HC Deb 28 June 1927 vol 208 cc353-75
The CHAIRMAN

I think it will be convenient if we take a general discussion on the first Amendment as we did in the case of the last Clause.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after the word "twenty-seven," to insert the words "until the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight."

This is the Clause which imposes the extra duty upon matches, and we intend to oppose it in the same way and for much the same reasons as we have opposed the Clause dealing with tobacco. The tax upon matches is fundamentally and in principle more objectionable and more unfair than the tax upon tobacco. As a matter of fact I do not think that there is any article of ordinary consumption the price of which has been so much raised since the War as the price of matches. Before the War the price of matches used to be six boxes for a penny, but the price to-day is one penny per box. Consequently the price has risen by 600 per cent., which is altogether out of proportion to the rise in the price of almost any other popular article in use.

My calculation is that this duty comes roughly to the equivalent of a duty of an extra half-penny upon a dozen boxes of matches and the question which is of special interest to us is to ask by whom is this duty eventually going to be paid? The match manufacturers have already practically told the public that it is not likely that it is going to be paid by them. Messrs. Bryant and May have announced that there is to be an increase of one half-penny per dozen in the price of their matches, an increase which is practically equivalent to the new duty which is being proposed. Who is going to pay the duty? I may say that this is an interesting example of the kind of argument that has been previously used this evening, and is always used whenever questions of Free Trade and Protection are debated. The price of the box of matches is now 1d. Although the duty has been imposed, it has remained at 1d., and I have no doubt that it will continue at 1d. But, nevertheless, this duty is going to be paid by the public, and for this reason. I was told by manufacturers of matches, even before this duty was proposed, that the cost of production of matches had been falling for some years, and that the time was just approaching when they were going to put upon the market matches at the price of two boxes for 1½d., so that we should have approached rather nearer to the prices at which matches were sold before the War. This duty means that that reduction in price will not take place, and, as a consequence, the price of matches will be stabilised at its present excessively high figure for an indefinite period.

The increase in price will fall upon the public at large, and, unfortunately, this is another example of those duties in the case of which the public at large means mainly the poorer sections of the State. I remember that not long ago Messrs. Bryant and May, when they were wanting some other favour, sent out a letter, which I think must have gone to all the Members of the House, because I received an ordinary typewritten copy of it, and in that letter, in order to support another argument of theirs, they said that their calculation was that five-sixths of the matches used in this country were used by the working class. The fact is that, although the amount spent on matches is not very large, the effect of a tax upon matches is practically the same as that of a tax upon tea. In the case of matches, as in the case of tea, the ordinary working-class household spends practically the same sum as a household of the weathier section of the community, and the result is that, if matches are taxed and their price is increased, it takes a far larger proportion out of the pockets of the poorer section than it takes from the wealthier sections of the State. For that reason, our general opposition to this tax is based on exactly the same grounds as our general opposition to all these taxes upon the necessities of life. The weight of it on rich and comfortable homes will be practically inappreciable, but it does mean that once again the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking a few more pennies out, of the pockets of the less comfortable sections in the country, when they need to buy one of these common necessities of their homes.

Major HILLS

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) complained that when matches were not taxed at all they were much cheaper. I quite agree that they were, and I there were no tax the price would come down. The hon. Member then went on to say that the increased tax would be borne entirely by the consumer. That is not entirely so. The increased tax is 1s. per standard gross of 10,000 matches. The standard gross is not a trails description at all, because matches are not sold by the standard gross; they are sold by the trade gross, that is to say, a gross of boxes containing 50 matches per box. That works out, not at 10,000 matches but at 7,200 matches. On a trade gross the extra tax imposed by this Budget is 7d., and of that the manufacturers are passing on 6d. to the wholesalers, the retailer and to the public. I cannot say exactly in what way that would be apportioned, but it certainly will not all fall upon the public for, in the first place, the increase that the manufacturers are making is only ½d. per dozen, and the competition in selling matches is very keen, and I do not anticipate that the whole amount will be passed on. The last speaker knows that the effect of the tax will indirectly effect a saving to the public, for it standardises the tax at 50 matches per box. Before this new tax was imposed foreign matches were coming in at 30, 35, 40 or 45 matches per box, and these boxes looked just the same as boxes containing 50 matches, and were sold at the same price.

