§ The Entertainments Duty imposed by the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall not, after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, be charged on payments for admission to any agricultural show the whole of the profits of which are devoted to agricultural or educational purposes, notwithstanding that admission to the show may include admission to entertainments in regard to which, but for the provisions of this Section, Entertainments 630 Duty would be payable.—[Sir Robert Hamilton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I will put my points as briefly as I possibly can, because this matter has already been brought before the House on one or two previous occasions. I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present, because he expressed great sympathy last year with the object of this proposal, and I hope that sympathy will now enable him to give us his support. I think we are all agreed that entertainment taxes are bad, and they are particularly bad when they fall upon entertainments which are held with the object of improving agriculture. I am sure if this question could be left to the free vote of the Committee there is very little doubt that this tax on agricultural shows would be wiped out at once.
631 Everybody is in favour of the idea contained in this Clause, and I do not think anyone is against it in principle. I think we are all agreed that the original intention of this tax was not to tax agricultural shows, but it has been found that the tax was drawn too narrowly, and already we have had two concessions. A slight concession was made in 1923 whereby a society might exhibit products belonging to an industry other than that for which the society existed. Again, in 1924 a further concession was made whereby the exhibits in an agricultural exhibition outside the specified object of the society might be introduced without disqualifying the show for exemption to the Entertainments Duty, and displays of skill in the industry in which the society was interested were allowed without running the society any risk as to the tax. These concessions have gone a considerable way towards relieving this grievance, but there is still left a little distance to go in order to relieve agricultural shows entirely of this tax. I am asking the Government tonight to see if they cannot go the whole way, as there is only a little distance left for them to go, and exempt agricultural shows altogether from the Entertainments Duty. Although there is only a very little distance to go it is nevertheless a very important matter to small and struggling country agricultural societies.
We all know that in the smallest and poorest districts of the country there are these local societies which do all they can to improve agriculture in their area, and we ought to give them every assistance we possibly can. The assistance that can be given by removing this tax from them, although the amount is very small, means a very great deal to these poor and struggling societies. As the Financial Secretary well knows, the society must depend on its "gate" at the annual show. The annual show in a country district is in the nature of a sort of fete to which the whole countryside looks forward. Everyone goes to it, men, women and children, it is discussed long beforehand, and the greatest interest is taken in the competitions between the various products and exhibits. It is not enough, however, simply to go and look at the animals, or the cheeses, or the 632 machinery. That makes rather a dull day for an annual fete, and it is only sensible and necessary to have something in the nature of side shows or some little extra items which will break up what may be monotonous to that section of people who go to the show but are not, perhaps, particularly and directly interested in agriculture. In my part of the country we usually have foot races, and possibly pony races. If we have races for prizes, that brings us within the law and we have to pay the Entertainments Duty.
Little things like this, which are only put there to brighten the day, to add interest to the show and to improve the "gate," ought not by any manner of means to be allowed to bring what is really an agricultural show within the ambit of this tax. I think the cost would be very small, and I should like to hear from the Financial Secretary if he can tell us what the actual cost would be of making this remission so that agricultural shows should be entirely free from the tax. The Committee has just recently agreed to £500,000 going to the landlords, and I heard the argument put forward that that would help agriculture. I must say I was a little at a loss to know how it would help agriculture, but the £5,000 or £10,000 or even £50,000 which would more than amply cover what I am now asking, would do a great deal to help these agricultural societies. The form of words that I propose may not be that which is most desirable, but it covers clearly enough the idea of the Clause, and, if the Government are sympathetic to the idea, I am sure they are perfectly competent to clothe that idea in suitable words.
This is an old controversy. As the hon. Member has reminded us, it was discussed last year, and on that occasion many of us who now sit on this side of the House took part in bringing about a considerable extension of the possibilities of entertainment which were thrown open to the promoters of agricultural shows. It is because I was satisfied with that compromise, which was arrived at as a result of consultations last year, that I cannot agree with the far wider and, as I consider, dangerous proposals from the point of view of the Entertainments Duty as a whole, which the hon. Member has now put forward. The compromise last year was that the show 633 must be provided by a society not established for profit, and must consist solely, apart from a band, music, or exhibition, of work or displays of skill by children, the products of the industry and materials, etc., used in their production, or displays of skill by workers in the industry. That was a very great widening of the powers for providing entertainments to attract the public to go to agricultural shows. I agree with the hon. Member that it is bad that the Entertainments Duty should fall upon what are not entertainments, but shows where entertainments are not the prime object. I think that that is a paraphrase of what he said at the beginning of his speech. I do not think, however, that the Entertainments Duty does fall now upon those shows where entertainments are not a first object.
