§ Sixth Resolution read a Second time.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "four years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
Had it been possible, one would have preferred an Amendment to have been moved to delete the Resolution entirely, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement in the House—
§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood)
On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if hon Members opposite are agreeable, it would not be convenient that we should have the general discussion (as we had on he earlier Resolution) or the four Amendments dealing with this subject?
§ Colonel GRETTON
I am quite willing to accede to the request. I think I can get an assurance which may make it unnecessary for me to move my Amendment—in line 5, at end, to insert:
|Hops grown in and imported from His Majesty's Dominions and Colonies Overseas … the cwt.||2||13||4|
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I was remarking, that when I first heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make the announcement as to 1265 this particular article that it was proposed to tax, and then when I read the White Paper, I became a little bewildered as to really what hops were. I wondered whether they were a flower, a plant, or a vegetable, but now that the Minister of Agriculture is here to reply on behalf of the Government, I come to the conclusion that it is something associated with the Ministry of Agriculture. On making further inquiries, I really believe I have heard the term hops before, and that a considerable proportion of this commodity is used in the manufacture of temperance drinks. I believe hops are used in the manufacture of hop bitters, Kop's Ale and a variety of se-called non-intoxicating or mineral drinks. Upon further inquiries—it has now become almost a matter of history—there was a time when a considerable amount of hops was used in the brewing of the national beverage called beer
The duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to impose is expected to realise in a full financial year £250, 000, and, working that out on the basis of £4 per cwt., I think that would represent something approaching the possible imports of hops into this country of 60, 000 cwt. I fear that the industry most likely to be hit by such a tax is already taxed out of proportion to any other taxable article or commodity in this country. Whether there is agreement as to the quality of the commodity or not, as to its uses or abuses, the fact remains that there is a very considerable portion of our population that engage in the consumption of that commodity, and, in the main, people who cannot afford the more expensive wines, which will in no way be affected by the tax it is proposed to impose upon hops. It may be said that the amount is so small, when spread over the whole of the industry, that it cannot possibly result in any increase of price to the consumer, but the greater danger is, that even if that be avoided, the new duty will result in an increase in the use of chemicals, which, I think there is general agreement, has from the pre-War period been introduced into the manufacture of beers as a substitute for hops, not to the benefit of the product, or to those who feel that they can indulge in slight consumption of that particular article. I would rather, if it were possible, that the inflow of hops should be somewhat facilitated, and that the 1266 Ministry of Agriculture, if the main purpose is to help in the development of our home-producing community, should have some fixed standard of purity in the manufacture of beer, in order that a greater quantity of hops should be introduced into the general manufacture of that commodity
I find that the amount of hops used for the year ending September, 1924, in this country was 350, 428 cwts. The amount of preparations of hops used was 54 cwts., and the amount of hop substitutes used was 44 cwts. Even assuming that those engaged in the business, being called upon to meet an extra charge of £80 per ton on imported hops, decided not to increase the price, they might decide to increase the use of hop substitutes, thereby passing on an inferior product to the consumer at its present price, and indirectly defeating what no doubt is the sole object of the Chancellor, namely, to obtain the revenue of £250, 000 which he considers can be realised from this duty in a full year. No provision is made for the application of the duty to hop substitutes, and this in itself would lead the users of hops to clear themselves of any possible extra charge by passing on an inferior article to the consumer, who already pays more than he should pay towards the taxation of this country for a very indifferent article. In the days when hops formed one of the main ingredients of hop bitters, Kop's Ale, and the ordinary beer, it was necessary to have at the head of a brewery department a man who was expert in brewing. Now I am given to understand that the chief qualification for this post is not a knowledge of brewing as in pre-War days, but a knowledge of chemistry. It is generally a skilled chemist who is at the head of such a department nowadays, and chemistry plays a larger part in the manufacture of beer than the knowledge of an expert brewer as to the use of wholesome products grown in this or other countries
There is another point on which I should like to ask either the Minister of Agriculture or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an assurance. Unless I am wrongly informed, British brewers have already contracted abroad for over 102,000 cwts. of hops, which would represent the supply for a year and eight months according to the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One would like to know whether these con- 1267 tracts made ahead are going to be taxed under the present proposals. I they are, it will readily be seen that an injustice is inflicted upon those who have already entered into contracts, and this cannot in any way help to promote a larger growth of hops in this country. That matter cannot in any way be affected by the contracts already placed. One would also like to know—though perhaps this matter arises more directly on the Amendment put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton—whether any preference is to given to our Dominions and Colonies in this matter. I understand that the Dominions exported to this country 6,446 cwts. during the past seven months. If they are to come under the general category of this duty, what becomes of all the talk we have heard about Empire understanding and Empire preferences? I only mention that point by the way, in case it might be overlooked
There is one other point. Surely it cannot be that the Minister of Agriculture has had representations made to him by the hop growers of this country asking that this duty should be placed on the imported article in order that they might produce larger quantities of hops. If a duty is placed on an article for any purpose it is to make it difficult for that article to enter into this country against the interests of home producers, but what was the position of the Government in this matter in 1923? Then they set out deliberately to restrict the production of hops in this country, and they restricted by control the hop growers of this country to producing 71 per cent. of their average production for the years 1920-22. If such restrictions were then placed on hop-growing there can surely be no argument now that we want 1.) enlarge the area of the hop fields of this country, and for that purpose desire to make the import of foreign hops difficult. The fact remains that in 1910 there were 32, 886 acres of hop-growing territory in this country, and in 1922 there were 26, 452 acres. Yet notwithstanding that fact, the Government of the day in 1923 restricted the production of hops in way I have stated
I could understand this proposal if the Government said: We have tried to develop the industry, we have tried 1268 to give it encouragement and we have tried to give facilities for larger areas of land being brought into cultivation for hop growing. But they restricted the production of hops and now they say: While we restrict you to 71 per cent. of the product for 1920-1702, at the same time we are going to make it difficult for hops to be imported into this country from other countries, and if they come in they must pay £4 per hundredweight. Between the two courses the consumer is going to be the greatest sufferer. If you restrict production in your own country and restrict the available quantity by keeping foreign imports out, it is bound to react upon the trade and cause the trade to fall back on the further use of substitutes. Soon beer will be quite devoid of its old-time quality. We shall- find chemical laboratories set up here and there in the place of breweries, and a man who desires a drink of beer will be required to take a phial of concentrated essence to some place where there is a free flowing water supply and take his glass of beer in much the same manner as he would take a seidlitz powder. That seems to me the direction in which we are travelling, because I am certainly one of those who would openly advocate a purer supply of beer. I therefore move, in order that we shall have a full test of the result of these duties, that they should be limited to one year instead of four years, and I think the Minister ought to agree to this Amendment, because it is quite a new duty. I do not know that a duty of this character has ever been imposed before in this House, and in order that we might see the full justification of it and what the effect may be on the commodity offered for sale, and on the British hop-growers, I think the Amendment should be carried.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON
I beg to second the Amendment
I am glad to know, after the huge efforts that some hon. Members have been making this evening to show that certain duties were protective, that there is no quest; on in regard to this particular duty, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself bar said that it is a purely protective duty. He said in his Budget speech:The Silk Duty finds at its side 5, small companion which has reached me from the Ministry of Agriculture in the shape 1269 of a duty on hops. It is very small, but very shocking; it is nakedly protective. "— [OFFICIAL Respond, 24th April, 1925; col. 67, Vol. 183.]May I add my own opinion? To me, it is a pure, unadulterated, full-blooded, blue-blooded Protection Duty. All my life I have hated the very name of Protection. It was my great good fortune to live with a man for a large number of years who knew something of Protection at work, and in the "hungry forties" he remembered that he could not have bread. Ever since those days I have hated Protection. Some think that this commodity is not a food, but others hold an opinion distinctly that it is a food. We may, I think, agree that it is on the border line, and I would suggest that it is too near food for the present Ministry to undertake to tax it. Personally, I would say that for no consideration should we tax the food of the people. Further, I urge that this tax is wholly unnecessary. Already you have in your hands the control of hops, both home-brewed and imported, and ample powers to deal with them. That being the case, the only thing that can arise out of this tax, and the only thing that the Chancellor expects will arise, is an increase in the price of the commodity, so that people will have more to pay, and I do not think that the people will care for that. The time, I believe, will shortly come when you will be asked to reduce the price of beer, which is, as the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day) has said, taxed out of all proportion as compared with any other article in the country.
