§ The new import duties and the additional Customs duties on dried fruits imposed by Part I of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall, subject to the provisions of Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, continue to he charged, levied and paid in the case of the new import duties until the first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and in the case of the duties on dried fruits until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
§ The CHAIRMANI propose to allow a general discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause. I could not permit such discussion to be repeated on the four following Amendments dealing with the duties on motor cars, motor cycles, musical instruments and so on, and suggesting, as they do, certain exceptions to the duties. But hon. Members may, of course, move their Amendments, and vote upon them.
§ Mr. KILEYDo I understand that by that you intend to rule out discussion on the details of the Amendments which are on the Paper?
§ The CHAIRMANI am not bound to accept any of these specific Amendments, but the arguments relative to any of these exceptions may be put forward in the main discussion, and there can be specific propositions divided upon later.
Sir W. BARTONI beg to move to leave out the words "The new import duties and."
What this Amendment really amounts to is asking for the repeal of what are known as the McKenna Duties of 1915 which impose a tariff of 33⅓ per cent. on certain articles, including motor cars, motor cycles and accessories, clocks, watches, musical instruments, cinema films, etc. A good deal of controversy has been caused amongst Free Traders and Protectionists as to the justification, at any time, for these duties. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, was, and is, as we know, a man of profound experience of political and commercial life, a great economist and, I think, a sound Free Trader. As far as my recollection serves me, I opposed by my vote these duties when they were proposed, although I acted with some degree of reluctance in view of the undoubted authority and experience of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have 938 since watched with very great carefulness what seemed to be the justification or otherwise of those duties, and I am bound to say that watching that effect has reconfirmed me in my belief in the policy and principle of Free Trade.
I feel that even things done in time of war, which were contrary to that policy, have not been justified. The longer I view this matter I regard Protection more and more as a slippery slope on which, if a man or a nation once sets foot, there is almost no possibility of pulling up. This Amendment raises afresh the whole question of Protection, a subject, perhaps, more vigorous in the minds of the real statesmen in the world to-day than it has ever been before. It seems to me that statesmen are constantly saying the things which we ought to do, and they are constantly doing the very opposite. As a matter of fact, politicians are carrying out totally different policies. We have at the head of our own affairs a world statesman and a party politician, and he tells us that we ought to sweep away the barriers which stand between men and men and nations and nations, and that we ought to have the freest access between one country and another, in order that each may exchange freely, one with the other, the things which they are best capable of producing.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARDOn a point of Order. Mr. Chairman, I do not mind all these statements being made, but would like to know if hon. Members who follow will be allowed to deal with them.
§ The CHAIRMANI was about to suggest to the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton) that he might shorten his approach to the question of the new import duties.
Sir W. BARTONI question the relevance of the interruption, but I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I think, however, I am within my right in recalling the definite conditions under which these duties were imposed, namely, the ground of the difference in the exchange, the ground of luxuries, and the need of carrying space or tonnage in our ships during time of war. The position of the exchange is one on which a little fresh light has come to us during the intervening period. I think in 1915 economists were more cocksure when 939 they spoke on the subject of exchange than they are to-day, and they said as we could not increase our exports we must reduce our imports, and thus secure the balance of exchange. Another reason put forward for imposing these duties was that we could do very well without luxury articles, especially as it was necessary to reserve tonnage in our ships for more` necessary things. These were the special reasons put forward for imposing these duties, and it was said that they were for the period of the War and nothing further. I think I am right in saying that the then Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) said that duties of this kind would never be considered in any circumstances when the War was over.
I want us to look for a moment at what the position is to-day in relation to the grounds which were given as the justification for the imposition of these duties in 1915. With regard to the question of exchange, I think the whole world recognises to-day that the only way in which you can get back to a sound exchange between nation and nation is by a vigourous carrying on of mutual exportations and importations. There were those in the past who did sometimes talk as if it were possible to export without importing, but that view has now been for ever exploded. If you will not import, neither will you export, and if you do not balance your imports and exports, your exchange cannot come to anything approaching par value. On the ground of carrying space, which was the main ground put forward at the time of the imposition of these duties, surely no one would argue to-day that that would be the slightest justification at this moment for keeping on these duties, because we have in all our ports a large number of ships lying idle. As a matter of fact, the one thing our shipowners are crying out for is tonnage, and consequently to the extent that these duties were intended to reserve carrying space the state of things is reversed.
I come back to the point that the world circumstances of 1915 are totally reversed to-day. Then we had to contemplate dearness and scarcity as a necessary outcome of the War. Surely to-day the need of this nation and of all Europe is plenty and cheapness. I should be sorry indeed to think that many of 940 my hon. Friends who were returned to this House, as I was, as Coalition Liberals are any less Free Traders than I am. I hold this opinion very strongly, that here is a subject which affords a clear test on which side we are. I appeal sincerely and honestly to Members of this House who believe in the opinions which world statesmen are expressing—I do not care what they call themselves—that we should sweep away all barriers to trade and all things which prevent one nation dealing with another, to set an example in this home of liberty and Free Trade by sweeping away these purely war-time duties. In doing so we shall be following on the lines of the best thought, and we shall give more encouragement to Europe than by anything else we could do.
§ Sir L. SCOTTI think it will be convenient to the Committee if I rise at once to answer the interesting speech to which we have just listened. The sincerity and conviction of the speaker are undoubted, and as a lawyer I should like to pay a tribute to the excellent way in which he has stated his case. At the same time I want, if I may, to ask the Committee to approach this matter not from the point of view of that very interesting and abstract question—Free Trade versus the Tariff system—but from the point of view of the exigencies of our financial needs to-day. I appreciate that the reasons for which the duties were introduced in 1915. were, amongst others, those to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, i.e., shipping space, exchange, and so on. But in addition to that, there was a need then which unfortunately continued to-day, a need of money and a need of credit. In addition to these duties tending to shut out imports and thereby save shipping freight, Mr. McKenna, in introducing them, pointed out that they would bring money to the Exchequer. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it was commonly agreed that when the War was over these duties were to be abolished. I am not sure that I can entirely accept that statement. But assuming it does express the position as it then was, the phrase really meant when the country got back to normal financial conditions. We are not, however, there yet. We are a very long way from normal conditions, and it is simply and solely because the financial conditions of to-day are very much more like war conditions 941 than peace conditions, because of the heritage of the War, that the Government is obliged to continue this taxation and to continue to tap sources of taxation which in absolutely normal times might very possibly not be tapped. It is from that point of view that I ask the Committee to approach this question.
I do not want it approached as an abstract question of principle or from the point of view whether or not this is the best way of raising money, but I want the Committee to realise that the machinery for raising money by these duties is in existence, and that the duties are in existence as well, and, as far as one can judge, are not causing any particular grievance. It is from that point of view that I ask the Committee to accept the principle of the Clause. The acceptance of the Amendment would mean a sacrifice of just under £1,500,000 of revenue. I agree there were reasons other than financial reasons for proposing these duties in the first instance. The whole of these duties on motor-cars, watches and clocks, musical instruments, and so on—
§ Sir L. SCOTTI have just said £1.500,000, or, to be quite accurate, £20,000 under that sum. When this very same point was considered when the Budget Resolutions were before the House on the 8th May last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that it was absolutely impossible at the present time to forego this £1,500,000. It is quite true that at the present moment, as a result of the trade depression, the motorcar industry in this country, which employs a very large number of men, is in a very seriously depressed state.
§ Sir L. SCOTTWe are not discussing other industries at the moment. We are discussing the industries primarily affected by these duties, and the industry which above all others is affected by those import duties is the motor industry. It is not an auspicious moment, when a large number of men in that industry are unemployed, to take off the duty.
§ Mr. FRANCEAccording to a return originally published, the yield of these duties was actually £5,480,000 as against an estimate of £3,750,000. How does the hon. and learned Gentleman make it that the yield is only £1,500,000?
§ Sir L. SCOTTThe figure quoted by my hon. Friend, of £5,480,000, represents the receipts for the year 1920–1. The receipts for last year had fallen, no doubt on account of the trade depression, to £1,698,000, and the estimate for this year is £1,480,000. That is where I got my figure of £1,500,000—just £20,000 below £1,500,000. I do not propose at this moment to go into details. I do not think it necessary to weary the Committee with them at this stage. I say, simply and generally, and with perfect candour, we must have this money. We cannot afford to give it up, apart altogether from the interesting questions of economic principle which the Mover of the Amendment discussed.
§ Mr. FRANCEThe Solicitor-General, I take it, bases his appeal to the Committee to reject this Amendment, not on the ground of principle as between a protective tariff and Free Trade, but simply on the ground of financial necessity. He asks us for the time being to disregard the reasons which led the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day to impose these duties. At that time there were reasons, right or wrong—some of us did not approve of them, and thought it would have been better if it had never been done—with regard to the traffic crossing the seas and the measures to be taken to reduce that traffic; but the Solicitor-General asked us to disregard either the origin of these duties or the effect they have on any principles often debated in this House, and simply to regard it as whether or not the Treasury can afford to part with this £1,500,000. If that be so, may I point out that if a year ago these duties realised nearly £5,000,000, if last year they only realised rather over £1,500,000, and if the Estimate for the coming year is less than £1,500,000, then it seems to me to be a most auspicious moment for doing without this diminishing revenue. From the point of view of revenue these taxes are obviously not a success.
Although the Solicitor-General asks us to look at the question from that point of view, we must also take some note of the fact that he, under the influence of 943 some side wind, did speak about the effect that these duties had upon unemployment and the trade of the country. If he takes it from that standpoint, then again from the very fact that the revenue obtained is diminishing so rapidly, and the Estimates for this year are at a reduced figure, I do not think he can show with any satisfaction from any point of view that these duties have been a success. More than that, we cannot forget what he touched upon lightly, that when these duties were imposed, whatever were the reasons, the House, listening to the words of the Government of that day, was given to understand that they were only imposed for a temporary period, for the period of the War; and that at the end of that time they would be removed. When a Debate took place shortly after this Government came into power, that promise was, so far as my recollection goes, merely postponed, and an understanding come to that they should only be renewed for that year with a view to their abolition at the end of that time. Now, because there is £1,450,000 expected from them, we are told we must adhere to these duties for revenue purposes.
