§ Mr. JAMES HUDSON
I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the word "fourpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one penny."
I propose this Amendment to reduce the duty to 1d., but our real intention is to obtain an entire abolition of the Tea Duty. Nevertheless, I wish to say that this Amendment is not, of a perfunctory character. It is quite true that it has been moved many times, and seems to be something in the nature of a hardy annual. With the passage of years the need for the acceptance of this proposal becomes greater and greater. When I first had the honour of moving this Amendment two years ago I expressed the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question might come sufficiently near to the example set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who in a previous year had effected a considerable reduction in the Tea Duty, and I was hopeful that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his turn might be glad to earn the credit of completing the process which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley initiated. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer withstood that temptation and continues to impose the Tea Duty, and states at the same time that the ultimate extinction of the Tea Duty is an important aim of his fiscal policy. I am pleased that in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer is following the gleam, although that gleam seems very much like a shadow or a will-o'-the-wisp which appears to get further away as we proceed towards it. The Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer is not alone in the difficulty of finding an ideal which it is not easy to practice. That was also the experience of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who had before them for many years the Newcastle programme, and I believe that programme had some 230 influence at the time on the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the part which had reference to the free breakfast table was particularly useful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the presentation of many of his speeches in the country. Observe what happened when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was faced with the possibility of carrying out his ideals. It was very much like what is happening in the case of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. On 2nd June, 1913, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, when discussing the effect of this class of taxation such as is imposed on tea said it was actually less than in any other civilised country in Europe, and he said:It is a proposal to take £10,000,000 of taxation off a very considerable proportion of the population of this country who have great political power. You must not leave a class winch has great political power and control over expenditure without any share of responsibility.It is the theory that it is necessary to impose by a duty of this sort a sense of responsibility upon a considerable class of the community that is preventing successive Chancellors of the Exchequer from carrying out the ideal at which they profess to aim. Unfortunately, the theory of responsibility preached by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has become, in the mouth of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, a theory of punishment. The idea, evidently, in the mind of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, if we are to argue from what he said to us the last time this matter was discussed, is that it is necessary to retain this type of taxation—taxes upon sugar, taxes upon tea—because something happened last year for which, as he says, the community must pay, for which, indeed, somebody must be punished. Indeed, he used the word "punishment" in the phrase that he adopted in the House on that occasion. I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory from the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I am correctly representing the point of view that he took, that someone had committed acts last year which prevented him from doing what he would lead us to suppose he otherwise would have done. I can only say that, if it were possible to do unto Governments as they deserve to be done 231 unto, and if there is to be any punishment applied at all in connection with the events that happened last year, the punishment should fall, not upon the taxpayers, but upon those who impose the tax; for I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he would consider the case of the tea-drinking miners' wives of this country, and reckon up their deserts and the deserts of a Government who tried to persuade them that by a longer working day somehow or other things would come right, or, at least, would be improved—if he would talk to the working miners' wives to-day, he would find out how very much worse, in spite of all that the Government did, their lot has become. If any payment should be made, it should be made by those responsible for those changes.
It has often been said, in the discussions in connection with this matter, that the Tea Duty, like duties placed upon some other commodities, is largely of a voluntary or optional character, that people, if they desire not to pay it, if they find it too burdensome, can avoid the burden by ceasing to consume the commodity upon which the duty is levied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has destroyed, or at any rate considerably weakened, that theory by his own admissions. As he says quite frankly—I quote from the discussions that took place last year on this matter—Tea and sugar, and commodities of that kind, are the basic comforts on which the household economy depends.He does not describe them, it is true, as absolute necessities, but the statement that he makes represents, I believe, not merely a theory, but an undoubted economic fact to the great mass of the working population of this country. The diet of millions of our people is an utterly monotonous diet. The opportunity of change from one type of food to another is entirely denied them. They and their children must continue day after day eating something that is almost as little varied, especially in these days of depression, as the diet of the Irish labourer, which for years was nothing but the one commodity, potatoes. In thousands, probably millions, of English homes at the present time, there is little variation from a constant diet of bread, with, perhaps, a little fat of some sort to enable it to be consumed. Meat becomes more 232 and more a rare article of diet, particularly for great bodies of the unemployed and for those whose wages have been so considerably reduced; and to make such a diet palatable at all it is a, necessity—not merely a comfort, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but a necessity—that there should be some means of providing a drink for the people that will enable them to get any satisfaction out of such a diet. For that reason, therefore, the consumption of tea by large numbers of the workers of this country may be regarded as almost as much a necessity as the consumption of bread itself.
