§ The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:—
§ In page 4, line 32, to leave out the words "commencement of this section", and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight."
§ In line 34, to leave out the words "which are", and to insert instead thereof the words "shall cease to be."
§ In page 4, to leave out from the word "chargeable", in line 34 to the end of the Clause.—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]
§ In page 4, to leave out from the word "shall", in line 35, to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "be at the rate of one farthing per ton."—[Mr. Maclean.]
251§ Mr. SNOWDENMay I respectfully suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could have a general discussion upon the points raised in this Clause under one of the Amendments which have been placed upon the Order Paper. Otherwise, I am afraid that it would be very difficult to confine oneself strictly to the specific point raised in an Amendment, and, as the various Amendments overlap to a very considerable extent, I am quite sure that the discussion could be carried on much more usefully if we had a general discussion upon one of these Amendments.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that the first three Amendments on the Order Paper really involve one proposition and I think that the course suggested will be convenient. Of course, obviously the discussion cannot be repeated on the Question "That the Clause stand part."
§ Mr. SNOWDENI and my friends are quite agreeable to that course. We will waive the first Amendment and take the second Amendment which will probably lend itself better to a general discussion.
§ Mr. MACLEANIt has been mentioned that the first three Amendments are to be taken together in a general discussion. Am I to understand that the fourth Amendment will be taken separately?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not propose to select the fourth Amendment.
§ Mr. MACLEANMay I ask why, Sir?
§ The CHAIRMANI think that, if hon. Members will study the Amendment, the reason will probably occur to their minds.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs it not always in order to put down an Amendment to reduce a duty that is made upon a particular commodity?
§ The CHAIRMANI think I have said enough as to my decision.
§ Mr. MACLEANI was asking for a further explanation.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that it is not a good thing always to give explanations of a decision.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the 252 words "which are," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall cease to be."
I am glad that we have been able to arrange to have a general discussion upon the second Amendment on the Order Paper. That enables us to deal in one general discussion with all that is implied by this particular Clause in the Bill. It appears to me there are four main points upon which we are entitled to debate this subject. There is, first of all, the general case for the repeal of the Sugar Duty; secondly, there is the question of the remission of a certain portion of the duty in respect of imported raw sugar; thirdly, there is the question of the increased preference granted to Empire sugar, and, fourthly, there is the increased preference granted to home-grown sugar. That gives to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the four main points which the Opposition want to bring to his notice to-day.
I should like to deal, first of all, with the general case for the repeal of the duty altogether. Here is a great opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enlarge the electoral programme upon which apparently he has already embarked in his Finance Bill. There is a series of by-elections at present in the country, and it would be a very great opportunity for him now to make good his promise of sympathy with the re-quest for a reduction of the Sugar Duty if he were able to tell the electors in the by-elections that he was now going to reduce part of this very heavy impost upon an important food of the people. If he is unable to do something of the kind, I am afraid that some of the electors will become a little restive, because he is increasing very rapidly the proportion of indirect taxation. Although I gather that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill it would not be in order to go into detail or into a technical discussion as to the balance between indirect and direct taxation, it is as well to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if you include the impost which is to be laid upon petrol, upon buttons, and upon enamelled hollow-ware this year, the amount of indirect taxation for which he has been responsible during his term of office runs into many tens of millions and presses very heavily indeed upon some sections of the population.
253 There are two other points which I might mention in respect of the general case for the repeal of the Sugar Duty. If you really want to help the weekly wage-earner at the present time, you must do something to cheapen his cost of living, because, apparently, it seems hopeless to get out of the present regime an increase in his wages. Taking the record of the last 12 months, on the top of the heavy decrease which took place from 1922 and 1923—with a short break the other way in 1924—and in subsequent years he has lost in weekly wages an aggregate at the rate of £350,000 per week.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)There has been a movement of prices downwards.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERIn the last 12 months? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that in the last 12 months the movement of prices has been very small. If he is talking of the whole period of his office, then he would be making a stronger point. My point is that the decrease in wages which I have quoted is on the top of the heavy decline in wages since 1922. The purchasing power of the people has, consequently, been very seriously decreased. The Sugar Duty at the full rate is now 1¼d. per pound. On every pound of sugar used in every working class home to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer collects 1¼d. or, rather, he should collect 1¼d., but when he has taken it from the consumer he gives a part of it back to special beneficiaries whom he selects, and although the tax is paid by the consumer it does not all of it reach the Treasury.
