Commons Sitting of 19 October 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ulster Canal Bill (No Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th day of October, That, in the case of the following Bill, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Ulster Canal Bill.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Westmoreland (Northern or Appleby Division), in the room of Sir Lancelot Sanderson, knight, K.C. (Manor of Northstead).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
EAST INDIA (SANITARY MEASURES).
Copy presented of Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1913–14. Vol. XLVII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 13th October, 1915, relative to the Shops of Hairdressers and Barbers in the City of Edinburgh [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CHILDREN ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland as to Parliamentary Grant to certified Day Industrial Schools in Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 371.]
ROCKET (LIFE-SAVING) APPARATUS.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on the Life-Saving Apparatus on the coasts of the United Kingdom, for the year ending 30th June, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE OF NEW ZEALAND.
Copy presented of Report of the Board of Trade on the Trade of New Zealand for the year 1914, by Mr. W. G. Wickham, His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for the Dominion of New Zealand [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE OF AUSTRALIA.
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of Australia for the year 1914, by Mr. G. T. Milne, His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
Copy presented of Fifty-eighth Report, for the year 1914, of the Chief Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools of Great Britain [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 248 to 254, inclusive, dated 9th October, 1915, declaring the areas described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Fifty-third Report of the Inspector for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the month of February, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST, EXCEPT PARCELS).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Post Amendment (No. 13) Warrant, 1915, dated 30th June, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, dated 8th October, 1915, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit), Regulations (Scotland), 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 372.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Reports Nos. 862 (Straits Settlements, Report for 1914), 863 (Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Report for 1914), and 864 (Ashanti, Report for 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on 30th June, 1915 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONTRABAND AND RIGHT OF CAPTURE AT SEA.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy of the Government
    1586
    intended to be effected by the Order in Council of the 11th March, 1915, was to abrogate the Declaration of Paris, 1856, the Declaration of London of 1908, the fourteen Conventions determined upon at the Second Peace Conference, held at The Hague in 1907, and all juridical niceties relative to contraband and the right of capture at sea; and whether any and, if so, which of the above Conventions are now in force and are being adhered to by the Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The Order in Council of 11th March does not affect the validity or operation of any of the Conventions or instruments referred to.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Are we to understand that the Government is not using all the resources in its power to end this War?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope no such understanding will prevail anywhere. On the contrary, the Government will use all their resources, whatever they may be, whether under the Order in Council or under the law apart from the Order in Council.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will not the Government consider that a clean slate should exist on this all important subject?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am not quite sure that I understand what my hon. Friend means by "a clean slate."
    Sir J. D. REES: Are any of these obligations still existing in face of the present crisis?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should not like to say that the obligations we are under towards neutrals are not existing.

    JAPAN AND BRITISH ALLIES.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can lay any Papers upon the Table dealing with the continued participation of Japan in the War, and the degree to which the Imperial Japanese Government is willing to send troops to wage war on the common enemy?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think it would be desirable to lay Papers on this subject at present.

    BULGARIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to lay upon the Table Papers which show the negotiations with Bulgaria previous to the departure of the British Minister from Sofia?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is difficult to separate the negotiations with Bulgaria from those with the other Balkan States, hut Papers will be laid as soon as this can be done without detriment to the public interest and in agreement with our Allies, with whom we were a party to these negotiations.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of evidence existing that the majority of the Bulgarian people are against taking up arms against Russia or Great Britain, it is intended to intern male alien enemies of Bulgarian nationality and to repatriate female Bulgarians now in this country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): It is not proposed at present to intern or repatriate Bulgarians unless in individual cases special reason is found for doing so.

    COMPULSORY FOREIGN SERVICE.
    Mr. NUTTALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in which countries in Europe the Government compels its citizens to join the Army for foreign service, the classes of persons enrolled, and the conditions of enrolment; and whether he can state how the French Government procured soldiers for service in Tonkin and how the German Government procured soldiers for service in South Africa against the Herreros?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: This question should, I think, more properly be addressed to the War Office, but the Foreign Office have certain information on the subject. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is rather long. [See Written Answers this date.]

    BRITISH PRIZE COURTS (APPEALS).
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Reading or any other
    1588
    member of the Loan Commission was permitted or authorised to discuss with the United States Government either the question of appeals from British Prize Courts to an international tribunal or the general question of what is called the freedom of the seas?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The answer is in the negative.

    LICENCES FOR EXPORT.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, with regard to licences for the exportation of goods to the United States of America, the War Trade Department and the Customs authorities are acting in apparent opposition to one another; that in spite of licences for export having been obtained from the War Trade Department the goods so licensed have been refused shipment in innumerable cases, and are still refused by the Customs authority; and what steps he will take to co-ordinate these two authorities and so prevent grave interference with trade and legitimate exports?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I very much regret that any difficulties of the kind alluded to should have occurred, and if the hon. Member will give me the actual facts of one or more of the cases he has in mind, I shall be very glad to inquire into them.

    MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the statement made by the British Ambassador at Petrograd that the operations at the Dardanelles were initiated at the request of the Russian Government for the purpose of drawing Turkish forces from the Caucasus, he will state whether the Russian Government continues to attach the same importance to these operations which, up to 10th October, have resulted in 96,899 British casualties?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It would obviously be improper for me to make any statement regarding the importance attached to any special theatre of war by one of our Allies or even by ourselves. The operations at the Dardanelles are

    1589
    military and naval operations, and the statement of the British Ambassador at Petrograd, which is quite accurate when quoted accurately, must not be taken as a complete statement of all the considerations involved.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Would it be possible for us to have a similar statement here to what was made to the people of Petrograd?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not understand what the hon. Member wants.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Cannot the facts presented to the people of Petrograd as regards the initiation of the operations in the Dardanelles be presented to this House? Are we not entitled to as much information?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Every Member of the House has, I believe, through the ordinary channels, the public Press, the whole statement made by the Ambassador. I do not myself think there is any advantage in reprinting that statement separately from the other Papers which, sooner or later, we shall no doubt have in connection with Russia.
    Mr. KING: In future statements of this importance cannot they be given to this country as early as to Russia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that we have over 100 questions on the Paper.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of casualties in the Dardanelles expedition?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I gave the figures for the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, including the Naval Division, up to the 9th October on the 14th October, in answer to the hon. Member for Hanley.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the interest in the Dardanelles operations both in this country and throughout Australia and New Zealand, he can hold out any hope that his promised statement on the subject will be made on an early date?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I am afraid that I cannot at present name a date.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the number
    1590
    of casualties, including officers and men, invalided in the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force up to date?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand my right hon. Friend desires me to give figures distinguishing the sick from the wounded. For reasons stated in the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 24th June I regret I cannot give these figures at the present time.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are we to assume that the figures given two or three days ago, in reference to the casualties in the Dardanelles, include all the sick? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. TENNANT: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May we not have the number?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that we shall have a statement as to the number of officers and men who have been invalided?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not for me to say. It is very difficult to give any such figures, because the figures vary, and vary enormously, from day to day.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would it not be perfectly possible to give the total number of officers and men removed from the Dardanelles owing to sickness?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will go so far as to say this: I will endeavour to get some figures as nearly accurate as I can make them.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to transmit clothing to British prisoners of war in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: The arrangements are not yet quite complete, but I will undertake to make a statement on this matter on an early date. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat the question on Thursday.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of British prisoners of war in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: The total number of British prisoners of war in the hands of the Germans in September, 1915, was

    1591
    approximately 25,000. This figure is the most precise that can be given on the information available.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether prisoners of war are permitted to wear or possess any clothing except uniforms; and, if they are not so permitted, how it comes that when they escape they are generally dressed in mufti?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. and learned Member for York on the 12th October. In reply to the last part of his question, I can assure him that the matter is now under careful investigation.

    RECRUITING.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any man has been refused enlistment because he could not read or write; and, if so, whether any regulation, or rule, to this effect continues to exist to the prejudice of the realm in the present crisis?
    Mr. TENNANT: The recruiting regulations require a man to be able to read and write before he can be enlisted, but this regulation has now been cancelled, so far as concerns enlistment for the duration of the War, in the Infantry of the Line, Remount and Labour Companies, and the Army Veterinary Corps.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if soldiers under age serving abroad with the Expeditionary Force will only be discharged in cases where the parents can show they were not aware of their son's enlistment prior to his departure for service in the field; and, if not, will he state why Private Patrick Connell, No. 10,128, 2nd Battalion Leinster Regiment, who was sixteen years old on 2nd April, 1915, and who has been at the Front since 25th October, 1914, has not been discharged?
    Mr. TENNANT: I gave a full statement of the Regulations in force on this matter in an answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford University on the 28th September. As regards the particular case mentioned—i.e., that of Private Connell—the claim was duly brought to the notice of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France, with whom, under the Regulations,
    1592
    discretion lies, and Connell's mother was informed on the 8th September that this had been done.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this youth,, who has spent over twelve months in the trenches, will be allowed a short furlough?
    Mr. TENNANT: That, of course, is a totally different question from the one which the hon. Member has asked me.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any register has been kept of men offering themselves for enlistment and rejected as unfit; if so, can he give the number of these men; and, if no register has been kept, will he explain the reason for the omission?
    Mr. TENNANT: No centralised record of the number of men who have presented themselves for enlistment and who have been rejected as unfit is kept, but a register giving such details is kept in all recruiting offices. The task of bringing together all these separate records would be a heavy one.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it a very desirable thing?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not say that it would not, but whether it would justify the labour involved is another question.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister if he will state the nature, functions, and duties of the office of Director of Recruiting, to which the Earl of Derby has been appointed; what staff has been placed at his disposal; and who will be responsible in the House of Commons?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. At the request of the Secretary of State for War, Lord Derby has taken over the direction of recruiting. He will be responsible to the Secretary of State for all arrangements made in connection with the raising of recruits for the Army. In these duties he is assisted by a Director of Recruiting and the existing War Office recruiting staff, and any further staff he requires will be placed at his disposal. He is, at his own request, unpaid, and he has no military rank. As regards the last part of the question, Lord Derby has no ministerial responsibility, and it will be both my duty and my pleasure to answer for my Noble Friend.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the regimental paymaster has informed Catherine Meehan, of Kilmore North, Maguiresbridge, county Fermanagh, that her son, Private Thomas Quinn, No. 2,592, C Company, 2nd Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, is missing, and that consequently the allotment of 3s. 6d. per week to her has been discontinued from 14th September ultimo; and will he direct that this payment to her be continued until it is ascertained whether her son has been killed or taken prisoner, or what has become of him?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Mrs. Meehan is not recorded as having been dependent on her son before enlistment or mobilisation, but he voluntarily remitted to her through the paymaster part of his pay. In accordance with regulation, pay ceased to be drawn from him four weeks after he was reported missing, and the weekly payment, therefore, ceased. I regret that I cannot continue the payment indefinitely as suggested.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman do nothing for this poor woman who has lost her son and is now in a hopeless condition of poverty?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member knows quite well that the issue of separation allowances has to be made strictly in accordance with regulations. In the case of dependants the separation allowance is calculated in proportion to the degree of dependence on the soldier enlisting. Where there is no dependence there is no separation allowance, I am sorry to say.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Government have accepted the Third Special Report from the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants); whether it is intended to persevere in the distinction drawn between the manner in which officers meet their deaths in determining the amount of the pension to their widows; and why there is no such distinction in the case of men?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Select Committee,
    1594
    after full deliberation, thought it unnecessary to introduce such a distinction for men, but gave a liberal rate of pension to all cases in which men met their death through the performance of military duty.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does not my right hon. Friend think it mean, on the part of the Government, to give different pensions to women who become widows because of the death of husbands who have been officers?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is an old distinction, and I am not aware that any complaint has been raised on behalf of the persons concerned. The Army has always recognised that there is a distinction.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it a distinction that can be justified?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not an entirely new distinction?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken on that point.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: So far as the report of the Committee is concerned, is it not an entirely new distinction?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps he will be kind enough to put it down.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does not my right hon. Friend see that it is the widow's circumstances which matter? It does not matter how the officer is killed. The widow has to live, and if she has been the wife of an officer she is entitled to the same pension however he has been killed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree that the widow has to live. The minimum pension is sufficient to enable her to do so. In accordance with long-established practice in our pension scheme, the minimum is raised where an officer has died in certain circumstances. My hon. Friend is asking that the maximum pensions should be given in every case.

    VETERINARY SURGEONS (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether veterinary surgeons in the Territorial Forces will be given the same privileges as

    1595
    regards promotion as veterinary surgeons holding commissions in the New Army; whether he is aware that veterinary surgeons holding temporary commissions have been promoted over the heads of more experienced veterinary surgeons holding commissions in the Territorial Forces; and whether he is aware that many veterinary surgeons in the Territorial Forces have perforce lost excellent practices through inability to attend to their business?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that careful attention is being given to the points raised in his question.

    MESOPOTAMIA OPERATIONS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any recommendation has yet been made to grant distinctions and honours in recognition of the gallantry and brilliant achievements of the officers and men of His Majesty's Forces now operating in Mesopotamia; and, if not, whether the matter will receive immediate attention?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer which I gave to this question on the 14th instant holds good. No time is being wasted. It is hoped that the list will be issued almost immediately.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES (MILITARY AGE).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state how many Belgian refugees there are in this country of military age who have not joined the Belgian Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, this information is not in the possession of the War Office, and, if I had the information, I am not sure that it would properly fall within my duty to give it.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are great numbers of Belgian refugees of military age in this country, and does he not think that in view of what we do they should be compelled to join their own army?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is entirely a matter for the Belgian Government.

    BILLETING RATES (ELHAM AND BARHAM).
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that, in December, 1914, troops were billeted in the two neighbouring villages of Elham and Barham, in Kent, at the rate of 17s. 6d. per man per week, but that, in the case of Barham, the rate was subsequently raised to 23s. 4½d., and arrears paid to bring the payment as from the commencement of the billeting up to that figure, while no corresponding alteration was made in the rate paid in Elham; if he will say what was the reason for this inequality of treatment; and whether he will have payment made to the house holders in Elham on whom troops were billeted on the same terms as were given to Barham?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been unable to find that any troops were billeted at Barham in December, 1914. The rate paid at Elham was presumably settled by agreement, and in that event the higher rate would not be payable. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with definite particulars, showing that householders in Elham did not receive the rate of payment to which they were entitled, I will make further inquiries.

    CORRESPONDENTS WITH BRITISH ARMIES.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there have lately been issued for the guidance of newspaper correspondents with our Armies in Flanders and France instructions to the effect that current events must not be mentioned in detail until after such events have been made public in the Commander-in-Chief's dispatches; only general mention of the fighting can be made, and nothing outside the official communiqués is to be touched upon; that matters of controversial or political interest must be excluded; that praise or censure is to be left to the Commander-in-Chief; that mention of any formation by name is prohibited, including such items as the New Army, Territorials, etc., also names of units or individuals; that the articles of war correspondents must be confined to topographical descriptions and gene ralities; and that detailed information obtained by war correspondents can be used only when permission is given, and

    1597
    the time of publication will vary according to circumstances; and, if so, will he say whether these instructions have been issued at the instance of the War Office or of the military authorities in the field; whether any protests against the instructions have been made by the newspapers concerned or their correspondents; and whether any, some, or all of them have in consequence withdrawn from the Front?
    Mr. TENNANT: Reference to General Headquarters shows that no new instructions have lately been issued over and above those contained in the official regulations for Press correspondents, but further inquiry is being made into the matter. I should be surprised to learn that any newspaper correspondents have returned from the Front since I have been informed that they were given an exceptionally good opportunity of witnessing a battle only a week ago.
    Mr. BRYCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that Mr. Frederick Palmer, who is the only American correspondent at the Front, has gone back to America in disgust at these regulations?
    Mr. TENNANT: He must have been under a misapprehension, because there have been no new regulations.

    TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War for what reason temporary commissions are refused to men who enlisted at the beginning of the War for full engagement in the Regular Army when recommended by their commanding officer, while such commissions are given to men in the New Army under similar conditions; and if he will take steps to abolish a rule or practice which discriminates to the disadvantage of men who were the most prompt to answer the call to serve the country on the outbreak of War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Warrant and non-commissioned officers who are serving in the Regular Army on ordinary peace attestations are, if recommended by their commanding officers and considered suitable, promoted to permanent commissions in the Regular Army, and are granted higher rates of pay and of outfit allowance than other officers. It is not considered desirable to promote such men to temporary commissions for the period of the War
    1598
    only, as their position for the remainder of their Army engagement would be an anomalous one.

    CATERING ARRANGEMENTS FOR BATTALIONS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that one battalion in this country has, by changing the usual system of catering and by economical and efficient management, not only saved the State over £1,000 per month, but has also fed the men better than before; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the War Office to induce other battalions to carry out their catering arrangements on similarly economical and satisfactory lines?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend is referring to a locally raised battalion of the Gloucestershire regiment, which in the earlier stages of its existence was catered for under arrangements made by the raisers of the battalion. The raisers were authorised to charge only the actual and necessary cost of messing up to a maximum of 1s. 9d. a man a day. The saving which my hon. Friend mentions is the difference between this 1s. 9d. and the figure to which this battalion worked. The arrangements made by the battalion were highly successful, and the results were brought to the notice of the various command authorities some time ago, but I ought to say that many locally raised battalions have kept well within the maximum of 1s. 9d. Therefore to speak of savings of so much a month is apt to mislead unless the fact that the 1s. 9d. is a maximum is borne in mind. These and similar arrangements are necessarily superseded by the ordinary system of supply through the Army Service Corps when the locally raised battalions are taken over by the Army Council, since it is of the greatest importance that the Army should be self-supporting and able to feed itself at all times independently.

    LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether efforts will be made to utilise the services of retrenched temporary members of the Land Valuation Department in other civil departments or in the Royal Engineers and other special military corps; and whether their names

    1599
    will be registered for preferential consideration as vacancies in Government service occur after the War, in consideration of the fact that, though temporary servants, they had grounds for expecting that their employment would be long continued or permanent in character?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 14th instant to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the net yield of the Land Valuation Department, which has recently averaged annually a minus quantity of about half a million sterling, will be increased by economies recently announced to a minus quantity of about £150,000 per annum or, if not, what is the estimated expense to the taxpayer of keeping this Department alive for the year now current?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to follow the calculations of the hon. Member. But, in so far as his question appears to be directed to the cost of the Valuation Office now that the original valuation has reached so advanced a stage, I understand from the Board of Inland Revenue that the diminution of the temporary staff is expected to result in a reduction of the Land Valuation Office Sub-heads AA to EE of the Inland Revenue Vote from approximately £675,000 for 1914–15 to approximately £507,900 for 1915–16 and to approximately £350,000 for 1916–17. The figures of £507,900 and £350,000 both include a provision of some £59,000 in respect of officers on military service.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to this opportunity for making economy?
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the chief valuer recently issued a circular to superintending valuers of the Valuation Department instructing them to discourage enlistment in the Territorial Force by members of the staff, and earnestly requesting members of the staff to remain at their posts and proceed with their work; whether he is aware that members of the temporary staff have been officially warned that if they enlist it will involve the termination of their engage-
    1600
    ment in the Valuation Department; whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage employers to follow the example of the Government in refusing to promise re-employment to employés who join the Army; and whether he will discontinue the practice of discouraging recruiting in the Valuation Department?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions on 20th April last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Haggerston. I am causing a copy to be sent to him for convenience of reference.
    Colonel ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary to the Treasury what considerations govern the dismissal of land valuers under the recent decision to dismiss the whole of the temporary staff; and whether in Liverpool (1) district unmarried men eligible for the Army are being retained, while married men ineligible for the Army have received notice of dismissal?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that in reducing the valuation staff to a number equivalent to the authorised establishment the services of married men ineligible for the Army are being retained in preference to those of unmarried men eligible for the Army; exceptions to this general rule are occasionally inevitable where the utility of a younger man is markedly greater than that of an older man.
    Colonel SYKES: May I bring a case before the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. MONTAGU: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the case to which he refers, I will have the matter investigated at once.

  FINANCE BILL.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. DU CROSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the necessity which exists for directors of companies to make provision for the future payment of Excess Profits Duty, it is intended that companies whose financial years ended during August, 1914, may take that year as one of the three pre-war years for the purpose of ascertaining the pre-war standard of profits?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. In many instantcs the results of such a year would be largely influenced by appreciation or depreciation of stocks immediately on the outbreak of war, and would not be a fair criterion for computing the pre-war standard of profits.
    Mr. DU CROS furtherasked whether, under Clause 35 of the Finance (No. 3) Bill, it is intended that directors, managers, travellers, or other individuals holding offices or employments partly remunerated by salary and partly by commissions and bonuses shall in respect of such commissions or bonuses be subject to the Excess Profits Duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: The case of remuneration to directors is dealt with in Rule 5 of Part I. of the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. Commercial travellers are specially excepted. Persons engaged in the other capacities named would not normally be carrying on the business of a person taking commissions in respect of transactions or services rendered, and their vocations would thus not fall within the scope of the charge.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person, firm, or company liable to Excess Profits Tax for any accounting period may deduct from such excess profits a loss sustained by such person, firm, or company in respect of another and distinct business in which he or they are engaged?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool on the 14th instant. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether tea and jute manufacturing companies, registered in India and Ceylon, will only be liable for Income Tax on their dividends, or whether such companies will also be liable to Excess Profits Tax?
    Mr. McKENNA: The place of registration is not a conclusive factor. The charge to Excess Profits Duty extends to all trades or businesses owned or carried on outside the United Kingdom by persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a number of firms owning
    1602
    vessels engaged in the mercantile trade at the outbreak of the War have made large profits out of the sale of these vessels at a greatly enhanced price consequent upon the conditions induced by the War; whether this profit, which is clearly a War profit, will, unless legislation is particularly directed towards it, escape taxation on the ground that it is a realisation of capital rather than a profit; if he is aware that vessels, and even whole fleets, have been sold at a profit of over 100 per cent.; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: Where profits from the sale of ships constitute profits arising from a trade or business within the meaning of the Bill, they would be within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty.

    TOBACCO DUTY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of collecting duty on manufactured tobacco by stamps, to be affixed as cigars and cigarettes are sold, seeing that the adoption of this suggestion would enable smaller tradesmen interested to carry on their business without providing additional capital, and would obviate the employment of new officials for collecting duty?
    Mr. McKENNA: The suggestion put forward is one which involves a fundamental change in the present method of assessing and collecting the Tobacco Duty on the raw material. It would require very careful and probably prolonged inquiry and consideration, and the present is not, I think, an opportune time for such inquiry. No new officials will be required in connection with the additional Tobacco Duty imposed by the Budget.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
    Major WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state without detriment to the public interest what is the amount of the excess of imports, less re-exports, over exports for the period 1st August, 1914, to 3st July, 1915; what is the amount expressed in sterling of orders placed abroad by Government Departments during the same period not included in the imports, distinguishing, if possible, between orders placed for the account of the British and for the account of the Allies;

    1603
    and whether he can give an estimate showing the same information for the period 1st August, 1915, to 31st July, 1916?
    Mr. McKENNA: The excess of imports, less re-exports, over exports for the period 1st August, 1914, to 31st July, 1915, as given in the Board of Trade Returns, is £328,982,516. I am unable to give the hon. Member the information asked for in the second and third parts of the question. I hope to be in a position some time to give him the information for which he asks.
    Major EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give even a rough estimate?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to give an estimate of that kind.

    LORD HALDANE.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Prime Minister whether Lord Haldane has been sent on a mission to Field-Marshal Sir John French; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the mission?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Lord Haldane visited France as the guest of Sir John French. The latter part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

    INCREASED HOUSE RENTS.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that owners of houses let to working-class families, of whom many of the fathers are in the Army and Navy now fighting for their country, are raising rents and giving as reasons the increase in wages and increased taxation in the Budget, steps will be taken to prevent evictions in the cases of refusal to pay such increase of rents by the promotion of a Bill setting up Courts that will assess fair rents?
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to demonstrations and discontent in some of the working-class districts of Glasgow, Birmingham, and other centres against what are regarded as excessive and unwarrantable increases in rent;
    1604
    whether he is aware that among the families who are refusing to pay these extra charges and who are threatened with eviction are many whose husbands and sons are with the Colours; that the house famine in certain districts is largely due to the influx of munition workers; and that many property owners are believed to be taking advantage of this situation in order to pass on their share of additional Imperial taxation to their tenants; and whether, in view of this discontent, the Government will cause investigation to be made and consider the advisability of establishing Fair-Rent Courts in districts where they are most required?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole question is under the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now state the terms of reference and composition of the Committee to inquire into the question of increased house rents in Scotland?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have appointed the Hon. Lord Hunter and Dr. W. R. Scott (Professor of Economics in the University of Glasgow, and recently President of the Economic Section of the British Association) to be a Committee to make immediate inquiry into the circumstances connected with the alleged recent increase in the rental of small dwelling-houses in industrial districts in Scotland. Mr. P. B. Moodie, of the Scottish Office, will act as secretary to the Committee, and communications should be addressed to him, for the present, at 6, Parliament Square, Edinburgh.
    Mr. WATT: Will this Committee deal with only munition areas, or with the whole of Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: With the whole of Scotland.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that rents at Shirehampton, in the city of Bristol, have been twice raised by a total of 1s. weekly since January last, and that this has been done in spite of the fact that the rates have decreased by 4d. in the £, arrears of rents have decreased owing to increased employment, and the losses from voids have decreased owing to the greater demand for houses; and will he propose legislation to deal with cases of this kind?
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the way in which the house property owners of Birmingham, Tooting, and many other parts of London are raising the weekly rents of their tenants; if he has seen a copy of a letter that the landlords of the Beckton Road estate, Canning Town, E., have sent round to their tenants demanding an increase of rent, and at the same time enclosing a formal notice to quit the house; if he is aware that the rates in the borough of West Ham, in which the property is situate, have been reduced by 1d. in the £; and if he intends setting up some Fair-Rent Courts, with a view to putting an end to this form of rent exploitation?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer these questions at the same time. I am aware that there have been increases in rent in many parts of the country, and, in the Debate on Thursday last, it was stated that measures were being adopted to deal with this evil in certain munition areas. The question, however, is not confined to these areas, and the whole matter is receiving the anxious consideration of the Government.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the Government are going to make up their minds at once to stop the bleeding of tenants not only in munition areas, but in other areas where the workers are worse paid?
    Mr. LONG: It is quite obvious that the question is one of extreme difficulty, and I think it would be utterly wrong to announce a decision at a moment when we are giving to the matter our careful attention and consideration.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: In coming to a conclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the owners of these houses have very much more to pay in the way of increased taxes and in the price of materials for repairs?
    Mr. LONG: All these facts are before us.
    Mr. ALDEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question is being considered of setting up a Fair-Rent Court, and whether inquiry is being made into the precedents?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the increased
    1606
    charges which are due to the increased taxation on buildings owing to the finance of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the unrest among munition workers owing to the increase of rents; whether he has made the promised inquiry into this increase; and whether the Government proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not at present able to add to the reply given to a question addressed to me on Wednesday last by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Every effort, however, is being made to expedite the inquiries.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in various other areas of England similar to those which the Secretary for Scotland announced for that country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will make practically the same kind of inquiry. I will look into that matter.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the evidence as to England as well?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly; I am inquiring into England.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Her late Majesty Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 17th September, 1900, was in force at the beginning of this War, on 4th August, 1914, and was not cancelled until the Order in Council of 28th August, 1914, he will state why the prize money arising from prizes made between the 4th and the 28th August has not been distributed in accordance with the Proclamation then in force; and whether he is in a position to say when it will be so distributed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am advised that the Proclamation of 17th September, 1900, merely governed the distribution of prize money which might be granted, the actual grant of prize money being dealt with in accordance with precedent by a Proclamation to be issued at the beginning

    1607
    of and for the purpose of each particular war. In any event a captor acquires no right to the proceeds of prize until the prize has been duly adjudicated upon, and the Proclamation of 17th September, 1900, was recalled, so far as regards prize money, on the 28th August, 1914. So far as I am aware, no prize was condemned before the 28th August, 1914. The first sitting of the Prize Court in London was held on the 4th September, 1914.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Were there not several prizes captured between 4th August and 28th August, 1914, and would not the captors of those prizes be entitled, by virtue of the Proclamation, to prize money?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. As I understand the law on the subject, which my hon. and learned Friend knows better than I, captors acquire no right to the proceeds of a prize, except the prize has been adjudicated upon. There was no adjudication before 28th August.

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION.
    Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked if the returns collected under the National Registration Act have been examined and tabulated; and, if so, whether any use has been or is intended to be made of such information as the figures afford with a view to enlistment or other national requirements?
    Mr. LONG: The Prime Minister desires me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is, Yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I may perhaps be allowed to state that the National Register forms the basis and supplies the information upon which the new recruiting movement rests. It has assisted largely in the provision of munition workers, and has also provided the Government with reliable information as to what resources of labour are available for the various industries.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause tabulated statistics to be circulated to the House?
    Mr. LONG: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I will give notice.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a number of registration forms have been filled up without a declaration of nationality?
    Mr. LONG: Nationality was, under the terms of the Act, only required to be stated by persons born abroad whose nationality was not British.
    Mr. BRYCE: My question originally was whether persons of German nationality did not fill up the nationality, and persons of German name?
    Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman will see that I have answered the question on the Paper, and what he has put now is totally different and one I could not answer now without notice.
    Mr BRYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer it if I put it down?
    Mr. LONG: I will answer it if I can. I do not know whether the information will be available.

    SERBIA (ITALIAN CO-OPERATION).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether Italian forces are to co-operate with the British and French forces in Serbia?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The method in which Italy can most effectively co-operate in helping Serbia or in the common cause is under discussion between the Allies.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked whether the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Serbia will be French or British?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that I am not in a position to make an announcement on this matter.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked if it is the policy of the Government not only to discourage imports but also to encourage exports, in order to stabilise the rate of foreign exchange; and, if so, what encouragement or assistance does the Government propose to offer to British exporters?
    Mr. McKENNA: His Majesty's Government are anxious that the export trade of the country should be maintained so far as is compatible with the prosecution of the War. As regards the second part of the question, I should be glad to receive any suggestions which the hon. Member may have to make.