If I am correct in tint estimate of the position, then I suggest that the next argument which I desire to present to the Committee—and it has been presented already by several of my hon. Friends—becomes of very serious import. The fact that the tax upon tea is a flat-rate tax, and not an ad valorem duty, means that that tax falls most heavily upon the people who most require this commodity to make their diet palatable. Working people buy tea at a price somewhere between 1s. 6d. and 2s. a pound the poorer working people, particularly, very rarely paying much above 1s. 8d. a pound for the tea that they buy. A tax of 4d. a pound on tea at that price means a 20 per cent. tax upon those persons. A tax of 4d. a pound upon tea consumed by other classes in the community—people who are able to afford 3s. 6d., 3s. 8d., 4s. 0d., or more per pound—becomes a tax of considerably less than 10 per cent.; so that the continuance of the tax on this particular commodity is specially burdensome upon the class that this Committee ought to be most anxious to relieve of taxation.
There is another interesting factor about this unequal incidence of taxation, which I believe is not very often referred to. The tax upon tea operates with a different incidence in different districts. It is a remarkable fact that in certain areas, where the water supply is pure, with little admixture of lime or other materials, very much less tea is required to get the infusion than is the case where the water supply is not so pure. I know that some hon. Gentlemen may think that this is rather straining an interesting point, but it has a very practical bearing. I was talking only recently to a working-class woman whose home was 233 removed from the Manchester area to the Stockport area. In Manchester they get their water from Thirlmere, while in Stockport they have a water supply that is drawn from the Derbyshire district, and I believe there is a good deal of lime in the water. This working-class woman told me, in the quaint way that working people have in our district, that, when she was in Manchester, for her family of four, she used to put five tea-spoonfuls into the teapot, one for each person and one for the pot; but that now she had gone to Stockport, it had to be still one teaspoonful for each person, but the pot now required three. Therefore, the Stockport working woman, to procure the same result in the infusion of tea, is actually paying, not only more for her tea in the long run, but is paying a bigger tax to the community than the Manchester woman; and, I would add, that argument applies particularly strongly when you come to a place like London, with its chalky water supplies, where the quantity of tea required is even greater than in the area to which I have referred. I pass from the question of the difference in the incidence of this tax to another point. The continuance of a tax on this commodity, as, indeed, upon any commodity, as is well known to theoretical economists, gives more and more opportunity to the trust and the large firm to operate the article which is taxed. The artificial difficulties created by taxation of any kind, the difficulty of having to deal with bonded warehouses, the necessity of having to work in a certain area, often means that the small man is driven out by the competitive forces of the time, and it is only the large firm and trust which remain. In fact, we have admitted from these benches, that although my right hon. Friend reduced the tax upon tea considerably in 1924, for a time some part of that reduction could be seized upon by large tea trusts who were able to operate in this particular market, and this possibility remains at a maximum as long as the tax upon tea remains. If you could entirely free this commodity from tax, Free Trade in tea would be much more a reality, as far as the large trust is concerned, that is the case at the, present moment. In passing, I may say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough 234 (Mr. A. V. Alexander) pointed out in the House, in spite of the operations of the tea trust in 1924, it was none the less true that in the co-operative societies alone in that year, there was an increase in the consumption of tea of more than 6,000,000 1bs., and what could be accomplished then would be accomplished to an even greater extent if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the entire abolition of the Tea Duty.
There is a further interesting set of reactions that, I think, ought to be studied by us before a final decision is reached on this question, and if those reactions are to be considered wholly, it is worth while for a moment to-day to consider the general drinking habits of the community. The community to-day is spending upon one set of intoxicants—and I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this particularly—far more than the community can afford.
§ Mr. HUDSON
£300,000,000 and more per annum on the drink bill ought to be a matter of very careful consideration for a Chancellor who pretends that he cannot make reductions of the sort that I am proposing because the community cannot afford it. The community can afford it as long as it can pay for intoxicants a sum of money to the extent I have named.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I wish the Noble Lady would let me put my case. I am putting a case which, I think, is of wide application, and if she would hold her peace I think my hon. Friends would quite understand—
§ Mr. HUDSON
I am sure the Noble Lady wants to assist, but I can imagine some hon. Members not being quite so open to my argument as they might otherwise be if that support were not so vigorously expressed. Members in this House often argue, when we put the case of too great an expenditure on intoxicants, that the way to deal with that evil is not by legislation but by education. Give the people, they say, through education, through propaganda, through new facilities, an opportunity to 235 know that there is something better than intoxicants to consume. If that be the only valid argument, it becomes very important that the community should give the substitute for intoxicants a maximum of encouragement, and the community that continues to place taxes upon any commodity that should become a substitute for intoxicants is really doing its best to keep the community wedded to the intoxicants. This dependence upon education for the settlement of our difficulties regarding intoxicating liquors is nothing more than a pretence, especially when the purchase of tea continues to be a difficult matter for a large section of the community.
