HC Deb 26 June 1908 vol 191 cc222-33

Not amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said he rose to move the omission of Clause1, which was to a great extent the whole Bill, but not entirely, because Clause 2 had a separate object to which he could see no objection whatever. The result of leaving out this clause would be that there power for the Inland Revenue to allow people to grow tobacco experimentally. He could not find that there was any great desire among his Scottish friends to have the Bill, or among Scottish agriculturists to grow tobacco, and he thought the Government took that view also. At any rate if it was necessary that Clause 1 should pass, which gave power to grow tobacco, he wanted to know why it was not to be introduced all over Great Britain. A Bill had been passed for Ireland, but he did not think this kind of piecemeal legislation was advisable, and if it was necessary that tobacco should be grown, there should be a Bill brought in by the responsible authority applying to the whole country. As far as experiment went he had no objection, but he did not see why Scotland alone should be taken and permission given to grow tobacco and alter the Customs. Clause 1 did not make it obligatory on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to levy an Excise duty, and he intended to move later to make it obligatory. Scotland was now the home and refuge of certain kinds of statesmen, and if many more of them had to go to Scotland, which was extremely likely, he feared that if the clause passed, pressure must be put on them to allow Scotland to grow tobacco free of duty, and that would be very hard on Ireland and the rest of the Kingdom. If the clause was omitted and it was afterwards found that tobacco could be grown profitably, a Bill dealing with England and Scotland could be introduced and the matter set at rest. He would like to know from the promoters what was the real reason for the introduction of the clause, whether there was any foundation for it, or whether it was merely that they were envious because Irish Members had an Act.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—

SIR F. BANBURY

proceeded. The clause read— As from a date to be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council, and as soon as Parliament has made provisions for an Excise duty on tobacco, certain things should ensue. Supposing an Order in Council was not made and Parliament did not make provision, the clause would be useless, and if, as he was informed, the Government were hostile to the measure there was no chance whatever, though it might pass into-law, of its becoming of any use. Therefore that was another strong argument for the omission of Clause 1. He believed it was now something like 130 years since tobacco was grown in Scotland, and there was not very much experience, and it was doubtful whether in the changed conditions of agriculture it had any chance of being a success now.

VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, South,)

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 11, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir F. Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in page 1, line 17, stand part of the Bill."

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said he could not support his hon, friend on this occasion. He would like to ascertain if he could what was the attitude of the Government. In Committee the then Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to squash this innocent Bill, which was really designed to do some good for Scotland and remove a grievance from which they suffered, but the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman certainly did not carry weight with the Committee, because it handsomely defeated the Government. The Secretary to the Treasury adduced as an argument that the hon. Member for Clare had brought down to the House some Irish tobacco with disastrous results. But it was not necessary for hon. Members to smoke the Scottish tobacco when it was grown; there was nothing compulsory in the Bill, and tobacco might be beneficially used for other purposes than smoking. The growth of tobacco was prohibited in England in 1672 by heavy penalties. Then came the Act of Union in 1707 which it was generally considered incorporated the law of England with that of Scotland. But they held a different opinion in Scotland, and they did not believe the Act of Union imposed upon them these stringent laws regarding the penalties for growing tobacco in Scotland and for many years they continued to grow it with very considerable success until, he supposed, the inroads upon the revenue induced the Government in 1782 to pass an Act which imposed the same penalties in Scotland as were imposed in England. That was a great hardship upon Scotland. Very good tobacco had been grown, and it employed an enormous amount of labour per acre. In the experimental stages in Ireland as many as 100 men were employed per ten acres. In some parts of Scotland they could grow tobacco quite as well as in parts of Ireland, and where they were clamouring for employment of the population, it was extremely hard that they should be deprived of an opportunity of cultivating tobacco. It became necessary for the Legislature the year after passing the Act of 1782 to pass another Act to compensate those farmers who had been growing tobacco for the losses which they had sustained through prohibition. The Act of 1783 enacted— That it shall and may be lawful to and for the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs at Edinburgh, or any three or more of them, to allow and order to be paid to the owner or proprietor of such tobacco, out of any revenue under their management which is applicable to the payment of incidence, at the rate of 4d. for every pound weight of such tobacco to which the owner or proprietor thereof shall refuse to pay the full duties imposed by the said recited Act, provided that such tobacco shall be given up by him to the proper officer His Majesty's Customs to be publicly burnt or otherwise totally destroyed by such officers. It was most unfortunate that the previous occupant of the office of Secretary to the Treasury went to the Scottish Committee, and without having fully considered the matter, put the full weight of the Treasury against the passage of this Bill on what appeared to him very insufficient grounds. He said that had there been experiments already in Scotland, as there had been in Ireland, and had they proved to be successful, he would agree to the passage of such a Bill. He (Mr. Cochrane) thought he had not looked up the fact that growing tobacco in Scotland had passed the experimental stage, and had been practically and commercially tried, and proved a great success before these duties were imposed. The Secretary to the Treasury had endeavoured to make a most immoral bargain with the Committee. He said, "Do not pass this Bill, and the Treasury will give you permits to grove tobacco." He challenged the right of the Treasury to grant these permits to break the law. Under what statute had the Treasury power to grant permits? The hon. Gentleman was absolutely unable to furnish him with the information because he knew perfectly well that the Treasury had no statutory right to grant them. Similar permits had been granted in Ireland, but everybody familiar with the administration of the law in Ireland knew that the Irish were allowed to do things which the Scottish were not. The Scottish were essentially a law-abiding race, and instead of condoning these irregular methods on the part of the Government, they preferred to have the industry legalised by an Act of Parliament. Therefore some gratitude was due to the hon. Member for taking such an interest in the subject and introducing this Bill. In his opinion there was no reason why it should not be passed into law. He had risen to support the hon. He hoped the Bill would be passed and that the occupants of the front bench would explain their attitude. Had they receded from the hostile attitude taken up in Grand Committee, and did they intend not only to give their blessing to the Bill, but after it had passed that it should be practically operative and not have placed any obstacle in the way of its success?

MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said this was not a party matter, and he was very sorry the hon. Baronet was opposing the Bill. He was satisfied from his knowledge of the City of London that he would not be supported in not allowing the Scottish people to do what the Irish people were allowed to do. He had no objection to a Bill being passed for England and Wales as well as Scotland and Ireland, but it was more the hon. Baronet's business to introduce such a Bill than his. He specially represented Scotland on this occasion. They had all so far as he knew supported the Irish Bill which was carried without any objection. The Irish Bill was also passed unanimously by the House of Lords, and, therefore, on those grounds there ought to be no objection to this Bill for Scotland. Scottish Members were obliged to hon. Members opposite for the assistance they had given them so far in carrying this Bill. Tobacco had been successfully grown in Scotland. He had in his hand some tobacco and cigars which had been produced and grown in Scotland and both were as good quality as could be produced anywhere else. That was a substantial reason why they should at least give the farmers of Scotland an opportunity of developing this industry if they wished to. Tobacco required a great deal of labour to be bestowed in its cultivation; therefore, if they grew tobacco they would go a long way towards finding employment for the people of the country. Tobacco was grown in Scotland before. [Cries of "When?"] It was grown previous to 1782. There was no question that it could be grown in Scotland just as well as in Germany, Holland, Belgium, or any other country. It was true that in regard to tobacco-growing there might be a bad year occasionally, but that would occur in regard to any other kind of crop. This Bill was put forward with the express object of giving the people of Scotland an opportunity of growing tobacco for the benefit of the trade of the country generally. No harm could possibly be done by the passing of the Bill, because those who did not wish to take advantage of its provisions need not do so. So far as he knew the Government did not intend to oppose it. The restrictions in the Bill were those which the Government had insisted on in the case of the Irish Bill. It was no doubt the duty of the Government to look after the revenue, and they had only done what they thought was right to protect the revenue. He hoped the hon Baronet the Member for the City of London would withdraw his Amendment and allow the people of Scotland to have the benefit of this Bill. He trusted the House would carry the Bill unanimously as was done last year in the case of the Irish Bill.

MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs)

said he was in favour of the Bill, and hoped the hon. Baronet for the City of London would withdraw his Amendment. On the previous day they were discussing the troubles of the West of Scotland, and it was the duty of every citizen to try to find some industry for those far-off highlands and islands, because the trouble in the West of Scotland would disappear if the inhabitants could be furnished with an industry like tobacco-growing. He had relations who had tried tobacco-growing in Ireland, and he knew that it was going to pay there. He did not see why it should not be equally a success in the West of Scotland. It would encourage additional means of transport and in many ways be a great help to the people.

