Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 144: debated on Wednesday 13 July 1921

House of Commons

Wednesday, July 13, 1921

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

Private Business

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sheffield Extension) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Russia

Refugees

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost of the Don Cadet School since it came under British control to date; and why financial aid is given to these refugees, in view of the fact that no financial aid was given by any British Government to the refugees from Czarist tyranny?

:Is it in order to describe as Czarist tyranny the Government of our friend and ally the late Emperor of Russia which preceded the present dispensation?

:It is a doubtful point, but I would ask hon. Members not to put any insinuations of their own in their questions, and to confine themselves to questions of fact.

:The Don Cadet School was not dealt with as a separate unit till June, 1920, and the cadets were included with the other refugees at Tel-el-Kebir. No figures are, therefore, available from February to June, 1920. From 5th June, 1920, to 2nd July, 1921, the total cost of the school, inclusive of all staff and administration, was £23,680, equivalent to 2s. 9d per head per day. As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government assumed a certain responsibility for the refugees now under British control.

:We hope to repatriate all the members of this school, together with all the other refugees, as soon as possible, or else to establish them in Serbia.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that scores of thousands of Russian refugees, principally women and children, in Constantinople are starving and homeless; and whether any action is being taken to disperse this vast indigent population?

:I am well aware of the destitute condition of the Russian refugees in Constantinople. In view of the condition of these unfortunate people, both in Constantinople and elsewhere, the League of Nations are considering a scheme for the solution of this problem.

General Wrangel

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that General Baron Wrangel has an office and headquarters in Constantinople, and enjoys the assistance, protection, and countenance of the British authorities in that city; that the officers and other persons acting in General Wrangel's interests and using these offices are openly plotting against the Government of Russia; and whether the British authorities in Constantinople propose to suppress this organisation in view of the signing of the trade agreement with Russia on 16th March last?

:There is no foundation whatever for any of the hon. and gallant Member's allegations.

:Does the hon. Gentleman deny that this officer, Wrangel, has an office in Constantinople in which his partisans work? Why is that permitted in a city which is under our police jurisdiction?

:I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may accept my information which is to the effect that there is no foundation for any of these statements.

:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any information perhaps he will impart it to me.

South Manchuria (Currency)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what information he has with regard to reports in the newspapers to the effect that the Japanese Government intend to enforce the use of Japanese currency in South Manchuria; whether representations have been received from the Chinese Government on this matter; and if the Japanese Government has explained the position to His Majesty's Government?

:The Japanese Government of the Kwantung leased territory have issued a notice requiring the use of a gold standard for all transactions on the Dairen Staple Produce Exchange. I have no other information on the subject and no communication has been received from the Japanese Government.

Peace Treaties

Bulgaria

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the present facilities given under the Peace Treaty for access to the sea; what use has Bulgaria made of such facilities; and has he any information indicating that the policy of the Greek Government will be to frustrate Bulgaria in having a fair and recognised use of the ports by which Bulgarian goods find exit on the Ægean?

:I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 31st May last. Under Article 48 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, the Powers undertook to ensure the economic outlet of Bulgaria to the Ægean Sea. The conditions of this guarantee were elaborated in a subsequent Treaty signed at Sevres on 10th August, 1920, which, although it is, like the Treaty of Peace, with Turkey also signed at Sevres, not yet ratified, I am prepared to lay on the Table of the House. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the Bulgarian Government have as yet made no serious effort to avail themselves of the facilities offered. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

:May we take that there is no real ground for the complaint that Bulgarian goods cannot find an exit on the Ægean?

Labour Clauses

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the increasing interest in and anxiety of all sections of the community for the widespread application of the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty, what steps are being taken to secure the appointment of experienced labour representatives on the British ambassadorial staffs and in consular offices; and if he will say if there is one such representative at the present moment?

:His Majesty's representatives and Consular officers abroad, and their staffs, are entrusted with the duty of watching and reporting on all industrial and labour questions, and I should hot feel justified, especially in view of the vital need for economy at the present time, in recommending the appointment of officers exclusively for this purpose. In this connection I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question which he asked on 7th August, 1919.

:Is the income qualification for the appointment of these officers still in force?

:There are no such officers, but the income obligation would not exist if they were appointed.

Mandates (Syria and Palestine)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Mandate for the French to occupy Syria will be in substantially the same form as our Mandate to occupy Palestine, and neither country will have more onerous conditions imposed upon it than upon the other?

:The proposed French Mandate for Syria has not, I understand, been published. But the conditions of Palestine are in some respects so different from those of Syria that this difference will doubtless be reflected in the terms of the two Mandates. As to which will involve the more onerous responsibility, I should hesitate to pronounce.

German War Criminals (Trial)

asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to inform the House whether the French Government has withdrawn its representatives from Leipzig, owing to the farcical sentences passed on the war criminals?

:Yes, Sir. The French Government have taken the action indicated in the question.

:Is it the intention of the British Government to take joint action with the French Government, and to insist upon these war criminals being tried before an Allied Court, in view of sentences that are so farcically inadequate?

:Before that question is answered, does the hon. Gentleman concur in the description of the last part of the question as to sentences being "farcical"?

:That is an argumentative adjective which ought not to have appeared in the question.

:I think due notice should be given of that question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

:Is my hon. Friend aware of a very strong public feeling in the direction indicated by the question, that the British Government, in consonance with its own dignity, should take some steps to prevent a recurrence of sentences of this kind?

:Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this question has been repeatedly asked and that no satisfactory reply has yet been given?

German Reparation (Dyestuffs)

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the weight of colouring matter and synthetic dyestuffs received from Germany under the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles up to 30th June, 1921, and at what value these were credited to Germany; and will he say what is the weight distributed to consumers and the total amount charged therefor?

:The total quantity of synthetic dyestuffs and colouring matter received from Germany under the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles up to the 30th June, 1921, was 4,053 tons; the value credited to Germany up to the 31st March, beyond which date figures have not yet been furnished by the Reparation Commission, was approximately 110,000,000 paper marks, to which must be added cost of carriage, storage and distribution. The total sales, including those to India and the Dominions, amount to about 1,068 tons, of a value of £710,643.

Trawler "Chalcedony" (Arrest)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Hull trawler "Chalcedony," skipper Joseph Lowery, D.S.C., was arrested on 21st June by an Icelandic gunboat whilst fishing eight nautical miles off the coast of Iceland and taken captive into Reykjavik; that the skipper protested, but was advised by His Britannic Majesty's consul at Reykjavik to plead guilty as he would be more lightly dealt with by the court; and that the trawler was fined 10,000 kronen and her gear and catch confiscated; whether the British consul is an Icelander; why no British subject has been appointed consul; whether any representations have been made to the royal Danish Government with regard to this harsh treatment of a British vessel and of a skipper who served with distinction in the War; and what steps are being taken to protect British fishing vessels engaged on their lawful occasions off the coast of Iceland in future?

:The trawler "Chalcedony" was arrested exactly on the three mile limit line, and was charged with having fished within that line. At the time of his arrest the skipper signed a declaration that he had been fishing for three hours, and could not show that he was outside territorial waters. He admitted to the British vice-consul that he might have been fishing, though unintentionally, within the limit. As the evidence against him appeared very clear, the vice-consul pointed out to him that, if he pleaded guilty, he would probably receive the lowest penalty under the Icelandic trawling law, whereas, if he let the case go to trial, he risked the infliction of a heavier fine and delay to his ship. The skipper acted on this advice and received the lowest fine. Of two German trawlers arrested at the same time on a similar charge, one, which pleaded guilty, received the same penalty as the "Chalcedony," while the other, which let the case go to trial, was found guilty and had to pay an additional 5,000 kroner. No case would seem to arise from this incident for representations to the Danish Government.

:I understand that the present British consul in Iceland is an unsalaried official, and is a native of Iceland.

:Why not take steps to employ an English consul to look after our interests?

Mexico

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any request from the Mexican authorities for the recognition of the present Mexican Government; and, if not, whether he has, without that request having been received, intimated to the Mexican authorities the terms on which Britain will be prepared to offer recognition?

:No direct request for recognition has been received from the present Mexican Government, who are understood to take the view that their recognition cannot properly be made the subject of a bargain. There is no reason to believe that they are under any misapprehension as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the matter. May I appeal to hon. Members to exercise some restraint in putting questions on this very delicate matter? I am afraid that this constant exchange of question and answer can do no good, and may do real harm.

:Has an intimation been given to the Mexican Government that the British Government are prepared to recognise it as soon as the Mexican Government recognises its liabilities?

Chinese Eastern Railway

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken to secure British participation in the new issue of debentures to be issued by the Chinese Eastern Railway?

:It is not yet possible to judge whether any special steps would be practicable or desirable.

Royal Navy

Capital Ships, Home Waters

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the cost of maintaining a capital ship in full commission in home waters?

:I would refer the Noble and gallant Mem- ber to the detailed information given in the reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 6th July.

South America Squadron

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what will be the annual saving represented by the abolition of the South-East Coast of America squadron; was the withdrawal of this squadron recommended by the naval staff; and, if so, on what grounds?

:The withdrawal of the South America squadron will effect a net annual saving of about £775,000. The net saving in the current financial year during which this change is being effected is expected to be in the neighbourhood of approximately £760,000. With regard to the remainder of the question, the Board of Admiralty acquiesced with reluctance in the Measure which was dictated entirely by financial stringency.

:Are we to understand that the withdrawal of the squadron was dictated solely by financial stringency and not by the needs of the Empire?

:No. In view of the great financial stringency the thing that involves the least strategical disadvantage is done.

:Is the Empire likely to suffer owing to the withdrawal of this squadron?

ManœUvres (Compensation)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will guarantee the payment of compensation for the loss of crab-pots occasioned by the Fleet during the forthcoming manœuvres of the Fleet in Torbay?

:The Admiralty are unable to admit any liability to meet claims due to alleged damage to crab-pots by His Majesty's ships, but it is customary to give careful consideration to such claims and to judge them on their merits.

:Does my hon. Friend realise that July is the best month for this class of fishing, and that this is a serious matter, considering the present state of the fishing industry? These men have to pay for the crab-pots which are lost.

:I fully realise that, and I hope my answer did not suggest that consideration could not be given to claims. I do not go further than to say we do not admit formal liability.

H.M.S. "Victory."

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention to break up H.M.S. "Victory."

:I assure the right hon. and gallant Member that the Admiralty have no intention of breaking up H.M.S. " Victory." I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that there is no foundation for the rumours which have been circulating that this historic ship is in immediate danger of sinking at her moorings, through deterioration of the structure. At the same time, her condition it at present engaging the careful consideration of the Admiralty, in order that all necessary steps may be taken to preserve her.

Government Staffs and Offices

Admiralty

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many officials at the Admiralty are in receipt of over £1,000 per annum, including War bonus; how many naval officers actually employed at the Admiralty, not including those serving in outside appointments, are in receipt of over £1,000 per annum; and what were the respective numbers in 1914?

:Can the hon. Gentleman account for this enormous increase as compared with 1914?

:I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that before 1914 there was a large number of officers and salaried men just below the £1,000 limit, who are now above it.

:Does not the answer indicate that a false answer was given by the Admiralty in a recent communication to a certain hon. Member on the same subject?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the approximate numbers engaged in his Department who are entitled to the following annual holidays, exclusive of Bank and other holidays: four weeks' annual leave and over 28 working days' annual leave?

:The approximate numbers are as follow:

Civilian officers.

583 entitled to 24–28 days' annual leave.

808 entitled to over 28 days' annual leave.

Naval officers.

338 entitled to 42 days' annual leave.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in commercial circles the customary holiday is a fortnight or, sometimes, three weeks, and will be explain why, in the Civil Service, so much longer holidays are customarily granted?

Civil Service

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the reconstitution of the Whitley Councils dealing with Civil Service wages and salaries in order that the councils shall not consist alone of civil servants, but shall comprise a number of independent business men, if possible employers of labour, who will represent the taxpayers' interests?

78 and 101.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) how the taxpayer is represented on the Civil Service National Council:

(2) if he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the present composition of the National Whitley Council of the Civil Service on the grounds that divergent interests, including that of the taxpayer, are not adequately represented; and if he will consider the advisability of setting up a Committee to inquire and report on this question?

:Since the questions addressed by the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford bear on the same subject, I should be glad if I might be allowed to reply to them at the same time. I could not accept the suggestion that the interest of the taxpayer is not represented by the official side of the Civil Service Whitley Council, as now constituted, nor could I agree that the official side, whatever its composition, should act otherwise than under the directions of the Government and as a body responsible to the Government, who are themselves responsible to this House. Whilst I see no occasion for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter, I should be prepared to give careful consideration to the question of including in the official side a certain number of Members who are not civil servants.

:Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be a better arrangement if the taxpayer were represented by a certain number of Members of this House, rather than by permanent officials, who, with all respect to them, have really a direct interest in the matters which they recommend?

:In reply to that, all I can say at the moment is that the same careful consideration which is given to the major issue will be given to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion as to the details.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the lavish bonuses paid to civil servants were a factor in the determined resistance of the miners, and that this is a matter of the very utmost importance?

asked the Minister of Labour whether six points in the increase in the cost of living index figure for June of 119 is caused by the increased taxation of commodities; and whether, seeing that the effect of taking for purposes of bonus for the Civil Service the figure 119 instead of 113 is to relieve civil servants from the increase in indirect taxation, which other consumers have to pay, this question can be reconsidered?

:I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part I would refer to my reply on the 29th June to the hon. and gallant Member for the Henley Division of Oxfordshire in which I stated that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take an early opportunity of making a statement on the question of Civil Service bonus.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has had any inquiries made as to the way in which the Dominions, the principal Continental countries, and the United States of America have dealt with the increased cost of living in so far as it affected Civil Service wages and salaries; if so, will he give the information so obtained to the House; and, if such information is not in the possession of his Ministry, will he take steps to obtain and circulate it?

:I have not made the inquiries referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards the last part of the question, I am making preliminary inquiries of the kind referred to, and if the information required is readily available or can be collected without undue cost, I shall be happy to communicate it to my hon. and gallant Friend.

:Does my right hon. Friend expect to have it before the end of the Session?

Ministry of Labour (Divisional Controller)

asked the Minister of Labour what extra duties are involved in the elevation of a divisional officer to the position of Divisional Controller of the south-western area; whether the original salary of £400 is now £1,690; whether the expenses of administration in this area have been further added to by two officers at a salary of £900 and £700 respectively, both of which are filled by military men; and whether these men have any industrial experience for these responsible positions?

:With the permission of the hon. Member, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

As I explained in reply to the question put to me on 29th June by my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Bristol the salaries of all the nine Divisional Controllers in Great Britain have during the last year been raised from a scale of £850–£950 a year to £1,000 a year exclusive of bonus, and at the moment the salary plus bonus is at the rate of £1,690 per annum. The salary of these officers was on a scale of £400–£600 for two years subsequent to the inception of employment exchanges in 1910 when the exchanges were in their infancy and there was no unemployment insurance. The recent revision of salaries has been consequent on the great increase of work and responsibility resulting from the extension of unemployment insurance. No additional appointments of the nature suggested have been made in the southwestern or other Divisions, but for the reasons indicated above the salaries of the Deputy Divisional Controllers and the 1st Class Inspectors in the nine Divisions have been increased from £650–£750 to £700–£800 and from £500–£600 to £600–£700 respectively. It happens that all three of the officers referred to in this Division have had military service. All are experienced civil servants and have been in the service of this and other Departments for 11, 19, and 11 years respectively.

Ministry of Agriculture

asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total cost of administration of the Ministry in the years 1913, 1916, 1919, and in the present year, as estimated; and what were the totals of the number of employés in the Ministry in those years, respectively.

:I have been asked to reply. The total cost of the administration of the Ministry in the years referred to, including salaries, travelling, office expenses, accommodation, etc., was £212,760, £213,567, £673,619, respectively, and in the present year as estimated, £941,373. The totals of the number of employés in the Ministry in these years were 640, 830, 2,106, and 2,023, respectively.

Dismissals

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons taken over from the respective Departments of Food Control, Shipping, and Munitions have been dismissed between 1st April and 1st July; how many are still in his Department; and how many part-time servants so taken over still remain under him?

:The staffs of the Food Department and the late Ministry of Shipping were reduced between 1st April and 1st July by 313 persons. These two Departments at present employ 1,853 persons, of whom 9, employed in the Food Department, are part-time officers. Questions regarding the staff of the late Ministry of Munitions should be addressed to the Treasury.

:Is it not the fact that a considerable number of experienced men were cleared out of the Ministry of Food and their places taken by inexperienced civil servants from other Departments?

:Does not the reply leave out that part of the question which asks as to the number of persons taken over from these respective Departments?

:I think it refers to the part-time civil servants taken over to the number of nine.

Unemployment

Domestic Service

asked the Minister of Labour whether, by his direction, a court of referees has been formed to decide as to whether an unemployed person who is offered work of a domestic nature is entitled to refuse the same and to continue to draw unemployment benefit; if so, will he say if this court consists of an equal number representing employers' associations, such as the Private Domestic Employers' Association, and those who can represent persons who are eligible for or desirous of undertaking domestic work, with an independent chairman; and will he give the names of members at present forming such court or courts?

:Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that, may I ask him also to state, in regard to the first part of the question, if there is any Regulation in regard to the maximum number of hours per day, and number of days per week and the minimum wage, which would justify the refusal of an individual to accept an occupation and would justify the Minister in continuing to grant benefit in that case?

:Ninety-five courts of referees have been set up in the United Kingdom under Section 13 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. The courts cover defined geographical areas and deal with all cases arising in these areas. Courts have not been set up to deal exclusively with particular occupations. In accordance with the terms of the Act, each court consists of an impartial chairman and two persons representing employers and insured persons respectively, drawn from panels appointed for this purpose upon the recommendation of local employment committees. I am not aware that any local employment committee has recommended for appointment a representative of the association referred to in the question.

:Does that mean that domestic service will be put on the same level as any ordinary occupation?

:My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken. The court of referees has nothing to do with the Trade Boards at all.

:May I have a reply to my question regarding the hours and the minimum wage?

:It arises out of the first part of the question already put to the right hon. Gentleman.

:Is it not a fact that if these people get unemployment benefit at the present time they are fully entitled to it, after getting past these committees, and that it is miraculous— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in addition to the action taken by advisory committees of Employment Exchanges with regard to the conditions of employment of young persons, officials of Employment Exchanges lay down conditions of service when answering mistresses of households who may have applied for domestic help; and will he say if this course is pursued with his sanction?

:As explained to my hon. and gallant Friend on 4th July, officials of Employment Exchanges do not lay down conditions of service. Their action in this connection is confined to giving effect to the conditions (if any) formulated by the Juvenile Advisory Committee with regard to boys and girls under 18.

:Does that mean that if the person be above 18 no condition whatever is made?

EmployæS (Suspension)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that several firms in London are in the habit, when short of work, of suspending their employés for an indefinite period, while retaining their unemployment insurance cards, thus preventing them from claiming unemployment benefit; and whether, if he is satisfied that such is the case, he will, if necessary, introduce legislation to prevent this practice, which places employés in a very difficult position in so far as claiming unemployment benefit is concerned?

:I will make inquiry at once if my hon. Friend will supply me with sufficient particulars.

Census (Advertisements)

asked the Minister of Health if it was with his consent that the official notice relating to the change of dates issued with the Census papers in some areas, and signed by the Registrar-General, was utilised on the reverse side for advertising a Sunday paper; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of official communications being so utilised, especially when, as in the present case, the subject-matter is a cause of offence to the consciences of many of His Majesty's subjects?

:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my previous replies to questions on the same subject by the hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) and the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea, South (Viscount Curzon) on the 16th and 21st ultimo respectively.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman please reply to the latter part of my question?

:If the hon. and gallant Member will read the reply I have already given, he will find the question is fully covered.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave me an answer on this subject—

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his answer to me, which has already been alluded to, reference was not made to any question of conscience whatever?

:Is the privilege of advertising upon papers of this kind offered for public tender and did others have the opportunity of tendering for it?

Housing

Workmen's Houses, Greater London

asked the Minister of Health how many new workmen's houses have been erected during the last three months in the area known as Greater London and in the area outside Greater London; what is the relative increase over, say, a similar period in 1914; and what is the cause of the serious delay in building such houses?

:During the three months ended the 1st July, 3,565 houses were completed in the Greater London area under the Housing Acts of 1919, and 19,014 houses were completed in the rest of England and Wales. I have no data to show how these figures compare with the same period in 1914. Delay in the building of new houses has been due to a variety of causes, chief among which has been the scarcity of skilled labour.

Government Policy

asked the Minister of Health whether he has decided to reverse the policy of his predecessor in making provision for 300,000 new houses as a contribution towards the estimated shortage of at least 500,000 in 1919; and, if so, what is the maximum number he is prepared to sanction under the Government's various Housing Acts?

asked the Minister of Health whether the Government has decided to make no further grants for housing purposes either to local authorities or private individuals after 1st July; and, if so, if he will state why this decision was arrived at without reference to this House?

:In reply to these questions I have to say that I hope to make a general statement to-morrow on the housing policy of the Government.

:Can the right hon. Gentleman now say what day is going to be set apart for discussing that statement, in accordance with the offer made by the Leader of the House yesterday?

:I am afraid I cannot say. That is a question for the Leader of the House.

:Do we understand that the Colonial Office Vote is not to be taken to-morrow?

:No. I propose to make a statement in reply to a question tomorrow. The question as to what day the Debate takes place is, I understand, the subject of negotiations through the usual channels.

asked the Minister of Health in how many housing schemes or portions of schemes upon which any money has been spent, either in the purchase of land, preparation of lay-out, plans, engagement of architects, or agreements as to raising money, has he given instructions to stop or contemplate giving such instructions; in how many of such cases has the land been purchased; what is the amount of the money paid for the land; how many tenants have had to be compensated; what amount has been paid for such compensation; what does he propose to do, or advise local authorities to do, with the land; in how many of such cases has expense been incurred in the engagement of architects, or in the preparation of plans of lay-out or otherwise; what is the amount of such expense; in how many cases included in such schemes have local authorities made arrangements for raising the necessary funds; what will be the cost of breaking such arrangements; in how many such cases has he given instructions, or contemplates giving instructions, for contracts for roads, and sewers, or building, or other work on the site to be broken; what is the estimated cost of work already done thereon by the contractors, and the estimated amount of compensation which will be payable to such contractors whose contracts are broken; and will he, in order to ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for houses by ex-service men or ex-service women, or the widows of ex-service men, publicly invite every such person who is married and has not a permanent home to send him a postcard indicating that he or she is in need of a house?

:I am afraid that the detailed information asked for by the hon. Member is not immediately available and, as regards the Government's housing policy generally, I would ask the hon. Member to await the full statement which I have promised to make tomorrow.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many housing authorities are going to be left with large liabilities consequent upon his preventing them going forward with their building operations?

:I am not aware of anything of the kind, and if the hon. Member will wait till to-morrow, he will find that that is not the case.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the new Order shall not be acted upon until the sense of the House has been expressed?

Slum Property, Dartmouth

asked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the decision of his Department regarding the purchase of slum property in Dartmouth; and will he give the town council authority to purchase this site for the erection of flats, for which plans have already been prepared and a deposit already paid?

:As the whole question of dealing with slums in undergoing review, I am unable under the present circumstances to modify the decision conveyed to the local authority.

:Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is a wise decision, because a considerable amount of money has already been spent on the preparations for these houses, and surely, when he remembers that no place is more in need of houses than Dartmouth, he will go on with this?

:If the town council in question wishes to buy this site, why should the national taxpayer be called upon to pay for it?

:Are we to understand that the Government are going to stop the removal of all slum property?

:Not at all. If my hon. Friend will wait till to-morrow, he will see it is quite the reverse.

Overcrowding

asked the Minister of Health how many people in Great Britain are living in overcrowded conditions?

:The particulars asked for cannot be given until the results of the recent Census have been tabulated and the necessary statistics compiled therefrom by the Registrar-General.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in office said about two years ago that there were over 2,000,000 people living in overcrowded conditions, and will the Government bear this fact in mind in formulating their policy?

Becontree Estate

asked the Minister of Health whether he has definitely informed the London County Council, in connection with their housing scheme on the Becontree Estate, that they are not to contemplate any further scheme for drainage or building beyond the Ilford section or involve themselves in any commitments of any kind beyond such as are essential to the development of the portion of the scheme confined to that restricted area?

:I have informed the London County Council that it will not be possible to develop the Becontree Estate to the extent contemplated by the Council, and that in consequence a sewerage scheme for the whole estate could not be allowed to rank for financial assistance from the Exchequer. The extent to which development of this and other housing schemes of the London County Council can proceed will be considered in relation to the decision of the Government on general housing policy, which I hope to announce in the House to-morrow.

Jam Fruit

asked the, Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are quantities of Dutch strawberries coming into England, most of them with added preservative to make them travel and keep on the journey; whether London jam makers are using a great quantity of these, and refusing to buy the English little scarlet strawberry which costs the English grower 3d. per lb. to pick, paid to the English unemployed; and whether the existing powers of the Ministry of Health or of the Home Office are sufficient to compel this, foreign adulterated fruit to be sold as such when made into jam in the same way as foreign meat and margarine are declared as such to the consumer?

:I have ascertained that Dutch strawberries are being imported, and I am making inquiries as to the presence of preservatives. Any imported food which is found to be unwholesome or unfit for human consumption is liable to be seized at the ports. I have no power to require that jam made from imported fruit should be distinctively labelled.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Agriculture on representations made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. E. Gwynne) and myself, are inquiring into this whole matter of the price paid for fruit, and will he communicate with the Ministry in question to ascertain from them the information they have already received, with a view to finding out whether the allegation that there is a combine is true or not?

:Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether or not this adulterated fruit may be sold, while there is a restriction upon margarine and meat as regards the description that must be given at the time of sale?

Sanatorium Benefit

asked the Minister of Health how much has been spent under the Insurance Act since July, 1912, in the treatment of tuberculosis?

:I assume that my hon. Friend refers only to expenditure on the provision of Sanatorium Benefit for insured persons under the Insurance Acts. The amount spent in England and Wales upon the provision of Sanatorium Benefit for insured persons under the Insurance Acts from July, 1912, to the 30th April, 1921, the date on which the benefit terminated, was approximately £6,380,000.

:Does this amount include the value of services rendered for domiciliary treatment as well as sanatorium treatment?

:Does not this large expenditure largely arise from the overcrowded conditions under which people live?

National Health

asked the Minister of Health whether the latest reports received by his Department show any increase of sickness, and, if so, of what nature, due to the sustained-drought and excessive heat; and whether medical officers of health generally have, by circular or otherwise, been warned as to the need of precautionary measures against any outbreak of infectious diseases, even including, in case of need, the free distribution of disinfectants?

:I have received no such reports as are referred to in the question. I am issuing a circular to local authorities and their medical officers of health as to the danger to young children of epidemic diarrhoea in present weather conditions, and I will send the hon. Member a copy of this circular.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to warn the public against the common misconception that throwing disinfectants down the drain is an advisable thing, seeing that it often stops the septic processes on which the treatment of sewage depends?

Government Hospitality

asked the Prime Minister what the grant for the Government Entertainment Fund amounts to; and how is it allocated?

:£200,000 was voted in 1919–20 for Government Hospitality. No vote was taken this year as the unexpended balance on 31st March last was £97,000, after £35,000 had been surrendered to the Treasury. The funds are allocated as required by the First Commissioner of Works in consultation with the Minister concerned in each case and subject to Treasury control. Thus the entertainment of those attending the recent Conference was settled in con- junction with the Foreign Office; while moneys being spent on the Conferences now sitting have been determined in conjunction with the Colonial Office and India Office respectively.

:Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the comparable figure to £200,000 was for the last year before the War?

Hop and Fruit Picking, Kent

asked the Minister of Health whether the Kent Education Authority has amended its by-laws so as to permit children under 10 years of age to work with their parents in the hop fields, and children of school age to work in fruit fields for periods longer than five hours per day on any week-day on which schools are not in session; whether this was done at the instance of the Ministry of Health; if so, what are the reasons for the Ministry's action; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence of the Ministry with the Kent County Council and its education committee in the matter of the modifications in the by-laws made during this year?

:I have been asked to reply to this question. The by-laws made by the Kent Education Authority under the Employment of Children Act and confirmed by the Home Secretary in March last, allow children under 12 to be employed by their parents in hop picking during the holidays. In the by-laws as first published the exemption was, at the instance of the Home Office, restricted to children between 10 and 12 employed for five hours a day, but strong representations were made by persons interested in the welfare of hop pickers to the effect that hop picking was very beneficial to the families engaged in it, that the employment of young children was of a very light character, and that if the by-laws were confirmed as drafted they would prevent women from going to the hop fields or of taking their children with them. After careful consideration of these representations and consultation with the Ministry of Health, who con- curred in this view, the Home Secretary agreed to confirm the by-laws as amended by the education authority to meet these objections. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, but I shall be glad to show the correspondence to the hon. Member if he wishes to see it

:Is it not a fact that this limitation of these restrictions is asked for by practically the entire population engaged in hop picking?

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an immense number of children who do not come under the Kent Education Authority at all, but who go to the hop fields in the hop picking season, and will these by-laws affect them?

:Is it not a fact that these children coming from these outside districts benefit enormously by this employment?

:Yes. I think that anyone who has seen hop picking in progress will agree with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Parliamentary Registers

asked the Minister of Health what is the present cost of preparing the two half-yearly Parliamentary Registers in Great Britain; and, in view of the need for economy, whether he will consider the advisability of a return to the annual revision and publication of the Register?

:I have been asked to reply. I regret that I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Haydn Jones) on the 14th June, a copy of which I will send to my hon. Friend.

Drought (High Explosives Experiment)

asked the Prime Minister if the Government have any information from the Meteorological Office or from other sources that bears on the question of a downfall of rain being produced by the action of explosions in the air, gun-firing, or any other methods; and if, in view of the disastrous nature of the present drought to agriculture and to the food supply generally, the Government will be prepared to initiate any tentative experiments of this nature which might possibly have the effect of precipitating a downpour of rain?