Let me examine this a little more closely. In this Budget there has been an increase in certain taxes upon wine, and I suppose that the people who are taxed on their wine will be able to transfer their burden, if they desire to do so, by drinking tea instead of wine. They will want a good tea if they have habituated themselves to drinking wine. It is comparatively easy, in the present state of the tea tax, for a wine drinker to transfer his habits to tea drinking as far as taxation is concerned, for the wine drinker, if he gives up wine and takes tea, probably gives for his tea 4s. or 5s a pound, and only pays 4d. in taxation on that tea, or probably from 5 to 10 per cent. But with regard to the person in the slums who has become habituated to drinking beer, whom you want to educate and encourage into different habits, if, as an alternative, he drinks tea at 1s. 8d. a pound, which is about the best he can buy, you place upon that tea a tax of 20 per cent. So that you are taxing a beer-drinker, if he changes over to tea as a substitute, 20 per cent., whereas you tax the wine drinker who takes tea as a substitute only about 5 per cent.
If there be any sincerity in the argument about the educative value of substitutes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be very glad indeed to support this Amendment. Unfortunately, I am afraid, that the right hon. Gentleman develops like most Chancellors of the Exchequer develop, if I may speak with respect, a strain of idleness with regard to taxes which have continued for many years, and which may be expected to yield, if they remain, a favourable 236 revenue for many years to come. I was reading in Bastable's "Public Finance" the other day, the statement which applied to all Chancellors, that taxes of the kind we are now discussing are both productive, and, in times of prosperity, elastic, without any undue pressure having to be used, and Chancellors of the Exchequer, who may sometimes get worried about the results of pressure which it is necessary to use in the raising of taxes, would prefer to stick to those taxes which prove elastic, whatever their ideals might be about the ultimate end. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the depression we are in is so long continued, that there can little incentive left to any Chancellor for continuing this tax for, at any rate, the reason given by Bastable.
What I am suggesting is happening now is what happened at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. We are in a position of depression so long continued that it has become one of the first problems of statesmanship to relieve those heavily burdened masses of the community upon whom the real prosperity of our country depends. Economic history has taught us to recognise the beneficent action of Wallace and Huskisson who, in 1823, started us on the road to the dropping of taxes on commodities, even although the financial position of the community at that time was a very hard one, and even although Huskisson, had he been as foolish as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, might just as easily have said he had the excuse of the disorders of that time for keeping on the heavy taxation from which the people in those days were suffering. But Huskisson and Wallace and other statesmen since have realised that if the community was to be put upon its feet, taxes upon commodities must he more and more diminished until they were finally abolished. In the spirit of the days when Euskisson and Wallace lived, I put forward, as the whole party to which I belong puts forward this Amendment, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before it is too late, will be able to give some heed to the plea we make.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)
The hon. Gentleman has made a very eloquent speech, and won the approval not only of 237 the Committee but also of the Noble Lady. Even thus fortified, I am afraid I cannot respond to the appeal he has made, although I heartily congratulate him upon its form, and also upon the fact that in part, at any rate, he found something new to say upon this subject. We have debated this tax in the present Parliament nine or 10 times—on the Resolution, on the Report of the Resolution, in Committee and on Report, and this is the third Budget—and I think there is no one who, wherever he sits, would seriously propose to take a course different from that which we find ourselves obliged to adopt. The hon. Member spoke of the monotony of diet of the British wage-earning classes and their hard existence, but, considering all that we have passed through in the Great War, and in the continued and repeated industrial confusion of our country, the remarkable thing is that the consuming power of the people should not have been prejudicially affected. It has not, on the whole, been prejudicially affected. It compares, as everyone knows, very favourably with that of every European nation. In fact, the foreign wage-earning classes would be delighted if at any time they were able to command either the quantity or variety of food and drink which our people, I am thankful to say, in spite of all our difficulties, are still able to obtain.
The tendency on the whole is for a slight upward movement in the consumption of tea. There has been since the War a strong recovery and, since the reduction the right hon. Gentleman opposite made, a complete recovery in the consumption. It is very remarkable that in spite of the industrial troubles of last year, the consumption of tea, sugar, tobacco, and also of bread and meat, was not seriously affected. On the whole there is no doubt or question that the general condition in which the mass of the people of the country live is superior to that of any European nation, and especially to that European or Asiatic Power which always claims a meed of approbation from those who sit opposite. The hon. Member has reminded me of an argument which he says I used at an earlier stage when I said I was keeping the Tea Duty on as a punishment. Whether I used the word punishment or not—I have not refreshed my mind with 238 the context—it is not the doctrine of punishment that inspires me in the matter. It is the doctrine of consequences. The finances of the year have been completely disorganised and we have had to face an enormous deficit, which with very great difficulty we have endeavoured to circumvent without additions to the burdens of the masses of the people or without imposing still harder direct taxation. We have managed to come through those difficulties, but it is obvious that the remission of the Tea Duty is quite beyond my power in the circumstances. The Amendment would, I think, cost something like £3,500,000, and a complete repeal of the duties would cost between £5,000,000 and £7,000,000. I cannot contemplate for a moment such an abstraction from my limited resources.