    PRE-WAR PROFITS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Excess Profits Tax will, in any event, be charged on any pre-war profits which form part of the estate of any member of His Majesty's Forces who has either been killed or incapacitated on duty, and who has relied upon such pre-war profits either for the maintenance of his dependants or for his own future subsistence?
    Mr. McKENNA: Without following my hon. Friend into hypothetical cases, I may explain that over the lifetime of the tax there will be equalisation of the charge, so that an excess over the standard in one accounting period can be cancelled by an equivalent deficiency below the standard in another accounting period. If the first accounting period includes pre-war months, the last accounting period may include post-war months.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the question relates to pre-war profits which form part of the estate of an officer or soldier who has been killed, and, in these circumstances, how can another accounting period occur?
    Mr. McKENNA: The beneficiary of a deceased person will get the benefit, only he would have to pay the percentage upon it.

    TEA DUTY (NET WEIGHT).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to collect from the tea merchants the 1s. 1d. per lb. which they charge to the public on the weight of paper used for tea packets sold as gross weight instead of net; and if he will ask the Government to issue an Order that all dutiable articles should be sold at net weight?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know on what information my hon. Friend bases his statement that the paper in which tea is
    1610
    wrapped is sold to the public at 1s. 1d. per lb. I do not think it follows that if the Government took the action suggested in the last part of the question the consumer would necessarily benefit.
    Mr. THORNE: The question is as to tea sold in packets and as to merchants charging full value including paper. That is what I want to get at.

    GOVERNMENT WAR RISKS INSURANCE SCHEME.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now furnish a statement showing the financial position after the first twelve months' working of the Government war risks insurance scheme?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I do not think it would be desirable to publish any figures at present.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether considerable profits have accrued to the Government from their war risks insurance scheme of merchant ships; and, if so, whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, he will consider the desirability of increasing the weekly allowance of £1 or less to the dependants in this country of our merchant seafarers who are at present interned in Germany?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member can safely disregard any reports he may have heard as to large profits made by the insurance scheme. I am afraid it would not be possible to increase the scale of allowances granted in connection with that scheme to the dependants of seamen interned in Germany.

    GOOLE STEAMER "KNOWL GROVE."
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution at Goole, on the 29th September last, of Captain Henry Arnold and Mr. F. Chapman, mate of the Goole steamer "Knowl Grove," on a charge of ignoring signals made from one of His Majesty's armed trawlers, the case against the master being dismissed, whilst the mate, Mr. Chapman, who pleaded that he did not understand the Morse code signals and

    1611
    had disobeyed the regulations in ignorance, was fined £30 and costs; and whether he can state if the "Knowl Grove" at the time was fitted with adequate and efficient signalling apparatus for signalling both by day and by night?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the circumstances of the conviction of the mate of the steamship "Knowl Grove" for failure to obey orders given by one of His Majesty's armed trawlers. I cannot say whether the "Knowl Grove" was provided with efficient signalling apparatus, but the question of signalling apparatus does not arise in this case as the mate failed to stop when ordered to do so by siren signals, by megaphone hailing from a distance of under fifty yards, and by the firing of a rocket across the vessel's bows from a short distance.

    IRISH EGGS IN TRANSIT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state any results from the inquiry instituted by the Board last July with reference to avoidable breakage of Irish eggs in transit to Great Britain?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I stated, in reply to the questions which were asked by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for West Clare, on the 22nd July, that I should be happy to look into any specific cases of breakage or delay in transit of Irish eggs, if furnished with particulars. Since that date I have been in communication with the London and North-Western Railway Company, in regard to a case of delay, and I am assured by them that the general question of the transit of Irish eggs viâ Holyhead, is receiving very close attention. No specific cases of recent breakages in transit have been brought to my notice.

    ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACT.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a dispute which has been in progress since the beginning of October at the works of Messrs. G. J. Mason and Company, Glasgow, caused by the dismissal of twenty-five girls who objected to a reduction in rates on solidiers' tunics; and what action it is proposed to take?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department have made inquiry of Messrs. Mason and Company, who state that there is no dispute, the girls in question having been discharged for bad behaviour. The firm state that there has been no reduction in prices.

    WHEAT FREIGHTS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the effect on freight markets of shipments of American wheat to this country from United States of America Atlantic ports; whether he is aware that on a load of wheat (214 tons) the freight alone is £660 and will soon be £700 as compared with £60 before the War; whether he is aware that freights from the Argentine now stand at 72s. 6d. per ton, being 5s. more than the heavy freights of last winter and an advance of nearly 500 per cent, on prewar freightage; whether he was approached on the occasion of his recent visit to Liverpool by members of the Corn Exchange, who urged the fixing of maximum freights; and, in view of the certainty of further increases, what action, if any, the Government intend to take?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This subject, amongst others, was mentioned to me by one or two corn merchants when I visited the Liverpool Corn Exchange on the 8th of October, but I was unable to discover any support there for the fixing of maximum prices for wheat sold by these gentlemen. The whole question of ocean freights is closely engaging the attention of the Government. There are grave difficulties in the way of State interference with the freight market, for which the Government is anxiously endeavouring to find solutions which will not do more harm than good.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in freights is mainly due to the large number of ships requisitioned by the Transport Department of the Admiralty, and that many of them have been kept lying idle for lengthy periods; and will he make representations to the Admiralty to release ships that are not urgently wanted? Further—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have to give notice of that question.

    MEAT PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that most of his agents arrive on the market about 10 or 11 o'clock in the day, so that hind-quarters sold on 16th September could not be for that day's trade, but could, at the earliest, not be marketed before the following day; whether he is aware that good chilled hind-quarters and fore-quarters were freely obtainable from Friday, 17th, to Wednesday, 22nd September, at 4s. 2d. and 3s. 4d. per stone, respectively; will he explain how, in view of these figures, it could be said that the Government were selling their surplus meat at the current daily market price;
    (2) Whether, on Wednesday, 22nd September, any of his agents indicated to him that in consequence of the non-availability of the Argentine boat the market would be faced with an extreme shortage of beef for two or three days; whether he is aware that on the 23rd, 24th and 27th September an advance of price obtained, and that in consequence the working classes had to pay 2d. to 3d. per pound extra for their week-end meat supply; whether, in view of what was bound to arise, any of his agents suggested that 2,00 or 3,000 good, bright, frozen quarters should be released to relieve the temporary Argentine shortage; if so, why was this course not adopted; if not so, whether he will advertise for and appoint a capable butcher, who would promptly report to him the indications of the market and thereby prevent, as far as possible, this meat trust from exploiting the working classes;
    (3) Whether he is aware that the indications of the meat trade point to higher prices ruling in the meat markets after Christmas; whether he has observed that a firm named Rough and Company, of Smithfield, have lately displayed great energy in discovering new sources of meat supply in Southern Brazil and Colombo, Central America; whether he has noted that much of this beef is of good quality, and that with development of the sources of supply could be greatly improved; whether, in view of what is likely to arise, he will confer with this firm as to the facilities required to increase and improve the supplies from those quarters so that the producers, in order to market their beef, will not be driven to throw themselves into the arms of the Chicago Beef Trust; whether he will adopt the same
    1614
    course with the field of supply in Venezuela;
    (4) Whether he is aware that the failure of his Department to cope with the rise in meat prices which took place between Wednesday, 22nd September, and Monday, 27th September, in consequence of the non-arrival of the Argentine boat, caused a rise of prices which fell upon the working classes; and, seeing that his Advisory Committee is now limited to the vested interests of the meat trade, together with two Colonial representatives, both interested in securing high prices of meat for Colonial producers, whether he will state the grounds on which he refuses to include a working-class representative from the meat trade on that controlling or Advisory Committee?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend appears to me to be under some misapprehension as to the nature of the action which the Board of Trade are taking in connection with the purchase, transport and distribution of frozen meat. Their primary object, as I have explained to this House, is to secure an adequate supply of such meat at reasonable prices for the use of the British, French and Italian Armies, and it is the surplus supplies which are sold through the usual agents at the market rates on the day of sale, for civilian consumption. It is not practicable for me to go into all the details which my hon. Friend asks for. The mode of conducting the business has, I understand, given general satisfaction, and has certainly tended to keep down prices, but it is impossible to prevent altogether the fluctuation of market prices from time to time due to various causes of a temporary nature. While most of this meat comes from Australasia and the Plate, I have been able to allocate some refrigerated tonnage for the transport of meat from other sources, and I am prepared to continue this policy so far as insulated space is available, the necessities of the Armies being always the first consideration.

    CABLEGRAMS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to complaints made in America that some business cablegrams are intercepted and the charges made for their transmission appropriated here, while others are altered to the detriment of

    1615
    American trade; and whether he is willing that the facts of all such cases should be investigated by a neutral tribunal?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): No telegrams to or from America have been intercepted except by the Censorship Authorities and in accordance with Article 8 of the International Telegraph Convention. With respect to the refundment of charges levied, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question on the 28th July last. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    NEWSPAPER POSTAL RATES.
    Colonel ALAN SYKESasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of allowing, in the case of weekly trade newspapers, a higher weight than 6 ozs. for a halfpenny, in view of the fact that such journals are primarily intended to promote the trade of the country?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member would furnish me with particulars of the papers he has in mind, including their weight.

    ABERDEEN AND LERWICK MAIL SERVICE.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the direct mail service between Aberdeen and Lerwick is practically suspended, and that passengers from Aberdeen to Lerwick are taken round by Orkney, special care being taken that they shall not land there for any purpose; and if, in view of the delay and loss caused by this arrangement, he will endeavour to restore the direct service as soon as possible?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 14th October.
    Mr. WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, give the Lerwick County Council, who are very much interested in the matter, full particulars of any arrangements he makes?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  MUNITIONS.

    DISCHARGE CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that employers engaged on munitions work have discharged workmen, and by withholding their leaving certificates have attempted to prevent the men getting work elsewhere; and whether, in the interests of industrial peace, he will introduce legislation to limit this power and to make it possible for the workman to bring an action for loss of time and wages in the event of the Munitions Court deciding that his certificate was unreasonably withheld?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One or two cases such as that referred to by my hon. Friend have been brought to my notice. The view which my Department has consistently expressed is that in general any employer discharging a workman should give him a certificate enabling him to obtain employment elsewhere, and I have no reason for doubting that this view is acted on as a rule. It would not, however, be possible or desirable to enact that in every case without exception an employer must give a certificate if he discharges a workman, because this would enable a workman to compel his discharge and obtain a certificate merely by misbehaviour. I have, however, noted the suggestion of my hon. Friend for consideration in the event of any amending legislation being introduced.

    SHELLS (ALLEGED NEW YORK OFFER).
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has any official information to the effect that on 8th May Messrs. Burns, Bassick and Company, of New York, through a London representative, made an offer to the Government of 2,000,000 shells, at seventeen dollars apiece; whether this offer was refused by the Government on 19th July; and whether, before that date, Messrs. Morgan, of New York, purchased these same shells for the Government at eighteen dollars each?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of contradicting these allegations. No offer from Messrs. Burns, Bassick and Company has reached the Government through any London representative, and the president of the company has stated that there is not a word of truth in the statements set out in the question.

    HOUSE ACCOMMODATION (COVENTRY).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has been making investigation into the housing shortage in Coventry, aggravated by the pressure of munition work; whether it has been decided that 600 new houses are immediately required; whether his Department are co-operating in this matter with the corporation of Coventry; whether it is proposed to advance money, if so, to what extent and upon what terms; and will any similar offer be made to other munition centres where the need is equally pressing?
    Mr. LONG: The answer to the first, second, and third questions is in the affirmative. The precise financial terms are not yet definitely settled. Somewhat similar arrangements are already being considered in other munition centres where there is a permanent need for housing.

    PRESS BUREAU.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Home Secretary whether he can publish, for the information of the House, the rules or series of prohibitions, mentioned in his letter of 11th October, which have been framed for the guidance of the Press Bureau by the War Office, Admiralty, and other Government Departments?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend is advised that the rules mentioned are confidential, and that it would not be right, in present circumstances, to publish them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Under what rule is Robert Browning amended?
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Home Secretary whether the Censor suppressed, or attempted to suppress, a letter of Sir Frederick Milner dealing with cases of injustice to ex-soldiers discharged as in capacitated from the Army; and what object was served by this suppression?
    Mr. BRACE: The letter referred to contained statements which appeared likely to prejudice recruiting, and as such would be forbidden by Regulation 27, under the Defence of the Realm Act. This has been explained to Sir Frederick Milner. If the complaints in Sir Frederick Milner's letter were well founded, they were matter for appeal to the War Office, which has power to remedy the grievances.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the War Office will take any notice, of this if brought to their attention?
    Mr. BRACE: My hon. Friend had better ask the War Office.

    PRISON WARDERS (TREASURY DECISION).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Treasury Committee has yet come to a decision respecting the petition submitted in March last by the prison warders for an increase in wages; and, if not, will he, in view of the increased and increasing cost of food, advise the Prison Commissioners to grant an immediate in crease in wages as a war bonus, pending the ultimate decision as to a permanent increase?
    Mr. BRACE: I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that the Treasury, after looking very carefully into this matter, have felt unable to sanction increases of pay to the prison staff.

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the Home Secretary whether he will give instructions that when a Zeppelin raid is expected all the lights on the bridges over the Thames should be extinguished, so that the course of the river should not be distinguished; and that either the service of tramcars along the Embankment and across the bridges should be suspended or that the lights in the tramcars should be extinguished?
    Mr. BRACE: The present arrangements have been settled on the advice of the expert officers of the Admiralty. If further observations show that any improvement is possible, the arrangements will be modified accordingly. The lights in tramcars are now extinguished in crossing the bridges, or so shaded as to be practically invisible.
    Mr. BRYCEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that up to the time of the Zeppelin raid of 13th October blinds were usually undrawn on the trains on the South-Eastern and Chatham line between Woolwich and London; and, seeing that no notices requesting blinds

    1619
    to be drawn were posted in the carriages on that line, will he say what steps he will take to enforce these precautions?
    Mr. BRACE: I am informed by the railway company that notices requesting passengers to keep blinds drawn down after dark have been posted in their trains for nearly twelve months. Steps are now being taken on this and other lines in the London area to post fresh notices in more imperative terms drawing attention to the penalties for non-compliance with the order, and the company's servants will have instructions to see that the order is complied with.
    Mr. BRYCE: Is it not the fact that even as late as last week, while those raids were going on, those railway carriages from Woolwich were constantly coming up without the blinds drawn and without any notices posted up in the carriages? I know that from my own daughter, who has been going down there to do munition work.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is it not also the fact that the railway servants endeavour to do their duty and that this is due to the carelessness of the passengers?
    Mr. BRYCEasked whether the aeroplanes which had been on duty for the defence of London received orders to demobilise at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th October, a few hours before the Zeppelin raid; whether any other aeroplanes had received orders to take their place; and whether, at the time of the arrival of the Zeppelins, any and, if so, how many aeroplanes were aloft?
    Mr. TENNANT: Questions relating to aeroplanes on duty for the defence of London should be addressed to the Admiralty. The aeroplanes under military control which were held in readiness to attack hostile aircraft were not ordered to demobilise at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, 13th October. The second part of the question does not therefore arise. The reply to the last part is in the affirmative. During the time the Zeppelins were over England five military aeroplanes ascended. Of these, three were in the air at the same time.
    Mr. BRYCE: How many were over London?
    Mr. TENNANT: Three, I think.

    METROPOLITAN MOTOR TRAFFIC.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the new regulations governing the speed of motor traffic within the Metropolitan area after dark?
    Mr. BRACE: As my right hon. Friend has already stated, he is in communication in this matter with the Local Government Board, who have power under the Motor Car Act to regulate the speed of motor vehicles. Further consideration is necessary of the questions that arise, but I hope it will be possible to announce a decision shortly.

    HAY PRICES.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury the maximum and minimum prices per ton paid by the Government for hay sold by farmers in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively?
    Mr. FORSTER: The range of prices for this year's crop in England is from £3 10s. to £5 (in isolated cases £5 10s.); in Scotland from £3 15s. to £4 15s.; and in Ireland from £3 10s. to £4 10s. A small amount of hay has been purchased in Scotland for delivery next year at prices rising to £6 10s. for delivery in May and later months. The price for Irish hay relates only to purchases made before 1st December next. In England the prices are fixed by the Farmers' County Committees, and in Scotland under arrangements made in consultation with local experts and with the Highland Society.

    PLEASURE BOATS (COMPENSATION TO OWNERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to compensate for loss of business the owner of boats let for pleasure who was compelled to haul them up during the War under an order?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer is in the negative. It is not the practice to grant compensation to persons who suffer loss through a general order or prohibition such as that referred to. Such losses are incidental to a state or war.

    INDIA (ECONOMIES AND SAVINGS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether economies and savings are being effected by the Governor-General in Council, in view of the present necessity for co-operation in this behalf of ordinarily independent financial units of the British Empire?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Government of India are exercising a close scrutiny of expenditure in India, more especially, of course, of proposals for new projects that might in ordinary times have been carried out without delay.

    INDIANS IN CHINA (GERMAN EMPLOYMENT).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for India whether he is aware that several Indians, who are British subjects, are now in the employ of Germans in China; and, considering that it is not consistent with existing conditions for British subjects to accept service with enemy subjects, whether there are any means by which this service can be put a stop to?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: His Majesty's Minister at Peking is being asked by telegraph to report on the subject, and when his reply has been received a further communication (or reply) will be made to the hon. Member.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACTS (CONDEMNED DOCUMENTS).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Attorney-General whether the documents and pamphlets ordered to be destroyed in cases held in camerâ, arising under the Defence of the Realm Acts, without their contents or even their titles being known to the public, in all cases contain information of military value to the enemy or statements which could only be disproved by disclosing information of military value to the enemy?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir F. E. Smith): In cases where a court has made an order for destruction, the documents or the pamphlets have contained statements, the publication of which has offended against either Regulation 18 or Regulation 27 of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations.

    Cinematograph Films (Censorship).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary whether he has appointed a censor of cinematograph films; and, if so, who is the officer appointed for that duty; and, if there is no Government censor of cinematograph films, will he, in the public interest, be willing to appoint such an official?
    Mr. BRACE: The Home Secretary has no power to appoint a censor, and is not prepared to introduce legislation to establish a Government censorship. An unofficial board for the censorship of films was set up by the trade in 1912 in order to check the exhibition of objectionable films, and the board has done very useful work.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend aware that pictures giving the antics of drunken men for children to jeer and laugh at are nightly exhibited with the word "censored" on the pictures, and how does he explain that?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the unofficial censor to whom he referred is the late theatrical censor of plays?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SURPLUSES.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether an assurance can be given that no changes in the administration of the National Insurance Act will be introduced which will deprive solvent societies of accumulated surpluses and apply them for the benefit of insolvent societies; whether any evidence is in his possession purporting to show that such accumulations per head in Scotland are disappointing as compared with England; whether administration expenditure, including central expenditure, under this Act is still running at the rate of upwards of 5s. per £ of the cash disbursed as benefit; and whether evidence is in his possession proving that such expenditure is lighter in Scotland than in England?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): Any such proposal as is suggested in the first part of the question could only be carried into effect by legislation. The answer to the second and fourth parts of the question is in the negative; as regards the third, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on the 12th July last.

    PANELS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household whether cases exist in England and Scotland of panel doctors whose panel consists of less than half a dozen persons; what total remuneration is payable to such doctors; whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a panel doctor in Edinburgh who received £76 14s. 2d. sterling for the solitary patient on his panel, who required no medical attendance whatever from one end of the year to the other; whether the amount paid to this doctor was in any way subject to the control or discretion of the Commissioners in Scotland or whether, under the Act, they had no option but to sanction the payment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Such cases as are referred to in the first part of the question no doubt exist, though I have no precise information on the point. The remuneration of a doctor under the capitation system is governed by the terms of his agreement with the insurance committee, and includes not only his liability in respect of the persons actually on his list, but also the responsibility which he undertakes in common with other doctors on the panel for giving treatment to persons who have not selected a doctor for themselves. The payment made in the specific case referred to under the agreement entered into at the beginning of the year covered this liability.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the statutory authority, if any, for the discrimination practised by the Estates Commissioners between vendors and persons entitled to purchase, applying no pressure to the former and undue pressure to the latter, in cases of disagreement as to price; for their sending, at the instance of the vendor, a second valuer to farms, and applying economic pressure to get prices fixed by him from persons willing to pay what the first valuer found the farms to be worth; for applying similar pressure to tenants of poor land on an estate who refuse to sign purchase agreements at prices agreed to by tenants of better land; seeing that this practice results in many defaulting annuitants and consequent loss to the ratepayers, whether it is to be continued; on how many farms so treated, and on how many evicted farms, have the Land Commission caretakers employed; for how
    1624
    many of each class are they holding the county councils responsible for annuities; and by what authority they now urge county councils to buy up evicted farms at prices which should never have been sanctioned and which they are incapable of yielding?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No discrimination of the nature indicated in the question is practised by the Estates Commissioners, who do not apply pressure to tenants to purchase at prices which they do not wish to give, except in the rare cases where it is found necessary after full consideration and in the general interest to resort to the powers conferred by Section 19 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The great majority of transactions are sales direct by owners to tenants, who enter into purchase agreements at prices arranged between themselves and apply to the Commissioners for advances of these prices. In determining whether the advances shall be made the Commissioners look entirely to the question of the security afforded by the holdings proposed to be purchased. The Commissioners occasionally cause a second inspection to be made of an estate where they consider it necessary, but they are not bound by the valuation arrived at at either inspection. There are only four defaulter holdings in charge of caretakers employed by the Land Commission, and in no case have the Commissioners requested county councils to buy such holdings.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of the question at all. Is it not the fact that cases of default under the Purchase Acts are due to this pressure?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Commissaries of India Departments (Pensions).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether action has yet been, or will soon be, taken on the Report of the Committee on the Pensions of Commissaries of the India Departments, several of whom are serving at the front in France, East Africa, and Mesopotamia, and some of whom are due to retire in 1916?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question asked on 27th April last on the same subject by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. LOUGH: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a large number of Amendments to the Finance Bill having been sent in on Friday or on Monday do not appear on the Paper, and whether you can see your way to allow Amendments sent in in this way to appear on the Paper in the same way as questions do at the present time?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I was not aware that any Amendments had been sent in. I do not see how any could have been sent in as the Office was closed, as far as Amendments are concerned. There is no rule on the point. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that with regard to questions sent in the House passed an Order that they should appear on the Paper, but there was no Order with regard to Amendments. Therefore Amendments could not be received, and hence they could not appear on the Paper.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask you for guidance with regard to postponed questions? You did not call on those of us who had addressed questions to the Prime Minister, having doubtless received notice as we did. May I ask whether you can see your way to give us any instructions with regard to putting those questions—whether, if in our view they can be answered by some other Member of the Government, we should address them to the Minister of Munitions, say, or some other Minister, or what guidance you can give us?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say how long the Prime Minister will be away. I hope it will be only a short time. He is unwell, therefore he is not able to be here to-day.
  Mr. LOUGH: May I ask the Minister of Munitions or the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would kindly facilitate Amendments sent in during these short sittings of the House, so that Amendments sent in on Friday or Monday could appear on the Paper on Tuesday just as if the House had been sitting on those days?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna: It is not in my power to give any facilities of that kind. It is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment whether it appears on the Paper or not.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the House detests manuscript Amendments; it is a convenience to everybody that they should appear on the Paper.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree, but I do not know how I can interfere in the matter.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that if the Government would kindly facilitate such an arrangement as we already have with regard to questions it would entirely meet the difficulty?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it is a matter for the Government; it is one for the authorities of the House.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can it not be done by an alteration of the Standing Order?
  Mr. R. McNEILL: The convenient arrangement by which we are now allowed to give notice of questions for Tuesday was a concession granted by the Prime Minister in response to a question which I myself put. Could not the same convenience be extended by the leader of the House with regard to Amendments?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the point, but I rather think it would require an amendment of the Standing Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I ought to say that the manuscript Amendments have been now examined, but there are only one or two of a trifling character relating to the earlier Clauses of the Finance Bill.

  FINANCE (No. 3) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Increased Duty on Tea).
    In lieu of the duty of Customs payable on tea imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say):—

    Tea, the pound

    …

    …

    one shilling.

    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to move to leave out the words "or Ireland."

    1645
    I have also a number of similar Amendments on other points of the Bill, but as they are all on the same ground I should like, if I may, to be allowed to state what that ground is on this first Amendment, after which it may not be necessary for me to intervene at all on subsequent Amendments. The proposal of the Bill is to make Ireland pay taxes consequent on a War for which Ireland is in no sense guilty or responsible, which she had no power to prevent, which she has no power to bring to an end, and from which, owing to the manner in which she is ruled, she can derive no benefit whatsoever, no matter how the War may end. Ireland is not at war. Your anti-industrial rule of Ireland has deprived her of any real interest in the way the War may end. Of the enormous sums being raised for the War, most is being spent in this country, where there is far more money in circulation amongst the industrial classes than ever before, where the workers are paid better than they have ever been paid before in any country, and where taxing the people to half their present income would still leave many of them with their normal income to live upon. Many of them are engaged to stay at home in industry, and many are compelled to stay at home in industry. That is a great advantage to this country.
    Ireland enjoys nothing whatever corresponding to it. Hardly any part, worth mentioning, of the enormous expenditure on the War goes to Ireland. Every industry attempted there is deliberately stamped out by economic pressure, according to the permanent policy of foreign rulers. The reasons for this may be different at different times. The present policy of keeping Irish people unskilled is to force young Irishmen to enlist for the defence of young Englishmen safe at home in England. Under the pressure of this policy you have got from Ireland for the War more men than would be her fair proportion in any circumstances. Even the Estates Commissioners of Ireland have actually withheld from distribution, and let to graziers, land which this Parliament has appointed and empowered them to distribute amongst the landless, whilst at the same time another Department of Government carries on the imposture of advising people to increase tillage. Without going beyond these facts, the application of these war taxes to Ireland is indefensible. But the case is much worse when we look back, as we are bound to do, and
    1646
    find that, as a matter of common honesty, according to the findings of the Financial Relations Commission, this country owes to Ireland about £325,000,000, as calculated— —
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has mistaken the occasion. His speech appears to appertain more to the Second Reading of the Bill than to Committee. His arguments are altogether too wide for an Amendment in Committee.
    Mr. GINNELL: The arguments apply to tea, sugar, cocoa, to tobacco, and to various other items in the Bill; and my purpose was to deal with them all on one occasion rather than return to the subject in connection with each particular Amendment. If you allow me to proceed on these lines, I shall not occupy the time of the Committee very long, and much shorter than if it becomes necessary for me to speak on each particular matter. The reasons against any one of these Amendments cannot be separated from the distinction between the financial position of Ireland and that of Great Britain. If a wealthy country like this has benefited unduly, as calculated by the Financial Relations Commission, and by Lord MacDonnell a few months ago—based on the results of their inquiry—to the extent of £355,000,000, surely that is an argument, not only against all these increased and new taxes, but against each one of them in particular! All that money has been withdrawn from the country and from the power of the country to carry on on the same scale of taxation as is being applied to this country, as proposed in the Bill. Every witness examined before the Commission supported the view that Ireland had been unjustly treated in the past. After all, surely the evidence produced by these witnesses before them, and the Report of the Royal Commission, signed by eleven members at the time of its completion, and agreed to by two others who died before it was completed—thirteen practically out of a Commission of fifteen—since a condition of things which they exposed has never been remedied—surely their evidence applies, and must continue to apply, to every proposal to increase the taxation upon Ireland.
    4.0 P.M.
    The first finding of that Commission was—as briefly as possible—that Great Britain and Ireland must, for the purposes of their inquiry, be considered as separate entities. Secondly, that the Act of Union imposed upon Ireland a burden

    1647
    which, as events showed, she was unable to bear. Thirdly, that the increase of taxes laid upon Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances. Fourthly, that identity in rates of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden; and fifthly, that whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and has not been estimated by any of the Commissioners to exceed one-twentieth. The Special Report, signed by Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr. Currie, says:—
    "We are forced to the conclusion that the system of taxation which now exists in the United Kingdom, while it may not be unsuited to the requirements of a rich—"
    The CHAIRMAN: This is certainly not a subject for the Committee stage of the Bill. A general statement of the kind must be made either on the Second Reading or the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. GINNELL: Do you rule I cannot proceed?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may move his Amendment, but the speech he is making in introducing it is out of order.
    Mr. GINNELL: Well, I will move my Amendment.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment further. This is the first time that any suggestion has been put forward that there should be a different Customs set up in this country and in Ireland. So long as the present circumstances exist it is most undesirable to have different rates of duties between the two countries.
    Mr. PRINGLE Mr. PRINGLE made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes, if you have separate Governments I can understand it, but, as things now are, it would be most undesirable to contemplate setting up two Customs. I have no reason to suppose that Ireland is in the least unwilling to bear her fair share of the cost of the War, and I could not, in the circumstances, accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SNOWDENhad given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words "one shilling."
    "Tea, the pound…one shilling,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words "eight pence."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is equivalent to leaving out the Clause, as it would leave the tax as at present. That would come in on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is not the Clause imposing the Tea Duty incorporated in every Finance Bill, and therefore, if the rate were not changed, it would be necessary that such a Clause should be inserted?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so in ordinary cases, but in this Bill the Clause comes in lieu of the Clause in the previous Bill of this year; that is to say, this Clause simply proposes an increase of what was passed by the House in that Bill.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That has somewhat altered the ground of our opposition. I hope I shall be able to submit a few observations without meeting the fate which overtook the hon. Member opposite. It is unnecessary that I should detain the Committee for any length of time, because the attitude of my colleagues and myself on the question of the Tea Duty, and all food taxes, is very well known, and the reasons for it have very often been stated in this House. Our intention, at any rate, is to oppose the suggested increase in the Tea Duty from 8d. to 1s. in the pound, and we do that on two grounds: first of all, because of our opposition to the Tea Duty in itself, and, in the second place, because this proposed increase in the Tea Duty is accompanied by a proposal to increase the taxation upon other articles which enter largely into the economy of the working classes. It is impossible, therefore, to consider this proposal to increase the Tea Duty without having some regard to the somewhat similar taxes which are also proposed in this Bill. I am not going to consider those other taxes in detail, and I shall not urge this point at any great length. The first thing that I would submit is that already the taxation which has been imposed upon the working classes of this country since this War began is altogether out of proportion. When one

