forward figures to show that the cost of fish forms a much larger part in the household budget than that of meat. He brought no such figures forward. Perhaps he will allow me to tell him what were the figures in the household budget of 1904. The weekly consumption of beef and mutton at that time was given as 3s. 8d., but that of fish was only 5½d. Fish is therefore one-eighth of beef and mutton. Although the figures have been raised since then, the relative proportions remain about the same.
    The hon. Baronet's speech was directed, not against the importation of foreign fish, but against the taxation of fish at all. If there is anything in his Amendment, it is the exclusion of fish not of British taking from the operation of the duty; therefore, what he was really arguing for was that we should make foreign fish free of duty. The whole of that argument depends upon the assumption that foreign fish occupies the greater part in the consumption of fish. That is not the case to begin with, and, secondly, this duty, while primarily a revenue duty, does in fact give some assistance to the British fishing industry. I think that is the best reason for resisting the Amendment.
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: I rather resent the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who accused my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) of always attacking British industry. I suggest to him that there are two sides to British industry. There is the export side as well. It is a well known fact that many European countries allow our fish to go in free. We have a very large export trade with them. I want to know whether the Government took into consideration the effect upon our export market in fish, when they were dealing with the imports of foreign fish into this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted the figures of
    408
    1904, but I suggest that since that time there has been a very large increase in the consumption of fish, because of very great campaigns that have taken place to popularise fish in this country. The effect of stopping the importation of all foreign fish into this country will be to put up the price of fish; otherwise, I do not follow the arguments of the trawl owners who say that it is because foreign fish is coming in here that their trade is depressed, although foreign fish sometimes has been fetching higher prices than British fish. At the same time they say that because foreign fish is coming in here, British fishermen are out of employment, and that to stop the importation of foreign fish will help the British fishing industry. The country will still consume the same amount of fish. The argument cuts both ways.
    I want to remind hon. Members that we are just as well aware as to the interests of the British industry as they are; the difference is that we try to consider the matter in all its aspects. We do not wish to lose the export trade in British fish, which is a matter of very great importance, especially for the North Sea fishermen. That is the reason why this Amendment is on the Paper.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how the exports of fish compare with the imports?
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: I have not the figures here, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the export of British fish, especially in the case of the countries that charge no duty, are quite a considerable part of the fishing industry.
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I am rather astonished at the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. It strikes me as a very peculiar argument. So far as I can make out, he was opposed to the imposition of this duty on foreign fish, because be said that the same amount of fish other than British caught, would come into this country and the price of fish would still remain low.
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: I was looking at the British trawler-owners' argument.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: If that is so, surely it is the best argument against the case put up by the hon. Baronet the Member

    409
    for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). The price of fish will not, in fact, go up, but British men will be employed instead of foreigners, and I cannot help thinking that that will be a definite advantage. Like the hon. and gallant Member, I have not got the statistics, but I think I am right in saying that those countries where our fish is allowed in free, are not countries with a big fishing industry. If so, why on earth the hon. Member thinks that a duty on foreign-caught fish is going to affect our free imports in a country not affected by our duty, passes my comprehension. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resisted the Amendment. The British fishing industry is in a worse position now than ever before, and it is time that we tried something different from the present system.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I do protest against the habit now of accusing anyone who endeavours to look after the interests of the British consumer of attacking British industry. We carry on trade in order that people may get commodities at a reasonable price. so that the cost of living is made as light as possible, and I say that anything which decreases the purchasing power of the people makes the struggle of life very much harder than it is. I still believe that, in the long run, the President of the Board of Trade will find that imports pay for exports, and if we stop fish coming in, in the end we injure our manufactures.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There can be no great harm in someone who has a considerable connection with the fishing industry saying something upon this matter. I would point out that, whereas in this country comparatively little is done for the fishing industry, in foreign countries there is a considerable amount of Government money spent in subsidising the industry. In Belgium and many other countries they subsidise the industry to enable it to get new boats, and so on. Those fishermen contribute nothing to our harbours or anything else, while directly our own people go to almost any of the foreign countries, they are immediately hit. That is a reason why many of us are grateful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given this help at the present time. There is another point.
    410
    Purely from the national point of view, I think that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment will admit that, the fishermen of this country are at least the equal of those of other countries in their methods, skill and bravery, and I think that this Committee as a whole will probably say that men who form one of the finest industries and one of the finest type in the world, should, at any rate, be given this slight encouragement.
    Mr. RICHARD LAW: There is one point I would like to bring before the notice of this Committee. The hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment quoted in its favour the report of the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council on the Fishing Industry. I propose now to quote the report against his Amendment, because it says definitely that it favours some form of Protection for the fishing industry. The report says:
    "In these circumstances we recommend that the question of imposing restrictions on the imports of white fish, which amount to the substantial figure of £3,000,000, should be considered by His Majesty's Government in connection with any steps which may be taken with a view to improving the balance of trade."
    If this Amendment were carried, it would be going directly against the report of the Economic Council which the hon. Baronet quoted.
    Mr. HENRY HASLAM: I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to another aspect of this matter, and to give a reason why the Committee should be particularly careful to protect British fishermen. During the War, British fishermen played a vital and an essential part in the protection of these islands, and in the success with which we waged the naval war. Had it not been for the work of these men on their trawlers—and only fishermen could have performed that work—the British Fleet would have been in a very inferior position compared with what it was. Therefore, I think that when it is a question of the livelihood of these men, this House should pay very careful regard to their interests.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I must protest against the hon. Member's speech. Everyone in this House admires the work which the fishermen have done and also admires the part to be taken by the people of this country in facing the extra cost of that fish. But if you introduce

    411
    this argument in a discussion on the tariff question, you might just as well put forward the argument that you should give some bonus to the miners who worked during the War.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the next Amendment is the first on the items in lines 16 and 17, and therefore on this Amendment we take a general discussion on all the Amendments which relate to those two lines.
    Dr. McLEAN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 16, to leave out the words "and hemp."
    This Amendment, which appears in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends, is moved because hemp is the competitor of sisal, which is produced in all our East African colonies. Those colonies are in financial difficulties, and unless we can help them in this way, the burden will fall upon the British Treasury, because we are responsible for their finances. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I had the honour of referring to Colonial development, and to the welfare of the native races and our responsibilities for that welfare. Now the securing of a market in this country for sisal will make a very great difference to the lives of thousands of natives in East Africa. In considering the qualities of sisal compared with hemp, I have a report here entitled "Empire Fibres for Marine Cordage." It is issued by the Imperial Institute, who conducted certain tests on Empire sisal. The Appendix refers to certain tests carried out by the Admiralty on sisal ropes and manila hemp ropes. I will quote from this report:
    "The results of these tests are summarised by the Admiralty as follows:
    British East African Brushed Sisal—No. 1 quality.

    (a) Much better appearance than Manila owing to the light colour of the fibre.

    (b) Higher initial breaking strain than Manila.

    (c) Capable of withstanding the action of sea-water over a prolonged period.

    (d) Compares favourably with Manila when exposed under service conditions.

    (e) When immersed in sea-water, Sisal compared with Manila:

    412

    (i) Absorbs water at a much quicker rate and sinks more rapidly.

    (ii) Swells more.

    (iii) Shrinks in length at a quicker rate.

    (iv) Does not return to its original size when dry but remains in its expanded state, whereas Manila gradually returns to its approximate original size."

    Those qualities do not seem to be a practical disadvantage, because the report continues:
    "Subsequent to the conclusion of the exposure tests, the balance of the Sisal cordage was issued to certain of His Majesty's ships for small-scale trial under service conditions. This cordage was used for boats' falls."
    That, I believe, is the most severe of all tests—
    "and during the trial period it was subject to exceptionally wet weather. The falls satisfactorily completed the normal period of service."
    I submit that there is no good reason for denying the Preference to our East African Colonies in this matter. It is the only Preference we can give them under this Schedule, and they are able to supply all our requirements.
    Captain DIXON: I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, and, in saying so, I am speaking for the protection of my own industries in Belfast. In certain very large industries in Belfast no other form of hemp can be used except hemp which is now grown in Italy, and which is very nearly allied to flax. Certain owners of mills in Belfast are largely interested in the growing of sisal in the colonies referred to. They have tried to use it in their mills, and have found that it is quite impossible to do so. Therefore, if this tax is put on, it will simply be in this case a tax on industry. There is another issue—the making of ropes. In the City of Belfast there is the biggest rope works in the British Isles, and when there is a, contract for ropes to take of a specific strain and of a specific weight, there is no question that manila is the only hemp to use.
    I see that this Amendment is backed by a right hon. Gentleman who has a great deal to do with the Alpine Club, but I do not think he would propose for a moment that sisal ropes should be used for lowering himself and his friends when

    413
    they are engaged in alpine climbing. As the Mover of the Amendment has quite truly said, sisal ropes sink quickly, they expand, and, in fact, do all the things which seamen dislike most, whereas it has been proved that manila hemp, as regards strength in comparison with weight, is incomparably superior, and where a firm has to compete, as the Belfast Ropeworks have to compete, with the whole world—because very few ropes are sold in the city of Belfast in comparison with the quantity turned out—to put a tax on manila at the present time would be a very serious handicap, and I am quite sure that not one of the Members whose names are attached to this Amendment is desirous for a moment of handicapping any of the industries of our country. I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I rise to support this Amendment for two or three reasons. In the first place, unlike some of the other articles that we have been discussing, sisal is an Empire-grown product which we believe in time will replace large quantities of manila which now come into this country. We believe that up to the present, owing to the fact that the production of sisal has only been developed during comparatively recent years in the Empire, it has not been given a full trial by British industries. If the right hon. and gallant Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon) will read carefully the report issued by the Imperial Institute Committee at the request of the Empire Marketing Board, and the other reports on this matter, he will see that, if my right hon. Friend goes to Switzerland again some day, when it becomes once more patriotic to do so, he will, on the Admiralty report at any rate, be prepared to trust himself to sisal rope with even greater confidence than to manila hemp.
    Captain DIXON: I hope he does not.
    Sir H. CROFT: I am really distressed to find myself, for the first time for many years, in the opposite camp to my right hon. and gallant Friend. I would like to ask him whether, when he speaks of sisal having such great disadvantages, he realises that the German Navy used sisal ropes under active service conditions; and I believe I am right in saying that the Swedish Navy also uses sisal ropes.
    414
    British rope-makers are already being given, very wisely, a pretty substantial protection, and I think, bearing in mind the advantages which hemp has in competition with sisal, that the rise in price is not likely to be very great, but even this aid may mean everything to the sisal producers of our East African colonies.
    Some Members of the House may not have had the privilege, as I have had, of seeing the building up of the sisal industry in East Africa. I am in no way connected with it, but it has always interested me very much. I would ask the Committee to realise the enormous amount of capital which these British Colonies have expended in the sisal industry in Kenya, Tanganyika and Nyasaland. It is a very expensive production, requiring an expensive factory with expensive machinery, there is a large amount of railway haulage, and the crop takes a considerable time to come to maturity. Something like £1,000,000 a year is paid in wages alone in these three Colonies at the present time. No one who has studied the facts has any doubt that the sisal industry at the present moment is just in the balance. Many plantations have already been closed, and there is grave danger of the industry going out of cultivation unless we can do something to encourage it.
    I would also remind the Committee that there is hardly a Colony or Dominion in the British Empire that does not benefit under this Bill, but, speaking from the point of view of Kenya, where the principal crops are coffee, maize and sisal, I would point out that in. this Bill nothing is done for coffee, and that we have wiped out maize—a very important crop, which would have given enormous assistance to the people of Kenya—for the reasons, I admit very great ones, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned last night, especially in connection with the situation in Ulster. Now this question of sisal arises. That Colony is going through a most difficult time. Some of the finest Colonists in the world are engaged in the production of sisal, and I honestly believe that they are faced with ruin. I ask that this small advantage should be given to the sisal growers of the Empire. If we find the difficulties to which reference has been made, it will be competent for the advisory committee to remove the duty.

    415
    I urge the Committee to look at this question in its broader aspect.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: In rising to oppose this Amendment, I would like to remind the Committee of some points about the tests that have taken place as between sisal and manilla. The report of the Admiralty has already been referred to, but I think I am right in saying that, of the four tests for strength made respectively by the Imperial Institute, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade and the rope-makers, in two cases the result was good for sisal and in two the strength was not proved to be sufficient. The great point in connection with this Amendment is that people who use ropes will not yet buy sisal to any extent; it is still in an experimental stage. The rope-makers of this country are pushing it as much as they can, and we have already been told that its appearance is good. If I may say so, its appearance has, I think, been made better by the red, white and blue label which is put upon it to show that it is fully British. They are pushing it by these means, but, in the meantime, buyers of ropes made in Britain will not take it to any extent.
    Sisal is being used more and more in this country, and hon. Members may have noticed that we imported twice as much last year as we did the year before. It is being used for twine and for binder twine, and, thanks to the Abnormal Importations Duty, the imports of foreign twine came down from 10,000 cwts. in one month to 900 cwts. in the next month. We have a factory in Scotland, working with sisal, that is now running double shifts. I am certain that we are going to use more sisal, but I do not think that the time has come when it can be substituted for manila. The rope-makers of this country are asked for manila rope. Already they are paying more for manila since we went off the Gold Standard, because manila comes from the Philippines; and, if this extra 10 per cent. is now added, and they have to face a double increase in the price, I am certain that they will not be able to hold their market in the export trade.
    People at home are being urged to buy this sisal rope because it is British, but the market abroad is not affected by that consideration. If we lose our export market for manila we shall not get any
    416
    extra revenue, because, owing to the excessive price, it will not be imported in any quantity into this country; and we shall also damage the employment of the 16,000 people who are employed in the net, rope and twine works in our country now. We shall have to wait for further experiments with sisal to prove to the shipping industry, the fishermen and other seafaring people at home and abroad, that it can be used with safety, and then, perhaps, we shall be able to use more sisal, as the rope-makers of this country want to do and are trying to do, and gradually to get it substituted for manila hemp.
    Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: After the forcible and well-reasoned speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), it is with great reluctance that I intervene in order to support this Amendment very strongly. I quite realise the difficulties of the position in which many industries of this country are at the present time, but probably a large number of industries will have to face certain alterations as the result of measures taken in the general interests of the whole country, and I still have my doubts as to whether a duty of 10 per cent. on hemp would make any material difference as compared with the immense advantage that it would give to the Colonies concerned in this matter. Last night I listened with much interest to the discussion on the question of placing maize on the free list, and, while I felt that there was much to be said on both sides, I realised that the convincing argument was the necessity of supporting Northern Ireland in its great difficulties. I am sure that sympathy with the farmers of Northern Ireland weighed very strongly with the House. I would suggest that Northern Ireland should now think with sympathy of the sisal growers in the Empire—in Kenya, Tanganyika and Nyasaland.
    Many of us, without any personal interest in the matter, have for some years past been watching with great concern the risks run by British enterprise in those countries, and the danger of suffering, material and financial, to British firms and settlers there; and I feel that that need alone outweighs the needs of one or two industries which, while they are important in their own way, are, after all, minor industries in connection

    417
    with this great development of our Colonies. Let us remember that in Tanganyika, Kenya, and one or two other African Colonies, sisal is one of the main sources of revenue. It is not a case of a small percentage of the country's industry, but a vital part of the interests of the Colonies concerned. I cannot help feeling that the House of Commons and our friends in Northern Ireland will realise, when we are talking about sacrifices, that there must be a certain amount of equality of sacrifice.
    Those who are opposing this Amendment are attempting to help one or two industries, but I would ask them to realise that our own people in our own Colonies are dependent on the assistance of this country at the present moment. I am not going into the question of tests, but I rather venture to doubt how far it is a question of tests; I think it is rather a matter of prejudice, of people liking to stick to what they are accustomed to, and not wanting to change if they can help it. The more sisal is examined, the better it comes out of the test. We should be able to have ample supplies of sisal, we should be helping our Colonies, and the rope manufacturers of this country are very amply protected. We have been discussing a good deal the question of Imperial economic relations within the Empire, and we are going to Ottawa, where we want to bring before the Dominions the question of mutual help within the Empire. Surely it is most important that the Dominions themselves should realise the importance of supporting British sisal development. There is no fear of lack of supplies, and, surely, we should set the lead in this matter, and show our Dominions that we are seeking the development of British industry, and that we shall be in a position at Ottawa to discuss that point. I feel that this is a very important Imperial issue, and one which should not be lightly set aside on the question of an industry or two, though I do not want to belittle their difficulties; and, on the principle of equal sacrifice and on the vital principle of supporting the development of our Empire in this matter, I strongly urge the Committee to support this Amendment.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. DIXEY: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept this very
    418
    reasonable Amendment. It is with great regret that we find the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon) opposed to us. Might I appeal to him, because I know his influence and his power, and the prestige of Ulster carries a great amount of weight with the Government, in view of the fact that, after all, Ulster has had a great gesture made to it with regard to the exemption of a, far more important commodity, to withdraw his opposition and that of Ulster on the ground that was put so eloquently by the last speaker. After all, surely, if Ulster is entitled to certain privileges and prerogatives, it is only right that another part of the Empire should be considered. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, who are sitting next to each other, have full power, without any further consultation, to agree to the Amendment.
    4.30 p.m.
    I am very sorry that we have not had an expression of sympathy on the equity of the Amendment from the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition. He could give us an expression of what the working class feel on this matter. I am sure, knowing his democratic sympathies and his desire for the employment of our people, he will admit that a colony like Kenya, which is going through a very grievous time, should have the slight encouragement which this Amendment will give. Might I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade? He is to some extent a convert with regard to the material of the Bill. He has shown himself one of the most reasonable members of his party and, if his present rate of progress is maintained, we shall find that the brake has to be put on by the Chanchellor of the Exchequer. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give way to the Amendment or, if he will not do that, to allow the Committee to have a free vote. I am confident that, if Members could vote impartially, without the Government Whips, they would allow Kenya to have fair play by a great majority. This is a gesture which could be made full use of when the representatives of the Government are at Ottawa. There is no prohibition of manila hemp in the Bill. It is only a 10 per cent. revenue tariff. Surely that is not going to make any difference at

    419
    all to the prosperity of Belfast. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a gesture to the Chancellor in supporting it.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I should like to stress the vast importance of this sisal industry to British East Africa. It is that industry on which they chiefly depend for their development and future prosperity. It was started 20 years ago in Kenya with a very small production of 211 tons, and in 1931 it had gone up to 15,000 tons. In Tanganyika production has gone up from 8,000 tons to 50,000 tons. In British East Africa we now have a total production of 65,000 tons, and I am informed that it could be increased immediately to 80,000 tons a year. The total imports into this country of hemp for making rope and twine are 75,710 tons, so that, from the point of view of production alone, British East Africa is able to supply all the raw materials that we require. The point is whether sisal hemp will fulfil the necessary conditions for making the best quality hemp, and particularly that used for marine purposes. Experiments have been carried out over a series of years, and I should like to read an extract from the Empire Marketing Board report dated 1928:
    "In the foregoing paragraphs it has been shown that in sisal we have a first class fibre suitable for the manufacture of high grade cordage of all kinds. The fibre is white and lustrous, possesses strength and flexibility, and is well adapted for the purposes for which cord fibres are required. Although there has been a prejudice against the use of sisal for marine cordage, it has now been shown, as the result of trials carried out by the Imperial Institute, that this was based on a misapprehension. Moreover, if sisal were more liable than other fibres to be deteriorated by the action of sea water, it is unlikely that the Swedish Navy would have installed sisal rope on their vessels or that the German fleet should have been equipped with such ropes during the Great War. Fishermen who have used the fibre for their nets speak very highly of its durability, and also of its power of withstanding transverse strains. The manufacturers are, therefore, advised to turn their attention to East African sisal, which they will find superior in many respects to other cordage fibres."
    The members of the advisory committee responsible for the report included representatives of the Board of Trade, the Rope and Twine and Net Manufacturers Federation, the Flax Spinners Associa-
    420
    tion, Limited, the Admiralty, the High Commissioner for New Zealand, British Ropes, Limited, the British Hemp Rope Manufacturers Association, the London Jute Association, the Jute Importers Association, Limited, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Overseas Trade. Since that time further experiments have been carried out with regard to testing the qualities of sisal for making the best qualities of cordage, and I will read an extract from a letter which appeared in "The Times" on the 2nd instant:
    "The possibilities of extending the uses of Empire grown sisal, particularly for marine purposes, were discussed at a meeting, held under arrangements of the Empire Marketing Board, between representatives of sisal growers, rope manufacturers, the Admiralty and the Imperial Institute. This follows inquiries into the uses of sisal undertaken by the Advisory Committee of the Imperial Institute. An officer of the Empire Marketing Board gave an account of his experiences in Liverpool, where he called upon 18 or 20 shipping firms to discuss the use of sisal for ropes. With only three exceptions, all the companies agreed to make further inquiries and, in several cases to undertake tests at sea. One firm which had just concluded a test on its own account stated that the sisal rope had stood up to 5½ months at sea with such success that the owners had decided to keep it in position for a further voyage, although a rope would normally have been taken out of use after that period. No adverse reports had been received."
    A further report which was read by the Mover of the Amendment dealt with experiments which had been carried out by the Admiralty, and the Admiralty are carrying out further experiments. As a result of these trials, there cannot be a shadow of doubt that sisal has proved its case and that it is capable of taking the place of manila hemp in the manufacture of the best possible rope, especially that used for marine purposes. An hon. Member raised the question of the breaking strength; he said he would be very sorry to use sisal hemp if it was not as good as manila. I have here the result of experiments carried out by the Imperial Institute. I will take 11 inch rope. The breaking strain, when dry, with six experiments, was on the average 2,097 lbs. With manila it was 2,062 1bs. Therefore, sisal has a greater breaking strain than manila. With 3 inch rope, the average breaking strain was 9,413 lbs, with sisal and, in the case of