The hon. Member devoted a large portion of his speech to showing how the Tea. Duty in its present form fell upon the poorest consumers, and he pointed out how much better it would be if an ad valorem instead of a specific tax were imposed. The argument was specious and was developed with some skill, but I really cannot answer the hon. Member better than similar arguments were answered by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he occupied a position of greater responsibility and, from some points of view, less freedom. Dealing with this very argument, the right hon. Gentleman said:On the face of it, it would appear reasonable that the duty upon tea should bear some proportion to the value of the article, but whatever strength there is in that demand is derived from the idea that the rich man's tea ought to pay a higher rate of duty than the poor man's, and I shall have occasion to show that, however cogent that reason may appear on the surface, as a matter of fact in practice there is little or nothing in it.Little or nothing in the excellent speech to which we have listened:It is a mistake to suppose that the working people of the country consume wholly cheap tea. As a matter of fact the working people of the country have discovered that cheap tea is not economical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1924; col. 962, Vol. 175.]The consumption of tea on the whole is increasing, and the consumption of alcoholic liquors is decreasing at a rate which causes anxiety to the Exchequer 239 and joy to the Noble Lady. I cannot believe it would be desirable in the interest of temperance for us to place ourselves in the serious difficulty which would result from an immediate abrogation of the duty upon tea. The duty on tea, almost alone among the sources from which our revenue is raised, is actually lower than it was before the War after eight years of enlightened Liberal and Radical administration; and when we are looking around for subjects for immediate reduction, however desirable a reduction of the duty on tea may be, I am sure it is not one which would have the first claim. I would put it very high in the order of priority of reduction but I am not called upon at present to choose between taxes that can be reduced, because I am only in the position of making my way with great difficulty through a Budget which, in spite of every device I could think of, and which it is my duty to search for, is only now narrowly maintaining its equilibrium.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
The speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) was interesting. It shows the different view taken in the House about the Tea Duty according to whether you sit on that side or this. I very well remember when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) reduced the Tea Duty two years ago, certain Members who are now on those benches were not satisfied with the reduction, and they proceeded to set a precedent for the hon. Member for Huddersfield by moving a still further reduction with the purpose, of course, of obtaining leaflets, which were duly used at the succeeding election against those of us who supported the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to get a stable, Radical Budget. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, in his excellent speech, was a little self-righteous, for when he claimed for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley the sole credit for the reduction of the Tea Duty, he should have remembered that there were about 130 members of the party represented on these benches without whose votes that reduction could not have been got. Also when he referred to the breakfast table duties and the promises of pre-War days, despite 240 the one Budget of the right hon. Gentleman, for which we were grateful, two years ago the amount collected, taking a comparison between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, from which area the tax is now collected, and the United Kingdom, for which it was then collected, is relatively higher than it was in 1913.
I find on reference to the figures that in 1913 the Exchequer revenue from tea was £6,499,000 while in 1925 it was £5,789,000. The rate of tax may have been lower, but the amount got from the women and children was higher. So I hope when he is developing his argument outside the House, he will not forget to point out that it is not his party alone that was responsible for the reduction two years ago but there were others concerned. I am sure the Committee have heard with pleasure the last sentences of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if he gets an opportunity next year, he will make a remission of taxation, and we shall confidently hope that he will adopt the model of the British Navy and put women and children first if any remission of taxation is to be given, such as a remission of the duty on tea, which affects women and children more than any other section of the community.
I rise to make a slight protest. I quite understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not be able to accept the Amendment, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have done so, but it is a very serious point that the right hon. Gentleman should make the assertion that it pleased the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth that drink was going down. Surely as a nation we cannot go on spending £300,000,000 on drink—in fact, it is more than that—and it will not go down as long as we have men in public life who refuse to face facts that are so disquieting to many of us, who are not only looking to the revenue from a money point of view, but from the point of view of the permanent good of the country. It is disheartening, when people see the great efforts the country is making to get back industrial supremacy, to see that we do not get a, lead from our leading men to warn us against such appalling extravagance, which belongs, not to one section of the country nor to one section of the House of Commons. I do 241 not want to make it a party question. It it not a party question but a national question.