:I have been asked to answer this question. Experiments on the lines suggested in the first part of the question have been carried out from time to time in various countries, but the meteorologists who reported on such experiments were of opinion that the results did not justify the suggestion that meteorological conditions are in any way influenced by the explosions. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

:Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the House any idea as to the results of the great experiment carried out last night?

Greater London (Government)

51 and 52.

asked the Minister of Health, (1) when it is proposed to appoint the Committee that is to inquire into the question of Greater London government; and, if the inquiry is not held this year, can he state if it is intended to act upon its findings during the life of the present Parliament;

(2) if, having regard to the importance of the fact that the ratepayers of districts that have received the honour of incorporation take a greater interest in public affairs, he proposes to withdraw his objections to the incorporation of Walthamstow in the event of the inquiry into the government of Greater London not being held this year?

:As has already been stated in reply to previous questions the Government are considering the question of instituting an inquiry into the local government of London and Greater London. Until a decision has been reached I am unable to add anything to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on the 6th July with regard to the incorporation of Walthamstow.

:Is it, or is it not, certain that this Committee will be appointed this year?

Royal Air Force

Publications

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether each section of the Ministry producing publications edits its own papers; if so, what are the exact duties carried out by the Central Editing Section; and whether this section is presided over by an Air Vice-Marshal?

:The editing of books in the Air Ministry is normally conducted in the section concerned. At the present time, owing to the comparatively recent creation of the Royal Air Force, an abnormally large number of new books and publications is in preparation. The Central Editing Section has been instituted as a temporary measure to secure proper co-ordination of this work, more particularly in cases in which two or more Departments are jointly concerned in the preparation of a single book, since it was found that without some such central machinery cases were occurring of overlapping or inconsistent treatment of the same subject from different aspects. The section is also charged with the actual drafting of certain books dealing with air strategy and tactics and Royal Air Force administration. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why the Publicity Section, known as the Information or Press Section, is still retained; and whether the duties of this Department, consisting of issuing notices to airmen and ground engineers, could more easily be carried out by the Departments which prepare them?

:The Publicity and Propaganda Section, which was established at the Air Ministry during the latter part of the War, was disbanded shortly after the Armistice. As I in- formed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde on 5th July, one official of the Department is responsible, amongst other duties, for the issue of official information to the Press. This conforms to the normal pre-War practice of Government Departments of having one channel for dealings with the Press, and is both economical and convenient. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, it is usually best to centralise, so far as possible, the work of editing and issuing Departmental publications, and I believe it to be so in this case.

Parachutes

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total number of parachutes owned by the Royal Air Force in England; and what percentage of the Royal Air Force aeroplanes and balloons, respectively, in this country are equipped with parachutes?

:The answer to the first part of the question is 1,943. Owing to difficulties encountered in designing satisfactory harness, it has not yet been possible to equip more than a small number of aeroplanes with parachutes, but experiments are proceeding, and satisfactory results are expected shortly. The necessary arrangements have been made so that no avoidable delay may occur. There is only one balloon in service at present, and this is equipped with parachutes.

Nieuport Nighthawks

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is intended to use Nieuport Nighthawks now in store for the equipment of scout quadrons in the Royal Air Force; if so, when these machines were built and by whom; how long they have been in store and where; whether they were built under war emergency conditions and of war emergency material; with what engines they are fitted; and whether these engines are reliable, and who will be responsible if such machines prove a failure?

:The machines in question were built in 1919 and the early part of 1920 by the Nieuport and General Company and by Messrs. Cauldron, and have been in store at Leuchars for varying periods beginning with August, 1919. They were constructed under war emergency conditions of the best war emer- gency material and are fitted to take an engine, which has not, so far, proved satisfactory. Trials are being carried out with other engines, and, if the results are satisfactory, it is intended to use the machines now in store.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these machines are practically identical in design with the machine on which that very gallant airman was killed yesterday; and, further, is he aware that this particular engine has never been considered a success?

:I think what the hon. Member has stated rather bears out the policy of the Ministry. They may be of great service until we can get a more suitable engine.

Airships

asked the Secretary of State for Air what was the total cost of R.36; whether the dismantling of this airship will be postponed pending a possibly favourable decision from the Dominion Prime Ministers' conference regarding the desirability of expending £4,000 to £6,000 in order to repair this airship; whether the Zeppelin L.64 was irretrievably wrecked in order to make room in the shed at Pulham for the damaged R.36; how much money has so far been expended on the construction of R.37; how much more is required to complete this airship; and whether he will consider the possibility of utilising the £20,000 allocated in the Estimates for a mooring mast in Egypt as a grant-in-aid for the repair of R.36, and the continued construction of R.37?

:The total cost of the R.36 was approximately £350,000; she is not being dismantled at present. The L.64 was broken up in order to clear a berth for and save the damaged R.36. £325,000 has been spent in the R.37, and it is estimated that £25,000 would be necessary to complete her. In reply to the last part, the whole question of what is best to do with the money available in the very short period which remains before the offer expires has naturally received anxious consideration, and I have not felt justified in authorising the repair of the R.36 or the completion of the R.37.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite unnecessary to expend any more money on mooring masts in Egypt, as natural mooring masts already exist in the Pyramids, to which a swivel could be attached for a very few pounds?

Wimbledon Common

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the great increase in the users of Wimbledon Common since the War by footballers in winter and by little cricketers in summer, and that many games of cricket are now played every evening and on Saturday afternoon in dangerous proximity to one another, largely owing to the fact that so much of the common is still diverted from its proper use under the War Measures; if he will insist that the whole War remains of old camps and huts and the allotments, which occupy so much land and so disfigure the common, should be cleared away and the common sown with grass and returned to its proper use for the free enjoyment of the public; and if he can take any steps to help the public to recover possession of the large tracts of the common, of which they have been deprived for about six years?

:My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am informed that the portion of Wimbledon Common, recently occupied by the Defence Force, is being handed back to the Conservators to-morrow, and that all the huts on this portion have already been removed with the exception of about nine. An area, comprising about 40 acres, is still being retained for the use of the Guards Regiments. As explained in answer to questions on this subject on 6th April last, it is hoped completely to evacuate this camp in the course of the next two years. It is not possible entirely to relinquish occupation until accommodation for a further battalion of Guards is available at Wellington Barracks, but if the work of reconstructing and renovating the Barracks should be delayed, I am afraid that the period of occupation might have to be extended. As regards the allotments, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the reply to his question, No. 72, to be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

:Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the condition of the ground which has been given up by the Government, and does it not resemble ground in the devastated area of Northern France than the old Wimbledon Common?

:Was the handing over of Wimbledon Common to the Artillery Brigade or the Defence Force of any use at all, seeing that field artillery are of no use except, it may be, for civil disorder?

:There was a great deal more there than an artillery brigade; there were a great many infantry battalions. As to the question of my hon. Friend (Sir A. Fell) as to devastated areas, I am afraid I have not seen the common.

asked the Minister of Agriculture when the allotments on Wimbledon Common will be closed and the land restored to the public for the use of games for which it is most urgently needed; and if he is aware that the pressure on the space round these allotments has greatly increased since the War, and that the crops produced on the allotments are negligible in quantity, and the land planted by the Wimbledon Corporation for oats is quite useless for agriculture and should never have been enclosed?

:I have been asked to reply. The Ministry understands that the total area of Wimbledon and Putney Commons situate within the Borough of Wimbledon is 603 acres. Of this area, seven acres only are being utilised for allotments, and as it would not be possible for the 105 allotment holders to be accommodated on other land in the vicinity, the Ministry is of opinion that the land should be retained as allotments until 25th March, 1923, when other Defence of the Realm Act allotments on similar land will be given up. In reply to the last part of the question, the Ministry is informed by the town council that the allotments are well cultivated, including the area temporarily cultivated by the council which is now occupied by individual allotment holders.

:How is it possible to give such a reply as that when these oats had to be ploughed in and were absolutely valueless? Although it is only a small part of the seven acres, is the hon. Baronet aware that this land is in the very centre of the part on which they are now playing games and the people are kept off by these wretched allotments which are not producing anything of any value?

Coal Industry

Government Subvention

asked the Prime Minister whether, under the terms of the agreement made by the Government with the coal-mining industry, any part of the £10,000,000 subsidy can be applied to making good the damage to the mines necessary to enable those employed to re-start work, or must the damage be made good by a rise in the selling price of coal to the consumer?

:I have been asked to reply. The whole of the subvention will be devoted to increasing wages above the rates at which they would otherwise have been payable. No part of it will be applied to making good the cost of repairing the damage done to the pits by the stoppage, except in so far as the wages of the men engaged on repair work may be increased by it. The price of coal will depend upon market conditions.

Social Betterment

asked the Secretary for Mines if arrangements have been made to collect and apply to social betterment in mining areas the sum fixed in the Ministry of Mines Act; and if he has appointed a central committee to deal with this matter?

:I have been asked to reply. All arrangements have been made to operate Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, and a considerable sum has already been collected. The constitution of the committee was announced in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Pontypridd on 23rd February. Owing to the necessity of making a preliminary review of the situation as a whole, and the delay caused by the recent stoppage of the coal mines, it has not yet been possible for the committee to make any actual allocations of money from the fund. In view of the settlement of the coal dispute, however, they will shortly resume their sittings, and it is hoped that in the near future it may be possible to include a nominee of the Miners' Federation in the membership of the committee.

asked the Secretary for Mines what sum of money now stands to the credit of the fund established under Section 20 of the Mining. Industry Act for the improvement of the social conditions of colliery workers?

:I have been asked to reply. The sum standing to the credit of the Miners' Welfare Fund on the 8th July last was £362,126 12s. 8d.

Pit-Head Prices

asked the Secretary for Mines whether, as stated in the Press, house and gas coal is to be raised 3s. per ton; whether that is the price at the pit-head or to the consumer; if at the pit-head, what is the price to the consumer to be; and seeing that the stoppage of the last few months has resulted in the miner getting a less wage, what is the reason for this rise in price and into whose pocket does it go?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the various Press reports that the Midland coalowners have decided to raise the price of coal; and whether, in view of the fact that wages have recently fallen in this industry, he proposes to take any action in the matter.

:I have been asked to reply. I would refer them to the statement on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 1st July.

Pit Committees and Boards

asked the Secretary for Mines how many pit committees, district committees, and area boards have been set up under Section 7 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920?

:I have been asked to reply. The Miners' Federation hitherto have been unwilling to assist in operating Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, and consequently no boards or committees have been established thereunder. It is hoped, however, that arrangements will be made in the near future, with the concurrence of all parties concerned, for bringing Part II of the Act into operation.

Central Committee

further asked whether the Central Committee set up under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, is entitled to make a grant-aid to local authorities (as provided in Subsection 4, Section 20) in those cases where no district committees have been set up?

:I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the affirmative.

Old-Age Pensions

asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange that the pension officer is in attendance at all meetings of old-age pension committees, in order that he may lay down the basis upon which his report is made or to answer questions when the report is disputed by the claimants?

:Under No. 11 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Regulations, 1911, attendance at meetings of the Local Pension Committee is the right but not the duty of pension officers. If, however, the attendance of the officer is desired by the committee at a particular meeting in connection with cases presenting specified difficulties, he complies with the committee's wishes, provided that his revenue duties are not thereby unduly interfered with.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the issue of claim forms for the grant of old age pensions that are obsolete and recite disqualifications that have been removed by recent legislation; whether the forms of applications state disqualification but do not give full information of the qualifications for old age pensions; and whether he will cause fresh forms of application to be issued which will state fully and correctly both qualifications and disqualifications?

:The form of claim for an old age pension is prescribed by statutory Regulations, which, together with the form of claim and other forms, are being revised in accordance with recent legislation, and will shortly be reissued. A claimant to an old age pension is required to state in his claim that, so far as he knows, he is not disqualified for receiving a pension, and consequently the statutory disqualifications, which are easily understood, are printed in the form of claim. As there is no obligation on an applicant to state in his claim that he fulfils the statutory conditions for the receipt of a pension, it is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by setting them out in the form of claim and so adding to its length and complexity. It will be borne in mind that an intending claimant can obtain any information he desires from the local postmaster or pension officer.

Natal

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Natal Provincial Council has passed an ordinance the object of which is to prevent Asiatics in future from acquiring the municipal vote?

:I understand that an ordinance has been passed by the Natal Provincial Council dealing with the township franchise on the lines indicated.

:Does the hon. Gentleman propose to make any representations to the Council, or is this Order to be allowed just to stand?

:As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is within the competence of the Natal Provincial Council; for the rest it is governed by the provisions of the Union of Africa Act.

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

Marriage Allowances (Stoppage)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department ever stops a separation allowance to a wife on the unsubstantiated allegation of her husband as to her moral character; and, if so, on what rule or regulation such action is based before the truth of the said allegation has been established in a court of law?

:Marriage allowance is stopped on the ground of serious misconduct only when the facts are definitely established, and never on the unsupported allegation of the soldier husband.

Unpensioned Widows

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are 49 unpensioned widows of non-commissioned officers and men killed in former wars who were not on the married roll, and whose sole disability was that they could not be placed on the married roll because of the limited nature of that roll; and whether he would consider the advisability of making such widows eligible for the same pension as had been granted to those who happened to be on the married establishment at the time of their bereavement?

:I have been asked to answer this question. My right hon. Friend will have this matter considered.

Home-Grown Wheat

asked the Minister of Agriculture what is paid to the farmers under the wheat guarantee which was passed last autumn, and the claims under which had not been fully closed early this year?

:I have been asked to reply. I am not clear to what figures the hon. Member is referring. Perhaps he would confer with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture with a view to placing another question on the Paper.

St. James's Park (Closing Time)

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why St James's Park is shut at 9.30 p.m. in the height of summer, whereby the public, for whose sake the parks are maintained, are deprived of the innocent enjoyment of quasi-rural amenities?

:Before answering this question, may I ask whether the hon. Baronet is entitled to use the Order Paper to describe by peculiarly-chosen adjectives the purposes to which this park may be put?

:Why should the hon. Member be setting and pointing at immoral intentions which have no part or lot in my question?

:I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question in regard to the Green Park.

:Why is it that these different parks require closing at different times? Why should St. James's Park close earlier than the Green Park and the Green Park earlier than Hyde Park, and why is it so expensive to keep them open for the public use?

:The staff clear St. James's Park first and then proceed to the Green Park, and by using one staff in this way we are promoting economy.

Whalley Asylum, Lancashire

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can state the reason for the prolonged delay in returning the Whalley Asylum to the Lancashire county authorities; whether he is aware that nearly 2,000 mentally defective persons are at present in other quarters pending the restoration of this property; and if he can expedite a settlement?

:I have been asked to answer this question. Whalley Asylum was freed from military patients on 29th June, 1920, and the buildings were available for the Lancashire Asylum Board to commence the work of reinstatement on the following day. They were so informed, but declined to accept the buildings until terms had been agreed as regards their claims for reinstatement, etc. The claims have received full examination and agreement has now been reached on all but a small portion. Every effort is being made to complete the final settlement as soon as possible.

Telegrams, Ascot

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to report the result of his inquiries into the subject of a number of telegrams that were sent from the Ascot grand stand telegraph office on behalf of Viscount Churchill on the evening of Wednesday, the 15th June; whether these telegrams referred to the issue of vouchers for the grand stand and were sent on His Majesty's service; whether he will state the number of telegrams so transmitted, the total cost to the State, and the name of the Department by which the expenditure will be borne; and, having regard to the grave necessity for economy, will he issue instructions that official telegrams of this character shall not be transmitted at the public expense?

:Nineteen telegrams corresponding to the description furnished by the hon. Member have been traced. They will be paid for as ordinary telegrams.

American Bacon (Government Stocks)

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of American bacon held by the Government; whether any, and, if so, what quantity has been sold during the last two months; and the bought and sold prices, respectively?

:The Government still holds stocks of American bacon, but, for reasons frequently explained to the House, it is not desirable, while liquidation is in progress, to disclose stocks or terms of trading. I may, however, say that it is anticipated that the disposal of the remaining stocks will have been completely effected by the end of September.

Uruguay (Refunds)

asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the refund of £14,349 to certain purchasers of jute cloth in Uruguay; whether the refund was made on the sole responsibility of the British Minister in Monte Video after the contracts for sale were complete; and whether Treasury sanction has been given for the refund, or if any steps are being taken for its recovery?

:The refunds were made by His Majesty's Minister at Monte Video, who acted on his own responsibility in disposing to the best advantage of certain stocks of jute cloth in Uruguay. The cloth was sold to the bag makers, but the sale of bags was slower than had been expected, and, the price of the cloth falling before the sales were completed, the earlier buyers were faced with considerable losses. In these circumstances they were allowed a refund of the difference between the old and new prices on their unsold stocks. Treasury sanction for these transactions was not given at the time, but the facts have been reported to the Exchequer and Audit Department.

:Have the Treasury now assumed responsibility for this transaction, or do they still refuse to accept it?

School Teachers' Salaries

asked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in the standard scales of salaries for teachers in public elementary school recommended by the Burnham Committee, Grimsby, is placed in Scale 3 and Yarmouth in Scale 2, Crewe in Scale 3, and Lincoln and Shrewsbury in Scale 2; whether Grimsby and Yarmouth and Crewe, Lincoln, and Shrewsbury are respectively similar as to educational needs, local industries, environment, and cost of living; by what method have the scales in these instances been arrived at; and whether it is possible for the scales of places like Yarmouth, Lincoln, and Shrewsbury to be revised so that they may be placed in a higher scale suitable to the local needs?

:The facts as to the allocation of the scales to the towns referred to are as stated by the hon. Member. The allocation was made by the Burnham Committee after full consideration of all the circumstances of the cases. I have accepted the Committee's Schedule of Allocation as the basis of expenditure which the Board will recognise for grant, and I cannot, especially in the present financial circumstances, revise it in a direction which would involve increased expenditure.

Welsh National Eisteddfod (Excursion Trains)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, owing to the conditions laid down by railway companies in connection with excursion trains, certain choirs in South Wales will find it impossible to attend the Welsh National Eisteddfod at Carnarvon, after incurring considerable expense in training for the same; and whether he will use his influence to secure reconsideration of these conditions, especially in view of the recent industrial complications in South Wales?

:The attention of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, had not previously been called to this matter but if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish particulars I will have inquiry made. The railway companies are at liberty to grant cheap railway facilities whenever, in the opinion of their responsible managers, such a course would produce additional net revenue.

. Is my hon. Friend aware that the onus of finding a minimum number of passengers is placed on the choirs, and will he see that the railway companies take that risk especially in view of the fact that at previous Eisteddfods numbers of people have followed the choirs to the place of assembly? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Eisteddfod is to Wales what the Derby is to England, only naturally more elevating?

Communist Propaganda

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can give the number of expensive offices rented by the Communist body in the United Kingdom; how much is spent per month on such offices and paid agents of that body; what steps, if any, are being taken to counteract such propaganda; if he can give the total amount of money sent here by Russia and other Continental centres to subsidise the Communist agitation; what amount, if any, has been seized by the police; if the agents bringing such funds are known to the authorities; and what action has been taken to curb such activities?

:The Communist party does not publish detailed accounts, and I cannot therefore supply the financial details asked for. It is known that the party has bought premises in London, but not, so far as is known, in other towns. The amount paid for the premises in London is not known. A good many private persons and organisations are combating Communist propaganda; but the best counter propaganda is the truth about the state of Russia under a Communist Government. I do not know the total amount of money introduced from abroad to subsidise the Communist agitation. In the present state of the law it is not a criminal offence to introduce foreign money for the purpose of such agitation. Some of the agents who bring the funds are known to the authorities and when there is evidence that they or any other paid agents are inciting to violence they are prosecuted.

:Will the hon. Gentleman kindly explain why it is that men have not been prosecuted in whose cases it was known that they had had foreign money; and why was not that included in the indictment against them? Over and over again we have asked to be given the evidence that these persons have been in possession of foreign money.

:The difficulty is to get evidence that the foreign money has been used for certain purposes. Unless there is such evidence it is no use bringing charges against these persons.

:Is it a method of the Home Office to repeat these charges often enough in order to convince people that they are true?

:The sole charge on which the Home Office prosecutes is that of inciting to violence, and whether the accused is a Communist or anything else it makes no difference.

:But where this evidence has been obtained and is absolutely known, as it has been over and over again, why have the Government not prosecuted?

:Is it usual for political parties—like the Conservative party—to publish statements of this nature?

:I do not understand the purport of that question. If the hon. Member will put it down I shall be happy to answer it. In reply to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Mr. Doyle), I may say it is impossible to prosecute simply on suspicion, and when the hon. Member refers to things as being absolutely known, I would ask him to bring such cases to the notice of my right hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will consider them.

:Has not the Home Secretary himself said that such cases have come to his knowledge?

:I think my right hon. Friend said we could not prosecute people simply for using foreign money for political propaganda. But if the propaganda goes to the length of inciting to violence—whether it is fortified by foreign money or by British money makes no difference. The sole point on which we prosecute is the incitement to violence.

Trawler "Keeling."

( by Private Notice )asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any particulars regarding the safety of the crew of the trawler "Keeling" of Grimsby, who are reported as having been stoned at Geestemünde.

:I have no information, but His Majesty's Consul at Bremen has been asked by telegraph for a report on the matter.

India, North-West Frontier Operations

( by Private Notice )asked the President of the Board of Trade if he had any information he could give the House, in the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State for India with regard to the regrettable losses of British Forces on the North-West Frontier?

:My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India regrets he is unable to be present as he has to be at an urgent meeting of a Committee of the Imperial Conference and asks me to give this answer: I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press about the incident which led to the casualties reported. I have telegraphed to the Government of India asking for any further information that they can give, and will let my right hon. Friend know as soon as I receive a reply. Generally speaking, the situation in Waziristan is that the Mahsud Wazirs have accepted our terms and were being employed on the making of roads. I think it is safe to surmise that incidents of this kind are due to the action of some recalcitrant sections of the tribe. As the road making proceeds, and if satisfactory arrangements are made with Afghanistan and in the East generally, we may hope that normal conditions on the frontier will be restored.

Questions to Ministers

:May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order relating to the asking of Members' questions? Yesterday at Question Time, in my unavoidable absence, which I very much regret, Question No. 56, on yesterday's Paper, standing in my name, was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), who stated that he asked it on my behalf. As the hon. and gallant Member had no authority to make such a statement, may I ask whether you are able in any way to protect hon. Members in such circumstances?

:I am surprised at what the hon. and gallant Member tells me. I thought it was well understood that no hon. Member should ask a question standing in the name of another hon. Member unless he had been particularly asked by that hon. Member to do so. Certainly that is the practice, and I thought that it was always observed. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling my attention to the matter, and I am sure that the practice will be observed in future. There ought to be a special request on the day on which the question is down, if an hon. Member desires that it shall be asked by someone else on his behalf.

:I did not get the hon. and gallant Gentle man's permission, but, knowing that he was in the Standing Committee on the Railways Bill, of which I also am a Member, I took it upon myself to ask the question. I admit that I was entirely wrong, but, as the question was one of public interest, I thought that I should be doing the hon. and gallant Gentleman a favour in asking it.

:I have observed previously the universality of the hon. and gallant Member's activities. He will now understand the limits.

House of Commons (Admission of Strangers)

:May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the truce between the Government and Sinn Fein, you will now direct that strangers be again admitted to the Galleries of the House of Commons, especially having regard to the presence in London of so many overseas visitors who desire to visit the House?

:Another hon. Member has asked me a question to the same effect, and I have already put myself into communication with the authorities on this matter. I think, however, that the House will understand that it must take a few days before I can come to a decision. It will, of course, be my desire, as I am sure it will be the desire of the House, to remove all restrictions as soon as reasonable security is assured.

Business of the House

:May I ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—who, I understand, is leading the House in the absence of the Lord Privy Seal—with regard to the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House relating to the Financial Resolution standing in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the importance of the subject there involved, namely, the telephonic arrangements, and the very large sum for which it is proposed to ask, he does not consider it to be unfair to the House to ask it to consider so important a matter after 11 o'clock at night?

:I regret the necessity for this Motion as much as any Member of the House. I am as little fond of sitting up as anyone can be. We are, however, obliged to ask the House to take the Committee stage of this Financial Resolution to-night because of the state of business. It would be quite impossible otherwise to find time for it. We are most anxious to bring the sittings of the House to a conclusion, and if we were to meet my right hon. Friend in this matter and postpone the Resolution, it would still further postpone the Recess of the House. I quite realise that it is an important matter, but it is only one stage of the Financial Resolution, and it will come up again for Report. I am afraid it is unavoidable, and that we must ask the House to take the Committee stage to-night.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is about the twenty-fifth time this Session that a Motion has been made for taking a question like this after 11 o'clock? Although we are all agreed on physical grounds as to the desirability of ending the Session, is it not also agreed that the financial situation of the country is even worse than the physical condition of Members of this House?

:I am afraid I cannot go into the last point raised by my right hon. Friend, but the necessity for this Motion is only one more proof that in these two years since the War this House has been extraordinarily congested with business.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings in Committee on Telegraph [Money] be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [ Mr. Chamberlain. ]

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 72.

Division No. 241.]

AYES.

3.58 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Gee, Captain Robert

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Gilbert, James Daniel

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Glyn, Major Ralph

Nall, Major Joseph

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Neal, Arthur

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Grant, James Augustus

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

Armitage, Robert

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Astor, Viscountess

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Atkey, A. R.

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gretton, Colonel John

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Barnston, Major Harry

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Parker, James

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

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

Hancock, John George

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Perring, William George

Betterton, Henry B.

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Philipps Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Bigland, Alfred

Haslam, Lewis

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Pratt, John William

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

Hills, Major John Waller

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Hinds, John

Purchase, H. G.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J G.

Rae, H. Norman

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Brittain, Sir Harry

Hopkins, John W. W.

Raper, A. Baldwin

Britton, G. B.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Remnant, Sir James

Brown, Major D. C.

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Renwick, Sir George

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Hurd, Percy A.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Bruton, Sir James

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

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

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Jephcott, A. R.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

Jesson, C.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Butcher, Sir John George

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Campbell, J. D. G.

Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Casey, T. W.

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Seager, Sir William

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

Chamberiain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Kollaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Kidd, James

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Simm, M. T.

Clough, Sir Robert

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lewis, T. A. (Giam., Pontypridd)

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Cope, Major William

Lindsay, William Arthur

Stanton, Charles Butt

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lloyd, George Butler

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Stevens, Marshall

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Stewart, Gershom

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Lorden, John William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Sugden, W. H.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Taylor, J.

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

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Terrell, George (Wilts. Chippenham)

Dawes, James Arthur

M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Doyle, N. Grattan

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Tickler, Thomas George

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Townley, Maximilian G.

Elveden, Viscount

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Erskine, James Maicolm Monteith

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Macquisten, F. A.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Magnus, Sir Philip

Waddington, R.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Wallace, J.

Flldes, Henry

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Mason, Robert

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Matthews, David

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Forestier-Walker, L.

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Forrest. Walter

Molson. Major John Elsdale

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

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

Williams. C. (Tavistock)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Frece, Sir Walter de

Morris, Richard

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Morrison, Hugh

Wise, Frederick

Gardiner, James

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Wood, Hon. Edward F L. (Ripon)

Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Woolcock, William James U.

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Younger, Sir George

McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hartshorn, Vernon

Robertson, John

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Hayday, Arthur

Rose, Frank H.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Royce, William Stapleton

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hogge, James Myles

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Irving, Dan

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Spencer, George A.

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Swan, J. E.

Briant, Frank

Kennedy, Thomas

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Thomas, Brig. Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Cairns, John

Kenyan, Barnet

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Cape, Thomas

Kiley, James Daniel

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

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Lunn, William

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Wignall, James

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Mills, John Edmund

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Finney, Samuel

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Galbraith, Samuel

Myers, Thomas

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Glanville, Harold James

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wintringham, Thomas

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

O'Connor, Thomas P.

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Hallas, Eldred

Redmond, Captain William Archer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Halls, Walter

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Colonel Penry Williams and Mr.

Lawson.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee C

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Bill): Mr. Atkey, Mr. James Brown, Major John Edwards, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Lorden, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Rodger, Mr. James Walton, and Sir Kingsley-Wood.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Gas and Water Bills

Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [ Lords ] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Joint Committee to be printed.

Standing Committees (Chairmen's Panel)

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir William Watson Rutherford to act as Deputy-Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Railways Bill (allotted portions); Sir William Pearce to act as Chairman of Standing Committee. C (in respect of the Water Undertakings (Modification of Charges) Bill); and Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the War Pensions Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Slough Trading Company, Limited, to construct a branch canal near Slough, in the county of Buckingham, for the conveyance of traffic between their works and property near Slough and the Grand Junction Canal; and for other purposes." [Slough Trading Company, Limited (Canal), Bill [ Lords. ]

Conyngham's Divorce Bill [ Lords ],

That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Conyngham's Divorce Bill [ Lords ], as desired by the Commons, with a request that the same may be returned.

SLOUGH TRADING COMPANY, LIMITED (CANAL) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

Safeguarding of Industries Bill

[4TH ALLOTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee. [ Progress, 12th July. ]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Meaning of "cost of production.")

In this Part of this Act the expression "cost of production" in relation to goods of any class or description means the current sterling equivalent of—

( a ) the wholesale price at the works charged for goods of the class or description for consumption in the country of manufacture; or

( b ) if no such goods are sold for consumption in that country, the price which, having regard to the prices charged for goods as near as may be similar when so sold or when sold for exportation to other countries, would be so charged if the goods were sold in that country;

:The first Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes)— to leave out the words "cost of production" and insert "foreign value"—is not in order. It is outside the scope of the Clause. The second Amendment on the Paper—to leave out paragraph ( a ) and insert

"( a ) The price at which the goods of the class or description are sold in the country of manufacture under similar conditions of sale "—

and the third Amendment—to leave out paragraph ( a ) and insert "( a ) the current sale price in the country of manufacture" —are not in order, because they might increase the charge.