    421
    manila, it was 9,187 lbs. So I hope the hon. Member who had misgivings will now have them laid at rest, and will with perfect safety be able to use the rope in future.
    At present 90 per cent. or more of the production of East African sisal goes to the United States and the Continent. On the Continent it is made into binding twine and is exported into this country and sold to the farming industry. Immediately the Abnormal Importations Act came into force, rope manufacturers increased their output of binding twine. Consequently, there is a less market on the Continent for East African sisal and orders have decreased. Therefore, it is up to us to do something to help sisal to obtain the market here which it is losing on the Continent.
    There can be no objection to the manufacturers of hemp, who already have a 50 per cent. duty on rope, having a 10 per cent. duty placed upon sisal, giving East African sisal an opportunity of having its case tried out by the Advisory Committee. Experiments have shown that it is equal, in some respects superior, to manila, and undoubtedly, when we are considering the economic policy of the Empire, we should do everything we possibly can for this industry. East Africa buys from this country £250,000 worth of machinery and raw materials every year for the sisal industry alone. They also pay £200,000 a year in freights to the shipping companies. Quite apart from East Africa, this industry is of considerable importance to this country. If they do not get this concession, am told that many of the estates in East Africa will have to close down. It will be a very serious matter for them. They are at present in very serious financial straits owing to the general depression. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take a very sympathetic view of the matter and will take sisal off the Free List. Give them the opportunity of having the 10 per cent. tariff and of having their case gone into by the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. TINKER: I wish, as a representative on these benches, to say a word or two on the matter. We have had seven
    422
    speeches upon the Amendment, five of them in favour and two against. Three of the speeches out of the five were made by die-hard Protectionists. I have listened time without number to speeches by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey), and the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), and on every occasion they are out for full-blooded Protection, so that in a matter of this kind I hope that the Committee will not be influenced by them.
    Sir H. CROFT: I hope that the hon. Member will not call this full-blooded. I object to that description.
    Mr. TINKER: I will not call it full-blooded, but the arguments have always been in favour of full-blooded Protection, and this is a step in the direction they wish to take. The speech against the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) was the soundest of them all. She had a thorough grip of the whole position which she put in such a reasonable way that it deserves the consideration of the Committee. If I had the power at this moment to withdraw the Socialist party from the House of Commons and leave the Debate to the Members of what is called the 'National Government, we should then have the best example of a dog fight that we have ever had. They cannot agree. Whatever the Government are trying to leave free from the tariff duty, the cry goes up from all sections, "You are doing wrong. You ought to bring everything in. You ought n leave out nothing." I should be immensely pleased if we could leave them for a short time, for I believe that our object would then soon be obtained. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it!"] You would not agree if you were only left alone for five minutes. I am in favour of the minority who have spoken against the Amendment. I am just as much the other way, as is the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth the way of Protection. I think that we should do things more upon the Free Trade basis than upon the basis of Protection, and I shall give my support against the Amendment.
    Mr. AMERY: The figures and facts which have been given to us about the qualities of sisal prepare me to accept, without hesitation, the challenge issued

    423
    by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon), and I am quite willing, in view of the fact that the breaking strain and the transverse strain of sisal are higher than that of manila, to take my chances on the mountain side on a sisal rope. But I admit that for the best part of 40 years I have always used the same kind of rope purchased from the same firm, and I cannot help suspecting that some of the arguments used by my right hon. and gallant Friend were based upon the conservatism both of the user and the manufacturer in this country. We want to help to modify that conservatism by our action. It is a significant fact, as was pointed out in the very interesting speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), that since 1929 the proportion of sisal used in British rope-making has gone up from 9 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the whole. That is to say that, quite apart from laboratory and official tests, its intrinsic qualities are enabling it to gain ground against the conservatism of both manufacturers and users.
    In addition, this country has, I believe, been importing a good deal of Continental sisal rope which at this moment is being shut out the duty. Those are precisely the conditions under which the transition which is already taking place will be immensely stimulated and emphasised by the small difference of duty. In fact, I would also say that those are precisely the conditions where the producer of manila hemp, faced with accentuated and more effective competition on the part of sisal in this very valuable market, will, by bringing down his price, try to retain his market in this country. Therefore, I believe that the fears that those who continue to use manila hemp in this country will have to pay heavily for it are entirely unfounded. I believe that the conditions in this particular industry from the point of view of industry in this country are precisely those where you can with safety impose this low preferential duty and get the maximum value from it.
    More than one speaker emphasised the fact that the German Navy used sisal in the Great War. Nobody who knows anything about the equipment of that navy will suggest that they would have
    424
    used anything that was inferior to any other material. In equipment at any rate the German Navy was found to be A.1 throughout. I should like to put a rather different aspect of the question. No doubt there was some resistance to be overcome before the introduction of sisal into the German Navy. The German Navy did it before the War. They did it in order to encourage their great colony in East Africa. Are we in the position with regard to our colonists, whether British colonists or ex-German settlers who have gone back there, to say that the British Government are not prepared to do as much for a, territory under a British mandate and British protection as the German Government? Surely in a case of this sort we can advantageously give help to a group of British Colonies and Protectorates which are in a terribly serious situation when by helping them we are helping some of our best customers. The whole balance of the argument ought to incline us in favour of doing it.
    Further, as one hon. Member pointed out, we should offer them this help in order to promote not only inter-Imperial trade in the narrow sense of trade between this country and the Dominions, but between different parts of the Empire, and, as advocates and champions of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates, one of our first duties should be to encourage the Dominions, who are now becoming very important markets in these matters, to take Colonial produce rather than foreign produce. How can we with any decency approach Canada and ask her to give a preference to East African sisal or to West African oil products or to the products of Fiji or the West Indies, if we are not prepared to help our Colonies ourselves? Therefore, the suggestion I make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that, not in cases where clearly there was such a real danger of injuring British industry that we could not be asked to do things at this moment to help the Colonies, but in a case where the evidence is so substantial and so encouraging, we ought not to hesitate when, by action, we can do so very much to help the whole future of our Colonial Empire. There is one minor matter of detail in this connection: I understand —this arises on another Amendment —that Italian hemp—soft hemp—is not

    425
    the hemp which competes with sisal and that the retention of it in the Schedule would not prejudice the position of East African growers. It is the manila hemp which they desire to be dutiable like most other foreign materials in order to give their very promising industry a fair chance.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is natural that in making up a Schedule in which already certain raw materials for the textile industries were included, other principal raw materials in the shape of hemp and flax should also have been put in, but the very interesting discussion which we have had this afternoon shows that in the case of hemp at any rate there are some very important considerations to he taken into account on the other side. In fact, it is another case where there are again balancing considerations. On the one hand, we have the position of the East African Colonies which appeal, I think, very strongly to the sentiment of all of us, and I might even go further than that, because these are Colonies which may, if their condition does not improve, have to come upon the British Exchequer for grants and loansin-aid. On the other hand, you have the position of the rope-makers and hemp users in this country who say that they will be prejudiced seriously in their business if they have to pay a tax upon imported hemp.
    The question is really very simple as applied to the Amendment. As has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend, there is hard hemp, and soft hemp, hemp from Fiji, hemp from New Zealand, hemp from Russia, and hemp which comes from Italy. Every one of them is made from a different plant and has different qualities and is used for different purposes. With some of them sisal competes, and with others, perhaps, it does not compete. While those manufacturers and users of hemp say that it is no use quoting the results of tests by the Admiralty and the Imperial Institute to them, as they have to sell their goods, and they know whether they can sell one class of goods or another in competition with others, again, one has the same sort of feeling, that possibly as long as they have no interest in changing their customs they will take no opportunity of doing so. What is the course which the
    426
    Committee should take in these circumstances? It is not everybody who has such a simple criterion as the hon. Member for the Leigh Division (Mr. Tinker). His is a very simple way. He just sees which way the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is going to vote and then decides to go into the other Lobby.
    Mr. TINKER: That is a good way.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Committee desire that it should be settled on its merits, it cannot be as lightly dismissed as that. The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), in a speech which admirably put the case from the point of view of users in that district, suggested that the work of developing the use of sisal was going on fairly rapidly, but that the time had not yet come to make a change of this kind. She suggested that we should wait a little longer and see whether presently it would not be possible to make a change without involving hardship on any users. That brings me to what I think really should be the deciding consideration. Can the Colonies wait? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The point was put very clearly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. This industry is one which cannot be carried on in small plots. It is not like maize, for instance, which can be cultivated on a small area. If cultivated at all it has to be cultivated upon a very extensive area, and it cannot be carried on without a very extensive expenditure of capital upon plant and equipment, railways, and facilities for pressing and shipping. Moreover, it is one which comes to maturity slowly, which means that the whole of the capital which has been expended in the development of 5.0 p.m. the plantation during those years has to wait for its return until the crop has matured. The plantations in Tanganyika, Kenya and other African Colonies are just on the edge of the precipice, and I rather doubt whether they can afford to wait even for six months on the possible chance of an alteration and whether that would not mean that they would abandon the industry as it stands to-day, in which case it is very doubtful whether it would be revived again. I think it must be concluded that in any case the ultimate solu-

    427
    tion of this question is one which will have to go before the Advisory Committee, but, seeing the parlous and crippled condition of the industry in Africa at the present time, it is better to put them on the safe side until the committee have had an opportunity of discussing the matter, rather than to leave them possibly to perish before anything is done. In these circumstances, after listening to the Debate, I cannot do better than accept the Amendment.
    Earl WINTERTON: I should like to express the gratitude which those of us who are interested in the development of the Empire feel with regard to the decision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just reached; a decision which has been reached, if he will permit me to say so, without impertinence, in such a businesslike, lucid and concise speech. I do not rise to make a speech on the whole question, but I should like to refer to one matter that was raised in the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). I regret that I did not hear the speech but I understand it was a very good one. If the manufacturers of this country expect that those who are interested in Africa are going to purchase goods from them, they must meet us in rather a different spirit than did some of their representatives this afternoon. They must learn to adjust their methods so that they may make use of Empire products and buy goods from them. If they do not do that I say, speaking for agriculture, that they and their representatives will only have themselves to blame if thousands of unemployed continue to walk their streets. I would make a strong appeal, as one who takes an interest in Africa, to hon. Members who represent constituencies whose industries use African products, to show greater willingness to use those products than they have done in the past. Because they happen to have purchased their requirements from foreign countries for the last 100 years there is no reason why they should continue to do so in the future.
    Mr. DAVID REID: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question before this matter is disposed of? The word "hemp" covers a variety of products. It covers manila and sisal, upon which the Debate has turned, and also soft Italian hemp, which is really com-
    428
    parable to flax and is largely used in connection with the linen trade. It is not grown in any part of the Empire. May we take it that the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted will allow soft hemp to remain on the Free List? No case has been made out to take it off the list. It is spun and woven on the same machinery that is used for spinning and weaving flax and it is to a large extent handled by the same firms. I suggest that the Amendment should apply to hard hemp only and that soft hemp should be allowed to retain its place on the Free List.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: In reply to the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) may I say, as I stated to the Committee, that the manufacturers have been pushing sisal and taking more and more of it. During the "Buy British" campaign, they took a particularly active part and they urged people to try sisal. Ropemakers tell me that they are willing to push the use of this material and are willing to use it, in fact they are only too willing to use British materials wherever possible but their customers have not yet found this particular material to be so useful. Certainly, the ropemakers have been very busy in pushing the British product. They have used it for their twine, they use it now, and last year they used double the amount than was used previously. Three times during this Debate it has been said that the rope industry is having the benefit of a 50 per cent. duty. That duty, however, does not apply to rope, but only to twine and cord under a quarter of an inch in diameter.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment which I accepted was that which stood in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), to leave out the words "and hemp" With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid), I should like to look into that matter. If soft hemp is a proper definition of the kind of hemp which does not compete with sisal, I should be very happy to put that in, on Report.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I should like to express the very deep disappointment which will be felt by the rope and twine industry at the decision taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that any speaker in favour of the

    429
    Amendment has met the principal point made by my hon. colleague from Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) in her very lucid speech. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) referred to the conservatism of the manufacturer and the user. What we are dealing with here is the conservatism of the purchaser and especially the conservatism of the overseas purchaser who is not a member of the British Empire. The effect of the Amendment will surely be to hit the ex-
    porter in the rope and twine industry, and to do far more damage in that way than any advantage which we can give to any of our Colonies in Africa by passing the Amendment. I hope that those who are opposed to the Amendment will be ready to go into the Lobby against it and against the Government on this question.
    Question put, "That the words 'and hemp' stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 317.

    Division No. 84.]

    AYES.

    [5.10 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Janner, Barnett

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    John, William

    Price, Gabriel

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Ramsden, E.

    Burnett, John George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Curry, A. C

    Leonard, William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

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

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lunn, William

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton).

    Mabane, William

    Thorne, William James

    Edwards, Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McEntee, Valentine L,

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McKeag, William

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

    Mr. Dingle Foot and Mr. Bernays.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Albery, Irving James

    Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Donner, P. W.

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

    Carver, Major William H.

    Doran, Edward

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Drewe, Cedric

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cazalet, Tholma (Islington, E.)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Dunglass, Lord

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

    Eady, George H.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Chotzner, Alfred James

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Clarke, Frank

    Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Cooke, Douglas

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Cross, R. H.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Buchan, John

    Crossley, A. C.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lymington, Viscount

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Goff, Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McEwen, J. H. F.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Graves, Marjorie

    McLean, Major Alan

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Grimston, R. V.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Scone, Lord

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Maitland, Adam

    Selley, Harry R.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Gunston, Captain D. W,

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

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

    Martin, Thomas B.

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

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Meller, Richard James

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Milne, Charles

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Hartland, George A.

    Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Stones, James

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hillman, Dr George B.

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hornby, Frank

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Taylor. Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Templeton, William P.

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

    North, Captain Edward T.

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

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Nunn, William

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Roml'd)

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Titchfield, Major tic Marquess of

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Pearson, William G.

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Penny, Sir George

    Train, John

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Knight, Holford

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rankin, Robert

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Remer, John R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Levy, Thomas

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. viscount

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Robinson, John Roland

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Sir Victor Warrender and Major

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    George Davies.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 17, leave out the words "and hemp."—[Mr. Amery.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 19, after the word "wool," to insert the words "and animal hair."
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to add after the words "animal hair," the words "other than hatters' fur."
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be simpler if we take the hon. Member's Amendment as a separate Amendment. It will then fall within the arrangement which we have made and can be discussed on the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has formally moved.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The manufacture of hatter's fur is carried on in several parts of London, and incidentally in South Croydon. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vested interests !"] There are 150 people employed, and it is therefore a vested interest, which I shall always have the greatest pleasure in defending. This fur is made from rabbits' skins, which may be purchased in this country or imported, but between the rabbit's skin and the hatter's fur there are some 12 operations. The net result is that what was worth about 3s. per 1b. is eventually worth 6s. per 1b. Therefore, hatters' fur is a manufactured article to a substantial extent, and it is a manufactured article capable of being produced in this country while at the same time it is largely imported. Up to last night the industry presumed that they would be assisted under the 10 per cent. duty, and in those circumstances they made no representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend may have some doubts in accepting an Amendment of which he has had so little notice, but if he cannot accept it now, perhaps he will consider the matter and deal with it on Report.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us whether "animal hair" includes "bristles"
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 19, line 19, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "other than hatters' fur."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment is based on the assumption that hatters' fur is included in the term "animal hair," but my hon. Friend will observe that as the words stand the Schedule will read:
    "Wool and animal hair."
    and then there is the word "raw" in brackets. The word "raw" is not meant to apply to cooking but to manufacture.
    434
    The hon. Member has already stated that hatters' fur, which is not the only covering for the hatter, refers to an article which has been through 12 processes of manufacture. In those circumstances quite clearly it cannot be described as "raw" and, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 19, leave out from the word "raw" to the word "whether" in line 20.
    In line 20, after the word "whether" insert the word "cleaned."
    In line 21, at the end, insert the words
    "and wool waste not pulled or garnetted."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. GIBSON: I beg to move, in page 19, line 22, to leave out the words "but not including goat skins."
    During the Debate last night an hon. Member said that the one who made the most noise would get what he wanted, but although I have not behind me the big battalions—I am the only representative of the leather industry of this country in this House—yet at the same time I am satisfied that whatever I may say will receive the serious and careful consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very disappointed, as is the whole of this industry, at the exclusion of goat skins from the free list. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to accept an Amendment I moved because he said it would create great difficulty on the part of the Customs authorities in deciding whether certain goods could be satisfactorily processed in this country. I am going to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Customs authorities will have the greatest difficulty on some occasions in deciding whether raw goat skins are in fact goat skins or not. There are goat skins which come from Abyssinia which cannot be distinguished from sheep skins except by a man who is an expert in the trade; and sheep skins come in free.
    5.30 p.m.
    I have for years bought goatskins from Natal, where goats and sheep are mixed up together, and the result is that you have a type of goatskin which has sheep's wool on its back. In such a, case the Customs authorities will have the

    435
    greatest difficulty in deciding whether they are goatskins or sheepskins. What I cannot understand is why we have on the free list an article like wool, which is certainly not as raw or as near the flesh as the skin itself, and now we have hair coming in free, and yet goatskins, which are nearer the flesh than the hair from the skins, are not included in the free list. I maintain that goatskins are just as raw as cotton or rubber, and while probably 70 per cent. of the total production of goatskins of the world comes from the British Empire, still the same applies to rubber, for most of the rubber in the world is grown in the Empire, and rubber is on the free list. Why are not goatskins on the free list also? Raw hides are on the free list. The trade cannot understand why raw hides should be on the free list and not raw goatskins.
    If the Committee will pardon me I will give one or two particulars. The total imports of goatskins into this country last year were roughly 5,000,000 skins. Of these 85 per cent. came from the Empire. We fear that they may not be put on the free list in November, and that would be disastrous to the industry in this country. An hon. Member asked me yesterday what goatskins are used for. It so happens that probably 99 per cent. of the skins are made into glace kid for the uppers of boots and shoes. There are about 60,000 skins which cannot reasonably be obtained in the Empire and which are bought in Southern Europe to be made into morocco leather such as covers the benches in this House. I warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he does not let these goatskins come in free the next time these benches are covered they may cost us 10 per cent. more. In respect of those 60,000 skins for the morocco trade, I would mention that at least 50 per cent. of them are exported from this country. Therefore it is eminently desirable that these people, who are only a small section of the industry, should have their raw materials at the lowest possible price in order to maintain their export trade in this particular commodity.
    What do the Government really require? What are the reasons for not putting goatskins on the free list? Is it because the Government are afraid of loss of revenue? It cannot be that, because
    436
    last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to forego £1,000,000 in respect of maize. Of the goatskins imported last year only 15 per cent., or 700,000 skins, came from outside the Empire. Taking the average price of 2s. a skin, that is only £70,000, and 10 per cent. of that would be only £7,000. Therefore, the total loss to the Exchequer by putting goatskins on the free list would be only about 7,000. Is the reason because of the maintenance of Empire preference, in order to be able to negotiate at Ottawa Conference more easily. If the Bill stands for anything at all it certainly stands for the maintenance of the industries of this country. I maintain that we should do all that we can, whilst not injuring the Empire in our trade, which normally uses only a small percentage of goatskins from outside the Empire, to have that market at its disposal, so that our competitors in foreign countries are not able to use any particular part of the world in order to get goatskins on a depressed market and undercut our industry here.
    It is absolutely necessary that we should have the cheapest raw materials at our disposal in this country, not only for the maintenance of our trade here, but in order to increase the possibilities of our export trade. There is a definite danger to the glace industry if goatskins are not put on the free list. This country is the cradle of the chrome tan leather industry of the world, and unfortunately, owing to the fact that the United States, France and Germany, behind the shelter of their tariff walls, have built up an enormous industry in each of those countries, the trade here, being subject to free imports from those countries, have never been able to prosper. I would press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the matter further favourable consideration.
    My last and most important point is this: If it so happens that after 15th November goatskins are not on the free list there is given to every manufacturer in any Dominion a bounty of 10 per cent. against our manufacturers in exporting finished glace skins. What is to prevent the large American glace skin manufacturers from stepping just over the border and snaking the skins there and shipping it here without a duty? We should have no benefit then whatever. I suggest that the Chancellor should put goatskins on the free list until the 15th November, and

    437
    then we would be willing to leave the matter to the advisory committee, who in their wisdom will be able to decide what is best not only for the industry, but for the country. Let me add one thing which had escaped my memory. 100 per cent. of the goatskins that I use and have used for 10 years have come from the British Empire.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I am afraid it is not possible to accept the Amendment. As my hon. Friend has said, by far the greater part of our imports of goatskins come already from the Empire. My hon. Friend has given the figures relating to the number of skins. As far as value is concerned, I can add that in 1930 there were imported from the Empire £1,430,000 worth of skins, and from foreign countries only £178,000 worth. Therefore it is clear that the manufacturers have access to by far the greatest portion of their raw material completely free. The hon. Gentleman stated that there was apprehension among manufacturers lest after 15th November a duty might be placed on these imports. But, again, by far the greater proportion of these imports come from Crown Colonies, and will not be subject to the duty at any period.
    Mr. GIBSON: That is not accurate. More than 50 per cent. of the goatskins of the world come from India, which is not a Crown Colony.
    Major ELLIOT: I am perfectly ready to accept the correction of the hon. Member, who has great technical knowledge on this subject. I was referring more particularly to the West African goatskins. Since the hon. Member has corrected me, let me correct him by saying that even one so deeply versed in technical knowledge of this subject is not fully acquainted with the conditions under which the benches are covered with leather in this House. The hon. Member is actually sitting upon a skin made from an Empire goat. Therefore there is no danger that if the Amendment is not accepted our seats will cost us more. I think this matter may be left to
    the consideration of the Advisory Committee. If it is found by the Advisory Committee that damage is being done to the manufacturers in this country because they cannot get access to raw material, or because unfair competition is being launched against them by an unfair use of Dominion facilities, then the Advisory Committee will be able to take those things into review. But as the matter stands, the great majority of the goatskins come from within the Empire, and until 15th November they will be subject to no duty whatever, and we think that the preference should be given here and now to the Empire. We therefore propose to maintain the words as they are in the Schedule.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I would like to refer to one thing that the Financial Secretary has just said. I understood him to say that if the Dominions treated this country unfairly it would be possible to put on special duties. I do not appreciate that there is any power to discriminate against the Dominions in this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but that is what was said. I am only anxious that it should be corrected. I am sure the Financial Secretary did not mean it, and that he would not like it to go out to the Dominions.
    Major ELLIOT: I did not mean it and did not say it, as far as I am aware, and I certainly should not like it to go out to the Dominions. I am more than grateful to the hon. and learned Member for having called my attention to what must have been a slip on my part.
    Mr. GIBSON: In view of the very satisfactory suggestion of the Financial Secretary, which almost expressed the hope that we may be on the free list after 15th November, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 339; Noes, 60.