We are discussing drink. It is all very well to try and make a joke, but it is not a joke. We belong to the Conservative party, which is interested in Imperial politics and has an Imperial point of view. Our Dominions have faced this question of drink, and throughout the Dominions they are doing all they can. We are looking forward to the time when we can take the tax completely off tea and the commodities that the people of the country need, but until we face up to the appalling expenditure on drink, I see no chance of reducing the tax, and that is not a question for one side but for all sides of the House. It is pre-eminently a woman's question, because in spite of the hard times we have been through, we must still spend money on tea and sugar. It is a great tribute to the people of the country that when they are hard pressed they will still look after their children, but let the Chancellor remember that women—I know that is a tender subject with him—
I would not dare to be so personal as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because my knowledge is too great to deal in personalities. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, always remember whenever you come to reduce taxation on commodities, if possible, reduce the tax on commodities which the people must have, and raise the taxation on things which people need not have, and one of those things is intoxicating drink.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Although the subject to which the Noble Lady has devoted her observations is only indirectly associated with the matter raised by the Amendment, I do not regret that this question of the enormous and wasteful expenditure upon drink has been introduced into the Debate. I will not pursue it further than to say that I have been amazed during the last few years, knowing all the talk we have had about the need 242 for national economy, to find commercial men, especially, so ignorant in regard to what is the greatest and the biggest form of national expenditure, and one of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be neglectful. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended by an observation that he made to convey what appeared to me to be the obvious implication of his remarks, when he urged as a reason why no reduction of the Tea Duty ought to be made at the present time, that an increase in tea drinking might have an injurious effect, from the point of view of revenue, upon the receipts from alcoholic liquor.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I never said anything like that and I never thought anything like that. That was rather fastened upon the remarks I made by the Noble Lady.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I referred to the observation because it was quite clear to me, and I think it must have been to other hon. Members, that that was the only reasonable interpretation that could be put upon the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am, therefore, glad, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be glad, that I have given him the opportunity of repudiating what seemed to me to be the obvious interpretation. I must have listened to between 50 and 60 Debates in this House on the Tea. Duty, and upon such a hackneyed subject it is very difficult to say anything new. I should like to join with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in extending to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) our hearty congratulations, not merely upon the great ability which he displayed in his speech, but upon the introduction of new matter into this well-worn theme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as we expected, has declined to accept the Amendment. The reason he has given is that the financial position of the country is such that he cannot possibly afford the small loss of betwen £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 of revenue which would be involved in the acceptance of this Amendment. The Noble Lady said that if we had been in office I should not have reduced the Tea Duty still further, or have abolished it. I can assure the Noble Lady that if I had had an opportunity of introducing a second Budget in this House, there 243 would have been neither Tea Duty nor Sugar Duty nor any duty upon any article of food in the fiscal system of this country. The money was there in the right hon. Gentleman's first Budget. He inherited a surplus which would have provided sufficient money to sweep away all food taxation, and have left a considerable margin, but he did not do that. He preferred other means of disposing of that surplus. He reduced the Income Tax and Super-tax.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
He did no such thing. If the hon. and gallant Member was not quite so impetuous in his observations he might be a little more accurate, and perhaps there would be more common sense in his observations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not choose to use the surplus for the reduction of taxation upon the necessaries of life, or upon what he described as the basic comforts of the working classes. One reason why we have a claim upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a reduction of taxation on tea or sugar in this Budget is the record of Conservative Governments since the end of the War. The only reductions in indirect taxation which they have made have been the reduction, in the Tea Duty in the Budget presented by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), a reduction of 4d. per pound, and a reduction in the Beer Duty. All the other remissions of taxation, during a period of abounding revenue and huge surpluses, have been in favour of the well-to-do and the rich portion of the community. Therefore, we have a claim upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer now. The right hon. Gentleman has not only not reduced any working-class taxation in any of the three Budgets for which he has been responsible, but he has increased the taxation upon the working classes very considerably. There are, I suppose, at least 12 articles in common use amongst the working classes to-day which are bearing very heavy taxation: taxation which was not in existence or operation before the right hon. Gentleman took charge of the finances of this country. There has only been the comparatively slight reduction in indirect taxation which was made in the Budget 244 of four or five years ago, namely, the reduction of the Tea Duty.
We did not expect that the Chancellor ob the Exchequer would accept this Amendment. He tells us that he is not in a position to do so. We know that the finances of the country, after three years of his business management, are not in a position to afford reductions in this taxation. I do not expect, so long as the right hon. Gentleman remains in his present office, that we shall have any balance. As I have mentioned already, he had a very large surplus from his predecessor, but the two Budgets for which he has been responsible up to now have shown very large deficits. Therefore, we shall have to wait until we get rid of this Government, and with it get rid of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before we can expect a fulfilment of this almost century-old demand for a free breakfast table, and the removal of taxes upon the necessaries of life. Judging by all the evidence which the country supplies, I do not think we shall have to wait very long for that desirable event.
§ Mr. MONTAGUE
It is a remarkable thing that in any discussion of this character opportunity is taken by certain hon. Members to bring up the question of teetotalism. I do not want to make a speech in favour of drink; I am an abstemious person. I wonder why fallacious economic arguments are always put forward when such questions come up. I realise, of course, that this subject is somewhat removed from the question of the Tea Duty, but it has been discussed, and I should like to refer to it. We have been told by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that one form of national expenditure in these days in regard to which we require economy is of the most wasteful and the most baneful form possible. I am not going to say much about the banefulness of it. Excess of every kind is baneful; but I am comforted by the fact that drunkenness and excess in the consumption of alcoholic liquor are going down very rapidly in this country. That is very satisfactory.