§ Sir R. HAMILTON
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my interrupting him, but is it not a fact that, if prizes are given for a race at an agricultural show, that would bring it within the Entertainments Duty?
Yes, that is so, but obviously, if you do not charge Entertainments Duty on races of that kind, you could not possibly keep the existing very remunerative source of Entertainments Duty in connection with horse races. It would be very invidious and unfair to discriminate.
The point about horse racing has been brought forward, and, as a matter of fact, it has been contended that horse races ought to be allowed to be free from the duty. Of course you cannot tax the ordinary horse race if you allow these features to take place at agricultural shows. Side shows are now allowed provided that a separate admission fee is charged, and other non-dutiable entertainments and attractions, such as dancing and so forth, where people entertain themselves, are a sufficient inducement to people to attend these fixtures under the present law. The chief difficulty of the hon. Member's proposal is that it would throw open a very wide door to unfair competition with dutiable entertainments. He provides no definition of what an agricultural show is. It would only be 634 necessary, apparently, to have a cow and a plough, and then almost any entertainment might be covered by this proposed exemption. It is true that under the Clause the receipts must not go to private profit, but there is nothing to prevent the promoter of a show such as it is proposed to exempt from diverting large funds to private profit under the guise of expenses.
Yes, but they could have a contractor to provide entertainments of a character which would almost certainly be dutiable and in competition with dutiable entertainments, which might absorb practically the whole of the payments for admission to the show in private profit. I am sorry that for these reasons the Clause which the hon. Member has brought forward—
I intend it in all seriousness. It would be disastrous to the whole fabric of the Entertainments Duty if we allowed such a wide exemption, and if we allowed this unfair discrimination in favour of one form of entertainment, I believe it would be absolutely impossible for us to retain the duty at all. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept the Clause.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I think I never heard a more laboured, a more futile or a weaker defence of a tax than we have just heard. The right hon. Gentleman has not even told us what amount of revenue would be lost to the Exchequer if this remission were granted. Whether or not he has an estimate in his papers I cannot say, but he never proferred one to the Committee. Would it be £5,000, £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 per annum? No one knows.
No one knows. That is why we cannot give an estimate. How can we tell how much revenue would be diverted from dutiable entertainments by this new and wide advantage given to agricultural shows?
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give us even an estimate of what the Treasury would lose by granting such a remission he has no 635 right whatever to say it would be a considerable sum.
I did not say it would be a considerable sum. I said it would shatter the whole basis of the duty and make it impossible, in common fairness to those who are promoting entertainments subject to duty, to maintain the present system.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
If to-morrow the right hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT and reads his speech, if he ever does anything of the kind the next morning, I think he will discover that the impression he left on the Committee—I do not remember the exact words—was that the remission of this duty would mean a considerable loss of public money to the Treasury. He admits he has no idea of what the money loss would be. I think he excelled himself when he imagined local cattle show societies leasing themselves out to private contractors. If it really was a joke, what kind of country has he been living in? I will speak of the country I know best. You have an annual show. All the farmers over a wide area form themselves into a society for this purpose. They go round with the hat and gather a little money for prizes and so on, and it is the only attempt that is being made by anyone to stimulate enterprise and cleanliness in agriculture. It is the only attempt that is being made anywhere or by anyone to bring agriculture up to a higher level than it is to-day. It is a small request that you should do something to brighten these cattle shows, to attract larger numbers of people, that you should allow races, that you should allows shows of one kind or another, that you should do everything you can to give agriculture a chance. If you will do everything you can to give agriculture a chance, as apart from finding subsidies for landlords, here is an opportunity of doing something. There is no political advantage in this for anyone. The class of people who very largely go to these shows vote for the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters. That shows their great need for education in other things. Nevertheless, they do it.