    Division No. 85.]

    AYES.

    [5.44 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Balniel, Lord

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Albery, Irving James

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lymington, Viscount

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

    Bennett, Capt, Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McEwen, J. H. F.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    McLean, Major Alan

    Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Blindell, James

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Maitland, Adam

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Manningham-Sillier, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Meller, Richard James

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Burnett, John George

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Milne, Charles

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

    Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

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

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hartland, George A.

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Chotzner, Alfred James

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)

    Clarke, Frank

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hillman, Dr. George B.

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Clayton Dr. George C.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

    Nunn, William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Collins, Sir Godfrey

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hornby, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Penny, Sir George

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Petherick, M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cross, R. H.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Crossley, A. C.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Ramsay. Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Dickie, John P.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Donner, P. W.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Ramsden, E.

    Doran, Edward

    Knebworth, Viscount

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Knight, Holford

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Remer, John R.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Dunglass, Lord

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Eady, George H.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Levy, Thomas

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    440

    441

    Salt, Edward W.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Stones, James

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Scone, Lord

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Selley, Harry R.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

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

    Templeton, William P.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

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

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Thompson, Luke

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Womersley, Walter James

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Smithers, Waldron

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Train, John

    Soper, Richard

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Sir Victor Warrender and Major

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    George Davies.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    NOES.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

    Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, George Henry

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Batey, Joseph

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bernays, Robert

    Janner, Barnett

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Price, Gabriel

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Curry, A. C.

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Leonard, William

    Thorne, William James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Mabane, William

    White, Henry Graham

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pon'yuool)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan

    Graham.

    Captain FRASER: I beg to move, in page 19, line 25, at the end, to insert the words,
    "including such goods prepared for the use of the blind."
    Newspapers, periodicals and printed books are, rightly, on the free list. There are however special books prepared for the use of the blind, which I do not think can properly be described as "printed books." I think it must be the intention of this Government as of any Government to permit those books to come in as freely as books for the use of persons who have their sight. The words which I propose to insert may therefore be regarded more as words of interpretation than anything else, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to accept them.
    Mr. J. JONES: I fully sympathise with the object of the hon. and gallant Member who has moved the Amendment. I
    442
    agree with him that the fullest possible information ought to be made available, not only for those who are physically blind, but also for those who are mentally and politically blind. But why snake this differentiation? If books printed in Germany and sent over here, are for the benefit of the blind, then I think they ought to be encouraged. If they are printed in this country they ought to be encouraged also. But why differentiate against one kind of book which is printed for the use of blind people?
    Major ELLIOT: We do not do so.
    Mr. JONES: As I say I am in favour of these books coming in for the benefit of both the mentally blind and the physically blind.
    Major ELLIOT: They are coming in.
    Mr. JONES: They are coming in now, but they were not coming in before.
    HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend is unnecessary because the definition of "printed book" would cover the case of the books which he has in mind. With that assurance I hope he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
    Captain FRASER: I have not the slightest desire to press the Amendment as long as it is quite clear that these books, which, technically, are embossed, are included in the category of printed books.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out lines 26 to 30.
    6.0 p.m.
    This is an important Amendment, concerning an important industry, which is calculated to have a good deal of influence upon employment in this country. The effect of the Amendment would be to take out of the Schedule the exemption which is being granted to newsprint. The Chancellor of the Exchequer up to the present has judged the Amendments put before him on their merits. He has carefully weighed the "pros" and "cons" in every case and, in some cases, even where there were a good many "cons" against the Amendment, he has nevertheless come down in favour of that Amendment if the balance of argument was in favour of such a decision. I hope that this Amendment will be treated in the same way and I think we can show that the balance of advantage is in favour of taking this exemption out of the Schedule. The capacity for production of newsprint in this country was something over 800,000 tons last year and we imported from the Dominions something over 200,000 tons. Those two figures together come to something like 1,100,000 tons and the consumption in this country was some-where about 1,000,000 tons. We are therefore able to produce in this country and with the aid of the Dominions enough to give us a surplus of 100,000 tons over what was the consumption last year in this country. As a matter of fact, we could provide for a much larger consumption, because production in the
    444
    Dominions is capable of supplying us with a very much larger importation of newsprint than we actually need. Another matter for consideration is that if we can increase the manufacture of newsprint in this country, we shall also increase the consumption of coal, which will certainly give great assistance to that industry.
    I have not received and I have not seen any real argument for exempting newsprint. So far as I know, the big newspaper proprietors have not demanded it. I saw in the "Daily Express" that Lord Beaverbrook appears to think it undesirable to exempt newsprint, and what Lord Beaverbrook says to-day we can expect Lord Rothermere to say to-morrow. Therefore, I have every hope that I am not over-stating the case when I say that the majority of newspaper proprietors in this country do not desire the exemption of newsprint. It certainly appears to have created some astonishment abroad that we should ever have thought of exempting it, and I should like to read a few lines from the "Svensk Pappersmassetidning," a Swedish newspaper, dated Stockholm, 15th February, 1932, as follows:
    "It is remarkable that newsprint has been retained on the Free List, particularly as the imports from the Dominions will in any case be free of duty, and amount to two-thirds of the imports."
    There is the additional note:
    "That Canada and Newfoundland will come forward and express dissatisfaction that they have not the enjoyment of a preference, one can take for granted."
    Some hon. Friends of mine have much greater detailed knowledge of the subject than I have, and I shall leave it to them to put in greater detail the case from the point of view of trade and commerce. I should, however, like to add one statement on my own behalf. There is in my constituency one of the largest newsprint mills in the country, and a great many of my constituents are employed in the making of newsprint. I have certainly always understood that the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and most of his colleagues warranted one in believing that an article of this kind would be covered by a tariff when they had the opportunity of putting such a policy into execution, and although I should not on any occa-

    445
    sion, as I could not, say definitely what would be taxed and what would not be taxed, I certainly did convey to my constituents that there was every reason to believe that such an article as this would be taxed. I was surprised to find what a very great deal of interest was taken in the subject by the workers in that industry, and I sincerely hope that the spokesman for the Government, when he replies, having weighed the pros and cons of this case carefully, as I am sure they will, will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Major NATHAN: I am glad on this occasion to find myself supporting the Government against the attack made upon it by one of its Protectionist and Conservative supporters. I should not dissent from the figures given by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). The gross production of British mills is in the neighbourhood of 650,000 tons, and for the last four years or so between 320,000 and 350,000 tons have been imported, of which about 200,000 tons have come into this country from Canada and Newfoundland and the balance of about 100,000 tons from Scandinavia. It has been argued that if the foreign supplies, which amount to about one-ninth of the total British consumption, were excluded, the present unused capacity of British and Canadian mills might be sufficient to fill the gap, or even more than sufficient. That may very well be true, but I would point out that the labour factor in the manufacture of newsprint is not more than 7 per cent. of the total cost.
    I quite agree, as I have said, that the gap might be filled up, but it is far less important to fill it up from Canadian and domestic mills than it is to have a brake upon an undue rise in prices. The vital consideration is the price. No less than three-quarters of the British output is from mills which are subsidiaries of three companies, owned or controlled, I understand, by Lord Beaverbrook, Lora Rothermere, and Lord Camrose. Why anyone should cast the least reflection—I am far from doing it—on those gentlemen, who are conducting a most important industry in this country, I do not know, but it is material to bear that fact in mind when considering this Amendment, for the price of newsprint is, according to my information, controlled
    446
    by these three combines—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—with the exception of one firm. Apart from one firm, there is, I understand, a ring price maintained by the newspaper section of the Paper Makers Association.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Which final is that?
    Major NATHAN: I do not think it is usual to mention the names of special firms on the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS "You have already"] I have mentioned that there are firms which are controlled by three gentlemen who are also newspaper proprietors, but the significance of the matter lies, not in their names, but in the fact that they are newspaper proprietors as well as being so largely interested in the production of newsprint.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that there was only one firm that is independent. I suggest that there are at least three such firms.
    Major NATHAN: I understand that there is only one large mill of importance which is not a party to the price-fixing arrangement of the Paper Makers' Association, and that annual contracts are made with various consumers outside the newspaper combines at a free price, which is governed by the price of the imported paper. The fact of the matter is, therefore, that though foreign imparts are only a small fraction, about 12 per cent., of the total British consumption, they are the essential and vital fraction, because it is they which govern the only free price which exists, and that price in its turn forms the basis for the ring prices charged by the Paper Makers' Association and the Canadian mills.
    It is idle to pretend that the Canadian mills can be relied upon to check the virtual monopoly powers which would be enjoyed by the Paper Makers' Association under a tariff, because their natural market is the United States of America, and. a growing demand for newsprint in the United States, which will come into existence as soon as conditions improve in that country, would raise the Canadian prices to a figure which would ruin British consumers, who do not enjoy their own controlled sources of supply as the three combines do. That is the reason why

    447
    I mention the owners or the controlling interests of the three combines to which I have referred, and the fact that news, papers and combines are in the same hands. The results of the tariff, it was said in the House on Tuesday, have already been to raise the price of greaseproof paper by £10 a ton.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is that made in this country?
    Major NATHAN: The operation of the Abnormal Importations Act has already been to increase the duty by £10 a ton. A certain volume is made in this country, but a greater volume, of course, is made abroad, and the price of newsprint would inevitably be increased by whatever was the amount of the duty. Indeed, that is the argument which doubtless the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind yesterday, when he warned the Committee that an increase in prices was no bogey. It must be borne in mind that newspapers cannot raise their prices beyond the conventional penny or two-pence which they charge, but an increase in film price of the raw materials might very well be a heavy blow, and a ruinous blow, to all newspapers which are not part of the combines; and at the present time their situation is doubtless none too good.
    The situation would be very different with regard to the three newspaper combines to which I have referred, because they would be able to recoup themselves for their losses as newspapers by the enhanced profits which would be conferred, by the gift of Parliament, to these combines if newsprint were omitted from the Free List. They would, therefore, be in the position of competing unfairly with their rivals, whose assured existence and the employment of those who are at present in work there might be imperilled. Another reason, which I know will appeal to Members of this Committee, is that at a time when it is more than ever necessary that independent opinion should find free and ample expression, it would be a monstrous thing that Parliament should help these three newspaper combines to prosper at the expense of their competitors.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery),
    448
    and in doing so I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) knows more about Free Trade, on which he has been talking for the last few days, than he does about newsprint, otherwise I fear that we shall not be able to listen to him very much longer with tolerance. He would have us believe that the whole of the newsprint in this country was practically controlled by the three newspaper lords be mentioned, that they fixed the price, and that having fixed the price, they proceeded to benefit out of that price either in their paper mills or in their newspapers. In other words, the whole control of the newsprint industry both in England and Canada was in the hands of these three noble gentlemen. I am glad to see the President of the Board of Trade on the Treasury bench. He has shown in these Debates that he has an open mind. I hope that he has brought his open mind with him to-day, so that I may convince him that the inclusion of newsprint in the Free List is an anomaly, and that it does not answer any test which any of the other commodities on the list answers.
    Newsprint is the only manufactured article on the Free List, and that in itself is an anomaly. It does not answer the test which, I presume. is applied by the Cabinet to any item on the Free List, that is, that a sufficient supply of a suitable quality cannot be found in Britain and the British Empire at a reasonable price. If that be the test, let me show the Committee that newsprint can be found in sufficient quantities, of a suitable quality, and at a reasonable price. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend quoted some figures. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green proceeded to correct him. They were both wrong; the correct figures are as follow. The total consumption of newsprint in Great Britain is 920,000 tons per annum. The total capacity of production in Great Britain last year was 862,000 tons. Of that amount, the newsprint mills referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green, made 600,000 tons.
    If he imagines that the three gentlemen who control those mills work in the greatest harmony, I can assure him that he does not know them. They are very keen competitors. It was my honour to

    449
    occupy the position of Paper Controller for some years during and after the War, and I speak from a considerable experience of administering that office when I say that the competition which existed between those three gentlemen, and still exists, is very intense. Again, let me point out to my hon. and gallant Friend who seems to be the protector of the small newspaper proprietors—a job which I have occupied before in another place—that those newspapers which he wishes to protect are the keenest competitors to get their paper made in those great mills owned by the Press Lords. The capacity of those mills is 600,000 tons, and of that they utilise themselves 230,000 tons. Therefore, about 370,000 tons are available for other people. My hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly right when he said that they naturally want to get other people to buy their paper, because that helps to reduce the overheads and the price of paper for all concerned. There are about 20 outside newsprint mills in this country capable of manufacturing 250,000 tons, but they manufactured only 47 per cent. of their capacity last year. That means that they have something over 130,000 tons available capacity. The total imports last year were 320,000 tons—220,000 tons from the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, and 100,000 tons from foreign sources. Of that 100,000 tons, 65,000 tons came from a country with a greatly depreciated exchange so far as this country is concerned—the country of Finland. The balance came from Norway and Sweden, which are off the Gold Standard.
    The argument used by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the amount of labour in newsprint was that it was insignificant and did not matter. Let me tell my friends in the Labour party, who are interested in the Labour aspect of the question, that it does very much matter, for while in England we pay an average wage in newsprint mills of £3 12s. for 136-hour week—I mean machine hours, and it represents an 8-hour day—in Finland they work a 168-hour week for one-quarter of the wages. They are exporters and they are dumping their paper in this country to the detriment of people whom we are endeavouring to employ at fair rates of wages. There is a fear that the newspaper proprietors will be squeezed by the great Press Lords if we ask the Government
    450
    to forego this 100,000 tons on the Free List and have it taxed. Incidentally, it will bring the Government £100,000 revenue, because the cost of newsprint coming into this country is £10 10s. a ton. The cost from Canada is £11 15s., and the cost of newsprint made in this country is £12.
    If newspaper proprietors were so anxious only to get cheap newsprint, they would surely buy more than 100,000 tons front foreign sources, and they have been free to do it all along. They have, however, decided of their own free will that they could better buy their newsprint from British mills. There are 2,000 newspapers in this country, not, as the Minister of Pensions said the other night, 6,000 publications. There are not 6,000 publications in the whole of Great Britain. There are 2,000 using newsprint, and of that number only 300 are protected in this Free List, for only that number use newsprint in reels. Those hordes of deputations which have been Doming to the Government cannot have read the Bill and must have been under the impression that they were being protected, but 1,700 publications which use newsprint are not affected by this at all.
    The hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green talked about the importation of foreign newsprint. I wonder if he knows how many newspaper proprietors use foreign newsprint. It is just 50, so that out of the 300 using reels, only 50 use imported foreign newsprint. On the other hand, 1,500,000 tons surplus of Canadian newsprint are waiting to be exported to this country or to some other country. The manufacture of newsprint is the third largest industry in Canada. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not make up his mind to turn down this claim.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: My constituency has one of the largest independent paper mills. It is working only half time, and there are 500 men suffering in one of the suburbs of Grimsby because they cannot get the 10 per cent. duty. They are hoping that the Government will give it to them. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) and others who represent newspapers seem to fear that the independent newsprint makers cannot make up the 100,000 tons which come from foreign sources. If they were work-

    451
    ing on full production, however, they would be able to make up more than that 100,000 tons. If that is not sufficient, there is a capacity in Canada for 1,500,000 tons which can be made there and imported to this country. Surely that argument is enough. I beg the Committee to realise that this is the only manufactured article in, the Free List, and its retention there will injure British men and women who are unemployed and want this 10 per cent. tax to help them to regain their employment.
    Mr. ARTHUR REED: I only venture to address the House as a new Member because I have been interested in the paper trade for the last 30 years. I am, not interested pecuniarily or directly in newspapers, but I claim some knowledge of them. I wish to confirm all that has been said by hon. Members before me and the facts and figures given by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine). There is a further point that I should like to make. Our English newsprint mills are the most up-to-date and efficient in the world. When one hears so much about the inefficiency of English industry, I am glad to be able to give that testimony. It is a fact which cannot be challenged. They have suffered from the dumping of surplus foreign newsprint for many years past, and now we have an opportunity of giving them a chance. The Government ask for efficiency and ask us to employ people in this country. Everything in that respect is in favour of this duty, and there is no fear that the independent newspapers outside the three great groups will not be able to get paper at a reasonable price. Four sources of supply are open to them, all competing and all able to compete, even if a duty is put on foreign newsprint. I strongly urge the Government to accept the Amendment, because it is an anomaly that this one article of manufactured goods alone should be on the Free List.
    6.30 p.m.
    Major ELLIOT: The Committee will have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Reed) speaking on a subject of which, clearly, he is possessed of ample knowledge, though he was merciful enough to spare us the full flow. He was able to put his points briefly and concisely, and
    452
    addressed the Committee in a speech which must make us all desire to hear him again. The Amendment which he is supporting is one which certainly raises issues rather beyond those which are raised either by considerations of the revenue which might be brought in by such a duty, a revenue of £100,000, or even the question of employment, which is more vital and was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine). As a matter of fact, this is not the first time that this question has come under the review either of the Government or of this House, because it was raised specifically during the Debate on Second Reading. It will be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, in summing up that Debate, made reference to this question of newsprint. It is true that the hon. Member for East Dorset challenges his figures as to the number of periodicals which are actually covered by the Amendment. We have verified the figures then given as to the number of newspapers and periodicals, and those figures are accurate. There are between 6,000 and 7,000 newspapers and periodicals in this country.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Not printed on newsprint.
    Major ELLIOT: I am dealing with the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions, and on those we stand. There are between 6,000 and 7,000 newspapers and periodicals in this country. As to the number of those which are printed on newsprint I have done my best to verify the figures given by the hon. Member for East Dorset, whose competence in this matter I recognise, as I am sure the Committee does, but in the time at my disposal I have not been able to check them. But this is not a matter which depends merely upon the number of periodicals affected. As I have said, the issues raised go beyond the question of revenue and beyond the question even of providing employment. We are at present engaged, as we have repeatedly had to remind the Committee, upon an experiment, and here we have to deal with a subject which covers the expression of opinion in this country. I speak with more particular interest on this matter since I come from the city of Glasgow, where, as in all