What I want to put to the last speaker is this, that as far as the working-class people are concerned—when it is a question of the reduction of taxation upon food, working-class people are concerned more than any other class of people— 245 the amount expended in recreation of one kind or another is an amount that ought to be able to be afforded by the working-class community, considering the progress that we have been making for many years past in the power of production, in the power of utilising labour and natural resources for the production of wealth. What is it that the workers spend? They spend something like £30 per family, on the average, on intoxicating liquor. It may be a bad thing that they do that, and it might be better that they should spend the money on ginger pop, or something else; but my point is, whether we describe that expenditure as wasteful or not, the workers are entitled to spend —30 a year in recreation, in beverages or anything of the kind, wasteful or not.
The hon. Member is now discussing a subject which has no connection with the Amendment, which is, that the Tea Duty be reduced.
§ Mr. MONTAGUE
I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee further, but the point has been raised and I regard it as a complete fallacy. Every time this question is raised we are treated to teetotal lectures, and something ought to be said in order to put the economic point of view. The workers are not poor because they drink; they are poor becausee they are robbed.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I want to deal with the reference made by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he said that it is a most important thing from the point of view of securing a reduction in our taxation that the business men of the country do not face up to this question. During the War the business men of this country took a great stand in regard to the subject which has been introduced into this discussion. They called for the stoppage of the drink traffic, which undoubtedly does provide a very considerable sum of money to the revenue. They called for the complete stoppage of that particular business, which meant a tremendous drop in the revenue of the country at a time when, because of the War, it was most essential to raise money by loans. I ask now: How is it that on such an important question we do not have the business inn of the country entering into the arena, pressing this particular question, 246 and urging the complete cessation of this wastage? Reference was made to the question of alcoholic consumption by the lion. Member for Islington West (Mr. Montague), but it does not affect the point. From the Labour standpoint, the money spent on alcoholic liquor is a great loss to the poor and to the nation. It makes the weakest demand upon the Labour market and gives the least return in wages. This question baffles every political party in this House.
In dealing with the Tea Duty the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) undoubtedly presented his case splendidly, and I congratulate him. He stressed the point that the great body of working people in this country consume tea as a food, though not to such all extent as formerly, because they do not use tea at dinner as well as at tea-time; but to a very large extent it is true that the working class use tea as a food, and you are therefore making a tremendous demand upon them in the way of taxation. If there be a desire on the part of the Government to meet the needs of the people, it is not sufficient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make comparisons between this and other countries.
We are proportionately better off in other respects than some other countries, but, if you take that phase of the question which has been introduced into this Debate, you will find that the working people even now are not consuming so much of the particular liquor we are talking about. Why? Because of the prevailing industrial conditions. When industrial conditions are down, down goes your revenue—on this particular kind of beverage. There is all the more reason, therefore, why the Government should wipe out the taxation on such a commodity as tea. My contention goes beyond the proposal of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley to abolish the duty on tea and other taxes on what is called the breakfast table. I contend that every method of indirect taxation should be abolished. It does not matter from the taxation point of view whether it is considered a legitimate commodity or not, but why should people be taxed on the strength of their consumption? Why not put a tax solely, wholly and directly upon what is the particular revenue or income of an individual? By doing that, we should be getting back to 247 the old-time basis of our taxation, every departure from which is a gross injustice to the body of the people.
§ Mr. R. MORRISON
I only rise to make an endeavour to bring the Committee back to the question under discussion. I think it is very unfortunate that this discussion should have been side-tracked so largely into something else. My objections to the duty upon tea are these. At the present time, there is no duty on the Statute Book which is more indefensible than this duty upon tea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that in all the industrial troubles we had last year, the people's consumption of tea did not decrease. That, he said, was one of the reasons which led him to think that the working-classes of this country had not suffered so much as some people said. Now, paradoxical as it may seem. when hard times come, the consumption of tea is bound to go up for the simple reason, as was seen in the first week of what is called the general strike, that the working-class people have tea and bread instead of their ordinary dinner. That is to say, the working-class households used tea at the mid-day meal as well as in the morning and evening. This duty is a tax upon a necessary of life, because tea is not a luxury.
One of the objections which we have to this duty is that it is not a case where the strongest back bears the biggest burden. The poorer people are, the more does tea enter into their diet. Compare this duty with the Income Tax. Certain abatements are given to a man who pays Income Tax if he has a family. With the Tea Duty it is just the opposite. The larger a man's family, the more duty he pays. Every working-class woman in this country would look upon it as a great boon if this duty were removed. The women of this country are now taking an increasing interest in politics. That is becoming increasingly evident, and there is no question in which they take a keener interest than in the taxation of the necessaries of life. Tea has become a necesary of life.