Now take the housewife who goes to buy a dozen boxes of matches, for all prudent purchasers buy by the dozen. She might have got a dozen boxes with 50 matches in a box or a dozen with 35 matches in a box, and so she might have lost 12 times 15, which is 180 matches. Now the tax is charged on all boxes of matches that hold more than 20, as though they held 50, so that it will not pay foreign importers to put less than 50 in a box because that would mean paying a tax in excess of the value of their products. To that extent the public will be protected, and I think the House will realise it was a very serious fraud on the public that when they expected to get 50 matches all they got was 35. Further, the price the manufacturer charges of 6d. per gross is merely replacing the price at the same figure at which it stood in 1923, and from 1923 to 1925 at which time the price was reduced by 6d. a gross. I think that is the reduction which the hon. Member for Keighley has in mind. It did take place, and I quite agree that the effect of this tax is to take off that reduction, but, after all, it only replaces the position as it was two years ago. There is nothing protective to the manufacturer in this tax. I think the hon. Member will admit that the only people who are protected are the public, except that indirectly the British manufacturer is protected from unfair foreign competition, and I are quite certain the hon. Member will not object to that. Since a part of the tax will be shouldered, first by the manufacturer, next by the wholesaler, and next by the retailer, and further as the public will get the article they are paying for, and not a box containing 35 matches, I hope that the Committee will pass this Clause.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN

The Committee will have been interested in the second speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) on this tax, and I do not think they will grudge a little further consideration of the tax. Seeing that successive Governments from 1916 till to-day have received £13,000,000 of revenue from this small tax, and that up to this Budget only 63 lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT have been occupied by discussion on this tax, there ought to be a great deal more discussion. When Mr. McKenna introduced it in 1916, he introduced it as a war-time tax. When Mr. Bonar Law altered it in 1918 he used a phrase curiously like that used by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing his Budget, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to read it. The Chancellor, when he was making his great ascent up the mountain of difficulty, said: Proceeding upon our ascent, step by step and crag by crag, I now come to matches"— He wanted a little light on his journey— It will probably be a surprise to many well-informed Members that we have been for many years raising revenue by a strictly orthodox Customs and Excise duty upon matches, the revenue of which last year amounted to no less than £3,500,000. This is the sentence which I would like the Committee particularly to note: The British match industry has submitted to me a plan which combines an increase in the Match Duty with an alteration of its basis, which they assure me will be more satisfactory to them in relation to foreign competition than is the existing scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 90, Vol. 205.] Then he goes on to outline the alterations contained in the White Paper and in the scheme which we are discussing to-night. I suggest that we are entitled to have from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a little light upon the deputation that came from the industry to the Exchequer as to the composition of that deputation, as to the number of firms concerned in it, and as to what took place between the Exchequer and the deputation before this alteration was made. A very celebrated British philosopher once said: Two men of the same trade rarely meet together in secret without planning a conspiracy against the public. A modern Yankee would say, "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours, and we will all rob the public." The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) will probably agree with him, for in a recent Debate he said that he feared the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) not when he disagreed with Labour, but when he agreed with it, in making a combine against the public, and I am suspicious of the agreements, past and present, between the Treasury and the match industry. I want to know what the match industry is getting out of this last agreement and who are the firms concerned in getting whatever they are getting out of it. The speech delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon to-night is not quite the same as that delivered by him on the Budget Resolutions. I have that speech here, and I notice that then he was by no means so sure of the incidence of this tax as he seems to be to-night. I would like to quote some words of John Stuart Mill against this tax. John Stuart Mill once said: The direct tax is one which is demanded from the very persons whom it is intended or desired should pay, but the indirect tax is that which is demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that he or she shall indemnify himself or herself at the expense of another. I believe that to be sound doctrine, and I think the two speeches delivered in this House on this Match Tax by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon only emphasise the soundness of that doctrine, for in his first speech he said he was quite sure who was going to pay the duty, and he mentioned the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the retailer, and, to a certain small extent, the public. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if there are any calculations which have been made at the Treasury as to the incidence of this tax between the various people mentioned by the hon. Member for Ripon. Although we have been speaking in pounds and shillings, this is not a matter of pounds or shillings to the match industry, the Treasury or the British public. When this Duty was introduced in 1916 by Mr. McKenna, the total revenue was £1,029,000. In the following year it amounted to £1,242,000; in the third year, £2,027,000; in the fourth year, £3,336,000; in the fifth year, £3,051,000. In the sixth year there was a slight diminution, because the tax on mechanical lighters which had held good up to then was repealed. The amount in that year was £3,023,000. In the following year there was another slight diminution to £3,013,000. Since then, we have had continuous rises to £3,121,000, £3,295,000, £3,345,000, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants an additional £500,000, £600,000 or £700,000. That means the British consumer of matches, the housewife, all who use matches, smokers and all kinds of people, the whole public who buy matches for ordinary purposes, will pay more in proportion to the matches they buy than those who buy the more expensive matches.