    453
    cities of Scotland, the expression of what here is called "provincial opinion" and there is called "national opinion" seems to them of the utmost importance.
    I have been asked by the journals in my constituency to put their case before the House, and I have to do so. They say that at present they would view with great apprehension the acceptance of this Amendment. We have to consider seriously whether in fact, the issue should be decided here and now against the decision previously given by the Government on this question and announced to the House by the Minister of Pensions. I ask the Committee not to reverse the decision which was given on the Second Reading of the Bill, after hearing the summing up by the Minister of Pensions. I am not going over all the arguments in the case. Opposition Members have sand with some truth that there are many Amendments which they desire to have discussed, and they fear that the Debate on this subject is being prolonged, and that their Amendments will not be reached. We have no desire to cut out by verbiage any of their Amendments. We wish all the Amendments to be discussed as fully as possible, and therefore I will not go over the arguments addressed to us by the Minister of Pensions. I ask the Committee to consider not merely the question of revenue, and not merely the question of employment, but the question of the access of the independent periodicals of this country to au alternative source of supply of newsprint. It matters not whether that be a small alternative source or a large alternative source of supply. They desire to have access to an alternative source, and they fear deeply the position in which they would be if that alternative source of supply were withheld from them. On all these grounds, I ask the Committee to support the Government in the decision which they have given, that they do not desire to accept the Amendment, so powerfully and eloquently moved and supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in many parts of the Committee.
    Colonel Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER: I am rather surprised at the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. After all, I wonder what quantity of newsprint Glasgow uses.! We
    454
    seem to forget that it is not only revenue which will be produced in this case, but employment, and by keeping mills working to full capacity, we shall tend to reduce the price of paper, so that our Scottish friends will possibly get their paper cheaper than at the present time. In the last four years the price of paper made in this country has been reduced by something like 17 per cent., so that if a duty were put oh, users would still have the benefit of that considerable reduction. Overhead charges in a mill are the same whether it is working to its full capacity or to a lesser capacity, and it stands to reason that if it is producing to its full capacity prices will be reduced. The competition within this country is quite sufficient in itself to keep prices down.
    It is all very well to talk about 6,000 publications. As the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) has already told us, very few of those 6,000 publications actually use newsprint. I would remind the Committee, also, that the Labour party appreciate the value of using British newsprint, because the "Daily Herald" is printed on British newsprint. So far as I have been able to ascertain, newsprint is the only manufactured article which the Government will allow to be brought in duty free, and I cannot understand why they should wish to have this particular manufactured article conning here free of tax. I shall certainly vote for this Amendment in any circumstances, but I hope the Government will take the matter into consideration, and realise that to put on this duty will hurt no one, but will considerably assist employment in this country and bring income to the Exchequer as well. If an additional quantity of paper is produced in this country, the money paid out in wages to those who make the paper will be spent here, and there will also be an enormous increase in the quantity of coal used, in that way benefiting colliers. The paper coming from Finland, Norway and Sweden is principally made in works where they use Polish opal. If it were made in this country British coal would be used, and there would be more employment for our miners. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision not to put a duty on newsprint.
    Sir H. CROFT: I wish to protest against the decision of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary

    455
    to the Treasury that the House of Commons has already given a decision on this matter. The fact that we had one eloquent speech from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions—with every other part of which I most cordially agree—in which he mentioned that newsprint was to be included in the Schedule does not give the right hon. Gentleman the right to say that the House of Commons has already come to a decision on this subject. On the Second Reading we voted on the whole broad principle of the Measure, and I hope the argument put forward by the Financial Secretary will not weigh with the Committee. On every ground—the provision of employment in this country, the provision of revenue, and the fact that sufficient supplies of paper are available in this country and in the Empire—there is no justification for newsprint to be put in the Schedule, and I hope every one will agree with that view.
    Sir S. CRIPPS Sir S. CRIPPS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It was quite unnecessary to propose the Closure after a Debate which has lasted for only 40 minutes upon a subject which is regarded as of fundamental importance by many of us in this Committee. We on this side who have been discussing the proposal have not occupied an undue amount of time in putting our case. I am frankly amazed at the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is no acuter mind and no more able debater on the Treasury Bench, and if he is unable to make a better case for resisting the Amendment than the one he submitted to us, I feel satisfied that no case exists. The whole basis of the case against the Amendment is that there is a fear of a rise in prices. On the other hand we believe that where there is a sufficient supply the danger of rising prices will not exist at all, and that, as a matter of fact, the reverse is probable. I cannot understand why the Government should have selected for this special
    456
    treatment the one industry which is the most vocal in the country. If this Amendment is carried, and any increase in price takes place, the matter can be dealt with forthwith as a matter of special urgency by the Advisory Committee, and if any grievance arises, voice will be given to that grievance in 6,000 periodicals, or 50, or whatever the number may be. It is not as if you were putting in danger an industry which had not every opportunity of defending itself if adverse conditions arose as a result of the import duty. There is actually intense competition in the neswsprint industry. I hope that the Government will decide to accept the Amendment.
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: On rising to speak here for the first time, I would like to call attention to the speech of the Financial Secretary, who said he was giving us a provincial view of this matter. May I, with the forbearance of the Committee, give another provincial view, not far away from his, namely, from the county of Midlothian? There are half-a-dozen mills in Midlothian, all capable of making considerable quantities of newsprint, and there is a considerable amount of unemployment in each of those mills. At the time when the Packing and Wrapping Paper Duties were granted, there was a request from these paper-making firms that they might also receive the advantage of the duty, and it was because of representations from these very same sources of possible rises in price that their application was turned down. The result has been very notable. Comparing the progress of the two industries since that time, it is seen that the packing and wrapping paper trade, which received the advantage of duties, has gone forward and given satisfactory results in every respect, including those of employment and price. On the other hand, the trade which is concerned in this Amendment has gone in the reverse direction.
    I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee, because I think we have discussed this matter long enough. We have been given an argument by the Financial Secretary in which he put up what was, from his point of view, the strong case that the periodicals and the newspapers wished to have an alternative source of supply of newsprint. There is

    457
    an immensely stronger argument on the other side, a multiple argument at that. We have at heart not only the interest of the paper trade, but the interests of other industries. I would point out that it takes from three to five tons of coal to make a ton of paper. There is five times the weight for transportation when you allow for the raw material, chemicals and coal. Between the raw material and the finished article you have to call upon not only paper-makers but colliers, transport workers, chemical
    workers and a dozen-and-one other trades, and they are all interested in this Amendment. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will allow British output to be worked to capacity by an industry that is able to fulfil the demands, and that he will see his way to allow these several trades to benefit by the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 69.

    Division No. 86.]

    AYES.

    [6.50 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Denville, Alfred

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Dickie, John P.

    Hornby, Frank

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Donner, P. W.

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Doran, Edward

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Balniel, Lord

    Duncan, James A, L. (Kensington, N.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Same, Sir Charles Coupar

    Eady, George H.

    Hutchison, W D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Bernays, Robert

    Edwards, Charles

    Janner, Barnett

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

    Elmley, Viscount

    John, William

    Blindell, James

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Johnston, J, W. (Clackmannan)

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Ker, J. Campbell

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

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Kerr, Hamilton w.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Buchan, John

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Knebworth, viscount

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Knight, Holford

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Cape, Thomas

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Cassels, James Dale

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

    Chotzner, Alfred James

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Clayton Dr. George C.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Grimston, R. V.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lunn, William

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mabane, William

    Cooke, James D.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Cooper, A, Duff

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Craven-Ellis, William

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

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    McKeag, William

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Cross, R. H.

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

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Crossley, A. C.

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Curry, A. C.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Daggar, George

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Mannay, Thomas

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hillman, Dr. George B.

    Maitland, Adam

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Stones, James

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Ramsden, E.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Rankin, Robert

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Sutclilffe, Harold

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Thompson, Luke

    Mills, Major J, D. (New Forest)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Milne, Charles

    Robinson, John Roland

    Thorne, William James

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Train, John

    Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Nunn, William

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Waterhouse. Captain Charles

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Scone, Lord

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Owen. Major Goronwy

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    White, Henry Graham

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Pearson, William G.

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Penny, Sir George

    Smlthers, Waldron

    Wilson, G. H. A, (Cambridge U.)

    Petherick, M.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Soper, Richard

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Price, Gabriel

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Mr. Womersley and Sir Victor

    Pybus, Percy John

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Warrender.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col, Reginald V. K.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gratton-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Remer, John R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rentoul Sir Gervais S.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Hartland, George A.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Clarke, Frank

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Templeton, William P.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Levy, Thomas

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    McEwen, J. H. F.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McLean, Major Alan

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Everard, W, Lindsay

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fermoy, Lord

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Mr. Albery and Mr. Hall-Calne.

    Amendments made: in page 19, line 31, after the word "pulp," insert the words "and esparto."
    In line 33, leave out the words "and balata."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 19, to leave out lines 34 to 36, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    460
    "Metallic ores, concentrates and residues; scrap metals and wastes fit only for the recovery of metal."
    Mr. ROBINSON: I feel that I ought to say a few words on this subject, as I am one of those who made representations to the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, and I have

    461
    tabled an Amendment to add to the Free List copper ores, mattes and residues. That Amendment will not be taken now, because we believe that our views are well covered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the industry would like an assurance from him that his Amendment will cover copper matte, which is the copper ore in a more concentrated form, concentrated so that the cost of Freight to England can be reduced. This is an essential raw material of our industry and, of course, every sound Protectionist would allow a sufficient free quantity to come in when there is not a sufficient free quantity from the Empire. We welcome this step because it has saved for my Division alone an industry which is paying £20,000 a year in wages; an industry which has a large export trade which it is capturing from Germany, and which I know would like me to thank the Chancellor for the generous spirit in which he has met their case.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I also ask a. question? I have an Amendment on the Paper to add to the Free List cement copper and copper precipitate. I am not clear whether those are covered by this Amendment or by the later Amendment to line 43, relating to copper unwrought.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether foreign ships brought into this country to be broken up are included in the term "scrap metals and wastes"? There are many world-renowned firms in this country which specialise in breaking up ships, and I would like to know whether foreign ships are included in this Amendment.
    Mr. NUNN: There is an Amendment on the Paper which, it seems likely, shall not be able to move—in page 19, line 35, at the end, to insert the words "or iron ore produced by forced, convict, or slave labour."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member is out of order. He cannot possibly move it.
    Mr. NUNN: I have spoken to the Chairman, and he said that I might speak
    462
    on the Chancellor's Amendment, otherwise I would not have risen.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment has to do with the question of forced, convict and slave labour, and is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. NUNN: I handed in a manuscript Amendment to modify it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not seen it.
    Mr. NUNN: I am speaking from the point of view of the iron ore industry and of the terrible condition in that industry in Cumberland. I know that the iron and steel trade does require cheap raw material, but I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor to one rather grave aspect of the importation of foreign ores. The foreign ore is coming in from countries where ordinary commercial conditions do not obtain, where the labour used is forced, convict or slave labour. If the Chancellor cannot do anything now, he might bear it in mind for action at a later date. We have in Cumberland 200,000 tons of iron ore standing in stocks, which is unsaleable. We hope that this Bill will cause some of that ore to go into consumption, but with the tremendous unemployment on the West Coast of Cumberland and in the adjoining districts anyone who has a responsibility for those people is bound to voice their situation on the Floor of this House, and that is what I wish to do.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Robinson), there is no doubt that copper mattes will be included under the term "concentrates," for they are copper concentrates. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) about cement copper and copper precipitate, I am advised that that term is unnecessary, as they are covered by the Amendment. As to the question of the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) whether foreign ships brought into this country for breaking up come under the term "scrap metal," I would not like to give him an answer on that point on the spur of the moment, but I will make inquiries.
    Major NATHAN: Does the term "metallic ores" include zinc, tin, and lead?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These are all metals.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 19, leave out line 38.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, after the word "precious," to insert the words "and semi-precious."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that there were some special considerations in regard to the manufacture of articles containing precious and semi-precious stones and pearls. We are not quite aware what those special considerations are. It seems a little odd that, when you are excluding from this list some of the vital raw materials of the rather large industries of this country you should think it worth while to insert precious and semiprecious stones and pearls which, as far as we know, occupy a comparatively small number of jewellers in Birmingham. Perhaps there is some special reason why they should come in, and the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what it is.
    Mr. COCKS: If this Amendment had not come from Birmingham, I should have regarded it with some surprise. We have been told that it is necessary to keep down our imports in order to correct the balance of trade, and that we must live lives of Spartan austerity. Yet this proposal is simply pandering to the Byzantine tastes of the opulent and the frivolous. We are to keep Swiss tinned milk from our people and to import pearls from the East for the wives of profiteers. Why should our child life he decimated in order that vulgarians may deck themselves with all the spoils of the Orient—false ones, too? Dearer food for the masses in order to have cheaper pearls for the supporters of the Chancellor of the Exchequer! What a symbol it is of the whole idea of the Brummagem Empire! Not an Empire built up on sacrifice and freedom, but a meretricious and tawdry empire, a sort of picture palace empire encrusted with false jewels and glittering with false sentiment! In the name of Our
    464
    future greatness, let us feed our children more and better, and adorn our profiteers less.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If it had not been for the fact that the bon. Member had spent so much midnight oil on his speech, I would not have intervened in this Debate, but, as he has done so, I may say that I am personally deeply grateful for the inclusion of semi-precious stones because, in my own Division, we have a small industry in which semi-precious stones are used a great deal for the purpose of adorning a variety of small articles like ash-trays, and they form the raw material of that industry. Semiprecious stones cannot be produced in this country, although some of them might. For instance, Serpentine can come from the Division which the President of the Board of Trade represents. Semi-precious stones are imported in a considerable quantity for the purpose of being used in this country in an industry which has been rather hardly hit in the last few years, but which will now have this small advantage given to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They will now not only get their raw material in free, but they will also have the benefit of the small tariff on the manufactured article.
    As far as semi-precious stones are concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer s Amendment should be welcomed by all sections of the Committee as a right and proper concession, because they are a raw material which we do not produce very largely in this country. If there was any great Imperial advantage to the rest of the Empire which could be got by putting on this duty, I am sure they would be glad to go as far as possible to meet it. I put these two points forward, and am sure that I have convinced the Leader of the Opposition, and that in future he will follow me into the Lobby on Imperial Preference.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no personal interest in this matter at all, and the decorative speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) was quite off the point. The reason why precious and semi-precious stones are included in the Free List is a very simple one. It is because it would be extraordinarily difficult from an administrative point of view to impose a duty on them. Nothing

    465
    is more easy to smuggle than an article of this kind, so small than it can be slipped into any pocket, or even put under the tongue. That is the reason why these articles are included.
    Mr. LOGAN: As there has been some little excitement with respect to pearls, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether pearls would include cultured pearls. There is the naturally produced pearl, and there is the cultured pearl, and I should like to know whether the term "pearls" would include both.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 42, at the end, insert the words "and pearls."
    In line 43, at the end, add the words:
    "Platinum in grain, ingot, bar, or powder."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    "Whale oil and whale products produced or manufactured in British floating factories."
    Mr. AMERY: There is one point in this connection to which my attention has been drawn. If the Amendment stands in its present form, it might be possible for foreign firms owning floating factories to transfer them to British holders, and then to take them on for short terms from the nominal owner, so circumventing the purpose of the Amendment. It has been suggested to me that it might be better, after the word "manufactured," to insert, the words
    "by British firms, individuals or companies."
    I submit that suggestion to my right hon. Friend for his consideration.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have been proceeding rather quickly, or I should have been able, perhaps, to say before that my right hon. Friend had already drawn my attention to this point, which I think is a good one. I think, however, that the words which he has proposed would not quite meet the ease, and I would suggest that I should move the Amendment in the following form:
    "Whale oil and whale products shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been produced or manufactured in floating factories which are British concerns."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 19, line 43, after the words last inserted, add the words:
    "Whale oil and whale products shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been produced or manufactured in floating factories which are British concerns."
    After the words last inserted, add the words:
    "Coal, coke, and manufactured fuel of which coal or coke is the chief constituent."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    "Copper unwrought, whether refined or not, in ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, cakes and rods."
    Major NATHAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a word of explanation on this Amendment, in view of the earlier Amendment with regard to metallic ores? The reason which prompted my question just now, as to whether the term "metallic ores" would include zinc, lead and tin, was that I have noticed that in those cases, and in the case of copper, which belongs to the same group but which is separately dealt with, there is flora a technical point of view great doubt as to whether the term "metallic ores" does include, zinc, lead, or tin. I merely put the question in order to draw the Chancellor's attention to the fact that there is sonic doubt as to whether the term "metallic ores" will fulfil the object that he has in view.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 43, after the words last inserted, add the words:
    "Potassium carbonate, chloride and sulphate; kainite and other mineral potassium fertiliser salts."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Maize in grain."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the Amendment which we put on the Paper.
    Sir HUGH O'NEILL: There was no opportunity yesterday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, to say anything about the maize question, but I think it is only right that a, word should be said, on behalf of

    467
    those who were anxious to see maize put on the free list, of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the great pains and trouble which I know he took in regard to this question. We all know that to give up revenue is about the most terrible thing that a, Chancellor of the Exchequer could ever be asked to do, and my right hon. Friend has given up a very substantial amount of revenue by accepting this proposal. He told us that he did so largely because of the representations which he received from Ulster, and because of the very special conditions in which that part, of the United Kingdom was placed with regard to maize. I do not wish to say any more, except that I know that my constituents most heartily thank the Government and the right hon. Gentleman for having done what I believe will in the end conduce to the prosperity, not only of agriculture there, but of stock-raising throughout the whole of this country.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened but for the inaccuracy of the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition in front. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for accepting this Amendment in the form in which it is, that is to say, adding the words "maize in grain," so that it can be ground in this country, and not in the very bad form in which it was put down by the Opposition. They do not mind about these things, but we do, and the use of the words "maize in grain" will mean a lot of work for this country. The Amendment is a very much better one than that of the Opposition. [Interruption.] I notice that they are very much interested when I get on my feet, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will not go back on the good position he held in my estimation a little while ago, but that he will support me, and not the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting by his side.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I strongly object to the hon. Member's talking about the "Opposition in front." It is the dissentient Members of His Majesty's Government who sit on this bench.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise sincerely. I think that his is perhaps the best form or opposition, more or less.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, after the words last inserted, to add the word "Foodstuffs."
    This Amendment would enable all kinds of food to be exempted from duty. We have been given a concession by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which will cheer the majority of Members of the House, and also the majority of people outside. By refusing to tax meat and meat products, he has gone part of the way along which we desire to go, but we want to go further. We see no reason why, having granted this advantage to meat and meat products, the right hon. Gentleman should not extend it to butter, cheese, eggs, grains, fruits, and all other kinds of food. If the Government wish to help this country in competition with other industrial countries, cheap production at home is essential, and that cannot be obtained if the raw material of labour, namely, the people's food, is going to be raised in price. No one can deny that this country has received considerable advantages from its Free Trade policy, which has enabled the food of the people to come in freely in large quantities at reasonable prices from all producing countries in the world. We wish that to continue. We believe that there is ample scope for the Government's protective tariff. If Protection is their real aim, they can protect the manufacturing industries of this country by putting their tariffs on the whole list of articles which lie outside this Schedule, but the food supply stands entirely by itself, and, whatever arguments may exist for the taxation of other commodities, they cannot apply to the people's food, whether it comes from the Colonies or from foreign countries.
    I represent food growers in my own constituency, which contains a fair percentage of farmers. I do not think they voted for me; they preferred to vote for a Conservative candidate. They voted for a National Government candidate at the last election, even though he called himself a Liberal. Since then, however, they have expressed certain apprehensions to me, and I feel quite safe in trying to give better protection to these people who did not vote for me than a National Government Member would. The farmers in my division are against tariffs—they are against the taxation of