When we remember that the tax on beer to-day is between nine and 10 times as high as it was before the War, surely the greatest prohibitionist we have in the House ought to be at least satisfied with that position, and I urge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on these foundations, has chosen the very worst subject that ho could take for increased taxation, and it is wholly unnecessary. We know only too well who will pay. The man who takes a glass of beer in the end is going to pay, and everybody here, I think, will agree with me that no commercial concern is run at a loss. They are not institutions for philanthropy, but for getting profits, and here I would incidentally state that I can speak for nine or 10 breweries which 1270 are run on co-operative lines, and owned by the workers of this country. They buy hops, and have ever bought the home production, and I am wondering how, with 50 per cent. duty—for I understand that that is what it means, the price of a cwt. of hops at present being about £8, to which a £4 tax is to be added—these small concerns will compete in the market with the great brewing interests of this country. We are again, I am afraid, going to get the backwash given to us. Therefore, I cannot think that this tax should be imposed.
I always look at the price of beer and the tax on beer as the workers' Income Tax. A worker only has the surplus from his wages that can be spared from his home. His home gets the first consideration. Food and the clothing that are necessary there come first, and with what little remains the man, the father or grown-up son, takes a glass of beer. You are going to tax that surplus by such Resolutions as this, and I want to remind you that other people who pay Income Tax have not had their tax increased under the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hut have had their Income Tax very much reduced indeed. Altogether this is a Budget that has increased in every respect the payments of the workers to give to the friends of the Chancellor some reduction in taxation, which they can well afford to pay, as compared with the workers of this country. In the mining industry, to which I belong, an;industry where men are trying to exist on wages ranging from 30s. to 35s. a week, or at the most £2, to expect them to pay further taxation in any shape or form is, to me, imposing cruelty upon them. Rather should they have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rather should he have said: Whatever I can gain from taxation, it shall not come from you, but I will put it into your industry, so as to help you. I do not know that I need say more. If this tax had been imposed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that we should have heard something from the other side of the House as to the taxation of the workers. We should have heard that rolling from the benches opposite. To-day, however, the boot is on the other foot. It is because that from your own Chancellor of the Exchequer that this proposal has come that no word do I expect to hear against it.
§ Mr. E. WOOD
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will no doubt be prepared to answer the various financial points that may be raised in this discussion at a later stage of the Debate, but I thought it would be for the convenience, of the House if I intervened to say a word or two in reply to the case that the hon. Gentlemen have advanced. I do so because it more specifically appeals to me as responsible for the relation of this proposal to the agricultural policy involved. Hon. Members will allow me to say that they have presented their case to the House, as indeed might have been expected, with great sincerity and great fairness, and although I do not, of course, agree with their opinions I would be the first to recognise that their case is one entitled to very full and fair consideration. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last will perhaps allow me to say that in one respect he fell into a great error. He said that if the proposal to impose a duty on imported hops has been proposed by the Government of his friends, it would have excited opposition from hon. Friends of my own sitting on this side of the House. I would, however, point,, at that that. matter has been consistently pressed upon the attention, not only of the Minister of Agriculture who preceeded me, but Ministers who occupied this office., even earlier.
The discovery was made by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject that hops very largely entered into the composition of a beverage of which I hope he, no less than I, is fond—beer. He also expressed great sympathy for pure or purer beer. In that I also agree with him. I venture to associate myself with what he said to the effect that the more pure you get your beer the more beer you can safely drink. I think those sentiments will even win the general concurrence of the hon. Member who sits for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). The hon. Member was very much concerned about the possible effect of this duty on the use of hop substitutes. I am not disposed, nor, indeed—if I may frankly confess it—am I competent to discuss in detail the question of hop substitutes; but I want to put to the House one important figure as to what would be the estimated effect of this duty on hops, either on the price of beer or on the price of hops substitutes. We have been informed most exactly as to what the imposition of the 1272 duty on a barrel of beer, and as translated from a barrel to a pint of beer, would be. It really is a fractional amount. Hon. Members opposite know it perfectly well, so that I think I need hardly quote the figure: but if they choose to work it out, the best actual computation that can be made, even if the whole duty was thrown on to the pint of beer, would be something like one 29th or 30th of a penny. That is what the mathematicians would call an unworkable fraction.