SIR J. JARDINE (Roxburghshire)

said there were many good reasons why the Amendment should be withdrawn and the Bill passed. At the time of the American War, when the supplies of tobacco from abroad were cut off, the farmers of Scotland grew tobacco, especially round Kelso and Jedburgh. In 1798 at the instance of Sir John Sinclair a history of agriculture in the county of Roxburgh was published by the Rev. Robert Douglas, D.D., minister of Galashiels. He stated that in Crailing parish a farmer grew tobacco on 13 acres; but as the Act of 1792 came into operation he had to sell the crop to the Excise at 4d. a pound, so he got £104, or £8 an acre. The Statistical Account of 1841 showed that he had sold it on the ground for £320; but he was obliged to hand it over for only the £104. The general loss caused by the Act to Roxburghshire farmers came up to £1,500. But later experiments in parts of Norfolk and Kent and Ireland had shown that there were numbers of places where tobacco could be profitably grown. Tobacco was just the kind of crop to be grown by people who had only a small area or small holding to cultivate. He hoped the House would accede to the reasonable and natural demands of the people of Scotland in this matter. In counties like Roxburghshire it would do something to stop the depopulation, and it would benefit the revenue. It would give farmers an opportunity of varying their craps, and it would give employment to more people. The industry of small holders would be benefited, and generally it would help localities which were largely interested in the development of agriculture. Before the Act was passed prohibiting the growing of tobacco in England capitalists in London and elsewhere complained of the injury done to the Colonial trade by the cultivation of tobacco here, and they wished to encourage the growing of tobacco in Virginia which was a purely English Colony. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness)

said that when he came to the House he thought it would be a good thing if this Bill did not pass into law, but since he had listened to several admirable speeches from the representatives of Scottish constituencies, and especially to that of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire he was convinced that the Bill will prove of benefit to Scotland, and, therefore, he joined in the appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London to withdraw his objection. So far as he could see, the passing of the Bill might mean the starting of a new industry in Scotland which would prove of benefit to small holders in that country. He hoped that the tobacco grown in Scotland would prove equal to that grown in Ireland and foreign countries. If Scotland and Ireland were to have the right to grow tobacco, he thought a Bill should be passed next year giving England the same privilege. He would like to hear from the hon. Member representing the Government whether they would be able to acquiesce in that suggestion, or whether it would be necessary for a private Member to bring forward a Bill on the subject.

MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH (Worcestershire, Droitwich)

said he wished to support the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite. Personally, he should support this Bill just as he supported the Irish Bill last year, because he had never been able to appreciate the arguments used in favour of the prohibition of the growing of tobacco, or the production of any other kind of merchandise, in this country. He had smoked Irish tobacco and survived, and he had no doubt that Scottish tobacco would be found to be equally good. He was surprised at the opposition of the hon. Baronet, because at present the Treasury regulations really operated in the direction of protecting the foreign producer. The hon. Baronet was unquestionably a supporter of fair trade, and therefore he ought to support the Scottish Members in the passing of this Bill. His only right to intervene in the discussion was that he was the representative of an agricultural division. He sincerely hoped that his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury would either promote a similar Bill for England, or allow some of his faithful followers to do so. If the hon. Baronet would bring in a Bill to allow tobacco growing in England, he would be very happy to support it.

MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said it was difficult to understand why this Bill should not at once be extended to England. His hon. friend had suggested that this might be done next year. He did not see why Scotland, which had many advantages over England, should have the further advantage of being allowed to grow tobacco a year in advance of this country. One was at a loss to understand why the different parts of the United Kingdom should not be allowed to grow almost anything out of which a profit could be made. He supposed there would be a moral objection to the growing of the poppy for the production of opium. There were many people who regarded the use of tobacco as almost as pernicious as the use of opium, but that view, he was thankful to say, was not generally held by the people of this country. He objected to Scotland being given the power to grow tobacco while England was prevented from doing so. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was averse to giving permission to grow tobacco. That might be because he feared that a Radical Government would prohibit the importation of Havana cigars, of which he was an appreciative consumer. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would withdraw the Amendment. At present every branch of agriculture was more or less in a depressed condition.

SIR F. BANBURY

No.