There never was a time when there was a stronger case for the repeal of this tax upon the food of the people in the present economic circumstances of the working class population. This is a class of the population upon whom this burden falls most heavily, not only in regard to the actual direct use of sugar, but in the use of other food in which sugar forms an ingredient in its manufacture. We have proved very conclusively in our past experience of this matter that if we can get a cheap raw material in the shape of sugar, without duty, we can increase very considerably those employed in the manufacture of certain foodstuffs, because the 254 demand for those foodstuffs goes up enormously. When the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) reduced the Sugar Duty considerably in 1924 we found that in the Co-operative section of trade we were able to employ hundreds of extra people in the manufacture of jam, because there was an immediately increased demand for that commodity, a healthy and necessary commodity for the people to many of whom it was too expensive until the Sugar Duty had been reduced. Therefore, there is a very strong case for the repeal of this duty from the point of view of the present economic circumstances and the economic necessities of the people.
It is not only the economic position of the people with which we have to deal, but the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been by any means ungenerous to his special friends in distributing the money which he has had available. He has given practically nothing during his term of office to the people who have to pay the taxes upon their goods. He has given one or two very small things, but in the aggregate he has given nothing of importance. On the other hand, he has given to the Income Tax payer a reduction of one-ninth in his tax, and he has given very considerable relief to the Super-tax payer, although it is only fair to say that he made a little correction in the case of the Super-tax payer by an adjustment of the Death Duties.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLTo an equal amount.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI doubt whether that will be the final result, upon balance.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe result of the last four years has been to give very considerable relief to the direct taxpayer. Therefore, there is abundant reason at the present time, in view of the economic necessities of the people and in view of the very large amount of relief which has been given to direct taxpayers, that we should now have a concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Sugar Duty. It is not necessary for me to say more on that point, because some of my hon. 255 Friends will support me, as may be required.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to indicate that he was going to give a very real concession to the consumers by an adjustment of the Sugar Duty which would involve a rebate of one farthing per pound in the duty upon imported raw sugar. He was very proud of the fact that the trade had arranged with him that the whole of that rebate would be passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, an event occurred for which we were all sorry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to take part in the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, and, therefore, he has not been able up to the present time to answer the statements which I then made in regard to the way in which that particular matter had been manipulated. It is quite true that for the present the consumers have been given the advantage of the ¼d. per pound upon the retail price of sugar, but we do challenge specifically the statement that they will ultimately hold that farthing reduction. We have not had an answer from the trade, certainly there has been no reply in trade newspapers, or from the Treasury as to whether this farthing is being used to enhance the position of the British sugar refiners. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley indicated quite clearly in the earlier Budget discussions that some information must have leaked out very successfully, as to the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this special concession to the refining industry, because of the movements upon the Stock Exchange in Tate and Lyle's shares. It only requires a plain examination of the market prices of the shares of that concern to see that within a very short period before the Budget there was an increase in the market quotations of these shares from 28s. to 44s., a very good illustration of how information may fly and what use can be made of it by those who think that it is time to realise.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLTo buy?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe people who sold out at 44s. realised a very substantial sum, and the people who held shares with the knowledge that the price was going to go up because of benefits to be conferred by the Treasury upon the 256 trade would be very well pleased to be able to sell their investments at a profit of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. I made a statement that the public were not really getting that farthing. Although I have not the official Report before me, I will take the cases seriatim, from memory. In the "Times" trade supplement, a statement was made that in October, 1027, the British refiners made the largest purchase of Cuban raws at a price of 11s. 7½d. that had been known for a very considerable time in the trade, and when I point out that the price of Cuban raws for many months before was as high as 16s., it will be seen that their coming to buy very heavily at 11s. 7½d. was quite a good thing for them.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLQuite right.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERQuite right, and no one wishes to quarrel with them on that. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that I should be the last person to quarrel with wise buying. We should not be as successful as we are in the co-operative movement if we did not have our share in wise buying. I am simply stating the fact from the point of view of the consumer. Very soon after, in the new year, it was quite patent that the suggestion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be giving something to the trade was known, from the movement in shares, and also, I suppose, from the further heavy purchases of Cuban raws.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWhat was the date, approximately, of the first large purchase?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERIn October of the previous year. I am giving roughly the date.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWas that the large and exceptional purchase of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThat is the large and exceptional purchase, but there were further large purchases, as I am informed. I have not for the second statement the authority of the "Times Trade Supplement" as in the first case, and the first purchase in October could be described as wise buying and intelligent anticipation of market prices, but the later purchases on top of the purchases in 1927, 257 at a price, not of 11s. 7½d., but gradually rising to 12s., were evidently in anticipation of something that was coining. As a result of the heavy buying, and, I suppose, the consequent result of the clearing of the surplus stocks of Cuban raws, the price rose from 12s. to 13s. 6d., and in February of this year the price of British refined sugar was raised by stages from 28s. 9d. to 30s. 9d., and it was only a day or two before the Budget that the price of British refined was reduced, not 2s., which it had risen, but 6d., and so at the date of the introduction of the Budget the price was 1s. 6d. above that ruling early in February.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWhat was the exact date?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERTwo or three days before the Budget the price went down from 30s. 9d. to 30s. 3d. Thus it will be seen that the trade and the consumers had been paying an increased price for round about two months before the actual introduction of the Chancellor's Budget proposals, and it was quite easy in the circumstances for the trade to come along and say to the Chancellor, "If you will give us this concession of ¼d. per lb. upon Cuban raw sugar, we will promise to give the whole of that to the consumer." Either by intelligent anticipation, or very good information as to what was going to happen in their case, they had been able to anticipate and take a considerable proportion of their profits—profits unjustified, having regard to the large purchases made in the previous year, as well as at the beginning of this year. It is significant that when catechising the Financial Secretary, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the Budget Resolutions, the Financial Secretary produced a letter from the trade, or, I gather, there were two letters, one from each of the two principal firms—in fact, there are only two British firms in the British sugar-refining industry—undertaking not to increase prices in any circumstances within three months after the Budget. They had had nearly two months of increased price for their stock of raw material, so that they could do that without very much difficulty.
In the meantime, what do we see? It was one of my hon. Friends who said on the Budget Resolution that, as a result 258 of this preferential treatment to a section of the trade, the tendency would be to create a monopoly for British refined sugar. I do not say that a monopoly has come, but there is nobody who has been in touch with the sugar market since the Budget who does not know that there is a danger of monopoly coming. There has been practically no business at all since the Budget in imported refined sugar. I suppose some of those people from whom we import sugar may want to buy something we make in this country, and if they do not sell us sugar they may not be so inclined to buy things back from us. I have seen the figures, and I do not forget that, while nobody values more than do we upon these benches whatever trade we do within the British Commonwealth of Nations, we have to remember that roughly 60 per cent. of our exports go to other countries, and a very valuable part of the export trade is our own production. If that is the position, we are likely eventually to be at the mercy of the people who are being given this control, and I would beg of the Chancellor to take these facts into account, and also see if he can answer the particular case I have put.
Let me remind the Chancellor that be cannot say this afternoon there was not foreknowledge of what was going to happen, because if he says so, we shall ask, how was it that the Queensland industry knew what was going to happen? There was the squabble between the two sections of the industry as to what should be the degree of polarisation at which the exemption of ¼d. should be given. The Queensland sugar industry, weeks before the Budget, withdrew from the Empire Federation, because, apparently, they were not to get the rebate because they were polarising at 99 degrees instead of 98, and it was only at a later date, before the introduction of the Budget, that an agreement was arrived at between the sugar industry and the Queensland people that the polarisation should be 99 instead of 98. So that they had come down to the discussion of the details, and were anticipating clearly what the amount of relief was to be. I think it is quite clear that the sugar-refining industry in this country is getting away with a very good thing, and that the ultimate results to the consumer 259 of this country, with the exception I have mentioned, will almost amount to nil. The real intention of the Chancellor—and I say this quite deliberately—is not to benefit the consumer by this manipulation of the duties, but to make some amends to the British sugar-refining industry for the very severe handicap that it has suffered because of the heavy subsidy to the British home-grown sugar industry. So much for the remission of the ¼d. upon raw sugar.