§ Mr. WOOD
I hope that hon. Members opposite will be reassured at least on that point. But I want, if I may, to ask hon. Members to remember what has been the history of this business and to look at it upon slightly broader lines. The whole object of the Government in the last seven years has been to re-establish the British hop grower and the British hop industry; that industry, indeed, has a pretty strong moral claim upon the sympathy of this House. During the War the hop growers were compelled to grub up half their plantations, for which they received not one single penny in compensation, whereas the ordinary farmer, as is well known, received compensation for turning his grass land into arable land. That has involved the hop growers obviously in a very large loss, and it was with the object of re-establishing the growth of British hops—an object, let me point out, that was not less important to the consumers of beer than to the hop growers themselves—it was with the object of re-establishing the industry that the War period, lop control was continued for a period of five years. It expires next August. The object was to give to the grower the chance of se-establishing his plantations within that time. I have no doubt that. the process would have been, or might have been, satisfactorily accomplished if it had not been for two things. The heavy increase of the Beer Duty, which has enormously diminished the consumption of beer, and this, again, has coincided with a very serious depression in trade. The position that resulted has had serious consequences for those for whom I more particularly speak, for they were farther affected by an immense bumper crop of British hops produced last year 1273 There is, as hon. Members are aware, a considerable surplus of these hops still unabsorbed. Nay more, I put it to hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish well to the position of the British hop grower, as to what that position is likely to be on the termination of control in August. They have suffered as I have described, and unless the Government do something they will find themselves faced not only with a large surplus of hops from last year due to fortuitous circumstances and restrictions, to some of which I have referred, but also with a great flood of foreign imports which have been already, so to speak, sitting at the door and watching for when the key shall turn the door, and open it, and remove control, then they would be ready to come in and complete the destruction already threatened by the over-production of last year. That was obviously an impossible position to contemplate, and one that would not have been to the interest either of brewers or of consumers, because if British hop growers are killed, crushed out, it is obvious you would get a shortage of hops. That is not good for the brewers, and in sc. far as hop prices reflect themselves in the price of beer, it is not good for the consumers. Therefore, the Government decided that something must be done
There were two alternatives. One was to continue control. The bon. Member who spoke last seemed to be, if I understood him correctly, unaware that control was to terminate in August. It would be possible to continue that control, that is, to continue a system of not only naked, but high, Protection. You may call this proposal Protection if you will, I do not quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's definition, but I do say that it is nothing like so protective as the rigid limitation of imports and the rigid fixation of price under which the hop industry has been carried on for the last few years. Therefore it comes to this, that by this temporary duty we propose to give a lesser degree of protection to British growers than they have enjoyed under hop control, and, subject to that lesser degree of protection, we propose to replace a restricted market in hops by a free market. Subject to this duty, the -market for hops will be entirely free, instead of being, as it has been during the last few years, and is at the present time, a restrictive market, and a very rigidly controlled one. 1274 The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, I think, that this was a perfectly new duty, and one unknown to this House. That is not so. There was a duty on hops for something like 150 years, from the year 1711 to 1862. Not only was the duty in existence for 150 years, but 100 years ago it was as high as £8 11s. per cwt., which shows with what modesty we return to the examples. of our forefathers
I hope, in view of the explanation I have endeavoured to give to the House, they will not insist on pressing this Amendment to a Division. All this Amendment would do would be to. stultify the policy which the Government recommend. I am quite satisfied that any hon. Member opposite who applied his mind impartially and with knowledge to this question, and who was able to see the question from the point of view of the hop growers as well as from the general point of view of the nation, could come to no other conclusion than that it, would be impossible to allow control to lapse without taking some steps to safeguard hop growers against the result of the expiration of control if no policy had been superadded. I am further satisfied they would come to the conclusion that a temporary duty and a moderate, duty was the least inconvenient way of affording hop growers that protection to which, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of other hon. Members, they are most richly entitled.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to clear up two points—the point raised as to contracts already entered into by British brewers for upplies of foreign hops, and the further point as to whether these is any easement proposal for Colonial hops.
§ Mr. WOOD
I apologise to the hon. Member. I had a note of it, but I overlooked it. This proposal will involve preference to imported Dominion hops, and the duty will apply to existing contracts. Therefore, as regards Imperial Preference, it does not imply, as I think he was inclined to suggest, any bleach of faith on the part of the Treasury.
§ Colonel GRETTON
I think a few remarks are desirable from one who is well acquainted with the brewing trade and can speak on this subject with knowledge—on one side of the question, at any 1275 rate. The last thing the brewer wants to do in these times is to put up the price of his beer to the customer, and so far from this proposal involving any risk of that kind, it is really a safeguard, as I think I can show in the few remarks I shall make subsequently, that the price of beer will not be raised. The extra charge on foreign hops involved by this duty represents about 1/28th of a penny per pint of beer as sold in this country.
§ Colonel GRETTON
This has nothing to do with the gravity, nothing whatever. The conditions under control are very difficult indeed. The acreage of hops had been reduced in the War from some 30, 000 acres to 16, 500 acres, and the whole industry of hop-growing was impaired. it certainly was not in the interests of consumers of beer here or elsewhere that they should not have English hops in their beer, and the brewers therefore took the view that every effort ought to be made to increase the acreage of English hops. They agreed, not too wisely I think, that at the end of War control it should be continued for another five years, and that period comes to an end at the end of August of this year
I do not know whether hon. Members realise what control means. It means this, that, by statute the Controller, and the Advisory Committee which was set up purchase the whole of the English crop which is purchasable. The Advisory Committee consists of representatives of the hop growers, factors, who are the salesmen of the hop growers, hop merchants, who are intermediaries, and the brewers. This Advisory Committee has every year gone into the whole matter of the cost of cultivation of hops, the condition of the season, and the average production of hops per acre, and on that they have fixed a price which they call the standard price. To that they have added 20 per cent, as a profit for the grower, and the brewer, when he has bought the hops from control, has also had to pay control charges, which have come down somewhat lately —I think they are only 5s. this year, but were as high as at one time—and he has also had to pay the merchants' com- 1276 mission and the factors' commission, very heavy charges. The hop control was able to control the trade because the Controller had power to withhold the importation of foreign hops until the English crop was sold and get foreign hops to make up the balance
Hon. Members on this subject have been talking from the point of view of the high altitude and lofty, conscientious attitude of Free Traders. Having accepted the control as satisfactory they must put their principles on one side The brewers have found great difficulty in conducting their business under this system of control. Hop growers have not increased the acreage necessary to produce a hop crop equal to that which was the average before the War. Roughly speaking, they produce two-thirds or three-fourths of the hops required in a normal year in this country and no more. The hop crop is subject to the inclemency of the season, and the whole of it may he very much damaged, and frequently hops are growth which ought not to he picked and are not suitable for brewing
One of the results will be that control will be more lenient as to what hops are saleable or not. In the past brewers have had to take hops of a much lower grade. Control has had another influence on hop growing. It is perfectly natural that there should have been a certain tendency amongst hop growers to take less care in the marketing of their hops because they have got to a much lower standard than was the case before the War. The ending of control from the point of view of the consumer will tend somewhat to improve the quality of the hops put in beer as compared with the quality which was produced during the War under great difficulties, and which has not been entirely rectified since