I do not suppose the Government will accept this Amendment, or that the duty will be abolished, but future Governments will find that they cannot shuffle off this thing and say that it is a hardy 248 annual and that nobody expects anything original to be said about it. To-day, I suppose, the same arguments will be used, and the same division will be taken for party purposes, and nothing will be done. The women of this country—and especially the working women—are, I repeat, taking much more earnest interest in politics and regarding it less as a game. They will not put up with this taxation much longer. Many thousands of women in this country are beginning to realise that since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer took up office, not a penny has come off the taxation of the working-class people. On the contrary, it has been increased. There is not only a duty upon tea, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now put a duty on the teapot as well. I hope the time will come when questions such as this will not be treated as this Amendment has been treated this afternorm, and that something will be done instead of having the same arguments and the same division as we are getting to-day.
§ Mr. J. JONES
I want to subscribe to and support the theory advanced by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). He slid taxation should be based upon the ability to pay. Therefore, I hope he will get the necessary relief from some future Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if there be any class of people in the community who are taxed up to the eyebrows it is those who indulge in alcoholic liquor. It may or may not be good for them to indulge in this liquor.
It would unduly prolong the Debate if I allowed a discussion on the taxation of alcoholic liquor.
§ Mr. JONES
Well, we sometimes mix liquor with tea, so that there is a connection between the two. If one drinks alcoholic liquor, there is no one to defend him. I am speaking as one who drinks a glass of beer. Taxation ought to be based on the ability of a person to pay. The question of how people spend their money is another matter altogether. That is why I object to this discussion of the difference between tea and liquor drinking. The opinion about those of us who drink a glass of beer is that we are very wicked people. We are not. We are just as good and just as clean 249 as those who do not. We never make any money out of drink; we spend money on it. It is a bit too thick to hear people "who have made fortunes out of beer lecturing us about the evils of drink, and the money spent on it. I am in favour of the abolition of all duties on people's food, and I am willing to run the risk of telling my constituents, "Let the Beer Duty continue, but let us have a free breakfast table." We have heard a good deal this afternoon about the general strike. The general strike seems to be like King Charles' head to the people on the other side of the House, for when they want an excuse for their political rascality, they bring it in. I cannot talk about beer any more with
|Division No. 214.]||AYES.||[5. 0 p. m.|
|Acland-Troyte. Lieut-Colonel||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Holt, Capt. H. P.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Dalkeith. Earl of||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Albery, Irving James||Davies, Mal, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hopkins, J. W, W.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley|
|Apsley, Lord||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S. )||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Howard-Bury, Lieut. -Colonel C. K.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Balniel, Lord||Drewe, C.||Huntingfield, Lord|
|Barclay-Harvey C. M.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N. )||Ellis, R. G.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Elveden, Viscount||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Jacob, A. E.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||James, Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Berry, Sir George||Everard. W. Lindsay||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bluntdell, F. N.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Boothny, R. J. G.||Fermoy, Lord||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Fielden, E. B.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Leigh. Sir John (Clapham)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Fraser, Captain Ian||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Fremantle, Lieut. -Colonel Francis E.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Ganzonl, Sir John||Long, Major Eric|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Gates, Percy||Lowe. Sir Francis William|
|Buchan, John||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lumley, L. R.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Burman, J. B.||Grace, John||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macdonald, H. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Greene, W. P. Crawford||McLean, Major A.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Campbell E. T.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Grotrian, H. Brent||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hall, Lieut. -Cot. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton||Hammersley, S. S.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Christie. J. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Cobb. Sir Cyril||Haslam, Henry C.||Moore, Lieut. -Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hawke, John Anthony||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Murchison, Sir Kenneth|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Philip||Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hills, Major John Waller||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hilton, Cecil||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrtf'ld.)|
|Cope, Major William||Hoare, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
§ out infringing the Rules, but it is a subject that could be talked about a lot. The more you get of it, the more you are able to talk. So far as this particular duty is concerned, the Tea Duty, it is the most indefensible tax of all. It strikes at the very poorest of the poor, because the average poor man cannot afford to buy more than one pound of tea per month. Therefore, we are all agreed on these benches that this duty should, be removed. Whatever we may say about beer, we are united about tea.
§ Question put, "That the word 'four-pence' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 221 Noes, 121.