I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the Committee are entitled to some information as to the members of the deputation who saw the Treasury, the number of firms who are associated with each other in suggesting the second alteration—the first alteration of the duty came about on the suggestion of the manufacturers—and as to the Treasury view of the incidence of this additional duty upon the general public, as compared with the wholesaler, the retailer and the match manufacturer. This duty amounts to nearly £4,000,000, and the Committee are entitled to a good deal more information than they have yet received about the details of the Clause.

Mr. MARCH

I was rather surprised, in listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), to note how he had wheeled round from what he said on the previous occasion.

Major HILLS

I said exactly the same on the Resolution as I say now. I said that sixpence would be passed on by the manufacturer, but that of that sixpence I did not think the whole would be passed on to the public.

Mr. MARCH

To-night, the hon. Member has been trying to make us believe that it is going to be shared between the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the retailer and the consumer. That is a little different from what he said before. I have yet to learn where the patriotism runs with the wholesaler and the retailer to take their share of the extra duty which is being imposed by the Government in this respect. I was very interested to learn that no prudent housewife would purchase her matches in dozen boxes. If the hon. Member for Ripon (Major Hills) would only come down to the district I have the honour to represent, he would find some of those widows and old ladies, and the old age pensioners buying one box at a time, and they cannot afford to buy more. The result is that the passing on of the extra charge will go on to the poorest people that there is in this country.

Major HILLS

May I point out that the penny box is still a penny even if the tax is imposed.

Mr. MARCH

May I fell the hon. and gallant Member that there are some boxes at a halfpenny?

Major HILLS Not 50 matches.

Sir FREDRIC WISE

Are they still a halfpenny?

Major HILLS

There are not 50.

Mr. MARCH

No, 20, and bad enough it is. It is very nice for hon. Members to come to the House and talk about all being so cheap and reasonable, for these people who have to use matches more than we do ourselves feel anything extra that is imposed on them. I myself ought not to complain, because I am a nonsmoker. I do not waste any matches in that direction. I am also able by living in Poplar to have the electric light put on. Therefore, I do not want any matches to light up when I go home early or late; and it is quite probable that that applies to a large number of Members on the other side of the House. We are doing our best to see that all the people get light in our district. I should like to say that this is another imposition of indirect, taxation upon the poorest people of the country. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) has said, the agricultural labourer gets very poor wages, and up to the present time he has not, in many instances, even got gas. They still use the old tallow candle. [An HON. MEMBER: "They get Tory gas."] They get plenty of Tory gas it is true, and they are told things will get better by and by. It will only be when they get beyond the moon. They will not get anything on this earth. Those who have got beyond tallow candles have paraffin oil, and this is the only light they can get in many instances. They are the people this is going to affect very largely indeed, and I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain to us what he has learned in connection with this matter for those benevolent match manufacturers who waited upon him as to what they intend to do with this extra duty which you are now imposing on them. Did you get anything from them that they were anxious to pay it all themselves, or did you get anything from them that they were going to pass it on?

The CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Gentleman address me.

Mr. MARCH

I thought, if I looked at him pleasantly, I would get a decent answer. I do not expect to get an answer from you, Sir. I should like to know whether anything of the kind with regard to the sharing out of this extra tax was mentioned, and whether there was any of them patriotic enough to say that they would bear the whole burden, because they are making a decent profit, and they are belauding themselves for the profits they are making out of matches at the present time.

Sir H. CROFT

I want to intervene for a very few moments. I confess that the attitude of the Opposition and the opportunities they have missed this evening have depressed me. When the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) rose to his feet, I thought that at last we were going to have a real statement on behalf of the workers of this country. But all he could say was that this was another burden on the poor, although I think he has since confessed that a box of matches has not been increased to the individual. We have just heard that, at any rate in Poplar, no one ever buys more than one box of matches—

Mr. MARCH

I did not say that.