    1649
    remembers the relative capacity of the different classes of the community to pay, the increased taxation levied upon the working people is quite disproportionate to the amount that has been levied upon those who are in a position to contribute far more to the cost of the War. The Tea Duty was raised from 5d. to 8d. last November, and that involved an increase of working class taxation of something like £3,000,000 a year. It is proposed now to add another 4d. per lb. to the Tea Duty, and it was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in a full year that will bring into the Exchequer about £4,500,000.
    Again, from the point I advanced just now—that other taxes of a similar character have been at the same time imposed—I may mention that this is in addition to the proposal to add about £11,500,000 to the Sugar Duty in a full year, that is next year. So that the total increased taxes on food—tea, sugar, dried fruit, coffee and cocoa, the receipts from taxes apart from tea and sugar being relatively small—are expected next year to bring into the Exchequer, I believe, something like £17,000,000. The tax upon sugar is estimated to yield something over £11,000,000, and tea about £4,500,000, and the rest will probably amount to something about £1,000,000. My first point is that we oppose this proposed increase of Tea Duty because it is unfair. It is a tax upon the people who are already paying more than their fair share of the cost of this War. It is an additional burden upon their backs, which their backs are not strong enough to bear. What is the amount of taxation which will be paid next year, when the taxes in this Finance Bill mature, by what we generally understand as the working classes of the country, that is, those who are below the Income Tax limit? My calculation is that it will amount to something like £80,000,000, and that means something like £10 per family, or 4s. per week. In spite of the advances of wages which have been given to certain classes of workers—not so much advances of wages as War bonuses—we have still in the country a very large number of families, probably not less than from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000, whose incomes are little, if anything, over £1 per week. Therefore, that taxation to which the Tea Duty contributes so very largely amounts to an Income Tax of 4s. in the £. So much for the general question.
    I will pass on now to our specific objections to the Tea Duty. We object to it, in
    1650
    the first place, because of our general objection to indirect taxation, because indirect taxation always takes out of the pockets of the taxpayers more than it brings to the State. That is evidenced by this fact in connection with the present price of tea. The price of tea to-day is much higher than by the amount of the Tea Duty imposed last November and proposed last month under this Finance Bill. It has increased by 50 per cent. I find from figures which were issued by the Board of Trade yesterday that the increase in the price of tea is given as 50 per cent. The increase in the Tea Duty has been 7d., and, therefore, the increase in the price of tea is 3d. more than the increase for which the duty is responsible. Then we oppose this Tea Duty because tea is a necessary of life, especially for the poor. It is a very unfortunate thing, but it is nevertheless true, that the poorer a family is, the larger is its proportionate expenditure upon tea. That point was very well put, I remember, some time ago by the predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I specially commend the opinion of that right hon. Gentleman to the right hon. Gentleman who now holds this exalted office. I have no reason to believe that the Minister of Munitions holds any opinion to-day different from that which he expressed at the time he gave utterance to these words. This is what he said:—
    "One thing I am sure will be accepted by every Member of this House, and that is, we ought at any rate to avoid taxes on the necessaries of life. I referred some time ago, in the course of a discussion in this House, to the Old Age Pension Officers' Reports. There was one thing in those reports which struck me very forcibly, and that was they all reported that the poorer the people they had to deal with the more was their food confined to bread and tea, and of the price of that tea, which, of course, was of the poorest quality, half went to the tax gatherer. That is always the worst of indirect taxation on the people. The poorer they are, the more heavily they are taxed. Tea and sugar are necessaries of life, and I think that the rich man
    —and I commend this to the millionaires opposite—
    who would wish to spare his own pocket at the expense of the bare pockets of the poor, is a very shabby rich man indeed, and, therefore, I am sure that I carry with me the assent of even the classes upon whom I am putting very heavy burdens, that when we come to indirect taxes, at any rate, those two essentials of life ought to be exempt."
    What has the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to say to that? His predecessor said that we ought to avoid taxes upon the necessaries of life, and that such taxes always pressed most heavily upon the poor. I remember an instance being given of a poor woman earning 7s. a week, and she lived on bread and tea. The

    1651
    articles which enter mainly into the budget of a working-class family are tea, sugar, milk, bread and rent. In proposing by this additional duty on tea to add to those burdens we must remember these facts. The cost of every one of these items is increasing. Sugar has increased something like 90 per cent, bread by 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., and we have heard to-day in answer to questions, that rents are being raised in every part of the country. In view of the fact that the people upon whom, in a large measure, these taxes are going to fall cannot afford it, the result will be that their physical efficiency will suffer, and there will be a general lowering of the standard of working-class life in this country. I should not be in order if I were to suggest alternatives, but my alternatives are very well known in this House, and it would not be a very difficult thing, if the House decides to abolish the proposed addition to the Tea Duty, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find substitutes. A substitute could be provided even if we fall far short of the forecast put forward last week by the right hon. Gentleman's very able Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, and we need not go to the extent of taxing the incomes of the wealthy one-half to find compensation for the loss of £4,500,000, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise by this addition to the Tea Duty. I have put forward as briefly as I could our reasons for making this proposal, and all I have to say in conclusion—I am speaking now with the authority of my colleagues—that we feel so keenly upon this question that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to meet us then we shall be compelled to seek the opinion of the House on the matter by a Division.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: As on a former occasion, no doubt we shall hear the argument used that this tax is necessary in order to maintain the relationship between direct and indirect taxation. I would like to point out a certain fallacy which underlies that argument. It is generally supposed that the taxation which is levied under the Income Tax as a whole comes in the category of direct taxation, and is paid by the man upon whom the tax is imposed in the first instance. We have before us now in every part of the country evidence that the tax put upon buildings is being passed on to the tenants, just in the same way as the tax on tea is passed on to the consumer. I hope the Chancellor of the
    1652
    Exchequer will take into account the fact that in addition to the burden of taxation which is now falling on the poor, a great deal of the burden which under this Budget has been imposed upon the rich by the Income Tax is being transferred to the shoulders of the people.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sure that, under ordinary circumstances, it would be the personal desire of every hon. Member of this House that this Amendment should be accepted. We are all at one with the arguments put forward as to taxation of the poor, and we agree that it is most undesirable, so far as it can be avoided, to impose any further taxation upon articles which are necessaries and which enter very largely into the ordinary consumption of the poorer classes. So far as that part of the argument is concerned, I am sure the hon. Member for Blackburn has the good wishes behind him of every hon. Member of this House. When I come to examine the figures that he has put forward I am bound to tell the Committee that I think he is really mistaken in his estimate of the burdens which we are imposing upon the poor. The hon. Member said that our present taxation amounted to a charge of 20 per cent, on the income of many working families whose income did not amount to more than 20s. at the present time; in other words, he said that, out of the 20s. which many families are receiving now as their total income, they pay 4s. a week in taxes. I would beg of my hon. Friend to analyse the expenditure of an ordinary working-class family which is not more than 20s. a week and show to the Committee how 4s. out of that is expended on taxation.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman under the delusion that in my estimate I do not include taxes on intoxicants?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon Gentleman contend that my figures are wrong, and that there are some families earning 20s. per week who are not taxed to the extent of 20 per cent.? In making that statement I did not mean that that proportion was uniform, and that every family earning £1 a week paid that rate of taxation. I know there are some who are paying less, but there are others who are paying more.
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend were to take out in detail the expenditure on a working-class family and attribute to

    1653
    each item of expenditure the proper amount of taxation, he would find that it was perfectly impossible to arrive at any such average of charges as 4s. a week out of an expenditure of 20s. a week.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the figures were given by a Liberal association in a leaflet issued at the General Election of 1906? The amount of taxation at that time was not so high, and the amount given was £6 17s. 6d. per working-class family.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is now going into quite a different set of figures. I was simply taking his statement that the average charge upon persons earning 20s. a week was 20 per cent. When the hon. Member speaks of the average of the working classes, he does not mean that their average income is 20s. a week. The case the hon. Member put forward was that the average charge on an income of 20s. a week is 4s. a week. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend could not establish that proposition for one minute. Will he take a piece of paper and a pencil and work out what it would mean, and the amount of tea, sugar, whisky and tobacco which would have to be consumed out of an income of 20s. per week, in order to make up a taxation charge of 4s.?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman leave out the chief item of taxation on the house, which amounts to 1s. or 1s. 6d. per week?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend may be right, but the tax upon houses does not come in the total of £80,000,000, to which my hon. Friend referred. He may be right or wrong in thinking that a tax on houses falls upon the working classes, but my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was not referring to that item, because he mentioned £80,000,000 as the total of indirect taxes. If my hon. Friend will show me an average budget for a working-class family, showing 4s. a week taxation on an expenditure of 20s., I shall be extremely surprised. Hon. Members are aware that the duty on tea has been raised since the War from 5d. to 1s., and I agree that that is a very heavy increase, but how has the Income Tax been raised since the beginning of the War? It has been raised from 1s. 3d. to 3s. 6d. in the £. How has the Super-tax been raised? It has been increased from a maximum of 1s. 4d. to a maximum of 3s. 6d. The direct taxation upon, persons with very large in-
    1654
    comes now amounts very nearly to 7s. in the £, and those are facts which ought not to be ignored. We have got to raise an enormous revenue, and we have to distribute the burden in a way which may be considered fair over all classes of the community. I quite agree that when you take the case of the humblest classes of all, such as the old age pensioner, an additional tax like this upon tea falls extraordinarily hard, but there is no other means of raising the enormous sums that we have to raise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tax land."] Up to the present the taxes on land have not been very remunerative, but I am not going to enter to-day into that tax as a revenue-producing machine, because up to the present those taxes have not been of very great assistance, and I do not see now how we can make an immediate increase in them. We have to raise this very large sum of money this year.
    One of the best tests as to whether taxation is pressing with undue severity on the nation as a whole is the test of consumption. Some of my hon. Friends are in a position to show that the consumption of tea, or any other. of the commodities taxed, has not greatly declined. I can answer for one, in regard to which I have got the exact figures, and it is an article that is more heavily taxed than tea—I refer to sugar. Since the increase in the duty on sugar there has been no appreciable reduction in the consumption at all. The fact is that the consuming power of the nation, notwithstanding the increased taxes, appears to be as great as ever. [An HON. MEMBER: "Temporarily."] The War has been going on now for over a year, and up to this moment, not merely the consuming power, but the actual consumption of the nation, has scarcely declined at all, and that is a vital fact. These taxes come to an end on the 1st of August next, and I am dealing with this financial year. Each year on this higher taxation will have to justify itself. I am dealing with this year's taxation and the existing consumption of the people, and I am justified in saying that by every test that can be taken there is no reliable evidence that these taxes are pressing so heavily upon the community as to seriously reduce consumption. If in the midst of a great War like this with this huge expenditure—and I really do not think that the Committee have entered into the meaning of an expenditure of nearly £1,600,000,000 in the course of the present year—we are not willing in every class to submit to the

    1655
    necessary taxation in order both to enable us to meet the cost and to reduce consumption, we cannot hope to maintain a scale of expenditure of that kind. We must be prepared to maintain it if we are to last out the War. For these reasons, however much the hon. Member may appeal to our feelings, and the hon. Member always appeals to my feelings, I hope that we shall resist him and adhere to this tax, which is part of a whole scheme which I submit to the Committee as fair and necessary.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I rather think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer either said too much or too little. His contention was that the tax would have the effect of reducing consumption. He admits quite frankly now that from that point of view it has been a complete failure and that the rate of consumption is being maintained. There are a number of working-class families doing much better than they were from the point of view of wages, and consequently the consumption of that type of working-class family has been increased. If, therefore, a fair average is being maintained, it must be obvious that the class of family—there were two millions of them in 1912—in receipt of £1 per week as wages has had its consumption considerably reduced. Otherwise there would not be merely a fair average maintained. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we are spending something like £1,600,000,000 in this year of war. Imagine the amount which the tax on tea contributes to this £1,600,000,000! It is so inconsiderable that really, considering the ill-effects which it will work, it ought not to be brought into the account against the total amount which is being expended on the War.
    There is another important point which appeals to us. The present rate of additional taxation will be required to pay loan charges and interest on additional loans. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted so much, and, if that is so, the prospect of any reduction in taxation on food is remote, and we may anticipate for years to come the maintenance of a tax on tea at 1s. per lb., and of a tax on sugar at 9s. 4d. per cwt. The present rate of wages of the working-class people I am afraid will not be maintained. War bonuses may go. The high wages which are at present being paid in munition factories will be reduced. Poor people, the old age pensioners, who are receiving their 5s. per week, those in receipt of small separation
    1656
    allowances, and those who will receive pensions because their loved ones have fallen, will still have to pay this undue proportion of their income in food taxes, though the possibility of a large number of them being able to do so is again remote. This possibility of heavy taxation in the future ought to be giving the working classes considerable thought. I fail to see where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met the argument of my hon. Friend either as regards the existing charge levied on working people or as regards the difficulties which I foresee arising in the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set a precedent of high taxation on food which will be much resented in the years to come, and it will, in my view, in the future, make such a deduction from working-class wages that there will be a great increase in the poverty of the people.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I listened with much interest to the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised. It seemed to me very ingenious, but very far from convincing. My own view in regard to these taxes proceeds not on any nicely balanced and careful calculation as between 4s. in the £ being too much or too little, but proceeds on the fundamental objection which I have always held to any tax on the food of the people. I have stood year after year on the platform, and have said with great satisfaction that the party with which I had the honour to be associated has never been, for something like fifty years, concerned with the increase of the taxation on the food of the people, but has done what they could at every stage to decrease it. That which I hold to be good in principle I hold to be good in form as far as it can possibly be carried out. This tax upon tea is a particularly oppressive tax for reasons well known. It is a tax not varying according to the quality of the tea, but is a flat tax on all tea. Therefore, tea of poor quality consumed by the very poor people has to pay a heavier tax in proportion to its value than other tea. It presses more heavily on the poor for another reason. The amount spent in tea is a larger proportion of the working-man's budget than it is of the rich man's budget.
    I would like to deal with a point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made when he spoke of the prosperity of the working classes at the present time. I entirely agree that things are going well, that wages are high, and that consumption

    1657
    is being kept up, but we must remember that at present we are living on borrowed money, necessary borrowings I frankly admit and every one of them I have supported. We are on the tide of a temporary and artificial prosperity largely due to expenditure and preparations for the War, and all the means of employment that it has opened up. When the War is over this taxation will still go on, but this inflation of prosperity and employment will at once stop. We shall have a number of men coming back from the front seeking employment at home; we shall have a number of people engaged directly and indirectly in munition work also seeking employment, and there is every reason to fear a period of very considerable industrial depression, not only for ourselves but for the other countries of the world. "Oh," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "we are only asking you to vote this up to a certain time." Does any sane man think that there is any chance of this tax coming off at the end of that time? There is every reason to believe that it will remain, because there is one tax which is temporary and that is the tax on war profits. When the War is over the receipts from the War Profits Tax will vanish, and there will be increased pressure to retain every one of the other taxes. These considerations should be borne in mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked, "What other sources of revenue are there?" and an hon. Friend behind suggested that he should look to the land. I think my hon. Friend had in mind the principle for which so many have stood, that those who hold the land, particularly under the present conditions, ought to be called upon to make a special contribution towards its defence. If they want to see how important it is for their interests that the country should be protected, let them consider the case of land and houses in Belgium. There houses have been destroyed, and where they have not been destroyed the rent of both land and houses is paid to the conquerors. We maintain that this principle which has been put forward—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to discuss this old land question on an Amendment to reduce the tax on tea?
    Mr. WHITE: lean assure the hon. Baronet—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will allow me to reply to the hon. Baronet. It
    1658
    is clear that the Committee stage is not the time to propose alternatives, or an advocate of some particular proposal might make every tax the occasion for putting it forward. That sort of argument is more proper to a Second Reading debate.
    Mr. WHITE: I had no intention of going the length which the hon. Baronet suggested, but, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself mentioned the point, I think that I may be entitled to say—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer only did it in reply to an interruption coming from behind.
    Mr. WHITE: The taxes to which he referred were not the taxes which we have in view. I do not want to pursue this subject further, but we have again and again put forward this alternative. It is not open to us to propose it now and I abide by your ruling, but at the same time we have to remember that this is an alternative which has been put forward by the party to which both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I belong, and in the present situation in which I find myself—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is proceeding to do just what he promised me he would not do.
    Mr. WHITE: I will only say that I for one, in the circumstances of the day, stand by my principles, and I feel unable to support my right hon. Friend in the proposals which are now put forward, because I think that other and better proposals could have been made.
    Sir W. BYLES: Everybody in this House always objects to indirect taxation. The hon. Member who introduced this subject was very eloquent upon the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, like his predecessor, objected to indirect taxes. None of them seem to have the courage of their opinions and to resort to the only remedy, which is direct taxation. One of the objections offered, and it is quite right, was that indirect taxes are increased by the trader, who makes the consumer pay more than the tax. Another objection is that indirect taxes cost a great deal more to collect than direct taxes. The third and most important objection of all is that the man pays indirect taxes without knowing that he pays at the moment, and therefore he does not follow the taxes to see what is done with them and how the money is spent. These are the real objections, and the third is the strongest objection

    1659
    of all to indirect taxation. Everybody has an income, and the Income Tax is universally popular. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is popular as a tax. Of course, no tax is really popular. Everybody has an income of some kind, and I would like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up and propose to make everyone pay his share towards the revenue of the country in proportion to the income which he receives.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I expected, met my hon. Friend's proposal for the reduction of this tax by pointing to the Income Tax, and saying that it has been raised from 1s. 3d. to 3s. 6d. I would like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what
    he has been doing on behalf of many of those whom he is going to tax by way of the Income Tax. In many cases the right hon. Gentleman has increased the income of the individual by more than the amount of taxation he intends to take from him in the form of Income Tax. For instance, a man who formerly had a Government security earning 3½ per cent, is now, through the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, getting 4¼ per cent.—
    The CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the question now before the Committee.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 10.]

    AYES.

    [4.47 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Fell, Arthur

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Meagher, Michael

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Gardner, Ernest

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molloy, Michael

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gordon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Bellairs, Commander E. W.

    Graham, Edward John

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Mooney, John J.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Boland, John Pius

    Hackett, John

    Mount, William Arthur

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Marshall (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Boyton, James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Brace, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Butcher, John George

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Ogden, Fred

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    O'Malley. William

    Cator, John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clough, William

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Cosgrave, James

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, George Heynes

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, Joseph

    Reddy, Michael

    Currie, George W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Doris, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Tickler, T. G.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    Smith, Sir S. (Keighley, W.R.)

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Younger, Sir George

    Sykes, Col. A. J. (Knutsford)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Thomas, James Henry

    Alden, Percy

    Hudson, Walter

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Anderson, W. C.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Wardle, George J.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts Cricklade)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Bird, Alfred

    O'Grady, James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Bowermon, Charles W.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Goldstone.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Snowden, Philip

    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Additional Duties on Cocoa.)
    In addition to the duties of Customs payable on cocoa imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid, the following additional duties, that is to say:

    £

    s.

    d.

    Cocoa, the lb.

    0

    0

    0½

    Cocoa husks and shells, the cwt.

    0

    1

    0

    Cocoa butter, the lb.

    0

    0

    0½

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The CHAIRMAN: Three Amendments handed in by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) are all out of order, as they propose to increase the charges.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LOUGH: I wish to draw attention to the differential treatment meted out to cocoa as compared with tea. On cocoa only ½d. per lb. is added to the tax. On tea the additional burden is much more heavy. Of the tea consumed in this country the greater portion is of British production, but a great quantity of the cocoa which is consumed here comes from foreign countries, and I do not see why our own Colonies and their products should receive much worse treatment than foreign countries. The history of the tax on cocoa during the last few years has been rather curious. The tax was reduced in 1911 by a small amount. At that time the annual consumption was 51,000,000
    1662
    lbs., and the tax upon it produced £380,000. Owing to the reduction in that year the consumption of cocoa in 1914 rose to 63,000,000 lbs., whereas the tax produced only £341,000, so that the consumption increased by 25 per cent, and the tax produced less than in the preceding year. The right hon. Gentleman only proposes to add ½d. per lb. to the Cocoa Duty. I suggest it is worth seriously considering whether the tax on cocoa should not be put on the same level as that on tea. If money is wanted, I make that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such an increased tax would not press unduly on anyone, and inasmuch as at a later stage I have down an Amendment which, if carried, may deprive the right hon. Gentleman of some revenue, surely this would be a means of making up for the loss. There is no question of Protection or Free Trade involved. If the tax on cocoa were raised 6d. per lb. the right hon. Gentleman might get at least a million out of it, and if it were put at 1s. he might perhaps get two millions or more. From my little knowledge of the trade I can say that cocoa is an article which can stand this duty better than tea. Under the circumstances I think the Committee would not be doing its duty if it did not ask why the treatment which it measured out to cocoa is not also applied to tea. At the moment I do not move to omit the Clause, but I think the facts I have ventured to lay before the Committee should receive some consideration from the Government, and that we should know why they are proceeding in this way.
    Sir J. D. REES: The object of my disorderly Amendments was not to raise a Debate, so far as I was concerned, but to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer once more an opportunity of explaining why he does not raise more revenue from cocoa. I have figures, from a source in which he will have some confidence, showing that in 1914 94,000,000 lbs. of cocoa, 1,000,000 cwt. of coffee, and 21,000,000 lbs. of manufactured cocoa were introduced into this country. A very large revenue could be raised if these very large imports were taxed at the same rate as tea.
    Mr. W. THORNE: The consumer will pay.
    Sir J. D. REES: Cocoa is far more a luxury than tea. It is the basis of all the chocolate and sweetmeats which undermine the constitution and rot the teeth of our future soldiers and their wives and children. It is the drink of the luxurious. You find it is placed at the bedside of the luxurious beings who do not get up till luncheon time.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Are they munition workers?
    Sir J. D. REES: It is an exceedingly fair subject for increased taxation. Although I know it is not easy to press at this moment for any further taxation to be imposed upon it, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at length take the opportunity, which I have often asked him to take, of stating why this particular substance is let off so cheaply as compared with others which are very heavily taxed, and which are British products, which cocoa is not, because it is either a foreign product or, in manufactured shape, chiefly a German import.
    Mr. McKENNA: With regard to what was said by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough), I do not know whether he gave us the figures of consumption of cocoa in the sense of ordinary drinking cocoa. He gave us figures of the total imports of cocoa. I do not know whether that was for all purposes?
    Mr. LOUGH: I gave the total imports and the total consumption for all purposes.
    Mr. McKENNA: When the right hon. Gentleman gave us figures he did not mean to suggest to the Committee that those figures either of consumption or of revenue were figures which could be derived from
    1664
    what we ordinarily understand by cocoa, namely, cocoa that is drunk.
    Sir J. D. REES: Chocolate.
    Mr. McKENNA: Chocolate raises another and a totally different set of arguments. With regard to cocoa that is drunk, that is the subject brought into contrast with tea, and we naturally assumed that when my right hon. Friend was speaking of cocoa in contrast with tea he meant cocoa that was drunk.
    Mr. LOUGH: I included chocolate.
    Mr. McKENNA: That was drunk?
    Mr. LOUGH: Or eaten.
    Mr. McKENNA: Or eaten. My right hon. Friend contrasted his figures with the figures of the consumption of tea. With regard to cocoa consumed in the form of chocolate, I will deal with that separately. As regards cocoa that is consumed as drink, a very small proportion, so far as I am aware, of what my right hon. Friend referred to is consumed, and we should not get any such figure of revenue as he suggested merely by putting up the duty on cocoa that is drunk. In dealing with these taxes, which have all been classed together, we have proceeded on the principle of adding 50 per cent, to them. It may not be a good principle, but it is a rough-and-ready principle, and one that the Customs can very easily work. I hope the Committee will accept that principle. So much for the duty on cocoa that is drunk. When my right hon. Friend comes to the duty on cocoa that is used in chocolate he will have something to say to me when we get to the Sugar Duty. It is through the Sugar Duty that we make the consumer of chocolate pay.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not cocoa the basis of chocolate?
    Mr. McKENNA: Sugar is very largely used in it. We are making the consumer of chocolate pay sufficiently in the duty on sugar. It is the same person who pays. Whether he pays on his cocoa or pays on his sugar, it is the person who consumes it who has to pay. It does not much matter to him whether he pays on cocoa or sugar. He has not to pay more than a certain amount. We are taking that certain amount from him on sugar. The right hon. Gentleman says we should take it from him on cocoa. That does not make any difference to our revenue.
    Sir J. D. REES: You would get both.
    Mr. McKENNA: You would not get both, because you would reduce consumption. We have to consider how far it is desirable to taxe the consumption of a commodity which is very largely consumed by our own troops.
    Mr. LOUGH: They would not pay it.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then we should get no revenue. I hope the Committee will see that it is far better to take these duties as they are and add 50 per cent, to them all.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Additional Duties on Coffee.)
    In addition to the duties of Customs payable on coffee imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following additional duties, that is to say:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Coffee (not kiln-dried, roasted or ground), the cwt.

    0

    7

    0

    Coffee (kiln-dried, roasted, or ground), the lb.

    0

    0

    1

    Mr. JAMES MASONrose—
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member intend to move an Amendment or to speak on the Clause as a whole?
    Mr. MASON: I only wish to get some enlightenment on the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: Then I will put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. MASON: I only wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the high duty on tea being likely to lead to a greater consumption of coffee, it will be necessary for him to take that into consideration and to put a tax on coffee parallel to the tax on tea?
    Mr. McKENNA: We should certainly do so.
    Mr. LOUGH: When I spoke just now I also mentioned coffee, and I would like my right hon. Friend to consider it for one moment. I do not agree with his arguments with regard to cocoa at all. I gave very fair figures of the revenue that could be obtained if a heavier tax were imposed. The duty on coffee is only increased by ¾d. I believe that seven-tenths or seven-eighths of the coffee comes from South
    1666
    America. The duty at present is only 1½d., and that is to be increased by ¾d. The duty at present realised is £220,000 on coffee. As regards my right hon. Friend's remark about consumption increasing, I do not say it will increase as rapidly as tea, but it is increasing this year. This country is happily situated in regard to coffee, because the great coffee drinking countries of Europe cannot get their coffee now, and there is a great store of it in this country. If the duty on coffee were made something like sixpence in the pound a substantial increase in revenue might be obtained. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he is inclined to increase the three farthings in the pound having regard to the serious increase he has made in the Tea Tax. Coffee is the luxury of the rich just as tea is the necessity of the poor. Seeing that the poor have to pay so much for their drink, you might put a little more on coffee, which is the drink of the rich.
    Sir J. D. REES: I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman says, and to deal with one argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His argument gives an air of specious fairness to an increase of 50 per cent, on these different products, and in the case of coffee, as also in the case of cocoa, it is 50 per cent, increase on a low tax, instead of, as in the case of tea, 50 per cent, on a high tax. Therefore there is no real equality, it is a case of piling tax upon tax in regard to tea, and I venture to think that coffee, like cocoa, could stand a higher tax.
    Mr. McKENNA: If in consequence of these taxes there is any shifting of taste from tea to coffee we should unhesitatingly increase the duty on coffee. We do not want any increased duties on coffee, chicory, or any other article which we think would have the effect of reducing our revenue. If we find we have reasonable grounds for thinking that it will not reduce our revenue, we shall add to it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take it upon himself to increase the price of coffee. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough) is wrong as to the consumption of coffee. I asked the Chancellor to consider the case of the vast number of workmen who have a cup of coffee at a coffee stall in the early morning, for instance, in a munitions area. If the price of coffee is increased, the result will be that they will be charged an increased price, and where they are

    1667
    now charged 1d. a cup they will be charged 1½d. Anybody who uses coffee knows that to use a pound of it costs more than to use a pound of tea, because you have to use more sugar to sweeten coffee. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not increase this duty.
    CLAUSES 4 (Additional Duties on Chicory), and 5 (Additional Excise Duty on Coffee Substitutes, etc.), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Increased Customs Duties on Sugar, etc.)
    In lieu of the present Customs duties, drawbacks and allowance in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose and saccharin, there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid the duties specified in the first column of the table set out in Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act, and there shall be paid and allowed the drawbacks and allowance set out in Part II. of that Schedule.
    This provision shall not affect the continuance after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, of the duties, drawbacks, and allowance existing before the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen.
    Mr. THEODORE C. TAYLOR: I beg to move to leave out the words "first column of the" ["specified in the first column of the table set out in Part I. of the First Schedule"].
    The object of this Amendment is to raise the point whether we are now going to establish as statutory law the principle of a wide differential charge between the home product and the imported product. That is a very vital point. I do not want to labour it, certainly not from the point of view of Free Trade versus Protection, but I want to point out that this is the first item in the Bill which lays down the principle of Protection for the home industry. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when on the Opposition Bench, very much distinguished himself on the great question of stripped tobacco. I derived a great amount of instruction from his Free Trade speeches in those Debates, and I little thought that I should live to see him introducing a
    1668
    Budget with such marked Protectionist features in it as this has. I know, of course, that there is already a Customs Duty on sugar. There would not have been any Customs Duty on sugar if I had been Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember that the first speech I made in this House was against the Sugar Duty altogether. I believe it is a bad duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quite agrees with me, but he wants to make it a little worse. It is a bad duty because it is a duty on raw material and a duty on life. It is almost like having a duty on bread. I think that of the substances that the poor consume to build up their health and strength, next to bread, possibly, sugar is the most important of our foods. Milk, of course, for children, but next to bread, sugar has, I believe, in small compass and at comparatively small cost, the elements of life and strength and the building up of a strong frame, and if we are taxing sugar, whether it is effectively done or done on any lines whatever, with or without preference to some productions, I look on a tax on sugar as a very bad one. We are making it worse by this Budget. I have an Amendment to omit the second column of the First Schedule, relating to sugar, but since then I have sent in another Amendment to omit the first of those two columns. The object of my present Amendment is to assimilate the Excise to the Customs Duty. If, later on, one proposed to omit the second column, that Amendment would be out of order, because, in the first place, it would be taxing the home industry more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes to tax it, say at 9s. 4d. a cwt. for sugar of a polarisation exceeding 90 degrees instead of 7s. The distinction drawn is a distinction of 2s. 4d. a cwt.—a ¼d. a lb. That is to say at present the sugar that comes into the country is to be taxed exactly a 1d. a lb. under the Finance Bill, and the sugar that is made at home is to be taxed ¾d. a lb.
    I always took objection to the tax on sugar before, when it was 1s. 10d. The Prime Minister reminded some of us the other day that he lowered the duty from 4s. 2d. to 1s. 10d. That was done in 1908. There was a difference therefore between imported sugar and sugar manufactured at home of 1s. 10d. a cwt., but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to increase that to 2s. 4d. a cwt., or a ¼d. a lb. In other words, if it was