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Waterhouse Captain Charles|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Watson, sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Radford, E. A.||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Ramsden, E||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Wells, S. R.|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Rice, Sir Frederick||Styles, Captain H. W.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Tasker, R. Inigo.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ears|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Templeton, W. P.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Thom, Lt.-Col, J. G. (Dumbarton)||Withers. John James|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Sandon, Lord||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Wood, Sir S. Kill-(High Peak)|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Savery, S. S.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.|
|Shepperson, E. W.||Wallace, Captain D. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Skelton, A. N.||Ward. Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on. Hull)||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C. )||Warner, Brigadier General W. W.||Captain Viscount Curzon.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Roberts, RT. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hardie, George D.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Baker, Walter||Harris, Percy A.||Rose, Frank H.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillary)||Hayday, Arthur||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Barnes, A.||Hayes, John Henry||Scurr, John|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H.||Smillie, Robert|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Broad, F. A.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Smith, H. S. Lees (Keighley)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Snell, Harry|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Snowden, St. Hon. Philip|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kelly, W. T.||Stephen. Campbell|
|Connolly, M.||Kennedy, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Strauss, E. A.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Kirkwood, D.||Thomas, Pt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lansbury, George||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lawrence, Susan||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lee, F.||Townend, A. E.|
|Dennison, R||Lindley, F. W.||Vlant, S. P.|
|Duckworth, John||Lowth, T.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Dunnico, H.||Lunn, William||Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Mackinder, W.||Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|England, Colonel A.||MacLaren, Andrew||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||March, S.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Forrest, W.||Montague, Frederick||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Mosley, Oswald||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Murnin, H.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gillett, George M.||Naylor, T. E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gosling, Harry||Palin, John Henry||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Groves, T.||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grundy, T. W.||Purcell, A. A.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley|
|Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton)||Riley, Ben|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ritson. J.|
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
|Division No. 215.]||AYES.||[5. 8p. m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Brass, Captain W.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Brassey, Sir Leonard|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Brittain, Sir Harry|
|Aibery, Irving James||Bennett, A. J.||Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. J.|
|Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)||Berry, Sir George||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Blundell, F. N.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y|
|Apsley, Lord||Boothby, R. J. G.||Buchan, John|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Buckingham, Sir H.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Bullock, Captain M.|
|Balniel, Lord||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Burman, J. B.|
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 120.
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Harvey, G, (Lambeth, Kennington)||Preston, William|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Radford, E. A.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Haslam, Henry C.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Hawke, John Anthony||Ramsden, E.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Heneage, Lieut. -Col. Arthur P.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. H. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hills, Major John Waiter||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hilton, Cecil||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Christie, J. A.||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Holt, Captain H. P.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Sandon, Lord|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Savery. S. S.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Philip||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Craig Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Huntingfield, Lord||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hurd, Percy A.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hurst, Gerald B.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Dalkeith Earl of||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Jacob, A. E.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Davies Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Jephcott, A. R.||Styles, Captain H. W.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Dixon, Captain Ht. Hon. Herbert||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.|
|Drewe C.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Knox Sir Alfred||Templeton. W. P.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lane Fox Col- Rt. Hon-George R.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Ellis R. G.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Elveden, Viscount||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Evans Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Long-Major Eric||Tryon, Hon. George Clement|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Looker, Herbert William||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Luce Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Wallace. Captain D. E.|
|Fermoy Lord||Lumley, L. R.||Ward. Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Fielden E. B.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Finburgh, S.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||McLean, Major A.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macmilllan, Captain H.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Foxcroft Captain C T||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Fraser Captain Ian||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Wells, S. R.|
|Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Malone, Major P. B.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Ganzonl. Sir John||Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Gates, Percy||Margesson, Captain D.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon George Abraham||Meyer, Sir Frank||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Glimour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Winterton Ht. Hon. Ear.|
|Glyn Major R. G. C.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Grace, John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Withers, John James|
|Grattan-Doyle Sir N||Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Greene, W. P Crawford||Moreing, Captain A. H.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Nelson, Sir Frank||Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld. )||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Major Cope and Mr. Penny.|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Pownail, Sir Assheton|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Cluse, W. S.||Fenby, T. D.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John B.||Forrest, W.|
|Baker, Walter||Connolly, M,||Gardner, J. P.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.|
|Barnes, A.||Crawfurd, H. E.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Batey, Joseph||Dalton, Hugh||Gillett, George M.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Gosling, Harry|
|Sowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Day, Colonel Harry||Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)|
|Briant, Frank||Dennison, R.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Broad, F. A.||Duckworth John||Groves. T.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Dunnico, H.||Grundy, T. W.|
|Brown, James (Ayrand Bute)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Charleton, H. C.||England, Colonel A.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Clowes, S.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hardie, George D.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Montague, Frederick||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charley|
|Mayday, Arthur||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Mosley, Oswald||Stephen, Campbell|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Murnin, H.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Hirst, G. H.||Naylor, T. E.||Strauss, E. A.|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Palin, John||Henry Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Thurtie, Ernest|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Potts, John S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Purcell, A. A.||Viant, S. P.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Riley, Ben||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Ritson, J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Kelly, W. T.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Kennedy, T.||Rose, Frank H.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Kirkwood, D.||Scurr, John||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Lansbury, George||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Lindley, F. W.||Smile, Robert||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Lowth, T.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lunn, William||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Windsor, Walter|
|Mackinder, W.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wright, W.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Snell, Harry|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|March, S.||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Hayes.|