What some of us are really concerned about, apart from politics altogether, is the re-creation of our countryside, the 636 repatriation of our people, and when you come along with a miserable little proposal like this, to ask for a remission of a few pounds, the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us what it will cost, and tells us some cock-and-bull story about agricultural societies hiring out their entertainments to a private contractor. If the farmers all over the country could get to know that this is the kind of thing their champions say about them, if the farmers get to know that this is how they are regarded when it comes down to brass tacks in the House of Commons, the Debate will have done a great deal to further agricultural education in an economic, political and social direction. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can say this remission would mean such a serious financial loss to the Treasury that he will probably require to put a little more on. fabric gloves or the Silk Taxes in order to square it, and that the whole Budget would go to ruin if people could get into agricultural shows without having to pay an Entertainment Tax, I trust the representatives of agricultural constituencies in every part of the Committee will defy the Whips for once and induce a glimmer of sanity on the Treasury in these matters
§ Mr. MORRIS
I hope there is still time for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to have a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The right hon. Gentleman, in opposition and in office, rather speaks with two voices on this question. Last year he was pressing on the Government the desirability of abolishing the Entertainments Duty. He deplored the necessity for going to the Treasury to ask for concessions, and said that was not a proper procedure. The Treasury after all had only to administer the law. He was in favour of a modification of it. Even to-day the approach has to be made. I hope he is still of the same opinion, that what we want is a further modification. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will leave it to a free vote of his party. The Solicitor-General might be able to inform the right hon. Gentleman of the views he expressed last year when a large number of hon. Members on that side were desirous of doing something in favour of agriculture. I hope that a large number of those who were last year in favour of this will not have changed their minds, and I hope 637 that they will be found in the Division Lobby supporting this new Clause. But I still hope that it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind. I hope that he is going to revert to his previous position, because here is a very small opportunity of doing something to encourage agriculture. What logical argument can there be, for instance, in exempting shows where there are races between children of a certain age but if the race happens to be between boys and girls of another age it becomes liable to the tax. There is no logical argument for a position of that kind and it is indefensible on every ground. I was equally astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not in a position to say what the tax brought in. Surely the Treasury must know what the figure is.
§ Mr. MORRIS
If these shows do not pay the tax now, then it would be very easy for the Treasury to make the concession, because it cannot bring them in any money now. The shows might be attended by a much greater number of people than at present and any additional profit might be devoted to the encouragement either of stock breeding or other similar purposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this.
§ Mr. MARCH
As one of the members who was in the House last year, I am extremely surprised to see how quiet those people who advocate agriculture are keeping. I remember when the Labour Government was in office there was no less than eight of the representatives of agriculture on their feet at one time, all wanting to have a bite at the Treasury in regard to these agricultural shows. I daresay some of the members will think it rather strange that a London representative should be advocating the abolition of the Entertainments Duty in the case of agriculture shows. May I tell hon. Members that, fortunately or unfortunately, I happen to be a lad from the country, and I know something about what the people think of agricultural shows. I know they think about it for months before it takes place, and they make the necessary arrangements to try 638 and entertain the people in the villages who do not get any other entertainment all the year round. I daresay some of the agriculturists who are real agricultural representatives would understand that, because there are many villages in the rural areas where they do not have even a penny cinema to go to without going miles for it, and when they do organise an agricultural show they do anticipate they are going to get the support of the men in the villages surrounding it, and it would not be very attractive for them only just to see the cattle, and the produce that there are at the show, and they certainly want a side-show or a little entertainment. It is not very much without them, and they have to pay to come in. If they can get a band to come any distance for nothing, they are very lucky. There are not very many men round the country villages who are able to lose their day's work to go and play for the amusement of other people for nothing. I am talking about the money they have to pay for the bands to go and play.