I would ask the Solicitor-General, if that is the ground on which he bases his defence of these duties, to reconsider the matter, and see whether or not some other method cannot be found for raising this amount of money. If revenue is the only consideration, and if all considerations of protection are ruled out of this discussion, then it is quite obvious it would be better method of increasing the amount of revenue by taking the duty from cars coming from abroad and putting some duty on them in this country, a countervailing duty or an equal excise, so as to remove what is not held by the Government to be a ground for supporting them, namely, the ground that they were of a protective nature. I would strongly urge that the Solicitor-General does not appear to have given very good grounds for the retention of the duties, and he should reconsider the matter and endeavour to persuade the Government to remove them.
§ Mr. MOSLEYThe Solicitor-General began by resting his case purely on the ground of revenue, but in the concluding passages of his speech be instanced the 944 case of the motor industry, and stated that a measure of protection in its present condition of unemployment was very urgently required by that industry. That Ls an illuminating advance on previous—
§ Sir L. SCOTTI merely said that the present moment, when unemployment was very bad in the motor industry, did not seem a particularly auspicious one to take off the duty in question.
§ Mr. MOSLEYI think that is substantially what I said. The motor industry is in a bad way, and in the opinion of the Solicitor-General it requires some measure of protection; consequently, he is not desirous of removing these duties and of returning to the traditional system of this country. There are a very great many industries in this country to-day which are in a bad way and, by the same process of reasoning, might require an even greater measure of protection than is afforded by this tax. How admirable a justification of the fears of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment and who spoke of a slippery slope which speedily led downwards. I do not wish to rest my case entirely on the broad principle of theory which the Solicitor-General so entirely disclaimed, though I must admit that the Mover of the Amendment has, indeed, a strong ground when he cites the recommendations of international experts at all those great conferences which are held up from the Government Benches as a panacea for all human ills. When we reflect on the recommendations of the experts at Brussels, and the reiterated recommendations which were issued from Genoa, stating that the pre-requisite for European and world recovery was the removal of the tariff barriers, it is, indeed, a lamentable commentary upon the methods of the present Government who advocate so strongly those principles at Genoa while the Solicitor-General comes here and argues in favour of a Protective system.
With regard to this question of revenue, and the more detailed matter stressed by the Solicitor-General, I should like to bring to his notice one or two points upon those duties which I have already brought to the notice of the Treasury, and of which, I am afraid, he will be unaware. There are cases of commodities taxed by these duties from which no revenue what- 945 soever has been derived by the Exchequer, while considerable impediments to English trade have been constituted. I can give him one particular case, a case that primâ facie would appear super-eminently to be a luxury case, that of old violins. It sounds a very trivial matter, but it raises a very great question of principle, and it typifies the kind of thing that happens under a system such as this. There are certain firms in this country, and one in particular which operates within my own constituency, engaged in a very great entrepot trade in these old instruments. The process is to purchase violins in Austria or Germany, to bring them to this country for purposes of repair and testing, which provides a quite considerable industry in the locality in which I am interested, and then to re-export them to America.
It is quite evident that, in the present state of our finances, luxuries such as these are not bought on any great scale in this country. The tax-gatherer has seen to that. Furthermore, the firms in question are prepared to pro-duce their books and accounts to the Treasury, and to prove conclusively that none of these instruments are required for sale in England; they are all exported to America. What is the effect of such a transaction? The effect, so far as the exchange is concerned, is to benefit the exchange of the Central European countries, to benefit the exchange of this country, and to depreciate in our favour the exchange of America. That is scarcely a transaction so detrimental to our exchange as would appear from the description furnished by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentle-man may reply, "Yes, but on re-export the money can he demanded and refunded." That is quite true, but what are the practical difficulties, which the bureaucracy sometimes do not realise? The Customs authorities, when these violins are landed in this country, are compelled, for purposes of identification, which is a very difficult process, to attach—
§ Mr. HOHLEROn a point of Order. Is this relevant to the matter in question, which is whether motor-cars, which, so far as we know, are not re-exported, should pay a duty? This appears to have something to do with ancient fiddles.
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly. Musical instruments of all kinds were included in the duties levied under the Finance Act, 1915.
§ Mr. MOSLEYThat interruption shows how unpopular our opposition to these taxes has become. It is the second time this evening that we have been interrupted on entirely irrelevant points of Order. As I was endeavouring to explain, it is not possible to perform all the operations which are necessary in connection with these violins, owing to the precautions that must be taken by-the Customs authorities for purposes of identification. When the instruments are landed in this country, large seals are attached to them by the Customs authorities, in order that no sharp practice or substitution of a different violin may take place, and it is evident that they must take that precaution, because the identification and classification of these old instruments is a highly expert business. When the seals are attached, it is impossible either to repair the instruments in the factory established for the purpose in my constituency, or to test them in another place where they are taken for that purpose. It is obvious that you cannot repair a violin with great seals stuck all over it, which may not be broken, and it is obvious that an expert cannot play a violin with seals stuck upon the strings on which he per-forms. Consequently, this trade is becoming impossible to carry on in this country. The effect of these duties is, if persisted in, will be entirely to banish this trade abroad and to banish the highly skilled labour engaged in it.
This is but one small case. It is a case in which an apparent luxury is in reality a raw material of our industry. The old violin is actually the raw material upon which the skilled finishing processes of English labour can be performed, to the benefit of the exchange of this country and of the exchanges of the Central European countries, at the expense of the American exchange. That benefit is highly conducive to a recovery of the economic condition of the world. In so far as this transaction operates, it is entirely beneficial to all those causes to which the hon. and learned Gentleman considers it to b[...] so detrimental, and no doubt there are innumerable other cases which are enmeshed in the clumsy net of these duties, to the 947 very great detriment of English trade. I hope, therefore, that if it is decided to persist in their maintenance, the hon. and learned Gentleman will, in accordance with his own argument, undertake an inquiry into some of their practical results.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy hon. Friend the Member for Batley (Mr. France) said that the actual yield of these duties two years ago was £5,000,000, whereas now it is only estimated to be something like £1,500,000, and he rather came to the conclusion that that showed that the duties were unsuccessful. I am not at all sure, however, that it does. Perhaps we may draw this conclusion, that the result of the duties has been to introduce employment into this country, and that articles which were imported from abroad two years ago are now being manufactured in this country.
§ Mr. FRANCEMay I say that my special point was, on the ground put forward by the Solicitor-General, that these were revenue-producing taxes, that the amount had diminished so much from that point of view that they were not a success and we could do without them?
§ Sir L. SCOTTWould it he convenient to the right hon. Baronet if I just intervene for a moment? I should like to point out that in the year 1920–21, when the receipts were very high, there was a very large number of people in this country, at that time of trade boom, who were buying motor-cars. The construction of cars during the War had ceased altogether, and the supply had not nearly caught up with the demand at that date. The result was that a very considerable number were imported into this country.
§ Mr. FRANCEDespite the duty?
§ Sir L. SCOTTYes. I want to be perfectly candid. I think that that is probably the explanation, but no doubt to some extent the duty has operated in the way which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is now indicating. The inference drawn by the hon. Member for Batley that the duties are not a success, because the receipts from them are decreasing, is, I venture to think, an unsound inference. 948 As far as we can judge, there are signs of revival, and it is hoped that the industries affected by these duties are now on the upward grade, though still in need of help.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was not going into the arguments of the Solicitor-General, but merely into those of my hon. Friend, and I think it is quite arguable to suggest that the possible cause of the decrease is that the work is being carried on in our own country instead of abroad. I should have thought that that was what the Labour party desired. Certainly it is what I desire, and is what I believe a great number of Members of all parties desire. Before I sit down, I should like to say one word about violins. I am not a musician myself, but I fail to understand the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). I may be wrong, but I think I am right in saying that if a violin is brought in from abroad and re-exported the duty can be refunded. Therefore, in the first place, the only damage done is that a little trouble is caused in going to the Inland Revenue Department to get the duty back, and I do not think we need cry out very much over that. In the second place, I think that if an American wants to buy an old violin he does not bother what the price is. He buys it because it is an old violin, and because he can show it in his house in Chicago or wherever it may he, and say, "I gave so many dollars for that particular instrument," and the more dollars he gave the better he is pleased. Therefore, I think the only argument that can be adduced against this provision is that the person who buys a violin has to pay a duty which he gets back, and that, if he were to sell it at a high price to an American, he might make a little more than he can at the present moment. That is not a very serious argument against the duties.
§ Mr. NEWBOULDI am rather sorry for the Solicitor-General, because I feel sure he would like to defend these taxes on pure Protectionist grounds—on the same grounds as they have just been defended by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury)—but in the present Cabinet that is not permitted. You must not talk Protection. You must only act it. The right hon. Gentleman is debarred from really ex- 949 pressing the views which I am sure he holds in regard to these taxes. I wish to discuss the effect of this duty on films. It is bad in all respects. The revenue derived front it is not worthy of consideration. There is a third of a penny on the raw stock. That has the effect of increasing the price of the raw material to the British producer of the pictures. The next duty is a penny on the print from the negative. That has the effect of keeping the prints out of this country. We do not get the best negatives from which the prints are taken, but a secondary negative of inferior quality, the result being that the prints taken in this country are inferior to those taken from the original negative, so that the second portion of this duty is bad. The third is worse than the other two combined. It is a duty of 5d. per foot on the exposed negative. I have here a letter from a member of the Royal Geographical Society complaining that they are exposing some thousands of feet of negative film in a pictorial record of the ascent of Mount Everest, and they are going to be compelled, when they bring it back to this country, to pay 5d. on every foot of that negative which they have exposed. The possibility is that, out of the many thousands of feet which they will actually expose, only a few thousand feet will really be worth anything. Owing to climatic conditions many thousands of feet of negative will be exposed which will be valueless. Nevertheless, before the film is developed, before a print is taken from it to show whether it is any good at all, they have to pay 5d. a foot. They have already paid a third of a penny on the raw stock, because they have taken the film from this country with them for this purpose, and they have to pay an additional 5d. per foot on the amount of negative they expose. Does the Minister of Education think it is helpful to education that a film of such a description should be subject to a duty of that sort—not only the actual amount of film which is of value, but on the whole of the film exposed, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent? Is that the way he is endeavouring to encourage education? He is, of course, a Free Trader who is naturally opposed to these duties, leaving education out of the question altogether. I have a second complaint from the same source—the Royal Geographical Society—in regard to one of their members who 950 has just come back from East Africa with a large amount of film exposed dealing with wild animal life. Again they have to pay 5d. a foot for the whole of the film, whether they use it or not.
