asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the British flint-glass manufacturers recently made an application for the imposition of a duty on certain types of imported glassware which are used to a considerable extent by British Silver and electro-plate manufacturers in Birmingham and Sheffield; whether his Department referred it to a committee of inquiry; whether, on the assembling of that committee to consider the application, the flint-glass manufacturers requested to be allowed to withdraw the application; and whether, in view of the fact that the announcement of the terms of reference of the committee in question involved the opponents of the application in considerable expense and inconvenience during the Christmas season in preparing evidence in support of their contentions, he will undertake that in future such applications shall not be entertained except on the understanding that they will, in fact, be proceeded with before any committee?

The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that the application has not, according to my information, been withdrawn, but postponed for a period by arrangement between the British Flint Glass Manufacturers' Association and the Birmingham and Sheffield manufacturers referred to. It is, of course, open to the Committee to hear evidence on this portion of their reference from other manufacturers should they so desire. No circumstances have arisen which suggest the desirability of a rule of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

What is the position of those who opposed this application? They have brought their witnesses and gone to the trouble of an inquiry, and are told it is postponed. Is there any compensation to be given to them?

I have just said it is of course open to the Committee if they desire to hear evidence on this portion of their reference from other manufacturers.

As they did not do so, what redress have the opponents got after having gone to the expense of preparing their case, bringing witnesses from Sheffield and Birmingham to London, and then being told it is not proposed to hold the inquiry?

I have explained that by an arrangement between the manufacturers referred to and the trade, the inquiry has been postponed—not withdrawn.

That was not made public. Counsel and witnesses were present to commence the proceedings.

The hon. Member must leave that to the discretion of the Committee.