Sir H. CROFT

I desire to take this opportunity of making the most full and ample apology to the hon. Member. I did think that on an occasion like this we might have heard something from the Front Bench of the Opposition in regard to the Excise duties on matches which we are also considering. Had the hon. Member risen to his feet to point out that this burden is, as it must be, a burden ultimately on the consumers of this country, and had he urged that that Excise duty was not desirable under the present state of affairs, I think the whole Committee would have been relieved and would have realised that at last we had had an admission of value from the Labour party. Had he taken that attitude, I think he would have met with a great deal of sympathy from that section of the Opposition that represents one-third of the trade union vote at the conference this year, because I think that at present at least half—possibly more—of the matches we consume come from foreign countries. When it is realised that these matches are produced under the most disgraceful conditions in the countries from which they are imported, I think the Opposition have missed a real chance in not insisting that this Excise duty should be withdrawn. Had they done so they would have had the support of a great number of hon. Members.

Mr. KELLY

I was very much interested to hear the last speaker in regard to the labour conditions in this particular industry. I was hoping that in the course of it he would have at least dropped one or two figures as to the conditions that he complained of in those countries, and that he would have told us of the conditions operating in this country. It may be some surprise to him to know that among Friends of his own are those who are financing some of those companies of which he speaks as foreign companies. But I want to ask him why it is that he is so fond of stating that this is only a small imposition upon the community, when he knows full well that there are so many other impositions on them that this means an added burden to the costs that are imposed on them? But I rose for the purpose of asking the view of the deputation that waited on the Treasury. I want to know if, seeing that there is a Whitley Council in connection with the match industry in this country, and that Whitley Council is concerned with both employers and employed and with all the match factories in this country, they were consulted or if they were part of the deputation which waited on the Treasury? It seems a very curious statement that we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if he would impose a duty upon matches that would be to the advantage of this country and particularly to those manufacturers. There is a difference between the statement of the hon. Member for Ripon to-night and the statement he made when he last spoke on the question. He will find it somewhat difficult to prove that the manufacturers or the wholesalers are going to stand the bulk of this impost, which he assumes is not going to reach the public. But the serious thing is that if the Amendment is not accepted, it is evident that it is the intention of the Government to carry this tax a long period beyond the year we are now in. I hope the Amendment will be accepted, and I trust the Financial Secretary will let us know whether, not only the manufacturers, but the Whitley Councils concerned with the industry were consulted or were with the deputation to the Treasury.

Mr. McNEILL

We have had a Debate not merely on the Amendment on the Paper, but upon the whole question of the duty. The hon. Member who has just sat down is the only one who made any allowance or reference whatever to the Amendment. I think I may take it from the way it was treated by the hon. Member on the Front Bench that he did not expect that any particular favour would be shown to the Amendment. He was only using it as an opportunity for discussing the general subject. If that was his state of mind, he was perfectly accurate. The Government could not possibly accept the Amendment. It would restrict clearances, with the result that there would be a very serious deficit in the estimated revenue. We have known the Mover of the Amendment for many years as a protagonist of Free Trade. If we were to carry the Amendment we should be going considerably beyond Free Trade. It would be giving Protection to the foreigner, as there is no corresponding Amendment down with regard to the second Sub-section, relating to Excise.

One or two hon. Members have shown some curiosity as to where the duty would fall. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lee-Smith) told us it would fall on the poor, and he used an argument that is very common in these Debates but which. I think, really involves a fallacy, when he said it would fall on those least able to bear it. Of course, that is true not only of any duty but of the price of any article. The poorer a person is, the more difficult it is for him to pay far it. It is perfectly true. It is obvious. But what I think involves a fallacy when we are discussing these taxation questions is to isolate every individual item—to take them separately. It is perfectly true that if you take each one separately and say, "There is a tax on such a commodity. It is much more difficult for the poor to pay it than for the rich. Then there is the next tax which is proposed. That also is much more difficult for the poor to pay than for the rich. Consequently, you are putting heavier burdens upon the poor than you are upon the rich."

That appears to me to involve a fallacy. The only way you can justly estimate and gauge the relative burdens of different classes is by making a review of the whole field of taxation. It is perfectly true that certain classes pay practically nothing on matches, and it does not affect them in the least, but you have to find out what that same class is paying in other ways. It is only when you do that, and sum up the actual aggregate of burdens which falls upon the rich or poor, as the case may be, that you have any right to say with justice that an undue amount of burden is being placed upon people who are moderately well to do, or the rich. The bon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member who last spoke asked me some questions about some deputation at the Treasury. I am not able to give them information about it. I am not certain that I should think it right to do so, even if I were in a position to do so, but I am not. I have had no notice sent to me that there was any curiosity felt about it. I do not know exactly whether it was in the form of a deputation at all.