    469
    food. They oppose it because they say that it is an advantage to them to import the raw materials of their industry, such as manures, and feeding stuffs for their stock, as cheaply as possible, and they would much prefer to have no Import Duties Bill at all, but to be allowed to go on as they have been doing in the past, growing their products as cheaply as possible and selling them in competition with products from other agricultural countries.
    7.30 p.m.
    I believe that this matter is of interest, not only to the industrial population of this country, who are entitled to cheap food, but also to the commercial classes. I represent a coal mining division. Our costs in that industry have been cut down to the very minimum, and we are able to compete in the production of coal on equal terms with any country in the world. Certainly no country in Europe can produce coal as cheaply as we can. The secret of that is that we have a highly trained and skilled body of coal miners, who are fed better than the miners of any other country. Because of their better standard of food, they are more efficient workmen, and produce coal more cheaply, and any addition to the cost of their food would certainly be shown in a higher cost of production of coal. We wish to maintain our place in the coal industry. So long as the world remains on this competitive basis, so long as we have to fight for the opportunity to sell the product of our labour, we ought to be given the best possible chance of competition. That chance can only be given so long as the workers are given an ample supply of cheap food and raw materials altogether untaxed. There is no compensation. If our food is taxed, we get no advantage by an additional price on the products that we sell. We still have to compete in the European markets at the present level and it will be a grave injustice for those engaged in the mining industry, and those who have invested their capital in that industry, which is still the largest in the country.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Member means "foodstuffs for human consumption." Perhaps he will permit me to put the Amendment in that form so that there can be no doubt as to what it means.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'foodstuffs for human consumption' be there added."
    Mr. LEONARD: It is with no pleasure that I rise to support the Amendment, not that I do not deem it absolutely essential but because it brings to my mind so vividly the fact that the impressions given to the country at the election are not being carried out. I am not prepared to state that Conservatives did not give a true statement as to their intentions with regard to Protection in general, but I have yet to learn, in the part of the country that I come from, that when they were pressed on the question of foodstuffs they gave any definite statement to the effect that food would be taxed in the form of duties at all. Therefore, I cannot appreciate how they can display such enthusiasm in going into the Lobby to overturn completely the impression they gave during the election. It is because of the betrayal of the impression they gave that I regret having to put any point I may have to make with regard to the inclusion of food.
    One of the references I recently made with regard to the power of organisation applies to the power of organisation as it is displayed in the food combines. You have at present a very extensive network of shops, all combined under one unit of control, which are organised and will be able to take any advantage that may be presented to them. This is no time to enter into any further worsening of the workpeople, especially as so many of the working people supported the party opposite, as they claim themselves. They certainly got that support, but it was given on the assumption that food would not be taxed in the manner now suggested. I speak with some little intimacy with an organisation which supplies working-class homes with the foodstuffs which they require. I also know very intimately the expedients that they are forced to stoop to in order to make ends meet. I should like to ask men and women who are reasonably well fed, who know none of the anxieties of the unemployed, how they would act if they saw their homes and the people in them subject to such anxieties as they are at present.
    We can all preach moderation. I preach moderation because, if they do not moderate their actions, they generally get the worst of it. Only last night there were decent men and women parading

    471
    themselves and showing that they were angry at the system that subjects them to so much degradation. It may give us great assurance when we see the policemen at the gates guarding the surroundings of the House, but surely that feeling of security cannot blind us to our own feelings. To blame these demonstrators is getting beyond the point. There can be no life for the agitator unless there is something to agitate about. The agitation is based on the hunger and degradation of the people. Food is one of the things we cannot allow to be interfered with any further than has been done. I know we shall be told that wages will increase. It has been said that it would be better to have this weight placed upon them in order that they may be found work. But there is no assurance that work will follow. We are told by what claims to be the greatest newspaper in the world that there will be a continuing army of unemployed of round about 2,000,000, and those 2,000,000 are as much entitled to consideration as if there were 20,000,000, and if there were only a hundred they would require as much consideration as if there were 3,000,000.
    It is not the case that wages will follow the trend of the cost of living so quickly. Sir Josiah Stamp has got tired of the cost of living basis regulating wages. At one time, when the ball was at the feet of the working classes they sought to obtain increased wages. They were then told it was unwise to suggest that they should get wages outwith what was called upon by the increase in the cost of living, and they accepted the idea that the cost of living was the basis to regulate wages. Now, when there is power to depress wages because of the great army of unemployed, we are being told by the captains of industry that no reference to the cost of living is permissible at the negotiating table. Therefore, I have no great hopes that wages will go up because of any increased employment. First of all, we are to see an increase in employment, and then we shall have to fight for an increased wage to cope with the increase in the cost of living. I admit that Protection was brought forward at the election, but the general impression was that food would not be taxed, and it is only honouring that impression that we should insist on food being placed on the Free List.
    Mr. PICKERING: I am sorry that there should be such a small attendance during this most vital discussion. This question of foodstuffs is of far greater significance than most Members seem to realise. At the Election I never thought I should be here to-night speaking on this subject. When I was asked whether I would vote against taxes on food, I never thought for a moment that there was any need to answer the question seriously. I did not think for a moment that such taxes would be imposed. We are now told that this 10 per cent. is imposed as a matter of revenue. It is very difficult, and a new Member might be excused for saying he did not know what he was talking about. Really, on this Bill who does know exactly what he is talking about? In dealing with this Schedule are we talking about revenue, or Protection, or Preference? At one moment it is one thing and at the next it is another. I think on the whole this 10 per cent. is meant for revenue. If so, we are going further into the vicious system of indirect taxation, which means that everyone is to pay 10 per cent. more for the greater part of the necessaries of life in order, we are told, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may get £30,000,000 in revenue. What is that £30,000,000 for? The President of the Board of Trade says we are still in a state of crisis. Then it means, surely, that this £30,000,000 is needed in order to save us from disaster. We are told that the need is urgent. If so, how is it that this proposal is not in the nature of an emergency revenue to help us in this great crisis in Which we still are? This is not an emergency measure. This is a definite proposal committing the country to an entirely new fiscal system. If the working man had been asked to tighten his belt once more because we are in a state of crisis, no doubt he would have responded. He has not been asked to do it to meet a crisis, but because a new fiscal system has been adopted. We are now seeking to get £30,000,000 by means of indirect taxation and that is to be a permanent system.
    We are told that this £30,000,000 is intended to benefit the country. How? It has been said, and it has not been contradicted, that it is the intention to take 6d. or 1s. off the Income Tax and we are told that will increase employment. That is a very indirect method of

    473
    doing things. The people are hungry, so they are told to submit to paying more for their food in the hope that they will eventually get work and so be able to pay the higher price. That is a very indirect method, especially if the work, after all, does not come. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be very fond of indirect methods. For example, maize which is food for animal consumption, was included in the Free List, but we cannot get foodstuffs for human consumption. The argument is, I suppose, that the food for animals will come by means of the animals, eventually to man, a sort of "Ilkla' Moor baht" 'at" process. It is a new evolutionary theory in the development of man which is quite worthy of this scientific system of tariffs. The great catch in this is, that the increased cost of food is certain and that the work is problematical. I am sure you will find that the unemployed man would prefer the spacious Roman days of the late Labour Government when he was given his food to the somewhat stingy regime of the new system, when, instead of giving him food, they just tell him to work.
    It is a great fallacy to say that in order to be well off we want work. There are some countries where the people work far harder than the people in this country and they are far poorer. We want wealth and this new system is not calculated to give us wealth. The poor man is bound to be the loser because he will have to pay more for his food and have to work harder in order to get food. It is said, "Why make all this fuss about an increase of 10 per cent.? It is nothing." I have heard that said by many people throughout the country. The Committee should be reminded that it was the 10 per cent. reduction in unemployment benefit and in salaries in the various services which almost brought about a revolution. Ten per cent. is a very important figure. If we had 10 per cent. of unemployment in this country we should be ruined. An increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of food to a poor family is a very considerable figure. For the greater part of my life I have had to work and live very intimately among the poor people, until I think that I have caught the complaint myself. I know that a penny or three-halfpence in a shilling makes an enormous difference to
    474
    a working-class family and even to a middle-class family. In a working-class family often the poor working woman is tired out when she has to do her shopping, and if she has to spend a 1s. instead of 10½d., she is not able to take a tram home. The 10 per cent. duty will mean that the children will have to suffer in regard to things like jam and preserves, and especially fruit. Most of the fruit we import now is foreign, and we must add the 10 per cent. duty.
    This matter ought to receive greater consideration than it is receiving from Members of the Committee. It is a very serious matter, and it is with great regret that I, as a Liberal supporter of the National Government, should have to make a speech of this nature. Some of us are accused of breaking election pledges, or at least of disappointing Conservative voters by not going all the time with the majority of the Cabinet into the Lobby on this Bill. But what about those Conservative Members who made pledges which led thousands of Liberals to vote for them? They said that they would not support any tax on food. It is now said that it is not a tax on food, but only a trifle—10 per cent. If we cared to use this example it would become a very good electioneering cry, but we do not wish to see the people suffer so as to be able to say, "I told you so." We tell you now in order to prevent trouble. We would rather you made a change so as to knit us together as a truly National Government, depriving us of any partisan advantage, than see the people suffer. I hope that the Amendment will be carried.
    Mr. HASLAM: I should like heartily to congratulate the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pickering) upon his maiden speech. It was full of philosophy and views, and, although I did not quite follow his arguments, I am sure that as he develops them in this House we shall all listen to them with very great interest. He assumed, as indeed did the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), who was speaking on food taxes, that if you placed a duty of 10 per cent. on some article of foreign food, which, perhaps, is only a small proportion of what the people of this country consume, the larger proportion being grown at home perhaps, or in the

    475
    Empire, it would cause a 10 per cent. rise in the cost of the article. [An HON. MEMBER: "More."] An hon. Member opposite goes further and says "More." That is a very bold assumption. On that assumption, the British exporter of materials to foreign countries, if they put on a tariff and it really raises the price of the article by more than the tariff, ought greatly to rejoice. But as the American tariff—and I am using this by way of illustration—mounts up, we do not, find that British exporters are rejoicing because the American people have to pay more than the tariff. We do not find that at all. We find, on the contrary, that they are very depressed, because it means that they sell less.
    I challenged hon. Members opposite, when we had the discussion on the Resolutions, on the question of foodstuffs to produce some definite and clear evidence from the facts of the case that foodstuffs would rise if the foreign supply, however small, was taxed. No evidence has been forthcoming. Hon. Members opposite have been content to assume that any tax on the foreign article must necessarily raise the price of the entire supply by the figure of the tax, but no proof of any kind is tendered. In these circumstances, it is not altogether easy to carry on the Debate. I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who were doubtful about the matter would have been entirely reassured by the attitude of the Government and the meticulous care which they have taken to see that by no possibility can there be any rise in the cost of the main articles of food.
    We on this side of the Committee who desire to do something to encourage home-grown food, to rescue the British farmer from the terrible plight into which he is falling, and to remedy the unemployment, which is rapidly increasing and will increase still further, in the countryside, have attempted to do something to remedy that state of things, and we have also shown that the fall in the price of the main commodities has been far greater than any fall which has taken place in the retail prices. We have shown that quite clearly, and consequently we have argued—and our arguments have never been met—and shown that the small increase of 10 per cent. in such
    476
    circumstances could not possibly be passed on to consumers through a rise in retail prices. There will be no justification for such a step at all, none whatever. I should like hon. Members opposite to give us some facts and not simply talk of what some particular statesman said some time ago, or of some fears being expressed. Let us have the plain facts of the situation. Take a commodity such as fish, which has been spoken about to-day, and let hon. Members come and prove to us that if we tax the comparatively small supply of the foreign article, when our own fishermen are able to produce all that is required, it will raise the price. We on this side maintain that no rise in price could occur, and that the people would be able to buy and consume untaxed food. Hon. Members opposite should give some facts and figures to show that. they have some justification for their attitude instead of merely repeating the old parrot cry of "Your food will cost you more."
    Mr. LEONARD: With regard to greaseproof paper, the pre-duty price was £24 per ton, and the present price is £34 per ton, an increase of £10, and so on, right down the scale.
    Mr. HASLAM: We do not eat paper.
    Mr. LEONARD: The hon. Member was asking for actual facts as to the effect of these duties.
    Mr. TINKER: If I had not heard the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) speak on previous occasions, and did not know that he is always serious when he rises to speak, I should have thought that to-night he was trying to pull our legs. He tells us that the 10 per cent. duty will not come out of the consumers. Who will pay it? It is going to be a revenue tariff, and somebody will have to pay it. If it does not come from those who buy in this country it will he difficult to find out from whence it will come. If his contention is right, why stop at 10 per cent., or 20 per cent., or 30 per cent., as long as we have not to pay? If somebody else had to pay it, I would not stop at 10 per cent.; I would advocate 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. Revenue would be coming in and taxation could be reduced. The hon. Member, in his enthusiasm for tariffs, ought to examine the matter more carefully before

    477
    attempting to put the burden upon the poor. Foodstuffs for human consumption is a matter of vital importance to the House of Commons. I agree that at the last election tariffs played a most important part, but I also think that the question of foodstuffs was kept in the background. I do not think that was made a party cry by the National Government.
    Mr. HARTLAND: By the Labour party.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The Labour party said that if the electors sent the National Government back there would be tariffs, but we did not mean food taxes. I do not think that there was one Liberal Member who came back under the guise of "National" who expected that there would be food taxes. On this matter, as on other matters, they have been led astray, and if they keep on swallowing the baits that are held out to them, there will be a rapid extinction of the Liberal party. Hon. Members who favour tariffs put forward the argument that, even if they do mean that the poor people will have to pay more, there will be an increase in wages to meet the extra cost. Even if I concede that point to a certain extent, I would remind hon. Members that a large number of the working-classes have no wages. They are unemployed and depending upon a fixed basis of benefit. I have never heard any hon. Member on the other side, when they talk about the judges having their salaries put back to their former level, suggest that the unemployed should be given their former standard of unemployment benefit.
    A large number of people are being driven to the Poor Law. There will be no increase in their benefit. Many people have pensions. There will be no increase of allowance for them. Large numbers of people depend upon other members of their household. All these people have to go into the common market to buy their food, and they will have to meet the increased cost that will be put on when the tariff becomes effective. It is for hon. Members opposite to prove that the burden will not be so great as we say it will be. Behind this question is the question of direct and indirect taxation. Hon. Members opposite tell us that the poor people pay by indirect methods and that they do not realise where the
    478
    burden is being put on. The intention of the National Government is to relieve direct taxation. We shall find that out when the Budget comes. Income Tax and other direct taxation will be reduced. The revenue, however, will have to come from somewhere. The £30,000,000 that will have to be found under these tariff proposals will be found by poor people, who will thereby contribute indirectly to the upkeep of our national income. It is not fair at a time like this, in the crisis which now confronts us, that the burden should be put on the backs of the very poor. If there is to be a tax on industry, at least let us keep away from the food of the people.
    Mr. HASLAM: The hon. Member seems to assume that the sum of £30,000,000 is to be raised by the taxes on foreign food. I have always understood that the £30,000,000 is the total figure which the whole of these import duties will raise.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member is right. I thought that I had made my point clear. The £30,000,000 will come from direct taxation, but a portion of it will come from taxes upon the foodstuffs of the people. I do not know what the amount will be. I am trying to prove that the method of the National Government is to reduce direct taxation by putting further indirect taxation upon the people. If they do that, it might not to be on the food of the people. I am sorry that the House is not full to listen to this Debate. A little while ago, when we were discussing matters which concerned hon. Members directly, there were full benches, but on a question which ought to concern everyone, hon. Members are somewhere else.
    Mr. HOWARD: Where is your own party?
    Mr. TINKER: If we count the numbers of our party present, it will be seen that they represent about one-half our total membership. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are 500 Members of the National Government and not one-twentieth of that party is present. On a matter like this they ought to show greater interest. The National Government's benches ought to be full in order that hon. Members might determine what ought to be done.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I should like, if I can, to bring the Committee to the atmosphere of the General Election,

    479
    because, although it is such a short time since that election took place, I cannot help feeling, particularly in the House to-night, that confidence in the enormous superiority of numbers has made some hon. Members forget what that atmosphere was. There was not at that time that enormous confidence in the ability of the Conservative party to do everything and anything that it liked, and consequently the speeches were made in a very much more moderate and conciliatory tone than we hear now. I am very sorry for the change because, although one cannot blame a large majority for trying to do the things which it believes to be right, I do feel that that very genuine goodwill which I believe the National Government had behind it at the election, as the figures showed, is being slowly frittered away by Measures of this kind. The enthusiasm which is aroused at an election is very hard to keep up for many months, as all parties have found to their cost, but I am afraid that the straightest road to disillusionment is being taken by a Measure of this kind when Amendments of the nature of the one now before us are not accepted.
    There are many things in this great fiscal experiment on which we have to make up our minds, because it is obvious that it is going to be carried. There are things in it on which the country and the Members of all parties will look with a certain amount of calm curiosity, and with the feeling: "We may be wrong. Anybody may be wrong. We will see whether it works or not. If after trying the experiment we find that it is wrong, we will make some attempt to take the tariffs off again." But when you are dealing with something which enters so intimately into the lives of the people as their food, you cannot afford experiments. The hardship that takes place in the experimental period is so great that you simply cannot afford to gamble. You cannot afford the necessary period of trial. One hon. Member behind me put forward the thesis, which he is entitled to maintain, that the 10 per cent. is too small to raise the price. That cannot be taken as being the argument of the Government. If that were the argument of the Government, I do not know why we should have had this Schedule and why many of the things in the Schedule were ever put
    480
    there. Obviously, they have been put there because representations by powerful people have been made to the Government. They have said: "You are going to put up the price of our raw material." For that reason the Government have, very wisely, yielded.
    Mr. HASLAM: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I did not direct my argument to the fact that the 10 per cent. would not raise the price. I founded my argument on the fact that the 10 per cent. was only imposed on a certain amount of our supplies, namely, the foreign supplies, and not on our home or Dominion supplies.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: That applies to any tariff that you may impose. You are only taxing what is coming in and not what you produce at home. I take it for granted that that is going to happen, unless you propose to have an excise duty as well. That would apply to things in the Schedule which, after reasonable representations, the Government have decided to accept. In this matter those who have given pledges have not at this moment to give a strained interpretation of them. However much manoeuvring there may be, however much one may try to make the best of a bad job, the non-fulfilment of pledges, made after consideration and in definite terms by Members of Parliament, does a great deal more harm than perhaps anything else. Pledges have been made and every hon. Member will have to interpret them for himself. People may say that those of us on these benches are inconsistent because we have taxed certain foodstuffs under the Horticultural Products Act. There, however, the argument addressed to us was that we were entitled to deal with those goods because they were not the foods of the poor; they were luxury articles with which the poor were not concerned. If I have made any mistake, I shall feel it in the future to have been the vote that I gave then and not the vote that I am giving now. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members who support food taxes to seize upon any little concession that may have been given to them, and to say: "Now, the whole principle is conceded, and you must go the whole way with us." Because we give them a tomato it is hardly fair to run away with a crate of eggs and the whole dairy produce of the country.

    481
    The matters covered by this Amendment are on a different plane from anything else. There may be some dispute as to the precise issues of the election which returned this Parliament to power, but equality of sacrifice was one of the very first notes which was struck. Everyone realises that although equality of sacrifice, literally, is impossible, because the very smallest that is taken from the poorest class is greater in its burden on them than a much greater amount taken from others is upon the more fortunuate class. There was, however, a feeling in the country that the National Government were going to do their best to carry out this ideal as far as they could, and there was a wonderful response. One of the remarkable things in the election was the way that the people who were actually going to lose by the cuts that were being made voted for the National Government. They responded to the call that was made upon them, and were ready to do it. I include the taxpayers, but they were not the only ones.
    We had that tremendous response, but now I am afraid that there is going to be a feeling throughout the country, when the taxes are felt in the domestic budget every week, that there was not much in the cry after all, and that the sacrifices of some are going to be increased while the burdens of others are going to be alleviated. If that feeling arises, then I am afraid that the charm of the word "National" will not last very long, and I am afraid that once it is lost, it is going to be very hard to recover it in the future.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member, in his enthusiasm, will not develop that line of argument.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I am sorry to have trespassed. What I am trying to say is, that it is by the adoption of this particular Measure, which will be felt when purchases have to be made every week and every day, that the good will is most surely and rapidly disappearing. What we are doing, if this Amendment is not accepted, is to put the burden with its fullest weight on to the people who are buying in pennyworths. If the Government would only yield, they would be able to conduct their great experiment, which I for one hope earnestly will succeed in all its branches, without prejudicing its chance of being accepted by
    482
    the great mass of the people of this country.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: We have just listened to a lucid exposition of the Free Trade position, but the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Griffith) has missed the point of the Amendment. The importance of this proposal is not very great when one examines it very carefully. The whole of the meat from Canada comes in free, and the whole of the grain comes in without paying any tax; other products in the main can be supplied by the different parts of the Empire. We are this doing something to improve employment in this country. The Colonies and Dominions are willing and ready to do business with us, and if we can increase their capacity to sell in our market by giving them some advantage, we are going to create more employment amongst our own people. The hardships of employment are very much greater than the hardship of a slight increase in the cost of food which may take place.
    I represent one of the largest agricultural constituencies in the country and so serious is the position, because of foreign competition, that hundreds of skilled agricultural labourers are unemployed. They do not have the same benefits as the miners. They do not draw unemployment pay; they are not in a sheltered industry which has no foreign competition to face. They feel the full blast of the economic blizzard, and have been doing so for five or six years. They have had to live on the poor law whilst other better situated and better organised workers have lived upon the unemployment benefit which different Governments have given them.
    Mr. McENTEE: More shame to you!
    Major BRAITHWAITE: You had an opportunity when you were in office to do something but you never took advantage of it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members will perhaps remember the Rule to address the Chair and not one another.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: If the Opposition had any desire to help this section of the people they had an opportunity in the last Parliament. In my opinion these duties will stimulate production at home. In the main they are directed for revenue purposes, but a 10 per cent, duty on eggs is going to do a great deal to