:I beg to move, in paragraph ( a ), to leave out the words "the wholesale," and to insert instead thereof the words "ninety per cent, of the lowest."

This has to be read in conjunction with a consequential Amendment, and perhaps I might be allowed to refer to it. It is to insert, after the word "manufacture," the words "during a period of six months." In Clause 2 we define, or attempt to define, what goods are to be excluded and those are described as "dumped" goods, which are goods sold at prices below the cost of production. In this Clause, which is a most important machinery Clause, from the traders' and industrial point of view, we seek to find a definition of what is the cost of production. In a previous Bill introduced last year to regulate exports and imports, the definition was given as "foreign value." Why is it that the words "foreign value"—a perfectly clear and intelligible definition to the ordinary business man— has been dropped and this substitute inserted, "the cost of production"? I think the answer is not far to seek. Shortly after that Bill was introduced there was a storm in the ranks of our Friends opposite, and one section of the supporters of the Government protested in no measured language that this question of dumping was being interpreted to mean value of goods across the seas, and the term "foreign values" went much beyond the bond that they had entered into.

The Committee will remember there was a famous exchange of letters between the leaders of the two sections, the Free Traders and the Protectionists. In that famous letter embodying the basis of the "coupon" the term was used that goods were not to be introduced which were "below the cost of production," and naturally those who had the old-fashioned Free Trade instincts were up in arms They said, "We are quite prepared loyally to abide by the undertaking we have given, but you are asking more than your pound of flesh. So far will we go but no farther," and in the stress of these protests—vigorous and determined—the Government have evidently withdrawn the offending phrase and substituted the words "cost of production." I ask the Committee to follow this one step further; because, although there is a change of phraseology, in substance there is no change. There is the appearance of yielding, but—as we have known before in delicate negotiations of this kind when family quarrels take place—there is more camouflage used, and although the offending phrase "foreign value" has been withdrawn and "cost of production" substituted, when we come to the definition under this Clause in Part II, we find that instead of "cost of production" you have "foreign value" introduced again by means of this definition. Therefore the concession which has been made to the Free Trade stalwarts has been negatived by this very subtle definition, and the purpose of my Amendment is to substitute in reality "cost of production" rather than a camouflage, because that is what the world of business men understand by the term "wholesale price." No one can carry on industry and sell at the cost of production. If that wholesale price was the cost of production where would the profit come in? By using the term "wholesale price" you are negativing entirely the concession made with regard to introducing the term "cost of production" in the earlier part of the Bill.

The whole thing as it stands is absolutely unworkable, because what period are you going to take? If the wholesale price at the works is to be taken, is it over a period of six months? Any manufacturer knows that the cost of production varies considerably from time to time, and what may be a bonâ fide figure at one time is altogether fallacious at another. It is again introducing into this whole Measure that element of uncertainty which is the bugbear of all trade and all commerce. If there is one thing the trading community desires at the present time it is to get back to normal, healthy, sound conditions of industry, and to certainty and fixity. To offer this Bill at all is bad enough, but when you have it do let us have clear and definite terms as to what is really meant, so that the industry shall know the worst. Uncertainty is more damaging and a greater hindrance to the revival of industry than even bigger restrictions on trading would be. Let us have definiteness and preciseness in our terms. The Amendment, whether you agree with it or not, at any rate is definite. It tells the manufacturer in this country what he is up against, and we think 90 per cent. of the wholesale price is a fair approximate estimate of the cost of production. Profits in some businesses, differentiating the wholesale price from that of the cost of production, vary very considerably. It is impossible in a Bill of this sort to find a figure which will meet every case. If the Government prefer 95 per cent. we are not wedded to this particular figure, but at any rate let us have some tangible, definite figure which the traders shall know is to be the measure of the competition they have to face and the measure of the restrictions placed upon these goods which they want to bring in. If you take 90 per cent. of the wholesale price at the works, you are getting approximately a figure which will give you the cost of production. Any other scheme is practically impossible. You cannot go into the work of the foreign competitor and ask him to disclose his costing sheets, or to show how much he pays for his raw material, how much he is paying for labour, what his standing charges are, and what interest he is paying on his capital. Therefore, you have to fall back on the selling price at the works. But to take the selling price at the works itself is, on the face of it, absurd, because no one who wants to carry on business on a satisfactory basis can sell at the cost of production without any margin for profit. No one is more seized of the real bearing of these various proposals, their weaknesses as well as, possibly, their virtues, than the right hon. Gentleman, and if you are to get at the cost of production, seeing that you cannot ascertain it by investigation of the books of the firm, you must take the selling price. But you must deduct something from it if you are to arrive at the true value of the cost of production without the profit added on. Therefore, I submit that some figure is the only sound way of' getting at the real purpose of the Clause.

Then you must define at what period. As the Clause stands at present, no time is mentioned. Is it the time when you are investigating it? It may be infinitely more or infinitely less than the price at which the goods are coming in here. The goods are made on a large scale at varying prices at varying times, and the price at one period may differ very considerably from another, and it is desirable, if you are to get at an honest attempt to lay down definite terms, that you should have a fixed period for taking your price For these reasons, if the Bill is to be workable, if it is to be honest, we want to say absolutely what we mean. We have no concern as a House with the bargaining that goes on between the left and right wings of our Friends opposite, but do not let us introduce into the House of Commons the subterfuge and camouflage which they may have to use one section against another. Let us say honestly what we mean. If we mean foreign value, say foreign value in the Bill, and do not say cost of production and give a definition which really means foreign value. That is not in keeping with the best traditions of the House. As it stands, the Clause is unworkable, it is unbusinesslike, and would lead to confusion, and in hope in some form or other the right hon. Gentleman will be able to modify it on the lines suggested by this Amendment.

:I want to emphasise one or two remarks which have been made. As those engaged in commerce well know, there are various prices for the one commodity. For instance, a manufacturer who has to explore a new country will reimburse himself for the expenses he will have to incur in getting business from some far away place. That is one condition of sale. There is another condition of sale where long terms of credit and risks will be involved which the manufacturer covers himself against. There is another form of sale under which the purchaser may go direct to the factory and enter into a contract for a very large amount and take practically the risk of the manufacturer and the seller and place the money on the table against delivery. These are three different modes of conducting business which will naturally bring in their train a difference of prices, and therefore, if the Government really want to arrive at a basis, the basis must be not the top price that is charged, but the lowest price, and whether it should be 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the price is not a point on which there is a great difference. But the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a considerable difference in price under different conditions. It is not he who will have to administer the Act, but officials, and there will be considerable confusion unless there is some basis clearly and definitely set forth in the Bill.

:Will this be the proper time to raise the question of order I mentioned before, as to whether this Clause comes within the title of the Bill?

:Strictly speaking, it should have been raised before I put the first question, but I shall be glad to hear the hon. Member.

:The Title of the Bill is

"A Bill to deal with the disposal of imported goods at prices below the cost of production,"

and I take it the Bill is covered by that Title. If this Clause is passed in the form in which it stands, it will deal with the disposal of goods below the wholesale price in the country of origin, which is something very different from the cost of production. The Bill will therefore, if passed in this form, do something which is not permissible in accordance with the Title. I suggest as an analogy that we might have a Bill dealing with the better government of Ireland, and you might have a Clause in it that Ireland for the purposes of this Act shall mean Scotland. Is that a proper way to frame a definition which is completely outside the scope of the Title of the Bill? Is it not the proper way to amend the Title?

:The hon. Member's argument may be very pertinent on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, but he has raised no point of Order. As he truly says, the Bill is governed by the words in the Title, "cost of production," and this is a Clause to say what the words "cost of production" mean. It may be that the definition can be argued to be an unsound one, but the words are already in the Bill, and this is an attempt to elucidate their meaning. I cannot possibly say that the Clause is out of order.

:Is it in order to give a definition which is clearly contrary to common sense and general understanding?

:If the definition is contrary to common sense and general understanding, presumably the Committee will reject it, but I cannot assume anything of the kind.

:The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has said it would be impossible to ascertain the cost of production by entering on people's works. That has been present to the mind of everyone who has ever gone into the question of ascertaining the cost of production. It was present to the mind of the Balfour of Burleigh Committee and the Committee appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction, which consequently came to the conclusion that the wholesale selling price is the only thing which can be ascertained. Therefore it is essential to take the wholesale selling price, because no other premise can be found upon which our actions can be based. I think the phrase "cost of production" can be as well defended to include some margin of profit as it can to exclude all profit, because unless there is some margin of profit people will certainly not continue to manufacture. That means we must start from the wholesale selling price, and there is very considerable authority among economists for saying it would come within the terms of the definition. However, my right hon. Friend will adopt an Amendment later by which the amount to be taken off the wholesale selling price is an amount equal to 5 per cent. of the price, which the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough said was quite a reasonable proportion to take. Therefore, while I cannot accept this Amendment here, when the time comes an Amendment will be moved and accepted by the Government in a more appropriate place, making an allowance of 5 per cent. I think that is a very reasonable amount to take, because in the wholesale price deductions are made. For instance, there is the deduction of excise or any other internal duty that is leviable, and the price is the price free on rail at the works, and not the f.o.b. price at the port. Therefore, you take the absolute bedrock wholesale price at the works, and from that we are prepared to deduct the 5 per cent. which is suggested in the Amendment.

The other point raised by the hon. Member was the question of time. The definition which is given in Clause 8 is the definition which is to cover both the inquiry which is conducted under Clause 2, and also the specific application of the duty, once an order has been made under Clause 2. I do not think that any difficulty will arise as to the question of time. When an inquiry is instituted, the consideration to which the Committee will have regard will be the wholesale price at the time of the inquiry. It is easy to collect weekly or monthly statements as to the wholesale price at a given time. That is a consideration which will be present to the minds of the Committee. The Committee will conduct a broad inquiry and will not be concerned with small isolated cases. They can only advise the making of an order when there is serious dumping, and the consideration present in their minds will be the general wholesale price obtaining in the country in question. Therefore, it will be the wholesale price at the time the inquiry is made. Assume that an Order is made. You then come to the application of that Order. In order to decide whether the duty is to be levied, it falls to be decided in each case whether a given sale is below the cost of production. In such a case the certificate under Clause 4 is the cost of production at the time at which the purchase is made in the foreign country and shipment is made. Therefore, the cost of production which will be the test in each case is the cost of production at the date when the Consular certificate is given and the importation is made. That is reasonable and practicable. It is the only course which we can take. The hon. Member says that the cost of production will vary. This is taken into account because if the cost of production falls lower than at the time when the Committee made the Order, the lower cost at the time of each sale is taken and the importer will get the benefit of the falling price in the country of origin. We have gone further than that. Some hon. Members challenged me yesterday and I thought they were wrong, because I thought it was a further concession to the importer. If the conditions have altered in the country of origin since the date of importation, and if the importer sells in this country at a lower price, and he can prove that the cost of production is lower since the date of his importation, then he is able to get that further advantage and to reclaim if he is not selling below the cost of production at the date of the sale in that country. There is a clear chain which if followed throughout. At the time when the inquiry is made and when the duty comes to be levied it is the cost of production at the time which is taken into account.

:I suppose the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with his explanation, but I must say that I am not. I suppose hon. Members who support the Government and who are present now are also satisfied, and hon. Members who have not heard the discussion will later evidence their satisfaction in the Lobby. I should like to be at a meeting of a body of business men, a Chamber of Commerce, or any ordinary business meeting, if it were possible, after my hon. Friend had given the explanation which we have just received. When they had heard the explanation and left the room, it would be very interesting to hear how they would try to do business on it. The Bill says that it is the cost of production. The whole situation is based on the fact that every business keeps a tame solicitor in its office for the purpose of explaining the Government's legislation. Even expert lawyers will have a big task to disentangle the legal meaning of this Bill, and it will puzzle their faculties to the utmost. Business is not done on these lines. Business men, for reasons which seem to them good, go to their lawyers as the last resource. They struggle on and do business on their own account. That is the way that 95 per cent. of the business of the country is done. Day after day decisions are made on plain facts. A business man is suddenly confronted with this new Act. Of course, he has heard about it. He begins to study it. He sees that it is an Act to impose Customs duties on certain goods, to safeguard certain special industries, and to prevent the disposal of imported goods at a price below the cost of production. He attempts to find out the cost of production, and he turns to Part II, and he sees that the cost of production is "as hereinafter defined." Then he turns to the Clause with which we are now concerned, and he finds that " the cost of production" is not the cost of production, but that it is

"the wholesale price at the works charged for goods of the class or description for consumption in the country of manufacture."

What sophistry it is for the hon. Member to say that the wholesale price is, according to the theories of some economists, taken to mean the cost of production. The wholesale price means something very different from the cost of production. The cost price is not what the wholesale merchant sells at. The price he sells at is a price with his profit on the cost of production. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. McCallum Scott) made a point of evident common sense when he said that it is not the cost of production but the wholesale price. As I understand it, the wholesale price, meaning thereby the cost of production, is to be ascertained by somebody on the spot where the wholesale transaction is to be carried through, and that is by somebody representing, in some form or another, the British Government. That is a nice state of affairs. Presumably, if this is going to be carried out— for there will be some thousands of transactions of this kind—we are going to have people in every part of Europe—

:The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that this Clause does not operate until a Dumping Order has been made in respect of a particular commodity, and in respect of a country, and, therefore, the picture of everybody buying in every country goods which render it necessary to make these investigations, is wide of the mark.

:At any rate, when the man tries to do any business, he has to get all these points settled and cleared up in his mind. He has to be quite sure that any article offered to him is not within some Order of the Board of Trade.

:That is so. As a matter of fact, this is a Bill to prevent business being done, and there is no part of it more likely to be more vexatious than this particular part. I should like to refer to a letter which appeared in the "Times" on the 11th of the present month, signed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Liverpool; the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield; the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester; the Principal of Armstrong College, Newcastle; and the Principal of the University of Birmingham; all saying that owing to the operation of legislation already passed on these lines, namely, the Reparation Act, they find a state of affairs which it is difficult any longer to contemplate with equanimity. They say that books, which they are most anxious to get in from Germany for the purpose of educating the youth of this country to compete with Germany, are held up in such quantities that their educational processes have been seriously hampered thereby. If that happens in the case of our universities and colleges, what is going to happen under this Clause with regard to businesses? It is going to shatter our businesses. These things show the futility and the mischief of the whole of this Measure, and how farcical a thing it is to say that the cost of production does not mean the cost of production but the wholesale price.

:Having regard to the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think the cost of production is now fairly defined. I will give a very potent reason why the 5 per cent. that the Government now propose to deduct from the wholesale price will really give the cost of production. We often hear in this House of what happens with regard to the Wholesale Co-operative Society. I have had a conversation with one of the higher officials, and I asked him how they arrived at their cost of production and their sale price, and he told me that they take every item that can possibly be included in the cost, raw material, freight charges, landing expenses, and the cost of wages, and then, in order to arrive at the sale price, they add 5 per cent. On any commodity which is continually being produced and reproduced, and the production of which takes one week, there will be 50 profits of 5 per cent. in a year to a manufacturer so conducting his business, and that profit of 5 per cent. is a very handsome profit. If the Government are going to take the wholesale selling price at the works, less 5 per cent., they have arrived practically at a businesslike proposition as to the cost of production. They have done that and taken infinite trouble to try to make this Clause a workable Clause, and I shall certainly support the Government.

:May I also say a word in support of this Clause. I think, broadly speaking, it expresses what we should like and what was contemplated. I do not want to burden the House with arguments. If they insert the words "five per cent.," foreign manufacturers of goods would, by hook or by crook, get through the loophole which is afforded them by the hon. Member for Newcastle's Amendment, and will by importing, probably quite legitimately, some skilful method of putting a wholesale price on to the goods, avoid that which this Bill seeks to enforce. For that reason I shall support the Clause as it stands.

:I am trying conscientiously to find out what the Government means by their definition of cost. I conclude they want to find some method of trying to stop the importation of any goods from abroad. At the time of the General Election we were pretty well unanimous that an effort should be made to prevent dumping into this country, and dumping was defined as the sale of goods imported from abroad with the object of destroying certain industries in this country. Certainly we never gave a pledge that we should impose a duty on goods that were sold in this country below the wholesale prices at which they were sold abroad. The explanation given by my hon. and gallant friend makes it clear that there are apparently two costs of production in a foreign country, and it depends upon where the works manufacturing them are situated. The wholesale price is to be the wholesale price at the works. Therefore, if the goods are manufactured at a distant works and put on board, say, at Antwerp, they are in a different position from the goods which are manufactured close to the port and put on board also at Antwerp. There may be serious complications as to whether the price is to be the cash price or the credit price, or for what quantity. If this definition is allowed to stand, I am quite certain of this: that it will prevent all forward business being done, and you cannot contract for goods to be delivered into this country for the benefit of everybody concerned for a long term of months, say, 12 or 18 months. If you cannot do that, then it will follow that you cannot contract for the goods which you are making to export to a foreign country, and it will put an almost insuperable difficulty in the way of our traders in this country. There is also the question whether this class of goods are sold in the country of origin. For instance, if you take steel bars, the Belgian works not only make steel bars, but they also roll lighter forms of steel from these steel bars. The only reason why they export these steel bars is to increase largely the production of their works, and by doing so they reduce the whole cost of their production, and enable them to manufacture wire at a much cheaper rate than if their works produced only a small number of steel bars at a higher cost. Therefore, they sell their surplus of steel bars at a cheaper price, in order that they may keep their works employed to the full capacity. That is done, not only abroad, but is done wholesale in this country. We are really the biggest dumper of any country in the world. There are cases where we have deliberately dumped goods into America. I can give a case where manufacturers in this country are now before the Tariff Commission of the Senate on a charge of having dumped goods into the United States.

:If I understand the hon. Member's argument, it would be in order on Clause 2, but not here. It is a matter of policy rather than definition.

:I am sorry if I have strayed from the actual area of the Amendment. It is difficult to discuss the fundamentals without straying over the whole field that is opened up, but I will conclude my remarks by hoping that the Government will make a very substantial allowance on the wholesale price. For instance, I am told that it is a very common thing to give a 6 per cent. commission to a traveler or an agent. If that is so, there must be a good deal more between the cost of production and the wholesale price than 5 per cent. I think the Amendment is very reasonable, and I hope the Government will accept it.

:The Government's announcement that they propose to; accept a reduction of 5 per cent. goes some way towards meeting the point which many of us hold, but I do not think it goes far enough. I should like the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to remember that this part of the Bill is to be permanent legislation, to deal with an important action of foreign traders, which is of exceptional character, which is to be substantial in quantity, and which is to have a very malevolent intention towards some industries of this country. If the Government were not trying to construct ordinary legislation for the purpose of finding out how they could arrive at a rate, it might be that the easy and rough-and-ready method they are adopting would work, but the method they are adopting does not at all reveal, or help the Committee to find out, what the purpose or intention of the manufacturer is who sells at wholesale prices less 5 per cent. I would remind the Government that in countries who have themselves a protective tariff the con- sumers very often in those countries are compelled to pay more than they would otherwise do, because of that protective tariff, and pay more than the actual tariff itself, because of the advantage those firms get from the point of view of profit in that country. If you are going to say that anybody who sends goods into this country at less than 5 per cent. on the wholesale price is one of those benevolent persons who is going to ruin the industry in this country, then with all respect I say the Government are talking rubbish. They are not trying to do what they allege they are trying to do. I would like to hear from the President of the Board of Trade whether he considers that this 5 per cent. allowance does really give this Committee that assistance which it so obviously requires, and will reveal to them this conspiracy or desire on the part of the firm abroad to continue to sell goods in substantial quantities for the purpose of injuring and destroying trade in this country. That is the only definition which has been given and accepted of the reason why the Government require this form of legislation. They are not concerned, they say, with fastening upon this country a tariff in order to protect the manufacturer against lower prices than the goods are made at. It is only, they say, to prevent this special action, which is something in the nature of a conspiracy to destroy our trade. If that is their object, these words do not carry out that object, and they reveal that the Government have some other object in view.

:I am sorry to hear from the Government that they are meeting this Amendment halfway by an Amendment on the Paper allowing a 5 per cent. reduction. I should like to know what has induced them to give away something which is going to some extent to render the whole of these provisions very unsatisfactory indeed. Their policy was very clearly defined in the King's Speech in 1919, in a few simple words. They said that the Government

"will introduce measures for the prevention of unfair competition by the sale of imported goods below their selling price in their country of origin."

That was the King's Speech of the Session before last. Now there is a whittling away of that policy and I regret it. I am afraid that what is being proposed—I assume, Mr. Hope, we are speaking of the discussion on the two Amendments together?

:Is that so? Is it the case that the discussion is now taking place on the two Amendments?

:This Amendment in substance would make a reduction of 10 per cent., and, as the later Government Amendment will make a reduction of 5 per cent., I think it would be in order to take the discussion on them together.

5.0 P.M.

:I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his 5 per cent. Amendment, because it will have a prejudicial effect on the benefit which you are to get from this Bill when it is on the Statute Book. This is a permanent legislation. The whole task of proving that there is or that there is not dumping is cast on the subject. It is extremely confusing and difficult, in any case, for him to establish that, and when he allows a 5 per cent. discount, I think it will take away a great deal of the value of this Bill. That was an instance of dumping; a very clear instance, in that little exhibition of samples to which most of the Members had access, of the vulcanised fibre which is being sent from America at 2d. a pound less than the wholesale selling price in America. Now, that 2d. a pound was a little more than a 5 per cent. reduction of price. That was clear dumping, and there was clear evidence that it was doing grievous injury to an industry, and that great unemployment was being caused. As this Bill was originally drafted that operation could have been completely stopped. Now we are getting near the dividing line, when the benefit of the Bill will be a little remote, and a little difficult to establish. I should like to know what has induced my right hon. Friend to change his mind on this subject; what influences there are at work to whittle this Bill down? My object is to support the original Bill, and not to see it whittled down. If there are secret influences at work, I think we ought to know something about them. This discount of 5 per cent. is just one of those little Amendments put in to reduce the value of the Bill to industry.

:I take exception to what my hon. Friend said when he spoke of my changing my mind. He must remember that I had nothing to do with the framing of this Bill. It is perfectly obvious that framing a Bill of this kind was not done at the first attempt; it is a very difficult task, needing a great deal of examination, and my one endeavour has been, as has been the endeavour also of everybody connected with the Board of Trade, to make this as good a Bill as it can be made. There is no question of changing one's mind, but it became clear both to myself, my hon. Friend (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) and others of us who were investigating this Bill before it was brought before the House, that this was one of the points that required very careful consideration. We want to get as near as we can to the cost of production, and cost of production, as has been stated in this Committee, and as my hon. Friend knows, is a thing that you cannot always be sure of getting at accurately. The method that is devised in this case is, as we believe, the surest way of approximating to the cost of production; but in the wholesale price there is always an element of profit, and what that profit is may be a matter of dispute. In the anti-dumping legislation that has recently been or is being—I am not sure which—introduced in the United States it is reckoned that profit included in the wholesale price varies, that it may be something quite small or that it may go up to as high as 8 per cent., the maximum figure they thought it might reach. After a careful examination and discussion with those whom I consider, from their intimate acquaintance with manufacture, fully qualified to judge, I think 5 per cent. is a very fair figure to put in. It in no way whittles down the Bill. It merely makes this definition approximate more closely to accuracy. I do not think there is anything more I wish to say about the 5 per cent. The figure was proposed by an hon. Member who sits behind me, and I put my name to his Amendment to make sure that it should be taken. I am sure the Amendment improves this definition and makes it a. better and truer definition. So far as it does that it improves the Bill, and to improve the Bill is my object.

:I sympathise deeply with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell). He deserves sympathy. He has a distinct grievance. He was told in the King's Speech there was to be a duty imposed on goods imported below the selling price, and the Prime Minister gave a most specific assurance on the point.

"What is dumping? It is exporting to this country goods from a foreign land at a cost which is below the price at which they sell in their own country."

No pledge could be more specific than that, and it was given to the hon. Member and his supporters by the Prime Minister both in the King's Speech and in the House of Commons. He rightly complains that the pledge is not kept in the Bill. What is the reason of that? The reason is that the Government have got to keep two sets of dupes under their control at the same time. They have to dupe the Tariff Reformers on the one side, and they have to dupe their own supporters.

:I am not speaking of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been very sturdy in defence of Free Trade. The hon. Member who has interrupted put down an Amendment to the first of these Bills, stating that the thing was absolutely offensive to Free Trade. He was the man who described the duties as stinking and reeking of Protection, but now he is a converted man.

:The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going a considerable distance from the Amendment, which deals with the question of 5 per cent.

:I was merely dealing with the interruption by the hon. Member for Montrose. The burden of my argument did not apply to him, because he cannot be said to be a dupe of anybody. He is a willing supporter of everything which the Government proposes. But the Government is in this difficulty, that they have got to satisfy Tariff Reformers on the one hand and the so-called Free Traders on the other. First of all, there is the definition of these words, "The cost of production," in the manifesto exchanged between the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) and the Prime Minister. That was the letter of the 12th November, and it refers to

"Unfair competition to which our industries are being subjected, by the dumping of goods below the actual cost of production."

That is a pledge to the Liberal side of the Coalition, and it was reinforced by the further letter of the 21st November:

"Dumping of goods sold on our markets below the actual cost of production."

That is perfectly specific, and it brings in the Liberal side of the Coalition. The election is held, and is successful, and in order that the support of the hon. Member for Chippenham and his friends may be secured a further definition is given:

"Below the price at which they sell in the country of origin."

Now the problem is, how are the Government to square the deal, to satisfy black and to satisfy white—of course, I do not apportion the colours! They put in the Bill that they are going to tax the thing that is sold below the cost of production, and Liberal Free Traders are satisfied; and then they define the cost of production as the selling price, and the Tariff Reformer is satisfied. That is the whole history of the transaction and that is the reason why we have got a definition of the cost of production which is not a definition at all. It is not surprising that this tortuous course of conduct has caused a good deal of mistrust amongst so-called Free Trade supporters of the Government. How have they fallen away? How sturdy they were in 1919, and how weak and few in 1921.

:This is historic. I do not think what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying affects the decision as to whether they should be a 10 per cent. or a 5 per cent. reduction.

:I think you will find that I shall put myself in order, because, I submit, the attitude of hon. Gentlemen towards the definition of cost of production as selling price is as material as any argument could possibly be to the Amendment. I think you will find that I shall not transgress the ruling you have made. When the first Bill is introduced the first thing that happens is that the Free Trade supporters of the Government are not satisfied with the definition. They say the Bill defines dumping as the importation of goods below the selling price in the country of manufacture. They said that at a well attended meeting of Coalition Liberal members, at which 75 members were present.

:It is not a question of the views various persons put forward some time ago, but what is the best course for the Committee to take now.

:I am quoting the views on this subject of Members of this House, and that, I submit, is quite in order. If you will allow me to say what their views were, I think you will find it is to the point on this particular Amendment. They saw that that Bill defined dumping as the importation of goods below selling price in the country of manufacture, and it was decided to send a deputation to wait upon the Prime Minister, and some hon. Members were present—the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) and others —who are persistently absent from these Debates. They were successful for the time being. They destroyed the Bill.

:On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Middleton (Sir P. Adkins) and at least three hon. Members who were present are here now.

:My hon. Friend was one of the Members, and he and other hon. Gentlemen have persistently maintained their Free Trade attitude from the beginning to the end. But that Bill was destroyed for that reason, and the next year the same proposal was put forward, and the same party proposed the same objections.

:May I ask if we are to be allowed to reply along the same lines as the speech which is now being delivered? I am extremely anxious to reply to some of the points.

:That shows into what we are drifting. I allowed a certain latitude to the hon. and gallant Member because he assured me he was about to come to the point, but I cannot allow the discussion to go further, and to deal with matters of recrimination entirely beyond the question before the Committee.

:I have no desire to indulge in recrimination at all. I am simply dealing with the definition of what the cost of production is, and what is the selling value. What was the assurance given by the Prime Minister? Perhaps I may be allowed to quote that. He gave the assurance that dumping was

"a determined and systematic effort to damage British industry by exporting goods for sale below the cost of production in the country of origin."

That is the assurance that he gave to his supporters. Here we find a Bill which puts in "cost of production" to allay suspicion on that side, and then defines it as the selling price in order to secure support on the other. That is the reason of this Clause. It is put in in order to try and keep two people together whose ideas and desires and convictions are absolutely opposed. The thing is really, not using the word offensively, a fraud. It is not what it purports to be. It is a device for the purpose of getting support from people neither of whom will find that the Bill gives them what they desire.

:I am sure that on a hot day like this we are all grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for making the laughter of the afternoon. However far his slightly acidulated feelings may lead him, we enjoy the result, both as a lesson in rhetoric and as an admirable example of calculated evasiveness on a particular point. But as we pass from that universal gratitude and thankfulness to the less exhilarating task of examining the Sections of this Bill, perhaps we may be allowed to do that without any barbed accusations of any special moral evil. What the Committee is really discussing is the question whether the cost of production is to be defined as it is defined in the Bill or defined more closely, as I submit more in accordance with the Prime Minister's pledge, by putting in a percentage to be deducted from the wholesale price at the works. I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend has added his powerful benediction to the Amendment of my hon. Friends the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) and the Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote). I think that he will admit that our position in that is not made less strong by the signs of growing irritability which my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) discloses; but I submit that 10 per cent. is a very much better figure to put in. No one has given more direct testimony to the superiority of that figure than the President of the Board of Trade, because he told us, with his exceptional knowledge of what is happening in America, that there, where they do understand all kinds of trade restrictions by Acts of Congress, they found on full examination that an average of 10 per cent.—

:I did not use the word "average." I said that the maximum is 8 per cent.