Mr. E. BROWN

The right hon. Gentleman rather pressed me on the Financial Resolution, but, unfortunately, when I came to ask him the question at that time, it was so late that he was unable to give an answer then.

Mr. McNEILL

If the hon. Member in any way gave me actual notice that he was going to put that point to me, I apologise for not having remembered that was so. I am not at all sure that I should have given it in any case. I do not know that there were negotiations. I know that communications passed, as is always the case when a Budget is being prepared. There are always negotiations with many interests concerned or that might possibly be concerned. I do not think it is usual to give specific information as to who was present and what was said, and so forth. At all events, we are not discussing whether I shall be right or wrong in withholding the information, because I have not any to give.

Mr. KELLY

My only reason for raising this point is that it was a strong point used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, namely, that, as a result of what he had been told by those people, and the suggestion they made to him, he was coming before the Committee with this particular proposal. Surely we have a right to know the people who made that statement.

Mr. McNEILL

I do not think there is any such right. These deputations are received at the Treasury in the ordinary course, and there is no right on the part of hon. Members to ask who were there, or what actually happened. Hon. Members must be content to take the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point, or to disregard it, if they so please. I should like to endorse what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who speaks with much inside knowledge. He explained to the Committee quite accurately what the probabilities are with regard to the incidence of this duty, and to what he said I really have nothing to add.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

One or two things have transpired during this Debate which are worthy of a little further attention from the Committee. The Financial Secretary has said that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment failed to pursue the argument in that he has not put down an Amendment to the Excise section of the Clause. The Financial Secretary, however, failed to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is an Amendment on the Paper to delete the whole of the Clause, which, of course, would get rid of the Excise duty as well as the Customs duty. It would have been a fairer comment if the Financial Secretary, in his reply, had informed the Committee that this is not the only Amendment that has been put down. The second point which the hon. Member made was quite interesting to hon. Members on this side. He said that he could not understand why we should lay so much stress on the fact that duties of this kind press harder on the poor; that we should always have regard to the general spread of taxation over the whole community and not pay so much attention to an isolated duty of this kind. The Financial Secretary knows that the case of those who oppose these duties is that in regard to the taxation to be raised for purposes of revenue the first principle to be observed is that the people who have to pay the taxation shall be able to bear it. The great mass of the workers of this country are entitled to a minimum standard of life before they pay taxation at all. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to take any other view of the situation. Whilst the exigencies of the country may require special measures at certain times, we ought not to be stooping to the expediency of putting a few coppers on the matches of the poor for the purpose of raising revenue when you are saving millions a year by rebates to the rich Income Tax and Super-tax payers. What we suggest is that you should take off this kind of taxation altogether and raise all the revenue required in two ways only; first, in direct taxation upon the incomes of the rich, in relation to their ability to pay—

The CHAIRMAN

This subject cannot be raised on this Amendment. It is quite proper on Second Reading or Third Reading.

Mr. ALEXANDER

It is a little wide of the Amendment. On the other hand, it is surely not wide of the argument used by the Financial Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN

I take the Committee into my confidence. If the right hon. Gentleman had said another sentence I was going to stop him.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I will not take a minute to finish the argument with your permission, Sir. If they would raise the money by direct taxation, as I have suggested, with, as occasion required, a tax upon purely luxury articles, there would be no difficulty in meeting the needs of the revenue and giving proper relief to the poor in the country. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bourne mouth (Sir H. Croft), I notice he says there would be great advantage if he were to remove the Excise duty and leave on the Customs duty. He says that matches are being imported in large quantities from countries where sweated conditions prevail. It is a great pity that the hon. and gallant Member cannot persuade his Government to ratify the 48-hour week Convention. There might then be some point in his argument. I have here a box of matches imported from Finland and made by co-operators in Finland. We buy large quantities of them. We also buy large quantities of the matches which are more familiar to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) from the firm of Bryant and May. But the import of these matches is as important to the British worker as the purchase of the British matches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain why. We took thousands of gross of these matches from Finland last year and we sold to them, from co-operative factories here, employing trade union labour, thousands of bicycles and other articles such as boots and shoes, and that is just as important to the worker here as the actual manufacture of matches in tins country.