What about the increase in the preferential rate? I have been rather surprised during the progress of this Budget through Committee that more attention has not been called to what is happening in this matter. It is only by a careful study of the details set out in the Schedule to the Bill that one realises what changes are taking place. I pick up the Finance Act, 1924, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was responsible, and, looking at the Schedules dealing with the Sugar Duty there, I find that on all classes of sugar upon which Customs Duty was leviable, there was also an Excise Duty equal to five-sixths of the whole duty. There has been a very considerable change since then. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making concessions all round, but in the Second Schedule to the present Bill we find that the amount of the preferential reduction has gone up, so that it is now one-half of the whole duty, that is, the Empire sugar producers are to be relieved to the extent of half of the duty. Therefore, nearly ¾d. on every pound of sugar sold to the working-class consumers of this country goes as a bounty or subsidy to the Empire sugar producer. That is the position. It has failed as a tax, but it goes to the Empire sugar producer. I should like the Chancellor to explain that, and let us know whether he thinks that is really a good thing, and, indeed, whether he thinks that all these Empire sugar-producing industries are worthy of support from such a source as that of taxing the breakfast table of the British working people for these industries overseas.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the report in the "Times" of 23rd June dealing with the Australian sugar industry, he will have some idea 260 as to what is the economic condition of the sugar industry in Queensland. I got some idea myself when I was out there in 1926. They have 150,000 tons of sugar surplus for export. The export price they can get for that sugar is £12, but so uneconomic is the production of sugar there, that in order to balance their accounts, they have first to prohibit the import of any other sugar into Australia, and, secondly, to charge the home consumer in Australia, not £12 a ton, but £27 a ton, and unless they get that wholly fictitious price of £27, they make a complete loss over the whole industry. For an uneconomic industry of that kind, British working men and women are charged nearly ¾d. a lb. on their sugar, in order to give a bounty or subsidy to the Empire sugar producers from whom we get supplies. I think it is unjustifiable. I believe in developing all we can, in a reasonable way, our relations, trading and otherwise, with the constituent nations of the British Commonwealth, but I protest against taxing the necessities of our working-class people in order to bolster up uneconomic industries in other parts of the British Empire. That is really what the Chancellor is doing by his increase of preferential rates in this regard, and, I venture to say, that had this happened in 1909 or 1910, when be was such a leading authority on Free Trade, he would have been completely shocked at the folly of giving Imperial Preference at that rate.
There is one other point to which I would like to draw attention, and that is that three years ago, in the Finance Act, it was decided to extend whatever preference was granted to Empire-grown sugar, to home-grown sugar, and so the home-grown sugar industry gets the whole relief which is granted to the Empire of 5s. 10d. per cwt. That means that an industry which has already been so much helped that it put the British sugar refiners into serious difficulty, which is getting 19s. 6d. per cwt. by direct subsidy, is to get another 5s. 10d., in addition to extra allowances upon molasses and glucose. If you take the actual price of imported refined sugar to-day, 27s. including the Duty, it means that the net price is 15s. 4d., and the fact of giving another 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d. to home-grown sugar by this Budget will mean that with the subsidy and special preferential treatment they will be 261 getting a total subsidy from the State of 128½ per cent. on the present net price of imported refined sugar. That is absolutely unjustifiable.
Hon. Members opposite will say that all parties in the State have supported the proposal to assist home-grown sugar, but we on these benches have made it quite plain that there ought not to be a subsidy of this kind without some measure of control and without a share of the profits which arise from the subsidy and assistance accruing to the State. In the trade columns of the "Times" there are accounts of half-a-dozen of these companies, all of which are making large profits, although it is perfectly plain that they are so uneconomically conducted that if it were not for the subsidy and the preference, everyone of them, except that of Bury St. Edmunds, will be making a loss. Instead, they are distributing bonuses to the shareholders at the rate of 20 per cent. and 12 per cent., writing off large sums, and adding large sums to reserve, at a time when apparently there is no prospect that we shall ever succeed in establishing a sugar beet-growing industry in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet all our difficulties if he would respond to what must be the beatings of his own heart, his sympathy with the consumer, and repeal the tax in its entirety. He has expressed the opinion that sugar is the first commodity from which the tax should be repealed——
§ Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWell, at any rate, he regards sugar as being more urgent than many other things. He would meet a great deal of our difficulties if he would repeal this Duty entirely. If he does not then I say that kind of manipulation which has been practised in this Budget is unjustifiable. Special relief to this class of beneficiare, another relief to another class, and all the time taking the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to do it. It is fundamentally unsound to tax the consumer in a way in which the yield of the tax does not reach the Treasury.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLEveryone knows that the hon. Member and some of his friends, including the most influential, view with a critical if not an hostile eye the development of Imperial 262 preference which has been undertaken during the last 10 years with the general and overwhelming assent of the great majority of the people of this country. We are also aware of the repeated pledges which have been made on behalf of the next Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Socialist Government, to the effect that all ii direct taxation is to be swept away, including particularly the taxes on tea and sugar, and that the sum is to be made good by an increase in direct taxation; through increases in Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties. I do not think we need go into these matters this afternoon. If it so be that in a year from now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has so changed his situation and is sitting here——
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman is now opening up an argument which I shall not be able to prevent other hon. Members from following.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWith great respect, I was not intending to stray from the question as to whether the Sugar Duty should be repealed or not, but when we are confronted with definite proposals for the repeal of that duty, I submit that I was in no way transgressing the limits of Debate in indicating that that might lead to serious inconveniences in other directions.