:That was the maximum according to the opinion of a Committee of Congress. My suggestion is that if eight is the maximum in the opinion of that Committee let us make sure that we are not falling below that by having the figure 10 per cent., as suggested in the Amendment, because the Prime Minister's pledge and the whole argument upon this part of the Bill is that we are dealing, and intend to deal, with determined and persistent attempts to sell in this country goods at a price lower than the cost of production, in order that ultimately, and in consequence of such action, some particular trade or industry in this country may be destroyed. As long as we adhere to proposals based on and adapted to carrying that out there is very little real difference of opinion in any part of the Committee. But if we move from that to the quite different ideal which the hon. Member for Chippenham has, and attempt to put on under this pretext a general restriction which may help individual interests in this country at the expense of the general consumer and to the detriment of the community, then we shall follow the hon. Member for Chippenham and indulge in even greater wailing at the imperfect nature of the proposals in this Bill and what they mean. Therefore I shall vote for this Amendment of 10 per cent. because it seems to me to go further than the alternative suggested by the Government in making clear that they are carrying out this largely agreed object which was embodied in the manifesto of the Prime Minister. I wish to carry it out. I do not wish to depart from any of the pledges which I have taken. I shall vote for this Amendment and still hope that the Government will come to the conclusion that 10 per cent. is a proper figure.

:My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) referred to the manifesto by the Prime Minister to the Liberals. In the speeches of my hon. and gallant Friend in this House, the Coalition Liberals are something like what King Charles' head was to Mr. Dick, because my hon. and gallant Friend finds it impossible in his speeches to avoid some kind of derisory observations regarding his fellow Liberals in this House.

:I am speaking within the recollection of the Committee. I am speaking within the recollection of the Committee. I think it unfortunate that he shows that lack of charity and that dash of Pharisaism which are out of touch with his otherwise delightful personality. He referred to the manifesto to Liberals by the Prime Minister. It was not a manifesto to Liberals at all. It was a definite agreement between himself and the leader—

:This has no bearing on the Amendment. It is like, reading the account of a joint function.

:I asked your predecessor whether I should be allowed to reply on the lines of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech. It seems unfortunate that I should not be allowed to do so, because I wish to refer to the statement which he brought before the Committee to show how little bearing it has on the Amendment we are now considering. We as Coalition Liberals accepted the definition of dumping which was given previous to the King's Speech. That definition was the one upon which the Election was fought. You cannot lightly set it aside; but neither can the Government. There was no question of 10 per cent. It was the actual cost of production in the country of origin. Just as we try to observe our pledge, so should the Government observe theirs. We are quite alive to the difficulty of finding out what the cost of production in the country of origin actually is. I do not think that many people intimately associated with business will agree that a deduction of 5 per cent. will bring down the price to within the Government's definition. I should say from my own knowledge of business on the Continent that 10 per cent. would have brought us approximately to come within the definition laid down by the Prime Minister and accepted by the then Leader of the House. Though I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade has given serious consideration to this particular Amendment, he would be well advised if he did advance a little more, if he cannot go the whole way, by something between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent., because the 5 per cent. is inadequate. We should have in view, in all those discussions, what our actual object is. If we had a Measure to stop dumping in the sense in which we all regard it as doing a real injury to the trade of the country, that I could understand, but I fear that if they adhere to the 5 per cent. they will do a great deal to stop legitimate trade in this country and find, in all probability, that the last state will be worse than the first.

:I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) has rather changed his views. I have here a report of a speech which he delivered in the National Liberal Club, at a luncheon on the 13th November, 1913, presided over by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott). I would particularly draw his attention to the description which he gave of dumping.

:I particularly draw the attention of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock) to it. I am sure that no words of mine will inveigle him into the Lobby with us, but perhaps the words of my hon. Friend will do so. I pass over what the hon. Gentleman says about the weakness of the present Government. I do not wish to make him blush, but referring to the Anti-Dumping Bill,

"He thought that the Bill would provide an acid test so far as Free Trade principles of the Coalition Liberals in the House were concerned. The Bill would lay down a real definition of dumping, not the cost of production "—

as this Bill does—

"but the selling price of an article in the country of origin. In that case it would mean the surrender of the whole Free Trade settlement, and in consequence, speaking for himself and the other Liberals in the House, it would meet with their vehement, strenuous and uncompromising opposition."

Of that he has nothing to withdraw.

:May I point out that this discussion is taking place on this Amendment and on a subsequent Amendment of which the hon. Member appears to be speaking in ignorance.

:The hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) is supporting an interpretation of the Government pledge as being 90 per cent., and not 95 per cent. as proposed by the Government.

:I must repudiate any interpretation of my speeches by the hon. and gallant Member. I could not trust him with that.

:The hon. Member's Vote is much more valuable than his speech. More than once we have known him to speak against the Government, and to vote with them. The point about the cost of production appears again and again in this Bill, but when it comes to the definition in this Clause under discussion it appears to be laid down that this is to be the wholesale price less only a miserable 5 per cent. If there is no deliberate attempt at injuring British industry by so-called dumping, if it is simply a case of depression on the Continent causing a slump in the price of goods, why should not those goods be allowed in? Is it intended to keep out goods which have fallen in price through the ordinary economic changes of the last nine months? The bottom has fallen out of prices in other countries besides this country, and if for that reason, merchants on the Continent find themselves with stocks which they must realise at any price, why should we not take advantage of that cheapness? Is that supposed to be dumping, or will the Board of Trade in its discretion allow such goods to come in? After all, we are dumping to-day wherever we can. We are sending travellers out to foreign markets, and we are being forced to sell many lines of goods in this country at below what it costs to produce them. Wages are down and manufacturers in many cases are prepared to take less profits, and are prepared to lose on one line of goods in order to keep another line going. When we sell these goods at below the 1919 cost of production, we are doing the very thing which this Bill tries to prevent other people from doing. Is it maintained that the manufacturer forced by economic conditions to sell abroad goods at less than the cost of making them—

:I cannot follow the application of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks to this Amendment. He is making a general speech, but this Amendment is to leave out certain words and to put in other words. I have been waiting for some time, for him to come to that, and if he is not going to come to it, he had better make way for other hon. Members who are anxious to speak on the subject.

:The Chairman was not able to call on an Amendment of my own which would have raised the particular point I was dealing with, and I understood that this and a certain number of other points were to be allowed on this Amendment. However I do not wish to pursue the matter further.

:There are plenty more of them for the hon. Member if he wants them, but I wish to confine myself strictly to the Amendment. I hope that pure free traders like the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) will support us in this matter.

:We will be so glad to see the hon. Member doing so, that we will put him on as a teller.

:It is perhaps scarcely fair to the two occupants of the Treasury Bench that I should make a speech when they have done the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) and myself the honour of accepting our Amendment. I assure them that in just recognition of that I shall be as short as I can, and I shall not speak any more to-day, while, as for the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, he has gone to the country and probably will not be back. We have listened to a remarkable selection of speeches, entirely based on the assumption that the Government would not make the concession which they subsequently have made. Speeches have been delivered from the other side of the House one after the other, all ignoring that rather essential fact. The hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) was somewhat more confused than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but the hon. and gallant Member for Hull has not been in the House so long and his thoughts are probably clearer on that account. It does seem a little hard, that when we are discussing a perfectly simple and straightforward business problem, namely, whether the cost of production should include the wholesaler's profit, or if not, what the wholesaler's profit can reasonably be supposed to be, that all these speeches should have been made, not dealing with the specific point in any way whatever, but either indulging in doleful fantasies like that of the hon. Member for Leith, or in dark and sinister suggestions of conspiracy like that of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell). He assumed to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely and myself were people of mysterious influence, who, by some secret process of manœuvring, had secured the whittling away of this Bill. I assure him we have no influence whatever of any kind; we did not consult any members of the Government before putting down this Amendment, and it was simply an attempt to elucidate a point which we thought was left rather vague in the actual Bill. The only point in that connection which I think may be of use in this discussion is that it is a little encouragement to the ordinary back-bench Member to know that it is possible for two Members with no business intelligence or knowledge of any kind to put down an Amendment which is subsequently accepted by a number of business men in the House, as representing a fair and honourable attempt to clear up a particularly difficult and technical business problem.

:My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) hardly does himself justice when he poses as a recording angel. He opened his speech with an armful of newspaper cuttings, and when he was knocked out in the second round he passed them on to the heavy-weight champion behind him. I am of opinion that that method of dealing with this subject is not very helpful. We heard very little on the merits of the subject from him. He was not concerned to argue the merits, but only to attack the good faith, the bona fides, the common sense, and the motives of his fellow-Members. That was the strain underlying his whole speech. That is the very thing which makes it so difficult for other Members of this House to co-operate with the hon. Member and those associated with him, even on subjects with which they are in agreement. They are not governed by the merits of the case, but entirely by old-fashioned party spirit and party prejudice, and the desire to score little debating points against other Members of the House. I sympathise very strongly with the Amendment which they profess to be supporting, but I say again, the speeches which they deliver on Amendments like this only make it difficult for myself and other Members to support those Amendments. Even with the concession which the Government has made, I do not think this Clause is in conformity with the title of the Bill or with the distinct pledges given by the two leading Members of the Government, on behalf of the Coalition as a whole, at the election. The professed object of the Bill is to prevent the selling of goods in this country at below the cost of manufacture in the country of origin. The Government have taken a step towards meeting that by taking the wholesale price less 5 per cent. as the cost, but I submit that that does not go nearly far enough.

What is the position in any foreign country which has a high protective tariff? The manufacturers in that country, protected by high tariffs, are able to increase the prices in that country. They are able to sell at a protected price, and if the tariff is 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem they are able to increase their price for home consumption in that country something like 33⅓ per cent. When they come to sell those goods abroad, they are selling in the open competitive market of the world, a free market in which prices find themselves, on the average, something like the cost of production with an addition for profit. The manufacturer in a country with a high protective tariff will always sell abroad at a smaller price than he sells for home consumption, and he can make profit by doing so. If one wants to find the real cost of production in a country, one will approximate to it more nearly, by deducting from the wholesale price in the country of origin, not 5 per cent. but the amount of any protective tariff which exists in that country. That is the real method of reaching it. I notice in the Clause there is a provision in reference to internal tariffs such as excise tariffs, but it is the Customs tariff which matters and I submit the general effect of the Clause as it stands, is to enable the Government to set up in this country, a system of retaliatory tariffs, against every country which maintains a high protective tariff of its own. That is not what was contemplated by any of us before the last General Election. That policy has never been before the country, nor has it received the assent of the country, and it is contrary to the direct pledges given by the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) at the General Election. I do not think they are entitled on the understanding on which they formed the Coalition—

:The hon. Member is also making a Second Reading speech. I have already pointed out what the subject of the Amendment is. We have heard very little yet about the Amendment, and the hon. Member is not the only offender.

:I am sorry I have not made myself clear. The proposition before us is that there shall be a reduction of either 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. on the cost of manufacture in the country of origin, and I am submitting that it is not enough. I do not know on what point I have been out of order.

:I do not understand how the hon. Member is in order. The Amendment is to leave out the words "the wholesale" and to insert "90 per cent. of the lowest." It is only the merits of one form of words against the other form of words which is under discussion now, and not the whole question raised by the Clause.

:Before you came in, Sir, a member of the Government spoke, and we have been proceeding on the assumption that we were discussing a much wider question than that. The Government have announced their intention of accepting an Amendment which occurs much later, and there has been a general understanding, supported in fact by the Chair, that the discussion should range over the general questions raised by the words which are being attacked in the Clause, but in view of your ruling now I will not attempt to pursue it. I merely state that it was on that understanding that I was endeavouring to develop my argument.

:I would point out that the argument advanced by the President of the Board of Trade emanated from America. He informed the Committee that Congress had been investigating this matter, and that the representatives in Congress urged that the wholesale price, less 8 per cent., was the cost of production. He goes to one of the most highly protected countries in the world for his source of information, and he comes down to this House, to Britain, which has maintained her position for so long by the Free Trade system, and asks us to accept the principle which he enunciated, having found authority for his views in a highly protected country. We are listening day by day to strange doctrines which emanate from the Treasury Bench. This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary informed the Committee that the wholesale selling price, less 5 per cent., equals the cost of production, or, rather, the cost of production, plus 5 per cent., is the wholesale selling price. Before he directed his attention to politics, the Parliamentary Secretary was, I know, associated with many commercial companies, and I venture to say that in his business days, when he fixed the wholesale price of his commodities in the interests of his shareholders, he did not add merely 5 per cent. to the cost of production, or he would not long have continued to adorn the position which he held for so long.

The fact of the matter is that 5 per cent. is quite inadequate. Let the Committee observe what has to be added by every business man when fixing his selling price. He finds out from his factory side the cost of production—the labour expended and the materials used. He has his warehouse charges and his selling expenses, and he has to allow a certain amount for bad debts. I suggest that to deduct 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. from the wholesale price for heavy goods and 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. for the lighter class of goods would bring the words "wholesale price" more in conformity with the views held outside that this Bill is directed to protect traders from goods being sold here below the cost of production. I have had, whether to my profit or loss, some experience in selling goods abroad, and in every tariff country there are always two prices. There is the price behind the tariff wall, and there is the wholesale price abroad, the world price. The Government believe in high prices, and the duty is to be paid, not on the world price, but on the wholesale selling price in the country of origin Take paper as an instance. Paper made in large quantities in the Scandinavian countries is sold at a high price because of the small demand in those countries, but the price for large quantities of paper or any other article in Great Britain differs profoundly from the price behind the tariff wall in those highly protected countries. Therefore, I appeal to every business man in the Committee that to find out the true definition of the words "cost of production" we should deduct from the wholesale selling price at least. 15 per cent. to 20 per cent.

The difference is a very big one, and it affects my constituency, which exists on buying steel plates, sometimes below the cost of production abroad. Now the shipbuilders on the Clyde, in Newcastle, in London, will be forced to pay the wholesale price for plates, girders, and other things they require from the country of origin. They are going to be denied the benefit of buying these articles which they require to keep their men employed at high wages in this country, and they are going to be forced not only to pay the wholesale price, but in addition the 33⅓ per cent. duty which this Bill levies. If the percentage, instead of 10 per cent. were made 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., there would be less fear in the future of rings dominating this country. The words which we are discussing will undoubtedly play into the hands of every ring of manufacturers. They will be able to rig prices, they will be able to bleed the consumer, and they will be able to charge high prices for their goods, because the Clause and the Amendment will limit their power to buy, and they will be forced to pay not only the price for the foreign countries: but the high duty imposed. I urge that 10 per cent. on the cost of production does not in the opinion of any hon. Member in the House represent at all accurately the wholesale price. If the Government are anxious, as they appear to be, to accept words which will more accurately define the cost of production, I suggest that 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. should be added, and by that means the Government would correctly interpret the true meaning of the cost of production and safeguard the interests of the people of this country.

:I suggest that the discussion on this Amendment has complete unreality. The hon. Member who has just sat down suggested a different percentage to the 10 per cent. suggested by the Amendment, but is there any reason whatever to suppose that 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. becomes any more real than the 10 per cent.? In those glorious days before the War, in certain branches of my own manufacture I used to add 100 per cent. on the cost, and in certain other branches I rarely got more than 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. We have the fact that the wholesale prices vary from day to day. The wholesale price is usually arrived at from a price list with a series of discounts attached to it, which are issued to the wholesale merchants. Those discounts in certain branches of trade vary almost from day to day and from week to week. You get a price list sent to you from the manufacturer, in which he says, "The prices are according to this list, less 50 per cent., less 25 per cent., less 12½ per cent., less 2½ per cent," and so on, and those percentages in certain trades are liable to variation, and therefore to attempt to define the cost of production by the deduction of a fixed percentage on the varying wholesale price is simply an absurdity and is quite in keeping with the utter unreality of the whole of this part of the Bill.

6.0 P.M.

:I should like to oppose the Amendment, because I think the 10 per cent., far from being too low in amount, as has been suggested by several speakers, is altogether too high, and I am sorry the Government have agreed to accept the further Amendment, which will mean a 5 per cent. allowance instead of 10 per cent. We have been talking about the profit which should be allowed, and Members on this side suggest that we must allow for a merchant's profit, and it seems to be assumed that 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. is a reasonable profit for a merchant. That would be an enormous profit in any business on the turnover, and if this 10 per cent. is allowed it would result in minimising the "whole effect of the Government's intention. There are many businesses with a capital of £100,000, say, and supposing their turnover, which is quite usual, was £100,000 per week, with this allowance of 10 per cent. they would have a profit of £10,000, and that for a year would be a profit of £500,000 on a capital of £100,000. I have a little idea what I am talking about, and I have the further advantage that I was brought up in the same school as the hon. Members who are opposing the Government on this Bill, so that I have the advantage of that Free Trade education which in their opinion is so essential to any business man, and it is rather remarkable that I should see rather differently from them, but I hope they will give me credit, at any rate, for looking at this subject from the same sincere point of view that they do, and that is in the best interests of all concerned. We are asked to study the point of view as to why we should be debarred from having articles imported into this country and sold here cheaply, but I would point out that there is a greater thing than having an article at a cheap price. We are always asked to look after the interests of the consumer, but I say in all sincerity that there is someone whose interests it is more important to look after even than those of the consumer. The interests of the producer are more important, and if a 10 per cent. allowance will prevent goods that would otherwise come into this country from coming in, and would therefore make unemployment in this country which would otherwise be avoided, I say that that allowance is entirely wrong. I wish to look after the interests of the producer, and for this reason. Every producer in this country is also a consumer, but it is not a fact that every consumer is a producer. There is only one producer, roughly, out of overy four people in these islands. It is more important to look after the security of the employment which this Bill seeks to preserve by preventing dumping, the security of the one man who has got three consumers besides to keep, than it is to look entirely after the interests of consumers.

:That depends on the point of view. I am afraid the hon. Member is following the example of other hon. Members whose observations have been rather of a Second Reading character.

:I take it that if I had followed other hon. Members too closely you would have been able to call me to order, not only much earlier, Sir Edwin, but very often during my speech. There was a remark made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the one difficulty we had in this matter was that people making or manufacturing an article in highly protected countries and easily supplied—this was given as a reason for the Amendment—could easily supply the goods at a much less price to us than they could sell them in their own country. That is just my argument. We must not have this 10 per cent. allowance, otherwise you will not be able to prevent that. Actually these countries can prevent our goods going in if you keep this 10 per cent. in the Bill, and compel us to use their goods and keep our own people out of employment. I oppose the Amendment. I regret extremely the concession because I do think it is weakening the Bill. Promises at election times and at General Elections have been mentioned, and the promise to a deputation to the Prime Minister. I made a distinct promise at a by-election at Stockport after the General Election that if any Bill were to be brought in specifically to prevent dumping, I should support it. I shall therefore support it to the best of my ability.

:I am not going fully into any discussion of high politics this afternoon, because we are getting towards the end of this Bill, and we have got a rather stiff practical point in front of us. The Bill is based on the cost of production, and it has been stated that that is almost unascertainable. I was very much interested in the attempt of the Parliamentary Secretary to draw a comparison between the wholesale price at the works and the cost of production. He told us that he could have put in many quotations backing up that line of argument. They would have very much interested me, I have no doubt, and I should be very glad if you will on some future occasion give us these quotations. I rather feel this: that we are in a tangle and we cannot find really what is the cost of production. The wholesale price at the works is equally unascertainable, because my hon. Friend on my right takes one view and other hon. Members take another. I believe that that largely arises from differences in the individual business experience.

One man, like my hon. Friend, may be engaged, as he is engaged, as a very large producer. He passes the goods along at a very small margin on each particular transaction, but which, in the course of a year, relative to the capital concerned, gives a very substantial revenue. Another man is a manufacturer on a smaller scale and the five or ten per cent. might mount up the cost of his production and also the wholesale price. What does it really mean? There is the cost of production and there must be an item of profit, and the wholesale price must carry both. What really is the wholesale price? My contention is—and I think it is the rule in this country and Germany as well— that the manufacturer is not really the distributor. He passes his goods on to another large distributor, and the wholesale price of distribution will be something like twelve and a half per cent. I do not think anybody has suggested any better method of trying to arrive at the beginning of this point than the method of the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade has accepted the Amendment in principle. I really believe that we should have the truer ground if we take the matter at 10 per cent. rather than 5 per cent. What we really want to get at is dumping, and at what price would this Committee be justified in saying that these goods have been dumped into this country, and thereby were creating unemployment. That is the position. It does seem to me that the President, having accepted the principle that there is a parity between the wholesale price and the cost of production should accept the 10 per cent. instead of the 5 per cent., and so endeavour to arrive at a conclusion in relation to the solution of this problem which will be, on the whole, satisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move, in paragraph ( a ), after the word "description" ["goods of the class or description"], to insert the words "in similar quantities."

:I beg to support the Amendment. This is a further endeavour on the part of some of us on this side of the House to make this question more clear and definite and to bring in a potent factor, so that the wholesale price at the place of manufacture shall be ascertained by bringing in the factor of similar quantities. This has already been argued from this side of the House The difficulty of ascertaining the wholesale price is far greater than many hon. Members seem to imagine, because the wholesale price varies with the conditions of the transaction taking place. It must vary in much to which this Clause applies as it would in any ordinary transaction in this country. The wholesale price at which any merchant would sell his goods varies, for instance, according to whether he can get a cash price. If he can, he will sell at a certain sum which is considerably lower than if he has to give six or twelve months' credit. For purposes of comparison it is suggested by the Amendment that the factor in ascertaining the wholesale price shall be similar quantities, so that those concerned will be able to see that the standard arrived at is one which compares like with like.

:I am rather surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman advocating an Amendment in terms of similar quantities, because I have a most lively recollection of a brilliant speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the burden of which was how ridiculous, ludicrous, and impossible it was to have introduced the wording of "similar quantities" into this Clause already. The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the words, and quoted the whale and the camel in Hamlet, and now I cannot be quite sure that there is any real substance in the arguments the right hon. Gentleman opposite has advanced. My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce these very words a second time. Apart from that, it would not be advisable or desirable to accept this Amendment, nor would it, if accepted, make the position clearer or easier.

The Definition Clause, as I pointed out to the Committee on a previous Amendment, has to govern both the operations of the Committee under Clause 2 in recommending a general application and each particular case that is dealt with when the general duty has been imposed. It would really be making nonsense of the general inquiry before the Committee if we were to introduce these terms. For what does the Committee find? Whether as a fact that there is importation of a given commodity from a given country in such large quantities below the cost of production as to cause serious unemployment in this country. Therefore, if we were to put in for that purpose "in similar quantities," the whole thing would become meaningless, because what the Committee has to find is what I may call the absolute as distinct from the relative position. Therefore it would be quite inappropriate for the investigation committee when it has to consider a case under Clause 2.

In the particular case what might very easily be the result of putting in these words would be that the importer might be more penalised than under the Bill as it stands. For instance, when an order had once been made, the importer might be offered a small amount; as has been pointed out already, there might be two prices, the price for a large amount of the goods, which is, after all, the general wholesale price, and the higher price for goods sold in the small parcels. Therefore, if we were to accept the words which have been proposed by the hon. Gentleman, the small importer might actually be compelled to pay the duty on the goods, because the price for these small parcels might be a higher price than the price at which he was buying, whereas the general wholesale price of the commodities in the country of origin might be lower than the price of the particular parcels. Therefore the small importer might very likely be pilloried if we were to accept this Amendment.

:The hon. Gentleman who has replied for the Government has raised objections to this Amendment which are more academic than practical. I will take a business which I know something about, that it, the importation of billets and bars. With these words the trader who wishes to keep out these goods will take the price charged for the small quantity rather than for a large quantity, and the price at which the small quantity is sold may be pounds per ton higher. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that the duty should be put on the high price, whereas the quantity bought here might be tens of thousands of tons. Surely that is penalising the importer, and you must have the word "similar," otherwise you are penalising the works which require this material at the cheapest possible price.

:The hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Government taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) with an objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) to the word "similar." May I point out that the two similars in the instances quoted are very different. In the one case where similar is referred to it applies to certain classes of goods, and in that case it is a very foolish word to put into a Bill. On the other hand, the expression "similar quantities" is a perfectly definite and clear expression and is perfectly well known, and it is impossible to mistake it, whereas in the other case the word "similar" simply makes nonsense of the Clause.

:The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, if he had had more commercial experience would know that the price varies according to the quantity. In the case of anyone purchasing under a big contract there is a variation in the price, and therefore when the assessors on this side of the world have to fix a value then those who have to be assessed would be justified in saying that the value should be for a quantity of goods of a certain number which is so much, and should be assessed accordingly, and the duty should be paid on the price for that quantity. Under this proposal the smaller buyer would be penalised and that cannot be avoided. The Government themselves when they make purchases very wisely make their quantities as large as possible because they can get a better price by buying in bulk than buying in small quantities. I think this is a very reasonable Amendment.

:The very evil which the hon. Member who has just spoken wants to guard against would be made certain by accepting this Amendment. Supposing the hon. Member imports 5,000 of an article and proceeds to retail the same, the test is on each sale in this country. What he wants to do is to compare every retail price with what would be the equivalent wholesale price for a very small part of the commodity. We take the general wholesale price. The hon. Member's proposition put a severe tax upon each retail service.

:If I import 5,000 I pay my duty on that, and I can sell at any price I choose.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move in paragraph ( a ) to leave out the word "or."

Paragraph ( b ) provides that b ) altogether.

:The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken is definitely opposed to any kind of antidumping legislation and for that reason he would be desirous of leaving out both paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ). He says that he is anxious to protect industries against unfair competition, but I wish to point out that it makes no difference to the manufacturer in this country or to the workmen employed in that manufacture if they should be thrown out of work by an unfair competition or by an unreasonable price. In those circumstances it does not matter whether it is a commodity manufactured for use in the country of origin or manufactured in order to be sent into the markets of Europe. Exactly the same effect comes where prices are below the cost of production and it would be thoroughly unreasonable to prevent unfair competition in one case and leave the market free to be flooded in the other case.

:We have had a definition of metaphysics as being a search by a blind man in a dark room for a black hat which is not there. I think that definition might very well be applied to the task imposed by this Sub-section on the persons who have to discover these wholesale prices. Our objection to this paragraph is that you are dealing with a matter about which it is impossible to come to any satisfactory conclusion, and therefore we are laying a task on those charged with the working of the Bill which cannot result in any conclusion that can be accepted with any satisfaction by the persons to whom it is applied. As far as paragraph ( a ) is concerned there is something tangible to go upon, because it applies to goods which are not only manufactured, but are being sold in the country of their origin. We have spent a good deal of time this evening in inquiring into the conditions which surround the question of determining the cost of the production of these goods. But when we come to goods which are not being sold in the country of origin to which these tests cannot apply, it appears to us that the Government are asking the people charged with the administration of the Bill to engage in a fruitless and barren task. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department commented just now on the use of the word "similar," and sought to lay down the doctrine that because one of my right hon. Friends had objected to the use of the word "similar" in this Clause, therefore the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) was debarred from ever again objecting to the use of the word in any other connection. I want to draw the attention of the House to the conglomeration of policies which this paragraph involves. What are the words used? The price to be fixed is that

"charged for goods as near as may be similar when so sold, or when sold for exportation to other countries would be so charged if the goods were sold in that country."

There we have a whole scaffolding of hypothesi to go upon. Was there ever a more flimsy foundation upon which to base a charge which is going to be laid on the people of this country? Reference has been made to the unreality of the discussion on this Amendment. But whatever the unreality of the discussion, there is no unreality in the burden which the Bill is going to put on the people of this country, as every Sub-section and every Clause of the Bill has but one object, one purpose, and one intent, and that is to increase the prices which must also increase the burden laid upon everyone in the country who consumes these goods. Who knows who the consumers of these goods are going to be? Who knows what operations the goods are to be employed in? Who can realise in the whole vast fabric of industry at what point this Bill is going to impinge on prices? Here we are asked to give people power to fix prices in this country upon this flimsy and unsubstantial basis. I submit, if we are intending to lay this burden on the people of this country it should, at any rate, have some solid foundation in regard to the price which is charged. I hope hon. Members opposite will join with us in asking the Government to remove from this Bill this flimsy and unsubstantial paragraph.

:The Government have again and again assured us that all they want to do is to prevent that form of dumping which consists in unloading surplus stocks on another country while making your profits out of the goods sold in your own protected market. If they are really sincere in that, why do they not draft this paragraph on more satisfactory lines? Why do not they lay it down that where goods are exported to us from a country which does not consume them they must not be exported at a less price than they are sold at in other countries? That certainly would be one definition which would go some way to prevent the so-called dumping which seems to frighten certain hon. Members who otherwise are Free Traders. Another suggestion for the redrafting of this paragraph I might put forward in a desire to help both the Government and the merchants of the country, for we want to know where we are. We know too well that trade is killed by uncertainty. How are merchants going to understand the meaning of this paragraph ( b )? Certain hon. Members who are so often talking about dumping really aim at preventing competition from abroad with home manufactures. Why, then, I would ask, have the Government not drafted this paragraph so as to read that where there is no consumption in the country of origin for the class of goods being exported to this country, then if the price is below that at which the goods are usually sold in factories in this country, they shall be kept out? That would certainly meet the point of view of those supporters of the Coalition Government who aye clamouring that industry and labour must be protected from outside competition. The fact is, this question of goods exported from countries where they do not consume the goods themselves has put the Government in a quandary. For once they cannot avoid either Scylla or Charybdis, and therefore they are not attempting the navigation of the passage in any way. They prefer to present this ridiculous and ambiguous paragraph, which I do not believe anyone can understand. I would further suggest that in order to meet this difficulty the Government might very well adopt the wording of paragraph ( b ) of Clause 2.

:I admit I was simply trying to draw the Government for the sake of the unfortunate traders and merchants who have got to understand this Bill. I submit that the words of the paragraph have no meaning which can be understood by ordinary men. We are legislators for ordinary men and not for Members of this House. These words are altogether too ambiguous, and ought to be left out. The panel of Protectionist manufacturers will have to advise in these cases whether the goods do compete with home manufactories and whether they are not consumed in the country of origin. That is a very dangerous policy to pursue. I notice that certain Gentlemen opposite have put down Amendments to leave out Clause 8. I am hoping that their principal objection is to this paragraph ( b ). I therefore trust they will support the deletion of it. They will not be supporting us personally, but they would be doing good work if they get rid of this paragraph.