What is the nature of the control? It is impossible to continue to conduct business under such conditions. The brewing trade have agreed, because they fully recognise that the public interest is involved, to a duty of per cwt. on foreign hops for the next four years. After that time the whole question is to be examined on its merits according to the position which arises at that time and the whole matter will be open for discussion. As regards the hops from the Dominions and our 1277 Colonies overseas the supply to this country is now very limited. The quantity brought in last year from the Dominions and the Colonies amounted to about 10, 000 cwts. I understand that under the agreement which has been come to that the usual preference of one-third of the reduction on the Import Duty will be charged on the hops from the Dominions overseas. Hon. Members have talked about the hop substitutes which are used in beer, but what are the facts of the case? There is no industry that is more inspected arid supervised than the brewing trade. All the material put into beer in the course of brewing has to be recorded. Excise officers watch all that goes on and they know very well whether malt or sugar or hops substitutes are used in any particular brewing. You will find in the annual returns of brewing the records of their observation laid down for the use of any hon. Member who imagines that hop substitutes are used in any large quantities. I am sure that they will find that hop substitutes are scarcely used at all. It has been suggested that cheap substitutes for hops can be used with advantage, but brewers do not agree with that, and in point of fact those substitutes are not used, and hon. Members who make this statement have not really taken the trouble to examine public records in this matter which are available to everyone who desire to look into this question
I believe it is in the interest of the consumers of beer that there should be a prosperous hop industry in this country producing good hops to be used for the brewing of English beer. It is for that—to encourage and maintain that supply of hops—that the English brewers have agreed to this duty. One hon. Member said that brewers are traders. That is true, and if it had not been absolutely necessary as a matter of public policy and in the interests of all concerned that this charge should be made, it would not have been agreed by the brewers. May I say to the hop growers that I believe this duty will afford them the protection which they require. I believe a lower duty would have sufficed and would have given a great advantage to the English hop grower, quality being equal. This proposal is now made for four years. It may be the right amount or it may be 1278 wrong, but it can be fairly judged on the experience of four years. As far as I am concerned, and I can speak for English brewers, we desire to support the English hop industry and even to make sacrifices to ensure that end. We recognise their difficulties and we want them to produce the best hops they can for the making of English beer.
§ Mr. HARRIS
One cannot help regretting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to take part in the Debate, because it would have been interesting to hear his version of this tax. An hour or so ago we heard a very eloquent speech from him, in which, apparently, he nailed his colours to the mast as an unrependant Free Trader. He assured the House that he only departed, in the case of the McKenna Duties, from the pure unadulterated doctrine. of Free Trade, because those duties were old duties which had been accepted for the last 10 years, and did not introduce any new principle. Here we have, undoubtedly, Protection naked and u n-ashamed. The case for it might very properly and naturally have been put, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but by the Minister of Agriculture. There is no pretence here of revenue; it is put on as a purely protective tax, to protect a particular favoured industry in order to secure for it better prices. That is adistinct and definite departure in policy
I suppose it would be considered ate impertinence if I were to suggest that, in the case of an article of this kind, it was a departure from the pledge of the Prime Minister. I do not know by which pledge it could properly be covered. The Prime Minister's first pledge was that there should be no tax on food, or, I assume, raw material, and I have always been led to understand—perhaps some of the experts on beer will be able to tell me if I am right—that beer was a food. I have often heard from Members opposite that there was no more nourishing, sustaining or necessary drink for the people than the great national drink. I have rather an idea, therefore, that beer might well be classified as coming within the category of the pledge of the Prime Minister as to taxes on food. Even if it is not a food, it is certainly a raw material, and we were always assured, even in the days when the Prime Minister 1279 came out in favour of Protection, at the Election before last, he was not prepared to tax raw materials. Here we have an article singled out for special favour, not for one year in the ordinary revenue way, but for four years. This Government, assuming that its life is going to extend for four years, has guaranteed to the hop growers this form of Protection. It is easy to put a tax on, when the Government have a well-drilled majority prepared to follow them into the Lobby. It can be done at half-past eleven at night in a nearly empty House, when Members are tired and exhausted after a long discussion. But it is one thing to put a tax on, and another thing to take a tax off. Immediately you create vested interests, and I can imagine, in four years' time, hop growers coming down in procession to protest against an unfair attack on a well-established old industry. This is an old tax. I was very interested to hear the date. I knew it was an old tax, but I did not realise that it had been on for so many years. It was on from 1711 to 1862, when it was swept away as a result of the policy started by Sir Robert Peel, and successfully followed by Mr. Gladstone
I happen to have had, at one time in my political life, some association with the county of Kent, and I once had the courage and temerity to contest the seat in a hop-growing constituency. It was an interesting experience. I remember that the hop growers were all in favour of Free Trade. They thought it was a very wrong thing to tax corn, or any other article of food, but all were in favour of a tax on hops. When I went a few miles out of that district, and came to a corn-growing country, there the corn growers were all in favour of Free Trade in hops, but in favour of a tax on corn. On what ground, on what justification, can you single out one particular section, and, I venture to say, the most prosperous section, of agriculture for special favour? Those landowners and tenant farmers who happen to be on land suitable for hop growing are in a specially satisfactory position. I do not think there is much doubt that during the last 30 or 40 years more money has been made out of hops than out of any other form of agriculture in the country
There is no more profitable crop to the, producer, even under Free Trade con- 1280 ditions, than hops. Where a man has the capital and suitable land, I have been told by experts that it is a very profitable investment. Of course, it is speculative. There are good years and bad years; there are times when, from various causes, the hops are destroyed, it may be by the ravages of the aphis, or it may be by high winds or wet weather. On the other hand, it may be that in another year, when hops are plentiful and the crops are good, prices are low, and that year, again, is not favourable to the hop grower. But I have been told by numerous experts that one good year in seven, or at any rate one good year in four or five, will more than compensate the hope grower for his ups and downs of prices and the uncertainties of the crop. It is a speculative crop, but a most profitable one, and there is no reason why hop growers should be singled out, of all the farmers in England; of all the producers of food in our land, for special favour and attention. Moreover, I cannot see, once this policy is started, how it will be possible to say to the fruit growers of Kent or other parts of the country, who produce apples, pears or strawberries—which, again, are a very speculative crop—that hops are to be protected while they are to be refused the benefits of secure prices and freedom from foreign competition
This is the beginning of a direct policy of going towards Protection. It cannot be avoided. It is much better to be frank about the matter and tell the nation that you are going to take every opportunity to impose, by one means or another, Protective tariffs as the settled policy of the party. We are told that this will not affect prices. That may be true, but no doubt the brewers have a very large margin of profit. If we study the dividends declared by various brewing companies, and consider the prices that they get, no doubt they have a good margin to play with, and a small tax on sugar, or a little extra on hops, will not make very much difference. to their profits, and they can easily give a certain amount away. But I am not quite satisfied that arguments and statements which rightly apply to such excellent beverages as Bass and Guinness apply equally to the ordinary pale ale or swipes which is delivered to the workman across the counter of a tied house as an alleged drink called beer. Although the quality of these great 1281 beverages of world-wide reputation may not, perhaps, be altered, I have some suspicion that either the quality will go down or that it will be given as a reason for increasing the price, or that, when the price of hops goes up, somehow or other they will disappear and some substitute will take their place