Let us leave the educational aspect out of the question and come down to the commercial effect of this on British production. Probably 90 per cent. of the films shown in this country are of foreign origin, and it is desirable that there should be more films of British production. What happens? I want to produce a film in this country, and I want a scene laid somewhere on the Continent—some historical event which occurs in the story I am trying to depict. I take my actors, artists and camera men over to France or Italy or wherever it may be, and there I expose several thousands of feet of film, out of which I shall probably want, when I come to put my story together in picture form, two or three hundred feet. On every foot T have exposed in that foreign country I have to pay a duty of 5d. when I bring it back here. That is the way the Government are encouraging British film production, struggling to compete with the Americans, Germans, Italians, and other people. The British producer is hampered sufficiently by other causes. This 5d. a foot on the negative which he exposes in order to give a correct historical account of any story he is trying to portray is a burden which brings no revenue worth mentioning to the Exchequer, but which seriously hampers the industry. I am sure if the Solicitor-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to examine the matter carefully, or refer it to their experts for advice, they would instantly agree to the repeal of this portion of the duty affecting film production.
§ Mr. REMERI cannot follow the hon. Member with reference to the films of Mount Everest. As I understand the position, they will come under Imperial Preference, and therefore will not be liable to any duty whatever. [Interruption.]
§ Sir L. SCOTTThere is a preference.
§ Sir L. SCOTTI did not say there is no tax; I said there is a preference.
§ Mr. RENDALLIt is a third of the whole tax.
§ Mr. REMERI deplore very strongly that we have not taken our courage in both hands and realised what are not only the financial needs, but also the economical needs of the country. I should like to supplement what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) has said with reference to motor cars. He said the reason why this tax is diminishing is because these goods are being made in this country, and are in that way causing less unemployment amongst our people. Before the War nearly all the Ford cars were made in America, but they are to-day being made at Trafford Park and are employing 2,000 workmen. I have been in that works within the last ten days and it is a most amazing sight. I wish every hon. Member could go and see those works, and I am sure it would very soon cure them of the fallacies of some of the Free Trade speeches we have heard opposite. It is not that works only. We have in Stockport the works of the Willy's Overland, which have been put up quite recently since this tax came into operation, and has resulted in very considerable employment for the people of this country. The hon. Member for Batley (Mr. France) asked why other industries are not treated in the same way? I quite agree. Why cannot we have other industries—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must confine himself to the industries mentioned in the Finance Act, 1915.
§ Mr. REMERHon. Members say that this is the thin end of the wedge of Protection. That is the one consideration in their minds, and not what is best or what is good for their country. The only thing they think about is whether their petty, foolish, economic views are being considered.
§ 10.0 P.M.
Dr. MURRAYI am sure that the only person in the Committee who has listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. 952 Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) is the Solicitor-General, and even the Solocitor-General must have said, "Save me from my hon. Friend." Therefore, there is no need for me to follow the hon. Member in his character as a wild man of the woods. The perpetuation of this tax is, in substance, a breach of faith. There is no doubt that pledges were given over and over again that these taxes were temporary in character and would net be imposed after the War. Mr. McKenna, the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), and the late Secretary of State for India (Mr. Montagu), in view of the almost vicious challenges of the present Minister of Health, said that these taxes could not be imposed after the War. On that occasion the present Minister of Health was in the true line of the prophets. He said:
I must warn him that the retaking of a trench once evacuated results in very heavy casualties, and you do not get back the same position.He did not believe in the temporary character of these duties. He also said:Some people seem to think that if we ant Protection we shall get rid of it soon. Do not let these vested interests get their snout into your dinner plate. Do not let them feel how easy it is to become wealthy"—and here I think there must have been a tear in his voice—at the expense of the poor people in this country. Every man who benefits from a tariff is a robber.The trouble I have with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he does not read his colleagues' speeches. I drew attention to a speech of the Prime Minister, but I do not think the right hon. Gentle-man had ever read it. Now I am drawing attention to a speech of his colleague the Minister of Health, and he will not read it, and he does not listen to me. How these Coalition representatives love one another I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say the other day that he was not a Protectionist Chancellor. What amazes me about the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench is how often they change their name. When one thing becomes unpopular then they give it a fresh name. When Protection is unpopular, then become Tariff Reformers. When Tariff Reform is unpopu- 953 lar, they become Imperial Preference men. They change their names as often as the Germans changed their names during the War. The right hon. Gentleman went to Genoa to preach Free Trade.
§ Sir R. HORNEindicated dissent.
Dr. MURRAYWell, the Secretary to to Department of Overseas Trade went to preach it for the right hon. Gentleman. He preached untrammelled trade at Genoa, with his hands dripping with the blood of Free Trade in this country. No wonder that people in other parts of the world are surprised and amazed at our attitude—the Bible and rum in Africa, the Gospel and opium in China, Protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and Free Trade at Genoa. With respect to the duty on motor cars, I maintain that motor cars are not a luxury. In many parts of the country they are an absolute necessity for ordinary travel, where you have no trains and where the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to assist people who are depending upon coastal traffic. With respect to clocks, how can we tell Summer Time if we have no clocks? A clock is a necessity of the home. Why perpetuate this tax upon clocks? I protest against the attempt of the Government to perpetuate what was imposed in 1915 as a temporary tax. I think that the Minister of Health was right, and that once you impose a tax of this kind it is very difficult to get rid of it. The Free Trade position is being attacked in various directions, of which the Safeguarding of Industries Act represents one, and those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir W. Edge), believe in Free Trade as the basis of our fiscal system, should set to work immediately to repel these attacks or the Free Trade citadel will be entirely captured.
§ Mr. KILEYThe principal argument in favour of these duties which we have had to-night is that the country cannot afford at this moment to forego any possible revenue. That was the argument advanced 12 months ago and two years ago, but before that we were told, "It is far too soon to interfere with these duties, let us wait and see how matters develop." Therefore they have remained despite the undertaking by various Ministers that these taxes were of a temporary nature, and would on no ac- 954 count be continued after the War. Now we are told that the Government cannot forego this source of revenue, and I suppose that that will be the statement next year if the same Gentlemen occupy the Treasury Bench. In 1918 the Government appointed numerous Committees on reconstruction, with the object of ascertaining what could be done to put this country in a state of efficiency after the War. Various recommendations were made. Very few of them were acted upon. One of the facts established clearly was that cheap transit was an essential. Yet we have proceeded to make it almost impossible for low grade cars to be in use in this country, under the mistaken idea that if you have a cheap motor-car you are preventing the trade in motor-cars in this country.
Never was there a greater delusion. We have in this country, fortunately, established a reputation for motor-cars whose fame is known through the length and breadth of the world, but it is not every person who can afford to buy these expensive British cars. If you can put people with a moderate income in the way of buying a cheaper car, that will lead to the development and encouragement of the home industry in connection with those cars which we can make with advantage and with profit to ourselves. But by putting a tariff on the low-priced cars, which we cannot make in this country with the same advantage as other countries, we thereby restrict the use of cars. In this country there is one car for every 70 of the population and in the United States there is one for every 80 persons. One of the reasons for this difference is the price of cars in this country. Therefore what should be done is to get as many cheap cars as possible, because there is room for them, and by encouraging the use of low-grade cars you tend to increase the use of the more expensive cars. The actual yield from imported motor cars in this country was last year, according to figures supplied by the Government, £322,000. Far more interesting and significant is the fact that the yield on parts of cars for manufacturing and for repairs amounted to no less than £388,000. That is a large sum derived from parts of cars which are used by our manufacturers in this country, and by imposing that tax we are injuring the development of trade at home. In the preceding year the amount received 955 on imports of cars was very much greater It was not possible to get cars in this country at a reasonable figure and therefore a vast influx of cars took place. But there was no market for these cars in this country and many of them were re-exported and therefore the yield was not maintained.
With regard to accessories there appear to be a great many difficulties raised by the Customs Authorities in the collection of the duties. It is stated that no duty is levied on vehicles of a commercial character. I have read of a case in the Press during the last few days in which a commercial car was imported. It was sold two or three times and eventually found its way to a purchaser who removed the commercial body and put a private body on the car, and he was prosecuted by the authorities and had to pay a fine for using that kind of car. What an absurd position for the Customs Authorities to be in! If a person declares, when the car is coming in, that he intends to use it for commercial purposes he escapes the tax, but if he uses it for any other purpose he must pay the tax. I would suggest to the Chancellor that, in order to secure uniformity, he should put a tax on in all cases and thus prevent foolishness of this kind. As a further illustration of what happens I may refer to a letter from one of my constituents. He writes to the Customs Authorities:
We are in receipt of your communication and beg to enter our strong protest against the most unwarrantable delay in causing delivery of the petrol tank. The consignment arrived in London on the 14th. We wrote you on the 21st in response to your complaint that this tractor contained a magneto on which duty had not been paid, and what is the use of you saying that there is no tax on commercial vehicles when you are holding up a car which contains a magneto on which you are demanding the duty?He goes on to say:Despite our offer to pay a deposit, you refused to let us take the vehicle away, and we enter a very strong protest against this method.There is considerable inequality in the bearing of these taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well consider whether he should not revise the taxes or sweep them away. If he must have revenue, there are other ways of getting it without inflicting hardship on industry or upon the use of an article that is a neces- 956 sity. Let him put a duty on diamonds and pearls and other luxuries of that kind. That would do very little injury to any class of the community. Then there is the duty on watches and clocks. Low-grade watches are made chiefly in Switzerland. They have to pay the tax. If a wealthy person wants to buy a watch he naturally makes his purchase in this country, and no duty is paid. It comes to this: If a boy wants a watch when he is starting in life, the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers it appropriate to raise revenue on the watch. But the boy's employer, who perhaps would buy a 50-guinea gold watch is not troubled to pay a tax. The same process goes on in regard to clocks. A workman requires a cheap clock if he is to get to his work in time. That kind of clock is not manufactured in this country, but abroad, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer levies a duty on it. When the workman's clock or the boy's watch gets damaged and a part has to be replaced, a tax of 33⅓ per cent. is put upon the article required. This is what is known as scientific tariff making. It is about time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed a Committee to go into details, and to sweep away all taxes now charged on parts which are used for remanufacturing purposes, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to sweep away the taxes on the completed articles.