    1669
    a mischievous thing before to tax a foreign product and not to tax the home product, which all Free Traders must hold, the mischief is aggravated by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, and has been, a root principle of our finance for very many years that all the products of an increase of price of any commodity that is caused by legislation should go into the hands of the Government—into the pocket of the Exchequer—less, of course, the expenses of collection. That is one of the very foundation principles of our finance in this country, and if we pass this Finance Bill as it is, without the Amendment I am proposing, assimilating the Excise and Customs Duties, we are giving up one of the foundation principles of finance, and one which is absolutely necessary for honest finance, because if we are going to put a bonus of ¼d. a pound into the pockets of those who produce one article, why should there not be something put into the pockets of those who produce another article? The only line of principle to be drawn is between having Excise and Customs to balance each other, as they are supposed to do in the case of spirits and beer, and having a departure more or less from that principle. This is not only a departure from that principle but it is a very considerable departure. The difference between taxing home-produced sugar ¾d. a lb., and imported sugar 1d. a pound is a very large percentage of the average value of the sugar, though, the present price of sugar being high, the percentage is not so great. The retail price of granulated sugar is 4d., or 3½d., and lump sugar 6d. Of course a ¼d. a lb. may be said to be not very much, but at 4d. it is a sixteenth. That is something like 6¼ per cent.—a very considerable increase in the cost of sugar—and I am reckoning nothing for the profit of the wholesale and retail trade. It is a very considerable difference. It may be said it is only ¼d. a lb., but why is the difference made? I should be very delighted if the Chancellor can bring some information on the carpet—I have never heard it yet—and show us that this difference is necessary owing to some process of manufacture or something of that sort. I have never heard that contended yet. If it is a bonus to home production, it is as much Protection only being ¼d. a lb., as if it were 1d. a lb. The principle is there and I strongly object to it, and I cannot support this beginning of Protection. What applies to this article will apply to every other article.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has made it quite clear that, however he may dislike a different rate of Customs and Excise Duties, there is nothing new in it. He is thoroughly familiar with the fact that this is only a reproduction on a slightly different scale of an existing difference between Customs and Excise.
    Mr. TAYLOR: It is the first recognition.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand that. My hon. Friend is quite aware that at the present time there is a Customs Duty of 1s. 10d. on sugar, and there is no Excise Duty. Therefore it is already a recognition by the law of a different rate of Customs and Excise Duty on sugar. He is not entitled, therefore, to regard this as the beginning of a new principle. Clearly it is not. The only difference we have to consider now is the difference between the present proposal and what existed before, which was that whereas there was a Customs Duty of 1s. 10d. and no Excise Duty, there is now proposed a Customs Duty of 9s. 4d. and an Excise Duty of 7s. That is the whole difference now.
    Mr. TAYLOR: We have always been told previously, when we have mentioned this thing, that it is so slight that Chancellors of the Exchequers have never recognised this small sugar growth and have applied the principle de minimis non curat lex. It has really been overlooked as a thing which was not worth legislating upon. No Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever told us that he approved of this.
    Mr. McKENNA: I should be perfectly willing to regard this as a matter de minimis non curat lex, and I should be quite willing to have omitted the Excise Duty altogether. The whole production of sugar in this country is so trifling that to found a principle upon it is to my mind straining at a gnat.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Then why have the differentiation? Why not accept my Amendment and make it the same?
    Mr. McKENNA: We have already started on the principle.
    Mr. TAYLOR: No.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend has accepted the principle.
    Mr. TAYLOR: No.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend accepted the statement in the past that sugar production in this country was so trifling that to leave out the imposition of Excise was quite a possible procedure. The sugar development in this country is to-day no greater than it was. It still remains, I believe, something like 3,000 tons a year, or little over the consumption of half a day, out of a total consumption of anything between 1,700,000 and 1,800,000 tons. In the past it has not been thought worth while to impose any Excise Duty upon a trade which was so insignificant. It was not worth it. It is still true to say it is not worth it. I am unfortunately bound by the conditions of the Brussels Convention, under which a duty cannot be imposed upon the import of sugar greater than 2s. 6d. in excess of the Excise Duty, and I was therefore bound to impose an Excise Duty. My hon. Friend says, "If you are bound now to impose an Excise Duty under the Brussels Convention, why do you not make it the same duty as the Import Duty?" A very reasonable and proper argument, but there is a very reasonable and proper answer. People who have been conducting this experiment—it is nothing more—have been conducting it under great difficulties, and with no very large profit. If we impose the same Excise now as the Customs Duty we destroy the experiment absolutely in a moment. Is that a wise thing to do? I am not dealing now with general principles for all time of taxation by Customs and by Excise. I am dealing with the conditions of this moment under the circumstances of the War, and I am bound to say it would not seem to me a wise and prudent proceeding at this moment to destroy an experiment in which a great deal of money has been spent and which is producing a certain modicum of sugar. For that reason I propose to the Committee that there should be an Excise Duty as much lower than the Customs Duty as the Brussels Convention will allow me to impose, but on general grounds the whole industry is so insignificant, the whole production is so small, that if we were free to do so I should be disposed to recommend to the House to take no notice of it. I have to propose an Excise Duty; therefore I propose 7s.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is another consideration which I think the right hon. Gentleman has probably omitted in dealing with the home manufacture of sugar.
    1672
    I presume these manufacturers are placed under very strict Excise regulations.
    Mr. McKENNA: That will make some difference.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: And exactly as the distiller receives a bonus in cases of this sort, so should they be entitled to receive the same.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not go into that because I thought it might be misleading. With this charge of 2s. 4d. they would not have anything like as much, though quite a substantial amount.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I thought, as the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact, I would do so, because I know of a case. The question which I desire to bring before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the unfairness of placing this new tax on the sugar used in brewing. [HON. MEMBERS laugh.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but in November last year the Beer Tax was trebled; it was raised from 7s. 9d. to 23s. 3d. or something like that. It was taken to the extremest possible point which I believe it ever can stand. When the duty was taken from malt to beer in the old days, one of the great arguments of Mr. Gladstone, who made the change, was that while he knew he was imposing a larger differential duty than that which had existed before he was going to free the mesh tub and allow all sorts of ingredients to be used in the manufacture of beer. There we come up against the pure beer people. However, that was one of the strong arguments he made for the change in the tax. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to make any difference in the duty.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon Baronet's remarks had better be reserved until the general discussion that the Clause stand part.
    Sir A. MOND: The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech has afforded us an example of how easy it is to depart from the right course, and how impossible it is to get back. We remember that when this question first arose in the House we were assured the matter was so small that we need not trouble about it; that the infant industry was only a baby and probably would never survive its infantile diseases. Now we are having the position regularised, and that is what the hon. Member for Ratcliffe (Mr. T. C. Taylor)

    1673
    objects to. The regular position, from the point of view of principle, is as objectionable as the irregular position. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is setting a precedent, and it is a very dangerous precedent. We know that the industry is still small. I do not say that in the present year it will develop much, although considerable efforts are being made in various parts of the country, such as Hampshire, to promote the laudable object of growing beet sugar. Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest to us that this 2s. 4d. is going to come off again at some future date, and that the experiment if it does not develop is going to be slaughtered by some more merciless person than himself? Of course it will not. We shall all have seen it grow, and I suppose we shall say, "Two and fourpence is not enough; let us put on another shilling." That is the way in which all these things have happened. My right hon. Friend once knew these things, but now he finds it convenient to ignore them. He knows them as well as I do. He knows perfectly well that Tariff principles do not spring up complete like Minerva from the brain of Jove. They grow up slowly.
    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA made a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman says it is only 3,000 tons. I know how typical that argument is; he denounced it himself some time ago. Of course it is only 3,000 tons. If it were 300,000 tons a year the right hon. Gentleman would find it impossible to deal with it. If the industry was spread throughout the counties—I do not care to what politics any hon. Member belonged—his constituents would prevent him from taking this duty off in the interests of agriculture. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman will change it. His attitude is an illuminating instance, which I hope will be taken due note of, not only here but elsewhere, of how easy it is to leave the straight path. What I complain about is this, that if you are going to give a bonus to beet sugar, why not say so? I am quite ready to consider such a proposal on its merits, with a perfectly open mind. What I object to is that we are told these things do not matter and that nothing will happen. We are asked to swallow this soothing syrup without having any idea as to the direction in which we are going. Let the House realise that this is really subsidising beet sugar. Do not
    1674
    try to persuade us that when you are establishing in your Finance Bill a subsidy for beet sugar grown in this country you are not doing anything of the kind. You are. We all know you are. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will frankly admit that. If he thinks it is important at this juncture to subsidise beet sugar, let him say so, and then we shall know where we are. He says that he is bound by the Brussels Convention. I was under the impression that the Brussels Convention had been denounced some time ago. I will not be certain on the point, but my recollection is that it was denounced some time ago, and that we are no longer bound by it in any way. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may have expert and official information on the subject, but I think he will find that the Brussels Convention was either denounced or very much modified some time ago. I must once more enter my protest against this and other points of this Finance Bill, and I can only repeat that if you once begin it is very much easier to descend than ascend. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not accept the very sensible Amendment of the hon. Member for Radcliffe, I think at a future date he will certainly regret that he did not adopt that course.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to support the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make it quite plain and acknowledge the obvious fact that in these taxes, without any equivalent Excise, he is introducing Protection, or extending protection to the sugar-growing industry. It would be far better for him to admit it. We can see in this duty, and others to follow, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is selling the Free Trade past, and getting precious little for the sale. [HON. MEMBERS indicated dissent.] Yes, he is doing it, and it is no use trying to deny it. The Free Trade past is being sold by a late Free Trade Member of this House. At the present time I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's fiscal views are, but I should think they are very much in doubt. He probably does not know himself what they are. He tries to justify Tariff Reform measures by Free Trade arguments, and he suggests that this duty does not matter because it is only a question of 3,000 tons. That argument carries no weight whatever with me. Tariffs are always introduced as small measures first. A Continental gentleman once told me

    1675
    that Sweden started with a tax on poultry, and also, I think, with a tax on artificial flowers. Of course, it was only a small thing, but the principle was there. If you have protection for sugar, why not have protection for tobacco grown in Ireland, which has already been demanded, and so gradually extend it. This protection for sugar is particularly dangerous, because we know that so far as the Continent is concerned, and also so far as America and Australia are concerned, this protection of sugar has been the chief source of corruption in some of these countries. If I wanted to start a system of Protection, sugar would be the last thing that I would choose, because it is one of the essentials of the life of the people. You introduce this principle of Protection, and later on vested interests will be created, and the landlords will get higher rent for land for the production of sugar beet, and we shall have a demand for the maintenance of the Sugar Tax in order to maintain the protection of this particular industry. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not try to conceal the obvious fact, which is so clear to us who are Free Traders, that this is a surrender of Free Trade policy, and a surrender at a time of party truce, without any possibility of preventing it taking effect.
    Mr. PETO: If I thought that this was a subject, as some hon. Members try to make out, of a Debate between Free Trade and Tariff Reform or tariffs, I would not have risen to take any part in it. I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman that he has not allowed economic bigotry to divert him from his purpose and to destroy what is admitted even by the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) to be the laudable efforts, which he rather sneered at, of the people who in this country are trying to do something to improve agriculture and to produce food here which ought to be a part of our regular food production. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that at the one factory in this country only some 3,000 tons of sugar are produced in a year. I wish the Committee to know that that figure which he quoted is absolutely the proof of the struggle which is going on to keep this industry going at all in this country, because it is not an economic unit on which the factory could possibly make a profit. It ought to be turning out, if it had anything like the supply of roots necessary, about
    1676
    double that amount. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) talked about these laudable efforts, but I notice that he did it in a manner which was rather sneering. He is one of those who, so far as his economic principles are concerned, would infinitely have preferred this Finance Bill to have been framed on such lines as to make it quite impossible that industry should be successfully started in this country. I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and of hon. Members opposite who support his views, to the fact that we have had from time to time, and only two or three days ago, in the newspapers, some very interesting comparisons between the rise in the cost of food supplies in this country and Germany during the War. In the very last returns published in the Press sugar is the only article of the dietary of the poor in Germany which, far from rising in price, has positively decreased by 3 per cent, since the beginning of the War. According to the economic principles of hon. Members opposite, who desire so much the success of their own peculiar views on this subject, they would deliberately permit a policy which would make it impossible for us, either in war or in peace time, to provide this article of food, which Germany so successfully provides that she has been able positively to reduce the cost during the fourteen or fifteen months that this terrible War has been waged. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a sane and common-sense view, quite apart from any economic theories on this subject, which, though it is small, has certainly got great potentialities and is vital to the interests of the country.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The speech to which we have just listened justifies all that we Free Traders have said. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that he is in favour of this differentiation because it will increase the growth of food in this country, and he looks upon that as a good argument. If this tax is put on in this way in order to increase the growth of sugar, and therefore of food, in this country, there would be far more reason for doing such a thing in regard to wheat. The hon. Gentleman has adopted the argument that the price of sugar has not increased in Germany since the War began. Everybody knows why. It is the British Fleet, which has prevented Germany from importing the beet sugar which she used to send to this country before the War.
    Mr. PETO: She could not export it if she did not grow it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: She grew it not because she wanted to keep it within her own shores, but because she wanted to sell it to other countries. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is the result of the very effective blockade of Germany by our invincible Fleet, and he uses that as an argument in favour of Tariff Reform. The hon. Gentleman used one of the stock arguments of the Tariff Reformer, but I was somewhat aghast to find two of the ordinary arguments of Tariff Reformers used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How did he defend this? First of all he said that this tax is really such a small thing that it is not worth troubling about. That is exactly the argument used in every Protectionist country in favour of the beginning of the Protectionist system. During the American Civil War, when the protective system of the United States was started, the duties were commended to the people of the United States because they were so small. They grew, as all these protective duties do grow. My right hon. Friend went on to what I myself thought was, on the other hand, a warning of the perils of this procedure, because he said that the reason for keeping up this differentiation between Excise and Customs was because there had grown up in this country already, in spite of the smallness in differentiation, a certain industry. That is exactly the course that is taken by the makers of every protective tariff in every Protectionist country. Therefore we are, for the first time in this country, face to face with the danger of tariffs. I confess that, until I heard my right hon. Friend's speech, I did not think that the peril was so near. I hope that my right hon. Friend will go to a Division, because I think that this is far more perilous than Clause 12, and if he does so, I, for one, shall be very glad to go into the Lobby with him.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend who spoke last that he is not quite accurate in his view on this matter. When we were discussing Clause 12, we were told that this is how America began during the War. Now, when we come to this so-called fiscal heresy, we are told that this is a small matter, and that tariff heresies always begin with small matters. The facts are that there has always been a Customs Duty on sugar for many years past, and
    1678
    there has been no Excise Duty on it practically. There has been a small industry, a little struggling experiment to demonstrate the possibility of making sugar in this country, and the Legislature has never thought up to now, with the existing Customs Duty on sugar, that it was worth while bothering at present about Excise Duty. Under the existing protection which the sugar-beet industry in this country has had during the time in which I have been at the Treasury, there have been constant appeals to allow grants from the Development Grant to companies who wanted to make sugar from homegrown beet, and we have been unable to do so, and suggestions have been made that we should ask Parliament for powers to give Grants to companies trading for a profit. At the present moment, whatever may be its position later on, the cultivation of sugar beet for the manufacture of sugar in this country is not worth considering; but if it was not considered before the War worth while to impose an Excise duty nobody would suggest that we should take the opportunity of this War Budget to consider the excising of it for the first time. Then, why this Clause? It is merely because of the Brussels Sugar Convention. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that he thought that we had left that Sugar Convention. We have; but when we left we undertook to continue to adhere to the condition not to give a bounty to homegrown sugar. The bounty was considered to be a duty, I think, of 2s. 5¼d. per cwt. Therefore, we have carefully put on an Excise Duty to conform with that undertaking. If we had not done it, any country abroad, a party to the Convention, would have a right to contend that our sugar-containing goods, made in this country, might have been made from bounty fed sugar, and to have penalised our exports. It was in order to avoid that, and not with a view to dealing with the small sugar-beet experiment, that this Clause was placed in the Bill. I do suggest, that there is very little new fiscal heresy in this. On the other hand, there is a considerable amount of fiscal orthodoxy.
    Mr. HUNT: As the right hon. Member for Swansea has come back, I should like to point out, with reference to what he called his mournful protest against the 2s. 6d. on sugar, that he seems to have forgotten, according to his own account, that he has got, not only 2s. 6d., but practically a monopoly of his own markets, in

    1679
    his own production; and when he was tackled with it he had to admit that he put the interest of his shareholders before his Free Trade policy. All I have got to say is that I think that proper Free Traders ought to practise what they preach.
    Mr. LOUGH: I did not intend to take part in the Debate on the question of this tariff, but I have been shocked by what the Secretary to the Treasury has said, and I am sure that the Committee will be shocked by it. I cannot refrain from asking whether the Brussels Sugar Convention is still alive—that monstrous enactment, that arrangement made with our enemies, Austria and Germany, which has cost this country millions of money. The right hon. Gentleman has suddenly come down, by way of salving our consciences and hastening the Debate, to tell us that the Convention is alive and going strong, and that it is in order to fulfil our duties to Germany, France, and Austria under this Convention that we are putting on this duty. I would ask the Committee, Did they ever hear a more malapropos confession made by a Minister? If my right hon. Friend had kept these Ministerial secrets to himself we might have thought that the promise which we got from the Government, that the Convention was ended, had really been carried out; but my right hon. Friend has confessed that it is not at an end at all, and here we are to-day putting on other duties in order to fulfil our obligations under it to Germany and Austria. The argument was that we were bound to do it. How can we be bound to do it? A fortnight ago, three months ago, we were only levying 1s. 10d. as an Excise Duty. We were not bound then to 2s. 4d. or 2s. 5d. The iniquity was sufficiently maintained by 1s. 10d. Why should it be increased to 2s. 4d.? My right hon. Friend does not agree with that at all. In fact he has made every slip which it is possible for a Minister to make. Before we entered into the sugar taxes we were a Free Trade country. There is a special Clause in the Brussels Sugar Convention enabling us to give up the Convention without putting on any Excise Duty of any kind whatever. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is really no substance in this preference so far as its effects are concerned, and if it had any substance it would arouse the alarm of all my Free Trade Friends, who thought that this thing was finally ended. But when men get wrong on this question of
    1680
    Free Trade it is very hard for them to get out of the mire into which they have put themselves, and so we have the argument, that this wretched Convention should still go on for the benefit of Austria and Germany, put forward by a Minister as a reason why we should take another dose of Protection.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: We have had various views expressed by Free Traders in the family quarrel which has developed in the course of this discussion, including the mournful protests made by the hon. Baronet and others against the departure from the straight path. What is the straight path of Free Trade? And where is Free Trade to be found? So far as we are concerned, what a farce it is in these days, in a discussion of this kind, to be told how mournful it is to see a great party departing from the faith which they have always practised in this respect, when as a fact every one of us knows that we have not got Free Trade in this country, or anything approaching it, and that we have never had it either! An hon. Gentleman contradicts me. If I am wrong, will he be kind enough to tell me with what single country in the world have we got Free Trade to-day? Why does he not tell me? Because he knows, just as well as I know, that what I am saying is perfectly true. We have not got Free Trade. We are not departing from Free Trade, and all these mournful protests that have been made are perfectly ridiculous, because everyone on that side of the House who professes Free Trade knows that I speak nothing but the truth when I say that in this country we have not got Free Trade, and that we have never had it, or anything approaching it since that absurd policy was first adopted at the behest of Mr. Cobden. We are engaged in the greatest War in which this country has ever had to struggle for its life, yet, in many of our Debates during this Session, we have found whenever hon. Gentlemen opposite—I say it in perfect good humour, I hope—begin to quarrel among themselves, as to some of their own particular fads, they almost seem to forget altogether for the moment the enormous struggle in which we are engaged, and become so deeply engaged in controversy with each other that they think, not of the War, which is the great object, and ought to be the one and only object in view at the present moment.
    6.0 P.M.
    I can remember more wars than most hon. Members, but we all know that in

    1681
    the case of war taxes have always to be proposed, and must be proposed, for the sake of getting in the unusual revenue that is absolutely necessary for the War. What is this tax of which you are complaining except a war tax, and who are complaining? It is only the Free Traders themselves that are complaining. It was stated in this House not very long ago—I remember it perfectly well—that the Advisory Committee of the Board of Agriculture recommended to the President of that Department that the Government should spend £200,000 or £300,000, I think it was, in creating sugar manufactories in certain districts of this country which were at that moment growing any amount of beet sugar. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the question of sugar-beet growing had not been considered in this country, but, to my knowledge, years ago companies were formed for the express purpose of growing sugar beet and nothing else. It had been found, after numerous experiments that, in spite of the want of sun in this country, we here in England could grow sugar beet as well as, or better than, any other country of the whole Continent of Europe. All that was wanted was a little encouragement of one of the greatest and oldest industries in the Kingdom, as it is still, remember, for it employs more capital and more labour than any other single industry in the country at the present time. And why should you not encourage it? What could you have done on this occasion if you had given that industry the smallest encouragement?
    We heard a good deal about eighteen million pounds' worth of sugar that was bought by His Majesty's Government. Would it not have been a great deal better to grow it in our own country? I believe that for the outlay which was requested for the creation of those manufactories the whole eighteen million pounds' worth of sugar, or a very large part of it, could have been grown here—grown in your own land. More food could be produced here, which is what you and your Board of Agriculture are always clamouring for day after day in the Press of the country; yet you never will, any one of you, do any real thing which is needed to encourage the growth of food here, and which could be grown in this country as largely and extensively as it was grown many years ago, when the land supplied three-fourths of the whole population—[An HON. MEMBER: "The population was smaller."]—at prices
    1682
    which were remunerative. And that is all that is wanted. Instead of that, the Free Trade Government said, "Oh, no; we cannot have any indirect encouragement of sugar or anything else; it is contrary to all our principles; it is a departure from the straight path; that is a thing we never could agree to." And yet, what happens? The position arises when you want the sugar. You go and buy eighteen million pounds' worth, and then because you very soon find that you have made a bad bargain, and that the price of sugar is beginning to fall, what is the attitude of this Free Trade party and this Free Trade Government? They go and prohibit the importation of sugar altogether in order to save their own skins and prevent that fall in the price of sugar that they themselves feared. I had no intention whatever of taking part in this Debate, but I have been led to speak by what I believed to be a very fair opening. I shall not say another word on the subject, and perhaps the best and wisest thing will be for the Committee to go to a Division as soon as possible.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think Members on all sides of the House will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the fair use he has made of the opening which was afforded, and I think they will agree also that the right hon. Gentleman is really in his wrong place on this occasion, and that instead of being the official and ostensible Leader of the Opposition, he should be Chancellor of the Exchequer piloting this Protectionist Budget through the House of Commons. Certainly his speech shows the true line of support for this Budget. There was in it none of that hedging to which we have been accustomed on the part both of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He did not do lip service to what are called Free Trade principles, which, I agree with him, are now entirely absent from the practice of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted that he supported these duties because they are Protective duties, and that he only approved of them in so far as they protected British agriculture in a new experiment. I think both Protectionists and Free Traders in this House, and all Free Traders who are not members of His Majesty's Government, will agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In these circumstances, I think we will be justified in accepting the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to take the oppor-

    1683
    tunity thus given to all those who remain faithful to Free Trade principles of at least making a formal protest against their abandonment on this occasion.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 11.]

    AYES.

    [6.8 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Gordon, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Graham, Edward John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Greig, Colonel James Wilson

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Hackett, John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Reddy, Michael

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Boland, John Pius

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Robinson, Sidney

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rowlands, James

    Brace, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Horne, Edgar

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Butcher, John George

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Shortt, Edward

    Cator, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cave, Rt. Hon. George

    Joyce, Michael

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keating, Matthew

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cosgrave, James

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Tickler, T. G.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lundon, Thomas

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Currie, George W.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Wardle, George J.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Molloy, Michael

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Whittaker. Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Doris, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wilson. A. Stanley (Yorks, Ripon)

    Dougherty, Right Hon. Sir J. B.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Nolan, Joseph

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Field, William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    O'Dowd, John

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Gulland.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Anderson, W. C.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Snowden, Philip

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    King, Joseph

    Thomas, J. H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Clough, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Llewelyn Williams and Mr. T. C. Taylor.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pratt, J. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    The effect of that would be to leave the Sugar Tax what it is now, 1s. 10d. per cwt., instead of sanctioning its increase to 9s. 4d. The Chancellor in his Budget speech indicated that the effect of the increase to this enormous extent would be to add about £11,700,000 to the revenue from this source. That involves a tax of something like £9,500,000 from working-class families alone. The general assumption is that four-fifths of indirect taxation is borne by the working classes, and hence my estimate of £9,500,000. That sum amounts to about £1 per family per year, or about fivepence per family per week, which is a very considerable increase indeed, and which, compared with other taxes, is far too heavy. Coffee and other articles have been increased by 50 per cent., but sugar is to be increased about 400 per cent. Such an increase as that, borne in the main by the poorest section of the community, is far too excessive. The Chancellor may say, and I think the argument is reasonable, that every section of the community must contribute its fair quota to the War. I do not think anyone will demur to that, as we are, with few exceptions, united in our view that the War must be prosecuted to a successful issue, but I would point out that by putting his new tax on wages he does get directly at the working classes who can afford to pay any considerable part of their earnings to the National Exchequer. May I say a word of commendation as to the way the tax is applied, as it seems to point to a more general application of the particular method adopted in the case of the Sugar Tax. By that method practically every penny of the new taxation will come into the coffers of the Treasury. Under present conditions practically the whole of the tax of 1s. 10d. comes into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for national purposes, but when we find that the 1s. 10d. becomes this enormous sum of 9s. 4d. we have reason, in my view, to register our protest against it going through to-night.
    I would point out that by making an increase of this nature the Chancellor is practically responsible for claims which are put forward from time to time for war bonuses. By restraining his ardour in the direction of sugar taxation he could have led the movement towards lower prices, but by fixing a tax of this nature he heads the movement in the opposite direction,
    1686
    and he gives a basis of argument to those who express a desire, and a reasonable desire, for a war bonus. Though we may not go to a Division to-night on this particular Clause, it is not because we do not feel acutely on the matter, but we have taken the opportunity of registering our protest on tea as showing our feeling on these food taxes generally. Therefore I hope it will not be assumed, because we do not trouble the House to go to a Division, that our feeling on this question of sugar taxation is not as acute as it is on tea. In fact, if I may gauge the feeling by those who have spoken to me, I may say that the feeling engendered by the successive taxation on sugar is much more acute than that which the tax on tea has engendered. It is felt much more directly than the tax on tea, and it is also felt that the possibility of removal is remote, so that when the purchasing power of wages is down we shall have these direct and heavy charges on articles of food being retained possibly at a time when working-class circumstances are much more adverse than they are to-day.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to enter my protest also against these further taxes on food. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be good enough to explain on what principle this tax is levied for war purposes. Why should a man who has a large family pay more towards the War than the man with a small family? I can see no principle whatever in this method of taxation. I think the Chancellor should have taken his courage more fully into both hands, and he would have been able to find some other means of taxation in which there would have been some principle. Those with the greatest possessions and material wealth should pay in accordance with those possessions, especially with the country in danger. I would be sorry if this tax does not go to a Division, but I now wish to register my protest against it, because I think the Chancellor should have found a more just method of raising taxation.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the duty on sugar which is used in manufacture of some beers, and to point out that in the last year the duty on beer has been largely increased, so that it seems rather hard to put an additional tax upon it in this way. There are certain classes of beer in the production of which sugar is used, and although it does not affect my own case

    1687
    I wish to mention it. I know that the Chancellor will adhere to his former answer, that having taxed such sugar in the past he intends to continue to do so. The principle of exemption is, however, admitted in the Schedule of the Bill in the case of molasses used in the production of spirits. The duty on that is remitted owing, of course, to the fact that the spirit itself is very heavily taxed. The duty on sugar used in the production of beer is not remitted. There is one point I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman's attention, and that is that no provision whatever has been made to deal with drawback duties on beer made with sugar which is taxed to this extent. That I think seems to be an omission. It is difficult to draw up an Amendment to put the matter right, but probably the Inland Revenue officials will be able to devise a means of dealing with it. I think that principle of drawback aught to be followed in this instance, and I throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman so that we may be able to deal with it on the Report stage.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I wish to endorse what my colleague the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) said in regard to this tax. I notice that the Chancellor, with a certain amount of complacency, referred to the fact that the consumption of sugar had not declined during the present year, but surely he does not forget that that is due to the very large purchases of sweets of all kinds and sent to the soldiers at the front. He pointed out that everybody must contribute towards the revenue to pay for the War. It seems to me that the revenue raised by indirect taxation on sugar and on tea differs from the tax on incomes in this way, that in the case of Income Tax the greater the income the more the individual pays, while in the case of indirect taxation the less the income of the individual the more he pays. For instance, if you have a man with a wife and one child at £2 wages per week a certain amount is paid indirectly, but if you take another man with a wife and five children then obviously that man has got to pay much more indirect taxation than the man with the wife and one child. In the case of Income Tax, a man with anything from one to five or more children under sixteen years of age, has an exemption of £25 in respect of each, whereas the fact that a man has children means that he is taxed more heavily as
    1688
    far as indirect taxation is concerned. The tax on sugar is a tax on food, because, taking into consideration the price of living now, the poorer people will be driven to use molasses and jam in the place of butter and other articles of food. Therefore, I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made out a good case for the tax on sugar. I hope that even now he will reconsider the situation, and agree to the deletion of this Clause. I do not know that I quite agree with my hon. Friend with regard to not taking a Division on the Clause. I am inclined to think that more Members would vote in favour of deleting this Clause than voted in favour of deleting the tax on tea. I would like to hear the opinion on that point of more Members than have yet spoken.
    Mr. McKENNA: The arguments that have been addressed against this tax in the main existed against the duty of 1s. 10d. For instance, the hon. Member opposite (Sir G. Younger) takes the point with regard to brewing sugar. It was true of the 1s. 10d. as it is true of the 9s. 4d. The argument against indirect taxation, that a man with five children pays more than the man with one child, is true also of the tax at 1s. 10d. I admit at once the truth and force of that argument; but are we as a Committee at this moment likely to come to the conclusion to which that argument points—that we should give up all the revenue which we now obtain from indirect taxes? Is it conceivable that during the War, when we need revenue more than at any other time, we are going to accept the logical conclusion of that perfectly sound argument against indirect taxes? We have already been told that indirect taxes bring us in about £80,000,000. I am not sure whether that is the exact figure, but it is certainly somewhere near it. I cannot conceive the Committee considering for a moment that we should now abandon our revenue from indirect taxes. [An HON. MEMBER: "On necessaries of life."] The argument does not limit itself to necessaries of life. It is just as true, whether the money is payable on one taxable article or another, so long as it is an article which is ordinarily consumed.
    The only argument to which I think the Committee will expect me at this moment to address myself is that raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone)—that the amount has been very largely increased, from 1s. 10d. to 9s. 4d. per cwt. As I have already explained, the whole of