I am very much interested, also, about the preference. It is said that the Dominions must have a market for their goods, that it is necessary in order to maintain the loyalty of the Empire to keep the existing preference, in fact that they should have a preference for their products. Now we have the answer. The answer is a tax on Imperial grown hops. Canadian and Australian hops are to he taxed. It is true that the tax is to be higher on hops from foreign countries. They are not to be allowed to come in free on the same terms as hops produced in our own country. That is a very curious answer to the Economic Conference. I am wondering whaler our representatives at the Economic Conference informed the Canadian and the Australian grower that his hops in future were to be taxed, while the English grower was to be allowed to sell his free without any taxation. It is an interesting comment on the Imperial policy. It shows how dangerous it is to tamper with taxation as a. means of tying Omer the Imperial bond
But I want to come down to the fundamental policy. This is art infringement of Free Trade. Once you start giving protection to one section of the community, the pressure from all the other sections is difficult to meet, and you will never get agriculture on its legs and make it prosperous unless you leave all these ideas of artificial protection alone, put our farmer on the same terms and give him the same opportunities with farmers in other parts of the Empire. Relieve him from rating, give him security of tenure, let him feel that he can cultivate his land on exactly the same terms as the:farmers in Australia., Canada and New Zealand, have the same system of land tenure, rating and taxation, and we can give away all these artificial experiments in tariffs and get our agriculture on a sound, satisfactory basis. I am inclined to think that sooner or later these taxes on hops will lead to higher prices, a great part of which will go into 1282 the pockets of the landlords in increased rents. There is no security against that. For that reason, and because it would infringe the sound principles of Free Trade, I shall be prepared to go to a Division and vote against it.
§ Major WHELER
I wish to say one or two words as one. who made his first remarks on an Amendment to the Address in 1910 regretting that the Government of the day did not take some steps to pro. teet the hop industry and as one who has taken some part in growing hops. The Minister of Agriculture has put the case for the hop grower very clearly, but I should like to say a word to the hon. Member opposite. He said money had been made in hops. I do not deny that it has been made by some people, but a the same time there has been a great deal of money lost in hops. A great many men have become practically bankrupt through hops. There is no industry in agriculture which is more expensive per acre per year than that of hop growing. In the district in Kent from which I come, to cultivate an acre of hops used to cost £60 a year. With the increased price of everything, that has gone up to as high as £l80 per acre per year. If you have even a few acres of hops, you can realise what that means. Seventy-five per cent.;:)f that money goes in wages to those who are able to undertake work which is pleasant and congenial (especially for women workers), and brings to them a result which is of the utmost use. That is a point which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment has never touched upon the labour side of the question. It provides a source of income for the mother and the whole family. In parts of the county that work has been taken away because of the difficulties of hop growing. The ease of this industry has been a question for special treatment, and it has been before the House ever since I have been here. We have never hesitated to say that this was an industry, for which the fact that the grower has to spend so ranch money per acre if he is going to cultivate his crop properly, a special type of Protection I not afraid of the word—is necessary from any other industry. and if it does not get it you are going to see the acreage of hops decrease very greatly. If the industry dis- 1283 appears through foreign competition, it will be easy for the foreigner to put up the price to what he likes, and the price of beer must go up
I want to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing forward this duty. I am certain it will do an enormous amount of good to those districts where the hop is grown. It will encourage people to remain in those districts and it will give more employment at times when certain numbers of our agricultural people cannot find it. In addition, it keeps the land in a very high state of cultivation and you get the maximum return therefore from the soil. Those are the reasons for which I support the proposal. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment did not seem to realise that to keep a duty on for one year would be futile. To imagine that if hops are put in to-day you will get the full benefit to-morrow only shows ignorance of the subject. The hop garden requires three years of careful attention before you can hope to get the full crop or yield from the plant and all that time you have your expenses going on and it has to have a laige amount -4 manual labour, manures and other things. It is a crop which wants protection in the interest of the consumer. While welcoming the preference, I would point out as, far as that British Colombia is concerned the hops there are ail very close to the border. I only hope that in dealing with this preferential question the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that the hops that come in from this Dominion especially are marked in such a way that it will not be possible for any United States' hops to be slipped over the border and brought in under false pretences as Canadian hops.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
This question frequently crops up on the Budget, and protests are brought forward from this side against a tax upon what in some quarters is described as a commodity. If it can be shown that this is really a legitimate commodity, those Gentlemen are thoroughly warranted in the fullest protest, because on that basis it is the most iniquitous taxation imposed in this country. The heavy taxation is imposed very largely because it is intended to act as a restriction upon those who are the consumers. It is actually inculcated 1284 upon the Conservative party, largely through the Liberal party—and the Labour party have also largely gone in the same direction—that we ought to make the taxation as heavy as possible from what is termed the temperance point of view. That is argued on the score of endeavouring to protect those who would otherwise he liable to go more readily astray by excessive consumption of liquor We have had the liquor trade appealing, as usual, very strongly about the necessity of obtaining reduction. In Scotland the retail dealers, as usual wanted to get reduction. These appeals have been put through, but on this occasion pressure has not been so strong, or perhaps the Government have been more firm in their refusal. Yesterday the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) actually argued that the more taxation we put on any commodity the more profit was made out of it. How does that coincide with the liquor trade appealing to get a reduction and maintaining that some of them are not able to get a living out of it? As a matter of fact, they do not get a living out of it. They are constantly dying. They are dying more rapidly in the liquor business, even though many are abstainers, through failure to secure the average longevity of the country
On this taxation basis the Seconder of the Amendment was arguing that the first thing which the consumer has to do is to consider his home. From the Labour point of view what surprises me is that those who speak for such an Amendment have not come to realise that this is the poorest industry making a demand on the market for employment, the poorest industry in the provision of wages, the most despicable show in that respect that any Labour man could support. But here we had the remarkable development of some nine or 10 breweries operated by the workmen. Perhaps it is in preparation for the revolution, a sort of preparatory propaganda., because I admit, to conduct a brewery, turn out the product, and, especially, consume it, you are guaranteed to have revolution in a short time, a revolution that happens from the individual point of view and through which the police are called in to protect us in regard to law and order
If you take the matter in regard to what it means to the Exchequer, it is a 1285 dead loss from every point of view. You cannot have Free Trade with this business because it would not be possible for us to have even an apology for civilisation on those conditions. You snake a deal with the trade. The big breweries and the liquor trusts generally do not trouble you particularly about your taxation. l t is a walkover as far as they are concerned. It is the poor tied-house publican and the rank and file who are anxious about it. The trade gets a deal, and it becomes with every Government a renewal of a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. You can get it in every part of the country. You are talking about the question of endeavouring to improve your industry. You have here a sink into which you are pouring money. You put some part into your Exchequer, and yon; are actually accelerating unemployment. or, I should say, strangely enough, putting it out on education, and at the same time for the public house in the opposite direction. All the education that ever you give them from a scriptural, theological or secular point of view is withered up completely by the guarantee of this particular institution, which cannot possibly be conducted on the face of God's earth by man or woman under any conditions you like without producing these nefarious results.