    483
    stimulate the production of eggs in various parts of Great Britain. We have a chance of saving £10,000,000 a year, and there is no reason why the people of this country should not try to feed themselves rather than allow other people to feed them. Hon. Members opposite ought to drive home to the people of this country the fact that the working classes are the most wasteful people in connection with food in the whole of Europe.—[Interruption.] You can go into a canteen in connection with our big factories and see it. There is more food wasted in this country than in any other country in Europe. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite have never had any real sympathy for the agricultural industry, and when a Government comes along with practical proposals for helping our farm workers I am glad of the opportunity of thanking them.
    This is the first Government since the War that has really tackled the agricultural problem. I should like to have seen these duties substantially higher than 10 per cent., because I think we can raise in this country all the food that the people require. I thank the Government for what they have done and hope that in future legislation they will be able to revise some of the policy they have laid down in connection with such things as meat. There is a possibility of a tax on tinned meats. The workers of this country buy a considerable amount of this meat, and they do not know what it is. The oldest and worst of the stock in other countries is cut up, and put into tins; you cannot see what it is, and whilst everything in this country is subject to all sorts of inspections and classifications anything that can be put into a tin and out of sight is dumped on to the lucky people of this country. We are going to get proper food under suitable conditions so that the people can see exactly what they are buying. I want to assure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West that his fears and apprehensions as to a rise in the cost of foodstuffs are absolutely groundless. We are going to make a substantial contribution to our Imperial economic position by this Measure, which should be pushed forward in a vigorous way.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: We have just listened to a typical Tory speech from the hon. and gallant Member. He was, no doubt, quite honest, and it was a speech which other Tory Members would have delivered if they had had the courage of the hon. and gallant Member. I should like him to deliver a speech of that kind to the working people of his own division and tell them that the working classes of this country are wasteful and extravagant. He complained that the agricultural worker who is out of work and is not entitled to unemployment benefit is wasteful and that those workers in industrial areas who are receiving 15s. 3d. per week are also wasteful—
    Major BRAITHWAITE: I was referring far more to the people who are in employment and who take their meals in the canteens of our great works.
    Mr. HALL: The hon. and gallant Member did not qualify his statement. He said that the working classes of this country were wasteful. We are pleased to have the admission that a duty of 10 per cent. is likely to increase prices. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member is quite prepared to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in putting rough pearls on the Free List and butter off the Free List. It shows the type of mind of hon. Members opposite. The Amendment enables supporters of the National Government to redeem their election pledges. There is no doubt at ail that a very small percentage of the Members of the Government indicated in any way that they would support a duty on foodstuffs. Not a single Member of the Liberal party and a very small percentage of the Conservative party did so. Notwithstanding the ramp of the election, I have no doubt that if a definite statement on the subject had been made by National candidates, instead of there being such an overwhelming majority of them in the House now their numbers would not be nearly as great.
    There is one thing that the people of this, country will not have, and that is taxation of foodstuffs. We are not dealing with an isolated industry, or with the raw materials of the mining industry, the paper industry, or any other industry. We are dealing with a question that affects the lives of every person in the

    485
    country. Every working-class home will be affected. In introducing his proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was to be a Free List. We understood that it was to be a restricted Free List. As far as foodstuffs were concerned the Free List was to be confined to meat and wheat and tea and sugar. Then the right hon. Gentleman indicated what the Free List would be as far as raw materials were concerned. But what have we seen since the Resolution was brought in? We have seen a very large extension of the Free List of raw materials, but no extension of the Free List of foodstuffs. Only yesterday we were told pearls were to be included in the Free List. Butter is to be left out. We are told that animal's hair is to be included, and eggs left out. All the organisations of industry which could bring pressure to bear on the Government have done it and the Government have conceded almost every point. There is no doubt that this 10 per cent. duty will increase prices; that is inevitable. Hon. Members opposite have asked us to give examples, but there is no need to give examples. The Prime Minister himself, in a statement in this House in September last, when he indicated that there was to be a cut of 10 per cent. in the benefit paid to the unemployed, inferred that there were two methods of reducing payments, wages, or unemployment benefit, by saying:
    "You can do this in one of two ways. You can, by invisible means, reduce the relief given to the unemployed. You can do it in various ways. You can do it by a tariff."
    There was then some interruption, and the Prime Minister continued:
    "Well, nobody ever said 'no.' You can impose a 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. revenue tariff on imports, and to that extent make a cut indirectly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th September, 1931; col. 431, Vol. 256.]
    Then the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this House on 16th February, in handing a sop to the agriculturists said:
    "If we cast our minds hack to 12 months ago what farmer in February last year could possibly have expected that to-day he would see given to him not only a certain 10 per cent., but also a possible additional duty upon his oats, eggs, poultry, butter, milk, cheese, canned meat, in addition to a promise of a quota system which will give him a guaranteed price and a secure market
    486
    for his wheat?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1600, Vol. 261.]
    There is no doubt that the 10 per cent. will increase prices, and as a result it must mean a reduction of the standard of life of the working people of this country. I was very interested in the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night—
    8.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: The hon. Member is not going to tell the House that he and the whole of his party did not take the fullest opportunity of the dear food cry at the last election. He has just said that we on our side tried to hide that fact. I suggest to him that he had every opportunity, during the last election, of bringing this dear food bogey in front of the electors.
    Mr. HALL: I did not have an opportunity. While the members of my party did take every possible chance of bringing it to the notice of the people, the hon. and gallant Member and his friends, the candidates, denied the fact that they were going to increase the price of food. It is no use the hon. and gallant Member saying that he did not deny it. I have a statement here covering quite half-a-dozen Members of the Conservative party, and it is only one of a series of questionnaires sent into a newspaper, showing that Conservative candidates at the last election denied that they would support any duty upon foodstuffs. I certainly asked the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his own memory regarding some of the speeches which he delivered at the election. When interrupted I was referring to a speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
    "I will not say the question of food taxes, but the question of the cost of living, is not a bogy at all, but is something which has to be very carefully studied and watched, because, if the cost of living were to rise beyond what I have called the danger point, there might be consequences in what is generally known as a vicious spiral."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; col. 330, Vol. 262.]
    What do the Government consider the danger point? Do they not consider that the purchasing power of the wages of the people has already reached the danger point? The wages of the working people of this country were reduced last year by a weekly average of £405,000. [HON.

    487
    MEMBERS: "Under a Labour Government."] It may have been under a Labour Government, but it was under a capitalist system, and the Labour Government had not a majority in this House. Even according to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, one would imagine that the cost of foodstuffs in this country at the present time is abnormally low. It is not abnormally low. The cost of living now is 47 per cent. higher than it was pre-War. The cost of foodstuffs alone is 31 per cent. higher. The cost of British beef is 53 per cent. higher, British mutton 55 per cent., foreign mutton 44 per cent., bread 22 per cent., butter 19 per cent. and fish 106 per cent. higher than pre-War. The price of eggs is 71 per cent. higher than the pre-War price. Potatoes, I do not include owing to the fact that there is a shortage, but I have no doubt that the price of potatoes has been largely aggravated as a result of the Abnormal Importations Act.
    The whole question is whether we are going to allow the standard of life of the working people to be further depressed. In the mining industry we have a subsistence wage. When I referred to it previously, an hon. Member said that it was a protected wage. It is a wage which is based upon what is regarded as sufficient to enable the people to live, if they get a full week's work, and the average amount of time worked each week in South Wales is from 4½ days to five days. The subsistence wage is 7s. a day for a single man and 7s. 6d. a day for a married man with any number of children. There are coalfields like Durham where the subsistence wage is 6s. 6d. a day and the average number of working days per week is 4½ to five, as in South Wales.
    This situation is not confined to one heavy industry. The same thing applies to almost every heavy industry in the country. The strain of wages and conditions is almost at breaking point. Great as the difficulties have been for the various interests which would have been affected had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer extended the free list. What will be the position when it is generally known in the working class homes of the country that the Government are taxing the foodstuffs of the people in order to get revenue to reduce the Income Tax? The outcry which we have heard during
    488
    the last fortnight will be nothing compared to the outcry which we shall hear during the next few months. Even at this late hour I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in that speech which has become historic indicated that as far as actual revenue is concerned this proposal would have little influence upon balance of trade or balance of payments. I think he referred to a sum of £8,000,000 in this connection, and as far as the balance of trade is concerned £8,000,000 is neither here nor there. But £8,000,000 taken from the working people of this country will indicate to them that the Government intend to tax, tax, tax the poor people in order to relieve wealthy people of their obligations and their duty.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) has spoken with some heat and with great earnestness in favour of this Amendment. The Amendment is worded very conveniently and takes a general form. It asks the Government to exempt from taxation all foodstuffs. But for many years past, and with the support of my hon. Friend opposite, certain essential foodstuffs of the people have been taxed, and taxed at a very much higher rate than anything which is proposed in this Bill.
    Mr. HALL: The hon. Gentleman will admit that during the period of office of the Labour Government in 1924, and again in 1929, they considerably reduced the amount of taxation imposed upon commodities used by the people of this country.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not trying to split hairs with my hon. Friend. He is supporting an Amendment which asks us not to tax any foodstuffs. I am pointing out that, although in certain cases the Labour Government, and indeed other Governments, may have reduced taxes on food, yet taxes on certain essential foodstuffs did remain with the support and with the vote of my hon. Friend and his associates.
    Mr. LANSBURY: And are we not allowed in this Parliament to vote for something different from what was voted previously? What about the hon. Gentleman himself?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, my right hon. Friend is given an opportunity of voting in this Parliament for something very different—something which is going to resurrect British. industry in so far as it is capable by Government action of resurrection. He is given an opportunity to vote for something very much better and more ameliorative than anything which has ever been suggested by him. But, as I would again remind him, I am dealing with an Amendment which asks us to exempt all foodstuffs from the scope of this Bill, and in the course of the discussion certain articles have been mentioned. One of the examples mentioned was tinned milk. May I point out that tinned milk is taxed as high as 27 per cent. at the present moment? The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pickering) in a maiden speech, on which I should like to congratulate him very sincerely, mentioned the case of jam. But jam is taxed already on its sugar content, and the hon. Member is under a grave misapprehension if he thinks that we are instituting some revolutionary impost in this Bill, and particularly when he cites in support of his view the case of an article which has been taxed for many years past.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is that any justification for putting a further tax upon it?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not called upon to answer that question, because my hon. Friends are opposing the principle and not the rate of the tax. I am entitled, in reply, to point out, when it is said that it is an iniquitous thing to tax food, that such articles as jam have been taxed for many years past.
    Mr. CURRY: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that if this Amendment is passed, the taxes to which he is referring will be automatically repealed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not saying that. Do let us stick to the facts. The Amendment asks us to exclude foodstuffs, of whatever kind, from taxation, and it asks us to do so on principle. I listened with great patience to what was said by hon. Members who spoke most sincerely in support of that proposal, and I am now pointing out, in my reply, that they cannot sustain their attack on the Bill, on principle, because for many years
    490
    past all parties have consented to the taxation of food. Take the raw sugar used by the working class of this country. It is taxed, not 10 per cent., but 133 per cent. I think my hon. Friends will appreciate that the argument based upon principle must fall to the ground. All confectionery and articles containing sugar are taxed. Coffee, cocoa, and other essential ingredients in the household budget are taxed at this moment and have been for many years. Therefore, it is not fair to suggest that the Government are instituting taxes upon food for the first time. Take the reverse side of the picture. Suppose that this Amendment were accepted, what would it involve? It would involve exempting from taxation articles of luxury and not only articles of necessity. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are solicitous about caviare and game and pheasants, but certainly those things would be exempt.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What about pearls?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend says a great deal about pearls, but he has not said anything about the swine before whom they are to be cast. The swine and all categories of pig meat are in the free list. No tribute whatsoever has been paid to us for freeing from any duty of Customs the many articles of staple food that we have in this list. If my hon. Friends opposite will look at the list again, and reflect upon the meaning of each of the items, they will see how extensive are our exceptions from taxation. Beef, veal, mutton, lamb, pork, bacon—here I come to the things before which the pearls of the right hon. Gentleman opposite must be cast—ham and edible offals such as sweetbread, liver, kidneys—all these articles are exempted under our Bill, including wheat in grain.
    Next the hon. Member opposite went on to attack the principle of a Revenue duty, and in that he followed the very excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend to which I have already referred. But the principle of the Revenue duty was even accepted by hon. Members opposite—[HON MEMBERS: "No!"I It was certainly accepted by the leading Liberals of the country. We are sometimes told that we ought to refer these matters to economists. To which economists? To Mr. Keynes? He has

    491
    supported a Revenue duty, including a duty on foodstuffs. To Sir Josiah Stamp? He, too, has supported a Revenue duty, including a duty on foodstuffs. Mr. McKenna has supported exactly the same proposition; Sir Walter Layton, in advocating a Tariff Union of certain countries, has proposed something which is tantamount to a Revenue duty. All the leading Liberal economists are in the same camp as the Government in this matter. Therefore, if we had referred our decision to an expert body, in so far as it was a Liberal and progressive body, it would have supported us in this 10 per cent. Revenue tax. Nor could my hon. Friends opposite have rejected it, as a matter of principle.
    Then, again, if I may deal with the argument put forward by the hon. Member who attached great significance to the cost of living, it is the opportunity of living that is more important than the cost of living, and, if we go on having regard exclusively to the interests of the consumers, we shall have a nation consisting of consumers and nobody else. I would recall to my hon. Friends opposite that before the last General Election they advocated the proposals in the Macmillan report. They wanted to raise the price level, because they realised that when prices were low people engaged in industry who had to sell their product were put at a great disadvantage. Therefore, on all the matters of theory of which my hon. Friend has spoken, he has already been put out of court by his past record.
    As I have pointed out, it would be impossible to accept an Amendment of this kind drafted in these general terms. To draft it in general terms is useful, because it enables a general attack to be made, unsupported by convincing illustration. When you come to specify what foodstuffs that are not already exempted by the Government you would wish to have exempted, you are in a great difficulty. If hon. Members would be fair enough to look at the list of Amendments on the Paper which deal with the items that are sought to be excluded seriatim, they will see how difficult it is to make a case against the Government and how we have exempted the essential staple foodstuffs of the people. Here and there we may find an article for which a case may be made out, but many of the articles referred to in the subsequent
    492
    Amendments are already produced as to a very large percentage of the supply either in this country or in the Empire and will therefore be free, and it is a very small margin of difference that is open to criticism by those who oppose these proposals. Yes, it is very easy to make an attack in vague terms, but it is very difficult to support that attack by a reference to specific items.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: We have two pages of specific items down as Amendments.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have just called attention to that very fact, and, when my hon. Friend comes to deal with those specific items, answers will be forthcoming. I do not say that they will be answers which will meet with my hon. Friend's satisfaction, but they will meet with the satisfaction of any fair-minded person. I think he will admit that he takes up a purely theoretical standpoint.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: No.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If he does not, I do not see how he can be supporting this Amendment, which goes very much further than any Liberal or Labour Government has ever gone in the past. It would be very unfair to court the approval of the electorate by going into a Lobby in order to say, "We have voted against any taxes on foodstuffs," when you know that in regard to all previous Budgets the parties of whatever colour have supported taxes on food. Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friends who have specific Amendments on the Paper to move their detailed Amendments, and to listen to the replies, about the particulars which they wish to raise, and not to ride off on a purely general issue, which is very attractive to those who wish to obtain praise for declaiming against any impost being put upon the food of the people.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that there is an understanding that these other Amendments to which he refers are not to be discussed.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That fortifies my case. Having listened to the speeches—and I am in the correction of the Committee if I speak wrongly—I have sought in vain for specific illustrations supported by figures which would justify any general charge that the Government were

    493
    putting taxes on the whole range of foodstuffs of the people. There is a number of Amendments on the Paper, but they have not been used in illustration, and, having had an opportunity of looking at the figures, I am in a position to assure hon. Members that they are mistaken if, merely because an item is not in this free list, they think it will bear a tax as to 100 per cent. of the available supply. Very often a very small percentage indeed is involved. I take one illustration which does happen to have been mentioned, namely, the item of cheese. Well, 90 per cent. of our cheese supplies are borne or Empire produced, and if you are going to base an attack on the Government on the item of cheese, you must appreciate that it is only 10 per cent. of the cheese that will be taxed in any event.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Then why not shut it out?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is virtually cut out. Therefore, I appeal to the Committee not to listen to, or to be convinced by, tirades against taxing the food of the people, but to ask those who support this Amendment to specify in great detail how the household budget of the working class is going to be damaged in any way by these proposals of the Government.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure that I shall be expressing the views of all Members of the Committee if I say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was not at his best in replying to the Debate. He can generally get away with it, as they say in America, but really he did not get to the root of the problem at all in the speech which he has just delivered. I hope he will not think me offensive when I say that it appeared to me at any rate, being a Welshman, as if his heart was not in the business at all. Let me dwell on the points he has raised. I am pleased to see at last two lady Members in the Committee. I have regretted their absence, because this is above all a question for the housewife. I have been looking round too for those hon. Members who call themselves National Socialists. They ought to be very interested in this problem. It will be interesting to find how they vote on this Amendment and to see if they carry their revolutionary fervour to the Division Lobby.
    494
    In spite of the claims that have been made for other Amendments, we are facing now what I think is the most important Amendment on the Order Paper. An hon. Member said that we could never prove that the imposition of a tariff increased the cost of a commodity. I gave a simple illustration the other evening, and it may be worth while repeating it. I called at a shop in Manchester to buy a pound of grapes. I got them for 3s. a pound, and was told by the shopkeeper that they would have been 1s. 8d. were it not for the Customs Duty.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: He was pulling your leg.
    Mr. DAVIES: It takes a clever Englishman to pull a Welshman's leg. A Welshman might do it. Even if a tariff for revenue were desirable on other articles it was never intended that it should be imposed upon the food of the people. It would be interesting to look up the speeches of hon. Members on this subject during the General Election. It was never suggested in the campaign in my district that the Tory party would impose duties on foodstuffs. Perhaps it was because they stood for seats in Lancashire and that they knew that Lancashire is very keen on this subject. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade asked us why we did not say something more definite than "foodstuffs for human consumption." I have taken the trouble to go through the Board of Trade list to find out the several commodities that are imported which enter into the food of the people. Some of them, of course, are covered by other Amendments. There are bananas, beans, biscuits, butter, cocoa, condiments, cream of tartar—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that that is not going to be taxed?
    Major ELLIOT: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that anyone eats every evening a nourishing dish of cream of tartar?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know what he eats. If he knew all that goes into his food, he would be astonished.
    Major ELLIOT: After all, I took a degree in medicine, and if the hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about food perhaps he will tell me.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. DAVIES: I worked in a shop, and shop assistants know more than a doctor about food. One hon. Member in arguing on this Amendment asked why we should imagine that there will be an increase in the price of a commodity if a duty is imposed. Let me ask a question by way of an argument. Why did the Government want to put certain commodities in the Free List? It was because they knew that the price of those commodities would rise if a duty was placed on them. That is why we want to have foodstuffs for human consumption put in the Free List. It is no use telling the shopkeeper that the price of commodities will not be advanced when a tariff is in force. Not only does the shopkeeper take advantage of the actual 10 per cent. increase in the cost of a commodity, but he often makes a profit out of the tax itself. Really, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must study the retail trade a little further and study medicine less. He would get further in politics if he did. Let us see some other items that come into this list. What about ginger? That will appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because the Tory party of the National Government has a left wing ginger group on its right as it were. Then there are jams and jellies. An hon. Member asks what was the use of saying in large terms, "Foodstuffs for human consumption." Here are some of the details. There are canned lobster, marmalade, peaches, pears, pepper—
    Mr. HEPWORTH: And castor oil.
    Mr. DAVIES: It will be seen that this Bill will be very difficult to operate and administer. I now come to the point that troubles us on this side. It is an important factor in the situation. There is no doubt that in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, the cost of living will go up in consequence of these duties. The smaller the purchasing power of a family, the more they have to pay proportionately for their foodstuffs. The smaller the item of purchase, the greater the sum proportionately that is paid for it. The rich man gets his commodities
    496
    cheaper because he gets them in bulk. If he buys in large quantities he buys cheaper than the poor who can buy the same things only in much smaller quantities. To a man on unemployment benefit every penny that you add to the cost of his butter or cheese makes a serious inroad into the cost of his living. We say, therefore, that the Committee ought to be very careful what they do in this connection.
    Let me answer one argument which has been put forward. We are told that Customs duties on foodstuffs will do two things. First, it is said that they will increase the revenue of the country; but the main intention as has been disclosed by an hon. Member behind me, is to pave the way for a budget that will reduce the Income Tax by raising indirect taxation under this Bill. We think that is very unfair. An hon. Member opposite said that if duties were placed on imported foodstuffs the people of this country would produce more foodstuffs for themselves. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about this point in any part of the Committee—that we all desire to see more food produced in our own land; but it is stretching the argument to say that the fact that foreign commodities are to be taxed or kept out will in itself increase home production. That does not follow. The soil of this country is as good as the soil of any other country in the world, and the skill of our people in agriculture is as great as that of any other people; there is no doubt about that. Then it is proper to ask why we do not produce these foodstuffs for ourselves now? I am sure we shall find later that an increase in home production has not been brought about by passing this Measure, and I am sorry to think that that will be the case.
    We have had a slight indication from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that we may get some concessions on the Amendments appearing later on the Paper. Never before have I seen such a list of Amendments on the Order Paper of this House. One thing is clear above all, and I regret it very much as a citizen, and not as a politician. If the history of the gentlemen behind the Government who have placed Amendments on the Order Paper, and their connection with the several vested interests in this country, became known to the people of this country, it