§ Sir DONALD MACLEANI think the Committee ought to have an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the interesting and able speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould). I refer more particularly to the part of his speech in which he referred to British companies of actors and actresses, with machinists and operators, going to the Continent to produce a film for the sole purpose of exhibition in this country. As I understood my hon. Friend's statement, that film, although produced entirely by British artists and operators, is subject to exactly the same duty as a film produced by Germans, Frenchmen or Italians. It seems to me that case requires answering. At any rate, we should have an understanding that it will be taken into consideration before the Report stage to see if it is possible to deal with the point. Regarding the film of Mount Everest., surely that is a case in which the Department should have power to allow a film 957 to come in without any duty whatever. There should be power in the hands of the authorities to admit free of any tax a purely British production, which is a powerful competitor with foreign films, and the only objection to which is that it may have been produced on foreign soil. The present state of affairs in this respect should not continue to exist, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the subject into consideration before the Report stage.
§ Sir R. HORNEI regret I did not hear the main portion of the speech of the hon.-Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould). I only heard a part of it and from the statement just made, it would appear that I only imperfectly apprehended it. I understood the complaint of the hon. Member was, that with regard to the Mount Everest film, they were bound to pay the duty upon the film as produced, although in point of fact they might not have desired to use it in the shape in which they had paid duty upon it. I took up that matter at once and learned, in point of fact, that the duty is only paid upon the film when it is taken out of bond. Prior to that being done, either they may take the film altogether or excise any portion of it which they do not wish subsequently to produce. That, I understood, was the gravamen of the charge and to that extent the reply is as I have given it. I think, with my right hon. Friend, that where it is disclosed that the production of a film is exclusively British, that it is made of British material and constructed by British artists, a case might then arise, in which some alleviation could take place. In such circumstances, I am sure, there would be no desire on the part of the British Government to exact a duty on a film so produced as if it were the production of a foreign firm. I certainly am very willing to take such a case into consideration. I am also quite ready to assure the Committee that in relation to such a film as that of the expedition to Mount Everest, I think there should be power—although the House is not very ready to grant discretionary powers to Government Departments—there should be some method by which a particular exception might be made where, in truth, the whole production is British. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Clause is not to entrap the 958 British producer or do anything detrimental to the encouragement of British productions, but only to exact from the foreign producer the duty Which it has been thought well in the past to charge him. I shall be very glad before the Report stage to take into account what the right hon. Gentleman has said and give the best consideration to the possibilities of relief.
§ Major M. WOODI would like the. Committee to remember that when these duties were first proposed, it was in an overwhelmingly Free Trade House of Commons, and naturally the great majority of Members of that House were very afraid that these duties would be continued after the War. Protest after protest was made in the House, and the House only assented to them on a definite assurance being given by the Government of the day, and particularly by those who were known to hold strong Protectionist opinions. In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) on the 29th September, 1915. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to these words—
Duties of this kind would never be continued under any circumstances when the War was over."—[OFFICIAT, REPORT, 29th September, 1915; col. 913, Vol. 74.]I say that that is a definite pledge given to the House of Commons and to the country that these duties would not be continued. Why is the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his colleagues, coming forward and asking the House of Commons to assent to these duties when we were given a definite assurance that they would never do anything of the kind? There is a pledge as definite as it is possible for a pledge to be given. It was given by the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow when he was a Member of the Government. He committed, therefore, all the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting on that bench at the present time and the Government, and to continue these duties to-day is a breach of faith. I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to face these facts, which, to say the least of it, require an answer.
§ Sir R. HORNEDoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that he will be hound by all that we do on this Bench to-day?
§ Major M. WOODI do not think that is an answer to the point I have made. [Laughter.] I do not follow the reason for the merriment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is, after all, a very serious matter, because it is a pledge, as I say, given by a. right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government, and it was on the faith of that pledge that these duties were assented to. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health particularly took a lead in opposing these duties, for the very reason for which we are opposing them now, and it is quite obvious that what he feared has come true. He is now a Member of the Government, of course, and we cannot get his real views on the subject, but we are entitled to put this forward, and ask for a reasoned explanation, not merely from the right hon. Gentleman, because, of course, he was not in the Government at that time, but there are some there who were, and the Prime Minister in particular ought to come here and defend these duties, and explain why he has broken faith, not only with the House of Commons, but with the country as a whole.
§ Mr. WATERSONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould), admitted that he had not had the privilege of hearing the whole of his speech, neither did my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who put the question to the Chancellor, and as one who has sat continually through the Debate and who heard that speech. I feel disposed to put the matter a little more clearly. The fact was that, if actors or actresses are taken out of this country, with the raw material, with the operators, with the machinery, and with everything that is essential for the making of a film, when that film is returned to this country a duty is paid on it at the rate of 5d. per foot, but if 1,000 feet of film are produced, and only 250 feet are required, those in authority are compelled by the present Regulations to charge on the number of feet brought into this country, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to charge 960 this duty according to the number of feet that are required for the purpose of putting on the pictures in the various parts of the United Kingdom, and that that part of the film which is not used will be liberated from the duty. That is the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton, which. I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to reconsider on Report. I trust, at any rate, something will be done in that direction, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way clear, I am prepared to recognise the compromise that has been made, in the hope that the day is not far distant when the duty in is entirety will be abolished.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), I would like him to remember that we are as much sincere and honest about the future of the country as he is. We claim to have an interest in the country of our birth, and to be as much concerned as he is in the welfare of our country. It does not come with the greatest amount of courtesy for hon. Members to lecture those in opposition simply because they hold diametrically opposite political views from themselves. It is because we are honest, and are anxious to put our views for the good of the country that we are in opposition. I say this in the hope that we shall not receive in future the chastisement which is so characteristic a part of the hon. Member's speeches. I trust that, so far as the economic position is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will view it from that point of view, seeing the unemployment in our country which is clue to many of these obnoxious duties that have been operating for some time. It is to be noted that a commercial vehicle which has been made abroad and is fit for running, when brought into this country is exempt from tax, but any particular portion of a commercial vehicle has to have a duty paid on it. In the interest of employment one would have thought that if there-is any advantage, it would be far more advantageous to the Government to allow the parts of a commercial vehicle to come in exempt, and to put a duty on the commercial vehicle, because it would, at any rate, increase employment. People who to-day are in the fortunate position of having plenty of money are prepared to buy a 961 very good car, probably a Rolls-Royce or something of that description, but the middle-classes, who are not so fortunately placed, the ordinary medical fraternity and the ordinary business men, are compelled to have a common car, and when that common car is imported into this country, this duty is applied. I hope that the Government will shortly see that the pledges given in this House on these duties will be redeemed. Without the shadow of a doubt when these duties were imposed they were only imposed for the period of the War, and for that period only. Upon these benches we feel that the time is now opportune, yea, it is more than opportune that they shall be removed from the Statute Book in order to make and increase employment in our country.
An illustration was given by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) about an engineering works at Trafford Park working full time. This was to support his argument. If hon. Members are going to take the general position and be satisfied with it simply because one works is closed and another is working full time, and think that is the whole situation, then we are in a false position, because, as a matter of fact, I could single out an engineering works in the country to-day which has been closed down for many months, and which to a large extent is responsible for the engineering dispute. Men in the engineering world knew perfectly well there were thousands of their comrades upon the streets while others were working overtime. Nevertheless we have found that in some parts of the country the engineering trade was increasing in one works while in many other works unemployment was great. We should remove these import duties and this would have a tendency to increase employment and bring greater prosperity to our trade.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELFor a few moments I desire only to refer to the interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) when he asked him whether he suggested that the Government of today were to be bound by the pledges mentioned. I do suggest the Government are bound, and I suggest they are bound both by reason of the composition of the Government when the pledges were made, and the composition of the Government 962 now. Above all, they are bound because the House of Commons at that time permitted the imposition of these- duties by reason of their declarations upon which we on this side stand at this moment. We bring forward these quotations such as those given from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) as showing the intention at that time. Our whole case is this: We are not saying on this side that had we been in the House at that time we should not have supported the imposition of these duties, We do not question the wisdom of it having been done, but we say that it is a gross betrayal that it should be done now, and we say this further. If the Government would frankly say that the Free Trade position has been abandoned and that the circumstances in which these duties were imposed exists to-day, and that for the same reasons of national importance and urgency they are taking the action they are, we should support them to-day as then, and our position would be totally different.
The fact, however, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that every Protectionist in this country is rejoicing in the extension of these duties, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell), who now has a real smile on his face after having been a sad man for three years. The system is becoming more and more profoundly ingrained and engrafted into our fiscal system. Every Protectionist gets up in this House and supports these proposals by the same arguments that were used before the election of 1906. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham used the same arguments. They are still as bad as they were, and there is the same chance of betrayal. The whole question is not being discussed upon its merits. We are being "pulled," and the country is being "pulled." There is a word used very frequently by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), and it is the word "humbug." This proposal of the Government is real humbug, and I do not know how hon. Members opposite can support the retention of these duties without prejudicing their Free Trade position. Commercial firms are- looking more and more to the Government to know what they are going to do in regard to these tariffs. Simply for the sake of a paltry £1,500,000 we are placing a tax 963 four years after the Armistice on motor cars, clocks, watches and musical instruments, and there is not the slightest justification for them except on Protectionist grounds.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI do not in any way wish to deal with the question of these duties, but I want to ask hon. Members opposite if they have forgotten that there has been a general election since 1915, and that there was a joint manifesto issued by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law).