(Mr. James Hope): I mount help thinking the hon. Member is thinking now about the general question of the Excise Duty upon beer, and this is a Customs Duty on hops we are discussing.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
What I am dealing with is the fact that those who have been advocating this particular Amendment are pleading on the score that it is an injustice to impose heavy taxation upon it. I am therefore entitled to insist that it is by this contract, by this covenant that we are making, it is the toll money in which you make the contract and allow by a licensing system operations to proceed throughout, the country that you are having to deal with in every court of justice and every sphere of life. You cannot deal with this question of taxation without dealing with what it involves as an industry. You are speaking of it as an industry. I say, speaking of it from that standpoint. The Minister for Agriculture told us, that the tax means one twenty-ninth of a penny on the 1286 pint of beer. The man would not trouble whether it was 29 pence, let alone one twenty-ninth of a penny. Put on any tax you like; this is guaranteed to secure its customer who becomes the victim and thus provides the toll. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who has had to deal with this question is confronting a matter of Protection in a sense he has never yet tackled. Nor have the Liberal benches. I heard recently there was a possibility of them tackling it. None of us should be accepting or endorsing or agreeing in any way whatever to the permission of toll money on a thing that unquestionably involves the most severe barrier, the heaviest barricade we can have to face dealing with unemployment in any other question in the country. I submit that as a matter of protest if it was nothing else, the Labour party cannot face this. Nor can the Conservative party. Nor have the Liberal party done it yet. It goes through every year.
I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member mistakes the issue. This has not gone through every year. It has not gone through since 1862. It is a new issue. It is that there should be a Customs duty on hops; it is not the general taxation of beer.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
It involves taxation in so far as the hops may be used in the production of beer. I have heard speaker after speaker, and I am sure you, Sir, have heard them as well, dealing with the suggestion of taxation as applicable to beer and as stated in the particular Resolution now before the House. I am dealing with it on that score, and I submit I am perfectly in order. Our duty in this matter is not a question of simply protesting on a degree of taxation it is rather a question of whether or not we should concede a right, and in the Budget we always concede a right. Every year we are renewing that licence to operate on those lines.
§ Sir ROBERT SANDERS
I do not want to express any surprise at the speech which has just been delivered, but I have been a good deal surprised, as one 1287 who has seen something of the working of the present system, by the speeches that have been delivered by hon. Members belonging to both parties opposite, who profess to advocate the principles of Free Trade. The change from the present system of hop control to a mere Customs Duty is an immense advance in the direction of Free Trade. Compared with the present system, a mere Custom's Duty of £4 per cwt. is absolutely bald and insignificant. The present system is not merely one of Protection but of Prohibition. I have here a copy of the Order under which the present Hop Controller draws his powers. That Order says:No person shall be permitted either on his own behalf, or on behalf of any other person, to buy, sell, or agree or offer to buy or sell, any hops, whether imported or home-grown.Under that Order of the 3rd January, 1919, the present Hop Controller was appointed, and those powers were conferred upon him. These powers make him about the most absolute monarch in Europe. He had the power to fix every price. with regard to this article, and to exercise the power of prohibiting any hops whatever from coming into the country. That is the strongest protective measure to which this country has ever been a party. It is rather interesting to find that this Order appointing the Hop Controller is signed R. Clynes, and was introduced under the auspices of the respected leader of hon. Members opposite, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
§ Sir R. SANDERS
The 3rd January, 1919. This was almost the first thing that was done by the new Government which followed the Election. after the War was over.
§ Sir R. SANDERS
It was almost the last thing that was done by the right hon. Member before he left office. It is signed the 3rd January, 1919. There you have the Leader of the House of Commons when the Labour Government was in office, and the present leader of the Liberal party in this House, both concurring in this the strongest measure of Protection that has ever been introduced by a British Govern- 1288 ment. We now propose to do away with that system. Having seen something of the work of the Hop Controller, I want to take this opportunity of bearing testimony to the ability and the tact with which he carried out what was certainly an exceedingly difficult office, not without disagreement, but with a minimum of friction. It. is also highly to his credit that he must have been a gentleman of some humour, because in the intervals of carrying out the principles of the most Protectionist policy this country has ever seen, he indulged in the recreation of standing as Liberal candidate for a Kent constituency
That was the system under which we have been working ever since the War, and under which we are working at the present time. The Government propose to abolish that system. Supposing it was to abolish that system, and go straight in for Free Trade in hops, I think anyone who has looked into the matter with any knowledge will say that the hop industry in this country would go under altogether. It is eminently for the benefit of the country that that industry should be continued. The brewers are very anxious to keep the hop industry going, and they have showed their anxiety to do so by being perfectly willing to pay whatever extra price may result from this Import Duty. The hop industry is one which it is to the benefit of agriculture and to the country generally to keep going, because it employs more men per acre than any other form of agriculture. It is not an industry that we can afford to sacrifice at the present time.-Unless we either keep control going or put on an Import Duty—and it could not be lower than the one proposed to he effective—the hop industry will go under. No one will suffer by this duty being imposed. The duty will fall upon the brewers. who have expressed their readiness to pay. It is one of those proposals which can only be opposed by Free Trailers who have gone absolutely mad about Free Trade.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
One wonders how it was that the hop industry did not go to the dogs in the days before the War. The Minister of Agriculture told us that from 1862 down to the beginning of the War, and down to the commencement of control in 1919, there was no protection in the hop industry at all. in 1914 there 1289 were no. fewer than 35, 000 acres under hops. How is it that the hop industry did not become defunct when no protection was given to that industry in the days before the War. The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Grettan) supplied the most suitable argument that could be advanced against this protection of the hop industry. He said, as a brewer, that brewers would not complain about. this protection for four years. He said that S4 was only a small amount, compared with the present cost of beer, and he felt that £3 or £2 per cwt. duty would he sufficient.