I also remember last year the right hon. Member himself being very anxious that the Entertainments Duty should be taken off altogether for agricultural shows. He is on the other side of the House now, therefore he alters his mind. This tax would be infinitesimal to the Treasury, but it would be a great boon to the people in our agricultural districts, and it would be beneficial to some of them not to have to pay quite so much to go into the shows. If it is only a penny or twopence out of the paltry and meagre amounts which they get as wages it certainly would be a help. Hon. Members have not yet come to the conclusion that agricultural workers are entitled to a living wage, because they do not get it, and therefore every penny that they have to pay in this direction is very obnoxious to them. I certainly think that this little concession this year ought to be given willingly and freely by a Government which is always supposed to be on its hind legs doing something for agriculture.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
I only want to add a few words to what has already been said by my hon. Friends. I do repeat that here is an instance where we have 639 really a strong case for a concession which after all will cost the right hon. Gentleman nothing—that is the first big point—because nothing is being paid at the present time. The only possible effect it might have on the Treasury would be that there are rather prosperous societies in the richer districts in England and parts of the South of Scotland which might conceivably earn profits on which they would be liable to Income Tax and the Treasury might actually gain. They could not possibly lose, though in the part of the country where I come from that argument does not apply. These shows are the foci of the agricultural life of the locality, and the people come to these shows—farm servants, smallholders and large farmers—all the representatives of agriculture in the locality and it is extremely useful socially and as an educational institution. It is a thing which deserves to be encouraged in every way, and this tax keeps it back, especially in the part of the country I represent, where distances are so great and where it is a really great effort for the people to get to the place where the show is held. We want the women, the children and everybody to go. It really does make it very difficult if the mere fact of having some sports or a band makes the whole difference of a substantial addition to price which has to be paid for admission. Therefore, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman between now and the Report stage—I do not ask him to give a decision now—to give consideration to this very reasonable request which would be a stimulus to the agricultural life in the country districts and cost the Treasury no money at all.
§ Mr. LAMB
I wish to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I suppose those cheers from hon. Members opposite mean that hon. Members think I shall support the new Clause. If so, hon. Members opposite will be disappointed, because I am not going to support the new Clause, and I will give my reason. I have made requests to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on previous occasions for concessions to agricultural shows, but whenever I have done so, or whenever others on this side have done so, we have specified the purpose for which we were making the request. I am glad to say that the requests have been granted 640 in the past, much to the advantage of agriculture. This new Clause does not specify a purpose. It says:notwithstanding that admission to the show may include admission to entertainments in regard to which, but for the provisions of this Section, Entertainments Duty would be payable.That shows that it is trying to attempt something which would come into competition with other shows which are liable to the Entertainments Duty.
§ Sir R. HAMILTON
The hon. Member will see that the money must be spent on agricultural or educational purposes.
§ Mr. LAMB
I am not dealing with that point. I am not dealing with the distribution of the money when it has been obtained, but with the morality of obtaining it under the circumstances which this Clause seeks. It is clear that if it were not for this Clause such an entertainment as is contemplated would be liable to duty. That would mean inequality between the treatment of the show and other shows, perhaps of a purely sporting or entertainment character. That being so, it would create injustice, and I am entirely opposed to trying to obtain something in this way. If hon. Members opposite want to abolish the tax altogether, let them say so, and we can have a straight vote upon it, but do not try to do it under the guise of doing something for agriculture. It is not fair. If hon. Members want anything to be done for the agricultural shows, let them say what it is that they want to do, and let us have a vote upon that. Do not make an unspecified request which would give an opportunity of doing something which would come into competition with those shows or exhibitions which have to pay the tax, and doing that under the guise of benefiting agriculture.
§ Mr. SEXTON
I would not have intervened had it not been for the absurd objection just taken from the other side. It is absurd to say that this would compete with other forms of amusement in the district. Everybody knows that the length of time of an agricultural show is limited to a few days. Therefore, the suggestion that what would be done at these shows would compete with 641 amusement places in the locality cannot hold water at all. These agricultural shows are here to-day and gone to-morrow. If the case against the Clause rests upon such an argument as has been advanced from the other side, then there is no case at all, and they ought to support the new Clause.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I would not have intervened but for the objection that has been raised from the other side. I represent a constituency in which there is one of the finest agricultural shows in the South of Scotland. Many of those who come to that particular agricultural show have to travel from 17 to 20 miles to the show and from 17 to 20 miles home again. The argument that the entertainment given at such a show would compete with entertainments held in the district is absurd. There can be no such competition. The agricultural show is only held once in the year. Surely our opponents on the other side will not attempt to deny the little side shows as far as the agricultural shows are concerned for the entertainment of those who live in our outlying districts, many miles from the ordinary usages of life which we have in the towns and cities, and who desire a little entertainment when the agricultural show is being held. There can be no competition as far as ordinary sports are concerned, because the Clause makes it quite clear that it can only be shows held for agricultural or educational purposes. This is the only plea put up during the whole of this Budget for a concession for education. There have been concessions to the landlords, concessions to the wearers of silk stockings, and now I ask for a concession for education.