Mr. FOOTThe most interesting point in the Debate seems to be whether we have forgotten that an election has taken place since 1915 and whether anything was said at the last election to make it clear to the people that their votes would be used to support proposals such as those which are now before the Committee. I do not think that even in Ayr Burghs there would be found any support for such a lopsided system of Protection as this Bill contains. The Solicitor-General asked us not to approach this question from the standpoint of abstract economists, although nearly every speech from hon. Members opposite has been based on purely Protectionist principles. Probably this is the first occasion that any Prime Minister has ever defended any particular tax because of its Protective effects. These duties lead us to the slippery slope of Protection, and by accepting these proposals so many years after the War we are in fact forgetting the very strong advice given by the Prime Minister who some years ago told us that we should not begin with Protection at all, because the danger was so great that if we once began we should not be able to stop.
I am at a disadvantage in as much as I was not able to hear the discussion that took place in 1915, but I have done all I can to refresh my memory of what I read in the newspapers at that time, and I think those who sit on the opposite side of the House will agree that when these taxes were imposed they were intended to be purely temporary. There was no difference on any side of the House as to that. It was also agreed that they were imposed to meet an abnormal situation, and a definite assurance was 964 given that when the War was over they would be taken off. To-day they have been defended by the Solicitor-General on grounds which I think the hon. Gentleman was sorry subsequently he had adopted. But he was only repeating what was said in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had asked whether in the case of the motor car industry, which for three years had been living from hand to mouth, which was as hard hit as any industry in this country, and which employing thousands of hands less than two years previously, that the time to get rid of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on cars which were luxury cars of the people? The only suggestion he (Mr. Foot) had to make in reply to that was he could understand the position taken up by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), which was that of an honest Protectionist; he could understand the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), which was that of an honest Protectionist; hut he could not understand the attitude of those who had opposed this taxation in the past. They seemed to have put their Free Trade principles in cold storage. It was perfectly open for the rest to advocate these taxes, but how support could be given to them by those whose whole political life had been opposed to Protection was one of those things which no ordinary man could understand. In the Debate to which reference had been made the present Minister of Health made this quite clear. In opposing the duties, he said:
This is Protection you are introducing into the Budget for the first time for many years—duties on the import of goods which are also manufactured in this country without corresponding Excise duties. That is Protection. These duties are Protection as far as they go…You are asking us to vote for a protective tariff on these articles.Further on the right hon. Gentleman complained very bitterly about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced these taxes, and said:The right hon. Gentleman perhaps no longer receives those communications which he used to get as Secretary of the Free Trade Union"—I believe the Minister of Health was Treasurer of that Union—and he, as Treasurer, was complaining that the 965 Secretary of the Free Trade Union had fallen from fiscal grace, for he said:The right hon. Gentleman perhaps no longer receives those communications which he used to get as Secretary of the Free Trade Union. If he did so he would see how many of those who formerly admired and adored him are to-day regarding his action with pain at heart.We have only to ask the question whether the Treasurer of the Free Trade Union—the Minister of Health—regards with pain and with a bleeding heart the fall from grace of the former Secretary of the Free Trade Union or if he has got over the pain at heart, and what position he is going to take as far as the Division tonight is concerned. There is a clear case for Protection if you apply it to all your needy industries, there is no case at all for a haphazard system of Protection such as these taxes propose. I suggest that this is an acid test as to whether those who have been for so many years, and who have appealed on so many platforms to the people of this country as Free Traders, are after all going to walk meekly into the Potectionist Lobby in support of proposals which have had their support to-day from those people who are Protectionists in this House.
§ Mr. NEWBOULDI understand that during my temporary absence from the Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer contradicted a statement I had previously made. I merely rise for a second time to re-affirm the statement I then made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in the event of a British firm exposing a film abroad and bringing it back to this country they only took out of bond and paid duty on the parts they required. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any knowledge at all about the industry he would realise how absurd that statement was. How do they know what they require until they have taken it to their own factory and developed it? Then after they have developed it, how do they know what they require until they have printed it? After they have printed it, how do they know what they require until they have put it together with other parts of the film to he produced in this country? Then after they have done that and put it together in the film for a half-a-dozen times it is edited and re-edited, and parts cut out, until they have satisfied the author. I have served under an author who revised 966 his proofs half-a-dozen times, and who took out chunks and put chunks back. It. is equally the same thing in editing a film.
The first suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that British firms only take out of bond and pay duty on the parts they require, is absurd, and the second suggestion that they can develop films in bond and then decide what they require is equally absurd. First of all, we cannot find equipment sufficiently complete to risk the development of the film in bond. The development of the film is a very difficult and highly technical process. You want a change in the chemicals used from moment to moment. You take small quantities out and make tests, and alter the composition of the chemicals, and the whole thing cannot possibly be done in bond. I re-assert the statement—that we do, in fact, pay on many thousands of feet which we do not ultimately use or require.
§ Sir R. HORNEI think the hon. Gentleman has rather overstated what I ventured to say—
§ Mr. NEWBOULDI apologise if I have overstated it, but I was unfortunately out for a few minutes, and heard only the latter portion.
§ Sir R. HORNEOf course, I accept what my hon. Friend says in regard to the trade account of what actually takes place. I did not venture to do more than tell the Committee what had been the information I had gleaned, of course very cursorily, in the interval after the sentences which I chanced to hear of my hon. Friend's speech. I did not make any assertion, but I promised that I would try and look into the whole matter. I did not in any way proceed to give a refutation I never attempted to do anything of the kind, of what my hon. Friend has said.
§ Mr. N. MACLEANI merely want to put a question to the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). He reminded Members on this side of the Committee, with reference to the manifesto which was issued just before the last General Election, that the principal thing in that manifesto was a pledge to do what has been proposed by the Government, and objected to by hon. 967 Members on this side of the Committee. I should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether the principal items in that manifesto were not the importation, free of duty, of two things, the one a German indemnity, and the other the present ex-Kaiser, to be tried in London? Neither of these pledges has been kept. Why, then, is it said that you must keep the other pledge, which was placed in a far away corner of the manifesto, which, I have no doubt, the hon. Baronet drew up for the leaders of his party?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThere was no such pledge in any part of the manifesto.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI hoped that we were going to have a speech from the hon. Baronet. I am disappointed, and Will certainly give way to him if he rises. His all too rare interventions in Debate are very valuable. We all, at any rate, respect the straightforward attitude that he takes up. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider a very hard case that is affecting sellers of motor-cars imported from America into this country. It occurs fairly frequently that American visitors to this country wish to buy American ears here, use them for a few weeks, and take them back to America, but they find that they have to pay the full duty. [Interruption.] It may sound very amusing, but this is what arises in practice, and I have here particulars of an actual case. An American visiting England wanted to buy a car worth about £1,200, to use it for three weeks in this country, to tour the Continent, and then to take it back to America; but he found that he could not get a refund of the duty at the end of his three weeks' use of the car here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "Let him buy an English car!"] If hon. Members will have a little patience, I will tell them what happened. He was able to buy the car in Holland, where the duty is only 5 per cent., and he bought the car there and brought it here as a tourist, paying no duty. The result was that the British importing house lost the order, and I hope hon. Gentlemen will cheer that. [Interruption.] That is a very good example of a little thing that is hitting our people. It is a case in which the right hon. Gen- 968 tleman, without departing from his sacred principles of Protection, which please him and his followers so much, could make arrangements for a rebate to be allowed, and I would ask him to consult his advisers as to this particular case, in which it was only intended that the car should be used for touring purposes for about three weeks in this country.
11.0 P.M.
To hear speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentleman in this Chamber, and then to read their written statements in newspapers outside, is sometimes very diverting. In connection with these duties and the whole system of protection which is so much blessed by the present Government, I would draw attention to an article written by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, in the "Sunday Times" of 11th June, in which he goes for this whole policy of protection root and branch. It is mentioned of him that, after entering Parliament in 1918, his political career has been unusually rapid and brilliant—as I can agree—and that his Ministerial career can only be regarded as having just begun. That is a remark which, I hope, refers to no other of his colleagues, whose Ministerial careers, I hope, are at an end, or about to be ended at the next Election. I hope, however, that the remark is true in regard to him, because of the admirable sentiments which he, a Member of the Government, is able to write—not at eleven o'clock at night, but, I suppose, sitting in his comfortable office at the Department, and using Government paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes. This is a manifesto on our policy at The Hague, and it ought to be written in Government time. It is a very good policy, if only the Government would follow it at home. This is what he says:
The abandonment of the mischievous notion that the ideal of nationality is to be economically self-sufficing.A Coalitionist, a Unionist, a Member of the Government, one of the rising band of Ministerialists whose career has only just begun!The realisation that trade is a. mutually profitable process of exchange and that no one gains by policies of obstruction and exclusiveness; all this has become a working part of the European mind before real recovery from the War is brought within sight.969 This estimable Gentleman is over at The Hague now, and he is being stabbed in the back by his chief, his leader, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Prime Minister himself. While he is laying down these admirable precepts to the 38 or so nations gathered together at The Hague, imploring them, as was done at Genoa, to cast down their tariff walls, to remove their system of export licences and all the rest of it and all the other obstructions to commerce, here we are, in order to please the hon. Baronet and his phalanx of followers, in order to answer the crack of the whip wielded by the hon. Baronet behind him they are stabbing these delegates at The Hague in the bank. This system of Protectionist policy is absolutely opposed to the admirable sentiments I have read out, which are laid down in writing in the cold pages of the "Sunday Times" by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade. So it goes on. I could turn up the Prime Minister's speeches where he talks about nationalism and the lack of neighbourliness and Christian charity amongst the nations, refusing to take each other's goods, refusing to understand that they are one economic whole. What is the use of it? After three years you find out our Finance Bill, brought in by this iniquitous Government contains this iniquitous manifestation of a ridiculous and foolish policy. If there is one thing we should have learnt by the events of the last few years, it is that nations are interdependent, and that, above all, for a great maritime island power absolutely dependent for our life on oversell trade and commerce to put these artificial restrictions in the way of trade and commerce is ridiculous, foolish and absurd in every way. I
§ despair of this Government, and so I believe does the democracy of these islands. Let them dissolve and take the opinion of the people before they proceed further with this ruinous, outworn and ridiculous policy.