§ Colonel GRETTON
I must ask the hon. Member to correct that statement. He has misunderstood what I said. I think what I said was that was a very full amount, and that some lesser amount might suffice.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I should be sorry deliberately to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Member, but he has repeated in part the statement to which I refer, namely. that he feels that £4 is too much.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
And that they could very well manage on £3, or even less. To-morrow we can see exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. The Minister of Agriculture gives the most suitable argument why Protection should not be corrtinued in this industry. He told us that last year we had a bumper crop. The result was that all the hops were not sold. The surplus is waiting over for disposal this year, and unless some protection is given to this small industry, not only will it be severely hit, but the chances are that a great deal of acreage will go out of cultivation. What we have to look at is this. Prior to the War some 35, 000 acres were under hops when the consumption of beer was in the region of 36, 000. 000 barrels. To-day we have moved from the War 15, 000 acres to 25, 000 acres, which last gave us a surplus on an annual consumption of beer which at the moment is in tip:, region of 26, 000, 000 barrels. What is going to be the position, if you can have a surplus of hops with an acreage of 25, 000 under cultivation, if you further encourage the production of more hops
You cannot dispose of the hops which you have got already. The Minister of Agriculture tells us that it will be a very severe thing for this country if the out- 1290 put of hops is insufficient, and yet he tells us that unless the hop industry is protected there will be such an influx of foreign hops that they will be able to take all the market, and that none of it will be available for the home industry. Those two things cannot operate at once. Brewers in this country have to use two kinds of hops and they always do. To get what I am informed is a decent beer they not only want the home-grown hop, but they want an imported hop also. From 1919 the hop growers have been given ample opportunity to rehabilitate their industry and if, under the most stringent rules of this dictator of hops, they have failed to re-establish their own industry, what is there to justify us in believing that they are going to reestablish themselves four years hence I Obviously it is a mere question of handing over £4 per acre to an industry that could well take care of itself, if it utilised the credit facilities already at its disposal, organised itself on co-operative lines and did for itself what many other industries are compelled to do
I know that it may be argued by the Financial Secretary that the small grower of hops, unless protected, loses his industry altogether. It seems to me that this protection will do more to drive the small grower out, and leave the big cultivator of hops with a full command of the market than would be the case if we had a free market in hops. I think that. the principle is bad. The hop industry carried on fairly well before the War. They did not secure protection. They have gone up from 15, 000 acres in 1919 to 25, 000 acres under this Statecontrol operation referred to by the last speaker, and they have reached a stage now when the production of hops is strictly on a par with the consumption of beer if comparison is made with there-War consumption. Therefore, to encourage further the production of hops is to encourage the production of a surplus, and. make the industry not only less secure for the small hop grower, but to secure no real advance to the country as a whole as the result of this protection. I know that the ex-Minister of Agriculture gave no promise that after the expiry of the present control any protection would be introduced, and I feel that I am expressing his view at this moment when I say that the hop industry can help itself, if it is prepared 1291 to do so, without protection. For that reason I shall support the Amendment.
§ Sir ROBERT THOMAS
I intervene for a few minutes to refer to the very interesting and illuminating speech to which we listened this afternoon from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was vary much astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) declare in no unmistakable term that this tax on hops was nut for revenue purposes, but for Protection purposes. That is a very interesting statement, and one which is in complete contradiction of the statement made this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declared, also in no unmistakable terms, that he was a Free Trader. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing a tax on hops for other purposes than for revenue, surely he is bringing in a measure of Protection. My right hon. Friend is candid enough to declare that that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done.
§ Sir R. THOMAS
I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Chancellor stated that he was a Free Trader. If he is a Free Trader, surely it is inconsistent for him to bring in a measure of Protection, and this is a measure of Protection, unadulterated Protection.
§ Sir R. THOMAS
Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in Protection or not is another matter, but no one can deny that this is a Measure of Protection—that is the point which I wish to make. That is the point I want to make. It was not devised, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, to meet a finely-balanced Budget. The whole argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon was the necessity of raising revenue to bring about this finely-balanced Budget. But he has gone beyond that; he has introduced into this Budget without any question, a Measure of Protection. Hon. Members cannot get away from that, and there is no use in the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken trying to belittle the opposition which we Free Traders are making to this Budget. 1292 We are not making objection to this Budget for the purpose of raising revenue; we are objecting, and rightly objecting, to the principles of Free Trade being submerged under a Budget of this nature. This is a proposal to protect hop growers. I represent an agricultural constituency which does not grow hops. Is it fair for one part of the country to subsidise another part of the country? Has it ever occurred to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the hop grower represents the wealthiest section of the agricultural industry? No one can engage in the hop-growing industry without capital. There are many men engaged in agriculture to-day without capital, but they do not happen to be hop growers. It is a most remarkable thing that the man who least requires help and Protection belongs to the wealthiest section of the agricultural community to-day. There is no gainsaying that fact. An hon. Member opposite stated that there were losses made in hop growing. Does the hon. Member know of any industry that does not incur losses at some time or other? Certainly the hop industry occasionally sustains losses, but in the main more money has been made in hop growing in this country than in any other branch of agriculture.
§ Sir R. THOMAS
That is only an additional proof of the prosperity of that industry, and not of the necessity for Protection. I would like to see some of the smallholders recognised, if the Government are going to protect agriculture. Many of these smallholders happen to be ex-service men. There are very few ex-service men engaged in the hop industry. If the Government are to introduce Protection or Preference at all, why do they leave out the smallholders, who are a very important section of the community?
It would not be in order for the hon. Member to suggest alternative methods by Protection in other matters.
§ Sir R. THOMAS
With all respect, I am not counselling the Government to introduce any form of Protection whatever. I am condemning them for introducing a form of Protection, and am pointing out what an injustice they are doing to other sections of the community 1293 that are not protected. I submit that that is relevant and germane to the discussion.