§ Mr. SOMERVILLE
The hon. Member says that there is no provision in the Budget for education. I think he has forgotten that there is a provision which is going to do a great deal for education, and that is the Teachers Superannuation Bill.
§ Mr. FENBY
As a member of an agricultural society interested in agricul- 642 tural shows, I wish to support this Clause. There is a good deal in the arguments that have been used in favour of the Clause. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is making a certain prophecy, which I ventured to put before agricultural societies, come true. I suggested that I would not trust the Government, because the Government on agriculture was as fickle as the weather. It may be that a large agricultural society is able to exist without the sports element at its annual show, but there are the smaller societies, which are supported by the smallholder and by the labourer, which have to exist without the large contributions of the wealthy towards the show fund. It is in that direction that I think the Government ought to assist the smaller men. There are educational objects served at these shows. There are the cottagers' class, a class for the housewife, a class for the schoolchildren, and so on. There might be horse races and entertainments of that kind, which ought to pay the tax. I suggest that exception might be made in the case of the societies for which we are pleading.
You cannot expect that the small agricultural show for which I am pleading can have anything like they have at Ascot, with their great vested interests behind them. You do not get the vested interests that are suggested in a village show, but in order that ends may meet, and that the Government may get Income Tax out of the profits which they make, they should make this very small concession, because if you are going to rely on the farmer to support financially the small agricultural shows, unfortunately again by the action of the Government, which poses as the friend of the landlord and of the agriculturist in general, with the duty of 33⅓ per cent. on phosphates which is foreshadowed, the farmer will be in a worse position than ever to contribute anything to agricultural shows. As a farmer said to me the other day, "If that duty is put on it will cost me £20 a year increase." [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] The farmer will thus have less to give to agricultural shows. That is a sore point with hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the speeches delivered from the other side, especially the replies from the Government Bench. I am astonished at the 643 attitude of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who worried the Labour Government when they were in office on this very point on behalf of the agricultural labourers. I can well remember—and that is why I pulled him up when he was speaking—how eloquent he waxed in reference to the agricultural labourer being denied all social intercourse, and explaining that these shows were the only means whereby these people could meet together, and that they enabled friends to meet who could not otherwise get in touch with one another. Here he has an opportunity of doing what he asked should be done. He has been appealed to from every section of the House except the Tories. For the life of me I cannot see how the Tories will be able to go into the rural districts and justify the part which they are playing here tonight. The rural districts are the backbone of the Tory party in this country. Had it not been for the rural districts in the South of England the Conservative party would have been wiped out long ago, and yet that party are turning down the very people who have stood by them through thick and thin and on whom they have to depend in the last resort. The folk in the rural districts, both in England and Scotland, and even in Wales, are naurally Conservatives, and here are the Conservative party turning them down or depriving them of an opportunity of coming together by putting on this tax.
We have drawn attention to the fact that the great and wealthy at Ascot have not to pay this Entertainment Duty. The poor agricultural labourers have to pay a tax on their entertainments while the great and wealthy can go to Ascot and flaunt all their luxury before the unemployed in this country. The Minister in charge should direct his attention to this instead of engaging in a general conversation. This is a matter of grave importance. I cannot speak for the rural districts of England, but I certainly can speak with some authority of the rural districts in Scotland, where those people, as was stated by the hon. Member for Peebleshire (Mr. Westwood) hold the shows only once a year. Those agricultural societies hold those games. In Scotland they are designated the Highland games or the Highland shows. In Glasgow this year we have what is known 644 as the Highland show, which is really an agricultural show. There the people come, particularly the country people who never see one another from one year's end to another. [Laughter.] A fool laughs at his own folly. Although you may be knights of the realm, that does not make any difference. I am stating in plain English—[Laughter]—I am perfectly satisfied that I am speaking better English than the average individual who is laughing. As I have stated time and again, I speak the language of the race that stood between you and the onrushing Germans advancing to Paris, and I speak a language and with a tongue that is not at this time of the night interfered with by any kind of liquor.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member should confine his remarks to the Entertainments Duty on agricultural shows.