Mr. T. THOMSONThe Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Newbould), has promised to consider one or two points before the Report stage. I want to put one or two other cases in the hope that he will consider them. Why has the 2s. toy bag-pipe, which comes from our ally France, to pay duty, while the 2s. mouth organ from our late enemies comes in free. These facts were given in answer by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Surely the matter is worthy of consideration because it is bringing the policy into disrepute. It is unworthy of a commercial nation of our standing to make this absurd difference. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it somewhat undignified that children's toys should be taxed in order to pander to the Protectionist instincts of a section of the Coalition? Perhaps he will tell us how long these Protectionist taxes will be continued. If certain manufactures are to have a preference this year why should not that be extended to other manufacturers? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the Government's settled policy, whether it is to be a Protectionist policy or a bastard Free Trade policy so that the country will be able to decide which policy to follow.
§ Question put, "That the words 'The new import duties' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 93.
973| Division No. 148.] | AYES. | [11.8 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Clough, Sir Robert |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Coats, Sir Stuart |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Brassey, H. L. C. | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Atkey, A. R. | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Briggs, Harold | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Bull, RI. Hon. Sir William James | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Butcher, Sir John George | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Doyle, N. Grattan |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Carr, W. Theodore | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Casey, T. W. | Edgar, Clifford B. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cautley, Henry Strother | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Eiveden, Viscount |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Evans, Ernest |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk, George | Rodger, A. K. |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Kidd, James | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Lindsay, William Arthur | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Lloyd, George Butler | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Forrest, Walter | Lorden, John William | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on.T.) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Simm, M. T. |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Fremantle-Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Gee, Captain Robert | Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Manville, Edward | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Sugden, W. H. |
| Glyn, Major Ralph | Middlebrook, Sir William | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Gould, James C. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Taylor, J. |
| Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Morrison, Hugh | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Grenfell, Edward Charles | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Gretton, Colonel John | Murchison, C. K. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Gritten. W. G. Howard | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Neal, Arthur | Walters. Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by) | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Hamilton, Major Sir C. G. C. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Parker, James | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Pearce, Sir William | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Wilson, Col. M. I. (Richmond) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Peel. Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chaster, City) | Winterton, Earl |
| Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.) | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Wise, Frederick |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Poison, Sir Thomas A. | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Pratt, John William | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Howard, Major S. G. | Prescott, Major Sir W. H. | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Reid, D. D. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Remer, J. R. | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Younger, Sir George |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | |
| Jodrell, Neville Paul | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Johnson, Sir Stanley | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Robinson. Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) | McCurdy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Gillis, William | Mallalieu, Frederick William |
| Ammon, Charles George | Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central). | Mills, John Edmund |
| Banton, George | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mosley, Oswald |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Grundy, T. W. | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Murray, Dr. D, (Inverness & Rose) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) | Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton) | Naylor, Thomas Ellis |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hayday, Arthur | Newbould, Alfred Ernest |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hayward, Evan | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Briant, Frank | Hinds, John | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, G. H. | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Robertson, John |
| Cairns, John | Holmes, J. Stanley | Rose, Frank H. |
| Cape, Thomas | John, William (Rhondda. West) | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Carter. W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sexton, James |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Kennedy, Thomas | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Kiley, James Daniel | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Lawson, John James | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lunn, William | Spencer, George A. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Spoor, B. G. |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Foot, Isaac | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Midlothian) | Sutton, John Edward |
| Galbraith, Samuel | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Swan, J. E. |
| Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) | Waterson, A. E. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | White, Charles F. (Derby. Western) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Tillett, Benjamin | Wignall, James | |
| Wallace, J. | Williams, Cal. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) | Wilson, James (Dudley) | Major Barnes and Mr. T. Thomson. |
§
Amendment proposed: After the word "duties" ["The new import duties and the additional"] insert the words:
except tile duties on motor cars, including motor bicycles and motor tricycles, and on accessories and component parts of motor
§ cars, motor bicycles, and motor tricycles, other than tyros."—[Major Barnes.]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 212.
975| Division No. 149] | AYES. | [11.20 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hinds, John | Sexton, James |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hirst, G. H. | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Banton, George | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G, (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hogge, James Myles | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Spencer, George A. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spoor, B. G. |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Bromfield, William | Kennedy, Thomas | Sutton, John Edward |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Swan, J. E. |
| Cairns, John | Kiley, James Daniel | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawson, John James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Tillett, Benjamin |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Mills, John Edmund | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mosley, Oswald | White. Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Wignall, James |
| Foot, Isaac | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Gillis, William | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Grundy, T. W. | Rae. Sir Henry N. | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Guest, J. (York, W. Hemsworth) | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | |
| Hayday, Arthur | Robertson, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hayward, Evan | Rose, Frank H. | Mr. Kiley and Dr. Murray. |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Royce, William Stapleton | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Carr, W. Theodore | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Casey, T. W. | Ford, Patrick Johnston |
| Atkey, A. R. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Foreman, Sir Henry |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Forestier-Walker, L. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Forrest, Walter |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Clough, Sir Robert | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Coats, Sir Stuart | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Gee, Captain Robert |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Gilbert, James Daniel |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Glyn, Major Ralph |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Goff, Sir R. Park |
| Berwick, Major G. O. | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Gould, James C. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W,) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Greig, Colonel Sir James William |
| Boyd-Carpenter. Major A. | Doyle, N. Grattan | Grenfell, Edward Charles |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Edgar, Clifford B. | Gritten, W. G. Howard |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Briggs, Harold | Elveden, Viscount | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Evans, Ernest | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Eyres-Monsell, Corn. Bolton M. | Hamilton, Major Sir C. G. C. |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Falcon, Captain Michael | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Fell, Sir Arthur | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Fisher, At. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Murchison, C. K. | Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Sturrock, J. Lung |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Neal, Arthur | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.) | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Sugden, W. H. |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Taylor, J. |
| Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Howard, Major S. G. | Parker, James | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill) |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Townley, Maximilian G |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Vickers, Douglas |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) | Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Johnson, Sir Stanley | Poison, Sir Thomas A. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Pratt, John William | Waring, Major Walter |
| Kelley, Major Fred(Rotherham) | Prescott, Major Sir W. H. | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Kidd. James | Rankin, Captain James Stuart | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Ramer, J. R. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Lloyd, George Butler | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) | Winterton, Earl |
| Lorden, John William | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Wise, Frederick |
| Loseby, Captain C. E. | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northam) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Scott. A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Scott. Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Manville, Edward | Seddon, J. A. | Younger, Sir George |
| Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) | |
| Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Moison, Major John Elsdale | Simm, M. T. | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Morden, Col. W. Grant | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | McCurdy. |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Sprat, Colonel Sir Alexander |
§
Amendment proposed: After the word "duties" ["The new import duties"], to insert the words
except the duties on musical instruments, including gramophones, pianolas, and other similar instruments, and on accessories and component parts of musical instruments and
§ records and other means of reproducing music."—[Mr. Kiley.]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 211.
977| Division No. 150.] | AYES. | [11.30 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Widnes) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hinds, John | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Banton, George | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Spencer, George A. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hogge, James Myles | Spoor. B. G. |
| Barton. Sir William (Oldham) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sutton, John Edward |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Swan, J. E. |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sykes. Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Elute) | Kennedy, Thomas | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cairns, John | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawson, John James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham. Mansfield) | Lunn, William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Tillett, Benjamin |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Mills, John Edmund | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Mosley, Oswald | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Wignall, James |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Font, Isaac | Rae. Sir Henry N. | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Gills, William | Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Robertson, John | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Rose, Frank H. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Royce, William Stapleton | |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Heyday, Arthur | Sexton, James | Mr. Kiley and Dr. Murray. |
| Hayward, Evan | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Ganzoni, Sir John | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Gee, Captain Robert | Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Glyn, Major Ralph | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Goff, Sir R. Park | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Gould, James C. | Poison, Sir Thomas A. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Grenfell, Edward Charles | Pratt, John William |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Grattan, Colonel John | Prescott, Major Sir W. H. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bellaire, Commander Carlyon W. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Remer, J. R. |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Hail, Rr.-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'hy) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hamilton, Sir George C. | Richardson, Lt.-Col, Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Borwick, Major G. O | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Rodger, A. K. |
| Boscawen Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hills, Major John Walter | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hood, Sir Joseph | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'1, Exchange) |
| Briggs, Harold | Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hope, Lt.-Col Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hopkins, John W. W. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury) | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Simm, M. T. |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Howard, Major S. G. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hurd, Percy A. | Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Campion, lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Casey, T. W. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Jephcott, A. R. | Sugden, W. H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Ha. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Taylor, J. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Terrell, George (Wills, Chippenham) |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Kidd, James | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Tinton, Edmund Russborough |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Lloyd, George Butler | Vickers, Douglas |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and kiln.) | Locker-Lampson, Corn. 0. (H'tingd'n) | Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) | Lorden, John William | Ward, col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon Hull) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Davies. Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Warren, Sir Alfred H. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Manville, Edward | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Elveden, Viscount | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Evans, Ernest | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Windsor, Viscount |
| Eyres-Monsen, Com. Bolton M. | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Winterton, Earl |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Wise, Frederick |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Murchison, C. K. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Neal, Arthur | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hen. Sir L. |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen, J. (Westminster) | Younger, Sir George |
| Forrest, Walter | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy. |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Parker, James | |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
§
Amendment proposed: After the word "duties" ["The new import duties"], to insert the words
except the duties on clocks, watches, and the component parts of clocks and watches."—[Mr. Foot.]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 207.