§ The CHAIRMANAll Ministers in their ardour for their cause unconsciously widen the bounds of discussion. Other hon. Members cannot be stopped from following them, and it is therefore necessary to utter a word of warning at the first possible moment.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI will follow any guidance which you may think good enough to give me, and will confine myself to saying that should the right hon. Member for Colne Valley be called upon to assume this responsibility in a short space of time, we shall watch with the greatest care whether he will be able to carry out the pledges which have been made on his behalf and repeal the duty now under discussion, and other duties which have been mentioned. We are also aware of the doubts which have been expressed in some quarters about the policy of encouraging the development of the sugar-beet industry in this country, and I am sure that it is easy 263 to make a serious case against it. At the same time, there is a tremendous case to be made for it as an experiment. It was an experiment approved by the party opposite and carried out by us, and it has not yet been completed. Heavy expenditure has been incurred by the firms which started the industry at the outset and, undoubtedly, they are being rewarded and getting back their capital expenditure and outlay. It is part of our policy that they should be prosperous and that others should be encouraged to imitate their example, so that the industry will take root. Whether it will or not is unknown. Whether we have really lit a new fire which will warm British commercial and economic interests, or whether we have just lit a bonfire which will blaze away only so long as the material lasts and then die out, cannot yet be known.
But the bounty has been reduced already as a first step, and in this year I am counting upon that in my calculations. As far as I am aware the industry is holding its own vigorously. Whether it will reveal qualities of permanent survival, it is not yet possible to foretell. It is an experiment, a costly one, but one which, if it succeeds, will add an entirely new feature to agriculture and industry in this country.
But these matters, to which I do not propose to address my attention this afternoon, are matters of general interest, and I would rather deal with the more specific matters referred to by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) with a great deal more moderation than was practised in the House or out of it by his Leader, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. Let us see what the right hon. Gentleman said to his own constituents on the 1st May:
This plan between Mr. Churchill and the sugar refiners has been concocted during the past few months and preparations made for it in order to bamboozle the public. The shares of one of the refining companies rose some weeks ago. This was on the knowledge these people had of what Mr. Churchill was going to do. £2,500,000 has been added to the ordinary shares of that one sugar refining industry during the last six weeks.That statement contains a number of extremely offensive aspersions and charges which I believe, which I am sure, are 264 quite untrue. In view of the fact that these allegations have been revived to-day by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, the Committee will wish me to enter upon the topic with some explicitness. The right hon. Gentleman said that a plan has been concocted "to bamboozle the public," and that I am a party to that plan. I give the House my assurance that there is absolutely no truth in it. When I make that statement I expect hon. Members to believe it, When other hon. Members make statements I believe them, unless other facts are brought to our notice which make it, unhappily, impossible to accept them. I took no part in the negotiations with the sugar refiners except that I saw them a year ago when they came in a deputation to me, and I must say that they impressed me with the fact that we were doing them an injustice; that the working of Imperial preference and the beet subsidy were, in fact, putting them in a very invidious position.After that I never saw them in any negotiations. They were conducted by the Board of Customs and Excise, who informed me that proposals were being made to them which would have the effect of procuring reductions in the price of sugar greater than the corresponding loss to the Revenue. It occurred to me that this might be a feature which I could use in connection with the proposed duty on oils in order to relieve some of those who would be prejudicially affected by the taxation of kerosene, and also that there was an opportunity to rectify what undoubtedly was a case of real hardship and injustice to an important British industry, brought about directly by the Government's entry into the field of competitive production. But I confined myself to reading the reports which were submitted to me and took no part whatever in the discussions on this matter until the very latest period before the Budget was finally settled.