    1689
    that increase is not reflected in the price. The price charged to the consumer has been raised, not by the difference between 1s. 10d. and 9s. 4d., but by 4s. 8d. If the full amount had been charged to the consumer, the price would have been raised by 7s. 6d. We must consider the argument on the basis of an increase of 4s. 8d., not 7s. 6d. Let the Committee enter for a moment into the difficulties of anyone occupying my position at the present time. It is admited on all hands that we are forced to raise a very large amount in taxation during the War, not merely for the purpose of revenue, but because, as any economist will tell hon. Members in much better informed language than I can use, it is essential to limit consumption to what is necessary. What is the case with regard to sugar, both from the point of view of revenue and from the point of view of limiting consumption to what is necessary? If you go back to so recent a year as 1911, when there was a shortage of raw beet, the price of sugar rose not to as high a price as that at which it stands to-day, but to a very much higher level than the ordinary rate before or after 1911. I think that sugar rose from 2d. or 2¼d. to 3¼d., and the effect of the increase was largely to diminish consumption. This year what has happened? We have had an increase of price not to 3¼d., but to 3½d., slightly more than was the case in 1911; but the consumption has hardly been reduced at all.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does that include purchases for the troops?
    Mr. McKENNA: Does my hon. Friend really consider that the amount used in sweets for the troops is a material factor in a consumption of between 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 tons of sugar in the year?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the total consumption of sugar, and I alluded to the effect caused by the great demand per head for those who are now serving with the Colours.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I thought he was laying stress on the point referred to by another hon. Member, who spoke of the sweets sent to the troops at the front. I dare say sweets have been sent, but the amount is absolutely insignificant compared with the total consumption. We are dealing not with packets of sweets, but with hundreds of thousands of tons of sugar. The troops,
    1690
    taking the average, perhaps use more than they would at home, but the number of men in the Army would not account for the exceptionally large consumption which has taken place in the last year, having regard to the price of sugar. The only point I wish to bring home to the Committee is that, notwithstanding the increase in the price of sugar, there has been little, if any, reduction in the consumption. Sugar is an article which, with the exception of the amount already mentioned, is entirely imported, and consequently it is an article which very materially affects our exchange. If we can reduce the consumption—and I am only looking for a reduction within the limits of health and necessity—we shall beneficially affect our exchanges, and we shall be spending less upon a commodity which to-day is consumed in excess of requirement. I venture to say that at this moment there is no country in the world—I believe that even as regards the United States my statement is accurate—where they consume so much sugar per head as we do in this country. In these circumstances I submit that, from that point of view, sugar was a legitimate article to select for the purpose of raising revenue.
    I have to get as much revenue as I reasonably can obtain. How much have I sought to obtain by indirect taxation? Just about one-fourth of the additional taxation imposed this year. Is that an excessive amount? Hitherto the proportion has been higher—very much higher. I am taking a less proportion than would ordinarily be accepted as a reasonable division between direct and indirect taxation. We are raising through the Income Tax and the Excess Profits Tax upwards of £70,000,000. I have not looked up the figures, but I think it is about £76,000,000 or £77,000,000. The whole amount from indirect taxation, including the tax which so much distresses my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lough), comes to about £25,000,000 or £26,000,000. So that the proportion we are raising by direct taxes—the taxes which specially affect the rich—is enormously greater than the amount which we are raising from the poorer classes.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Not proportionately.
    Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Taking the income of the well-to-do as compared with the income of the working classes, my view

    1691
    is that the proportion borne by the working classes exceeds the proportion borne by the well-to-do.
    Mr. McKENNA: Does my hon. Friend consider that the income of the well-to-do is three times as great as the income of the poorer classes?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: On the average. The individuals who pay this amount of Income Tax are in the main much better off when they have paid their tax than the men who have to pay the indirect taxes.
    Mr. McKENNA: Does my hon. Friend wish to push his argument to its logical conclusion? Take a man with £100,000 a year. If you taxed him to the extent of £99,000 he would still have £1,000 and would be much better off than the man with £2 a week. I agree. But does my hon. Friend wish to push that argument to its conclusion? Would he take that £99,000?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I would not; but I would place a higher burden on the man with £100,000 and relieve the very poor.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree. We all agree. What burden have we imposed upon such a man? On an income of £100,000 we have imposed an Income Tax of 6s. 10d. in the £—one-third of the man's income.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Leaving him £66,000.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. But that is not the whole story. He has charges on his income, and in order to pay that £34,000 he has to make sacrifices in his customary living quite as great to him as the sacrifices which the man with an income of £1,000, or the man with £200, has to make in readjusting his style of living. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] My hon. Friend says "No!" I have had the advantage of having representations made to me from all classes whom the taxes affect, and I have endeavoured, as far as I could, to treat all alike in the matter of the real burden that the man has to bear—not the burden measured in the money that is left to him, but the real personal burden of sacrifice which he has to make in order to contribute his quota to the necessities of the State. If the argument that everybody should be taxed down to the same level is to be pushed to its conclusion, we have all got to come down to an expendi-
    1692
    ture of, say, £2 a week, and contribute everything we have in excess of that to the State. Is it the argument that everybody must be taxed down to a couple of pounds a week, everything in excess of that being given up to the State: the man with £3 a week giving up £1, and the man with £4 giving up £2? Must we always direct our attention to the man with £100,000 and leave out of account entirely the man with £500? Nobody has ever proposed that. I have never heard any suggestion of that—not the slightest! All that I am now asking is that with due regard to traditional methods of taxation and the existing habits of the people, and to what everybody would consider as fair and reasonable dealing with different classes, that we should levy certain amounts of our taxation indirectly.
    What I ask is that certain amounts should be levied indirectly. The amount I am asking for is just about one quarter of the whole. In selecting the subject of taxation for the raising of this quarter, I quite agree I put a very large amount upon sugar, but if we admit that the total is a fair total, I would appeal to the Committee to accept the sugar, in the present circumstances, as the best article to choose. Take all the existing indirect taxes, article by article, and I think you will find that in the existing circumstances sugar affords every advantage. It is being very largely consumed, in excess of requirements, and it does bring in a very large revenue. It is a heavy import which has a material effect on our exchanges to our disadvantage. Taking, therefore, these three considerations together, it is not unreasonable to impose a large additional duty. We raise £11,000,000 in this way. I do not know if we are agreed that we have to raise this amount, what articles my right hon. Friend would prefer me to select? It has been frequently mentioned that we might take beer or spirits, but for reasons which I think are absolutely conclusive, it has been shown, firstly, that you could not raise your revenue from these articles, and secondly, that the trades affected have already been so much harassed or interfered with by taxes that it would be most unwise to tax them any further. In these circumstances I appeal to the Committee to support the policy of selecting sugar as the proper article for taxation.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am very sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made a more satisfactory statement. He has

    1693
    told us what would happen if we push our arguments to a logical conclusion. But we never do push our arguments to a logical conclusion in this House. We are concerned here not with what would happen in the event of such a logical conclusion; but we do argue that the taxation is excessive, and will fall very hardly upon the poorer people. Already the price of sugar, without this additional taxation, has gone up by about 80 per cent. since the beginning of the War. I believe that this taxation will mean that in many cases, so far as the very poorest people are concerned, old age pensioners and the like, that sugar will practically be beyond the reach altogether of their households. I do feel that some of these taxes are taxes upon health and physical efficiency. I am quite sure that taxes of this sort never pay. We see that to-day the working people and the poorest are bearing a very heavy burden in food taxation alone, not as the result of special taxation, but as the result, very often, of the operations of food monopolists. This means that there is in effect a special war tax of, at any rate, 5s. in the £. I believe it would have been better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reclaimed the whole of the special war profits before he had begun to impose additional taxation such as this upon sugar. He tells us that he is putting special taxation upon the rich, but I can only say this, that time and again the taxes that are placed upon the rich in the first place have a habit of being shifted from the shoulders of the rich on to the shoulders of the poorest people. We see the various claims in relation to the raising of rents, and we are told that the raising of those rents is due to the fact that the landlords have had additional Imperial taxation placed upon them. Taxes are, therefore, shifted down and down till they reach the shoulders of the man who cannot shift them, because there is nobody under him. That man is the workman. Time and again what I have described is what has happened. In all this the working people are paying more than their fair share of the burden of the War.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the arguments he used really emphasises the meanness of this tax? He says that one of the objects for this imposition is that it will limit consumption, and so help us to rectify our exchanges. In what direction will that limitation of consumption take place? The right hon. Gentle-
    1694
    man mentioned the rich and the mansion of the rich. I know that such limitation will take place in the cottage and amongst the poorest of the poor. It is the poorest that will begin to limit consumption first. Therefore, it amounts to this, that the exchanges of this country are to be rectified by the checking of the consumption of the necessaries of life amongst the poorest members of the community. That is war finance! The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his concluding remarks asked what other articles hon. Members would like to tax. He knows perfectly well that there are many persons in this House who, rather than tax the necessaries of life, and rather than filch out of the pockets of the poor £11,000,000, would prefer that a straight tax was laid upon the land monopolists of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he seems to suppose, when he spoke of taxing a man with an income of £100,000 a year, that he is levying a tax upon an income that that man has gained by his own efforts—that he is levying a personal tax. But the man who has an income of £100,000 a year has been taxing the poor: the mass of the people. He has got that income in rent and in other directions conferred by privilege and monopoly. It is utterly absurd to suppose that the Income Tax is a tax levied upon the individual efforts of the person who pays the tax; consequently the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, based on the fact that the direct tax is one paid not by the poor, but that only indirect taxation is paid by them, is entirely fallacious. I do think it most unjust and unfair that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should propose raising such an enormous increased revenue by a tax upon this particular article of common consumption.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Following up what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said as to the similarity of sacrifice made by the rich and by the working classes, I would point out that what I had in view was that the man who has £100,000 a year and is taxed to the extent of £40,000 will not give up any of the comforts of life, much less any of its necessaries. It means that he can only be asked to reduce the amounts he would otherwise put away, or to refrain from certain luxuries. But the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the case of a man with £200 a year, and suggested the same kind of proportion, the same kind of ratio, between the sacrifices of the rich man and that man with £200 a year. So

    1695
    far as the man with £200 a year is concerned and is affected by war taxes, it means that he is involved in an expenditure which he can hardly meet except either by reducing the sums spent upon food, upon the education of his children, or upon the provision he makes for after life by the payment of insurance premiums. In the one case there is a real sacrifice; in the other the man is giving up none of the comforts of life, much less the necessaries of life. The right hon. Gentleman, too, seems to have forgotten another fact, that is the distribution of wealth on death in this country. Last year the amount left on which Estate Duty was payable was, roughly, £293,000,000; but £200,000,000 of that £293,000,000 was in the possession of a small class of 4,000 persons. And the curious part is this, that that small class included every man in this country who left more than £10,000. In other words, all the accumulated wealth of the working classes and the professional classes came to an exceedingly small sum; and it is because these taxes fall so heavily upon these classes that we object to a further increase in the food taxes.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Excise Duties on Sugar, etc.)
    (1) There shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin made in Great Britain or Ireland the Excise Duties specified in the second column of the table set out in Part I. of the First Schedule of this Act, and on a licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of sugar an Excise Duty of one pound.
    (2) There shall be paid and allowed in respect of the Excise Duties under this Section the drawbacks and allowance set out in Part II. of the First Schedule to this Act; and the provisions contained in Part III. of that Schedule shall have effect in respect of the duties under this Section.
    (3) The Excise Duties charged by this Section on glucose and saccharin shall be deemed to be in lieu of the Excise Duties chargeable before the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, on those articles, but this Section shall not affect the continuance after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and
    1696
    sixteen, of the duties and drawbacks existing before the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, in respect of glucose and saccharin.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Taylor) (in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Second column") will, I think, involve an increased charge, and therefore is not in order.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Additional Duties on Dried fruit.)
    (1) In addition to the duties of Customs payable on dried or preserved fruits imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following additional duties, that is to say:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Figs and fig cakes, plums (commonly called French plums and prunelloes), prunes, all other dried or preserved plums, and raisins, the cwt.

    0

    3

    6

    (2) Nothing in this Section shall render any article liable to duty which was not liable to duty before the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment handed in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) to leave out Sub-Section (2) will also, I am afraid, if it has any effect at all, have the effect of unduly increasing the charge, and is therefore out of order.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: There are certain features of this tax to which I desire to call the special attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House. Unlike those taxes which we have been discussing, this increase of tax on dried fruit raises no question of Protection or Free Trade. It is simply a question of taxing a species of food, one which comes from abroad and which is not grown similarly in this country. In the first place, there is the fundamental objection to the tax that it is taxing a class of wholesome

    1697
    food, namely, dried fruit, and it is especially undesirable that we should tax these now, because dried fruits are specially necessary during winter time, indeed they are about the only kind of fruit which poor people can afford to have during the winter season. It is, however, not only a question of the poor amongst ourselves, we also have to think of the men who are serving the country abroad, both those who are fighting and otherwise engaged in the Armies, and even the more unfortunate who are prisoners of war. If anyone who has to do with sending out food comforts to the troops will go to those places which prepare lists of the most suitable things he will see that currants and raisins and various other things, such as plum puddings made from currants and raisins, are amongst the things most desired to be sent out to our gallant men at the front and to the prisoners of war in Germany. It seems very undesirable that this should be the thing selected for increasing a very undesirable tax upon. I would point out also that it is most undesirable, for the trade will be unduly disturbed by putting on this additional tax at this time.
    7.0 P.M.
    On the merits of the tax, I should like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is really of an antiquated character. We have only to look at the Clause of the Bill to see that. We put it on the word prunelloe. What is a prunelloe? I understand, by looking it up, that it is used to be the Italian for a little prune, but the word is entirely obsolete in Italy now, and it is entirely obsolete in our language as well. Indeed, it is interesting to see how this tax arose. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I do say that in looking through the latest figures which are available, namely, for 1914, that more than one-half of the taxes raised from these dried fruits were raised by taxes on raisins. Two hundred and sixty thousand pounds out of £513,000 were raised by taxes on raisins. As my hon. Friend who occupies the Front Bench knows, the raisin appears under two names. As a fruit it appears as a raisin, under the name of "raisin," and as a cooked article it appears under the name of "plum," and thus gives the name to our plum pudding. I want to point out how this tax arose. I had the curiosity to look up Mr. Dowell's interesting "History of Taxation and Taxes." I would like to read a single
    1698
    short passage, because it gives the key to the basis of this tax:—
    "During the Commonwealth, when plum puddings were regarded with aversion by the Puritans, who were also inimical to Spain, the importation of raisins from Spain was heavily taxed."
    I simply put that as the principal object of the raising of the taxes with which we are dealing. From time to time they underwent alteration, I quite agree that as the Puritans put on the taxes to discourage plum puddings, after the Restoration they should have been removed, but it happened that Charles II. wanted money and still kept them on. They were varied from time to time, until at last they came under Mr. Gladstone's great proposals of financial reform. In 1853 he reduced the tax from 15s. 9d. a cwt. to 10s. a cwt. In 1860 it was reduced from 10s. to 7s., the amount at which it now stands. It was embodied in the Customs Tariff Act of 1876 at that figure. This is the first occasion on which it has been proposed to increase this tax, and, therefore, I think the House should give this tax the very closest attention. This 7s. duty was made by Mr. Gladstone a uniform duty on all these dried fruits, and so things remained until 1890, when, by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of that year, the duty on currants, which were singled out alone for this reduction, was reduced from 7s. a cwt. to 2s. a cwt., leaving the other fruits at 7s. I frankly admit that one cannot but regard it as a great pity that Mr. Gladstone, in abolishing so many of the other petty taxes—for instance, the tax which then existed on oranges and lemons—did not abolish this heavy tax on dried fruit as well. He did as much as he could, however, and it seems a very great pity that this House now should move steadily in the contrary and reactionary direction.
    This tax is really an illogical tax, and is conceived on no reasonable principle. On what possible ground can any economist or country justify taxing figs and raisins and not dates? The reason dates are not included is purely historical. The tax rests on no principle at all. It is an antiquated tax imposed when the trade was not the large trade it is now. Even as regards the taxed fruits, what reason or what logic is there in putting a tax upon fruit when it is dried and letting the fruit come in free if it is tinned or canned or bottled? There is absolutely no reason whatever. Indeed, to show how mystified people may be over these things, I will read a description as

    1699
    to how the tax works from the latest Customs Report:—
    "Plums include greengages, damsons, mirabelles and dried, crystallised or glacé apricots. Tinned and bottled apricots in syrup or water, and apricot pulp, are not liable to duty as preserved plums, but when added sugar is present, as in the case of syrup, they are chargeable under the heading of sugar."
    This seems to me a petty tax, a complicated tax, and a very undesirable tax, not only in the interests of the Home country, but also because of its international aspect. These taxes in their international aspect are petty causes of friction, and we should avoid putting a tax on those goods coming from other countries and neutral countries, particularly at this time, because there never was a time in the history of our country when it was more necessary to lubricate the international relations and to avoid every petty cause of friction. I know what my right hon. Friend will say is the general excuse for all the departures from principle which have taken place—that it is really a small tax and makes no difference whatever. That may be in the minds of some Members, and so I would like to answer by pointing out that this is a time in international relations when even a small cause of friction may make a great ultimate difference. More than that, the facts show that it does make a difference.
    I would ask the House to remember what happened when this first appeared in the Budget Resolution. It was proposed to increase not only the tax on raisins and other dried fruits, but also the tax upon currants, but my right hon. Friend rose to delete the proposed duty on currants. There had been a treaty that the duty on currants would not be raised until after a certain notice had been given. Why did the Greek Government move in that respect? Not merely because of any technicality as regards that Treaty, but because they knew that, if an extra one-third tax were put upon currants, the Greek currant trade would be thrown out of gear for the time being. The attention of the Government, therefore, was called to the Treaty, and the Government abandoned the idea of putting the extra tax on currants. But let me remind my right hon. Friend, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, in 1890 the duty on currants had been reduced to 2s., so that this one-third was only an extra duty of 8d. a cwt. on currants; yet the Greek Government saw what would probably be the effect of that on the Greek currant trade, and they protested, and the tax was withdrawn. On these other articles, the present duty is still 7s., and,
    1700
    that being so, the additional one-third is a very much greater proportion, namely, 2s. 4d. a cwt., which will fall with very considerable weight on those countries from which we get raisins and fruits other than currants. If you take, for instance, the latest financial statement of our trade, issued within the last week, it will be found that in the last financial year we got from Spain 230,000 cwts. of raisins of a value of more than £400,000. Yet without a word of warning to Spain, a friendly neutral country, we suddenly impose an additional tax of 2s. 4d. a cwt.
    I put these matters because I think it is important in discussing these taxes that the Committee should recognise the international as well as the national aspect of affairs. It is not only the case of Spain. Let me call attention to one other country—Portugal. The principal dried fruit we get from Portugal are figs and fig cake. During the last financial year those imports from Portugal amounted to rather more than £24,000. Why should we do anything to risk the continuance of friendly relations with Portugal? It is very important we should have friendly relations with that country. I speak very seriously on the matter. Next to our own Colonial Empire, the greatest Colonial Empire in the world, or one of the greatest, is that of Portugal. We have always valued the friendship of Portugal very highly, and it was last year, I think, that we passed an Act with regard to the proper use of the names of Port and Madeira. Our object was to secure for Portugal the advantages of the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty; in other words, we went out of our way only about a year ago to secure, and we did secure, and we were glad to secure, a Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty with Portugal, while this year we put a tax to the extent that I have mentioned in a way which is likely to cause friction and to no small extent undo the good work that the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty did. Further, let it be remembered that we cannot, of course, get figs now from Smyrna and other parts of Turkey, and on this diminished trade we impose this increased taxation. After all these disadvantages, what does this produce? £120,000 in a full year. Is it worth while risking all these things for that sum, which is petty and ridiculous in comparison with the enormous amount of money we have to raise? I have put these considerations, I hope, in a temperate way and as shortly

    1701
    as I could, because I believe they are important considerations from every point of view, and I would make an appeal to the Government to reconsider this tax and not to press it, in the interests of sound finance, of social well-being, and of international good-will.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I must express my admiration for the great ingenuity of the speech to which we have just listened. It is really extraordinary the amount of research and learning and eloquence devoted to the question whether we should raise a few hundred thousand pounds upon raisins or not. I must say I did not find the arguments so convincing as they were interesting. I could not make out whether the hon. Member was more solicitous for plum pudding or for the Portuguese Empire, but there was one thing in his interesting historical survey which convinced me we ought to support the Government, and that was in the very beginning of his speech. The origins of taxation are extraordinary, and the hon. Member opposite told us that this taxation on dried fruit was to be traced back to the action of the Commonwealth. I am not quite sure that I accept the reasons given why it arose in the Commonwealth. I think a little more research would show that the reasons were more dislike of Spain than plum pudding. Let us brush aside all these difficulties which the hon. Member has been trying to make out about our international relations. Let the House of Commons support the Government and clap on this tax as a token to the memory of Cromwell at a time when we wish we had him back.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I wish to call attention to the unevenness and the unfair incidence of this tax. We are very much indebted to the hon. Member who gave us such an interesting historical survey of this tax, but he forgot to mention that during the Napoleonic Wars the tax on currants amounts to 44s. per cwt. at a time when the price was not 55s. or 60s., but when they were as much as 105s. per cwt. Therefore we are very much better off to-day than our forefathers were, and we are very much indebted to Mr. Gladstone for the great work he did in that respect. At present the tax is 7s. per cwt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now raised that tax by 3s. 6d., or 50 per cent., making it 10s. 6d. per cwt. My attention has been called to the fact that there must be a very serious loss to the
    1702
    merchants or there must be an excessive profit on the part of the retailer. If the tax was increased by 2s. 4d., it would make it 1d. per lb., or 9s. 4d. per cwt. You would then transmit the penny to the merchant, and the merchant would transmit it to the consumer; but by charging 1s. 2d. and making the tax 10s. 6d. per cwt. there is a difference of 1s. 2d. That must be a loss either to the merchant, or if he charges it to the retailer he must put on another 2s. 4d. in order to make it 11s. 8d., because he must charge 1¼d. per lb.; otherwise he will go 1s. 2d. beyond the 1d. If you had an uneven charge, either the merchant is bound to lose or the retailer is bound to gain by charging a larger price to the consumer to make up the difference. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) will bear me out when I say that this will be a very serious loss to the merchants, or it is going to be an excessive gain to the retailer, and the consumer will be charged at least 1s. 2d. extra per cwt. I should like to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that between this and the Report stage he will consider the argument which has been put forward that he has automatically increased the tax by 50 per cent, without taking into account the possibility of its incidence. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the matter I am sure he will conclude that it would be much better to charge either 9s. 4d. or 11s. 8d.
    Mr. LOUGH: I think my hon. Friend opposite has made his points perfectly clear. I did not move my Amendment to this Clause, because I did not want to impede business, and I thought I should be able to say all I desired to say on the Clause. I wish to express the admiration with which I listened to the most interesting speech we have had on this tax from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dundas White.) I think he made out an excellent case for the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsidering this tax. The origin of this tax is simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer got an idea from the Commissioners of Customs that all these taxes could be raised 50 per cent., but he is not able to carry out that suggestion. There is no connection, for instance, between this tax and the tax on tea. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to apply it to currants at all, because he found that there was an international agreement, and therefore he had to strike it out. Now there is only £120,000 left, and therefore

    1703
    the amount he will get out of these taxes is extremely small. I heard the word "mean" applied to another tax, but I think it might with great fairness be attributed to this tax. I think more weight ought to be attached to the arguments than the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to think is necessary that these are not days for disturbing our relations with friendly Powers for a small sum. A question of the importation of currants and raisins may be dealt with hurriedly here, but Spain and Portugal attach a great deal of importance to them, and for a small sum of money like this it is a great pity to risk disturbing those relations, and at the same time interfere with a trade which is running on smooth lines. My right hon. Friend has not been able to run on with his principle of 50 per cent. He did not apply 50 per cent., but 400 per cent., to the Sugar Duty, and therefore there is no principle at the back of this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might take note of the eloquent historical speech made by the hon. Member opposite and give up this taxation altogether. If he does not see his way to do that then I want to ask him what is the meaning of Subsection (2) which provides that:—
    "(2) Nothing in this Section shall render any article liable to duty which was not liable to duty before the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    Why should anything in that Clause render an article liable which was not liable before? There is a good deal of uncertainty. The hon. Member asked why are dates not taxed. There are no reasons. I might ask, where does a raisin end and a currant begin, because a currant is only a small raisin, and it is very hard to draw a satisfactory line between a currant and a raisin. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why we want Sub-section (2) at all. I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of this niggling tax altogether. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a better position with regard to finance, I hope he will get rid of all these taxes on dried fruit, and then he would confer a great benefit.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I think the proposal to increase this duty has been of the utmost importance, because after the great researches so eloquently detailed to the House by the hon. Gentleman behind me, I venture to say the Committee knows
    1704
    more about dried fruits than it ever knew before, and when better times arrive and my right hon. Friend or his successor is in a position to give up money, I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite that there will be a great deal to be said for getting rid of the dried fruit taxes. I do not think the revenue which will be produced by these taxes ought to be despised. These taxes are based on the general principle upon which my right hon. Friend has acted of an increase of 50 per cent. on existing duties. I know there are exceptions, but the same principle has guided the suggestion of this tax as guided the suggestion of the tax on cocoa, coffee and tea. It was suggested that the man who ate chocolate should pay 50 per cent., and therefore the man who ate preserved fruits should be put in a similar position. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we have had no representations from abroad as to the effect of these taxes. We did have representations from the Greek Government with whom we have a treaty. I do not know what a prunello is, but if I should find one I should be pleased to place it in the tea room of the House of Commons. The word is kept in because it appeared in the old Clause, and this is not a good time to be placing new duties on the Customs authorities identifying new animals or fruits, and consequently the same wording has been kept. I do not know whether it can be avoided, and it would not be a good thing to run the risk of allowing a prunello to escape because the Customs authorities were not able to detect the difference between it and a plum. As regards Section 2 the explanation is very simple. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the first part deals with plums dried or preserved. In the Finance Act of 1901 it was provided that tinned and bottled apricots in syrup or water and apricot pulp shall be liable as preserved plums. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious that nothing should be taxed in this Clause which was not taxed before, he put in Sub-section (2) in order to preserve intact the apricot and the plum.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Additional Duties on Tobacco.)
    (1) In addition to the duties of Customs payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen

    1705
    hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid the additional duties specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act.
    (2) In addition to the duties of Excise payable on tobacco grown in Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid the additional duties specified in Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act.
    (3) Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-three of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and any other enactment relating to drawback on tobacco shall have effect as if the rates set out in Part III. of the Second Schedule to this Act were substituted for the rates set out in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in cases where it is shown that the additional duty under this Section has been paid.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. NIELD: I only rise for the purpose of calling attention to the practice of the retail tobacco trade as the result of the putting on of this tax. It seems to me most unfair that the additional tax, which means something just over 1¼d. per oz., should be used to justify the trade in putting on 2d. per oz. in respect of all tobaccos hitherto sold at 5d. per oz. These things create a great deal of bad feeling amongst consumers, and amongst those to whom a few pence are of very great consequence. It is a great pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot so adjust the amount as to enable an even sum of money to be put on to the ounce in order that the tax, and the tax alone, should be levied on the consumer, instead of it being made the opportunity for the merchant taking off some of his own Imperial burden and placing it on the consumer. It looks as if the trade as a whole, especially in packet tobacco, had made up their minds to get 1½d. per oz. on the cheaper tobaccos and 2d. per oz. on the tobaccos sold at 5d. per oz. and more.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Additional Duty on Motor Spirit.)
    (1) In addition to the duty of Customs payable on motor spirit imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as
    1706
    from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid an additional duty at the rate of threepence per gallon.
    (2) In addition to the duty of Excise payable on motor spirit made in Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twenty-second day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid an additional duty at the rate of threepence per gallon.
    (3) The like allowances and repayments shall be allowed and made in respect of the additional duties under this Section as are allowed and made in respect of the duties payable under Section eighty-four of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:—
    "(4) Sub-section (1), Section eighty-five, of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall apply to any person using motor spirit for any of the purposes mentioned in this Sub-section as it applies to any person using motor spirit for any of the purposes mentioned in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule of that Act, that is to say, for the purpose of supplying motive power to a motor car kept by (a) a clergyman of any religious denomination; (b) a duly qualified engineer in the exclusive employment of a local authority; or (c) a duly qualified veterinary surgeon, while the car is being used by the clergyman, engineer, or veterinary surgeon for the purposes of his ministry or profession, as the case maybe, and the last preceding Sub-section of this Section shall have effect accordingly."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member will come better a few lines earlier.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I desire respectfully to accept your suggestion. I foreshadowed this Amendment a few days ago, when I addressed the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. My object is to have extended to certain classes that favourable consideration with regard to motor spirit that has been extended to the medical profession. The Finance Act of 1909–10, which included the Finance Act of 1909, provided that there should be a certain reduction in the tax in the case of motor spirit used for supplying motive power to