981| Division No. 151.] | AYES. | [11.38 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Bowerman, Rt. H on. Charles W. |
| Banton, George | Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Bramsdon, Sir Thomas |
| Bromfield, William | Holmes, J. Stanley | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Cairns, John | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spencer, George A. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Spoor, B. G. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kiley, James Daniel | Sutton, John Edward |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lawson, John James | Swan, J. E. |
| Cowart, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E..) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Mosley, Oswald | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Waterson, A. E |
| Gillis, William | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross) | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Wignall, James |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Rae, Sir Henry N. | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Hall, F. (York W.R., Normanton) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Hayward, Evan | Robertson, John | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Rose, Frank H. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hinds, John | Royce, William Stapleton | |
| Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES:— |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) | Mr. Foot and Mr. C White. |
| Hogge, James Myles | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Falcon, Captain Michael | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey | Lindsay, William Arthur |
| Atkey, A. R. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Lorden, John William |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Loseby, Captain C. E. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Foreman, Sir Henry | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Forestier-Walker, L. | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) |
| Barnett. Major Richard W. | Forrest, Walter | Macleod, J. Mackintosh |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Malone. Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Manville, Edward |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Frees. Sir Walter de | Marriott. John Arthur Ransome |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mitchell. Sir William Lane |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Gee, Captain Robert | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
| Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham | Morning. Captain Algernon H. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Gilbert, James Daniel | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Murchison, C. K. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Glyn, Major Ralph | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Gould, James C. | Murray, John (Leeds, West) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Neal, Arthur |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Grenfell, Edward Charles | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson |
| Briggs, Harold | Gretton, Colonel John | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'1,W.D'hy) | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Hamilton, Sir George C. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col, Sir John |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry | Parker, James |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Pease. Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G | Peel, Col Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Casey, T. W. | Hills, Major John Waller | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Poison, Sir Thomas A. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hood, Sir Joseph | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.) | Pratt, John William |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Prescott, Major Sir W. H |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Hopkins, John W. W. | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Remer, J. R. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Howard, Major S. G. | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Cowan. Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Hurd, Percy A. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Rodger, A. K. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Jephcott, A. R. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Johnson, Sir Stanley | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Edgar. Clifford B. | Kellaway, Rt. Hon Fredk. George | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'1, Exchange) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Seddon, J. A. |
| Elveden, Viscount | Kidd, James | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Evans, Ernest | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Simm, M. T. | Tartan, Edmund Russborough | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Vickers, Douglas | Winterton, Earl |
| Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor | Wise, Frederick |
| Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Starkey, Captain John Ralph | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) | Wood, Hon. Edward F L. (Ripon) |
| Steel, Major S. Strang | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Sturrock, J. Leng | Waring, Major Walter | Worsfold, T. Cato |
| Sugden, W. H. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Sutherland, Sir William | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) | Young. Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Taylor, J. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) | Younger, Sir George |
| Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud | |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Townley, Maximilian G. | Windsor, Viscount | McCurdy. |
| Tryon, Major George Clement |
§ Amendment proposed: After the word "duties" ["The new import duties"], to insert the words "except the duties on cinematograph films."—[Mr. Kiley.]
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 200.
983| Division No. 152.] | AYES. | [11.46 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hayward, Evan | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Banton, George | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hinds, John | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Spencer, George A. |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Hogue, James Myles | Spoor, B. G. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Holmes, J. Stanley | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sutton, John Edward |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Swan, J. E. |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cairns, John | Lawson, John James | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lunn, William | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Wallace. J. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Walsh. Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Monaca, Frederick William | Waterson, A. E. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Mosley, Oswald | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Wignall, James |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Poison, Sir Thomas A. | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Foot, Isaac | Rae, Sir Henry N. | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Gillis, William | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Robertson, John | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Rose, Frank H. | |
| Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) | Royce, William Stapleton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Seddon, J. A. | Mr. Kiley and Mr. Newbould. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Broad, Thomas Tucker | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Edgar, Clifford B. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) |
| Atkey, A. R. | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Elveden, Viscount |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Evans, Ernest |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | Eyres-Monsell, Corn. Bolton M. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Carr, W. Theodore | Falcon, Captain Michael |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Casey, T. W. | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas.. Gorbals) | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Chamberlain, Rt. Ho. J. A. (Birm., W.) | FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Churchman, Sir Arthur | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Ford, Patrick Johnston |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Clough, Sir Robert | Foreman, Sir Henry |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Coats, Sir Stuart | Forestier-Walker, L. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Forrest, Walter |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Blake. Sir Francis Douglas | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon, Sir A. Griffith- | Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Gee, Captain Robert |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | i Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Gilbert, James Daniel |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John |
| Briggs, Harold | Doyle, N. Grattan | Glyn, Major Ralph |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Gould, James C. | Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Simm, M. T. |
| Grenfell, Edward Charles | Manville, Edward | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms | Surd, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by) | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Hamilton, Sir George C. | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Sturrock, J. Lang |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Sugden, W. H. |
| Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Murchison, C. K. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Taylor, J. |
| Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Neal, Arthur | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Newton, Sir Percy Wilson | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Hood, Sir Joseph | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'[...]km'nn'n, W.) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Vickers, Douglas |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Parker, James | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Waring, Major Walter |
| Howard, Major S. G. | Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Philipps, Sir Gwen C. (Chester, City) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Pratt, John William | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Prescott, Major Sir W. H. | Windsor, Viscount |
| Johnson, Sir Stanley | Rankin, Captain James Stuart | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Winterton, Earl |
| Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Remer, J. R. | Wise, Frederick |
| Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Kidd, James | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rodger, A. K. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Lloyd, George Butler | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Younger, Sir George |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | |
| Lorden, John William | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Loseby, Captain C. E. | I Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy. |
| Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle) | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
Dr. MURRAYI beg to move to leave out the words "and the additional Customs duties on dried fruits."
12.M
These are the additional duties of 50 per cent. levied on dried fruits in the second Budget of 1915, and are a part of what are usually called the McKenna duties. The reason for their imposition was the same as in the case of motor cars, clocks and watches, and practically the same pledges were given as to their being of a temporary character. They were applied in order to discourage imports into this country, it being evidently thought by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—even Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer can go wrong sometimes—that dried fruits were a luxury. They are really a necessary addition to the food of the people, particularly at certain seasons of the year, when it is difficult to get fresh fruit. One great defect of the dietary of the people of this country is the small proportion of fruit that it includes, and, although dried fruit is not so good as fresh, it comes a good second, and the Committee will be acting in the interests of the general population of the country if, by reducing the duties on dried 984 fruits, they encourage the consumption of fruit by the people. Very curious anomalies exist in the imposition of these duties. They are imposed on raisins, but not on currants, because we have a convention with Greece. They apply to apricots but not to plums, and not to fruit bottled in water; and they do not apply to peaches. The real reason for these anomalies is that taxes of this sort are foreign to the people of this country, and our customs authorities do not know how to impose them with any degree of consistency. Protectionist countries would do it much better, because it is their nature to. The British fiscal policy has always been a Free Trade policy, and therefore when you do impose a tax, you do it in a blundering fashion, giving a preference to one country as against another. For instance there is no tax on dates. I am very glad of that, because I 'am fond of dates; but why should countries which do not produce dates be placed at a disadvantage? Sometimes, in this way, we penalise our friends and help our enemies. This selective character of the duties is 985 wrong, in my view, because the tendency is for people to buy the fruit upon which there is no tax, without regard to its comparative merits as an article of diet. Therefore it is high time that these additional taxes, imposed in 1915, were repealed. This is an opportunity for a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer to make up for the faults of a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am quite sure the Liberal Members of the Government will agree with him in this, and really, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Conservative colleagues have compelled the Liberal Members of the Government to swallow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dates?"]—fabric gloves, I think it would be a gracious concession to make to the President of the Board of Education, the Postmaster-General, and some other Liberal Members of the Government who have had the courage to come on to the Front Bench during these discussions. I know the amount is small, but the very fact that a tax is put on discourages the importation of these fruits into this country.
§ Sir L. SCOTTThere are three reasons why this discussion should be brief. These duties are essentially Liberal in origin. The duties were retained by Mr. Gladstone in 1860, and the additional duties were imposed by Mr. McKenna in 1915. The second reason is that a loss of £180,000 would be involved in a full year if these additional duties were taken off. The Exchequer cannot afford that loss. The third reason is that such an excellent demonstration has been already made in favour of Free Trade by hon. Members opposite that, having regard to the clock, after midnight, a further demonstration in force on general political principles is very little reflected in the constituencies. The real point is the Free Trade point, which has been made appreciably on the other duties, which have been discussed, and I therefore ask hon. Members to be content with the very effective demonstration already made.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe Solicitor-General has said that we have made a very effective protest. If that be true, he must accept this Amendment.
§ Sir L. SCOTTI said "demonstration."
§ Mr. HOGGEIf we have made an effective demonstration, we have effec- 986 tively demonstrated to the Solicitor-General, who is an intelligent member of the Government, that our point is sound. I should like to know how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to go with the Amendments to-night. I do not think that he can accuse us of unduly prolonging any discussions or demonstrations that we have attempted to make. By arrangement with the Chair, we have divided on a number of questions on which we wanted to register our protest, in order to save discussion. Of all the Divisions that have been taken, there are half of the subjects on which we have not said a single word in Debate. If we can keep discussion within reasonable time there is no reason why we should sit to an undue hour. This is a big Bill and the most important Bill of the Session, and we are entitled to all reasonable opportunity to put our point of view in the House whether it is going to be reported in the country or not. Of course the Solicitor-General's reply will not be reported either, which is some consolation to us in our disconsolate state of mind. It has been stated that these duties were increased by Mr. McKenna in 1916. But 1916 was a War year, and this is six years later, four years after the Armistice, and why is it that these taxes imposed at that special time cannot now be removed? We have now, I believe, reached a period of peace, but we have not got rid of these taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that if we do not accept the tax as put into the Finance Bill we shall lose £180,000. He could save £180,000 if every Member of the Government would do his work in the same spirit and at the same salary as the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. M. Scott) who is the Scottish Whip. Here we have an example of one who has accepted office in the Government with public spirit and—
§ The CHAIRMANThe connection between the hon. Member and the duty on dried fruits is not obvious.