A few days before the actual date of the Budget I saw articles appearing in the newspapers criticising the proposals which had been put to me from the Board of Customs and Excise, and it was evident that those who were circulating these articles and paragraphs were fully acquainted with the plan which the Board of Customs and Excise had discussed with the Sugar Refiners' Associa- 265 tion. I was offended at this and considered very carefully at first whether I would not delete the project altogether from the Budget. I raised the question de novo with the Board of Customs and Excise and said that there appeared to be a leakage of confidential information which was very unusual in regard to the many people we have to consult when preparing a Budget, and that if that were so and there had been an improper use made of this information, I should not allow this proposal to appear in the Budget.
I received what appeared to me to be quite conclusive answers, not only to the attacks made on the merits of the policy, but on the specific point of behaviour into which I was inquiring before I was committed to the proposal that I made to the House when the Budget was opened. When I decided to put this proposal in the Budget, it was with the full knowledge of all that could be said against it and after having previously examined the question of whether those with whom we had negotiated had been guilty of improper disclosure of confidential information. I am quite sure that the parties with whom the Customs and Excise were dealing were not those responsible for this matter becoming, as it did, very largely public property. The Refiners' Association, of course, are only one of the interests involved in this matter. The proposal had its reaction on other sugar interests, and the Customs advised the refiners to get into touch with representatives of home-grown sugar and Empire producers in order to arrive at a scheme acceptable to all. How could they avoid doing that? Surely it was necessary for them to try to present a scheme for the acceptance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to be able to say that behind it all the varied interests were ranged and that there was general agreement.
They took this step, and the proposal of the Refiners' Association consequently became known to a considerable number of people, including the London representatives of the Mauritius and Queensland producers, who had to communicate with their clients abroad. On 6th March the Customs received a deputation from the Sugar Federation of the British Empire, and very soon after there 266 appeared in the Press a cable from Queensland to the Agent-General objecting to the proposals of the Federation and resigning from it. At this time the general nature of the proposals of the refiners was known throughout the trade. What was only a matter of surmise, which was not unattended with very great risks, was whether in the ultimate result I should accept this scheme which had been negotiated by the Customs, or whether I should reject it.
I do not see how it was possible for the refiners to avoid consulting these other interests. Observe that they were consulting interests other than their own, which in important respects were adverse interests; and it was these adverse interests which began the agitation and sent round carefully prepared articles to the various newspaper offices and generally endeavoured to prejudice the proposals. I do not myself see how blame can be attached to the interests which were in favour of the proposal because in the process of consulting other interests, which were adverse, the matter became public property. I am satisfied myself that it was not through any breach of confidence on the part of the British refiners that the matter had become public property.
Now I come to the more serious allegation, lamely, that the reduction in the price of sugar which has taken place since the Budget—which the right hon. Gentleman opposite on 25th April said would not take place but which did in fact take place—is not a real reduction, but is a mere pretence, that the price had been worked up beforehand to an artificial level, and that it was a very cheap concession for the refiners to make a reduction after having carefully prepared an increase for the purpose. I do not think that that is true. I am advised by the Customs that it is not so. I take full responsibility for everything that I say and I do not base myself upon any authority but my own. Nevertheless, in dealing with these intricate matters, in examining the movements of prices and so on, naturally I fortify myself with the advice of my experts. I am advised that it is not true to say that there was any such artificial rise, that the prices were put up in order that the Exchequer might be promised a reduction after the measures that they were taking.
267 If you look over the course of sugar prices from the beginning of 1927 to the present time, it would appear, broadly speaking—and subject to minor fluctuations, which appear over the whole series of years back to 1924—that there has been a steady diminution in the price. In January, 1927, the price of Tate and Lyle granulated sugar was 33s. 10½d. to 34s. 4½d. a cwt. In April it had fallen to 32s. 4d.; in August it was 30s. 10½d.; in January 29s. 10½d.; in February 29s. 4½d.; in March 29s. 1½d.; and in April it rose to 30s. 7½d. I see nothing in those prices to indicate any attempt to create an artificial foundation for a subsequent reduction. Anyone who likes to look will see that the price movements are not beyond the scope or scale of those which usually take place. But it is not only a question of the actual price of refined sugar. The price in this country is governed by the world price of raw sugar, and the important point in this matter is not actual prices, but the relation of the selling price of refined sugar to the raw sugar world price.