:The President of the Board of Trade informed the House that the authority against the previous Amendment came from America. I wonder whether the Government will say that there is a similar Clause to this in the Tariff Bill which for many years has passed through Congress. I think the Committee is entitled to know whether what has been the custom of highly protected countries is in future to be the custom of Great Britain. In a previous Amendment the Government were very definite, and they refused an Amendment to confine the wholesale price to the cost of production plus 10 per cent. But in this particular paragraph they are delightfully vague, and I think we can pit against their very definite statement the very indefinite spirit they are now displaying. There is one other point to which I am anxious to draw the attention of the Committee in connection with the latter part of this paragraph. The words to which I wish to draw particular attention are:

"or when sold for exportation to other countries."

That raises the point which we have already advanced, that the price charged should be the export price, but evidently under the paragraph the price on which the duty is to be levied is the export price. In paragraph ( a ) the Government have determined that the price is to be the wholesale price. There is, I think, some confusion between the two paragraphs, and that is why my hon. and gallant Friend has moved the deletion of paragraph ( b ).

:The hon. Gentleman the Minister responsible for the measure has once again entirely evaded the issue raised by this Amendment. He said that hon. Members responsible for this Amendment were in favour of permitting dumping and consequently desired to omit this subsection. That, however, is not the issue raised by this particular Amendment. The issue is, whether or not it is possible to prevent dumping of this kind by the words of this Sub-section. The contention of the Mover of the Amendment was that in the case of the type of goods, mentioned in this sub-section it was, utterly impossible to arrive at any estimate of the true facts of the situation. The hon. Gentleman may tell us that goods which are manufactured purely for export purposes may have just as detrimental an effect on industry in this country as goods which are also sold in the country of origin. But in the case of goods manufactured solely and purely for export purposes it is, utterly impossible to arrive at any estimate of the wholesale price in the country of origin, and consequently the Government have introduced this ludicrous paragraph, which says that we are to have regard to the prices charged for goods

"as near as may be similar when so sold or when sold for exportation to other countries."

This ludicrous phrase "as near as may be similar" is introduced into the Bill to deal with a contingency which it passes the wit of man to devise measures to circumvent. What is the effect? It is that an unlimited power of discriminating against practically any goods coming into this country is placed in the hands of the big business committee which is constituted under this Bill. It is not even necessary for that committee to show that they have definite evidence or figures to prove that dumping is taking place in this country. The power is put into their lands to deal with entirely hypothetical contingencies. Any conceivable goods could have this duty imposed on them on their entry into this country under this sub-section which places an undefined and unlimited power in the hands of big business nominated by the Board of Trade.

:I do hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will explain to the Committee the meaning of this extraordinary paragraph ( b ), which purports to give a definition of the expression "cost of production." It says that "cost of production'' means, Alternatively to paragraph ( a ), the current sterling equivalent.

"if no such goods are sold for consumption in that country, [of] the price which, having regard to the prices charged for goods as near as may be similar when so sold, or when sold for exportation to other countries, would be so charged if the goods were sold in that country."

I am not a lawyer, but merely one of those unfortunate people who will be affected to a certain extent by the passing of this Measure, and I do think that in mercy to us, if for no other reason, the Government might give us a lucid explanation of this remarkable phraseology. For some weeks past I have been reading Lord Haldane's "Commentaries on Einstein," and they are lucid in the extreme compared with this.

:I doubt very much whether in the whole history of Parliamentary draftsmanship there has been anything quite equal to this paragraph. I wonder what the courts would have to say if they were called upon to construe such an expression as "as near as may be similar." My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull suggested just now that the ambiguity of this paragraph would lead to many disputes, but the Government are going to take very good care that there are not going to be any disputes over the meaning of this Clause. They know that no court and no judiciary could construe such a provision, and, therefore, they are going to take it right out of the domain of the judiciary altogether. Who is to construe this Clause? Not the judges of the Realm. The subject has no redress whatever in the courts. If any dispute arises as to what these words mean, it is to be decided—by whom? By a referee. And it is not to be decided by a referee agreed upon by the parties to the dispute, as one would imagine would have been the case if it were desired to do justice. It is to be referred to a referee appointed by one party to the dispute, and he is to be a referee appointed by the Treasury, who will be very much affected by the decision, whatever it may be. Moreover, the decision of that referee appointed by the Treasury is to be final.

:I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member into the question of the referee, because that is dealt with in another Clause, but I think he may be perfectly certain that any referee appointed will be a perfectly fair and impartial person. I feel sure he would not really suggest that a referee appointed under this Measure would be appointed for the purpose of giving a biased decision.

:I say that it is thoroughly wrong in principle that a referee should be appointed by one party to a dispute, however fair he might be.

:It has been in operation under the Finance Act. In the case of the duties originated by Mr. McKenna, there was precisely the same position as regards a referee appointed by the Treasury.

:May I ask whether the referee is to be a crystal gazer, or to have the gift of second sight?

:I have no doubt he will use one of the microscopes which my hon. Friend is going to smuggle into the country. I think, however, that he will have a clearer conception, perhaps, than my hon. Friend pretends that he has in this matter. With regard to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), there is the widest power under the United States Act. Indeed, in the United States, the Government are entitled to put on the duty in any case in which they are satisfied that an industry is likely to be injured or prevented from being established by reason of the importation into the United States of any class or kind of merchandise at all, and that the merchandise is likely to be sold in the United States or elsewhere at less than its fair value.

:On the contrary, it is something in addition; it is anti-dumping legislation. Of course the hon. Member is definitely against this Bill. He wants dumping; we do not.

:And it is a very good and effective argument. We have given pledges for the prevention of dumping, and, whatever some hon. Members may think about their pledges, we intend to carry them out.

:I am not such a particularist as the hon. and gallant Member; I propose to carry out all my pledges.

:As the hon. Member has made a definite statement about my views, perhaps I may be allowed to explain. The hon. Gentleman says that I want dumping, but I want to stop the kind of dumping which the Prime Minister, in the manifesto signed by himself and the then Leader of the House, said that he was going to stop and wished to stop. What I ask is that that pledge shall be carried out, and not changed by the introduction of protective legislation which goes far beyond the pledge itself.

:The hon. Member takes, indeed, a singular way of giving effect to the pledges we have given. With regard to the definition in this Clause, it is, as I have explained, absolutely necessary to guard against dumping which is going to throw people out of employment, whether the article dumped be one that is manufactured for consumption in the country of origin or not. It makes no difference to the manufacturer, or to the workman who is thrown out of employment, whether it is made for domestic consumption in the country of origin or not. For this purpose it is necessary to arrive at a definition to meet the case in which the article is not consumed in the country of origin. I think that these words are convenient words for the purpose, but between now and the Report stage I will look into the definition, and if I can find words which will be clearer I am quite willing to propose to insert them. What I am not willing to do is to depart from the principle, which is to stop this dumping, whether the article dumped be manufactured for domestic consumption or merely for export.

:May I, as a lawyer, venture to point out that a great deal of the discussion which has centred upon this particular Clause has been entirely irrelevant? The Government has been challenged on the question of how the referee appointed by the Treasury is going to deal with this matter, and we have heard of the difficulty which traders litigating on the matter would have in satisfying the referee as to the meaning of this Clause. But he has nothing to do with Clause 8. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 11, they will see the kind of disputes with which the referee is to deal, and they will see that those disputes will only relate to the classes of goods coming within certain categories. It is entirely outside the province of the referee to deal with paragraph ( b ) at all. The whole point of the paragraph is to afford guidance to the Committee which is going to adjudicate on applications for protection under Clause 2 of the Bill. Paragraph ( a ) of Clause 8 defines the data on which they have to arrive at their decision as to the cost of production of goods with regard to which complaints of dumping are being made. That leaves a, gap in the case of those goods which are being dumped but which are not being manufactured for home consumption in the country producing them. The problem before the Government and the Committee is how to bridge that gap. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) says that in his judgment it passes the wit of man to do so, but, after all, there are people who can form judgments on these questions besides the hon. Member for Harrow. Paragraph ( b ) is an attempt to do so. Of course, it is not perfect, but the object is clear. The real meaning is that, in the absence of any goods precisely the same as those which the complainant says are being dumped upon the country, then, in order to arrive at the cost of production, you have to look at other goods produced in the country of more or less the same type or class. That is the reason why the phrase "as near as may be similar" is adopted. The meaning must be clear even to the intelligence of my hon. Friends above the Gangway. They know the object.

:That is so; but if the tribunal consists of the intelligent, reasonable, and impartial people whom we wish to see upon it, they will understand perfectly well the purport of the Clause, and on these grounds I think it may very well be maintained.

:Could the hon. and learned Member explain the meaning of the last phrase, "if the goods were sold in that country"? How are you going to get at the price of goods if they were sold as they were not sold?

:There is no difficulty. What the tribunal would look at is the price at which goods of the same type are selling, having regard to the labour involved in their production, the general average for overhead charges, and the rates of profits prevailing in the market. One hon. Member referred to goods produced in Lancashire simply for export overseas. It would be easy to find what would be the standard selling price of that type of goods in Lancashire, by comparing it with goods involving the same amount of labour, skill, and overhead charges, produced for home consumption.

It being Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13 th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 86.

Division No. 242.]

AYES.

[7.0 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Green, Albert (Derby)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Clough, Sir Robert

Greer, Harry

Atkey, A. R.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Gretton, Colonel John

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cope, Major William

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Ralfour, George (Hampstead)

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hailwood, Augustine

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Barker, Major Robert H.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Barlow, Sir Montague

Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Barnston, Major Harry

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Haslam, Lewis

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

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

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Betterton, Henry B.

Edgar, Clifford B.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Bigland, Alfred

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Hills, Major John Waller

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Elveden, Viscount

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Borwick, Major G. O.

Falcon, Captain Michael

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godiray

Hood, Joseph

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Brassey, H. L. C.

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Gulldford)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Foreman, Sir Henry

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Forestier-Walker, L.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Brown, Major D. C.

Forrest, Walter

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

Bruton, Sir James

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Hurd, Percy A.

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Gardiner, James

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

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Jephcott, A. R.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colnnel Sir John

Jesson, C.

Butcher, Sir John George

Glyn, Major Ralph

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Campbell, J. D. G.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Carr, W. Theodore

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Casey, T. W.

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

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

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Sutherland, Sir William

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Taylor, J.

Kidd, James

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Parker, James

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Sir William

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Lloyd, George Butler

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Tickler, Thomas George

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Townley, Maximilian G.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Lorden, John William

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Waddington, R.

Lort-Williams, J.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Pratt, John William

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Prescott, Major W. H.

Waring, Major Walter

M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

Purchase, H. G.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Rees, Sir J. O. (Nottingham, East)

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Reid, D. D.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Remnant, Sir James

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Renwick, Sir George

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

Macquisten, F. A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Manville, Edward

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Martin, A. E.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Mason, Robert

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Matthews, David

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Winterton, Earl

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Wise, Frederick

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Montagu, Rt. Hon E. S.

Seager, Sir William

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Seddon, J. A.

Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Woolcock, William James U.

Morrison, Hugh

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Worsfold, T. Cato

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Simm, M. T.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Younger, Sir George

Nall, Major Joseph

Stanton, Charles Butt

Neal, Arthur

Stewart, Gershom

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

McCurdy.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sugden, W. H.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

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

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Halls, Walter

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Hancock, John George

Robertson, John

Armitage, Robert

Hartshorn, Vernon

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hayday, Arthur

Royce, William Stapleton

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayward, Evan

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hinds, John

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Smith, W. R. (Weillngborough)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hogge, James Myles

Spencer, George A.

Briant, Frank

Holmes, J. Stanley

Swan, J. E.

Bromfield, William

Irving, Dan

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

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Cairns, John

Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Cape, Thomas

Kennedy, Thomas

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

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Tootill, Robert

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Kenyon, Barnet

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kiley, James Daniel

Waterson, A. E.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lawson, John James

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lunn, William

Wignall, James

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Mills, John Edmund

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Finney, Samuel

Mosley, Oswald

Wintringham, Thomas

France, Gerald Ashburner

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Galbraith, Samuel

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Glanville, Harold James

O'Grady, James

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Rae, H. Norman

Mr. C. Edwards and Dr. Murray.

Grundy, T. W.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

The Chairman then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which Notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven of the clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "and an amount

equal to five per cent. of the price."— [ Mr. Baldwin. ]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 82.

Division No. 243.]

AYES.

[7.12 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Forrest, Walter

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Ganzoni, Sir John

Macquisten, F. A.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Atkey, A. R.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Glyn, Major Ralph

Manville, Edward

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Goff, Sir R. Park

Mason, Robert

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Matthews, David

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

Barker, Major Robert H.

Green, Albert (Derby)

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Barlow, Sir Montague

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Barnston, Major Harry

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Greer, Harry

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

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Gretton, Colonel John

Morrison, Hugh

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

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Betterton, Henry B.

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Bigland, Alfred

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Hallwood, Augustine

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Nail, Major Joseph

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Neal, Arthur

Brassey, H. L. C.

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Haslam, Lewis

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

Brittain, Sir Harry

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Brown, Major D. C.

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bruton, Sir James

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Hills, Major John Waller

Parker, James

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

Pearce, Sir William

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Butcher, Sir John George

Hood, Joseph

Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Campbell, J. D. G.

Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n. W.)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Carr, W. Theodore

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Casey, T. W.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Pratt, John William

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Prescott, Major W. H.

Clough, Sir Robert

Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

Purchase, H. G.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Hurd, Percy A.

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Reid, D. D.

Cope, Major William

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

Remnant, Sir James

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc)

Jephcott, A. R.

Renwick, Sir George

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Jesson, C.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

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

Kidd, James

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Edgar, Clifford B.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Seager, Sir William

Elveden, Viscount

Lloyd, George Butler

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Falcon, Captain Michael

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Simm, M. T.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Lorden, John William

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Fell, Sir Arthur

Lort-Williams, J.

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Foreman, Sir Henry

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Stewart, Gershom

Forestier-Walker, L.

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Sugden, W. H.

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Winterton, Earl

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Waring, Major Walter

Wise, Frederick

Sutherland, Sir William

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Taylor, J.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Woolcock, William James U.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Worsfold, T. Cato

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Tickler, Thomas George

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Younger, Sir George

Townley, Maximilian G.

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Waddington, R.

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

McCurdy.

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Va'ley)

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

O'Grady, James

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Grundy, T. W.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

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

Rae, H. Norman

Armitage, Robert

Halls, Walter

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Hancock, John George

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hayday, Arthur

Robertson, John

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hayward, Evan

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hodge, Rt. Han. John

Royce, William Stapleton

Briant, Frank

Hogge, James Myles

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Bromfield, William

Holmes, J. Stanley

Spencer, George A.

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Swan, J. E.

Cairns, John

Irving, Dan

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Cape, Thomas

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Tootill, Robert

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

Kennedy, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Waterson, A. E.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock'

Kiley, James Daniel

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lawson, John James

Wignall, James

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Lunn, William

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Mills, John Edmund

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Finney, Samuel

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wintringham, Thomas

France, Gerald Ashburner

Mosley, Oswald

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Galbraith, Samuel

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Glanville, Harold James

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. T. Shaw.

CLAUSE 9.—(Duration, etc., or orders.)

An Order made under this Part of this Act shall, unless previously revoked by the Board, continue in force for three years or such less period as may be specified in the Order; but any such order may, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be renewed from time to time by an Order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions as the original Order:

Provided that the Board shall not have power to revoke any such Order except after reference to and consideration of any report thereon by a committee constituted under this Part of this Act, and that an Order

made on the ground of depreciation of foreign currency shall not be made or continue in force after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act.

Amendment made: After the word "order" ["revoke any such order"], insert the words "either wholly or as respects any country or article to which the order relates."—[ Mr. Baldwin. ]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 77.

Division No. 244.]

AYES.

[7.21 p.m.

Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

Barnston, Major Harry

Brassey, H. L. C.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Breese, Major Charles E.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Brittain, Sir Harry

Amery, Leopold C. M.S.

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Brown, Major D. C.

Atkey, A. R.

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

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Betterton, Henry B.

Bruton, Sir James

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bigland, Alfred

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Barker, Major Robert H.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Barlow, Sir Montague

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Butcher, Sir John George

Campbell J D. G.

Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Carr, W. Theodore

Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Reid, D. D.

Casey, T. W.

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Remnant, Sir James

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Renwick, Sir George

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

Hurd, Percy A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Clough, Sir Robert

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

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Jephcott, A. R.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Jesson, C.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Cope, Major William

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Seager, Sir William

Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

Kidd, James.

Seddon, J. A.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

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

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Simm, M. T.

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Lindsay, William Arthur

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Edgar, Clifford B.

Lloyd, George Butler

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Elveden, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Stewart, Gershom

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Lorden, John William

Sturrock, J. Leng

Falcon, Captain Michael

Lort-Williams, J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Sugden, W. H.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Sutherland, Sir William

Fildes, Henry

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Taylor, J.

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Foreman, Sir Henry

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Forestier-Walker, L.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Forrest, Walter

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Manville, Edward

Tickler, Thomas George

Ganzoni, Sir John

Mason, Robert

Townley, Maximilian G.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Matthews, David

Tryon, Major George Clement

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Glyn, Major Ralph

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Waddington, R.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Grant, James Augustus

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

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

Waring, Major Walter

Green, Albert (Derby)

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Morrison, Hugh

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Greer Harry

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Gretton, Colonel John

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Nail, Major Joseph

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

Neal, Arthur

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Hailwood, Augustine

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

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Winterton, Earl

Haslam, Lewis

Parker, James

Wise, Frederick

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Pearce, Sir William

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Woolcock, William James U.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Worsfold, T. Cato

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Perkins, Walter Frank

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Younger, Sir George

Hood, Joseph

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)

Pratt, John William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Prescott, Major W. H.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Purchase, H. G.

McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Cairns, John

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Cape, Thomas

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Armitage, Robert

Briant, Frank

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Bromfield, William

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Kennedy, Thomas

Royce, William Stapleton

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Finney, Samuel

Kenyon, Barnet

Spencer, George A.

Galbraith, Samuel

Kiley, James Daniel

Swan, J. E.

Glanville, Harold James

Lawson, John James

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Lunn, William

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Tootill, Robert

Grundy, T. W.

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

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

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Waterson, A. E.

Halls, Walter

Mills, John Edmund

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Hancock, John George

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wignall, James

Hartshorn, Vernon

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Hayday, Arthur

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Hayward, Evan

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Hogge, James Myles

Rae, H. Norman

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

Irving, Dan

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Robertson, John

Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. T. Shaw.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

CLAUSE 10.—(Value of goods for purposes of Act.)

(1) The value of any imported goods for the purpose of this Act shall be taken to be the price which an importer would give for the goods if the goods were delivered to him freight and insurance paid, in bond at the port of importation, and duty shall be paid on that value as fixed by the Commissioners.

(2) If in ascertaining the proper rate of duty chargeable on any goods under this Act any dispute arises as to the value of the goods, that question shall be referred to a referee appointed by the Treasury, and the decision of the referee with respect to the matter in dispute shall be final and conclusive.

Sections thirty and thirty-one of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, shall, as respects any such dispute as to value, have effect as if an application for a reference to a referee under this provision were substituted for the action or suit mentioned in those Sections.

:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "price" ["the price which"], to insert the words "at the port of shipment."

We have been charged in this Debate with dealing with this question from a party point of view, and we have been appealed to to approach it as practical business men. Tested by that standard, this Amendment is essentially a practical business man's Amendment. The gist of it is the difference between the value of goods f.o.b. and the value of goods c.i.f. Having settled in Clause 8 that the cost of production is to be defined as the value of the goods in the country of origin, Clause 10 is at variance with Clause 8, and is illogical and contrary to what we have done. We have been told that the purpose of the Bill is to prevent dumped goods from coming in. We measure the standard of values by the cost at the works in the country of origin. Why, after having made that definition as to how you are to ascertain the standard by which you may estimate dumping, should you vary the standard when it is a question of putting on the duty. Your object, rightly or wrongly, is to protect the manufacturer and the workman in this country against dumped goods coming in, and then, over and above that, you say that you are going to penalise the traders, the shippers and the importers by charging 33⅓ per cent. on the freight on those same goods. Having given them protection in the one case, you give them added protection in the other. If our purpose is pure protection, the Clause as it stands should be welcomed by Protectionists, but if our object is simply to provide a safeguard against dumping, then that safe guard has been already secured in Clause 8.

We are told that there is no desire on the part of the Government to increase the price over and above that which is necessary to secure our people against dumping; but this Clause goes on to increase the price of goods to be sold in this country and to add to the cost of living in an unnecessary way. It is adding to the cost of living without increasing the safeguard against dumping. We have been the shipping carriers of the world, and this Clause is aimed at our shipping and importing trade throughout the world. If in addition to having put on the 33⅓ per cent. duty to the value of the goods in the country of origin you add a further 33⅓ per cent. on the freight, which is to be paid on those goods before they reach these shores, and you are piling on the agony, you are increasing to an unheard-of extent the protection that you are giving. I appeal to the Government in the name of the con- sumers, the traders, and especially the shippers, to accept this Amendment, otherwise the effect will be to cripple our industries, to raise prices, and to retard that revival of trade which we are all so anxious to see.

:I should like to support the Amendment. The arguments of my hon. Friend are unanswerable. If the Government had been logical and had met the Amendments on Clause 8, which defined what is the cost of production, one could have understood them not accepting the Amendment now moved. In determining whether goods have been dumped you can take as the cost of production the wholesale price in England, after taking into consideration the cost of freight and insurance. What does it matter to the manufacturer in this country what is the actual cost of production in another country. What he will take into consideration is the cost at which those goods manufactured in a foreign country can be sold in this country in competition with himself, and for that purpose you must take into consideration the freight and insurance. That in itself acts as a protective duty. When you are considering the question of dumping you must take into consideration the cost of freight and insurance in determining whether those goods are being dumped and whether our manufacturers are being met with unfair competition. The Government have not done that. What earthly ground can there be when you come to impose a duty which is to be a protection against dumping for taking the cost to be the cost of production plus freight and insurance? You cannot have it both ways. We are driven to the conclusion that this is not a genuine case of trying to prevent dumping, but that it is an excuse for imposing a general system of tariffs. We have had many examples of the anomalies created by this Bill. There have been many arguments against the Bill which have never been met, and we have had exposures of the illogical position taken up by the Government. If they wish to show their sincerity in this matter I hope they will accept the Amendment.

:This is not a pure question of dumping, but a pure question of a Customs duty. We have decided to impose a Customs duty in certain circumstances, and, having decided that, the point to be decided now is what Customs duty shall be imposed. The universal practice in this country in regard to an ad valorem duty is to impose it on the value c.i.f. That was done in the Finance Act, 1915, and if my hon. Friend had been in the House then he would have supported it. I see no reason why we should have one system in the one case and another system in regard to the duties arising out of this Bill. It is not a question of the protection that arises or trying to penalise anybody. It it is question of where the duty should be imposed, and we have followed what has hitherto been the practice.

:The desire of the Mover of the Amendment is to see that the Government is consistent. It is no use my right hon. Friend endeavouring to avoid the real issue by saying that this is simply a Customs duty. We must really get down to the intentions of the Government in regard to these articles, which my right hon. Friend proposes should come in c.i.f. rather than f.o.b. What is the reason for this legislation? If he will look at Clause 2, he will find it specifically stated that the reason is that any industry in the United Kingdom is being or likely to be seriously affected. The main argument which has been persistently and steadily addressed to this point is the effect on the working man. It is a question of employment; not so much a question of the manufacturer or the merchant. It is the question of interference with the workman as compared with the working conditions in the countries where these goods arise. We have had arguments addressed to the Committee at considerable length on the question of the cost of production, and it has been finally decided to be "the wholesale price at the place of manufacture." The Government defined that as the cost of production plus 5 per cent.

It is on that alone that a competitive price should be regarded. But what are we doing? They take one step beyond that, and in addition to the cost, based upon the relative positions of the working classes in the two countries concerned, here and abroad, they add the total cost of these goods when they arrive in this country. That shows that the real objective is not a question of trying to mitigate as well as you can the unfair conditions of the working classes in each contracting country, but it is to set up a protective system which is the real aim of this Bill. I do not know that in any Amendment yet moved this has come out more clearly than upon this Amendment. My right hon. Friend says that it is only a question of Customs duty. He cannot be allowed to let the Committee ride off on that. We are prepared to fight this Bill down to the bare foundations arid the main conditions on which it is based. Any proposal in the Bill which goes beyond the protection of the conditions of the working classes in this country makes it into a real protective Measure and goes beyond the support they have got for the Bill from so many Members of the Committee. It is no use riding off on the talk about Customs duty. This Bill seeks to adjust between the working conditions in the country where the goods arise and the working conditions which would be seriously affected in this country. It is to adjust the unfairness between one group of working men and another, and if any hon. Members who gave a mitigated support with regard to other Amendments do not support this Amendment, it is perfectly clear to us, what we have long suspected, that the real objective of this Measure is not a protection to the working man of this country, but to raise the prices in this country so as to give a great protection to the seller as against the producing interests in this country.

:It is very obvious that if we set up to give protection or a preference of 33⅓ per cent. we are under this Clause committed to give something considerably more than that. You have the 33⅓ per cent. on all freight insurance; you have also involved the packing cases and the general charges and the general charges of a business. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree that that is going beyond what was to be the purport of this Bill. Whatever obtained before in regard to the impositions of ad valorem duties, it is an undoubted fact that this Bill is something new in our fiscal system. The duty will not be limited to 33⅓ per cent. upon the value of the goods brought in, but will penalise our shipping, our insurance, and other industries. No one with any experience of freight and pack- age charges will fail to realise that the 33⅓ per cent. will amount to a serious sum, and whilst on the broad principles of this Measure, having a strong desire to protect our country from the serious menace of dumping, I do believe that the 33⅓ per cent. should be considered to be the limit. Unless this Amendment is accepted we are going beyond that, and in some cases it is easy to see that this duty may be as much as 37 or 40 per cent. where the goods have had to be carried long distances. It is going outside what I had understood to be the policy of the Government in limiting the duty to 33⅓ per cent.

:May I respectfully remind the right hon. Gentleman we are not used in this country to ad valorem duties? The only ad valorem duty we have is what comes from the Mackenna duties, to which many Members objected. In their case they were put on a variety of articles on which no Committee has to sit to investigate the particular case. It is the convenient method to take a c.i.f. price. But this case is quite different from that and of an exceptional character. Before the duty can be levied, or before you issue an Order, the whole circumstances have to be investigated of practically every case on, a collapsed exchange. In each case there must be an investigation by a Committee, and therefore when that investigation takes place all the facts to the costs as defined in this Bill are to be fairly set forth, and also there can be no question advanced as to taking the c.i.f. price. If that is so, I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to do something more than the duties already agreed upon—the 33⅓ per cent.—there is no need for him to fall back upon precedent and say we must have the c.i.f. price because the Committee will have arrived at a decision as to the proper price which must be charged. I am not assuming for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of making this burden any heavier than he is bound to make it from the fact that he is in charge of the Bill. I assume that he is trying to keep it lighter. If he wants to make it lighter, I ask him to agree to this Amendment, which merely asks him that the only duty which should be charged is the duty already in the Bill.

:The difficulties of the Government on this Bill gather each hour. At an earlier stage in the afternoon the price to be paid was stated in the Bill. At a later stage it has become what the the importer would give to him, freight and insurance paid. He will have to make a calculation. He will have to take into consideration in filling up his invoice at the Custom House the freight which he pays, the insurance, and the cost of goods. Every trader who is endeavouring to import goods to serve the country will have a very difficult problem on every case of goods which he imports. When we come to analyse this Clause and compare it with the opening Debates of the Bill, when it was said that the intention was that these duties were to be imposed for the purpose of safeguarding the industries of the United Kingdom, we should also remember the consumers' interest. Is the Bill going to protect the large number of workers on the railways who are going to be taxed 33⅓ per cent. which the importer will give for the goods and for the freights and insurance paid? Take over a million men in the coal trade. There is to be no protection for these men, because they are going to be charged for the pit props and other things which require the 33⅓ per cent., not only on the price of the goods which come from abroad, but also on the freight and insurance. We have had some experience unfortunately of the very high prices of freights charged on goods in this country during the past few years. The policy of the Government is directly aimed at our overseas trade, and as a result of that policy, the freight charges of this country will be increased. The Amendment endeavours to safeguard the interests of the consumer, which dominates all other interests. The highly specialised industries in this country are well able to look after themselves.

8.0 P.M.

We wish that the interests of the consumer should dominate the policy of the Government in this Bill. A tariff wall is gradually being set up, and it is higher than many hon. Members thought. A duty of one-third is to be paid on the wholesale price in the country of origin, and now, according to this Clause, the price in the country of origin is the price to be levied by the Customs House—it is the price in the country of origin plus freight and insurance. A slight calculation will show that, if this Amendment be rejected, the price of imported goods will be increased by a further 5 per cent. In these days of high prices, when the one thing the country demands is increased production, which means low prices, any Amendment which tends to guard the interests of the consumer and to lower prices, and by lowering prices enable this country to maintain her position in the markets of the world, deserves consideration. If prices are raised by this particular Clause Britain cannot maintain her position. She cannot purchase the articles she requires unless she exchanges for them the product of our own manufactories. Therefore the Government, although they may stand fast to the main principle of their Bill in Part I and in Clause 8, would do well to consider this matter, which deals with the practical working of the Bill.