Major HILLS

I do not think the hon. Member can know the wages paid in match factories in Finland. I have here the result of an inquiry made by the Belgian Christian Union into wages in match factories, and in Belgium the highest rate per lions is 6d., and it goes down as low as 2d. In Finland the highest rate is 5½d. per hour, and it goes down to 2½. for girls.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Before the hon. and gallant Member destroys my case, he had better give me the figures for the co-operative factories. I said the matches were made by co-operators. He might also give the comparative cost of living.

Major HILLS

My figures are given by the Finnish Government.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I submit that that does not discredit my argument.

Sir H. CROFT

Buying sweated goods!

Mr. ALEXANDER

No, we are selling very good goods, made by trade union labour in Birmingham, among other places, and incidentally we are employing shipping to take the matches here and to take the goods away, and shipbuilders to build the ships. Altogether the case which has been put up by the hon. And gallant Member cannot stand.

Mr. J. JONES

Those of us who live in the East End of London and who can take our memories back 30 or 40 years, never want to see again the conditions which formerly prevailed in the match factories. If this were a question of protecting the workers of Great Britain from sweating, some of us might be prepared to take up a different attitude. This is not a matter of sweating. Hon. Members who talk so glibly about foreign matches have evidently not read the "Times" during the last few weeks. They have not read that these foreign match companies are raising money in England for the purpose of developing their businesses in competition with British manufacturers. They are getting plenty of money. Patriotic Tariff Reformers will be able to make higher dividends on their capital than if they invested it in the British match industry. They are always patriots when it is a matter of getting votes. When it is a question of getting dividends they do not care a tinker's curse whether it is the Chinaman, the Belgian, the Flemish or the Finnish worker—[Interruption].

Sir H. CROFT

Would you keep them out?

Mr. JONES

We could not keep you out if we tried. You are more dangerous to us than any workmen that ever came into this country.

The CHAIRMAN

I must point out that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is not a match.

Mr. JONES

No, but I am a match for him. I am a match for most of them. If it were merely a question of protecting the workers of England we should have various views expressed but this is a matter of raising revenue for the State. From whom are you going to get the revenue? The Government are always playing upon the worker. When in doubt, play upon the worker! It is a jolly fine game played slow; but it is about time we said "tip it." [Interruption.] Up to now I have not heard in this discussion any question of the general strike. It is the only time it has not been mentioned. Seeing that it is a question of matches striking is not necessary.

I suggest that the question of protecting the worker of this country has nothing to do with the question now before the Committee. It is a question of raising revenue and the Government are raising it at the expense of the people least able to pay. That is the philosophy running through all the proposals which have been made up to now. If you want to protect the British workman, protect him against your own people who invest their money in foreign countries and throw the British workman out of employment. Some of them on these benches will take 10 per cent. in China rather than accept 5 per cent. in Great Britain. They do not care where their interest comes from so long as they get it. I remember the time when the match makers of the East End were amongst the most sweated and degraded workers in the country—and that was under the same firms.

As an official of a union which represents a very large number of the men and women employed in the matchmaking industry I wish to ask if, when there were consultations between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the trade, the workers' side was represented? Did we have any finger in the pie? Were we allowed to appear before the holy of holies, wiping our noses on the mat before we dared to enter? No. We were never asked—so far as I know. We were simply told what had happened—by the trade. Who are the trade? Certain individuals who happen to be at the top of the tree. They were not considering the interests of labour. They are international in I heir ramifications. The people in the match industry of Great Britain know that it is very largely dominated by the American combine.

The Diamond Match Company is practically an American institution in which British capital is not the dominating factor. If it is a question of protecting British workers, we are prepared to adopt means of protecting them, but our means are totally different from yours. Your method is to rob them by making them pay more for the things they want, and, although some workers may be able to get a little more wage, it is only at the expense of their fellows. That sort of game ought not to be played by people representing any section of the community, and this matter ought not to be made a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. These proposals are simply a reproduction of the old bad policy of the Tory Party, and they have got an ex-Liberal as Chancellor of the Exchequer to come along to do their execrable, dirty work. I know most of the Ministers opposite are ex-something. On a question like this we have to save a few of the brands from the burning. Now is the accepted time. Now is the day of salvation. So far as we on this side are concerned, we stand by the principle that we have enunciated all through, which is that taxation should be based upon the ability of the people to pay. This kind of taxation is making the poor pay all the time and allowing

