NA TURE 



525 



;t\[ A T H n M 



THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1920. 



Editorial luid Publishing OffUtt: 

 MACMILLAN &- CO., LTD., ' 

 ST. MARTIN'S STREET. LONDON, W.C.I 



Advenisetnents and business leners should be 

 addressed to the Publishers. 



Editorial coaununications to the Editor. 



Telegraphic Address: PHUSIS, LONDON. 

 Telephone Number: GERRARD 8830. 



The Dyestuffs Bill, 



THE Dyestuff.s (Import Refjulation) Bill passed 

 its third reading in the House of Commons 

 on December 17 by a majority of 86 (iii votes 

 to 25), after the Opposition had unsuccessfully 

 challenged a division on the Government's motion 

 to exempt the measure from the limitations of 

 the Standing Order relating to a Friday sitting. 

 This action on the part of the Opposition is an 

 indication of the attitude of a certain section of 

 the Manchester school of political economists to- 

 wards the Bill ; in so far as it savours of Pro- 

 tection, it is, of course, anathema. Their ears 

 were apparently deaf to all arguments as to the 

 ab,solute necessity of resuscitating, as much in the 

 interests of our national security as in those of our 

 commercial prosperity, an industry primarily of 

 British origin. The old theoretical Free Trade 

 arguments against the Bill failed, however, to 

 convince all Free Traders in the House. The 

 member for the Bridgeton division of Glasgow, as 

 a Free Trader, had the temerity to denounce the 

 agitation against the measure as wholly factious 

 and bogus and as doing the greatest harm to the 

 cause of Free Trade. 



A perusal of the proceedings of Standing Com- 

 mittee B, which was charged with the considera- 

 tion of the Bill, serves to confirm this impression. 

 Under cover of protecting the interests of the 

 textile and other colour-using industries, an 

 amendment was moved which, without materially 

 benefiting these industries, could only result in 

 NO, 2669, VOL. 106] 



limiting the beneficent intention of the Bill as re- 

 gards the dye-makers. The mover of the amend- 

 ment scored one or two debating points, but the 

 suggestion to add words to the particular sub- 

 section which prohibits importation of dyestuffs 

 so as to imply that the safeguarding of the dye- 

 making industry was being done at the expense 

 of the textile industries so little commended itself 

 to the judgment of the Committee that it was re- 

 jected by a majority of more than two to one. Such 

 action on the part of the Opposition is not con- 

 structive legislation. There is no necessary an- 

 tagonism between the colour-makers and the 

 colour-users in this country ; their mutual interests 

 are inseparable, and the prosperity of one 

 section is bound up with that of the other. 



The same animus against the measure was dis- 

 played in a succession of amendments which were 

 ruled out of order. Attempts were next made to 

 restrict the prohibition to dyestuffs manufactured 

 in Germany, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary 

 to the Hoard of Trade pointed out, to confine the 

 clause to the prohibition of importation from Ger- 

 many would make the Bill perfectly nugatory. To 

 safeguard the dyestuff industry efTectually, it had 

 to be safeguarded against competition from all 

 outside sources. Moreover, there would be 

 nothing to prevent the German dye-makers from 

 establishing dep6ts in other countries and export- 

 ing the dyes thence. A moving appeal was made 

 on behalf of Switzerland, which, it was contended, 

 had continued to help us throughout the war, 

 and, it was added, incidentally to help herself. 

 To what extent Switzerland made herself an 

 agent for the transmission of German-made 

 dyes was not stated. 



This character of argument was too much for 

 the patience of some members of the Committee. 

 Sir Philip Magnus, the member for the University 

 of London, bluntly charged members of the Com- 

 mittee with the deliberate intention of obstructing 

 the Bill; from the speeches at the first sitting it 

 was obvious that every possible opposition would 

 be made. This unmasking of their batteries was 

 naturally warmly resented by the militant 

 members, led by Major Barnes, Col. Williams, 

 and Major Hayward, who protested, in the words 

 of Major Wood, that they were " not out against 

 protecting or assisting the dye industry." What 

 they objected to were the means by which that 

 end was to be reached. But whatever affection 

 they might feel towards the dye industry was most 

 efTectually dissembled. In the end the attempt 

 to restrict the prohibition to Germany was dc- 