    1707
    a motor car used by a duly qualified medical practitioner for the purposes of his profession. I suggested on the Second Beading that veterinary surgeons ought to have the same favourable consideration. This exemption and abatement in the interests of the medical profession no doubt was largely due to the sentimental consideration which we all entertain for those who are engaged in assuaging human suffering. I submit that everything that could be said on behalf of the medical profession can also be said with regard to the veterinary surgeons of the country, for they, too, are engaged in assuaging suffering, not of human beings, but of dumb animals, and no doubt the sympathies of this Committee and of the country go out to all those who are engaged in diminishing the sum total of suffering, whether it be that of the human being or of the dumb beast. We have at the present time this body of men engaged, I will not say exclusively, but in a greater degree now than before, in attending to cattle, and cattle at the present time may be said to be a national asset. Their duties with regard to horses have been considerably diminished by reason of the greater use of motor traction. Horses are not now so generally used, and they will be less used in the future as traction business is more conducted by the motive power coming from spirit. I submit, therefore, that when these professional men are engaged in attending upon cattle they are engaged in attending upon that which is perhaps at the present time one of the greatest national assets.
    Their duties arising from the administration of Acts of Parliament have also become very onerous. They have largely to do with the administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. We depend upon them when there are outbreaks of cattle disease, such as rinder pest, and those terrible diseases which troubled us a few years ago. We have to depend upon them to administer all the other Acts relating to cattle, and I am reminded that the Tuberculosis Orders give them a great deal of trouble. Having regard to the fact that these men have to go long distances in order to administer these Acts, their duties can only be performed by the use of motor cars. Railway trains do not always serve their purpose. They do not serve the purpose of anybody engaged in some of the counties of Great Britain and Ireland, which are very extensive. Take, for example, the great county of Yorkshire, divided into three Ridings, Devon-
    1708
    shire, or Cork, divided into two Ridings. The distances are very extensive, and the duties of these men can only be performed by motor car. I submit that these gentlemen ought to be encouraged under the circumstances to provide themselves with motor cars. An extension of the privilege already enjoyed by the medical profession would be to some extent an encouragement to them to get motor cars, and I submit that it is in the very best interests of the country that they should be encouraged to provide themselves with every convenience for the exercise of their profession, from which we derive very great benefits indeed. I had the sympathy of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) on the Second Reading, when he promised me his support when I moved my Amendment, and I know that I can claim that generous support which he always gives to good causes in this House to-day.
    My Amendment has gone a little further than I foreshadowed in my speech on the Second Reading, because I have included clergymen of all religious denominations. I have not much to say about this class. I do not know any clergymen myself who are the happy possessors of motor cars. I do not know any bishops or any ecclesiastics of any class whatever who are wealthy enough to drive a motor car; but this Amendment has been suggested to me by some persons who probably have more extensive acquaintance with the clergy than I can claim myself. It may be that it is a very small matter, but a legal maxim has been used over and over again this evening, and though otherwise I would not have ventured to use it, I crave it in aid of this branch of my Amendment, and say de minimis non curat lcx. I now come to the other branch of my Amendment, which includes a duly qualified engineer in the exclusive employment of a local authority. I think something more can be said for this class than for the clergy. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] Very well, if the Committee are willing that the clergy should be included, I shall be very happy, but I think there are more arguments that can be used on behalf of engineers in the exclusive employment of local authorities, and I am perfectly certain that there are more that can be used for the veterinary surgeons.
    Engineers in the exclusive employment of local authorities certainly have a strong claim to this abatement. They have long journeys to perform in such very extensive

    1709
    counties and ridings of counties as I have named, and they cannot use the railway at all times. They have to inspect works of every kind in every part of the county, very often where railway trains do not run. They have very often to go across country and they ought to be encouraged to provide themselves with motor cars, in order to perform their duties with more benefit to the community, and with more convenience and comfort to themselves. I need only mention again those very extensive counties to which I have referred, Yorkshire, Somerset, Devonshire, Cork, and other large counties. I remember distinctly once when I was assisting one of the candidates in the county of Huntingdonshire going from one end of the' county to the other, an enormous distance. The engineers in the exclusive employment of local authorities have to go from one end of these counties to the other, and to do that without the aid of a motor car is rather appaling. I submit, therefore, that they have a strong claim, and that it ought to be considered by the Committee. I trust I have said enough to convince the Committee that there is a good case why the veterinary surgeons should not be separated from the medical profession in respect of this abatement. I hope also that the short arguments that I have used for the extension of the privilege to the bishops and clergy of all denominations will appeal to the Committee, and, finally, I trust that the case I have endeavoured to make for the engineers in the sole employment of local governing bodies throughout the country is well established. I have much pleasure in submitting my Amendment, and I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that a good case has been made out.
    Mr. MEEHAN: I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. With regard to the case of engineers, some time ago the county councils in Ireland formulated schemes of steam road rolling, which placed additional work on these men. The councils, in fact, had practically either to double their engineering staff or make grants to the existing officials to cover the cost of keeping a motor car, because it was felt to be necessary for the proper inspection of the roads, and for the development of the country in that respect, that the engineers should have motor cars to enable them to cover their districts. After all, this is practically a national service, and these men ought to receive the concession which has already been given
    1710
    to the doctors. With regard to bishops and clergymen, in my part of Ireland these gentlemen find it very necessary to have some description of a motor vehicle, new or old. They are often called out at all hours of the day and night, and have to perform long journeys, in the same way as doctors, for the purpose of administering spiritual consolation to people who live far away, and they too, therefore, are entitled to this privilege.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept one portion of the Amendment, namely, that which relates to veterinary surgeons. There is a good deal to be said for allowing these gentlemen the facilities already accorded to doctors. They are both engaged in the healing of sickness and the alleviation of suffering—one in the case of mankind and the other in the case of animals. Indeed, the claim of the veterinary surgeons to be included is almost greater than that of the doctors, because they are paid lower fees than are usually charged by doctors. In country districts they have to travel very great distances, and I cannot conceive I why they should not be allowed this privilege. With regard to the other part of the Amendment, I do not think I need say much. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. I see no reason for including engineers any more than other municipal officials. They are the servants of the ratepayers, and I cannot see why any particular class carrying on their ordinary duties should be exempt. I do not know whether many clergymen have motor cars. I do not think there are many in England, whatever may be the case in parts of Ireland, but I do not see why they should be included. I should not raise much objection to its being done, but, on the whole, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept that portion of the Amendment which deals with veterinary surgeons, and I reject the remainder of the proposal.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I wish to support that part of the Amendment which deals with the case of veterinary surgeons. I rather agree with my hon. Friend that no very strong case has been made out for the engineers, and I do not know whether there will be any great object in extending the privilege to the clergy. But there is a strong case for the veterinary surgeons. In normal times there are not very many of these gentlemen in many parts of the country. Now, however, a great many have gone to the Front. They have joined

    1711
    various units of the Forces, and are doing Government work, and the consequence is that, although as a body they never were very numerous, they are now still more scarce, and farmers find it much more difficult than in ordinary times to get the assistance of veterinary surgeons sufficiently quickly perhaps to save the lives of valuable animals. Veterinary surgeons have now a much larger area of country to cover than at ordinary times, and as this difficulty has arisen directly out of the War it is only fair, this being war taxation, that men who are doing such valuable work for the agricultural community should obtain every facility that can possibly be given to enable them to carry on their profession. There is an additional reason which is really complementary to what I have already stated. At the present time it is exceedingly difficult to get horses, and if a veterinary surgeon, who has been in the habit of using a motor car finds that as a consequence of the additional taxation, he cannot afford the expense, he can hardly bring out the old obsolete gig, because horses are very difficult to get, and can only be obtained for such work at ruinous prices. It is only a matter of justice that this concession should be granted to them, for, although they deal with different classes of disease, they, are still a part of the medical profession, and should be treated on the same footing. I do not think anyone would urge this on the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it involved the sacrifice of any considerable amount of revenue. I do not know exactly to how many individuals the concession if made would apply, but I should say it would be a very small number indeed, and therefore we may, with all the more confidence, appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet us in this matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friends that one is placed in a very difficult position when, after listening to forcible arguments extremely well put in support of a particular Amendment, he is obliged to advance a case on the other side. We all like to make concessions. It is a much pleasanter thing to do than to refuse them. But still it is for me to make out a case against this Amendment. What is the position with regard to veterinary surgeons, clergymen, engineers, or any other class of persons for whom this exception is sought? I will take the case of the veterinary surgeon. He has to choose
    1712
    in the course of the exercise of his profession whether he will use a horse and trap for purposes of locomotion, or whether he will adopt the motor car. If he takes the latter course, it is because he finds he can do his business better with it, presumably it is more profitable than a horse and cart. But he does not, therefore, make any reduction in the fees he charges. He makes greater profits.
    Sir F. BANBURY: And what about the doctor?
    Mr. McKENNA: The dialectical acuteness of the hon. Baronet leads me to another point. The doctor already has the concession by virtue of statute. I am asked to extend it to the veterinary surgeon who is saving money by adopting the motor car, and does not make any reduction in his fee.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: He gets more speedily to the assistance of suffering animals.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is another point. I am dealing with the commercial aspect of the question. My argument is evidently a good one, and I hope my hon. Friends will allow me to complete it. In the case of the veterinary surgeon, it is a trade expense. It is a question for him whether he will use one form of locomotion or another, and I submit to the Committee that on that ground no good reason is shown for extending the extension to him. The same is true of the clergyman and of the engineer. They have to make their choice of methods of locomotion. We are not forcing them to use motor cars. It is a matter within their own choice. As I expected, I have been asked how one is to distinguish between the doctor and the veterinary surgeon. The argument upon which the doctor was given the exemption was, not that he ought to get his petrol cheaper, but that it would place him in a position to reach his patient more quickly. It was a social advantage in the relief of sickness and the saving of life that he should be induced to use a motor car rather than a horse and cart. That was the argument, and I think it is an argument which is good for the veterinary surgeon as well. If my hon. Friend will agree to drop any other claims for any other classes to whom that argument will not apply, I should be willing, on Report, to consider the admission of veterinary surgeons to this abatement. But I beg

    1713
    that that inclusion, founded on that argument, shall not be made a ground for suggesting new concessions.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I have listened with very great pleasure to the sympathetic observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I readily and willingly accept his suggestion. I am perfectly prepared to drop the other portions of the Clause, if he will give the concession to veterinary surgeons.
    Mr. McKENNA: On Report.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes.
    Mr. PETO: I want to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this concession to veterinary surgeons. For five years I have, in connection with the Finance Bill, put down Clauses with this object which have not met with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am very glad that at this moment, instead of imposing fresh burdens on these men, and making it more difficult for them to relieve suffering among animals, besides doing their regular work for the community, he has seen his way to make this concession.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Additional Medicine Duties.)
    (1) In addition to the duties of Excise payable under the Medicines Stamp Act, 1802, the Stamp Act, 1804, and the Medicines Stamp Act, 1812, and any Act amending those Acts, there shall be charged, levied, and paid, as from the twentieth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, additional duties of an amount equal in each case to that payable under the said Acts.
    (2) There shall be charged, levied, and paid in respect of any medicine liable to duty under the said Acts, and on which that duty has been paid before the twenty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifteen, on the first sale thereof on or after that date, an Excise Duty of an amount equal to the amount of duty originally paid; and if any person sells any medicine liable to the duty payable under this provision without paying the duty, he shall be liable to an Excise penalty of twenty pounds.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: This is the Clause which imposes the additional duties on medicines. The present duties are raised according to a scale of values, and the Amendment which I had put upon the Paper was one which sought to modify the existing scale of values. I do not propose to move it, because I realise it is a technical subject and one which, if the case is to be made good in the Committee, would mean a great deal of detail. I do not think at this time I should be justified in taking up the time of the Committee with such a matter, especially because if I made a case in the Committee I should have to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at present is not convinced, but I think that may be because he has not had, as I have, an opportunity of hearing what those who propose these modifications have to say in support of them. I believe he is willing, without making any promise at all that he is prepared to accept these proposals or any modifications of them, to see those who make the proposals and hear what they have to say in support of them between now and the Report stage. I feel that is by far the most convenient way, and I am quite sure the course that I have taken will not at all prejudice the consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the arguments which are to be put forward by them in support of these proposals. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to be convinced, I am quite certain that those who put them forward will not wish to carry them any further. They believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives that which I understand he is prepared to give, namely, consideration between now and the Report stage, they will convert him to this proposal or some modification of it.
    Mr. LOUGH: I believe I handed in an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2), but, perhaps owing to the difficulty under which we are working, it has not got on the Paper. It has probably been overlooked. I did not put it down in any hostile spirit, but because I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to Sub-section (2). It is the first illustration of one fault I find with the drafting of this Bill. It bristles with penalties—new and unnecessary penalties. There is a very curious one in Subsection (2). The Sub-section is not wanted at all.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: On a point of Order. I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand what Question is before the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is with regard to Clause 11, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The right hon. Gentleman is quite in order in speaking of Sub-section (2) on that Question.
    Mr. McNEILL: I beg pardon. I did not understand.
    Mr. LOUGH: It looks at if the Clause were complete with Sub-section (1) only. There is a question of principle raised in Sub-section (2) to which the Committee might give passing attention. The Subsection says:—
    "There shall be charged, levied, and paid"
    the increased duty, and that if the duty has been paid before the 21st day of October,
    "on the first sale thereof on or after that date, an Excise Duty"
    shall be levied equal to the original duty.
    "and if any person sells any medicine liable to the duty payable under this provision"
    and he does not pay the Excise Duty he shall be liable to a penalty of £20. I believe there are 20,000 or 30,000 chemists in the country—the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Glyn-Jones) knows how many there are. If one of them, say in one of the most remote parts of Ireland, sells one bottle of medicine on which the duty was properly paid before the date mentioned and who knows nothing about our proceedings here to-night, if he does not pay 1½d. more on that bottle—he may have bought three bottles and sold two of them, but instead of selling the third bottle with the extra 1½d. stamp on it, it will involve him in a penalty of £20. That is very hard. It is very difficult for small tradesmen to follow these small points. I can hardly think I am interpreting the Clause aright in putting it in that extreme way. I think the meaning must be that the wholesale people are not to send out any more medicine without putting on the additional stamp. There must be some line drawn. It must mean that a person who legally bought a bottle of medicine with a certain Stamp Duty on it at a certain date, and sells it with only that stamp upon it, is liable to this heavy penalty. Unless the penalty of £20 is mentioned, it is not neces-
    1716
    sary to embody the Sub-section in the Clause. Would it not be better to leave Sub-section (1) standing, without bringing in Sub-section (2), which only deals with rather serious penalties people may incur without in the least desiring to do anything wrong or knowing what they are doing. I am sure my right hon. Friend will give me an answer. The Clause would be greatly improved by dropping the Subsection.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: It is quite possible that the Sub-section is not really necessary, but it does no harm whatever, and it may be a help to the people referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, such as the small trader, who, perhaps, might be in some doubt if the matter were not stated here in plain terms. The first Sub-section says that in future the duties are to be doubled, and that after the 20th October the duty which is to be payable is to be a certain amount, namely, 3d. Sub-section (2) does not add any fresh law, because the existing penalty for not properly stamping is £20, and the duty of stamping is upon every seller, from the manufacturer right away down. If this were not put in the Bill, a retailer might say, "Oh, I thought that as the thing had been once stamped, therefore the law was complied with." That must be the intention. I do not think it would be fair if it were not. The first part of the Clause lays down the new duty which will be payable, and the fact of an article leaving a manufacturer to-day with a 1½d. stamp would not excuse the retailer from selling it to-morrow with a 1½d. stamp if the first part of the Clause proposes a 3d. duty. I, personally, do not take any objection, and I am sure the trade do not take any objection to the Sub-section, because it does make quite clear what they understand to be the law, to which they cannot take any objection. There are many hundreds of thousand of pounds of medicines at present in the hands of manufacturers and wholesale chemists bearing the stamp for the former duty. The Chancellor the Exchequer was good enough to meet us when we asked that he should provide a special stamp for bringing up the old duty to the new duty. That has been done. I do not anticipate there will be any difficulty at all about the matter. Although I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the first part of the Clause would impose the same duty and the same penalty whether the second

    1717
    Sub-section were added or not, still I do not object to it, because I think it makes the matter quite clear.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Upon the question of the general advisability of the tax, I have been asked to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will it not be likely that he will not gain so much as he thinks by doubling the tax in the case of drugs sold under a shilling? I understand that plasters and small things which at present pay 1½d. are to be increased to 3d. Will not the first effect of that be that the sale will be less, and, secondly, that these people will avoid paying any duty altogether by doing what is not difficult to imagine them doing, namely, making the article no longer come under the Act. Although the article may be well known, it may be altered from "Somebody's plaster" to a "plaster manufactured by So-and-so." As regards the higher-class medicines which are sold from 3s. to 4s. 6d., no doubt the doubling of the duty will not be so serious a matter as in the case of the lower-priced medicine. Sub-section (1) provides that there shall be a charge levied and paid after the 20th October. That would not necessarily apply to a sale after the 20th October, because the charge would be levied before the 20th October. Sub-section (2) is necessary to make clear what is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that nothing shall be sold, even though it has been taxed prior to the 20th October, except with an extra stamp denoting the additional duty. I might ask why the 20th October is chosen as the date? It has nothing to do with me, but I hope it does not mean we are going to have this Bill rushed through by the 20th October.
    Mr. McKENNA: It has nothing to do with that.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If it does not mean that, the right hon. Gentleman will probably have to alter the date, because a man may be fined on Friday next for the retrospective sale of an article, when this Bill may be amended on Report stage. My main point is that the right hon. Gentleman should release the cheaper articles from the tax.
    Mr. McNEILL: I understand there is no taxation being imposed by this Bill on medicines which have not been subject to taxation before—that is, patent medicines only—and it is not being extended, but
    1718
    there is some doubt felt upon the point I know from letters which have reached me, and perhaps it may have been occasioned by the rather ambiguous nature of a notice which has been issued by the Customs. If I have an assurance that that is so, and that this is merely increasing the taxation of patent medicines which have always been liable to taxation, that is the assurance I want.
    Mr. MONTAGU: This is a patent medicine duty only, and no article will be taxed under it which has not been liable to taxation in the past. In regard to what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) said, this scale has been decided upon as the simplest. It commends itself to us because it is simple, and because it produces a revenue which we estimate at £250,000 a year. My hon. Friend (Mr. Glyn-Jones) is of opinion that his scale would, in working, be just as simple, and although it seems to me at first sight to impose lower duties on considerable numbers of these medicines, he contends that it would be equally profitable to the State. If he can make good his case the Government would naturally recommend that the trade should be taxed in the way that it likes. I do not see how he can do it, but he is going to try to convince us on the matter, and when a possible revision is considered the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) raised as to the cheaper medicines will also be considered. We have allowed a reduction of £50,000 in a full year for any possible diminution among those who like medicine. With regard to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) said, the duty is imposed, by the Acts in which it originated, on the first sale. It does not matter whether it is the manufacturer or the retail chemist. The man who sells it first after the date specified must stamp it under a penalty of £20. Unless we put this Clause in it might be held to exempt the retailer who saw a stamp, but an inadequate stamp, upon the medicine from the duty which he has had from time immemorial of seeing that the medicine he sells is properly stamped. There is nothing new in that, and there is really no new duty. With regard to the date, we originally suggested 29th September for the imposition of these duties, dating them from a week later than the introduction of the Resolution, because we wished to give the trade time, not to forestall—I do not think you can forestall in the case of medicines—but to handle the enormous

    1719
    stocks which have been accumulating in small boxes which will have to be opened and restamped. We thought they would want a week, but they made representations to us that it was physically impossible to handle the medicines in stock under three weeks, and so we postponed the date, with the assent of the trade, to 20th October.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(New Import Duties.)
    (1) There shall, as from the twenty-ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and sixteen, be charged, levied, and paid on any of the following articles imported into Great Britain or Ireland the following duties of Customs, namely:—

    Motor cars, including motor bicycles and motor tricycles

    An amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article.

    Accessories and component parts of motor cars, motor bicycles, or motor tricycles, other than tyres

    Musical instruments, including gramophones, pianolas and other similar instruments

    Accessories and component parts of musical instruments, and records and other means of reproducing music

    Clocks, watches, and the component parts of clocks and watches

    Cinematograph films imported for the purpose of the exhibition of pictures or other optical effects by means of a cinematograph or other similar apparatus:—

    Per linear foot.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Blank film, on which no picture has been impressed, known as raw film or stock

    0

    0

    0½

    Positives, i.e., films containing a picture and ready for exhibition

    0

    0

    1

    Negatives, i.e., films containing a photograph from which positives can be printed

    0

    0

    8

    (2) The value of any article for the purposes of this Section shall be taken to be the price which an importer would give for the article if the article were delivered,
    1720
    freight and insurance paid, in bond at the port of importation, and duty shall be paid on that value as fixed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
    In the case of a motor car imported with tyres attached, the value of the tyres shall be deducted from the value of the car for the purpose of the charge of duty.
    (3) Any dispute arising as to the proper rate of duty payable under this Section shall, so far as any question of value is concerned, be referred to a referee appointed by the Treasury, and the decision of the referee 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 reference to a referee under this provision were substituted for the action or suit mentioned in that Section.
    (4) The procedure on any such reference shall be such as may be determined by rules made by the Treasury for the purpose.
    If the decision of the referee involves any variation in the amount of duty payable, duty shall be paid or repaid, as the case may be, so as to correspond with that decision.
    (5) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that the duty under this Section has been duly paid in respect of any article, and that the article has not been used in Great Britain or Ireland, a drawback equal to the amount of duty paid shall be allowed on that article if exported as merchandise: Provided that the Treasury may by Order declare that the drawback shall not be paid in respect of any accessories or component parts named in the Order on the ground that it is not possible to provide satisfactory means of identifying those accessories or parts.
    (6) An article shall not, notwithstanding anything in any Act to the contrary, be charged with duty under this Section on importation if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty has been paid on a previous importation of the article into Great Britain or Ireland and that drawback has not been paid on its exportation.
    (7) Motor cars which are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to be constructed and adapted for use, and intended to be used solely, as motor omnibuses or bonâ fide

    1721
    motor ambulances, or in connection with the conveyance of goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, and chassis, component parts, and accessories, which are so proved to be intended to be used solely for any such motor cars, shall not be charged with duty under this Section:
    Provided that in such cases as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise direct, cars, chassis, accessories, or parts, as the case may be, shall not be exempted unless they are marked or stamped in such manner as the Commissioners direct or approve with some distinctive stamp or mark showing that they are only to be so used.
    If any person obliterates or removes any such distinctive stamp or mark, or uses any motor car, chassis, accessory, or part which has been exempted from duty under this provision for any purpose other than the purposes therein mentioned, he shall be liable to a penalty of five hundred pounds: Provided that the Court may, if it think fit, in lieu of ordering the offender to pay a penalty, order that he be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years.
    (8) The Treasury may by Order exempt any articles mentioned in the Order which are liable to duty under this Section from that duty if they are satisfied that, having regard to the small value of the article, it is inexpedient that the duty should be charged.
    (9) The Treasury may make Regulations providing for the total or partial exemption for a limited period from the duty payable under this Section of any motor cars, including motor bicycles and motor tricycles, brought into Great Britain or Ireland by persons making only a temporary stay therein.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "twenty-ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
    On the Report stage of the Resolutions upon which this Bill is founded my hon. Friend (Mr. Denman) raised the question as to why, in the Resolution upon which this Clause is based, no reference was made to the Provisinoal Collection of Taxes Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that that was unnecessary, and with that explanation no further discussion took place. It is in order to elucidate the exact position in relation to this Act that I propose this Amendment.
    1722
    According to former practice taxes were levied by a Resolution of this House before the Act of Parliament which sanctioned their imposition was placed upon the Statute Book. That has been done for a period of sixty years, until the case brought by a former distinguished Member of the House, Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, proved that the practice which had so long been followed by the Treasury was illegal. As a result of the Bowles case the Government in 1913 introduced the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill to legalise this long-established usage, and in that Bill, as it was introduced into the House, it was provided that the practice would be legalised, not only in respect of the renewal of existing taxes and in respect of additions to existing taxes, but also in respect of the imposition of new taxes. However, while the Bill was passing through Committee, an Amendment was proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Macdonald) to exclude new taxes from the operation of the Bill, and it is interesting to remember that the particular object which my hon. Friend then had in view was to prevent anything in the nature of a tariff having the advantage of the new legislation which was then being passed. He was quite willing, he said, as other Members of the House were willing, that existing taxes should receive the benefit of the statutory protection, and that additions to those taxes should receive the same benefit, but he asked the House to refuse the benefit of the Bill to any new indirect taxes, and the object which he and those who supported him had in view was to make it difficult or impossible for anything in the nature of a protective tariff to be introduced into this country, and to have new protective duties charged immediately upon the passing of a single Resolution or a series of Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied on the Amendment, and he at that time accepted the distinction between an old tax and a new tax, and agreed with the argument of my hon. Friend that the Bill should not give protection in the case of a new tax. He said:—
    "I can only say that the distinction drawn by my hon. Friend between an old tax and a new tax is a very real one In the case of an old tax, at any rate, the approval of Parliament has been given to the tax in the past, and the introduction of the present Resolution does presuppose that the tax in question is an existing tax at the time. Secondly, a tax of that kind stands on quite a different footing from a tax which is a mere proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, and which has not had the sanction of Parliament."

    1723
    Later on he said:—
    "But I agree with him that we have to look, in this case, beyond the possible loss and the possible inconvenience to the public to the much larger question as to whether a tax which has not yet received the sanction of Parliament should become operative as a tax until sanction has been given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1913, col. 1713. Vol. LI.]
    And on these grounds he accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It was obviously the intention of my right hon. Friend at that time, by accepting the Amendment, to prevent the procedure being taken which he himself is now pursuing. He, obviously, then intended to prevent the old practice being followed in regard to new taxes, and to ensure that the taint of illegality which had been established by the Bowles case should still attach to that practice if it was pursued in the case of any new taxes being imposed. In these circumstances, I think it only right, now that we are making a beginning in tariffs, as we are doing in the present Bill, that we should insist that what the right hon. Gentleman then contended for should now be given effect to, and that, consequently, the taxes should not be levied as from the date mentioned, but that they should be levied only when the taxes have been sanctioned by the Finance Act receiving the Royal Assent. I confess that at the time of the Debate to which I am referring I had some doubts as to what course to pursue. I was not quite convinced by the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I saw the practical inconvenience which would arise by refusing to new taxes the benefit of the Bill which was then being passed. My doubts were, however, overborne by my Friends who were supporting the Amendment, and I was led to vote in the Division Lobby with the Government and with the right hon. Gentleman on the ground that by going into the Lobby and passing the Amendment I was dealing a deadly blow to any future Tariff Reform Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Apparently we have been deceived, first of all by the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs, who is not here to-night to take advantage of the Amendment which he then himself secured, and in the second place by the Government, who led their innocent Free Trade followers to believe that by the acceptance of that Amendment the difficulties of tariff taxation would be enormously increased. Now we see that we were living in a fool's paradise. The right hon. Gentleman, taking the first
    1724
    step in the imposition of tariffs, is now making a precedent which will be available for those who are going to extend, and who, undoubtedly, will extend his scheme when they get the opportunity. He is boldly imposing a tax as from the date, I think, on which the Resolutions were reported to this House, and so he is making smooth the path of a full-blown Tariff Reform successor. As I do not wish him to do that, and as I do not wish this precedent to be made, I am proposing this Amendment to secure that these duties shall only be levied from the passing of the Act itself, so that when a full scheme of Tariff Reform is brought forward, the Tariff Reform Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be able to quote in this respect the example and the authority of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. McKENNA: I congratulate my hon. Friend upon the completeness of his debating score. It is a triumph of which he has taken the fullest advantage, and I can assure him that if we were not at War I would join in it as heartily as himself. But, really, is this the time to enter into questions of this kind? Is this really the moment to talk about beginning a new tariff? However tempting it may be to have a Parliamentary advantage, and to quote a Minister making an apparent contradiction of himself, is it worth while doing it at the present time? I am bound to say that it appears to me to be absolutely beside the mark. My hon. Friend talks about beginning a new tariff. He talks about making precedents and about making smooth the path of my Tariff Reform successor. How do I do that? How does this make smooth his path? If it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day to introduce this Clause and to introduce this duty, dating from the passing of the Resolution by this House, it is just as possible for my successor to do such a thing. My withdrawing the date in the Clause and altering the date will not in the least hamper him in doing it if he wants to do it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: He will be able to quote your action.
    Mr. McKENNA: How is that going to help him or to hinder him? If he wants to do it he will do it if the House will support him. I do not do this because I want to do it, or because I want to contradict myself, but because I believe it is right in the present circumstances to do it; because I believe it necessary for us to stop