Division No. 225.] AYES. [11.45 a.m.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Scurr, John
Baker, Walter Hirst, G. H. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Barnes, A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shiels, Dr Drummond
Batey, Joseph Hudson, J, H. (Huddersfield) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Sitch, Charles H.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Brown, Ernest (Lelth) John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, H B. Lees. (Keighley)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Snowden, Ht. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Clowes, S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stamford, T. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stephen, Campbell
Crawfurd. H. E. Kelly, W. T. Strauss, E. A.
Dalton, Hugh Kennedy, T. Sullivan, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, George Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Day, Colonel Harry Lawrence, Susan Thurtle, Ernest
Duckworth, John Lawson, John James Townend, A. E.
Dunnico, H. Lee, F. Varley, Frank B.
England, Colonel A. Lindley, F. W. Viant, S. P.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Fenby, T. D. Mackinder, W Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gardner, J. P. MacLaren, Andrew Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wellock, Wilfred
Gibbins, Joseph March, S. Welsh, J. C.
Gillett, George M. Morris, R. H. Wiggins, William Martin
Gosling, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mosley, Oswald Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Murnin, H. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Naylor, T. E. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneliy)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grundy, T. W. Ponsonby, Arthur Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, F. (York., W. R., Normanton) Potts, John S. Windsor, Walter
Hall, G H. (Merthyr Tydvli) Riley, Ben Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Ritson, J.
Harris, Percy A. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hayday, Arthur Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Hayes, John Henry Rose, Frank H. Whiteley.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Blundell, F. N. Christie, J. A.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Boothby, R. J. G. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ainsworth, Major Charles Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Albery, Irving James Braithwaite, Major A. N. Clayton, G. C.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cobb, Sir Cyril
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Colfox, Major William Phillips
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Buchan, John Cooper, A. Duff
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Buckingham, Sir H. Cope, Major William
Atholl, Duchess of Bullock, Captain M. Couper, J. B.
Atkinson, C. Burman, J. B. Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Butler, Sir Geoffrey Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Balniel, Lord Butt, Sir Alfred Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Campbell, E. T. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Curzon, Captain Viscount
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Dalkeith, Earl of
Bennett, A. J. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Betterton, Henry B. Chapman, Sir S. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovli)
Birchali, Major J. Dearman Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Davies, Dr. Vernon

those who are best able to pay to escape their responsibilities. Whatever our views may be about protecting the members of trade unions, we are not prepared to allow ourselves to be led up the garden to rote for Protection under false pretences. That is what these proposals mean, and that is why we are united in our opposition to them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 234.

Dawson, Sir Philip Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hume, Sir G. H. Remer, J. R.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Huntingfield, Lord Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Drewe, C. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Rice, Sir Frederick
Eden, Captain Anthony Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Jacob, A. E. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Elliot, Major Walter E. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Ropner, Major L.
Ellis, R. G. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Everard, W. Lindsay King, Commodore Henry Douglas Rye, F. G.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Salmon, Major I.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Knox, Sir Alfred Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Fielden, E. B. Lamb, J. Q. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Finburgh, S. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ford, Sir P. J. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Forrest, W. Little, Dr. E. Graham Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Long, Major Eric Shepperson, E. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Looker, Herbert William Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Galbraith, J. F. W. Lougher, Lewis Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Gates, Percy Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman Skelton, A. N.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Lumley, L. R. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lynn, Sir R. J. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Gower, Sir Robert McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Grace, John McLean, Major A. Storry-Deans, R.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Macmillan, Captain H. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Greene, W. P. Crawford Malone, Major P. B. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Margesson, Captain D. Templeton, W. P.
Grotrian, H. Brent Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Meyer, Sir Frank Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Gunston, Captain D. W. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Tinne, J. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Hammersley, S. S. Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Harland, A. Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Harrison, G. J. C. Moreing, Captain A. H. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Hartington, Marquess of Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Murcnison, Sir Kenneth Warrender, Sir Victor
Haslam, Henry C. Nelson, Sir Frank Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hawke, John Anthony Neville, Sir Reginald J. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wells, S. R.
Henderson, Capt. H. R. (Oxl'd, Henley) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Wise, Sir Fredric
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Penny, Frederick George Withers, John James
Hills, Major John Waller Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Womersley, W. J.
Hilton, Cecil Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Perring, Sir William George Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Pitcher, G. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Holt, Capt. H. P. Preston, William
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Price, Major C. W. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Radford, E. A. Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Hopkins, J. W. W. Raine, Sir Walter Bowyer.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Divison No. 226] AYES. [11. 52 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bennett, A. J. Butt, Sir Alfred
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Betterton, Henry B. Campbell, E. T.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Birchall, Major J. Darman Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R (Prtsmth.S)
Albery, Irving James Blundell, F. N. Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Boothby, R. J. G. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Chapman, Sir S.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Braithwaite, Major A. N. Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Christie, J. A.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Atholl, Duchess of Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Atkinson, C. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks,Newb'y) Clayton, G. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Buchan, John Cobb, Sir Cyril
Balniel, Lord Buckingham, Sir H. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bullock, Captain M. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Burman, J. B. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Butler, Sir Geoffrey Cooper, A. Duff