§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I would not have digressed in any sense from the point under discussion had you been as strict with my opponents as you have been at the moment with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] You can "Order" away, I am speaking about our Highland show. I was making an appeal on behalf of our agricultural workers. In Scotland we do not speak of them as agricultural labourers. We speak of them in a more humane way by calling them country servants. These men and women have to work on the farms that are spread all over the country, miles apart from one another. If hon. Members would read Burns's "Cotter's Saturday Night" they would learn something about the people whom both Labour and Liberal Members are asking the Government to assist. These people have no cinemas, no theatres, no Ascots. They are poor people. Even the farmer is invariably a very poor man. These people work from early morn to dewy eve, and they work seven days a week. The agricultural show is the one bright spot in their lives, unless they find another bright spot when they go to the kirk on Sundays.
I am not in the habit of appealing for concessions, and I do not get very many, but I appeal now on behalf of the Scottish agricultural worker, the peasantry of my native land. There is no denying the fact that the Scottish peasants have been driven out of their native land by 645 tens of thousands. Instead of getting concessions, instead of being supported, they have been ill-treated and driven out of the country. We know perfectly well the history of our land. We know about the clearances of the Highlands, about the peasantry being driven out not only by soldiers but by bloodhounds. We appeal to the Tory party to put into practice what it preaches. Tories are always accusing the Labour party of not practising what it preaches. We are giving the Government an opportunity to practice what it preaches, to show some semblance of charity and of consistency to those folk who have only this small measure of pleasure in life. If the concession is made it will redound to the Government's credit; if it is not made the fact will be held up to the Tory party for all time that they are not men of their word.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON
In view of the concession which the Government gave us last week, I intervene to state that there is much to be said on this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has my sympathy in his attempts to defend a rotten case. The only defence he can put forward is that entertainments like agricultural shows might be put into the hands of a contractor. This Debate has drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that representatives of the industrial world here are at last beginning to understand that there is an agricultural problem. The real trouble is that the industrial world has everything that it wants and the agricultural people have been left out of the picture. Members of the Labour party are at last awakening to the fact that agriculture is in need of help. Therefore, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this small concession to agricultural shows, which are so necessary to agricultural life.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I should not have intervened in the Debate had it not been for the remarks of the last speaker. I know that the hon. and gallant Member was absent from the House for a year, and the reason he had that year's absence was because of the way in which he fulfilled his duties during his former period in the House when he represented Dunfermline Burghs.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Well, that is adjacent to Dunfermline and in the same County of Fife. For 12 months the hon. and gallant Member represented that division, and I have yet to hear that during that period he uttered a single word on behalf of the agricultural labourer. He then represented industrial workers, and was only concerned with them. But now he has shifted from industry to agriculture, and yet he says that we are "at last" taking an interest in agriculture. If to-morrow Glasgow were stupid enough to accept him as Member, he would cease to be a keen agriculturist and would be a keen industrialist again. I think all who know the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will agree that, whatever faults and failings he may have, he has always stood up for a square deal for the agricultural or the industrial worker, and I resent this reference which was made to him. He has always been willing to help workers of all kinds.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has shown a great amount of ability in his job, and he is, I think, the most pleasant Member of the Government. I often wish his superior could be half as pleasant. I think the right hon. Gentleman's pleasant manner and style would be even more pleasant if he gave us this small concession. We have in Scotland every year, as has been pointed out, a great occasion known as the Highland Show. It is held in a different town each year, one year in Dumfries, the next possibly in Dunfermline, and this year it is being held in Glasgow. People from all over Scotland foregather on that occasion, including many poor people, and one of the few generous things done by the railway companies is to afford cheap railway facilities in this connection. The Glasgow Corporation and other local bodies give the use of public parks and everybody concerned contrive to assist the show in every way, in order that agriculture should be given a help by the great industrial centres. All we are now asking is that the Government should join in helping the agricultural worker to have more success and more enjoyment as the result of these gatherings. Apart from their educational importance they are of great social benefit, and they are an antidote to drinking practices and other evils. They are all to the good, and I 647 hope for these reasons that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will reconsider his decision.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 237.649
|Division No. 168.]||AYES.||[10.10 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hardie, George D.||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Amman, Charles George||Harney, E. A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Harris, Percy A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scurr, John|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hastings, Sir Patrick||Sexton, James|
|Barnes, A.||Hayday, Arthur||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barr J.||Hayes, John Henry||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hirst, G. H.||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smillie, Robert|