    1725
    imports of certain articles as far as we can, and because I believe we ought to raise revenue of this kind at the earliest moment during the War, now, and for the purposes of the War, not as a general principle, with no intention of continuing the tax, with no desire to protect trade, without beginning any new Tariff Reform movement, but simply and solely for the declared purpose of this particular tax now, and in this War. In these circumstances, what is the good of scoring a verbal triumph? I may be wrong. My hon. Friend is moving his Amendment really in order to oppose the tax. Let us get down to bottom-rock facts, and not spend our time idly in discussing points when there is no difference between us about them. Any Minister who wants to introduce a change in our fiscal system, and wants to introduce a whole scheme of Tariff Reform, will not be in the least prejudiced in doing it by anything we may do to-day. You may make this change, and alter the date to the date of the passing of the Act, but he will feel himself perfectly free, as I feel myself perfectly free to-day, to make the imposition of the duty coincide with the passing of the Resolution by this House. It is quite true that if Parliament does not subsequently sanction the duty the Customs will have to repay the amount they have taken. On the other hand, if Parliament does sanction the duty, it is for the convenience of the Customs and the convenience of the trader that the duty shall be collected to-day. If we are going to have such a duty in the present circumstances, it would be foolish beyond words, if I may use the expression, to give weeks and weeks' notice for forestalment of those particular kind of goods. We are only imposing the tax to last until 31st July next. To begin to impose it from a date which would give weeks and weeks' notice in advance would render the tax absolutely abortive for the whole period. You might very well get enough articles imported to satisfy the market for the greater part or the whole of the ten months which would remain. Of motor cars you could get a considerable number imported, and you could get a very considerable number of other articles imported, such as watches, clocks, musical instruments, cinema films, and all the other parts and accessories. Attacks of this sort on the proposals are really not worthy of the House of Commons at the present time. I regret that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Sir A. MOND: I am somewhat surprised at the heat which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown during the discussion of this very reasonable Amendment. If we attack his principles he says, "This is no time to attack principles; this has nothing to do with fiscal principles; I want you to deal with my Clause in detail." When we attack him in detail, he says, "You are not dealing fairly with me. You are attacking the general Clause."
    Mr. McKENNA: So he is in this. This, is a detail.
    Sir A. MOND: This is not a detail. This is a very important point of procedure. It is very easy for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I have answered you, and everything that you have said can now be swept aside. Everything that we have discussed before in this House is of no importance, and you must let me do whatever I like." If we take that view, there is no object in the House of Commons meeting; there is no object in our spending our time here at all. It would be much better to set up an autocratic Government to do what it liked. That would be the logical course to adopt. But what is this Amendment? It is based upon an Act passed quite recently—an Act passed for a specific purpose. I raised the question not very long ago, how was it that, contrary to an Act then in force, duties were being collected under Resolutions which had not had the sanction of Parliament. The Secretary to the Treasury replied with an extraordinary defence—that, as Parliament had passed a special Act to legalise the collection of well-established duties on the Resolution of the House, the Customs authorities had followed an old practice, which was illegal in reference to entirely new duties. I cannot imagine that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman could have been drawn to that extraordinary procedure. It is making a farce of legislation, and making a farce of Parliament, one year to pass an Act which states that under no new tax are duties to be collected until such tax has been put on the Statute Book by Parliament, and for the Custom House people to set that aside on their own responsibility is an outrage on the position of this House. After all, what the right hon. Gentleman says about the War has no bearing on this.
    Mr. McKENNA: What is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?
    Sir. A. MOND: The Act implies—
    Mr. McKENNA: That is a very different thing. Will the right hon. Gentleman show where the implication arises?
    Sir A. MOND: I can read the whole Act if the right hon. Gentleman likes. May I put it in this way? The statement made by a Minister in this House—
    Mr. McKENNA: No, the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that I was treating Parliament as nothing, because an Act of Parliament said that no new tax was to be levied until Parliament had sanctioned it, and that I was none the less levying it. I ask him to quote the Act to support that.
    Sir A. MOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that that was practically his point when he accepted the Amendment? I will read his words. The Amendment was Sub-section 1, to leave out the words "the imposition of any new tax, or for." There was a long Debate which covered a great deal of ground. The right hon. Gentleman, in accepting the Amendment, said:—
    "I can only say that the distinction drawn by my hon. Friend between an old tax is a very real one. In the case of an old tax, at any rate, the approval of Parliament has been given to the tax in the past, and the introduction of the present Resolution does not pre-suppose that the tax in question is an existing tax at the time. Secondly, a tax of that kind stands on quite a different footing from the tax which is a mere proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, and which has not had the sanction of Parliament."
    And it is on that reason that he accepted the Amendment. What do those words mean? If they mean anything, they surely mean that he should not treat a Resolution on a new tax in the way in which you would treat a Resolution on an old tax, for the reason that the latter had received the sanction of Parliament. That was the point that I was trying to make.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not dispute that.
    Sir A. MOND: But you collect it.
    Mr. McKENNA: We do not now collect it except with the consent of the trader. No trader need pay it. We do not pretend that we collect it except with his consent.
    Sir A. MOND: I am perfectly well aware of that.
    Mr. McKENNA: If he consents, why should not we do so?
    Sir A. MOND: He cannot very well refuse.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, absolutely.
    Sir A. MOND: He cannot, without starting a long litigation.
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend is entirely mistaken. He may refuse absolutely. We have no remedy against him. The only thing, if he does refuse to pay, is that if the duty is hereafter enacted he will have all the trouble of having to pay and of producing his accounts and so on. It is for his convenience as well as ours.
    Sir A. MOND: If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that they find it more convenient, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in what he says then. But the point we are making is not quite so bad as the right hon. Gentleman is making out. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that a new tax required a discussion and required sanction by Parliament. What has happened? Two of your new taxes have gone already. That amplifies what he was arguing himself at that time. Therefore the very reason why he accepted this Amendment, the very reason why this point was raised at that time, was to prevent happening what has happened now. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can get away from it, except by saying that we have got a war on now. Let me go a point further. The right hon. Gentleman is very much annoyed at anyone pointing out things which we cannot help pointing out. For instance, this country not having had a tariff of this character for many years, the machinery for dealing with this tariff does not exist, and no country in the world which has a tariff endeavours to deal with the tariff in this way. Though you may now say, "We do not intend the duties to operate as tariff duties," they do act as tariff duties. I do not use the word "protective" at the moment. You have all the difficulties of valuation, all the difficulties of classification and drawbacks which exist with duties of this character, and there is no machinery to work this, and you do not give the people the slightest opportunity for accommodating themselves to the new conditions. In other countries, when they introduce a tariff, they consult the people of the different trades affected. They consult experts. They set up a commission to deal with the different trading interests, before which the people can come in order to state how their interests are affected, and they spend years in studying the matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not got time. I admit that he may not have

    1729
    time to do it, but then there was no obligation to do what he has done, not the slightest. But he has done it, and he is causing all these difficulties and all this confusion and trouble. I am sorry for him that he should have all these troubles during the War, but it is not our fault. He really must not come here and blame us for it. He must not come down and treat us as an unreasonable number of people who are worrying him very much, because this trouble has been caused entirely by himself, and I am afraid that he will find more trouble caused by the working of these duties than he realises.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a line on this first Amendment which would lead to a general debate, and that cannot be allowed.
    Sir A. MOND: I did not intend to do that, and I shall reserve that for a later stage of the proceedings. I am only endeavouring to point out that if the tax has to be collected when Parliament has finally sanctioned it, there should be some effort to establish a means of working the tax, and I submit that is not an unreasonable or frivolous proposition. As to there being a large amount of forestalments, surely that could not now take place. The right hon. Gentleman does not expect that this Finance Bill will occupy the House for a very long period, and surely he does not want us seriously to understand that between now and the passing of this Act there is going to be so much time as would enable the importers to really flood the market. The Amendment of my hon. Friend follows exactly the precedent of the United States, where the tariff always comes into operation on the signing of the Act by the President, and it is quite successful for practical working. Here we are dealing with new and complicated taxes, and we cannot see in what shape they will emerge finally on the Statute Book. Some alterations it will undoubtedly be necessary to make, and I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman has not said his last word on the question of accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS(indistinctly heard): I can assure my right hon. Friend that I do not wish to hinder or annoy him in any way. I know his difficulties, and that, keenly as I feel them, he feels them more keenly himself. I have come to regard, in these later days, as one
    1730
    of the few of my old leaders that I can still trust
    "Among the faithless, faithful only he"
    —and I look forward to the time when he will be leading us again on this Tariff question. His future prospects and position I have almost as much at heart as I have the position and prospects of Free Trade, which we cherish so much, and I am especially anxious that he should be in a position to come to this subject free and unfettered, as in the old days of un-stripped tobacco.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I hope, is ready to come to the point of the Amendment. His exordium is rather a long one.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: My exordium is to my right hon. Friend. I have had an opportunity, while my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir A. Mond) was speaking, to look at the Act of 1913, and I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me that Section (1) of that Act does simply what my right hon. Friend opposite has said. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the wording of that Act? Section (1) says:—
    "Where a Resolution is passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Commons. … providing for the variation of any existing tax"—
    this is not the variation of an existing tax—
    "or for the renewal for a further period of any tax in force, or imposed during the previous financial year"—
    this was not imposed in the previous financial year—
    "whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modification, and the Resolution contains a declaration that it is expedient in the public interest that the Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the Resolution shall, for the period limited by this Section, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have statutory effect as if contained in an Act of Parliament, and, where the Resolution provides for the renewal of the tax, or enactments which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, and subject to the provisions of this Act, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution."

    1731
    When you come to consider the history of this Act, it is perfectly clear that it was passed so as to give the Resolution the force of law. Previous to that it was the invariable practice of the Government, immediately the Resolution was passed by this House, to collect the tax and treat the Resolution as having the force of law. Mr. Gibson Bowles challenged the legality of that practice, and his contention was upheld by the Courts of Law. Therefore, to meet that difficulty, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act of 1913 was passed for one thing only, that in the case where there was a variation of an existing tax, or where there was a renewal of a tax, the Resolution of the House for the current year was to have the force of law, so that the Customs authorities could collect the tax as if that tax had the sanction of Parliament. But it was pointed out in the course of the Debate, and it was present to the mind of my right hon. Friend at that time, that a new tax was in a different category and ought to be treated separately. In the Act of 1913, therefore, there is no mention of a new tax at all. It was perfectly obvious that what was weighing upon the minds of Free Traders was that this new Act was going to make it possible for a Tariff Reform Government in the future, by mere Resolution of the House, to give a Resolution the force of law, and make it very much more easy for them to impose the tariff, and very much more difficult for the Government, if the folly of the tariff is demonstrated in the House of Commons, to do away with it.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, admitted this was so in answer to a question of an hon. Friend behind me a week or fortnight ago. He said it was quite true that this Resolution had not the force of law, and that therefore the Government had no right in law to force the importers to pay the tax. He went on to say, as he said just now, that it was for the convenience of the importer that he should not wait until this Finance Bill becomes law. That may be so or not, I do not know; but my right hon. Friend deliberately tries, in the face of a solemn Act of Parliament, passed by his own colleagues and defended by himself on every ground, to do now what he said could not be done under the Act of 1913. It is all very well for him to say that we are in the time of war. So we are, but I confess I am rather tired, whenever we raise any discussion on any point of principle or of practice, to be
    1732
    told, "Oh, but you forget we are in a great national emergency, in time of war when the whole bonds of society are dissolved." If that is so, then it is far better not to meet as a deliberate assembly. If we are to be told that we must not adhere to Acts of Parliament solemnly passed only two years ago because we are in time of war, then the sooner we set up a dictatorship in this country the better it will be. I am old fashioned enough to think that it is far better to adhere to the provisions of the Act passed two years ago. I am anxious about this matter, not because I cannot trust my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course I can, and I would trust him with far greater powers than he arrogates to himself by this Clause. That is not what is troubling me. What is troubling me, and what is, I am sure, troubling other hon. Members, is that we are looking to the future. The War is a temporary measure, but if you depart from the principle contained in this Act my right hon. Friend sitting on the Front Opposition Bench would never be able to plead for the observance of the Act of 1913 which he helped to get passed. If in the future a Tariff Reform Government comes in, how on earth will the Chancellor have the inconsistency to stand up at the Front Opposition Bench, for that is, of course, where he would be, to protest against a Tariff Reform Chancellor doing exactly then what he is himself doing now?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry to intervene again, but there is, I think, a complete misunderstanding as regards the arguments in this case. Three times in three days we have had quotations made at length on this subject, and I ask, is it worth while taking a point of that kind so often in circumstances like the present. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has advanced a very serious argument based on the words of the Statute. May I explain to him and to other hon. Friends wherein the misunderstanding between us rests. What this Statute does is to give statutory effect to the Resolution passed by this House. I have said, and I adhere to it, and it is my personal view, that the Customs have no legal right to collect taxes on the face of a Resolution passed by this House. That is my view, but I am not the exponent of the law on the subject. A great many people do not agree with me, and a great many people still think that the Customs have the legal

    1733
    right to collect a tax on the passing of a Resolution by this House. There being this disagreement as to the law—
    An HON. MEMBER: The judges ruled that that was not so.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: Not quite. It is not a simple matter. There being some doubt and disagreement as to it, this law was passed in order to give statutory effect to Resolutions passed by this House in respect of particular taxes. When the Bill was first introduced it included all taxes. I accepted an Amendment excluding new taxes from this Act, and therefore left new taxes in some position of doubt, uncertainty, or, as one of my hon. Friends thinks, certainty, as regards collection on Resolution of this House. I agree with everything said on that point, but this Act does not imply, I deny absolutely, by any statement made by me or by anybody else in the course of the Debate, that the Customs may not begin to collect taxes on a Resolution passed by this House if the trader is willing to pay them, and that is all we are doing. We ask the trader for the tax. He knows as well as any hon. Member in this House that if he does not choose to pay we have no power. I agree with the law, and I should not intend to enforce it. Other people think we might succeed in the Courts, but I do not think so. The whole transaction is purely a voluntary transaction between the Custom House and the trader. How is that inconsistent with anything in the Statute?
    The only point we come back to is, is it a prudent course to take under the circumstances, namely, for the Customs to collect this duty from the passing of this Resolution by the House. You have got to remember the particular circumstances of this duty before you can make up your mind on that point. The duty is imposed for a very short period, much shorter than in the case of ordinary duties. Ordinary duties are generally introduced in March or April, when the Budget is introduced, and would have fourteen or fifteen months to run. This duty is to expire on the 31st of July next, notwithstanding the fact that it is not introduced until late in September. If we had inserted a date, and if we had introduced the tax from the passing of the Act, we should have given at least a month's notice of the duty, which under the most favourable circumstances would not become law until the end of
    1734
    October. Therefore, we would only have from November to the following July to run. I ask would it not have been an act of the grossest unreason, and nobody would have been more likely than the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say so, to introduce a duty which was only to operate for nine months and to give a month or six weeks' notice of your intention? Why, of course, we should have large imports, large forestalments, and everything that my hon. Friend and right hon. Friend say against the tax now they could have said with tenfold force then, as they could have proved to demonstration through forestalments that we had lost all possibility of revenue. Under those circumstances I put it to my hon. Friend that there is nothing inconsistent with this Act for the Customs to collect duty with the consent of the trader. There is nothing in my action, in the action of the Customs, in doing that which would prejudice or which would give a lead to any Chancellor of the Exchequer in the future. Thirdly, in the circumstances of these particular taxes, if you accept the taxes it must be beyond dispute that they ought to be collected from a date earlier than the passing of the Act so as to prevent forestalment.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I would be very unwilling, as my right hon. Friend knows, to say anything that could possibly annoy him. I have no desire to traverse the ground which has been so fully covered in the speeches to which we have listened. The position really is simple enough. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act does not in any way, on the face of it, preclude his doing as he is doing now. On that technical point we must all agree. In fact, however, when the Act was passed through the House of Commons and the House of Commons expressly excluded new taxes from the Act, it was under the impression that no new taxes would be collected on a mere Resolution. As regards the question of special circumstances, we all realise the special circumstances of to-day; we all realise the special circumstances of the War; we all realise the difficulties in which my right hon. Friend is placed. But I would like him to understand what our misgiving is. It is that, apart from the War, we may find precisely the same thing being done if a. Tariff Reform Government comes into power. You may have a tariff actually set

    1735
    up and the taxes actually collected before they have received statutory sanction. My right hon. Friend may speak of a voluntary basis; the taxes are, in fact, collected, and you may have Tariff Reform taxes collected in time of peace before this House has assented to the legislation imposing them. It was to avoid that that we took up the position we did when the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act was under discussion. Every argument which my right hon. Friend has used, except the special argument as regards the War, could be used by a Tariff Reform Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only so, but the precedent which my right hon. Friend is setting could be quoted in support.
    In these circumstances I frankly admit that I am disappointed at not having heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a clearer expression of opinion to the effect that he bases his action on the special circumstances of the War, and that taking into consideration the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act he would not have been justified in doing it except in the special circumstances created by the War. I do not think my right hon. Friend has gone as far as that. I do not attach much importance to what is said about the tax being only a temporary measure. All taxes are temporary measures. I believe the Income Tax was introduced as only a temporary measure. There is nothing to prevent a Tariff Reform Chancellor of the Exchequer from bringing in a tariff as a six months' temporary measure to see how it works. We recognise the special circumstances, but we feel the danger of the precedent which my right hon. Friend is setting, and we think he might have safeguarded the position a little more than he has done.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If I may come to the Amendment for a moment, I take it that if accepted it would so alter the Bill that instead of the tax beginning in September, it would begin when the Act passes. The only effect of that would be to give a large opportunity for forestalling the tax. No one can doubt that that would be the result. Personally, I have the strongest objection to that particular form of war profit. It is bad enough at the present time when we have large profits made from the taxation on tobacco. Retailers and wholesale dealers, who have not had to pay the tax, yet put it on the consumer. We have it also as regards tea. Dealers who have not had to pay the Tea Duty, having
    1736
    a large amount of tea out at the particular time, have made considerable profits. It is a profit which they are justified in making, but I do not know that it appeals very much to me. They do not pay, the tax, but the consumer has to pay it. You increase that form of profit if you give the opportunity for people to get in a large quantity of goods so as to avoid a tax which they know is to be put on at a particular moment. It would be a mistake to allow a long period for forestalment. To be quite frank, I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the Debate. Hon. Members who have spoken are monuments of consistency, but I noticed when on the last Clause I raised this very point with regard to the poor chemists who were being taxed long before the Act comes into operation, not a single hon. Member opposite said it was a breach of a statutory enactment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is not anew duty. It is an old duty; therefore it comes under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I see the point. I will not press the matter if the hon. Member really thinks there is any distinction in what he says. I listened with interest to the attack made by the right hon. Member for Swansea and others upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1906 I went through a great deal of that sort of thing. It will probably be found that every Member of that Government has been guilty of inconsistency. I am not here to defend them in the least. But does it really carry us much further? Is it a very profitable way for this Assembly to spend its time in the present circumstances discussing whether the right hon. Gentleman is consistent or inconsistent? Ought we not to deal with this Amendment upon the merits? If, on the merits, we think that an opportunity for forestalling these taxes should be given, of course we ought to vote in favour of the Amendment. In debating the Amendment we must assume that the tax is a good tax. If we think it a bad tax, we can vote against it at the proper time. I think the hon. Member for Lanarkshire must really agree that it would be a ridiculous thing to make this tax start in October or November, and so give an opportunity for large forestalments.
    Mr. HEWINS: I have listened to this Debate with a great deal of impatience. It seems to me that hon. Members on the other side have completely forgotten to

    1737
    take into account the gigantic economic forces which have been let loose by this War. We are talking as though we were Members of a mutual improvement society discussing the merits of Free Trade. That has nothing whatever to do with the present question. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought forward their Amendments and have supported them from the point of view of people who are afraid that in some way a Tariff Reform Government may come in and use what has been done during the present Parliament as a precedent for introducing duties in the way the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced his present duties. I should like to say this—I think I have some ground for saying it, and I speak as a Tariff Reformer—my deliberate opinion is that there is not one single economic question which we have discussed during the last ten years which is likely to emerge from the War in the position in which it was. If hon. Members think we are ever going to resume the position in which we were in 1913, when we could have an economic Debate on the merits of Free Trade and Tariff Reform in this House, I think they are absolutely mistaken. Whatever is going to take place, this War is going to smash your economics.
    I do not know—I wish I did—where we shall be in regard to duties, or in regard to any other aspect of economic policy. But I am perfectly certain that the kind of discussion we have had to listen to—to put up with!—upon these duties that the Government have introduced is entirely irrelevant to the economic circumstances of the War. Hon. Members opposite are possibly willing to do me the credit to believe me that I myself, if I had introduced a tariff, would not have introduced the 33 1–3 per cent. Many of the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, if we had been discussing these things in vacuo would have been very sound and good. I agree with him. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea to make a scientific tariff he would have made one very well, and would have carried out, so far as he could, all the principles laid down in the various speeches he has made. We are not in that situation. We have to deal with concrete problems and concrete circumstances. I do not in the least know where we are going to be economically three months hence, but I think I can at any rate reassure hon. Members opposite on this point: that whatever we do at present
    1738
    in regard to the form of introducing duties, nothing done in this War in this way is likely to be quoted by any of us here as a precedent. I should never have been disposed to tackle Tariff Reform in that way. It has always been to me a concrete question. I doubt that anything we do now will or can be regarded as a precedent for our future conduct. I would ask hon. Members really to let us get on with the business of this Finance Bill, and not to waste our time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—I do not wish to give offence to anybody, but I say, not spend our time in discussing propositions which have really no relation to any situation likely to occur.
    Mr. DENMAN: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that we should get on with the business as quickly as we can. But I would like to point out to him that the question before us at present is not an economic one at all but a constitutional one. It is only two years ago that Parliament, not this House only, decided, quite deliberately, after a long Debate, that this House should not have the power to give statutory effect to its own Resolutions in respect to these taxes. It also decided that the Executive should not have the power to levy them. I entirely agree that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is conclusive so far as he has gone. But he has not touched the point. That in fact he is completely overriding, once for all, the deliberate decision of Parliament two years ago. I agree entirely that these are not the times for legal pedantry, or anything of the sort; but I would also submit they are not the times for a wholly superfluous illegality. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he could not regularise the situation by a very short Bill applying the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act to the new taxes? There was a strong feeling when that Bill went through the House that it ought to apply to new taxes as well as to the variation of existing ones. The special leader of that school of thought was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If I may humbly say so I entirely agree with him. It was the view of the Treasury, and a sound view. The House thought otherwise. If the Treasury would know, after seeing the inconvenience that arises from the provisions of the existing Act, undertake to introduce an Amending Bill, which would, I believe, be

    1739
    received without opposition, I am sure it would relieve many of us who do not like this wholly unnecessary illegality.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Member opposite says we are engaged in a "mutual improvement society Debate." I do not know how much mutual improvement there may have been in the Debate, but I do not think the hon. Member contributed to the Amendment before the House. My view of this Amendment does not affect the hon. Member for Hereford, and I will explain why. I want to know, and perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us, what will happen if these taxes are levied on the Resolution of the House, and then the House does not give them the sanction of law? The importer will have to pay these taxes. If they do not become law will the amounts paid by the importer be returned to him? I understand the hon. Gentleman to say "yes." Then I can quite understand why the importer prefers that the duty should be levied upon a Resolution of this House—for this reason: the Resolution being passed, the Government collects the duties, and the importer immediately passes on the duty to the consumer. Then the House refuses to sanction these taxes, and the importer gets an equivalent amount given back to him from the Government. But that cannot be passed on or returned to the consumer over the various articles on which he has paid it. I see the Financial Secretary smiles, but I have had some experience of tariffs, having lived for many years in Australia. That is a difficulty that arises whenever a tariff is imposed. I have seen where the duty has been proposed, and subsequently collected, and the House has not carried the tax. The points then arose as to what was to be done in regard to the proceeds of the tax. The hon. Member for Hereford is not affected by that view, because he considers that the foreigner pays the duty: therefore that difficulty does not in the least degree arise as concerns himself. He sees the American producer of motor cars sending money to meet all the taxes and paying for our War, and, of course, he tells us when we criticise that we are engaged in a mutual improvement society debate. That is all very well speaking from the professorial heights of Tariff Reform, but I say that this is an important matter of detail which we have to consider.
    1740
    I do resent the Chancellor of the Exchequer always telling us, when we are opposing these duties, both from the practical side and the side of principle, that we are engaged in war, and that, therefore, these criticisms ought not to be regarded. But that is the point of consideration that most affects me as regards these duties. I say that a time of war is the very time when you should not raise the question of Free Trade and Tariff Reform, and that is precisely what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. If we went to him and proposed another form of taxation that should not have the incidental effect of establishing further monopoly in this country, but one that should attack monopoly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "Oh, no, we cannot have any Land Taxes now; we are in a time of war." The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have forgotten we are at war. He has no right at a time like this to raise such a burning controversial issue as this, and, in order to allow us to attend to the greater issue, he should withdraw these piffling taxes, which would only raise a small amount of money that could have been raised by another farthing on the Income Tax, and should again intern in its grave and sepulchre the Tariff Reform issue.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Ireland" ["following articles imported into Great Britain or Ireland"], to insert the words "except from any other part of His Majesty's Dominions."
    This Amendment, I hope, will meet with the general approval of the Committee. In moving it I must not be assumed to be glad that these taxes are being proposed. I recognise that in our present position we have to raise money, and I could have wished the money had been raised in some other way; but I assume that the duties which are now proposed under this Bill will become verified by an Act of Parliament, and that the effect of the Amendment which I am now proposing will be to exempt our Colonies from the operation of this Act. I think that at the present time we ought to deal very sympathetically with our Colonies. They are doing a great part in this War. They are assuming great responsibility—great financial responsibility—and it does not seem reasonable on our part, whilst they are doing so much to help the Empire that we should

    1741
    not take them more wholly into our counsels than we have taken them. I was quite certain that many of the hon. Members opposite would agree with the remarks I make. One of their former Leaders, a right hon. Gentleman whom we honoured in this House—Mr. Joseph Chamberlain—when he started his Tariff Reform movement desired, and I believe sincerely desired, to give some preference to the Colonies. He could not see his way to give a preference to the Colonies, except by putting some taxation upon food. Now, as it is the deliberate intention of the House to bring certain articles formerly not taxed within the purview of taxation, it does give to us an opportunity to, show a friendly feeling to our brothers in the Colonies, and, at the same time, it would be reciprocating the position which they have shown to us by giving us, at any rate, some preference in tariff, and, in agreeing to these proposals, I am quite prepared as a Free Trader, under present circumstances, to place our Colonies, at any rate, in a different position to other parts of the world. I hope that throughout the whole of the House at this moment we shall have a general agreement that this is a very proper Amendment, and I shall be very much surprised if my right hon. Friend is not willing to accept it. I do not assume that it will be a very serious financial loss to us to accept this Amendment. I do not like to put the low cost as a reason why we should adopt this policy, but, at any rate, it would be a compliment which we might pay to our brothers in the Colonies at a time when they are performing such acts of valour for the Empire.
    Mr. HEWINS: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member who has just sat down upon the happy speech he made. If I may say so, it is only such a speech as we should have expected from him at the time of war, and I welcomed what he said in regard to the co-operation of the Dominions in the present War. Of course, I need not say that if this Amendment is put to the vote, as I hope it will be, I shall certainly vote for it; but there are one or two observations I should like to make upon the subject of this Amendment. Perhaps I should say that, if I had been asked whether you should make this proposition at the present time in this House, I should probably have said No. I will explain to the Committee precisely what I mean. For one thing, I do not in any way underrate the vast importance of the hon. Member's proposition. He has inci-
    1742
    dentally raised an enormous number of questions of the greatest magnitude in regard to the conduct of the War. I am not going at all into the old controversial question about preference, nor am I going to recall any of the arguments of my late right hon. Friend Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I think we should regard all these questions from the point of view of the War, and the carrying on of that War to a successful conclusion. In regard to that point of carrying on the War, this Amendment is of the greatest possible importance. One of the main objects which Germany undoubtedly has in this War, and which you will hear of whenever any Peace negotiations take place, is the idea of getting back the position which was guaranteed to Germany by the Treaty of 1865 that was denounced by Lord Salisbury. That is always in their minds. I think if one may judge from the conversations which are going on even at the present time in German business circles, they still resent the loss of those privileges, and they hope to get back to them as a consequence of the War. This Amendment raises directly the great economics as between the exploitation of the British Dominions by German financial syndicates and the development of them under the Imperial policy which we on this side have always advocated. If I had been asked whether I would have put an Amendment of this sort on the Paper I should have said "No. I should have preferred that the Cabinet should consider the suggestion involved, and come to the House with a full scheme, which would definitely lay down the principle that we should exterminate this German financial influence throughout the Empire." This Amendment having been put down, I feel that the occasion cannot be allowed to pass without giving it my support, and stating that I do so on the definite ground that I, as an Englishman, wish to exterminate this German financial influence in the British Empire. This Amendment raises other important questions, which I think are quite capable of easy solution. I believe that at the present moment you could arrange a great combination between the British Empire and our Allies for carrying on a war of aggression under the guidance of the principle of this Amendment. I think that is the crying need of the hour, and I am certain that if we carry this Amendment it will be received with the greatest enthusiasm throughout the British Empire. I

    1743
    wish to point out the definite and immediate Imperial considerations that bear upon it. In connection with the Imperial Conference held here, at conference after conference the Dominions have passed a resolution that we in this country should give them a preference if and when we add import duties to our taxes. They gave us a preference on a list of commodities, and we have added to it now, and if we act in accordance with those great Imperial gatherings, I am quite sure that we should accept unanimously the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    I have already pointed out that I do not want to raise any questions of ancient controversy, but perhaps I may be allowed to allude to the letter of Lord George Hamilton, in which he urged that if a preference such as is proposed was claimed, we could not possibly resist it. Considering the thousands of Colonial troops which are supporting us, and the immense sacrifices in proportion to their means which the Dominions are making, I venture to urge that it is quite impossible for this proposition to be made in the British House of Commons and not be accepted. We cannot send it out to the British Empire in the middle of the greatest War of our time, in which the very existence of the Empire is at stake, that we have declined to act in accordance with Resolutions which they have unanimously passed for more than a generation on this very subject. I may say in conclusion that, personally, I had no intention whatever of taking any part at any stage in these fiscal Debates, and it was only when I saw this Amendment on the Paper that I felt, with the record of what has taken place in our Imperial history, and knowing what the Dominions are doing at present to promote the success of the Empire in this great War; knowing also as one does the desire of our Allies, and the whole Empire, to come together in a great combination to fight Germany with the same economic forces which she uses against us, I came to the conclusion that I was bound to support by argument and by my vote the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I rise to support this Amendment, but I do not do so on the grounds submitted by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I do not think a small matter of temporary taxes involves the destruction of the German Empire.
    Mr. HEWINS: I did not say so.
    Sir T. WATERS: I support the Amendment upon the practical question involved in the scheme of taxation. I understand that the object of these taxes is not expressly to raise revenue. The most sanguine Chancellor of the Exchequer would never suggest that this scheme of Import Duties is going to raise much revenue, and we are told that they have been submitted for the purpose of readjusting foreign exchanges and preventing us purchasing luxuries, such as Jew's-harps and mouth-organs, from foreign countries. I imagine that the purchase of a few of these instruments from the Colonies would not affect national exchange at all, and therefore, without suggesting all those well-known schemes of Colonial expansion and federation, which I think would be quite improper, I think we are in no fear by this proposal of the value of an English sovereign being lowered, or foreign exchanges being affected by allowing our Colonies to send in a few pianolas, organs, and pianos without charging them any duty. On those grounds, and those grounds alone, without raising the larger issues, I support this Amendment.
    Mr. MONTAGU: But for the fear of being disrespectful to the supporters of this proposal, I should have suggested that the object of this Amendment was to "pull the leg" of the Clause. These are not the duties that a Tariff Reformer would suggest. Free Traders seem to have said to themselves, "We will move Amendments in the Committee; we will embody Colonial Preference, and put in as many controversial topics as possible, and then when we have got these proposals into Tariff Reform Clauses, we shall be able to turn round on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, 'Now, you cannot say they are not Tariff Reform Clauses.'" Were I a Tariff Reformer, I should be in favour of Colonial Preference. And were these duties being imposed as permanent duties, as a scientific part of our fiscal system, it would be necessary to consider their adjustment with a view to getting the best out of very unpromising material, to—what is the phrase?—"knit the Empire more firmly together."
    It is just because they are temporary, just because they are designed merely to check imports from wherever they come, that it would be wholly opposed to the principle of the tax to arouse expectations which it is not the intention of those who