In that case it would be in order for one of my colleagues to suggest, if measures of this kind were to be proposed, that the cutlery industry ought to have first consideration.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Sir R. THOMAS
I was saying that in certain parts of the country the very wealthy members of the agricultural community who grow hops are protected. In my part of the country there are no hops grown, and we have 40,000 small holdings of under 50 acres on not an acre of which are hops grown. Therefore, I submit that this is not only Protection, but it is an injustice to a large section of the community.
§ Mr. THURTLE
I wanted to bring forward a case against this tax on hops, but in view of the representations of my Friends that the time of the House is needed for other matters, I do not propose to put forward my case now. I shall content myself with saying that I think this proposal is typical of the whole of the Budget. It is an attempt on the part of the Conservative Government to look after its friends. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was particularly able to look after his friends. We find that he gets this proposal from the Minister of Agriculture. I remember that the Minister of Agriculture about two months ago was able to extract from
§ the public purse a very large sum of money indeed for the purpose of subsidising home-grown beet sugar, in order to put that money into the pockets of the landlords. You have here a combination typical of the Conservative Government. You have the landlord, you have the Tory Government, and you have Mr. Bung the brewer—a very unholy combination, and that combination is engaged in this proposal in extracting, or attempting to extract, from the pockets of working men. who have not been given De single concession in this Budget, millions of money for the benefit of the landlords and the brewers. Briefly, that is why I am opposing this duty. I would have liked to have explained my reasons at length, but time does not permit.
I want to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is the first of what, I believe, will be a series of protective duties for agriculture. In order to get it on record, I want him to assure us now that it is a temporary duty. We have had this assurance in reference to other duties, and it would be interesting to have it on record that the Government mean what they say, and intend to do it. If he would give that assurance, I should be very much obliged.
§ Question put, That the words 'four years' stand part of the Resolution.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 146.1297
|Division No 88.]||AYES||[10.7 p. m|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Betterton, Henry B||Campbell, E. T.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cassels, J. D|
|Albery, Irving James||Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Blundell, F. N.||Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Boothby, R. J. G||Chapman, Sir S|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Charteris, Brigadier-General J|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W||Chilcott, Sir Warden|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, E.||Brass, Captain W.||Christie, J. A.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Briggs, J. Harold||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Briscoe, Richard George||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.|
|Atkinson, C.||Brittain, Sir Harry||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Clayton, G. C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Bullock, Captain M||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Burman, J. B.||Cope, Major William|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Couper, J. B.|
|Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Courtauid, Major J. S.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.|
|Berry, Sir George||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N|
|Bethell, A.||Caine, Gordon Hall||Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)||Raine, W.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Ramsden, E.|
|Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Rawson, Alfred Cooner|
|Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Hume, Sir G. H.||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hunter-Western. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Huntlngfield, Lord||Remer, J. R.|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison||Hurd, Percy A||Remnant, Sir James|
|Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Hurst, Gerald B.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & p'bl's)||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)||Illffe. Sir Edward M.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Jacob, A. E.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Drewe, C.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rye, F. G.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Salmon, Major I.|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Lamb, J. Q.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Ellis, R. G.||Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Savery, S. S.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Loder, J. de V.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Falls, Sir Charles F.||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Lougher, L.||Slmms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Fleming, D. P.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Skelton, A. N.|
|Ford, P. J.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||MacAndrew, Charles Glen||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Foster. Sir Harry S.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcort)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony||Macintyre, Ian||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||McLean, Major A.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Macmillan, Captain H.||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Gates, Percy||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||McNeill, Rt. Hon Ronald John||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Gee, Captain R.||Macquisten, F. A.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Strickland, sir Gerald|
|Goff, Sir Park||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Grace, John||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Giyn K.||Styles, Captain H. Waiter|
|Grant, J. A.||Meller, R. J.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Merriman, F. B.||Sugden, Sir Wilfred|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Monsell, Eyrea, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Murchison. C. K.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Hanbury, C.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Warrender. Sir Victor|
|Harland, A.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Neville, R. J.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth. Kennington)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Wells, S. R.|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Nicholson. William G. (Petersfield)||Wheler, Major Granville C. H.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Nuttall, Ellis||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bodford, Luton)||Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Heneage. Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Penny. Frederick George||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hennessy. Major J. R. G.||Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Henniker-Hugtian. Vice-Adm. Sir A.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Perring, William George||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebono)||Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Phllipson, Mabel||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Holland, Sir Arthur||Pielou. D. P.||Wood. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)|
|Holt, Captain H. P.||Pilcher, G.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Homan, C. W. J.||pildltch, Sir Philip||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Hopkins. J. W. W.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Radtord, E. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Mr. Margesson and Lord Stanley|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Ammon, Charles George||Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Attlee, Clement Richard||Barnes, A.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Barr, J.|
|Batey, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silver-town)||Siesser, Sir Henry. H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)||Smillie, Robert|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Bromfield, William||Kelly, W. T.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kennedy, T.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Buchanan, G.||Kirkwood, D.||Snell, Harry|
|Cape, Thomas||Lansbury, George||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Charieton, H. C.||Lawson, John James||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Clowes, S.||Lee, F.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lindley, F. W.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lowth, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Compton, Joseph||Lunn, William||Sutton, J. E.|
|Connolly, M.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Cove, W. G.||Mackinder, W.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Dalton, Hush||MacLaren, Andrew||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Thurtle, E.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dennison, R.||March, S.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Duncan, C.||Maxton, James||Varley, Frank B.|
|Dunnico, H.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Viant, S. P.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Forrest, W.||Montague, Frederick||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Gillett, Georue M.||Morris, R. H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Gosling, Harry||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Murnin, H.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Naylor, T. E.||Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Greenall, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Welsh, J. C.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Owen, Major G.||Westwood, J.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Palin, John Henry||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Paling, W.||Whiteley, W.|
|Groves, T.||Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)||Wignall, James|
|Grundy, T. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Potts, John S.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Riley, Ben||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hardie, George D.||Ritson, J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Harney, E. A||Roberts, Ht. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Windsor, Walter|
|Hayday, Arthur||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Wright, W.|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Rose, Frank H.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Hirst, G. H.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —|
|Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)||Shlels, Dr. Drummond||Mr. Warne and Mr. Hayes|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
Seventh Resolution read a Second time.
§ Mr. HAYDAY
On a point of Order. Do I understand that the two other Amendments standing in my name have been ruled out of Order?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I was asked to take one Debate on the first Amendment. Therefore tile other Amendments fall to the ground.