MR. CARLILE

said he remembered that the hon. Baronet, himself, and other agriculturists did pretty well last year. They were able to sell wheat at 38s. a quarter. There was, nevertheless, strong competition to contend against, and it seemed to be a pity that farmers should not be allowed to produce any kind of crops which would yield a profit. The Government had done little towards reducing unemployment in the country, and here they had an opportunity of promoting an industry which had long since passed the experimental stage, and which would increase employment. There should be no difficulty with regard to the Excise arrangements for the protection of the revenue in the different parts of the United Kingdom.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

expressed his satisfaction that the Bill had reached a stage which afforded strong hope of its becoming law this session. It was a measure which would do something to alleviate distress in the West Highlands of Scotland. He hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to pass.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

appealed to his hon. friend not to press his Amendment. They were all agreed in committee that while it might not be of great advantage to Scotland as a whole, there was one particular district where tobacco might be grown with success. Personally, he had little hope that the product in Scotland would be of a very high quality, and he would be sorry himself to smoke it. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] He had had experience in endeavouring to smoke Welsh tobacco, where the conditions were likely to be more satisfactory for growing the plant than in any part of Scotland, and any gentleman who could smoke that tobacco must have a pretty strong throat, and be able to stand a good deal. At the same time there was no reason why the experiments of tobacco growing in Scotland, which had been conducted on a considerable scale, should not be proceeded with, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would therefore withdraw his Amendment.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,) Bristol, E.

said he accepted the invitation of the hon. Member below the gangway, but he promised to detain the House for only a moment. He understood that there were a large number of Scottish representatives in the House who were very anxious that tobacco should be cultivated in Scotland, not, as he gathered from their speeches, that they might smoke it themselves, but rather that they might offer it to their friends. It would be very ungracious on the part of the Government to stand in the way of any benevolent intentions of that kind, and he, therefore, on behalf of the Government, accepted the Bill.

MR. CARLILE

What about England?

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he had no objection to this Bill except as regarded the limitation of the title. So far as he understood, the Secretary to the Treasury had given sympathetic expression to its extension to Scotland. He confessed he was not familiar with the experiments in tobacco growing which had been carried on in Scotland, and he questioned if they were likely to be as successful as those which had been made in Ireland. Indeed, he was quite sure that East Anglia and Lincolnshire were more suitable for tobacco growing than many portions of Ireland, and he would have wished that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor had treated with less hostility the idea of making the experiment of the cultivation of tobacco in England.

MR. MORTON

said that the supporters of this Bill had not said a word against the idea of bringing in a Bill to apply to England and Wales.

LORD BALCARRES

said he understood that the Treasury was hostile to a measure for England.

SIR F. BANBURY

said that as it appeared that there were a considerable number of Members for Scotland who were desirous of having the Bill passed he would be glad to withdraw his Amendment. His point was similar to that of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire that the Bill only applied to Scotland, and it would be out of order to move that it should be extended to England. His object had been to ascertain whether there was a real desire on the part of Scottish Members to have this Bill, and it also occurred to him that if it was good for Scotland it would be good also for England. His hon. friend made a speech in Committee to extend the Bill to England, but his proposal was rejected at the instigation of the Treasury. He congratulated the Government on their change of front, and he hoped that next year the provisions of the Bill would be extended to England. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR F. BANBURY

hoped the Government would accept the Amendment standing in his name to leave out in the first Clause, line 19, the word "may" for the purpose of inserting "shall." This part of the Clause referred to the Board of Inland Revenue fixing the excise duty. The Inland Revenue ought not to be deprived of any excise duty as the result of the passage of this Bill, and if the Board exempted Scotland from taxation, as it might if "may" was retained, that might operate very hardly on the rest of the United Kingdom. His hon. friend might say that "may" in law meant "shall," but "shall" was a plain old-English word which was understanded of everybody.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall,' "—(Sir F. Banbury),—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."

MR. MORTON

said he did not himself object to the alteration, but he was bound in good faith to stand by the Bill as agreed to in Committee. The word "may" was insisted upon by the Government in the Irish Bill last year, and he had no doubt that the Government would insist on the same condition for Scotland as they did for Ireland. They could not ask any more.

MR. CAELILE

opposed the Amendment. It was not necessary to strengthen the Bill by the substitution of "shall" for "may." "May" was quite strong enough. The Inland Revenue would not be loth to put their powers into force. What he wanted was to put the position of the agriculturist in as favourable a light as possible, and they could leave the Treasury to look after itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third, time and passed.