|Briant, Frank||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Broad, F. A.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Bromfield, William||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Snell, Harry|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Clowes, S.||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kenyon, Barnet||Sutton, J. E.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kirkwood, D.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lansbury, George||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawson, John James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Connolly, M.||Lindley, F. W.||Thurtle, E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lunn, William||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Mackinder, W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||MacLaren, Andrew||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Duckworth, John||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Duncan, C||March, S.||Warne, G. H.|
|Dunnico, H.||Maxton, James||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Webb. Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|England, Colonel A.||Montague, Frederick||Welsh, J. C.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Morris, R. H.||Westwood, J.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Forrest, W.||Murnin, H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Naylor, T. E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gillett, George M.||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gosling, Harry||Palin, John Henry||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Paling, W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.||Windsor, Walter|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Rees, Sir Beddoe||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Groves, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Riley, Ben||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Ritson, J.||Sir R. Hutchison and Sir R.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Hamilton.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Campbell, E. T.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cassels, J. D.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Boothby, R. J. G.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brass, Captain W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Chapman, Sir S.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Atkinson, C.||Briscoe, Richard George||Chilcott, Sir Warden|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Brittain, Sir Harry||Christie, J. A.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'v)||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Buckingham, Sir H.||Clayton, G. C.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Bullock, Captain M.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Berry, Sir George||Burman, J. B.||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Couper, J. B.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rye, F. G.|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Huntingfield, Lord||Salmon, Major I.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hurst, Gerald B.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Jacob, A. E.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Sandon, Lord|
|Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Lamb, J. Q.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Drewe, C.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Loder, J. de V.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Ellis, R. G.||Lynn, Sir Robert J.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Macintyre, Ian||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Storry, Deans, R.|
|Finburgh, S.||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Fleming, D. P.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Ford, P. J.||Malone, Major P. B.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Margesson, Captain D.||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Merriman, F. B.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Meyer, Sir Frank||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Tasker, Major R. Inigo|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Gee, Captain R.||Moles, Thomas||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Waddington, R.|
|Grace, John||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||War:, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arther Clive||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Nelson, Sir Frank||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Newman, sir R. H. s. D. L. (Exeter)||watts, Dr. T.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Wells, S. R.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hanbury, C.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Harland, A.||Oakley, T.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Oman. Sir Charles William C.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Penny, Frederick George||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Pielou, D. P.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Radford, E. A.||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ramsden, E.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Remer, J. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Rentoul, G. S.||Major Cope and Major Hennessy.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.|
Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMAN
In accordance with the arrangement come to at an early hour this morning, I do not propose to select any further new Clauses.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
May I ask with whom this arrangement was made? There are some very important new Clauses on the Paper. I, personally, was not here early this morning, and I do not know who made the arrangement.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the right hon. Gentleman had been here, he would hive been aware of the arrangement. It was agreed to by all those who were in the 650 Committee at that moment that only two new Clauses, besides the first Government new Clause on the Paper, should be taken to-day, and that we should get to the Schedules at a reasonable time. I did say that if there were new Clauses of importance put down, which, owing to this arrangement, were not taken, I would mention them in conversation with Mr. Speaker, and no doubt he would take that into consideration when he came to select new Clauses on the Report stage.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
On a point of Order. I would point out the serious 651 effect of that ruling on the rights of private Members, that when new Clauses are put down arrangements should be made to cut them out.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Chair is expressly empowered to select Amendments and new Clauses, and no question of Order can arise as to the reasons for which the selection is made.