The Customs House officials will have a difficult task. They will have to examine every invoice; to find out and check the particular amount of insurance they will have to go to the insurance company, and they will have to check the freight charges. That, at once, raises the suggestion that this Bill is a bureaucratic Bill to create more officials, because every invoice will require to state clearly the amount of freight charges. There are some who will endeavour to put down a small sum as the cost of freight, and, therefore, in the interest of the honester trader, every invoice will have to be examined. We know already that the cost of officials in the Customs House has risen from £2,000,000 in 1914 to over £6,000,000 in 1921, and what the increase will be for 1922–23 is not pleasant to reflect on, because the cost of it will all come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. They will be taxed, first of all, to maintain officials, and, secondly, they will be taxed under the clauses of this Bill. Surely the time has arrived for the Government to listen to appeals, in the interest of the consumer, that the prices to be passed by the Customs House should be the prices which an importer will give for the goods, leaving the vexed and difficult question of the freight charges and the insurance over to, it may be, an amending Bill. Let the Government test their Bill in practice, let them put the Bill into operation and instead of, perhaps, tearing up the Bill, as they have generally done after six months, let them modify the Bill in the light of experience. If goods are coming in from all parts of the world and creating this lack of employment which the Government think the free exchange of goods permits, let them come to the House of Commons again, and I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade, with his persuasive powers and charm, will be able to get a modifying Measure through even a Free Trade House. I think a Free Trade House will be a direct result of this Bill. Traders and consumers will come appealing to the House to reject the Measure.

:The further we go with this Bill the more ridiculous it becomes. The right hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag. He says this is not a Bill merely to prevent dumping, but it is a Customs Bill imposing customs duties, not only upon dumped goods, but upon freights and insurance. There is to be a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on freights, and a similar duty on insurance also. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) told us some time ago that he had difficulty in knowing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had left upon the doorstep of the Board of Trade, whether it was a child or an umbrella. I prefer to stick to the umbrella simile. The umbrella has been blown inside-out already. I remember when I was a boy a book about the "Heroes of Britain in peace and war," and the frontispiece of that book was an illustration of the man who used an umbrella for the first time walking down Cheapside with it. He was the main hero of the book—the hero of peace. A year hence we may see the right hon. Gentleman going down Cheapside carrying this umbrella, and if we do, the picture will deserve to be in the—

:I am not quite clear as to the connection of the umbrella with the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will elucidate that.

:An umbrella is composed of ribs. There are a certain number of ribs in this umbrella, and at the present time we are on rib 10, and I think that particular rib—or Clause 10—has been almost blown to smithereens. This Clause looks so innocent that were it not for the ingenuity of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. T. Thomson) it might have escaped notice. Anyone who had listened to the discussion of Clause 8, and had not read Clause 10, would have come to the conclusion that the 33⅓ per cent. was to be imposed entirely upon the cost of production in the country of origin. I was under that impression myself until I read Clause 10. The fact of the matter is, this Bill is like every other bit of Coalition legislation, it has a bit put in here to please one set of opinions and another bit put in to try to please another set of opinions. In most of the Bills the one counteracts the other and they become absolutely futile. Talk about dumping! We will have dumps of Coalition legislation in this country that will need a Bill to get them removed. Nearly every Bill they have put forward has been scrapped, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should feel any worry about scrapping this Clause 10. The Health Bill has gone, and the Agricultural Bill is going, and I do not see why the President of the Board of Trade should not accept this Amendment and make the Bill really an antidumping Bill and not a super-protectionist Bill. The Bill has become so ridiculous that I am not surprised the official author of it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has never for 5 minutes sat there to defend it; he has left it to the President of the Board of Trade, and I am sure everyone sympathises with him in the impossible task the Government has imposed upon him. I am sure he has a keen sense of the cogency of the arguments addressed to him from this side of the Committee, but he is compelled by loyalty to his colleagues to resist these Amendments, which he knows are the essence of common sense, and to stick to the Bill as it is. Seeing the Committee is empty I think he might play a trick upon his friends. I am sure the hon. Gentleman beside him (Mr. Towyn Jones) would not tell anybody. If there is to be any tax at all it should be based upon Clause 8 and should be confined to the price of goods as therein defined, and should not be a tax upon the freight or insurance, which will add to the general cost of living.

:I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) with much interest, and I thought it an almost pathetic Second Reading speech. I was afraid my hon. Friend was going to burst into tears, he seemed to attach so much importance to this small matter. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has also wandered away from the Amendment. As I under- stand it, the object of the Clause is to fix what price exactly this duty shall be placed on, and it is to avoid setting up a great bureaucratic Department, such as was outlined. The ordinary price which a merchant pays when importing goods, is the c.i.f. price, that is, the invoice price for imported goods when they are delvered to him with freight and insurance paid. To an ordinary business mind this is simply-fying the routine of putting 33⅓ per cent. on the price of the goods. The ordinary business price of the goods is the c.i.f. price delivered into bond. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench said this was not going to benefit the railwaymen, but these goods are not going to be carried on the railways, so why introduce railway wages?

:It is merely opposition, merely waste of time, merely trying to rub in the great Free Trade argument. Do let us deal with the Amendment before the Committee. It is a perfectly simple one. If the Amendment were accepted it would make it extremely difficult and extremely complicated to fix the price, for all goods imported into this country under this Bill would need a special invoice, and I hope the Government will stick to the present simple and businesslike arrangement and will not listen to these pathetic and tear-moving speeches from the other side.

:If the last speaker had paid attention to Clause 8 his speech would not have been delivered, especially that part which has reference to making inquiries with regard to the invoice price of goods, because Clause 8 definitely sets out what is the price in the country of origin. Therefore the body that inquired into the price of goods in the country of origin would certainly have all the information without setting up a second body to do what the hon. Gentleman mentions. The more this Debate proceeds the more the real reason for this Bill emerges. In the first instance this was a Bill to put an end to the wicked practice of dumping and unfair competition. Now as we go from Clause to Clause the truth is exuding and the right hon. Gentleman now says that we have to create these taxes for the purpose of raising further revenue, and the real purpose of the Bill is not to put an end to the evil of competition, but to assist the Government to collect revenue.

:That is a travesty of what I said. I was merely stating that Clause 10 is a Customs Clause relating to Customs administration.

:I would ask my right hon. Friend to read to-morrow what he has said, that what we were imposing was a Customs duty.

:Now this duty is to be levied for the purpose of collecting revenue, and the object of the Amendment is to limit that revenue to 33⅓ per cent. on the price of the commodity at the port of shipment. The Government say, "No. This Bill is not merely to put an end to evil competition, but to-collect as much revenue as they possibly can." Legislation of this character has become essential to meet the liabilities incurred owing to the extravagant policy which the Government have been following since they came into office. Months ago Members on this side protested against the extravagant bellicose policy which was being followed by the Government and were constantly stating that sooner or later the Government would have to meet their own financial liabilities. Now those liabilities have got to be met, and the Government resort to this evil device of putting the financial burden upon the shoulders of those who are least capable of bearing it. If this Amendment be resisted, it will mean that a great section of the British community, railway workers, and others who derive no advantage from the imposition of this duty will be called upon to pay it, and that will have the effect of depreciating their wages, and the value of those wages, and it means that they are going to be called upon to pay by this method for the extravagance to which the Government themselves have been committed, and in so far as this Bill, and this part of it in particular, has for its object the levying of taxation on the working classes of this country by an indirect method, I must put in my protest. Indirect taxation on food in this country has gone up from £10,000,000 to £53,000,000, and in about the same ratio on other articles. If you proceed on lines of this character it only means in the end that the great financial burden of this country by these insidious methods is going to be transferred from the' shoulders of those who ought to bear it to those of the working classes of this country.

:I wish to have made clear a point which I do not understand. The Amendment clearly states that the value of the goods should be the f.o.b. price at the foreign port. The Government proposal, I take it, is to put in the c.i.f. value at the British ports. What is commonly known—there may be a technical term here which I do not understand—by the designation c.i.f. is the value of the goods lying in the ship in the river where the port is. If it is "c.i.f. Tees," directly the ship comes into the Tees and is tied up to the buoys waiting for the tide to come in, those goods are "c.i.f. Tees." But this is not what the Bill says. The Bill says:

The Government seems to think that the merchant imports the goods and then proceeds to sell them in this country. Nothing of the kind. The man has need of them in this country and he goes across to Belgium and finds out what he may buy the goods at f.o.b., and then he proceeds to import them for his business in this country, and he wants to know exactly what he has got to pay in the way of duty for those goods. I suggest to the Government that they should make this duty payable if possible on the price of the goods at the works of the foreign producer. If that is not possible, then on the f.o.b. price at the foreign port, and, if it is necessary, they should rectify the duty accordingly. Why not have the duty put upon the goods at the foreign port and leave our shipping charges and labour charges alone? I have never understood what is the great virtue of the 33⅓ per cent., but if I am not straying too far from the point, there is a suggestion I should like to offer. Has the 33⅓ per cent. been put in because the Government brought in this Bill on the sixth day of the sixth month of the 21st year? If these figures be added up the total is 33.

:I am always grateful for any suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend on the other side. I think the hon. and gallant Member will recognise that when a point of substance arises, whether I agree with it or not, I am always ready to deal with it. I have been trying very hard to see what is the point involved here, and I think this is quite the most frivolous point that has yet been raised. [HON. MEMBERS: ''Oh, oh!''] I know that hon. Members on the other side do not think so, but I cannot understand why they are attaching such importance to this matter. I have already made a very brief explanation as to this Clause, and I must now add a few words. The point has been made by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton) that, so far as the Customs House in this country is concerned, the methods which they are accustomed to, the methods which they are working daily with success now, in the comparatively limited sphere where ad valorem duties lie, are worked on a c.i.f. basis. They consider, naturally, because they have had experience of it, that it is the simplest way of collecting duty, because, as my hon. Friend says, the bulk of the trade is invoiced into this country. If you were to undo that, and have a system that we have not got for any other goods, and charge on the f.o.b. principle, it would mean an analysis of the invoices to get the figure, and would lead to a great deal more work at the Customs House. Some hon. Members have said that we are not bearing in mind Clause 8. I have been doing my best to try to understand what is the relation in their minds between Clause 8 and Clause 10, and I cannot get at it. Clause 8 would give us no help in getting at the f.o.b. price at the foreign port. It has also been said in the Debate that the f.o.b. value could be got by means of the provisions in Clause 8, but Clause 8 only deals with the price at the works, and even if we take the difference, between the wholesale price and the c.i.f. price to this country, it would not give you the f.o.b. value unless you analysed the invoices and obtained it in that way. To try to undertake any other method of collecting duties would lead to a great deal more work for the Customs. I think the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) was a rather exaggerated one, as to the addition to price that might be involved in regard to certain goods. Under this Bill I should think it is very unlikely that many of the articles of commerce that will be subject to these duties will be those arising from countries outside of Europe.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is mostly countries inside Europe which will be within the ambit of this Bill?

:That is a question I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not expect me to answer. It would be quite impossible to say what countries.

:I take it that what he said means that while cases may be proved against countries in Europe, he excludes extra European countries as unlikely. Supposing cases are proved in regard to European countries, will this be enforced?

:My hon. Friend is of course wondering what may happen in the future, but I am afraid if I went into that, I should be out of order. What I was saying was, that with regard to goods that come from the Continent of Europe to this country, the 33⅓ per cent. difference in value from the f.o.b. price would not amount to more than a very few shillings in the case of the bulk of the traffic. For the reasons I have given, unsatisfactory as they will appear to those who have moved the Amendment, I cannot accept it, and must adhere to what has hitherto been the practice of the Customs in the collection of this kind of duty.

:I meant to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point. This wording is taken from the Finance Act, 1915, and the application of the Clause will be exactly the application of the 1915 Act.

:I had given notice of another Amendment, and I think I was informed that the matter with which it dealt could be raised on this Amendment. It is the question as to the amount of cumulative duty. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, is it possible to impose all these duties in the case of articles which might come under both parts of this Bill? Do we understand, to put it plainly, that a piano coming from Germany is going to be charged 66f per cent.? That is a question we have often asked, and I have not yet clearly understood what is the answer to it.

:Supposing an article is subject to the existing duty of 33⅓ per cent. under Part I of the Bill, it would be open to the industry in respect of which that duty is put on, to make out its case in regard to ordinary dumping or exchange dumping. It would, of course, be more difficult for it to do so, because in addition to the ordinary price, the duty has to be overcome; but if, notwithstanding there being the 33⅓ per cent. duty, an Order is made under Part II in respect of these particular goods, then both duties would be levied.

:I am obliged for the hon. Gentleman's answer on this very important point. If a piano or motor car is of German origin, it is quite obvious an order could be secured under the provisions dealing with depreciated currency, as well as under the other part of the Bill, and under this Clause a 66⅔ per cent. duty would become almost normal. Yet we had a most specific pledge from the Prime Minister that 33⅓ per cent. was to be the maximum duty levied.

:I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member to put his point, but I

do not think that justifies him in going on to a general discussion.

:We have dealt with this point in a previous Debate.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 135.

Division No. 245.

AYES

[8.38 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hancock, John George

Rae, H. Norman

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Hartshorn, Vernon

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hay ward, Evan

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Robertson, John

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hogge, James Myles

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Holmes, J. Stanley

Rose, Frank H.

Bromfield, William

Irving, Dan

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Kennedy, Thomas

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

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Tootill, Robert

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Kenyon, Barnet

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kiley, James Daniel

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Lawson, John James

Wignall, James

Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)

Lunn, William

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Fildes, Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Finney, Samuel

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Mills, John Edmund

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Galbraith, Samuel

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wintringham, Thomas

Glanville, Harold James

Mosley, Oswald

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grundy, T. W.

Myers, Thomas

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

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Halls, Walter

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Mr. T. Thomson and Mr. Spencer.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l, W. D'by)

Neal, Arthur

Atkey, A. R.

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Parker, James

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Barker, Major Robert H.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Pearce, Sir William

Barlow, Sir Montague

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Barnston, Major Harry

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Hood, Joseph

Pinkham, Lieut.-colonel Charles

Betterton, Henry B.

Hope, sir H. (Stirling & cl'ckm'nn, W.)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Borwick Major G. O.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Pratt, John William

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Prescott, Major W. H.

Breese, Major Charles E.

Hurd, Percy A.

Reid, D. D.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Jephcott, A. R.

Remnant, Sir James

Brown, Major D. C.

Jesson, C.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Bruton, Sir James

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

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Campbell, J. D. G.

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Casey, T. W.

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Clough, Sir Robert

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Seager, Sir William

Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Lorden, John William

Seddon, J. A.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Lort-Williams, J.

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Simm, M. T.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Doyle, N. Grattan.

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Stanton, Charles Butt

Fell, Sir Arthur

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Stevens, Marshall

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Sturrock, J. Leng

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Foreman, Sir Henry

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Sugden, W. H.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

Sutherland, Sir William

Green, Albert (Derby)

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Taylor, J.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Nall, Major Joseph

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Woolcock, William James U.

Waddington, R.

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Worsfold, T. Cato

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Wise, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-

Colonel Sir J. Gilmour.

:I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words, have put on Clause 10 is that they do not levy the duty on the real value of the goods, but on the value of the exchange.

I will just carry that point a little further, so as to make it quite clear to the Committee, and I hope hon. Members will pardon me if I refer once more to that little exhibition of samples, and to one example in particular, that is the piano, because it was a fair sample of what was happening as regards this country and Germany. It has this advantage, in being a musical instrument which had 33⅓ per cent. duty levied upon it. That piano came in for M.8,200 or £34, and at that time the mark stood at 240 to the £. The Customs Duty levied on that piano at 33⅓ per cent. was £11 10s. That piano was sold in England for a sum in the neighbourhood of £100, so there can be no excuse for not seeing that that Customs Duty was levied, not on the value of the goods, but on the rate of exchange, and nothing else. The mark has further receded during the last few weeks to 280, and if that same piano came in to-day, the Customs duty which would be levied on it would be £9 13s. 4d. If the mark goes to 300 the Customs Duty will be further reduced. That shows that absurdity of the Clause in its present form, because as the mark recedes your duty disappears, and instead of the amount of compensation being increased so as to compensate for the duty, it has decreased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

The absurdity of it is particularly apparent when you start to consider how this duty would be applied, we will say, to Belgium or to France. I have had some rather useful figures furnished to me by the Federation of Musical Instrument Manufacturers as to how the duty would be applied to France. They gave me the figure of a superior French piano which was recently bought at F.3,975, and the experts say, taking like for like, with a German piano and a British piano, it should have been approximately F.3,500. That would be a fair comparison of like for like. The German piano would stand at M.8,200, and as the mark stood at 240 to the £, it was valued at £34. The French piano, taking F.50 to the £, was valued at £70, and the French piano, on that valuation, would pay £23 duty. You have the German piano paying £11 10s. duty, and our Ally, France, on an identically similar article being charged £23. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear!"] I note the cheers of hon. Members above the Gangway, and I am very glad to have their support. It just shows the absurdity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—of Clause 10 as it at present stands. It must be amended. You could not really put this Bill on the Statute Book in its present form without giving grave offence both to France and Belgium. I have only quoted the instance of a piano because I wanted some article which could be easily identified, and where you could exactly compare an article with a similar article.

There are huge imports into this country of glassware from France, Belgium, and Germany, and this will apply to them. Under the Bill as it stands you would charge France and Belgium double the duty per ton you charge Germany. That, I also suggest, is an absurdity. I want to say—and I am sorry so few Labour Members are present—[HON. MEMBERS: "There are more of us here than on the Government side."] Yes. I am extremely sorry that there are so few Members of the Government present. I should have thought that this matter at any rate would have excited their interest and curiosity. Let me explain to the Committee the figures which have been given to me. Three hundred hours of labour are employed in the manufacture of a piano. Three hundred hours of labour at 2s. per hour represent £30. That is the amount which is paid in England. That is the actual payment in labour on the English piano shown in the exhibition. On the German piano there is the same number of hours and that at 6 marks an hour represents 1,800 marks and at the present rate of exchange that would be £7 10s. So that you have got 300 hours of German in competition with 300 hours of British labour and the German labour is paid £7 10s., and the British labour £30. Is it to be wondered that under these conditions so much British labour is out of work. That is a point which I urge requires to be dealt with.

9.0 P.M.

The point of my Amendment is that the Board should have power from time to time to prescribe a rate in sterling for such currencies which shall be deemed to represent such actual measure of standard of value and the value of the goods shall be determined accordingly. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I used the other day about the difference between the internal and external value of the mark. This subject has been alluded to by other speakers, and I assume it is now familiar to the House. There is not a shadow of doubt that the mark for internal purposes is worth 2d., and for external purposes it is worth only 1d. That is the exchange value, but it has a buying value in Germany of 2d. I think I established that point on a previous occasion to the satisfaction of the Committee. That being the case the remedy is for the Board of Trade to fix a rate of exchange at which German goods will be valued. We know that the German exchange has been deliberately depreciated by the German Government for its own purposes. That has been admitted. It has been repeatedly stated in this House, and I have never heard it contradicted. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend in charge of this Bill that the figure should be taken that the rate of exchange should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80, and not 240. That would more accurately represent the value of the goods in accordance with the scheme of the Bill which we have been considering. The scheme of the Bill is a Customs duty on the value of the goods. You only get the Customs duty on the value of the Exchange when you come to the interpretation Clause. The remedy is to give the Board of Trade power to fix the rate of exchange. This will simplify the business of the Board of Trade and make it a more workable scheme. I do not know why they should hesitate to accept my suggestion. If they fix the rate of exchange at 80, then the duty on the German piano would be £34, and £23 on the French piano. Even the German piano would be very much cheaper than the French piano, because the German article would be £68, as against the net value of the French piano at £93. We can hardly expect to correct this enormous difference in exchange all at once. You could do it perhaps gradually, but it would give the Germans a great interest in studying their exchange, and would discourage their system of depreciating their exchange.

No doubt they have done this deliberately, and it has paid them, as everyone knows the difference between this country and Germany is that we are dependent on our imports for our food and for most of our necessaries of life, while Germany is largely self-contained. It would mean starvation and bankruptcy to us if we let our exchange down, and yet the depreciation of the exchange means in Germany prosperity and employment for her people. I want to urge by every means in my power the importance of the Government adopting either my Amendment in its present form or in some other form which will accomplish the same object. I have a letter from a firm of piano manufacturers in Germany, dated the 24th June, in which they offer a piano of the very best quality. They say:

I would also like to refer to what is happening in America. There they have found that you cannot accept invoices as your basis for a Customs tariff with these depreciated currencies, or what they call the currencies of bankrupt Europe, and they are adopting a system by which all goods imported into America are not valued according to the invoice values, but according to their value in America. I am not suggesting that we should go quite to that extent on this occasion. If we did it would not be necessary to have a 33⅓ per cent. duty. If you valued on British values well a 10 or 15 per cent. duty would be ample. At any rate we cannot accept the value of the exchange. The value of the exchange is wrong. You must have the value of the goods. It does not matter when it is a 33⅓ duty if we accept the internal value—the purchasing power of the mark in Germany.

I trust I shall not be wearying the Committee if I quote some figures. They are figures which have been prepared by the different trade associations after a very careful examination, so as to see what the effect of the Customs duty would be if the goods were valued, first, on the rate of the exchange and, secondly, if they were valued on the internal value of the mark. These figures, I think, will be of interest to the Committee. The British value in every case is represented by £100. Foreign goods plus the 33⅓ levied on the German exchange value would, in the case of surgical instruments, bring the value to £44 which would be in competition with our value of £100. If the duty were levied on the internal value of the mark, then the figure for surgical instruments would stand at. £66. Again on electrical apparatus on the exchange value of the mark the figure would be £53 and on the internal value of the mark it would be £80. On hardware, on glassware and on insulation material you get the same figure. On toys and games, in the first case, I think, the figure is £44 and in the second case, £66, so that you do not get even then a value which is going to compensate you for the difference, although it is going to help. On musical instruments, in the first case the figure would be £59, and in the second case £78. As things stand to-day it is not competition; you are simply crushed out of existence. This proposal of mine would just give a glimmer of hope. But you have got to bring down British cost of production. It is coming down; it is tumbling down. On the basis which I have given to the Committee there is just a chance of our being able to compete.

Hon. Members say that our Customs duty is ultimately going to pass on to the consumer. It does not do so in this case. That is an old pre-War theory which does not bear investigation; it is one of those theories which is partly true and partly untrue. Take the case of pianos which I have already quoted. If the import duty was paid by the consumer the piano would be sold at £34, plus £11 10s., plus profit. But the German piano was sold for just under £100. It is not £60 or £70, it is an appropriation of part of the huge profit which the importer is making— which the importer is making on all these huge masses of stuff that are coming to us from Germany. It is an appropriation of a part of his profit. It is not a duty which is being borne by the consumer. There are some duties which are borne by the consumer and some which are not. In the case of the duties which it is proposed to levy under this Bill no part will be borne by the consumer. The whole will be an appropriation of some part of the huge profit which is made by these importers of foreign goods. It must be clear, I think, from the case which I have endeavoured to present to the House that the Bill as it stands would afford very little relief to industry. In some cases it may be helpful, but they are very few in number, and it is necessary in order to carry out the theory of the Bill to levy the duty on the value of the goods and not to levy it on the value of the exchange, which is variable from day to day and may be depressed either deliberately by the German Government or by speculators in the exchange.

:No one will question for a moment either the sincerity or the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) for the cause he so ably advocates. If there is one industry which is going to be killed— according to his figures and eloquence— it is the piano industry in this country. That, apparently, is done for by the wily foreigner who, by means of the exchange, is dumping pianos into this country in sufficient quantity to kill our piano industry for all time. I think that is a reasonable inference to be gathered from the eloquent speech to which we have just been listening. While the hon. Gentleman has been speaking, I have been to the Library to get the latest Board of Trade returns, and I find that in the year 1913, before the War, we imported into this country 1,467 pianos, and while we were doing that, the piano industry of this country, especially in the North of London, was all prosperous. What has happened in the first six months of this year? With this depreciated exchange, under which the shilling mark is only worth one penny, according to my hon. Friend these goods have been coming in at a nominal figure. How many, then, have we imported? Not 1,467, but actually 338, and this is the dumping about which the Minister for Overseas Trade was so eloquent. In our piano industry we are importing 80 per cent. pianos less than we were in pre-War days, despite the depreciated exchange.

:A certain amount was due to a strike, and some was due to the fact that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was being put on the component parts. I notice that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill smiles, but let me tell him this. We were able in pre-War days to build up a magnificent business by assembling pianos, and we produced in that way the cheapest piano in the world. Every part except the labour was made of foreign materials. We got mahogany from the West Indies, soundboards from Germany, castors from some other country, and so on, but by means of British labour in assembling all those, parts we were able to produce, as I have said, the cheapest piano in the world, and from the Board of Trade Returns I find that we exported in 1913, which is the only pre-War year quoted, 4,820 British-made pianos. This year we have exported something like 800, because the price has gone up to such a terrific extent that we are no longer able to produce, as we used to do, the cheapest piano in the world. That is one of the effects that this Measure will have. I wish the hon. Member for Chippenham would really take some trouble to investigate the matter. I went to that exhibition of his, and a wonderful exhibition it was; but, knowing a little about some of the articles, I asked what was the authority for the prices. Apparently, however, they had no authority for the prices; they had been sent to them. I asked why they did not call in some big buyer—

:I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, but the prices were all open freely to the inspection of the Board of Trade and Customs officials, a large number of whom came and examined the articles and the prices, and I am told that they passed them as being all substantially accurate.

:As I have said, I knew something about some of the articles that were on view, and in the case of those about which I did know the prices were considerably wide of the mark. I asked one of the hon. Member's colleagues what action they had taken to check the prices, as they were nearly all wrong. I asked why did they not go to Whiteley's or Harrod's and consult one of their responsible buyers; or, if they did not wish to go to a retail store, why they did not go to a large wholesale emporium, where they would gladly be informed whether they were right. If they were right, they would strengthen their case, while if they were wrong they surely would not want to mislead Members of Parliament by giving them wrong figures. They declined point blank. I gave one illustration which will interest the Parliamentary Secretary. There were two glass articles, one British and one foreign, both of the same size. The one was a very fine, beautifully finished article, while the other, which was made abroad, was very inferior, and in fact simply rubbish. There was a big difference in the prices, but that was entirely explained by the difference in the quality. People who were not in the trade and did not know anything, about it would be misled, but anyone who was in the trade would at once know that there was no comparison whatever between the articles except as to size. When we tried to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade that it would require an expert to distinguish the difference in value in the case of such articles, he did not think there was anything in the argument. I did not intend to rise, but the hon. Member for Chippenham attached so much importance to the matter that I went and got the figures.

:One of the most unfortunate incidents in these Debates is that the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) was delivered to such a small Committee. It was a most interesting and illuminating speech, and if it is any consolation to him to know it, some of us will endeavour to give it the widest publicity. It was extremely valuable as coming from the real author of the Bill. In season and out of season the hon. Member has laboured to bring this Bill to the front, and if he had not been so callous as to abandon it on the steps of the Board of Trade, but had himself introduced a Bill, we should have had some clear idea, such as he has helped us to get to-night, of what are. the real objects at the back of this Bill. He knows what it is intended to do. He knows how far it is going to do it, and how far it is going to fail. He has thrown a great deal of light upon it this evening. He has an Amendment on the Paper, and he said —and I think we all agree with him— that it was a very difficult matter to understand. He was at great pains to make it clear to us, and I think he did make it very clear. I suggest, however, that the whole effect of his Amendment would have been produced by a simple Amendment making the 33⅓ per cent. 100 per cent. I think the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that that is the real effect of that Amendment.

:That may be so, but if my hon. Friend will have a little patience with my benighted intelligence, which I share in common with other Free Traders, I will endeavour to show that I have understood it. My hon. Friend's proposal is that the mark, standing at 240, should be taken as being at a standard of 80. That means, surely, taking a value three times what it otherwise would be, and that is 300 per cent. Then, if you take 33⅓ per cent. of 300 per cent., you get 100 per cent. The effect of the Amendment is really to turn the 33⅓ per cent. into 100 per cent. Taking the figures that my hon. Friend gave, it will be seen that the same result follows. He gave a figure of £44, which under his procedure would be increased to £66. He showed that the effect of his Amendment would be to make a very substantial increase in the duty. I suggest that if he goes into the matter carefully he will find that the inference which I draw that his Amendment is really to change 33⅓ per cent. into 100 per cent. is correct.

:The effect as regards Germany is to turn it into 100 per cent., but that Clause in the Bill refers to all the world. As regards France, the duty would remain at 33⅓ per cent., and would be sufficient at that figure.

:I am taking my illustration from Germany. My hon. Friend says that there are other countries. There are other countries with a greater depreciation of exchange, and in those cases it would be more, so that 100 per cent. is a very moderate average. It is, however, sufficient to indicate what is the real desire of my hon. Friend and those who support the main purpose of this Bill. It is unfortunate for him that the Bill should work out in that direction. What is going to happen is that the cheaper the goods are produced in any country owing to a depreciated rate of exchange, the less will be the increase that is going to be added to them.

:The lower the cost of the goods owing to the rate of exchange, the lower, obviously, is the amount of the duty. Really, this Bill is a premium on lower production. It is a Bill to encourage the depreciation of exchange by the German or any other Government which is pursuing the deliberate policy of which my hon. Friend is so convinced. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say, but I submit that that is the correct inference to be drawn from my hon. Friend's speech. The effect of this Bill is to give a premium to any country which can either lower its cost of production, or can effect a lowering of prices by depreciation of currency. The lower the cost, the lower the duty for the goods which would be the greatest menace. They would have the least penalty put upon them. The less the menace on account of raising prices, the greater the penalty that will be involved. One matter does come out of the speech of the hon. Gentleman. It is the desire of those really responsible for this Bill to effect a very substantial increase in prices. There is no doubt about that. The hon. Member for Chippenham has referred to the cost of production in this country. Wages are falling, and his remedy is that prices should rise. That is the complement of his theory. Lower wages in this country, and high prices in this country. He has given in his speech a most able exposition of the doctrine and, if what he states is really of the spirit of the Bill, the Government are bound to accept the Amendment. If they do not do so, the reasons of the President of the Board of Trade for not doing so will be very interesting.