    497
    would be one of the most interesting pieces of information we could ever get. I have said before and I repeat now, that the one thing I abhor in these duties, and it has been evidenced in the House this week, is that vested interests have forced the Government to do things which Governments ought not to do. For that reason I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Sir H. CROFT: Listening to the speeches from the Labour Benches to-night I have been amazed at the total failure of the Labour party to consider the problem of finding work for the people of this country.
    Mr. J. JONES: Hear, hear!
    Sir H. CROFT: I knew I should get the support of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), who naturally must deplore the total absence of any reference to the problem of finding employment in the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Opposition Front Bench. The greatest problem with which we were confronted in the last Parliament was unemployment. We saw the employment of the people going down, down, down every month while that Government remained in office. Now we have a scheme for finding employment before us, and have heard a most frank and candid confession from the Liberal Benches that the country wants this policy. It was a very helpful confession, and the fact that it was made is very important; and, indeed, hon. Members on the Labour Benches have said the same thing. An hon. Member has prophesied that if we put duties on jams, jellies, butter, cheese and so on, we shall increase the cost of living. We are capable of producing practically every one of those commodities in this country, and in every other part of the world the Labour party are of opinion that if such commodities can be produced at home it is their first duty to give employment to their own workers.
    This is the side of the question, however, to which hon. Members on the Labour benches have omitted to pay attention all the way through. They have put forward no alternative proposals, they have given us no inkling of what they would do, they have contented themselves with making platform points. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has complained that this revenue
    498
    is being raised with the object of reducing direct taxation, as if that were a sin. The whole creed and philosophy of the Liberal party is the reduction of taxation, retrenchment, and seeing that not a penny is put on to the direct taxation of this country which can possibly be avoided, because they are well aware, as they have been throughout their history, that the only way to keep commodities and foodstuffs cheap is to encourage the production of them by keeping taxation as low as possible. If we look into prices in this country it will be seen that a large part of any price is due to the colossal burden of taxation. Lord Snowden, when speaking from the Treasury Bench in February of last year, made a dramatic speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He pointed out how the question of price runs through all our industries and foodstuffs, and how this country was burdened more than any other country in the world.
    Hon Members forget that it is no good promising cheap things to the workers if they have no wages in their pockets with which to buy them. They must know that the greatest safeguard and insurance the workers of this country can have is an ample supply of food produced under our own flag. If we increase the production of foodstuffs in this country and in the Empire, then, if foreign countries have a shortage and raise their prices, we have a safeguarded position. On the ground of benefiting the revenue, on the ground of securing a sufficient supply of foodstuffs, which was found to be so needful in time of war, and on the ground of providing employment for our people, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a division, because obviously it cannot help the workers who are looking to us to provide some alternative to the policy of nothingness which was the policy of the late Government.
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has stated that this is the policy which the country wants. While there may be some doubt as regards tariffs on manufactured goods, there is no doubt in my mind that the country was never asked its opinion about the taxation of foodstuffs.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon

    499
    Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made it an issue at the election, and prophesied that the foodstuffs of the people were going to be made dearer if the National Government were returned?
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: That is so, and it was promptly denied. I have no hesitation in saying that if the taxation of foodstuffs had been put in the forefront of the policy of the National Government they would not have had their present majority; but it was carefully hidden. Then the hon. and gallant Member said it was no good talking about providing cheap food for the workers if they had not got any work. Despite the condition we are in to-day, the wages of the workers in this country will buy more food for them than in any Protectionist country in Europe.
    I wish now to refer to one or two remarks that were made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place, with regard to the Amendment that we have put upon the Paper. He has not really dealt with the Amendment. He twitted hon. Members of my own party on the fact that in the past they had voted for taxes on food. I would remind him that he belonged to the party that used to boast that they stood for a free breakfast table. Nobody has ever denied that revenue must be obtained, but hitherto we confined that to feeding stuffs not grown in this country, which is a very different proposition from the wholesale taxation of all feeding stuffs that come in. He referred to the difficulty of putting down Amendments excluding specific feeding stuffs, and he asked us if we meant by specific feeding stuffs things like caviare. That shows that he was quibbling. He knows perfectly well that what we are after is to get an Amendment which will exclude the principal foodstuffs of the people of this country from taxation.
    He went on to say that all the leading Liberal economists were in favour of the taxation of food before the General Election. None of those leading Liberal economists stood as candidates at the last election, or I am not at all certain that they would have advocated that policy. The taxation of food, I maintain, was not an issue at the last election. I know
    500
    there are certain Members of the Conservative party, who are now supporting the National Government, who did everything they could to keep references to the taxation of food out of their election addresses. I repeat what I said a few moments ago, that if the taxation of food had been an issue at the last election, we should have seen a very different result. Take the main bulk of the foodstuffs imported into this country; in round figures, I suppose, about £100,000,000 is represented on the Free List. That leaves, probably, a, figure of something like £300,000,000 annually which, in one way or another, will come under taxation. Let me take one or two of those articles. Take butter. About half the importaion of butter is foreign and about half is Dominion. If you put a duty on the foreign butter, the price of Dominion butter will go up. Hon. Members shake their heads. There are commodities imported from the Dominions that we have been told are going up as soon as this Bill is through. Contracts that have been entered into have been cancelled because of the alteration in conditions that will result from this Bill.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: On a point of Order. Is Dominion butter at the present moment the same price as foreign butter?
    The CHAIRMAN: Order!
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: What about the quality? A duty on a certain proportion of imports is bound to have an effect upon the price. [HON. MEMBERS: No!"] Well, we shall see. [Interruption.] If it has not, I fail to see why certain people in the Dominions are writing to people over here warning them that the prices are to go up. That has nothing to do, of course, with the 10 per cent. tariff. Margarine is nearly all foreign-imported, lard is mostly foreign and a very large proportion of the eggs imported is foreign. What is the object of the duties on foodstuffs It is either to raise revenue or to improve the condition of agriculture. We know that the main requirements of the vast majority of agriculturists in this country are still being brought in free, but a large part of what they want for their industry is to be subject to the duty. Therefore, I do not know that much assistance is to be got out of this Bill, so far as it has gone.

    501
    Let us take the revenue point of view. The President of the Board of Trade definitely states that what he wants is a revenue. He said so in the House the other night. If we are to assist agriculture at all, we must remember that there is an enormous lag to-day between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. Unless you are going to reorganise agriculture, all that will be done will be that the lag will increase and the farmer will get less. There is plenty of scope for the farmer to get a good price and the consumer to pay a lower price. Unless you do some organising, you are going to increase the price, and the consumer will get very little. That is an aspect of the matter that the Government ought to tackle very seriously. This is not the time to put further burdens on to the masses of the people by way of taxation. Some of us have been criticised because we speak for the consumer. I suggest that, the consumer is a very important person, whom most of us are sent here to represent.
    The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in this Committee about two years ago, said that he was sent here, like many others, to represent the consumer, and that the consumer had been neglected in the past. He has been neglected in the last five days in a way that he has never been neglected before. He said that neither the wages of our working class nor the incomes of our middle class were such that they could afford to pay one penny on clothing, cutlery or any other commodity that might be saved if we were rid of these artificial measures. The condition of our people is much worse to-day than it was two years ago. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members say, "The Socialist Government," and others say, "Free Trade." I am not concerned with the Socialist Government at the moment, but I am with Free Trade. The general position is very much better than in Protectionist countries. That is the reason why I suggested the other night that we might look into it to see what effect Protection had had in those countries. Many of our people are much worse off to-day. Surely if it was bad in 1929 to add additional burdens on their shoulders, it is very much worse in 1932.
    Many hon. Members sitting on the Government Front Bench have made their
    502
    object quite plain, which is to take the burden from the direct taxpayer and put it on to the shoulders of the masses of the people. They have said so in this House. There are many things that may be said against Free Trade, and hon. Members have said a great deal in the last few days, but it cannot be said against us that we have not been able to give our people a higher standard of life than any Protectionist country, at any rate in Europe. By the taxation that you are putting on you are deliberately lowering the standard of life of the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, speaking yesterday, said, with regard to meat:
    "What I do say is that in present circumstances, and having, in particular, the question of the cost of living very much in our minds, we do not consider that this is a time when it would be prudent or wise to put a tax upon the import of meat into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1932; col. 330, Vol. 262.]
    Why? Because he knows that it will put up the cost of meat. Why should it not also put up the cost of other commodities? Why are hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee trying to get their own pet industries excluded? Because they know perfectly well that the price of the raw materials will go up. The same thing applies to the food of the people of the country. I want to say this in conclusion. It has always been the case for Protection in this country that we are suffering from competition with goods from other countries where wages are lower and the standard of life worse. Every one of those countries are Protectionist. We have hitherto been able, in spite of our troubles and continued unemployment, to let our people, at any rate, enjoy a higher standard of life than the people of those other countries. We have been able to do that until now, but I am very much afraid that we shall not be able to do it much longer. The only effect of these protective measures, especially measures which are going to tax the food of the people, will be eventually to reduce this country to the level of those countries of which Protectionists complain at the present time.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. JANNER: Nothing in the course of this Debate has surprised me more than the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I feel convinced that hon. Members sitting

    503
    around me must have been astonished at the suggestion which came from him, particularly in view of certain opinions which he held in the not very distant past. Can there be an individual in this House or in the country who can for one moment suggest that whether or not individual out-and-out tariffists declared their intention to accept the food tax, the real weight of opinion was that no food tax should be imposed? Would any of those people have dared to show themselves in an industrial constituency or any other constituency, and made the suggestion that they would be prepared to adopt food taxes without the slightest investigation or the slightest attempt to put them on a proper basis and without any attempt to improve agriculture by other methods, such as scientific inquiry, which were available to them? [Laughter.] Hon. Members should realise that they may be able to laugh in this House, but they would laugh in a very different manner if they were facing their constituents. Let me tell them why I say this. It may be nonsense, but it is corroborated by the head of the Government and, as it is corroborated by him, I hope my loyal colleagues, even though they may have changed their views since they joined us in the national effort, will not go behind the first speech that the Prime Minister made at the time when he entered the field on behalf of the National Government. He said:
    "I do not believe anybody in his senses—the strongest Tariff Reformer in the world—would suggest that by a tariff the Government should increase the cost of living"—
    [Interruption.] We are accustomed to take these matters not only by phrase but by the actual context, and I hope hon. Members will realise that I am giving this suggestion not to help them to propose food taxes, but as something which, I think, may show the impossibility and impracticability of increasing the cost of living—
    "at a time when the devaluation of the pound is now threatening of itself to increase the cost of living. The case must be made out, and the case must be made out on this condition, that it is not going to be an extra oppression on the lives of masses of working people of this country."
    I ask, in all seriousness, where is the record to show that the case has been
    504
    made out for these food taxes? It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that by this Amendment we are going to do something which we were not prepared to do in the past. I would remind him that the Bill, as drafted, indicates clearly what we mean by the Amendment that is being put forward. The Bill refers to all those commodities that have been taxed before, and says that these commodities are not to be dealt with by the Schedule at all. Consequently if the word "foodstuffs" is put in, it means that those taxes which have already been imposed will remain, but the fact that taxes of that description are in existence does not give power to any Government, whether National or otherwise, to proceed at, an early stage, such as this, to impose very severe and heavy burdens upon the poor people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no use for hon. Members to suggest that it does not impose such a burden. The cost of food, whether it be little or great, is bound to rise, possible not in terms of money, but it will undoubtedly be dearer than it otherwise would be. I am convinced that ultimately, and even within a very short time, the cost of living by every commodity that is brought within the purview of this bill will be very seriously affected.
    At one time we used to talk about taxing the breakfast table. Let us examine the position to-day. The question of the breakfast table, unfortunately, is no longer the same question as it was in those days. In those days we thought of breakfast, even for the poorest, as taking place early in the day. I would remind the Committee that conditions are such to-day in very many districts that the breakfast table of the masses of the people is laid sometimes very late in the day indeed. We cannot afford to experiment. I hope the Committee will realise that we cannot afford, even though hon. Gentleman may think they are right—and we are not prepared to admit that they are right—at this stage to allow an experiment to take place in respect of the food, or any portion of it, which is consumed, particularly by the poorer classes.
    We are told that these are merely sentimental expressions, raised in order to persuade the electorate that we are the right people for them to consider, but I want the Committee to give us credit for something a little stronger than that. I

    505
    want the Committee to realise that we honestly believe that it is the best interest of the people that we have to watch and that we can only watch that interest properly if we hold up any attempt to tax any commodity that the people eat. Where is the sense, where is the logic, of excluding meat because it is necessary for the food of the people, and excluding other commodities for the same reason, when you know that within the confines of their means meat is a luxury in very many homes, while the commodities on which the Government are attempting to put a tax, like butter, cheese and eggs, have to be very carefully examined by the housewife when she goes out on her shopping expeditions, and she has to weigh up every penny that she pays in order to ascertain whether her purse, small as it is, will be able to provide the necessities of life for her family?
    The suggestion has been made by our agricultural friends that, if these food taxes were put on, we should be able to provide work for those who are out of employment in our agricultural districts, but in the very next sentence we were told that this was an attempt to secure that these foods should be brought from the Colonies, to the benefit of our Imperial trade. I submit that those two arguments are inconsistent, and that our immediate duty is to watch the interests of those people who cannot possibly stand any advance on the costs that they have to incur. In these circumstances, I say that the Committee ought to accept this Amendment whole-heartedly in the interests of the nation.
    Mr. McENTEE: I have had the opportunity of listening to a number of speeches for the last two hours or more, and I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. H. Haslam), and in a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). The hon. Member for Ilorneastle—I took his words down exactly—said that a 10 per cent. tariff could not by any possibility be passed on to the consumer, and a little later in his speech he said that no rise in prices could occur. He was very emphatic and definite in those statements, and he went on to ask for proofs that prices would increase as a consequence of the imposition of a 10 per cent.
    506
    tariff. I noticed that he did not say that, if the tariff were raised to any figure higher than 10 per cent., an increase would not take place in the price of the commodity; he confined himself, apparently, to the 10 per cent. I should like to know, if it were possible to get a reply from him, which I suppose it is not now, why a 10 per cent. tariff cannot be passed on to the consumer, whereas a higher tariff might conceivably be passed on and cause a rise in the price of the food consumed.
    Mr. HASLAM: If the hon. Member desires me to reply, I would point out to him that this Bill imposes a 10 per cent. tariff, and, therefore, that is the question that is before the House. May I add that my argument was not that a 10 per cent. tariff could not be passed on, but that, owing to the large amount of food which would not be taxed and which could be supplied from this country or from the Empire, the tax, consequently, would not fall on the consumer.
    Mr. McENTEE: I noticed that, in an earlier speech in the Debate on this question of tariffs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the farmers of this country that, as a consequence of the imposition of a 10 per cent. tariff on imported food, they would be able to demand and get 10 per cent. more for their eggs, butter, and all those other things that are being affected by the tax. Obviously, both cannot be right. I would also remind the Committee that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth later on admitted that there would be an increase in the prices of those goods on which the tax is to be imposed, but he went on to say that that would be compensated for by an increase in employment, or in the opportunities for employment, and that, consequently, people would not be affected by the 10 per cent. tariff as much as hon. Members on these benches think they will be. I would like to ask haw it can be even suggested seriously that, with the imposition of a tax on the food of the people, and the consequent reduction of the purchasing power of the people, they can, in spending that reduced purchasing power, purchase more goods, and so enable employment to be increased? The thing is really too absurd for seriously minded people to take into consideration at all. The

    507
    result must be a reduction rather than an increase in employment.
    It is rather interesting to note that all the people who are telling us that there will not, or need not necessarily be, an increase in the price of any food that is taxed, are themselves particularly concerned to see that the raw materials of the industries in which they are personally interested are not taxed, and, as a consequence, there are deputations to Ministers, and every Member of the House of Commons has been inundated with correspondence asking him to see that many particular items of raw material which were left out of the free list should be inserted in the free list. In all that correspondence that I have had, at any rate—and I assume that I have had approximately the same quantity that was sent to other Members of the House—we were urged to vote for the inclusion of these raw materials in the free list, lest, it was said, as a consequence of their present exclusion from the free list and the imposition of taxes on them, there might be a burden on industry because of the increased price of the particular raw material in question. Of course there will be, and every hon. Member on the Government benches, including the hon. Member for Horncastle, knows it perfectly well. Where, then, is the logic of saying to people, either in the House of Commons or outside, that, if a duty of 10 per cent. is imposed on a raw material which is necessary for any industry in this country, and as a consequence that raw material is going to cost more to the people who use it, the same duty of 10 per cent. imposed on the foodstuffs of the ordinary common people of this country will not result in their costing more? The thing is, as I have said, too absurd for serious people to think about.
    I have noticed that in past Debates the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated pretty clearly that one of the intentions of the Government was to reduce the Income Tax when the opportunity came, and the Budget was presented; and the argument for a reduction of the Income Tax is that it will enable industry to carry on better than it is able to carry on at the present time. If a reduced tax on industry enables it to carry on better than it can at present—and I am not arguing
    508
    against that at all—surely it is logical that a reduced tax on the people of this country who consume the foods that are to be taxed under this Schedule will enable the people of this country also to live better than they are able to live at the present time. We are merely asking the Government to give that concession to the people who trusted them and gave them the opportunity to sit on the Front Bench as they are to-day. There is not one man sitting on the Front Bench now who will get up and say that he went to his constituents when the General Election was on and said to them: "If you send me back and I become a Member of the National Government, I will tax your food." Not one of them would dare to say it.
    Major ELLIOT: Since we have been challenged, I will say for myself, and for a number of hon. Members, not only did we do that but we quoted the Prime Minister's election address to that effect.
    Mr. McENTEE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will quote the Prime Minister's speech now.
    Major ELLIOT: I am perfectly willing to do so. I am not going to let the hon. Member get away with it. We are standing this with great patience but we absolutely dissent from every word that he is saying. The Prime Minister demanded the right to deal with the agricultural situation by a tariff, by quota, or by prohibition after investigation, and that investigation has been held. I am not interrupting the hon. Member in his speech to deliver one myself. I merely rise at the earliest moment to challenge his assertion.
    Mr. McENTEE: Everyone in the House knows that, if you could examine the election addresses, and if you could get a copy of the speeches that were made, at least 90 per cent. of them definitely declined to admit that they were going to tax the food of the people. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has not quoted but misquoted not only the speeches but the intentions of the Prime Minister, that his intention in every speech that he made was to indicate to the people outside that, although there might be a case for tariffs and he was willing to inquire into the possibility of such a case existing, there would be no

    509
    tax on the food of the people until at least a full and ample inquiry had been made. That was the intention of the Prime Minister and of every other Member of the Government, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin).
    It will be interesting to the people outside to learn, when the contents of the Schedule become common knowledge, that pearls are to be allowed in free but that food is to be taxed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was very anxious to twit us with being responsible for the taxation of food in the past. We always advocated, in our conferences, in the House and elsewhere, the free breakfast table, and there is no party which has made as large a contribution to the free breakfast table as the party on whose behalf I am speaking. The hon. Gentleman, for reasons best known to himself, has become the supporter of a much more heavily taxed breakfast table than we have or have ever had. The Liberal party, which he has apparently left, still have in their programme the free breakfast table. The great bulk of you would not dare to tell the people that you want to tax their food and fight an election on it and, if you did, you would not come back into the House again.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) spoke of the necessity of doing something for the agriculturist. The assumption from his speech was that, if this tariff goes through, it is going to be an enormous benefit to the agriculturist, and he asked for some proof of the Free Trade position in regard to this. Surely, if he casts his thoughts over all the places in the world where there are tariffs and have been for years on a very much higher scale than anything that is contemplated in this Schedule—America, for instance—it has not done anything to improve the conditions of agriculture. Is agriculture in such a flourishing condition that the hon. Baronet can afford to say that, if we impose a tariff on some foodstuffs, the unemployed workers in the industry will be benefited? As a mater of fact—and this is a fact and not merely a statement of opinion—in every country in the world where tariffs have been tried the agricultural position is worse than it is here. There is direct evidence in every country in the world of the failure of tariffs to
    510
    do anything beneficial for the agricultural worker. I can speak from experience of the poorer workers, having lived amongst them in the same way that they live. They are going to suffer very keenly indeed as a consequence of this breach of pledge by the Government and their supporters. There is another class which has not been referred to. Many Members have shown an interest, I believe an honest interest, in the past in war pensioners and others in a similar position with fixed incomes, who are going to be seriously hit as a consequence of the increase that will follow these taxes on food.
    We have been twitted with the wide terms of the Amendment. It has been said that all foodstuffs are included in it. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed to a number of foodstuffs that are already taxed. On many other occasions, in these and other Debates, when a Minister has not felt able to meet the whole of the demands that are made in an Amendment he has promised to consider the matter and see if some concession cannot be made. In this matter we have had no such undertaking. There is no indication that they have the slightest feeling for the people on whom they are going to inflict this hardship and I feel justified in saying to them, "You are increasing the cost of living, you are starving to a greater degree than they are starving at present many hundreds of thousands of people who are as good citizens as you are by getting possession of the power that you hold, which you got by lying to the people at the election"—
    Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Es the hon. Member entitled to make a charge of that kind against Members of the House?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As far as I can make out, the hon. Member was not referring to statements made in this House. At the same time, I strongly deprecate expressions of that kind.
    Mr. McENTEE: I accept the position in the way you have put it to me. I believe that I was using a Parliamentary expression which has been used over and over again in my hearing in this House as to statements made outside. I think that you will admit that I shall be in order if I use the expression which was used by the representative of the constituency next door to my constituency—