§ Mr. HOGGEI do not know whether you know the hon. Member as well as I do. The point is that the £180,000 could be saved easily if the Government exercised and were actuated by a different policy; £180,000 is a bagatelle compared with the millions which the Government are spending. The real point of the Solicitor-General was that 987 this was a demonstration in favour of Free Trade. Does that mean that the Government are not in favour of Free Trade? Some Members of the Government speak with one voice and some speak with another. Let us know whether the Government are on all matters a Free Trade Government or a Protectionist Government. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will intervene, for the convenience of the Committee, and tell us how far he intends to go to-night.
§ Sir R. HORNEI am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of stating to the Committee what I intend to propose as to the course of business. As my hon. Friend has said, we have a very considerable Bill before us with very important Clauses, and with the long series of Amendments with which we have to deal the time of the House is limited. I hope the Committee will not think I am wanting too much if I ask that we should get the first part of the Bill to-night, that is to say, nine Clauses. I am afraid it is quite impossible to try to deal with this Bill in Committee in the time allotted to us unless we do at least that amount of work to-night, and whatever strain it may put on the patience of hon. Members. I ask them to be good enough to give me their support in obtaining at least that amount of the Bill to-night. I make no complaint of the course of the discussion up to now, but I should gather that some of the points on which hon. Gentlemen opposite feel most keenly have already been discussed, and that we might hope on the succeeding Clauses to get perhaps more rapid progress.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am glad that the right hon. Baronet does not suggest there has been anything in the nature of the holding up of finance for everyone who has taken part in the discussion to-day knows there has been nothing of the sort. There has been a great deal said and we have exercised great self-restraint in saying it. But what really is the object of going on to-night with these very important discussions of these most important Clauses? The Government have no great legislative programme before them. They will be hard put to it to have an excuse for not bringing in measures they are not agreed 988 upon among themselves. They would be rather glad if we held up this Bill. We all know that, and except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it to the Chief Whips this morning, there is really no reason why we should take it to-night.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is in order to ask a question as to the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for him to reply, but it is not in order on this particular Amendment to pursue an argument as to the general course of business.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThen I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
If that Motion be carried against us then, of course, we will go on with the discussion. At any rate, let us take the view of the Committee.
§ Mr. KILEYMight I call the attention of the Chancellor to a very important matter appertaining to Clause 6? There is sufficient material to keep us for a couple of hours at least, while to-morrow morning there are two important Committees, A and B. Therefore, to sit to-night and to have to attend Committees early to-morrow is an almost impossible task to impose on Members.
§ Mr. HOGGEI want to be quite frank, and I do not wish to ask anything unreasonable. I think there is a great deal in the suggestion that, as far as we know, time could be found for further discussion of the Bill. Of course, if the Government press us in regard to time, we can make ourselves very inconvenient to the Government unless they closure us. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want anything of that kind. I think we are prepared to give him the whole of Clause 4, and there is nothing in Clause 5 to which we object. Clause 6 does raise the question of the new duty on beet sugar, which is an important point. It is an entirely new point, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel that we should be doing ourselves an injustice if we did not make a considerable debate on that Clause 6. On Clause 7, as far as I know, there will be no great discussion, though I understand there is a point to be raised upon it. On Clause 8 we have the question of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, the 989 articles to come under it and the nature of the ingredients of those articles in relation to the whole. That is a big subject. On Clause 9, I understand the Amendments on the Paper are more or less out of order or, at any rate, would be much better raised on the proposed new Clause, and Clause 9 might be disposed of without much discussion. I speak under the correction of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) when I say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees to an Adjournment after getting Clause 4 there will only remain for discussion on these Clauses the question of beet sugar and the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Amendments in regard to both of these are in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I think, apart from these, there will be little discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way, that spirit will meet With a response from this side of the House. We are not unreasonable, and only desire to discuss questions which are really new and essential. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say the progress of the Bill will be assisted by agreeing to the suggestion made and he can trust to the good sense of the Committee to see that the pact is carried out in the spirit in which it is proposed.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI do not think there will be any obstruction on the part of the Labour party. We could come to an arrangement, under which, if we got an extra day for the Committee stage, we could divide the business up between the remaining days, so as to avoid discussions of this kind occurring every evening. Amendments could be dealt with very quickly if an arrangement were come to between the Government and the Opposition as to how far it was desired to proceed each day. Hitherto we have merely been told, "You can only have three days." We have not been told how far the Government desire to go each day or what is expected from the Committee each day. This has led to unnecessary delay. We might have hurried over the tea duty and had a little more discussion on other matters raising new issues. If
§ we went up to the end of Clause 5 tonight and arranged for an extra day, or even half a day, we could divide the remaining Amendment over the three days or two and a half days, as the case might be, and we could arrange to efficiently debate everything worth debating, and avoid these very tiresome night sittings in which nothing really effective is done.
§ Sir R. HORNEI am sure hon. Members will accept my assurance that I desire to suit the convenience of the Committee to the utmost: possible limit within my power. I agree entirely that there might be more discussion with regard to what strikes many hon. Members with the appearance of novelty, although it is not wholly novel—it has been done before—the remission of Excise duties. I appreciate the fact that we want to discuss that at a little more length than some of the Amendments which are discussed year after year with somewhat sad reiteration. I would like to meet the suggestion which has been made. If I can be assured that we shall, without sitting unduly late, he able to come to an arrangement by which the Committee stage shall take not more than three more days, although we had previously thought it would be possible to complete the whole Committee stag in three days, I will consent to follow the course which has been suggested, but I think we should require to get to the end of Clause 5 to-night.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODAs far as I am concerned, you can have Clause 6 as well.
§ Sir R. HORNEI think I must have spoken too soon, but if the Committee will give me up to the end of Clause 5 to-night, and arrange that we do not prolong the discussion over more than three further days, I will agree to that.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 64.
991| Division No. 153.] | AYES. | [12.30 a. m. |
| Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Atkey, A. R. | Barnett, Major Richard W. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Barnston, Major Harry |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Marlin | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Boll, Lieut.-Cal. W. C. H. (Devizes) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Barlow, Sir Montague | Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Gee, Captain Robert | Peel, Col. Ho. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Glyn, Major Ralph | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Goff, Sir R. Park | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Gould, James C. | Remer, J. R. |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Grenfell, Edward Charles | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Richardson, Lt.-Cot Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'1,W.D'by) | Rodger, A. K. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hamilton, Sir George C. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Briggs, Harold | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Scott, A. M, (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Hood, Sir Joseph | Seddon, J. A |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel w. R. | Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn''n, W.) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Casey, T. W. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hurd, Percy A. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sturrock, J. Lena |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Sugden, W. H. |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Kidd, James | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lindsay, William Arthur | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Locker Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lorden, John William | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Manville, Edward | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Moison, Major John Eisdale | Waring, Major Walter |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Elvedon, Viscount | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Evans, Ernest | Murchison, C. K. | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Eyres-Mansell, Com. Bolton M. | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Fails, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey | Neal, Arthur | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Wise, Frederick |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Forrest, Walter | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Parker, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | McCurdy. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Banton, George | Hayday, Arthur | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Sexton, James |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E) | Hinds, John | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Hogge, James Myles | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Holmes, J. Stanley | Spencer, George A. |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sutton, John Edward |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Swan, J. E. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Thomson. T. (Middlesbrough, west) |
| Cairns, John | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cape, Thomas | Kiley, James Daniel | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lawson, John James | Waterson, A. E. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Malialleu, Frederick William | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mosley, Oswald | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | |
| Foot, Isaac | Poison, Sir Thomas A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gillis, William | Rae, Sir Henry N. | Dr. Murray and Colonel Penry |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Williams. |
| Grundy, T. W. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
992§ Mr. N. MACLEANI am again I opposing this Clause, for the reasons that 993 compelled me to desire to move that the other Clauses do not stand part of the Bill. I have already expressed my point and I am not going to keep the Committee any longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I might have kept it till nine o'clock or until the first tube was going for my own comfort, but I do not see why I should. I could quite easily keep the House going on this Clause, but as I have said, I am going to yield to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because of
§ the very amiable manner in which he made the concession. I am going to speak no further on it except to ask the Committee to divide upon it really as a protest against the imposition of taxes on food.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 58.
995| Division No. 154.] | AYES. | [12.40 a.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M S | Frace, Sir Walter de | Peel, Col. He. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Ganzoni, Sir John | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gee, Captain Robert | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Romer, J. R. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Glyn, Major Ralph | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gould, James C. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Rodger, A. K. |
| Bellairs, Commander Canyon W. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Betterten, Henry B. | Hamilton, Sir George C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Seddon, J. A. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.) | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hopkins, John W. W. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Briggs, Harold | Hurd, Percy A. | Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Sugden, W. H. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Kidd, James | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Casey, T. W. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Wtingd'n) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Lorden, John William | Vickers, Douglas |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Manville, Edward | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Waring, Major Walter |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Murchison, C. K. | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Edgar, Clifford B. | Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh) | Windsor, Viscount |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Murray, John (Leeds, West) | Winterton, Earl |
| Elveden, Viscount | Neal, Arthur | Wise, Frederick |
| Evans, Ernest | Newson, Sir Percy Wilson | Wood. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Corn. Bolton M. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Parker, James | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Forrest, Walter | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | McCurdy. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Hayday, Arthur |
| Ammon, Charles George | Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) |
| Banton, George | Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Hinds, John |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hirst, G. H. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Entwistle, Major C. F. | Hogge, James Myles |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Foot, Isaac | Holmes, J. Stanley |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | Gillis, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Grundy, T. W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Cairns, John | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Kiley, James Daniel |
| Cape, Thomas | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Lawson, John James |
| Lunn, William | Sexton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothlan) | Shaw, Thomas (Preston) | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Mallalieu, Frederick William | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) | Williams. Col. P. (Middlesbrough. E.) |
| Mosley, Oswald | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. | |
| Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Sutton, John Edward | Wilson, James (Dudley) |
| Rae, Sir Henry N. | Swan, J. E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Rattan, Peter Wilson | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) | |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Rose, Frank H. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) | Mr. Neil Maclean and Dr. Murray. |
| Royce, William Stapleton | Waterson, A. E. |