:The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell) complains of the old theories of Free Trade, and he has proceeded to introduce a new theory to Tariff Reform. The hon. Gentleman has discovered that if you introduce a tariff against countries with a depreciated exchange you further depreciate these exchanges, and when you have further depreciated these exchanges you further diminish the duty which accrues from the duties you have imposed, and also you facilitate the entry of these very goods, the entry of which you desire to prohibit.

:I venture to think my hon. and gallant Friend has entirely misunderstood me.

:The hon. Gentleman found that the further an exchange was depreciated the less became the revenue derived from the entry of the goods, and the easier became the entry of these goods into this country. In other words, the more you erect tariffs against those countries with depreciated exchanges the further you depreciate their exchanges and the less formidable is the duty you impose and the easier the entry of their commodities into this country. His proposal to meet this difficulty is to raise the duty and further depreciate the exchange, with the result that it will be yet easier for these goods to come into this country. We are forced to contemplate the lamentable spectacle of so eminent a gentleman as my hon. Friend in the unfortunate position of a dog chasing his own tail. After lengthy consideration of this Measure, for which he is more responsible than any other man, he comes to the conclusion that the Bill cannot be worked. What is his remedy? It is that the Board of Trade should fix by edict the value of exchange between the two countries. You may conceivably be able to fix the value of the exchange with this country, but you cannot do what the hon. Gentleman wishes and fix the economic value of the goods. That certainly passes the power of this House or the Board of Trade to achieve by legislation.

Whatever Tariff Reform was under normal conditions it was, at any rate, a logical theory—possibly very detrimental in practice, but we are not discussing that at the moment. Whatever it was under normal and stable conditions, it has obviously become a practical absurdity in the fluctuating conditions which prevail to-day. We have this evening seen an honest Tariff Reformer struggling in an epoch of fluctuating conditions and shifting values. He is driven from one artificial position to one yet more ludicrous, so perpetuating the vicious circle from which neither he nor anybody else can find any means of escape. He did one service in showing up the ludicrous fallacy contained in the proposals of the Government that this 33⅓ per cent. duty is a universal panacea against all the evils with which we are confronted. He showed, not for the first time, that you cannot apply this 33⅓ per cent. duty to all the evils of the present European situation with the same effect in all varying occasions and conditions, and for that we are indeed indebted to him. He is a Tariff Reformer who, having promoted this Bill, and having struggled to give it his blessing, has now found what it is, and he comes down to the House with the discovery that no protection is offered by the Bill. Cannot this Protectionist Government, after this, see its way to drop this Bill which was devised to give us such protection? But the hon. Gentleman has not yet proceeded quite to the root of the matter. What, after all, is the whole thing but an amiable farce which is offered to supply eyewash to grumblers against conditions which are perpetuated and aggravated by this kind of legislation? The hon. Gentleman said that this Bill has no effect at all. If it has any effect it is to further depreciate those exchanges which are responsible for the ills of the industrial situation; further to perpetuate the misery of those people upon whose recovery the industries of this country and employment in this country are entirely dependent because they purchase our commodities. If this Bill has any effect it will be only to perpetuate and aggravate the depreciation of their exchanges and force us to continue that vicious circle of tariffs and depreciation in which we find ourselves placed to-day. In face of this striking condemnation from their chief supporter, this would really appear the proper occasion for the Government to revise their policy.

:I wish to call attention to one or two criticisms of the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Terrell). I think we should like to give him the fairest criticism possible, and I would like to deal with the criticism of the hon. Member for Whitechapel. When discussing the importation of pianos he compared the import in 1913, which, I think, was 1,467, and that during the first six months of this year, which was 300 odd, meaning to say that there is very little reason for the Bill as suggested. I called attention to the question of unemployment—not in the piano industry, but unemployment in the country, which was reducing the purchasing power of the people of the country, and we all know that when people are poor and unemployed if there is one thing they refrain from purchasing first it is a luxury. That is a very good reason why the purchasing of pianos in the first six months of this year was considerably lower than it was in 1913. When employment is better you will no doubt find that the purchasers, not only of pianos, but other luxuries, will increase.

The suggestion—whether it meets with the approval of the Government or not I do not know—with regard to the Board of Trade fixing at certain periods a rate of exchange with a country as Germany is to-day is a reasonable one. For instance, the German mark yesterday was 286 to the £. This morning it was 265, and this evening it is 274. There are reasons for stabilising the exchange when it fluctuates so much as that, and the hon. Member is quite right when he says it is of very great importance that we ought to consider, when we are talking about Germany and Germany's competition, the value of the German mark not as it is externally, but as it is internally. It may be a laughing matter for our Friends across the Gangway, but those of us who suffer from unemployment I think realise the hard facts of the case perhaps more than they do. I have known a case during the past three months where German goods have been imported into Manchester at such rates that they could be sent out and exported again to Java, as they have been, and it was impossible for the Manchester manufacturer to compete even were he willing—arid he was willing—to sell at a tremendous loss, and all that time, with this low exchange, German goods have been coming from Manchester and going to Java and English looms have been stopped and English workpeople, who are the most important people to my mind to look after and protect, have been out of work the whole time.

:I do not think so. The point is about the external exchange. When we have been asking about the conditions of workpeople in Germany, we are often told we want to have commodities at the cheapest possible price.

:The hon. Member misunderstood me. The sad case he mentioned is specifically excluded from assistance by Clause 12 of the Bill.

:I do not think that alters the fact at all. Unemployment is the main thing. My point is that what we have to try to do is to keep the employment ourselves that otherwise goes to some other country, because, although our friends argue that the price of a commodity ought to be as cheap as possible, they forget that there is one commodity in this country that is not, at any rate, regulated on a free basis, and that is labour, and, after all, labour forms a very great percentage of the price of goods. In nearly all case labour comprises anywhere from 70 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the price of the goods. That is really the most important thing we ought to protect. I honestly think every trade union leader, if he looked at the matter fairly and squarely and would realise the awful percentage of unemployment in this country compared with other countries which have a different policy from ours, will agree with the Government in this Measure, because it would protect that commodity which is the most valuable, to my mind, in the country— the commodity of labour. We believe in high-priced labour.

:I do not quite see how the hon. Member is connecting his argument with the suggestion that the Board of Trade should have power to prescribe a rate in sterling for foreign currencies under certain conditions.

:I support it because it would give regularity to the basis of the Import Duty, and that, again, would allow traders to know exactly where they were. If the exchange is so unstable that it fluctuates 20 points in one day, it will be extremely difficult, without the suggestion contained in the Amendment, to carry out the purposes of the Bill.

:When I find on the one hand that some hon. Members consider the duty too low and others consider it too high—

:No, that is the usual false inference which the hon. Member opposite draws—I should apply the maxim in medio tutissimus ibis. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has been twitted by some other hon. Members for having insufficient knowledge of the business world and of conditions obtaining in industry. I do not agree with the Amendment, and I cannot accept it, but I do not think it comes well from anyone in this House to twit my hon. Friend with any absence of knowledge of business or of conditions in industry. He has rendered consistent and long service to the industries in the country. [ Interruption. ] If hon. Members disagree with him politically, probably they would accept that statement. The reason why the Government cannot accept it certainly is not on the ground that the Amendment has not been carefully thought out. It is certainly not on the ground that he has not a wide business knowledge. [ Interruption. ] No, not theoretical knowledge, but a practical knowledge of working conditions, and there have been many occasions on which Members of the Labour party could take very great heed of the practical lessons which he teaches and which it would not be unseemly that they should know.

:I am explaining Why it is not practicable to accept the Amendment, but I certainly give it the full consideration which is due to an Amendment moved by one who has a very large knowledge of industry and has taken a leading part in its organisation. I do not think it would be fair to the Committee to ask them to accept the Amendment. When the Financial Resolutions were introduced it was common knowledge and the common expectation of the House, and the natural inference that was drawn from the language used, as it was certainly the intention of the Government, that the duty which was put on should be 33⅓ per cent. of the value, and if the Government were to accept this Amendment they would have misled the House on the previous occasion as to what was the scope and purpose of the duty. There is no reason why the interesting proposition which my hon. Friend has brought forward should not be fully considered and debated, as it has been. In the first place, my hon. Friend seeks in his Amendment to define value. With all respect to him I would say that we have taken as a definition of value what the importer will give. He is trying to take for value something quite different. What the importer will give is really, I think, in common parlance, the value to-day.

I think my hon. Friend will agree with me, and any business man would, that it is essential to have certainty in business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The certainty which the hon. Members opposite desire to give to industry in this country is a certainty that they will never help it under any conditions whatever, and the industries would be left in a condition in which they would not mind whether they would be thrown overboard or not, because they would probably many of them be dead. We require certainty in business. In this Amendment the Board of Trade is to have the power to fix the value from time to time. That is adding a very grave uncertainty to the proposal. There is nothing new in the imposition of a duty, and the suggestions that have been made that nobody could possibly do business when the duty is on is very remote from the truth. It would be a very serious uncertainty if the Board of Trade had the power from time to time to fix the value upon which the duty was to be levied. There would be an element of uncertainty which would be very serious. And there is surely something more than that. It has been our desire in this Bill to leave necessarily a certain margin in the hands of the Board of Trade, but it would be the desire of anyone legislating to leave as little to administrative discretion as possible in the circumstances, and to put as much in the Bill as possible. What my hon. Friend proposes to do, and I do not think he has quite appreciated it, is to put upon my right hon. Friend an almost insuperably-difficult task, and a task which he ought not to be called upon to perform. I cannot help thinking that if my right hon. Friend was given the power from time to time to fix values, by the length of his foot, so to speak, we should at once hear that that was a case of bureaucracy in excelsis.

There is another fallacy which vitiates the proposal of my hon. Friend. He assumes that the German will always sell at the lowest price at which he can possibly manufacture. I do not think that is what the German will do. He will sell at the best price which he can obtain. That is not an argument against this Bill, because, as our price goes down, he will lower his price, so long as the bounty of dual value exists. That does not in the least take away the need for legislation. But when it comes to a question of what is the actual value upon which the duty will be levied, my hon. Friend will find that while he may strive to keep below the British selling price, the German importer will get as near to it as he can while capturing the market. That has always been the practice. They are collecting as much information as they can now. They are establishing agencies. I am not blaming them. It is very sound sense and practical business on their part, but that does not mean to say that we are not to take any weapon in our hand to protect ourselves. I cite this in order to show my hon. Friend that you cannot take the German exchange and say, "Whatever price the German importers get, because there is this dual value, let us put a duty, not only on the import price, but three or four times the import price," and that that would produce what my hon. Friend regards as a reasonable equivalent. It would result in charging quadruple duty on an import price which was not largely below the British price.

There is another fallacy to which I would call attention. The measure of the bounty is not the depreciation of the exchange, otherwise, obviously, Poland would at the present moment be importing to the whole of Europe. I am sure hon. Members opposite will take it from me that the intention and purpose of the Bill is not to legislate wherever the exchange is depreciated. The purpose of the Bill is not to put on protective tariffs. The Bill is designed, as regards its exchange legislation, against one thing and one thing only, and that is the bounty which is created by a depreciated ex- change causing two values in the country, and thereby operating as a bounty on export.

:Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member, who not infrequently addresses the House, will allow me on a not altogether easy economic subject to follow out my argument. It is the difference which is the measure of the bounty. Therefore, it is not reasonable that the duty should vary with the depreciation of exchange. I regard the argument that this Bill will further depreciate exchanges, and will make countries further depreciate their exchanges, as absolutely a fallacy. What this Bill is doing is saying to the country which pursues the deliberate policy of depreciating its exchange and creating a bounty that we are not going to allow that bounty to operate at our expense. Therefore, so far from encouraging a country to depreciate its exchange, this legislation shows that, so far as we are concerned, that country is not going to get its bounty at our expense, if it pursues that policy. This legislation, therefore, encourages countries to get their exchange right, and does not encourage them to depreciate their exchange.

My hon. Friend has told us that there will be this duty on German pianos and this duty on French pianos, and so on. He must not assume that there will be duties all round. I quite agree that if he accepted the speeches made by hon. Friends on his right, he might well imagine that the moment this Bill passes every single article in heaven and earth is going to be taxed three times over. He knows better than that, and they know better than that. They know perfectly well that that is not going to be the case, and that it is only where there is this bounty on exchange, and where an industry in this country is suffering not merely from being undersold, but being undersold because by reason of the exchange and the bounty on that exchange, the foreigner can undersell, that the duty will be put on. That has to be proved to the tribunal. I know my hon. Friends views on fiscal policy, but I will not discuss the merits of a protective system now. It is not the intention, it is not the purpose, and it will not be the operation of this Bill to impose anything in the nature of a protective tariff. It would be, I think, the worst service that any Government or any Parliament could offer to industry in this country at the present time, to attempt to give large protective tariffs, and I do not believe that it requires it. That does not mean to say that it is reasonable and right that there should be no duty put on in order to safeguard industry. My hon. Friend said there were instances where the duty may not be high enough. I am perfectly certain that is so. I never pretended anything else, but what we have said is that in order to give a practical remedy you must have a certainty in duty. If you were to proceed in an academic world on a scientific basis you could get 150 different scales of duty varying every day with the different circumstances and with the different rates of exchange. That might be theoretically possible, but practically it would be unworkable. You have to secure a reasonable and practical duty. We think we have secured that. We believe this scheme is workable. We believe that the difference in values will, and must, tend to approximate, and that there must be a steady reduction of prices in this country. Accordingly we think we have got a Measure which is a fair Measure, not of protection, but of safeguard, and I ask my hon. Friends opposite to support it instead of trying to make suggestions which would not work out in practice in the long run.

:I think I had better ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, with a view to putting it down later on the Report stage.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Amendment negatived.

:I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

The last two Amendments have dealt with Free Trade and Protection. The one I move now is one that rakes largely the constitutional issue, and I hope I may have the assistance of hon. Members who, during the past week or two, have protested against inroads being made upon the Constitution. The Government propose to set up a new tribunal to deal with disputes which may arise on the amount of duty payable. Disputes of this kind arise already under the Customs Acts which obtain. The Act of 1876 set up a method of dealing with these disputes. Under Sections 30 and 31 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, it is laid down that if the importer disputes the amount of duty he is called upon to pay, he shall have recourse to the Courts. The Government say that they will adopt exactly the same method in dealing with disputes under this Act, but instead of the matter being sent to the Courts, it shall be sent to the referee appointed by the Treasury. The Treasury, no doubt, will know the feelings and the views of the man they appoint. They may appoint a member of their own staff or it may be a member of the staff of the Board of Trade or a member of the Customs and Inland Revenue, but the point is that he will not be and cannot be an impartial judge such as we know with the old Courts set up to settle disputes between citizen and citizen and between citizen and the Government. It is time that we made some sort of protest and some stand against this continual whittling away of the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country, and that is exactly what is being done here. Our Courts are our last bulwark against the inroads the Government are making upon these privileges. Here the Government are going to step in and take away our last defence. Time and again we have protested against the multiplication of officials and I protest against the Government introducing new officials here. Why set up a new tribunal with no judicial experience and with no ability to decide the difficult questions of law which will come before them? I protest against this provision, first of all because it makes an inroad upon the duties of our Law Courts and also because it takes away from the subject the right which he has always enjoyed and by which he has always laid great store, of appealing to the law of the land.

:Before my right hon. Friend replies on this I should like to say a very few words to him and to the Committee on the issues which underlie the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend (Major Mackenzie Wood). I understand the Amendments down' on the Paper include one in the name of the President of the Board of Trade who proposes to put in the words, "They shall be referred to the arbitration of a referee," instead of the direct recourse to the Court which is now the law in the analogous case referred to by my right hon. Friend. We all know quite well that there are certain tendencies inimical to direct recourse to the Court. We are told that recourse to the Court is expensive, that there is sometimes considerable delay, and the procedure taken is tedious. By saying this I am trying to show I am aware of that kind of objection. But what is of more importance even than questions of delay or elaboration of procedure is that the tribunal which decides should have the public confidence in the highest degree, and it should be altogether detached from the opinions and tendencies of the Executive. If I may be allowed to discuss the two Amendments together, I understand my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade leaves it to the arbitration of a referee, and that would mean that certain questions of fact would be decided by a referee, but the questions of law or questions which were alleged to be questions of law would still be referable to the Courts. I understand that to be the case.

:On that I have to say that while Arbitration Acts have a great deal to be said in their favour, and where they are dealing with a large number of facts, in other words a great number of details, their procedure has advantages over legal procedure. But it still remains that under the Arbitration Acts there is a reference to the Court, and that makes it exceedingly important that machinery under the Arbitration Acts should be as absolutely divorced from the Executive as machinery which is wholly in the hands of His Majesty's Judges. Therefore, I am very anxious to know what reason there is, and I presume there is some reason, why the Government have put in this particular method at all, and why the existing machinery that allows the trader with a grievance to go to the Court, is not maintained; and in the next place I want to know if there are valid reasons for using a referee as regards these aspects which are purely aspects of fact. Why cannot that referee be a person appointed by the Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor in the way in which referees in Departments of quasi legal procedure are now appointed, and, therefore, he should have his office and duties entirely detached from the Executive of the country. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that in speaking as I am doing I am not in any way hostile to this particular provision. I am dealing with a method of procedure. Is it necessary for this or any Government when they are setting up under this or any Act of Parliament a person or persons to decide matters in a judicial spirit and in a way which is equivalent to the action of the Courts, under such circumstances, is there any ground whatever for leaving to the Executive or any branch of it the appointment of such person or persons? I should have thought that however acute differences were on most aspects of fiscal affairs, we might, at any rate, be agreed on this point, that where a judicial decision has to be given, and this in effect is a judicial decision, it should be given by some person or persons wholly detached from the Executive, who are either themselves Judges of the land or persons appointed by Judges of the land, in accord with the strictest and the highest and the most equitable traditions, which draws the deepest distinction between Executive action and judicial decisions.

:I think I can answer the question in a Measure that has been put by the hon. and learned Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins). The reason is, that it is not desired that there should be a reference to the Courts, because we are living in days of growing bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy cannot bear the idea of interference either by the House of Commons or by the judicature. That is one of the reasons. The Bill, as originally drafted, snatched from the power of this House nearly all the essential Measures of taxation. Part of that has been corrected, but the bureaucracy could not bear that their decisions should be challenged in a Court of Law, so an independent authority may be set up for the trade schemes that are being devised by the Board of Trade. I can give a case in point. Just after the War, we had a President of the Board of Trade who was a great theorist, who had a locked box with a great many things that imposed on the trade of the country the most extreme inconvenience, of elaborate restrictions, licences and applications to the Board of Trade. When they were challenged in the Courts he got a judgment, and the whole edifice collapsed. The traders became free and the Courts were open. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Government cannot risk any more Sankey judgments, and in order to have no more they will have their own men to make their decision when questioned.

:Having heard the explanation of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite reminds me rather of a scene on the opening page of one of the best of George Eliot's stories. A conversation took place in a public-house, and the question arose as to the derivation of the word "Presbyterian." The landlord laid it down with much vigour that the word was derived from the scoundrelly heretic John Presbyter. Another man tried to give the real derivation, but somebody else said we must take the landlord's explanation as "a deal more likely." If hon. Members will refer to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, they will find that Section 12 lays down

"Sections thirty and thirty-one of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 shall as respects any such dispute as to value have effect as if an application for reference to a referee under this provision were substituted, etc."

It was pointed out that this was, as I well remember, for the greater convenience of business men.

:It is for the convenience of business men that a referee has to decide on questions of fact as to the value of goods and the classification of goods. These are questions of fact, and questions of fact which for the convenience of business men want to be solved as quickly as possible, and, when once solved, will be solved for certain. The advantage to the business community of having a reference to a referee for such questions as this rather than to the courts of law, provided, of course, that the referee enjoys the confidence of the parties, is this. Going to the courts of law on these questions of fact is not a speedy process, and if, as sometimes happens, the judgment of the first court is given against the Crown, the Crown invariably appeals, and, in the event of the appeal failing, it takes the case to the House of Lords. That means a great delay and great cost. As to the appointment of a referee under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, no case has been referred to a referee at all, which shows how well and satisfactorily the machinery has worked. But though we have no direct evidence of the methods in which the principle has worked, we have this evidence, that no disputes have arisen under the Act on questions of value, and that is a very interesting point.

I have an Amendment down which makes it clear that the referee would act as the Board of Trade acts under the Arbitration Act. That means that in that capacity he has practically all the powers of the Court. He can summon witnesses, take evidence, call for books, documents, etc., and I am inserting the words to which my hon. and learned Friend alluded in the three portions of the Bill where the word "referee" occurs. I think that that makes clear a point which was possibly left in doubt in the Finance Act No. 2 of 1915. My hon. and learned Friend was correct in what he stated about the point of law. The arbitrator always may be required on a point of law to state a case to the Court. On the question of appointment, I do not share the feeling of some hon. Members that the Treasury cannot be trusted to nominate a referee who will command universal confidence, but I do recognise that there is force in what my hon. and learned Friend has said about an appointment being made by the Lord Chancellor, and I should like to look into that and consider it very Carefully. I will consider that between now and the Report stage. I maintain, however, that the machinery we are setting up and the method we propose to employ give an admirable Court for this particular purpose.

:As a matter of fact, I do not think he would be. There are DO words in the Bill to prevent him being a civil servant, but I should not have the least objection to inserting words in the Bill to the effect that he should not be an official, as was done in the case of the German Reparation Act. As far as the business world is concerned, a Court of this kind will give perfect satisfaction and command perfect confidence, and I believe it would be best adapted to this particular purpose.

:The Government are never so happy as when quoting the 1915 Finance Act as a precedent for anything which they contemplate doing, but in using that Act as a precedent for their permanent legislation, they might at least remember that it was passed at a time of great stress and emergency, and for a particular War purpose. There are various reasons why, in this particular case, the precedent of the Finance Act of 1915 should not be used, and they have been referred to on more than one occasion during this Debate. I am very glad to know the President of the Board of Trade is at least prepared to consider something, in the nature of a concession, upon one of the points raised. That concession will not meet the real difficulty with which we are faced in the Clause as it stands. Not only is the subject being deprived of his right of remedy by the Courts, but even as regards the substitution of a referee for the Courts, we find that the referee would not be appointed by agreement between the parties, as would be the case in any dispute under the Arbitration Act. He would be appointed by another authority. The promise given by the right hon. Gentleman, however, is a great step to substitute, say, the Lord Chief Justice for the Treasury.

:Yes, the right hon. Gentleman has promised to consider it, and that is something. Do not let it be understood that the right hon. Gentleman in using the expression "Arbitration Act" is thereby going to give to the subject all the remedies which the Arbitration Act would give. As far as I am aware, the Arbitration Act would provide two or three very important safeguards for the subject, of which the subject will be deprived under this Bill, if it becomes law. There is first the point I have mentioned, that instead of the arbitrator or referee being appointed by agreement between the parties, he is to be appointed by someone else, but there is still another point. Under the Arbitration Act the question of costs and damages is in the award of the arbitrator It is a very strange thing that the Customs Laws (Consolidation) Act, 1876, has been adopte in this Bill for some purposes but not for others. Sections 30 and 31, which are incorporated for some purposes in this Bill, give the subject the right to the Courts, but they do not give him the right to costs and damages if he wins before the Courts, and I find that what the Government has done in this Bill is to deprive the subject of the right of application to the Courts which these Sections give him, but make the subject liable to this limitation which deprives him of costs and damages if he wins. It seems to me that that is a very unfair application of those Sections, and I hope the Government will reconsider the whole question. It is not going to give the subject confidence if his remedies are to be treated in this way by the Government.

:So important is this matter that I want, by any means in my power, to urge on the Members of the Committee the seriousness of the decision which no doubt the majority are

about to take. Almost from time immemorial the fundamental power of this House has rested in its determination to see that the taxes are levied by itself, but in addition to that there has been outside this tribunal the great Common Law Courts of the land, and a very large portion of the liberty of the subject from unfair use of taxing measures carried through the House of Commons by the Executive has been brought about by the independent action of the Law Courts. In this taxing Statute, because that is exactly what it is, the Executive now propose to utilise the emergency of war, under which the Act was passed, to carry on this great infraction and breach of the liberties of the subject into the times of peace. My right hon. Friend is a fair-minded man, but there have been sympathetic executioners of perfectly innocent subjects in times past, and one of the right hon. Gentleman's greatest gifts, and one of his greatest dangers to the Opposition, is his calm and sympathetic manner. It is a most serious decision which the majority of hon. Members is about to undertake, and I am certain of this, that there are hon. Members in this House who will be Members of this House in years to come, when they will regret the decision and the precedent which they are now setting up.

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 13 th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word "a" ["a referee appointed"] stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 75.

Division No. 246.]

AYES.

[10.30 p.m.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Casey, T. W.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Borwick, Major G. O.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Amery, Leopold C. M.S.

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Atkey, A. R.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Brassey, H. L. C.

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Breese, Major Charles E.

Clough, Sir Robert

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Brown, Major D. C.

Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K.

Barker, Major Robert H.

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Barlow, Sir Montague

Bruton, Sir James

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Barnston, Major Harry

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Cope, Major William

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)

Butcher, Sir John George

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Campbell, J. D. G.

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bigland, Alfred

Carr, W. Theodore

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Rothschild, Lionel de

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

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Lorden, John William

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Doyle, N. Grattan

Lort-Williams, J.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Falcon, Captain Michael

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Seager, Sir William

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Seddon, J. A.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on T.)

Foreman, Sir Henry

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Simm, M. T.

Forestier-Walker, L.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Forrest, Walter

Macquisten, F. A.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Manville, Edward

Stanton, Charles Butt

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Steel, Major S. Strang

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Mason, Robert

Stewart, Gershom

Glyn, Major Ralph

Matthews, David

Sturrock, J. Leng

Goff, Sir R. Park

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Sugden, W. H.

Green, Albert (Derby)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Sutherland, Sir William

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Taylor, J.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

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

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Gretton, Colonel John

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Morrison, Hugh

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Hallwood, Augustine

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I. W. D'by)

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Townley, Maximilian G.

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Nall, Major Joseph

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Neal, Arthur

Tryon, Major George Clement

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

Waddington, R

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Parker, James

Waring, Major Walter

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pearce, Sir William

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Hood, Joseph

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Hopkins, John W. W.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Jephcott, A. R.

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Poison, Sir Thomas A.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

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

Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton

Wise, Frederick

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Pratt, John William

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Kidd, James

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr N.

Woolcock, William James U.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Renwick, Sir George

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Younger, Sir George

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lloyd, George Butler

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Hartshorn, Vernon

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hayday, Arthur

Myers, Thomas

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Hayward, Evan

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Hogge, James Myles

Rae, H. Norman

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Holmes, J. Stanley

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Briant, Frank

Irving, Dan

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bromfield, William

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Robertson, John

Cairns, John

Kennedy, Thomas

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Cape, Thomas

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Rose, Frank H.

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Kenyon, Barnet

Royce, William Stapleton

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Kiley, James Daniel

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lawson, John James

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Lunn, William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Swan, J. E.

Galbraith, Samuel

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Glanville, Harold James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Tootill, Robert

Grundy, T. W.

Mills, John Edmund

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

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

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Waterson, A. E.

Hancock, John George

Mosley, Oswald

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Major Mackenzie Wood and Mr.

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Spencer.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "to" ["to a referee appointed"], insert "the arbitration of."—[ Mr. Baldwin. ]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 73.

Division No. 247.]

AYES.

[10.40 p.m.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Fildes, Henry

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Manville, Edward

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Atkey, A. R.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Mason, Robert

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Foreman, Sir Henry

Matthews, David

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Forestier-Walker, L.

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Forrest, Walter

Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred Moritz

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Barker, Major Robert H.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Barlow, Sir Montague

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Morrison, Hugh

Barnston, Major Harry

Glyn, Major Ralph

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Goff, Sir R. Park

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Green, Albert (Derby)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

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

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Nail, Major Joseph

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Neal, Arthur

Betterton, Henry B.

Gretton, Colonel John

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Bigland, Alfred

Gritten, W. G. Howard

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

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Borwick, Major G. O.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

Hallwood, Augustine

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I, W. D'by)

Parker, James

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Brassey, H. L. C.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pearce, Sir William

Breese, Major Charles E.

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Brittain, Sir Harry

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Perkins, Walter Frank

Brown, Major D. C.

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Perring, William George

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Bruton, Sir James

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Polson, Sir Thomas A.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Hood, Joseph

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Butcher, Sir John George

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Pratt, John William

Campbell, J. D. G.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Carr, W. Theodore

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Casey, T. W.

Jephcott, A. R.

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Renwick, Sir George

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

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

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Clough, Sir Robert

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Kidd, James

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rothschild, Lionel de

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Cope, Major William

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Lloyd, George Butler

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Seager, Sir William

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Seddon, J. A.

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Lorden, John William

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Lort-Williams, J.

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

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

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Simm, M. T.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Lowther. Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Doyle, N. Grattan

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Stanton, Charles Butt

Falcon, Captain Michael

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Steel, Major S. Strang

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Macquisten, F. A.

Stewart, Gershom

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Sturrock, J. Leng

Sugden, W. H.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Waddington, R.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Sutherland, Sir William

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Wise, Frederick

Taylor, J.

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Waring, Major Walter

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Woolcock, William James U.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Younger, Sir George

Townley, Maximilian G.

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Tryon, Major George Clement

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Hinds, John

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Holmes, J. Stanley

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Robertson, John

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Irving, Dan

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rose, Frank H.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Royce, William Stapleton

Briant, Frank

Kennedy, Thomas

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Bromfield, William

Kenyon, Barnet

Spencer, George A.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kiley, James Daniel

Swan, J. E.

Cairns, John

Lawson, John James

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Cape, Thomas

Lunn, William

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

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Tootill, Robert

Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Galbraith, Samuel

Mills, John Edmund

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Glanville, Harold James

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mosley, Oswald

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Grundy, T. W.

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

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

Myers, Thomas

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Hancock, John George

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hayday, Arthur

Rae, H. Norman

Hayward, Evan

Raffan, Peter Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Shaw.