    511
    the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—when I say that during the election they were using "terminological inexactitudes." At any rate, it is well known to scores of Members on these benches to-day that you denied that there was any intention to impose a tax upon the food of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can bring the election address of the man whom I fought in my constituency. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not get in."] Many Members would not have been here if they had dared to make the speeches in their constituencies which they have made in the House to-day. I do not think that we shall get anything out of the Government—I am expressing this opinion on the basis of the speeches which have been made—but at least I am glad to have had an opportunity of telling them that they are responsible for the starvation of men and women by the imposition of this tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I repeat that they are responsible for the starvation of men and women by the imposition of this tax, which is going to make the lives of millions of our people more difficult than at the present time.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mrs. WARD: I had no intention of rising to intervene in the Debate, but, I strongly deprecate the challenge which has been thrown out to us by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). I represent a mining constituency, and I fought my election on the Conservative policy of help for British agriculture by means of tariffs, prohibitions or quotas, and I am here with almost a 5,000 majority. When I walked into the House, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was glad to see the arrival of a woman Member, because the question of foodstuffs was being discussed, and it was essentially a woman's question. I cannot help thinking whether he would have welcomed so much the advent into the House of Commons of the wife of an unemployed agricultural worker with no unemployment pay to see the effect that this Measure is having upon the Members of Parliament who have been returned to legislate for and to help agricultural workers. It is most unjust to single out the agricultural industry as not being entitled to help or to benefit. I know that the hon. Member for West Walthamstow has every
    512
    sympathy with the agricultural worker in his plight through having low wages and no unemployment pay. The least thing that we can do is to give some hope to him and to the farmer. I question if the farmers in any other country in the world are in a worse plight than the farmers in our own country. We have listened to great exhortations not to tax the food of the people. It is ridiculous to make such statements in this House. We are not taxing the food of the people. We are not attempting to deprive the poor people of food. There is nothing in this Measure which points to a rise in food prices as a result of the Measure. Every hon. Member must be aware that food is bound to rise in price, but not as a result of this Measure. Every Member must know full well that until the prices of primary products rise, there can be no real revival in the world. We also know that when the prices of primary commodities do rise the cause will be laid at the door of this tariff policy. I hope that hon. Members who know, and are so well acquainted with, the truth, will refute the statement when they meet with it in their divisions.
    I protest strongly against the everlasting assertion that we have got here under false pretences. We are here with one thing to do. Speaking as a housewife living among the miners, knowing their conditions and the terrible straits they are in, and being returned by the miners and the miners' wives, I believe that we have been sent here to find them a job. They have sent us here to do something for them, and not to sit down and pursue the negative policy of doing nothing. When this Measure is through, I hope that every Member of the House, no matter to what party he belongs, will, instead of casting aspersions, make every effort to make this policy the great success which we believe it is going to be.
    Mr. PRICE: We have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward), but I wish to remind the Committee that while it has been claimed that the National Government made it perfectly clear that they would endeavour to remedy the difficulty with regard to food taxation, there is not a Member of the House who has yet proved that during the General Election he advo-

    513
    cated the taxation of food. The hon. Lady says that she represents a mining division. I suggest that there are other people in this House who represent mining constituencies. She suggests that she was returned with a 5,000 majority to support the National Government, even as far as the taxation of food. I would remind the hon. Lady that some Members on this side of the Committee representing mining divisions were returned with a majority of 14,000 against the taxation of food.
    During the Debate in November, when we were dealing with the Horticultural Products Bill, the Prime Minister suggested that the foodstuffs involved in the Bill were foodstuffs of luxury, and did not affect the tables of working-class people. He gave a direct indication that that was as far as the Government intended to go. Hon. Members have suggested that the taxation of food as proposed in this Measure will not increase the cost of living, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already admitted that there will be an increase in the cost of living as a result of this Bill. We ought to endeavour to tell the full truth. Hon. Members have been dealing with the free list, and in every instance where there has been a call by members of the Conservative party, Members who are supporting the National Government, that various articles should be put on the Free List, they have emphasised the fact that unless the Government did that, the cost of the particular article would be increased. That argument undoubtedly applies to food. There is not one hon. Member in this House, if hon. Members would speak the truth, not even the hon. Lady who has just spoken, who told the electorate that he or she would support the taxation of food. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" "Foreign food!"] I make the same challenge that I made in November. There is not one hon. Member who can bring an election address which will prove that he or she advocated the taxation of food. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foreign food!"]
    We have had an indication given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people of this country who are payers of direct taxation can look with hope to the reduction of Income Tax. We say
    514
    seriously that the Government intend to put an extra burden of indirect taxation upon the workers in order to relieve people who are well able to pay taxes. It has been suggested by one hon. Member that in working-class houses there is waste of food. Is it not true that in thousands of working-class homes to-day there is not sufficient food to keep body and soul together? In the mining districts, which are unprotected—we are not asking for protection—we have thousands of miners working short time, thousands unemployed, depending upon the cuts which have been made by the Conservative party and the National Government in their unemployment pay, who are finding difficulty in keeping body and soul together. Regardless of the balancing of the Budget or of the balancing of trade, no case has been made out for the taxation of the food of the people. With all the difficulties that confront the country, there is still sufficient wealth to meet our financial difficulties without imposing heavier burdens on the food of the people. I suggest very seriously to the Government that if they carry out the pledges of the Prime Minister and of leading Members of the Government they will withdraw the articles which are to be subjected to tax and put them into the Free List, particularly those relating to the food of the people.
    No party is prepared to make a bigger contribution to the reorganisation of agriculture than our party, but we would go about it the right way. It is not many years since agriculture was given a concession under a Bill that was introduced by the Conservative party. They were released from local taxation. Did the agricultural labourer get any benefit from that? I know of many instances where the rents went up and the landlords got the benefit. The landlords will get the benefit again. If the hon. Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) has any sympathy with the agricultural labourer she will realise that, if he is to get his rights, we shall have to nationalise the land. I support the Amendment heartily and I hope that it will be carried.
    Dr. O'DONOVAN: There is nothing so dead as a dead election. Those who resurrect a dead election must be still suffering from that unhappy disease which affects us all but from which we most of us recover quickly, namely, election fever.

    515
    If election fever be maintained more than a certain length of time, it has, I think hon. Members will agree with me, certain mental complications, and the worst of those complications, due to prolonged election fever, is the delusion or the illusion that a man suffering from that disease is a better man than his fellows. By a happy chance I have had the pleasure of listening to-night to the hon. Member who, with me, represents or misrepresents Stepney. He fought perhaps one of the most courageous fights in the history of modern elections. With the recollection of that fight in his mind, he dared this House to imitate Daniel and to go once more among the lions, the voters. But that daring is quite unnecessary, for in my part of that constituency I can be looked upon as the one brave man, unknown to my colleague, who did mention food taxes repeatedly to the poor, and survived. When I was asked whether I was in favour of food taxes, I truthfully said that I disapproved, like any born Irishman, of all taxes, but I pointed out to the simple poor, who have been so sandbagged and hocussed, that if they did not vote for me, by Christmas time they would have the nourishing diet of black bread and cabbage soup. I also pointed out to them that they would rather have money in their pockets to buy food than to have black bread and cabbage soup with no prospect of relief.
    Another danger of prolonged election fever is a delusion that seizes upon the patient, the idea that he can read the hearts and minds of other men, and pass moral judgments. When one perfectly innocent Member of this House ventured to-night to remark upon waste, the vials of wrath were poured upon him. He was held up to odium as a "Tory type of mind." What is wrong with the Tory type of mind? It was born of woman, as every other type of mind. Like every other type of mind, it goes through the vicissitudes of life, it is moved by all the wicked human passions and good intentions, and it dies and goes to judgment, as other types of minds.
    I can quite understand that there is a party in existence still suffering from that fever and believing in the old religious tag, that work is the curse of Adam; but, those of us who have the Tory type of mind accept that curse and try to keep
    516
    cheerful under it. We have been told to-night that only one party is really and truly keen upon feeding the people of this country. What is the record of that party in my own constituency? I am here, I do believe, because, filled with brotherly love, that party turned off the electric current from the bakers' shops in my constituency, shut the docks and paralysed the organised transport of food. We are told that the working people will not stand a tax upon food. That is a phrase worthy of a wretched company promoter. There is no proposal that has come from the Labour benches for ill-digested social services, misconceived and expensive, that does not raise the rates and taxes and makes every mouthful of food, indirectly, dearer. And that pill of increased prices is no easier to swallow because it is coated in rates and taxes, bailiffs and Brixton Prison.
    I suggest that a very ill-service has been done to the character of decent poor English people to-night by the suggestion that their morals and character are insulted by a short disquisition on waste. Waste is an infirmity to which I am subject. Waste is an infirmity from which the whole of the human race is suffering. The stewards of institutions, the matrons of hospitals, housewives and workmen, realise the curse of waste; and it is but chloroform for the simple to suggest that, a mention of waste in this House is typical of an iniquitous Tory type of mind.
    We have heard to-night, in beautiful Welsh accents, the suggestion that the consumer only should be considered. If this were a Parliament for the care only of consumers it would be a Parliament for the protection of parasites, for the consumer who does not produce has little right to live the allotted span of life. It has been suggested, not once but repeatedly, that the food of the poor is to be taxed in order that the Income Tax of the rich might be mitigated. I say as a representative of the poorest and as one who spends his working life amongst them, that that is a counterfeit coin of political polemics. It does not need a Socialist or a Labour party to tell us for the first time in our lives to-night that housewives watch every penny. Every Tory housewife watches the penny, even the wives of Socialists and Labour men know that there is a nimble penny which

    517
    sometimes finds its way to the dogs, and to the cinema, and no crime would be committed if it went in search of food.
    Furthermore, no one has suggested yet that the health of the poor would not benefit if they eat more fresh English food rather than transported foreign and aged diets. I would refer once more to that historical and interesting diet of pearls. Pearls in history have been a food for sick queens, if dissolved in vinegar. We have been told in very self-righteous accents that vested interests can coerce Governments. That is either a very nasty statement or it means nothing at all. If vested interests can coerce Governments unduly, then the suggestion is that those who reach power and position clothed in a Tory mantle have a heart that is blacker than their brothers' and a conscience that is more venal. That as a suggestion must be born of the minds of those who are familiar with venality. But there is one other point. If vested interests can coerce Governments in any innocent use of the words, what Government has not been coerced by the vested interests of trade unions and conferences. If we are all guilty, let us hang together and not separately. Lastly, if we are to be reduced to starvation by the poor thinking, as is alleged, of my party, I would remind hon. Members that in the siege of Paris those who starved fed on rats, and there is one party which, if it ever seeks a coat of arms, will put rats and ratting as its motto on its armorial badge, for we remember that when chaos and crisis marched on England, a crisis which in the end meant starvation for the poor, those who trade upon the hearts and needs of the poor "ratted."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to point out one thing in the few moments that remain. I have not time to follow the hon. Member in his picturesque similes. He is too great an authority on parasites for
    me to venture to follow him, nor do I know whether they can be cured by pills wrapped in Brixton Prison. But I do want to point out that there seems to be some doubt whether the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty will raise the price of foodstuffs. There can be no doubt on that point after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. Let me remind hon. Members of what the right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading. He was being teased by his own back benchers as to the little he was doing for agriculture, and this was his reply:
    "If we cast our minds back again to 12 months ago, what farmer in February of last year could possibly have expected that to-day he would see given to him not only a certain 10 per cent., but also a possible additional duty upon his oats, his eggs, poultry, butter, milk, cheese and canned meat."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1602, Vol. 261.]
    I would like to know where right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the farmer is going to get the 10 per cent. I suggest that the only place from which the farmer can get the 10 per cent. is from the people who consume these commodities, and the reason why he is being given the 10 per cent. is that the ad valorem duty is going to put up the price by 10 per cent.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Rot.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member who says "rot" must have his fight out in the Lobby with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am only quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words; I agree with them entirely, and I think that his statement ought to be accepted by the Committee as a perfectly clear statement that it is the intention of this Bill to raise the prices of these foods by 10 per cent. and that that will be the effect of it.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 308.

    Division No. 87.]

    AYES.

    [10.26 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Curry, A. C.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Daggar, George

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Batey, Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Bernays, Robert

    Edwards, Charles

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Mabane, William

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

    Hirst, George Henry

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Soper, Richard

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hopkinson, Austin

    McKeag, William

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Janner, Barnett

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Jenkins. Sir William

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

    Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

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

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Parkinson. John Allen

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Price, Gabrie:

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Lawson, John James

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    Leonard, William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Collins, Sir Godfrey

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

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Colville, Major David John

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir. William (Armagh)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

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

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolle

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Atkinson, Cyril

    Crossley, A. C.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Keneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Balniel, Lord

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Hillman, Dr. George B.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Denville, Alfred

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

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

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Donner, P. W.

    Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

    Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hornby, Frank

    Betterton. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

    Eady, George H.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Eastwood, John Francis

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

    Boothby, Robert John Graham

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Borodale, Viscount

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Hutchison, w. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Elusion, Captain George Sampson

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Elmley, Viscount

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Buchan, John

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Law, Richard K, (Hull, S. W.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Leckie, J. A.

    Burghtey, Lord

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Burnett, John George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Levy, Thomas

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Liddall, waiter S.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

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

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Campbell, Rear-Adml. G (Burnley)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcol n

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Goff, Sir Park

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Carver, Major William H.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Greene, William P. C.

    McLean, Major Alan

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Grimston, R. V.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Chotzner, Alfred James

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hales, Harold K.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    520

    521

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Remer, John R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. {Croydon, N.)

    Rentoul Sir Gervais S.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Milne, Charles

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Templeton, William P.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Rosbotnam, S. T.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Thompson, Luke

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Train, John

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Normand, Wilfrid Guild

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Nunn, William

    Scone, Lord

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Selley, Harry R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey M.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Patrick, Colin M.

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

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Penny, Sir George

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Petherick, M.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M,

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ramsden, E.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Rankin, Robert

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    and Mr. Womersley.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Question, "That this, as amended, be the Third Schedule to the Bill" put, and agreed to.

    It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th February, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will instruct the Public Bill Office to reprint this Schedule in the most convenient form.
    Second Schedule (Recommendation and Allowance of Drawback) agreed to.
    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Supplementary Provisions as to Imperial Preference.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 20, line 34, leave out paragraph 1.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    In page 21, line 9, after the second word "duty," insert the words:
    "as being goods consigned from and manufactured in a part of the British Empire."
    In line 10, after the word "in," insert the words "a part of."
    In line 12, leave out the words "the result of labour," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "derived from materials grown or produced or from work done."
    In line 13, after the word "within," insert the words "a part of."
    In line 13, at the end, insert the words:
    "and for the purpose of this paragraph the value of any goods shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, be taken to be their value as ascertained in accordance with the regulations aforesaid.
    In line 14, leave out from the word "satisfied," to the first word "that," in line 16.
    In line 16, leave out the second word "that," and insert instead thereof the word "any."
    In line 17, after the word "in," insert the words "a part of."
    In line 19, after the word "in," insert the words "a part of."
    In line 21, leave out the words "as aforesaid," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "as being goods consigned from and manufactured in a part of the British Empire."
    In line 23, after the word "in," insert the words "a part of."
    In line 28, after the word "in," insert the words "a part of."
    In line 38, after the word "in," insert the words "a part of."—[Mr. Runciman.]
    Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th February.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 33.]
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes before Eleven o' Clock.

  POTATO INDUSTRY (REORGANSATION COMMISSION).
  POTATO INDUSTRY (REORGANSATION COMMISSION).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  WORKS OF ART (IMPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS).
  WORKS OF ART (IMPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS).
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ALLOCATION OF ROOMS).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ALLOCATION OF ROOMS).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MEMEL DIRECTORATE).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MEMEL DIRECTORATE).
EDUCATION.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
  WELSH LANGUAGE.
  WELSH LANGUAGE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES EXTENSION BILL. [H I]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. The reason for it is that the Attorney-General's Report had not been received in time, and therefore we have to ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

WOKKSOP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (MAIDSTONE EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (SITTING BOURNE AND MILTON) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-committment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with this Bill and wish to see it passed, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 1 (2) and (3). Subsection (2) says:
"An order made under this section which renders lawful the killing of grey seals during their breeding season may contain such regulations, if any, as the Minister or the Secretary of State thinks fit for prohibiting, during such period as may be specified in the order, the killing of grey seals…"
Subsection (3) goes on to state that:
"Before any order is made under this section, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty-eight days during the Session of Parliament…"
I understand that when this Bill was before your Lordships' House and another place last year there was some considerable trouble as to what should be the period during which the order should lie upon the Table of each House. Originally the usual twenty-eight days was inserted in the Bill. In your Lordships' House, at the instance of Lord Danesfort, it was made forty-eight days and in another place that period was adhered to.
It seems to me that either it is right to give power to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to vary the close season or it is not. If it is right I submit that forty-eight days makes it practically impossible for the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, working together, to modify the order in most cases, because forty-eight days during a Session of Parliament is so long that in practice it will take the power away from them. Therefore either you should put in a reasonable time—the usual time, namely, twenty-eight days—or you should cut out this provision altogether. Either they are to be trusted to make this modification and you should then put in a reasonable time, or, if they are not to be trusted and you are trying to stop them by putting in these forty-eight days

657
which is unduly long, then the time ought to be cut out altogether. But to try to clip the wings of these Departments to do something which in principle apparently Parliament desires them to do is neither logical nor sound.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I will of course represent to those responsible for this Bill the points raised by the noble Lord, but I must point out to him that this was really a compromise. There was an endeavour made in another place to get the period extended still further and I think those responsible for the passage of this Bill are desirous to adhere to the time now laid down. But I will of course investigate the matter and let the noble Lord know whether any further compromise can be arrived at.
LORD LOVAT:My Lords, I should like, to raise the question of whether it would not be better in limitation Bills of this sort to entrust more authority to the county councils, who, after all, know very much more about these matters than the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the county to which I have the honour to belong we know a good deal about, the seal. We have county representatives who come from the very areas where the killing of seals goes on, aid I do feel that all these proposals, such as bird preservation and seal preservation, would get much more easily through your Lordships' House and through another place, if more authority was delegated to the county councils, who really know something about them, rather than to officials, however eminent, in a central position like Edinburgh, who very often know absolutely nothing at all. I do not mean to press this point, but I suggest that when your Lordships are considering any Amendment to meet the noble Lord's wishes you should consider the question as to whether a delegation in some shape might not be well worth considering.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly (the EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair).
Bill reported without amendment.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANE OUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could answer two questions which I would like to address to him. The first is what the business will be next week after Monday. The second arises out of the debate we had last week on the events in the Far East. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether, in view of the repeated reports in the Press as to the contents of the Japanese reply to the Note of the twelve Powers, that reply has been yet received by His Majesty's Government, and if so when it will be published. If the reply has not been received, I do not know if the noble and learned Viscount could tell us how it is that the consents of the Note seem to be known in Tokyo.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, so far as business is concerned, on Monday we are meeting at a quarter to three and hoping to get all stages of the Import Duties Bill. After that we have at present no Orders of the Day set down for next week. I am told there is likely to be a Motion by one of my noble friends on the question of Waterloo bridge, but that Motion has not as yet made its appearance on the Paper. I think it is probably going to be set down for one day next week. There may be some small Bill which will be ready from the Home Affairs Committee, but there will not be anything of substance or anything controversial so far as the Government are concerned during next week after Monday.
As to the second question, the noble Lord was good enough to intimate to me he was proposing to ask this question; accordingly I have communicated with the Foreign Office and the answer which I have from them is that no reply whatsoever from Japan to the League of Nations has yet been received by the Foreign Office. Of course, it is possible that there

659
may be a reply on its way to Geneva, but if so there is no intimation to that effect of which we are aware. So far as the Foreign Office can tell, the forecasts which have appeared in some newspapers—I do not know whether they are as to the probable or as to the actual con
660
tents of the Note—are quite unauthorised, and at any rate we know nothing of the source from which the report emanates, or as to the accuracy of that report.
House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.