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 108.

Cope, Major William Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Radford, E. A.
Couper, J. B. Hills, Major John Waller Raine, Sir Walter
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hilton, Cecil Rees, Sir Beddoe
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Remer, J. R.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Holt, Captain H. P. Rice, Sir Frederick
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ctrts'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hopkins, J. W. W. Ropner, Major L.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Hume, Sir G. H. Rye, F. G.
Dawson, Sir Philip Huntingfield, Lord Salmon, Major I.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sandeman N. Stewart
Drewe, C. Jacob, A. E. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Eden, Captain Anthony Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Kidd. J. (Linlithgow) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Elliot, Major Walter E. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Ellis, R. G. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Shepperson, E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay Knox, Sir Alfred Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Lamb, J. Q. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen'sUniv., Bell'st.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Skelton, A. N.
Finburgh, S. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Ford, Sir P. J. Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Long, Major Eric Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Forrest, W. Looker, Herbert William Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lougher, Lewis Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Fraser, Captain Ian Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Storry-Deans, R.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Lumley, L. R. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Galbralth, J. F. W. Lynn, Sir R. J. Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gates, Percy Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McLean, Major A. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macmillan, Captain H. Templeton, W. P.
Glyn, Major R. G. C. McNeill Rt. Hon. Ronald John Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Goff, Sir Park Makins, Brigadier-General E. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gower, Sir Robert Malone, Major P. B. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Grace, John Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Tinne, J. A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Meyer, Sir Frank Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Warrender, Sir Victor
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Moore, Sir Newton J. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Gunston, Captain D. W. Moreing, Captain A. H. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Wells, S. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Murchison, Sir Kenneth Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hammersley, S. S. Nelson, Sir Frank Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Harland, A. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Harrison, G. J. C. Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hartington, Marquess of Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wise, Sir Fredric
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Withers, John James
Haslam, Henry C. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Womersley, W. J.
Hawke, John Anthony Oman, Sir Charles William C. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley) Penny, Frederick George Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Perkins, Colonel E. K. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Perring, Sir William George Captain Margesson and Captain
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Price, Major C. W. M. Bowyer.
NOES.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') England, Colonel A. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ammon, Charles George Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Barnes, A. Fenby, T. D. Hirst, G. H.
Batey, Joseph Gardner, J. P. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)
Broad, F. A. Gibbins, Joseph Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gillett, George M. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gosling, Harry John William (Rhondda, West)
Buchanan, G. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Charleton, H. C. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Clowes, S. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Grundy, T. W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Crawfurd, H. E. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Dalton, Hugh Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Kelly, W. T.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Kennedy, T.
Day, Colonel Harry Harris, Percy A. Lansbury, George
Duckworth, John Hayday, Arthur Lawrence, Susan
Dunnico, H. Hayes, John Henry Lawson, John James
Lee, F. Salter, Dr. Alfred Viant, S. P.
Lindley, F. W. Scurr, John Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lunn, William Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mackinder, W. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
MacLaren, Andrew Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wellock, Wilfred
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Sitch, Charles H. Welsh, J. C.
March, S. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherlthe) Wiggins, William Martin
Morris, R. H. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Snell, Harry Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Mosley, Oswald Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Murnin, H. Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E. Stamford, T. W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Stephen, Campbell Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Ponsonby, Arthur Strauss, E. A. Windsor, Walter
Potts, John S. Sullivan, J. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Riley, Ben Thorne, W. (West Han, Plaistow)
Ritson, J. Thurtle, Ernest TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Townend, A. E. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Variey, Frank B. Whiteley.
Rose, Frank H.