CLAUSE 11.—(Determination of disputes.)

If any dispute arises as to whether any goods imported into the United Kingdom are goods specified in the Schedule to this Act or in any list made by the Board under Part I of this Act, or are goods to which an Order made under Part II of this Act applies, the question shall be referred to a referee to be appointed by the Treasury, and the decision of the referee with respect to the matter in dispute shall be final and conclusive, and Sections thirty and thirty-one of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, shall apply as if the dispute were a dispute as to the proper rate of duty payable, with

the substitution of an application for a reference to a referee under this Section for the action or suit mentioned in those Sections.

Amendment made: After the word "to" ["shall be referred to a referee"], insert the words "the arbitration of."— [ Mr. Baldwin. ]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 71.

Division No. 248.]

AYES.

[10.50 p.m.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Borwick, Major G. O.

churchman, Sir Arthur

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. sir A. Griffith-

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Atkey, A. R.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Clough, Sir Robert

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Baird, sir John Lawrence

Brassey, H. L. C.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Breese, Major Charles E.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Brown, Major D. C.

Cope, Major William

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Bruton, Sir James

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Barker, Major Robert H.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Barlow, Sir Montague

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Barnston, Major Harry

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Butcher, Sir John George

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Campbell, J. D. G.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Benn, sir A. s. (Plymouth, Drake)

Carr, W. Theodore

Doyle, N. Grattan

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Casey, T. W.

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Betterton, Henry B.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Bigland, Alfred

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Falcon, Captain Michael

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Fildes, Henry

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Seager, Sir William

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Seddon, J. A.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Foreman, Sir Henry

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James . I.

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Macquisten, F. A.

Simm, M. T.

Forrest, Walter

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Manville, Edward

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Ganzoni, Sir John

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Mason, Robert

Stanton, Charles Butt

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Matthews, David

Steel, Major S. Strang

Glyn, Major Ralph

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Stewart, Gershom

Green, Albert (Derby)

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Sturrock, J. Leng

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

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

Sugden, W. H.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Gretton, Colonel John

Morrison, Hugh

Sutherland, Sir William

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Taylor, J.

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Hailwood, Augustine

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l. W. D'by)

Nail, Major Joseph

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Neal, Arthur

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

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

Townley, Maximilian G.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Henderson Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Parker, James

Waddington, R.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Pearce, Sir William

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Hood, Joseph

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Waring, Major Walter

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Hopkins, John W. W.

Perrlng, William George

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Jephcott, A. R.

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

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

Pratt, John William

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Willoughby. Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Purchase, H. G.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Wise, Frederick

Kidd, James

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Renwick, Sir George

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Woolcock, William James U.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Lindsay, William Arthur

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Lloyd, George Butler

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Younger, Sir George

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Rothschild, Lionel de

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lorden, John William

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Lort-Williams, J.

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Hinds, John

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Holmes, J. Stanley

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Irving, Dan

Robertson, John

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rose, Frank H.

Briant, Frank

Kennedy, Thomas

Royce, William Stapleton

Bromfield, William

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kenvon, Barnet

Spencer, George A.

Cairns, John

Kiley, James Daniel

Swan, J. E.

Cape, Thomas

Lawson, John James

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Lunn, William

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

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Tootill, Robert

Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Galbraith, Samuel

Mallalleu, Frederick William

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Glanville, Harold James

Mills, John Edmund

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Grundy, T. W.

Mosley, Oswald

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

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

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Hancock, John George

Myers, Thomas

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Hayday, Arthur

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hayward, Evan

Rae, H. Norman

Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Shaw.

Question put, "That Clauses 12 ( Supplementary Provisions as to new duties ), 13 ( Exception for transit goods ), 14 ( Interpretation ), 15 ( Short Title ), and

16 ( Duration of Part I ) stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes,. 75.

Division No. 249.]

AYES.

[11.o p.m.

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Glyn, Major Ralph

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Goff, Sir R. Park

O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Green, Albert (Derby)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Atkey, A. R.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Parker, James

Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Pearce, Sir William

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gretton, Colonel John

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Perring, William George

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood

Hailwood, Augustine

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Barker, Major Robert H.

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Barlow, Sir Montague

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Barnston, Major Harry

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Pratt, John William

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Purchase, H. G.

Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Rankin, Captain James Stuart

Betterton, Henry B.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, s.)

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

Bigland, Alfred

Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Renwick, Sir George

Borwick, Major G. O.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

Hood, Joseph

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brassey H. L. C.

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Brittain, Sir Harry

Jephcott, A. R.

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Jodrell, Neville Paul

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brown, Major D. C.

Johnson, Sir Stanley

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

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

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Bruton, Sir James

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Seager, Sir William

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Seddon, J. A.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

Kidd, James

Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)

Butcher, Sir John George

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle on-T.)

Campbell, J. D. G.

Lane-Fox, G. R

Simm, M. T.

Carr, W. Theodore

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Smith Sir Harold (Warrington)

Casey, T. W.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Lloyd, George Butler

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

steel, Major S. Strang

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Lorden, John William

Stewart, Gershom

Clough, Sir Robert

Lort-Williams, J.

Sturrock, J. Leng

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Sugden, W. H.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lowther, Maj.-Gon. sir C. (Penrith)

Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

Sutherland, Sir William

Cope, Major William

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

Taylor, J.

Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Macquisten, F. A.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Coyle, N. Grattan

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Manville, Edward

Townley, Maximilian G.

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

Tryon, Major George Clement

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Mason, Robert

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Falcon, Captain Michael

Matthews, David

Waddington, R.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Fildes, Henry

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Waring, Major Walter

FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

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

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Morden, Col. W. Grant

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Foreman, Sir Henry

Morrison, Hugh

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Forastier-Walker, L.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R (Banbury)

Forrest, Walter

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Nall, Major Joseph

Wise, Frederick

Ganzoni, Sir John

Neal, Arthur

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Wood. Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Woolcock, William James U.

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Younger, Sir George

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Hinds, John

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Holmes, J. Stanley

Robertson, John

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Irving, Dan

Rose, Frank H.

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

John, William'(Rhondda, West)

Royce, William Stapleton

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kennedy, Thomas

Spencer, George A.

Briant, Frank

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Bromfield, William

Kenyon, Barnet

Swan, J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Kiley, James Daniel

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Cairns, John

Lawson, John James

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

Cape, Thomas

Lunn, William

Tootill, Robert

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian)

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Galbraith, Samuel

Mills, John Edmund

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Glanville, Harold James

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Mosley, Oswald

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge)

Grundy, T. W.

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

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

Myers, Thomas

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Hancock, John George

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hartsnorn, Vernon

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Hayday, Arthur

Raffan, Peter Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hayward, Evan

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Shaw.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Propress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [ Colonel Leslie Wilson. ]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Telegraph [Money]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole five million pounds, as are required for the further development of the telephonic system, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof to the Consolidated Fund; and to provide for the payment of the terminable annuities or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer Bonds out of moneys provided by Parliament for Post Office services or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—[ Mr. Kellaway. ]

:The resolution which I am asking the Committee to accept in the usual practice when it is proposed to raise money for revenue for telephone purposes. A similar motion for 10 millions was authorised last year. That money will be exhausted by the end of October, and it will be necessary for us to secure further moneys to carry on the work of telephone development which will last up to the end of April. I hope it will not be necessary on the Financial Resolution that I should go into the details of explaining the necessities for this amount. That can be done on the Second Reading. But there were one or two points, I think, the Committee would wish to have before them as to the reasons why it is necessary at this time to ask the Committee to approve this Resolution. The total capital expenditure out of the telephone capital was in 1920–21 £5,867,000. It is proposed for the present year to spend out of the capital a total sum of £9,000,000. Of that sum £2,300,000 is for trunk lines, particularly for completing the trunk lines underground; £6,150,000 for new exchanges and subscribers circuits, and £500,000 for sites and buildings. The money is particularly required for contracts which have been already made and for work that is now in progress. At the present time there are large numbers of people who require telephone installation but who cannot have that installation owing to the scarcity of telephone plant. During the first five months of this year— the period during which the new tariff was first in operation—we accepted 1,400 orders a month for new telephones in London and 2,500 orders a month for new telephones in the Provinces but the Post Office had to refuse, because it had not the necessary plant to accept these additional applications, 1,500 a month in London and 750 a month in the Provinces. At the end of May there were applications recorded from 23,000 persons in this country who required telephones and whose applications we could not accept owing to the shortage of telephone plant. If the telephone is to be made thoroughly effective and useful this country ought to be in a position to provide every person requiring a telephone who is willing to pay for such accommodation. At present that cannot be done until this capital expenditure which will have to go on for a period of some years is made. Until we are in that position, until that is done there will be a large number of people in this country requiring telephones to whom the Post Office will not be in a position to give that accommodation. A deal has been done as the result of the voting of the money last year to overtake arrears in satisfying the demand for telephones. In May, 1920, there were 35,000 applications for telephones which could not be met That number has been reduced to 23,000 this year.

Up to 31st March last 280,000 miles of underground circuits for local systems had been authorised, and of that number 200,000 had been completed. For trunk systems 200,000 miles of underground circuits had been authorised, and 76,000 had been completed. It is obvious that it will be an immense advantage when we get the whole of our trunk lines underground. The Committee will recall the great storm of 1916, which practically laid flat over a belt of 100 miles of this country every telephone and telegraph line. By making the lines underground that can be avoided, and it is the only way it can be avoided, and the Post Office is pushing on this work with all its energy to the full extent of the capacity of the manufacturers of this country to provide the necessary plant. Then with regard to exchanges. Up to 31st March this year 68 new exchanges had been ordered and 14 had been completed. Forty-four extensions of existing exchanges had been ordered and 9 completed. I have here a long list of the new exchanges which have been completed in the past year or will, we hope, be completed in the approaching year, and if I were to read the list, which is too long to read, the Committee would see the representative way in which new exchanges are springing up all over the country. A large number more is in hand, and we hope to make a considerable impression on that number if we are successful in getting this £5,000,000 for which we are now asking.

In regard to the progress made in the laying of the trunk lines underground, there are three main routes now in hand which are approaching completion. The first is London to Manchester. The main cable contains 160 circuits via Northampton, Leicester and Derby with branches to Nottingham and Leeds via Sheffield and Wakefield, with further extensions to Harrogate and York. This cable will be completed soon after the end of the year, and will relieve the traffic to the cities and towns which I have mentioned and to the industrial districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The second trunk cable is from London to Bristol and thence to Newport, Cardiff and Swansea. The third is from London to Southampton with a spur to Portsmouth.

I should like to say a word with regard to the progress made in rural areas. That is a point which was impressed upon me very much, during my recent by-election, but I was already conscious of the need for developing to the fullest possible extent, the provision of telephones in rural areas. The number of rural call offices opened in 1919, was 149; the number opened in 1920 was 383; and in the first quarter of this year 116 were opened and 105 were in course of construction. Arrangements are now being made, to open call offices at rural post offices, where there is a telegraph line which can be converted to telephone purposes at small expense, and where there is a reasonable probability of business being done. This point was impressed upon the Government and the Post Office, by nearly all the Chambers of Commerce in this country and I am glad to be able to report progress in this regard.

A word as to the effect of the new tariff. The number of subscribers who, as a result of the new tariff, have surrendered their installations, is 4.7 of the total or 23,000. During that time we have been able to accept 27,000 new subscribers and have had to refuse a further 23,000. On the whole I think, much as one regrets the necessity for increasing the charge of any essential service, these figures show that it has been accepted by the great body of the people as being inevitable in the circumstances. I shall not give the statistics as to the improvement in the efficiency of the service, but I shall say this: My letter-bag in regard to the telephones contains three classes of letters. One class complains of inefficiency, another complains of the discourtesy of operators, but the great bulk consist of complaints in regard to the difficulty which those desirous of having telephones installed experience in getting them installed. That difficulty cannot be got over until the Post Office is provided with the necessary plant to make up the arrears of the last six or seven years. Those, I think, are all the essential points.

:At present, I think, there are 16 automatic exchanges working in this country. I have not a list of them here, but Leeds is one. Three others are nearly completed, but the installation of automatics, for instance in London, would mean enormous capital expenditure. We have been in communication with manufacturers and others, and we are at present considering if we can get a system of automatics for London, which we can rely upon, as not likely to be superseded by some new invention, for a reasonable number of years. The automatics at present installed are working satisfactorily, and the only thing in the way of a considerable extension is the capital expenditure involved. We have cut down capital expenditure to the lowest possible figure. I believe a commercial concern running the telephones of this country, would be spending out of capital three or four times the amount of which we are now asking the Committee to approve. If there are. other points on which the Committee would like information, I shall be glad to deal with them on the Second Reading. I take the case as established, that if this country desires its telephone system to be really effective: and efficient, it has to face the fact that considerable capital expenditure is required. This at present, as. I have said, is cut down to the lowest possible figure and I hope the Committee will give me this Resolution.

:I should first like to make the point that a matter of this kind ought not to be taken wholly after 11 o'clock. I do not know what the intention of the Government is with regard to the Second Reading, but from consulting the references, I know that last year, when we voted £10,000,000, we at any rate started on the Financial Resolution at a reasonable hour in the afternoon, when the main statement was made, although the subsequent stages of the Financial Resolution and the Bill were taken after 11 o'clock. This year we have taken the Financial Resolution after 11 o'clock, and I ask that at any rate one of the stages, the Second Reading preferably, on which the Postmaster-General has stated that he will make a fuller statement, should be taken at some really reasonable hour, because it is not right that when £5,000,000 is involved, all the stages should be taken so late. When the corresponding Bill was taken last year, rather a longer estimate was made as to the time the money would last. I want to ask why it is that whereas last year it was estimated that the £10,000,000 would last until the end of November, we are now told the money will come to an end in October? Last year the Postmaster-General boasted that he had been able to make considerable increases in the wages of those engaged in the telephone construction service, and he boasted of the fact that youths of 18, who had been paid 19s. a week before the War, were now paid 46s. 5d. under the new rates of wages for which he had managed to obtain sanction. That is beyond the present rate of a fully skilled agricultural worker, and I should like to ask whether it is still considered necessary for young men of 18 to be paid 46s. 5d. as their initial rate, or whether some economy has not been possible there. The right hon. Gentleman outlined that requests of this kind in the House were going to be frequent, and that this expense must go on for some considerable number of years. If that is so, cannot we have some more continuing policy than having Bills put before us at irregular intervals for uncertain sums whenever the House is too tired to attend to them very carefully? If it could be known, at any rate, that we were in for a telephone expenditure of, say, £5,000,000 or £7,000,000 a year for the next five years, we should have something to go upon, but I do not think the system of asking for £10,000,000 one year and £5,000,000 another year, always well into the middle of July, is satisfactory.

:I agree with the last speaker that it is a very inappropriate time of night and period of the year for this Department to rush a claim for a very large capital sum. I question if there is any Department of the State which is regarded with greater disfavour at the present moment than the telephone service of the Post Office. It has been guilty of reverting to almost archaic and mediæval methods of charging for telephones. The Government charge of so much a call is one which recalls to one's mind the very early days of the method of charging tolls when carriages drove through on the highways. It is completely out of date. It could only be thought of by a body of officials who adopt the attitude of Government officials, and say: "Do not bother us; we do not want to be busy; it will cost you three-halfpence per call." We do not, therefore, feel much inclined to grant money to gentlemen who conduct their business by these pre-historic methods, and seem to exist more than anything else for the purpose of annoying and irritating their subscribers. I know that the result will be that they will find the present telephone system adequate to carry the burden, and that they will be able to take new people, and very naturally, because the telephones, instead of being the handy thing that everybody washes, will be things that everybody will think twice before spending the extra money upon. You could have saved on your great water schemes on the same principle by saying that the charge was to be so much per gallon. Put it into the hands of the Postmaster to charge so much per gallon, and you will find that there would be very little water used per person, and probably there would then be reason for the continual existence of the Temperance Party. It would be pointed out by those connected with the Post Office that human beings need use very little water. They would point as an example to Palestine, where our soldiers only got half a pint a day, and, therefore, they could charge, perhaps, three-halfpence per gallon or some similar charge, and the whole thing would be perfectly simple.

This system is perfectly unsound, and instead of telephones being installed in the houses where the butcher and the baker and other trades folk would ring up the housewife, or vice versa, and orders be given in the morning, the tradesmen now send their boys round. They are not going to run any risk in the matter. None of the officials in the Post Office ever had a day's ordinary experience as a messenger in an office. They do not know the history of their own Post Office. They do not know how Rowland Hill discovered the secret of the penny post, which was, that by making the delivery of letters cheap it made it worth while for the people to entrust them into his hands rather than carry their letters themselves round into the next street. Post Office methods of increasing their charges and expecting the same results remind me very much of the Socialist view that many people hold, that you should employ two men to do one man's work, and that if you raise the prices to a large figure you are bound to make a profit. I was a member of a great corporation in the North, and the manager of the baths of that corporation expressed views very similar to those expressed in the Post Office. I remember there had been a large deficit on the baths one year, and we asked the superintendent how this deficit could be wiped off. He exactly copied the methods of the Post Office. He suggested that the charges should be put up three or four times beyond the ordinary, and he suggested that that would bring a great increase in users and a substantial balance. I said to him: "Mr. Baths Superintendent, the new charge of 6d. for the same sort of thing that the people have paid 1d. for up till now will mean that you will not have nearly so many people coming to the bath and the washhouses." With true Socialist and Post Office logic, he replied: "Oh yes, Mr. Macquisten, we will still have the same number of people, but they will not come so often!" Those are the lines the Post Office is working on. That was perfectly sound, but it was Sir Rowland Hill who taught the officials of the Post Office that it was necessary to give us a cheap postage if they wanted to develop trade, and we want now a descendant of Sir Rowland Hill to teach the Post Office Officials something of that kind, because they are totally unfit to carry on a highly scientific thing like the telephone. Why are all these charges necessary? I have only discovered my- self comparatively recently that there is no connection, no ruling body in the telephone service whereby the commercial part of the telephones can rule over the engineering department. The Postmaster-General does not seem to realise that this is a commercial business and he thinks it should be treated like taxation. I know from the admission of the Post Office that they have no possible means of checking Post Office accounts, and there is no system which prevents the officials charging you with more calls than you have, and to escape this danger you have to be very civil indeed to the operators. The engineering department put in the telephones and charge whatever they like, and the commercial department cannot even sack a man. I know very well that the engineering department is full of surplus labour, and I have received from every part of the country examples of the duplication of the same job.

I placed a most striking instance of this before the Post Office authorities, and I got a most flippant reply. I was speaking to a man in Edinburgh, and he told me that his brother-in-law had recently had the telephone fitted in his home, and he asked the foreman why it took such an army of men such a long time. He replied that under the old National Telephone Company he and another man would have put in the telephone in a forenoon, but now he had to fill up yards of a schedule in order to show that all these men had been doing something. I got all the particulars of this case and procured a signed statement, and the man in this case had no animus against the Post Office, although his wife had written a year before that time asking for the telephone to be installed. I told these people that no doubt the Postmaster-General would be supplied with a cock-and-bull story, and that the foreman would have to fill up a schedule. "What is wrong with the telephone service is that there is no control over the engineering staff: that staff does exactly as it likes. The foreman who is in charge of a job is probably a brother-in-law of one of his superior officers. I cannot forget that when I was a member of the Glasgow Corporation I was asked why I was so much against the heads of departments, and my reply was that nearly all of them had relatives in the Corporation service. There is no accounting for the fact that three or four linesmen will call to inspect one's telephone and spend an hour or two looking at it, and when they are asked why so many call they reply that they have to find work somewhere and therefore they travel about like canvassers for sewing machines; they are absolutely out to get work for the Post Office.

The general civil servant reeks to the neck in war bonus. Every official, from the highest to the lowest, gets the bonus, and it is a perfect scandal that men on good wages should be in receipt of the bonus at a time when there are so many workers getting the unemployment dole, and so many disabled soldiers' and sailors' widows compelled to live on a miserable pension. Why should these Government officials continue to carry on as if the War were still in progress? They claim that as they did not get the war bonus while the War was on they are entitled now to make up arrears. If they did not get it during the War does it not show that they did not need it? The bonus was granted in order that men might get the necessaries of life. If civil servants managed to go through the War without the bonus then they can do without it equally well now. Trade now has fallen absolutely flat, and it is a scandal to think that the war bonuses of those in the Post Office far exceed their wages.

With regard to the charges, it may be that in the case of letters the increase is justified, but I think that the raising of the postcard rate is one of the most ridiculous things that was ever done, while in regard to the telegraphs and telephones the whole department is mismanaged, and always will be as long as it is in Government hands. You might put it in the hands of commissioners, as is done in Sweden. An independent and autocratic commission of business men might manage to improve the service, but as long as you have a set of civil servants, tied up in red tape and sealing wax as this Service is, with the commercial department controlling the engineering department, and growing up like a huge octopus and spreading itself over the commercial community—with no idea but raising charges whenever it sees an opportunity, as though it could go on like an Oriental despot indefinitely—you will never make it a success. You may spend as much money as you like for as long as you like on the telephones, but under this present system, with its want of cohesion and want of control, the more that is spent the more inefficient and useless it will become. This inchoate department, from its very nature and construction, is bound to be inefficient and extravagant, as anyone who has had experience of telephones knows.

In the old days in Glasgow I had a perfectly efficient private wire telephone for 25s. a year. A case was brought to my notice, as to which I asked a question today, in which the original charge of £5 is now increased to £15, and that is going on all over the country. Another case was that of a man who had a wire from his private house to his stable, about 300 yards off, and paid £2 12s. a year for it. Suddenly, for this little wire between his stable and his house, a demand is made for £12 a year. Of course he declined to pay it, and the modus operandi of taking away the telephone was as follows. First of all comes a man on a motor bicycle to disconnect the instrument. He was asked why he did not take it away, but he said that that was a test job. A few days later four or five men came in a motor-lorry to take away the instrument, but they said they would not take away the wires—that was not their job; and they are still waiting for some one to take away the derelict wires. This man then got an ordinary firm of electricians to put in another telephone between his house and stable, which they did for a £5 note, and now it is his own for ever and he has no more to pay for it. The wire hangs along the trees, as the old wire did, and there is no maintenance. Yet here is the Post Office deliberately throwing away £2 12s. a year, and spending all those wages on taking away a single instrument. The whole service is honeycombed with these useless, wrong methods. Reference was made to the country districts, but they will never make anything of them; the country people certainly will not stand such methods. The whole system, as conducted at present, is a gigantic imposture. I do not believe that the present telephone inquiry will be of any use on the lines that it is taking, with its narrow views and the small amount of real evidence that is being taken—including nothing about surplus labour, which is such a vital point. Therefore, I am opposed to granting any further sum for the purpose of improving a. system which is based on such principles and constructed in such a manner that it is bound to end in disaster.

:I congratulate the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) upon his speech. I have only two questions to ask. The first is whether this is the last sum of money which, will be asked from the House for capital expenditure upon the telephones, or whether next year we shall have another £5,000,000, or at any rate some more money? The other question is whether the Postmaster-General hopes, or intends, that there will be proper interest on this £5,000,000, and in how many years he hopes to get back this capital expenditure? If he cannot say, I do not think that this expenditure should be undertaken, or that we should vote the money. It is not right that it should be undertaken unless we can get the money back. The financial position is so bad that all sections of the country have to endure hardships, and that 20,000 people want telephones is not in itself a sufficient reason why we should vote money at this time; money which does not exist in the country. In another year or two we shall find out that it does not exist. If the Postmaster-General cannot say that this money can be got back, we should make a stand and declare that millions of pounds shall not be voted in the careless manner they are at present in this House.

:I disagree to a very large extent with the last two speakers. It is quite true that the telephones and telegraphs are not as efficiently managed as they would be if they were under private control and management. That is common ground with a good many Members of this House. But it applies not only to the Post Office but to a good many Government Departments and, unless we are prepared to go the whole hog and hand over a good many Government Departments to private enterprise, it is useless criticising along these lines. On the other hand, there might be a vast improvement in the management of the Post Office in many ways. But it is somewhat illogical for the Member for Spring-burn to point put that the policy of Sir Rowland Hill was to make the penny postage so cheap that anyone might use-it, and then for the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) to say that it does not matter about the 23,000 would-be subscribers who wish to have the telephone. The two things are contradictory. We must go on the lines of making the system fit the business community and have a telephone ready when an ordinary subscriber wishes it, or else we must reverse our policy altogether. There has been a good deal of criticism, especially in the Press. The Post Office has got a very bad Press with regard to the telephone increase. It is just the same as the attack upon the Government with regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Bill—it touches their pocket. A comparison has been drawn between postal charges and charges for telephones. When the Telephone Company had control of the telephones it was a common thing for them to charge an inclusive fee of £10 a year, and it remained at £10 a year until nearly the end of the War, when the Post Office raised the subscription to £12.

12 M.

After an enquiry, it was found that this was totally inadequate, and totally unjust, because some of the users required their telephone every minute of the day and others required it perhaps once a day, or maybe once a week, and it is incomprehensible to me that the hon. Member (Mr. Macquisten) should advocate the policy of charging users the same fee no matter how often the telephone may be used. It was pointed out at the enquiry into telephone charges, how stupid an inclusive fee really is, because there are people using the telephone 50,000 or 60,000 times a year, and they require the services of operators in the Exchange constantly for their own use and the price they paid for the instrument, £10 or £12 a year, would not go anyway towards paying the operators' wages. It is a great mistake to think a telephone can be used constantly, and the oftener it is used the cheaper it ought to become, and the less cost it is for the State. It requires the services of operators, and they ought to be paid proportionately. No one would dream of advocating that people should pay £10 or £20 a year and have free postage. It would be absurd to charge anyone who wrote one letter a week £20 a year, and to charge £20 to a firm which might have a postage bill of £100 a year. The only fair way to charge is so much per call. It may be difficult to arrange and to check, but undoubtedly it is the fairest way to small users, but I hope a lot of the criticism which has been levelled against the Post Office will bear fruit and that a certain enquiry will be made with regard to bad management and overlapping. The fault with the Post Office, as with every other Government Department, is that they are always a day behind the fair. If the price of the telephone had gone up in 1915 or 1916 on the present basis everyone would have said, "The price of this is. going up and the price of that is going up, and it is only right that telephones should go up." But instead of taking the current when it served, when everything was on the boom, now that everything is in ft state of depression and trade is not brisk, that is the time they choose to raise their rates, and consequently they get no support. They are a day behind the fair. It is the same way with the Post Office bonuses. They did not pay the men adequately during the War. Civil servants were the worst paid—

:I do not think the hon. Member would be in order in going into the question of other Post Office charges and of Civil Servants' bonuses generally. The question is whether it is desirable to Vote the money for the extension of the telephone service.

:The only reason I alluded to it was because the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) dealt with the point. However, I content myself with supporting the Government, and I am asking them to pay more attention to the management in various ways.

:With a view to ensuring that the money to be voted will be well spent, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these three points. Where an automatic exchange has been installed, is it not a fact that trunk calls to a particular town, or from it, have not been attended to as well and as efficiently as they were before. Further, minor repairs are being conducted by young men not experienced enough to do the work properly, and it often means that they come again to the same job not two or three, but many times, before a proper job is made of the repairs. The other point is with regard to the Sunday post. Would it not be more fair to wait till there was a general request from the country for the abolition of the Sunday post?

:That clearly is not in order. The discussion must be confined to the extension of telephones.

:About 250 of the Government supporters voted for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, and, having done so, they will, no doubt, be perfectly prepared to sit up till a reasonable hour of the morning to discuss whether we should vote this sum of £5,000,000 or not. Last year, I believe, we voted £10,000,000. That has just lasted a year. Now we are asked for £5,000,000. We are not told how long it will last. I want to join in the protest which has been raised from these benches against voting this money at all. It may be necessary to have an efficient telephone system, but I think it is more necessary that people

should have decent houses to live in, and if it is true that the Government are going to-morrow to announce a change of policy, and that the housing subsidy is to cease, I do not think we ought to be voting £5,000,000 for the improvement of telephones. In my constituency there are rooms in which ten people are living. If a man has to wait for a telephone, it is a very much less hardship to wait a few months longer than that a man who has deficient sleeping accommodation should be put in that position for any length of time, and therefore unless the Government can give some assurance that they are not going to curtail necessary housing schemes for lack of money I think we ought to vote against the provision of this money.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 26.

Division No. 250.]

AVES.

[12.6 a.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Green, Albert (Derby)

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hallwood, Augustine

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Barlow, Sir Montague

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Barnston, Major Harry

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Henry, Denis S- (Londonderry, S.)

Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hinds, John

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Brassey, H. L. C.

Hood, Joseph

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

Brown, Major D. C.

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

Kidd, James

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Bruton, Sir James

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Lindsay, William Arthur

Stewart, Gershom

Carr, W. Theodore

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Sugden, W. H.

Casey. T. W.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

Sutherland, Sir William

Churchman, Sir Arthur

Lort-Williams, J.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Clough, Sir Robert

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Cope, Major William

Manville, Edward

Townley, Maximilian G.

Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Mason, Robert

Tryon, Major George Clement

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Waddington, R.

Edwards. Major J. (Aberavon)

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

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Waring, Major Walter

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Nall, Major Joseph

Wise, Frederick

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Neal. Arthur

Woolcock, William James U.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Parker, James

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Forrest, Walter

Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Perkins. Walter Frank

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Pratt, John William

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Purchase, H. G.

McCurdy.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

Adamson. Rt. Hon. William

Gretton, Colonel John

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Ainsworth,-Captain Charles

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Atkey, A. R.

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Lawson, John James

Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Macquisten, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Mosley, Oswald

Colonel Penry Williams and Mr. E.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Harmsworth.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Admiralty Pensions [Commutation, Etc]

Committee to consider of making further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament with respect to Admiralty Pensions, and with respect to pensions, grants, or allowances payable under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Acts and the Government War Obliga- tion Acts — ( King's Recommendation signified )—To-morrow.—[ Mr. Amery. ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.