    1745
    designed these taxes should be aroused, and which would at the same time, destroy the objects for which the taxes are imposed. Simplicity is in the first essence of this experiment, and to suggest to the Customs that they should have, in addition to all the other inevitable complications, the necessity of ascertaining the origin of the import is to destroy the simplicity of the tax. The yield of the tax would also be substantially diminished. [HON. MEMBERS: "HOW much?"] Some tens of thousands. I cannot give an accurate estimate. It would mean a diminution of revenue, and it would surely entourage people to continue to import motor cars so long as they did not come from foreign countries. I would point out that the hon. Members who have put down these Amendments are also anxious to exempt cars and dutiable articles coming from the countries of our Allies, so that before they had done there would be very little left of the tax and there would be no interest to the British citizen who wanted to import a motor car to refrain from doing so, which is the whole object of this tax. Therefore, as the tax is to be regarded as a temporary and simple expedient for obtaining some revenue and diminishing consumption, I hope that the Committee will reject the suggestion to embody in it the elaborate principle of Colonial Preference.
    Sir A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury sees much more in the Amendments than those of us who put them down on the Paper intended. Led away by the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins), he accuses some of us of being anxious to make these duties as much as possible palatable to Tariff Reformers. No, what is happening is entirely the logical result of introducing a tariff. If you will introduce a tariff, you cannot get away from Colonial preference, a differential tariff, and all the other complications. You cannot have it separately. It is an impossible thing. What induced me to take any interest in this question at all was a letter I received from a Canadian manufacturer of musical instruments, who wrote to me and said that he imported certain musical instruments in this country and asked what Canada had done that in the middle of a great war we should try and ruin his business. What is the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to that Canadian manufacturer? He has not got an answer. Is it to be said that our
    1746
    Customs officials cannot take a certificate of origin? Of course, you can surmount difficulties of origin. That is not a difficulty at all compared with other difficulties.
    It is not a question of the magnitude of the thing at all. The thing is really very small. According to the returns which the Board of Trade gave me the other day, the total value of the articles which we wish to exclude for the eight months ending 31st August, 1915, came to £149,000. That includes £104,000 worth of motor cars, and most of those motor cars the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will discover are commercial vehicles not subject to the duty at all. The amount of revenue will probably not be more than £30,000 a year. That seems a small matter, and so it is. If we were merely arguing it on figures I would not raise the point at all. There is a much bigger matter. The question of sentiment is involved. You cannot disregard sentiment altogether in these fiscal matters. I have never pretended that you could. As long as we had no tariff, you could say to any of our Dominions, "We will treat you exactly the same as we treat anybody else," but as soon as you introduce a tariff the Dominion manufacturer is entitled to say, "Are you going to treat me the same as you treat people who are not helping you, and who are not anxious to see you win?" You have no reply to give to him. I know Canada fairly well. I have been there very often, and I think it would be a fatal mistake to think the matter is small, that it is merely a score we are trying to make, and not to accept an Amendment which would not affect the revenue or any of the objects of the right hon. Gentleman. Let it go out throughout the Empire that in this great War—many of the people in the Dominions are not finding it easy to carry on their business, the Empire is one, and that as far as this country is concerned we will not set the example of altering our fiscal system by putting on a prohibitive tax on articles coming from the Dominions, thus treating them worse than any of the Dominions are treating us at the present day. It is useless to say that this is not a tariff. You put this schedule before any business man in Canada, and ask him what it is. He will tell you it is a tariff schedule. It is a tariff schedule and a bad one, and I say that you will make an enormous and serious blunder if, for the sake of simplicity or because you might be giving away an argument to somebody else at a

    1747
    later stage, you do not take this opportunity of, at any rate, keeping Free Trade between Great Britain and her Dominions over the seas.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I think that the moving of this Amendment must surely have convinced the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has raised the tariff issue. It follows very naturally that it should be moved by a Free Trader because I know that in Australia and Canada preferential tariffs have not been introduced by Tariff Reformers desiring to benefit the Empire. The pressure has always come from Free Traders, who wanted to get a little nearer Free Trade. You do not suppose that Australia wanted to give a preference to Great Britain in order to increase the importation of British goods into Australia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I know exactly what I am talking about. The Australian Free Trader supported preferential trade with Great Britain in order to get the tariff lessened on certain goods which he required. Exactly the same thing happened in Canada. The man who carried Canada for Free Trade—Sir Wilfrid Laurier—introduced preference there in order, I say, to get as near Free Trade as he possibly could by allowing the importation of British goods at a lower rate than they were supposed to come from the foreigner. Therefore it comes quite naturally—
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did he say that was his motive?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Anyone who reads the history of Tariff Reform and preferential trade—I do not suppose a Tariff Reformer has studied the matter at all—will know. Any clap-trap about binding the Empire together is quite enough. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) asked us to introduce this piffling preferential Amendment as a solatium to the Colonies for what they have done in the War.
    Mr. HEWINS: I alluded to a series of resolutions passed at the Imperial Conference by the Dominions.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the sacrifices made by the Colonies during this War, and said, "Here we shall be able to do something for them in return if we adopt this Amendment." This is an absurd and ridiculous Amendment. What are we going to do for the Australians for their sacrifices in
    1748
    Gallipoli? They introduce no parts of motor cars or pianos. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I say, must be fully convinced that he has raised the tariff issue, and that this is a tariff schedule he has introduced, and the moving of this preferential trade Amendment by a Free Trader on this side of the House naturally follows. It is in order that we shall get nearer to Free Trade that he has permitted us to do under this 33⅓ tax. He gets Members who are, like myself, Free Traders in a difficulty. If the Amendment goes to a Division and I vote for it, I shall get some goods here without paying a tariff. That is the difficulty which confronts all Free Traders, and the only way to meet this difficult position in which the one-time Free Trader is putting his former followers who are still Free Traders, by the introduction of a tariff, is to withdraw the taxes.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. PETO: I am afraid I cannot take the very simple view which the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) does of the motives which underlie this Amendment, namely, that it brings those who introduce and vote for it one step nearer Free Trade. Personally, it seems to me a rather elaborate and ingenious game, as suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), and one that would naturally appeal to his very subtle intellect, for laying a trap for those who may be supposed to be in favour, on principle, of Colonial Preference. He said one thing in his speech which I think a little gave away the case. He said, addressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "As soon as you introduce a tariff this is what you do," and he went on to show that the value of the whole of the goods affected would not be more than £149,000, and that the duty, after all allowances made which were in contemplation for remission, could not exceed £33,000. Under the existing tariff, before any of these alterations were introduced by the Finance Bill, we had a far larger scope for Colonial Preference than that. As the hon. Member said, it has been urged by successive Colonial Conferences. I have not heard that any representations have been made from the Colonies with regard to the proposals which are made in this Finance Bill, and it seems to me that we had very much better accept these proposals for what they are; for the purposes for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has again and again announced to the

    1749
    House are the purposes for which the Government are introducing these taxes, and, so far as I am concerned, I accept them simply in that spirit as a contribution—a small contribution—to the revenue required for the War, and as some kind of a check—a very imperfect check, I think—on expenditure on unnecessary articles of import from abroad. From that point of view I refuse to be led, so far as I am concerned, into any of these controversies on Imperial Preference. I am perfectly satisfied of, and see perfectly clearly through, the motives that underlie this Amendment, and, so far as I am concerned, the lime will have to be laid a little more thickly on the twig to catch me.
    Mr. TAYLOR: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is very wise in his generation. He does not wish to introduce his proposals too rapidly. I quite agree that the adoption of the proposal of the Government pure and simple without this proposition, taken from the Tariff Reform book, is a wiser way to begin with. I am quite sure he is correct from his Tariff Reform point of view.
    Mr. PETO: I did not mention Tariff Reform.
    Mr. TAYLOR: One cannot rid oneself of the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman is one of the ablest and, perhaps I may say, the most patriotic advocates of the policy of Tariff Reform. I want to appeal to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I am a Free Trader out and out, and I hate these 33⅓ per cent, duties out and out for reasons which I have explained already and will take occasion to explain again. But if we have to have these duties, I shall vote for this Amendment with all my heart, because I honestly believe that if we have to have these objectionable duties put on articles from other countries, at least we ought to do without putting them on the Colonies. I know a little bit about the Canadian and Australian controversy too. I have been to these countries and discussed with leading statesmen in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada the motive that induced them to give the preference there, and I am quite sure of this, that as regards gentlemen like Sir Wilfrid Laurier and advocates of Free Trade in those other countries that have given us a preference, it has been a very large part of their motive to give a patriotic preference to different parts of the British Empire, and I share that sentiment to the
    1750
    full with every Tariff Reformer, Free Trader though I am. I hope I am no worse a British citizen because I say that if we are to give a preference to anyone it should be our own people. That is the part of the Tariff Reform programme that has always appealed to me, and if it were a sound programme that is the bait in the trap, as the hon. Gentleman said—I think it was lime on the twig he mentioned—that would get me. I shall vote against these duties. I intend to vote against Clause 12 if there is an opportunity tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not to-night; Tuesday night!"] Well, as far hence as possible, at all events. I shall vote against the Clause with all my heart. I shall vote for this Amendment with the double motive of having as little of an evil thing as one can have, i.e., of getting Free Trade over as large an area as we can, and for the motive of giving a preference to those who are giving a preference to us by laying down their lives for the Empire. I feel as a Free Trader absolutely justified on the same lines as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and those others who are Free Traders have felt, that is in voting as near Free Trade as they can get with the Old Country and other parts of the British Empire.
    The Secretary to the Treasury said just now that simplicity is the first essence of the tax. I thought when he was saying that, perhaps he had in his mind the supporters who sit behind him. I am sure that simplicity is the very first element the Free Traders should have in their mind who vote these taxes for a Government that has not yet abjured the principles of Free Trade. Simplicity in the tax t Yes, and simplicity in the followers who vote for the 33⅓ per cent. duties on the understanding there is absolutely no change in policy! I have been protesting to-night against the proposal which gave a preference to homegrown sugar as against the tax levied on the incoming product from other countries. Here we have a 33⅓ per cent. tax with no Excise Duty to balance it or any preference given by the Government. Surely the Government might yield this little point and allow us all to vote together patriotically to give a preference to our Colonies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to find the Committee in such a mood of unanimity. The Government might very well give way on this little point and appease those of us who-are Free Traders by reducing the strength

    1751
    of the bolus they ask us to swallow in regard to our Free Trade views, and also please the Tariff Reformers who, like us all, are patriotic citizens desiring to support our Colonies and our friends.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am sure that every Member of the Committee, or at any rate everyone who agrees with the view I take on the tariff question, felt that there would be one hour in this discussion when we brought the great issue between the Government and ourselves to a point. We have succeeded in bringing it to a decision in the Amendment now before us. What was the difference between the Government and its Free Trade supporters? The difference was this: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "We bring forward these proposals. They look like a tariff; they are in the shape of a tariff, but they are not a tariff because we say they are not. They are as like a tariff as anything could be, but they are not a tariff because we declare it."
    Mr. McKENNA: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind quoting the exact phrases to which he refers?
    Mr. LOUGH: The difficulty about the phrases would be that they would not be so picturesque, and they would not lead the Committee so quickly to the centre of the question as the way in which I have expressed them. It is within the memory of hon. Members here who have addressed the Prime Minister privately and the Government publicly upon this question that only one point has been given to us as an answer, and that point was this: They said, "The thing is temporary. It has other qualities, and although it looks extremely like a tariff, yet it is not a tariff because we declare it is not a tariff." I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether I have exaggerated? Any hon. Member who has been through the Debates will agree with me. They thought it would weigh with their simple followers. We said—I am going to be picturesque again—"You do not make black white by calling it white; you do not alter the nature of a thing by denying its nature or its character; you do not make the poison healthy by saying it is pure and clear water. You must judge the thing by examining it and by the object it obviously presents." We say that any man who has ever studied these questions must pronounce these proposals to be a tariff, and a tariff of a particularly vicious character. There was the
    1752
    difference between the Government and their Free Trade supporters. In one hour of the Debate the scene has changed. The Government admit that we have proved our case, and that we have shown that this is a tariff. If we are to proceed one step further in it we have to make it a little better tariff than it was at the beginning, to treat it like a tariff and to make it as complete as we can in all its parts. That is what we are trying to do now.
    I shall not have the slightest hesitation in voting for this Amendment if it is brought to a Division. I consider myself as strong an opponent of Colonial Preference as anyone in this Committee. How were we able to resist Colonial Preference? Only by one means, by being able to say, "We will have no tariff, we are Free Traders, we cannot give you a preference because we have none to give. All must come in on an equality." That was our single defence against the claim for Colonial Preference. The moment we adopt this tariff—if we should be unfortunate enough to adopt these foolish proposals my right hon. Friend has brought forward—at that moment we shall not have a single defence left us against the proposal for Colonial Preference. Now we shall stand before the Colonies naked and ashamed if we refuse to grant them a preference, and especially if we refuse it at this moment. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) said he was not going to be caught by bird lime. We do not believe in bird lime. We are simple people. We tell you what we think. Did we not fight these proposals from the first moment we heard of them, and fight them openly? We are going to fight them to the end. If we are defeated, and these proposals are carried, then undoubtedly we shall ask that every other necessary corollary shall be added. The right hon. Gentleman thought we should be ashamed of putting in Colonial Preference. Not at all! Here is a letter from Canada about it. It is from a piano and organ company. They say:—
    "May we be allowed, as importers of Colonial musical instruments, to point out the disastrous effect of the proposed duty of 33⅓ per cent."
    I leave out the next paragraph. The third paragraph says—
    "If some Import Duties are considered inevitable"—
    —that is what the Government say—
    "surely Colonial manufacturers might be exempt"
    The moment we pass the duties this exemption will be asked of us, and do you suppose that for a moment we can refuse that request? I think not. None of us

    1753
    who know the sacrifices our Colonies are I making for us at the present time, and I believe not one member of the Committee will feel that we shall be able to say in answer, when we are putting on a 33⅓ per cent, duty against foreigners, "We will put it on against you as well." How can we do that? The hon. Member for Devizes says it was only a small matter of £30,000 or £40,000. That is all the more reason why we should do it right. It is these small matters which show the sentiment. The case was admirably stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Taylor). I agree with him entirely that in the Government proposal we have one of the most disastrous proposals ever brought forward since 1842, by a Liberal Government in this House, if it is persisted in. Does not everyone know that we have now to decide the question of Colonial Preference. In a moment we shall come to another Amendment providing for discrimination in favour of certain, foreign countries. Everything that comes with tariffs will have to be adopted once a tariff is imposed. At any rate, that is the simple faith of a simple person like myself, as I understand it, and I shall pursue the course I have indicated without the slightest hesitancy or flinching for a single moment.
    Major HUNT: We seem to have got into an extraordinary position. We have very violent Free Traders backing Colonial Preference for all they are worth, and we have a prominent member of the Tariff Reform and Colonial Preference party going dead against it. I cannot understand the reason of either of them. The party to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) belongs described Colonial Preference as a sordid bargain. The right hon Gentleman is now advocating the sordid bargain for all he is worth. My hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) is going absolutely dead against Colonial Preference and apparently is going to vote against it. If he and Members who have always advocated it vote against it, I do not see in ordinary consistency how they can ever vote for it again. Surely in Unionist policy there must be some consistency. Apparently there is not any consistency on either side. Directly either side gets into difficulties they vote dead against their own principles. That apparently is what they are going to do when the Division comes on. But as far as I can understand it, nobody who has advocated Colonial Preference can vote against this Amendment. If he does he is voting against
    1754
    I all he has ever said before. I sincerely hope those who have been associated with me in Colonial Preference, coupled, I admit, with Tariff Reform, are not going to vote against this Amendment. I should think they will be wiped out in future when it comes to Colonial Preference and Tariff Reform in the near future, directly the War is over, and therefore it seems to me that they should consider very seriously before they vote against this Amendment. I shall certainly heartily support it, and I hope these courageous Free Traders will not run away.
    Mr. DUKE: If this were the time for an entertaining political farce I should be delighted to take part in it. Certainly all the elements of entertainment have been here, but the game is not worth the candle. Members on both sides of the House discuss this question of Colonial Preference as though we were discussing it in the circumstances of irresponsibility which some of us remember when there was a Government on that Bench which was not committed to Tariff Reform, and there was a powerful and active Opposition here which liked to bother it and badger it with very difficult questions, and put it in a position of tactical embarrassment, and very often succeeded. If I wanted to embarrass the nominal supporters of Colonial Preference at the present time I should first of all appeal to His Majesty's Government to adopt this Amendment, and if they did not adopt it I will not say I should vote for it, but I should look on placidly while the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends got themselves into a difficulty for the future. Really, when His Majesty's Government comes here and says, "We disclaim the making of tariffs: we are a composite Government, many of whose Members are honestly pledged against tariffs, and many of whose Members are honestly pledged to support tariffs when they get a proper opportunity: we, as a composite Government, tell you that we are not in a position to deal with the tariff question, but for great public reasons we are agreed that certain taxes ought to be imposed, not merely because of revenue, but because of indirect purposes which they serve—purposes of public economy, and the control of expenditure in one direction or another"—under those circumstances I cannot conceive that hon. Members will lend themselves to what cannot have any real effect upon the Tariff question, but can only have the practical effect

    1755
    of hurting and embarrassing the Government. This is not the time when His Majesty's Government ought to be hurt by this kind of badinage. I apologise for entering upon that line of discussion, but I feey very strongly at being kept here to hear what under ordinary circumstances would be entertaining discussions, but are absolutely irrelevant to the real proposals in the Budget—discussions which do not have any permanent effect upon the fiscal policy of this country, but have the immediate effect of hurting the Administration. I am not going to discuss either Tariff Reform or Free Trade or Colonial Preference, or a flat rate of tariffs or any of those topics. In past times I have taken an active part in discussing those subjects, and I have not altered my mind about them. This is not a time when I feel disposed to debate in an academic spirit the questions of Imperial Preference, Tariff Reform, or Free Trade, or to do anything else except that which I believe my Constituents expect me to do, and that is to give loyal support to the Government, unless there is some reason, not of private preference but of public necessity and safety, why I should oppose them.
    Mr. R. D. HOLT: I feel compelled to speak after the speech to which we have just listened. I am going to support this Amendment for a simple reason. I have always opposed Colonial Preference as an alternative to Free Trade, but if I am asked to choose between Colonial preference and Protection for domestic purposes only, I say that there is no choice between the two, and that Colonial preference is an infinitely better thing than merely domestic Protection. If we are to have a Protectionist Tariff, then I would vote for Preference for every single human being you can name for the sole purpose of breaking down the Protectionist Tariff. For that reason I vote for this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Duke) complained of the tone in which this Debate has been carried on. The Government have themselves to thank. They have made a proposal which is absolutely indefensible on any one of the purposes which they have put forward. There is not the slightest reason why we should not have an Excise corresponding to these import duties, if any single purpose avowed by the Government is the purpose they have truly aimed at. They have put forward arguments which every man of sense knows to be unfounded.
    1756
    They have urged a Protectionist Tariff for reasons which will not stand examination for one moment, and they have not alleged one single argument against a corresponding Excise. They bring forward this proposition for reasons which will not stand examination, and they bring it forward through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against whose every previous conviction this proposal must speak. And then they want to know why the country is losing confidence in them. Of course the country is losing confidence in the Government as fast as it possibly can when it finds the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing a Protectionist financial measure. The Government have introduced proposals which cannot be treated in any other way than they have been treated in this Debate. Members of the Government tell us that our principles do not bind us because there is war. They might as well say that the multiplication table, or the laws of gravitation are not true because of the War, or that the laws of the motion of the earth around the sun are going to be changed. The principles of Free Trade are right or wrong. War or no war makes no difference. Because members of the Government introduce an insane proposal of this sort hon. Gentlemen on this side are going to oppose it. For that reason the Government are losing a great deal of the confidence of the country at a time when I suspect they need it very badly.
    Mr. RADFORD: I am sorry, as a loyal supporter of this Coalition Government, to find myself in a position in which I must certainly vote for this Amendment. As this Amendment seems to cover the whole of the import duties named in this Clause, I may say a few words in support of it. There is one thing which the Coalition Government, which has few friends in this House, and perhaps fewer outside, cannot afford to do. That is to make itself ridiculous. By this proposal we are expecting to raise a trifling revenue, something quite contemptible having regard to the vast amount of our obligations. We are proposing to do it at a great expense of collection, and we are proposing to interfere with the fiscal system that has been approved of by this country for generations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) has said that these tariffs have no permanent effect, and he said that as if the matter did not admit of dispute. I differ from him on that point. If this measure, or any measure like it,

    1757
    exists during the continuance of the War, and if we have these industries, enumerated in this Clause, entrenched during a period of two or three years behind a duty of 33⅓ per cent., then whatever the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be—and I acquit him of any intention of becoming a Protectionist—you will have those industries established in that position, and they will be exceedingly difficult to get rid of. But once they are established they will form a system under which other industries will claim to be entitled to protection. With regard to the charge with which some of us have been twitted that we are proposing to vote for Colonial Preference, I have never voted in favour of Colonial Preference, thinking it not consistent with our large and generous system of Free Trade. But if we are going to introduce a tariff into this country, and if we should have the misfortune to live under a system of that kind, then I reserve my right to reconsider the question entirely, and as a supplement to Protection, I am not at all sure that Preference to British Dominions is not the right and the proper course for our Government to take. Therefore I must vote in favour of this Amendment, but I appeal as other Members have done to the Government not to make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the nation by insisting on these taxes which will bring in little or nothing.
    Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: Is it possible that the House of Commons can really discuss this question for all these hours and in this spirit? When we are at war it brings certain consequences with it. Though the responsible Government comes down to the House and says that the object of these proposals is to prevent money from going abroad, and that they feel themselves compelled to take steps which they should not take at other times, yet we are nevertheless raising the ghost of long gone-bye controversies and making ourselves ridiculous. What do the Colonies say? They say that if the Government have done this, and if they take the view that it should be done, they will back it up. Some of the Colonies say, "Very well, it is the fortune of war, and all we have got to do is to win this War, and see it through." The Government who are fighting this War are under a very great strain, a strain that none of us know or can imagine, and yet we ask them to listen to these things, and to talk about dividing,
    1758
    and show our enemies also that we are a divided House of Commons, that we are sticking to our old shibboleths, talking about them, dividing about them, and forgetting the War and the responsibilities arising from it. I say that it is lowering the House of Commons in the eyes of the country. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, it is making the House of Commons ridiculous, and I do hope, to use a classic phrase, used by a Member of the Front Bench, that "We shall have no more of this fooling."
    Sir GEORGE AGNEW: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but as a strong Free Trader, as I am and always have been, having been nurtured on that principle I might almost say from my infancy, I rise to make an appeal to my Free Trade friends around me to consider whether they are adopting the right course in this time of strain. I yield to no man in my love for the doctrine of Free Trade. I represent a Borough in Lancashire which was supposed, in those early days, to be the home of Free Trade. I was brought up on the speeches of Cobden, and I do not go back for one moment on anything I have learned. But these matters have to be set aside for more serious ones, and I for one say that if we doubt the wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we ought to vote for his removal from office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No—"] If we wish to keep him in office, as I do, and if we wish to show a united front to the enemy, then I think it is our duty, as men, to forget these minor differences, differences which appeal to both sides of the House on ordinary occasions and in times of peace, as it is perfectly legitimate they should.
    I, for one, as representing a very important borough, the greater part of the Borough of Salford, where they are nearly all Free Traders, do not hesitate to get up in this House and say that I shall vote for the Government, although the Amendment is supported by so many of my Friends at my side. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows what he is doing in this matter. He has told the House that he has definite objects in view which have nothing to do with the ordinary fiscal argument, and, therefore, I intend to support him, and I believe he will receive the support of the House. I appeal to my Free Trade Friends at this hour, who know as well as I do that our country is going through a crisis, such a crisis as it has not gone through in history, that we are

    1759
    bound in a case of this kind, when it is merely a matter of finding the necessary money for the War in which we are engaged to support the Government of the day. We are perfectly right in criticising the Government on any question closely connected with the conduct of the War, and would be the last to desire to interfere with that right. But in a case of this sort is it not a small matter compared with the gigantic issues at stake? I therefore do make an appeal to my hon. Friends not to pursue this. Surely they will admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done great good to the country in the War Loan and other matters, and deserves to be supported. I will not have the slightest hesitation in going down to my Constituency of Liberals and Free Traders and announcing to them the same thing as I have spoken to the House to-night, and I will do so with every confidence that they will approve. I shall certainly support the Government, and I again appeal to my hon. Friends not to allow differences before the enemy.
    Mr. DENMAN: The speech to which we have just listened has been personally of weight, but I do venture to suggest that it has got rather a false sense of proportion. Apparently we are to criticise the Government in important matters, and when, on the other hand, there is a relatively small point we are on no account to differ, and in presenting a united front we are not even to debate, apparently, whether the Canadians are to be subjected to import duties when they send goods to this country. I do think that presents a distorted view of the functions of this House, and of the real essential unity necessary for prosecution of the War. Like other Members who have spoken from this side I dislike all these taxes, but if the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench had listened to the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) he would have felt this was no trifling matter now that we have this particular opportunity of paying a compliment to other parts of the Empire. Very little money is involved; the financial effects are trifling; but, nevertheless, it is a compliment we can deliberately pay
    to them. We can say to them, "We are taxing goods from all the rest of the world, but your goods come in free." Just because the matter is small, just because the practical effects are very limited, but the sentimental effect is not, I personally have no hesitation whatever in supporting the Amendment.
    Major HUNT: In answer to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) and other hon. Members who made what I call mugwump speeches telling us that we must back the Government whatever happens, I do not think so at all. I do not think this Government is worth backing. They neither prepared for war nor know how to wage it. I am not backing them. In addition hon. Gentlemen should remember that this matter is considered very deeply in the Colonies which are giving their best blood to help us. They will say, "You had a chance of giving us help and you distinctly refused it." I hope that anybody who believes in the Empire, who is a real Briton, will vote for this Amendment on a matter of Imperial policy.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: As I come from the home of Colonial Preference, the place where Colonial Preference was first proposed by its most distinguished advocate, the late lit. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, I should on any suitable occasion be prepared to vote for it. But this, I venture to suggest, is not a suitable occasion. It is not a question of Preference or Non-Preference. It is a question of raising the necessary money to wage this War. As far as I know the sentiments of our Colonial brethren, they would be the last people to desire a preference at this particular time. They have always been ready to shoulder their due share of the burdens of the War, and I am perfectly certain they would like to do it in regard to this particular proposal. Therefore I shall support the Government and vote against the Amendment, and I hope that all my Unionist Friends who support the policy of the late Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain will do the same.
    Question put, "That the words 'except from any other parts of His Majesty's Dominions' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 125.

    Division No. 12.]

    AYES.

    [10.43 p.m.

    Clough, William

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    King, Joseph

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hogge, James Myles

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Hunt, Rowland

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Snowden, Philip

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Radford, George Heynes

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Howell Davies and Sir Tudor Walters.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Ogden, Fred

    Adamson, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Keating, Matthew

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon. S. Molton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Boyton, James

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Brace, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Shortt, Edward

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Stewart, Gershom

    Crumley, Patrick

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cullinan, John

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Currie, George W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tickler, T. G.

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Touche, George Alexander

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Fell, Arthur

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Field, William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Neville, Reginald J. M.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Glanville, Harold James

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Goldstone, Frank

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. Bridgeman.

    Gordon, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Gulland, John William

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Ireland" ["following articles imported into Great Britain or Ireland"], to insert the words "except from the territories of His Majesty's Allies for the time being."
    The object of the Amendment is to treat our Allies in the same way as it was proposed to treat the Dominions in the last Amendment—that is to say, to put their products on the free list. I am afraid, after what we have heard from the Treasury to-day, that there is little, if any, prospect of this Amendment being considered. Of course, we are familiar by this time with the arguments that have been employed and resisted on the last Amendment, and which, no doubt, will be employed again. In the middle of a great war and a great crisis, you want to have the good will of your allies. Some of the largest French motor-car manufacturers received commissions from their Govern-
    1762
    ment to give out some of the work they are doing on munitions in order to manufacture cars for importation into this country to protect their goodwill. The French Government are, of course, anxious to get all the munitions made they can, and it is important to allow those firms to continue their manufacture. The Government here propose what is really a prohibitive tax on French motor cars, which hits them much more heavily than other motor-car firms. I have seen a whole series of interviews with leading motor-car manufacturers in France engaged in the duty of manufacturing munitions for their Government, and they all complain bitterly, and look with great alarm upon the action now being taken by our Government. I have put my point, and I must leave it to the responsibility of the Government as to whether they will take action or not.
    Mr. McKENNA: As the Committee has just rejected a proposal to exempt our Dominions from the operation of these duties, I do not think my right hon. Friend would wish to press this exemption for the Allies. After all, the Dominions are fighting with us, and they are as dear to us as our other Allies. My right hon. Friend asked whether any protest has been received. I think as regards one of the taxes the Ambassador representing one of the Allies has raised, I will not say a protest, but has called to our attention the fact that it is injuriously affecting the manufactures of that country. We have had nothing like the protest that was raised when other duties which did seriously affect them were proposed. [An HON. MEMBER: "What duties? Were they wines?"] I do not think I need specify the particular duties. I do not think that the whole of these duties will very seriously affect any of our Allies. It will be for the convenience of the Committee, perhaps, if I say that we do not propose to go beyond the present Amendment. As soon as we have finished our discussion on this Amendment I shall move to report Progress.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. LOUGH: I ask the House not to prolong the Debate but accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1764
    that he will not go any further with the Debate to-night. There is only one argument he addressed to us. I am not going to develop it, but there is a different argument. However, I think we ought to meet the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit he has suggested, and we might agree to the Amendment being negatived on the condition that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Committee to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Eleven o'clock.