I have seen all the figures for the lest two years for Tate and Lyle's sugar. I have been looking down the differences, and they have hardly varied by more than 6d. or 7d. during the whole of this period, from July, 1926, to the present time. In April of 1927 the difference was 17s. 9d.—the margin between the raw sugar c.i.f. and the selling price of refined sugar duty paid. That was on 12th April, 1927. On 2nd April, 1928, it was 17s. 7½d., and on the 16th it was 17s. 6d.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERIt is a little difficult to see how those figures help. The right hon. Gentleman is just giving the margin between the raw sugar price and the refined selling price, based on world level of prices, but can he give the actual purchase prices and selling prices. I have made a specific charge of their having made a purchase at a low price.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am coming to that in a minute. My case is that if you look down the whole of the prices of this firm during the last two or three years, you will find that there has been a steady decline. There is an occasional step back of a 1s. or so, but on the whole there has been a steady decline, and there is no evidence of any attempt to make a rise in price for the purpose 268 of making a subsequent reduction. That is my first point.
§ Mr. SNOWDENCan the right hon. Gentleman give some of the later figures?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe figure in February, 1927, was 33s. 1½d. per cwt., and a year later 29s. 4½d. That is for Tate and Lyle granulated sugar. My second point is that not only has the price steadily declined subject to these minor fluctuations, but that these minor fluctuations are themselves comparable to and connected with similar fluctuations in the price of Cuban raw sugar. Lastly, my point is that the margin between the price at which the sugar has been put on the market and the price at which it is purchased in its raw state in the world market has remained almost entirely constant. I have never attached much importance to the undertaking which these refiners gave, to reduce the price by 2s. 4d. for three months irrespective of world conditions. But they volunteered that proposition. I wished to know what they would do, but I did not specify that particular condition. What I attached importance to was their undertaking that the normal margin between the world price and their selling price shall be decreased by the full amount of the relief which we are giving in the Budget. There you have a standard which can be followed evenly, irrespective of the various movements of price in the world market. Their prices have always been a certain distance above the prices of raw sugar and they are that distance above them still less the amount of the relief in the Budget.
Then there is the question of the large purchases, which are said to have been made, of Cuban raw sugar. Here, again, I am really astonished to know that it is a crime to make purchases in advance. A trade which is serving the country with an indispensable commodity is naturally bound to buy ahead. It cannot be successful unless it does so. How can we say that any firms buying for the English market and consumer are not to be allowed to purchase in the world market on terms as advantageous as they can get? [Interruption.] I am now replying to very offensive charges which have been made, and I do not propose for a moment to allow them to pass without a most complete reply. I can- 269 not conceive why anyone should not be entitled to purchase freely in the markets of the world and advantageously for their customers. If the purchase is disadvantageous they suffer a loss, but if they are able to make a good purchase of a raw material like that, then if they are still continuing to serve the public on a fair and normal basis, they are perfectly entitled to take advantage of the opportunity. With regard to the abnormal purchase of 150,000 tons of sugar which took place in the autumn of last year, I am advised that it was purchased in October, 1927, long before the Budget changes were thought of.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERNo.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLCertainly as far as I am concerned. I am advised that this amount, which represents not more than 10 weeks' supply, had all passed into consumption before the Budget. So much for this abnormal purchase. It was bought before these matters had reached any decisive stage and was used up before the Budget and it is no good for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to smile sarcastically in face of this overwhelming reply. All these matters will be read and studied most carefully in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Gentleman opposite are so pleased about it perhaps they will let me continue. It is quite true that further purchases were made in February and March which amounted to 190,000 tons but, as I say, why not? How are they going to carry on their trade if they are not allowed to buy raw sugar in order to be able to supply the public? Why should it be wrong for British refiners to purchase 190,000 tons of raw sugar when at the same time and in the same market the United States sugar refiners bought 370,000 tons? I cannot understand why a matter of this kind should be brought in as evidence to suggest that some plot has been concocted.
§ Mr. HARDIEFree Trade principles!
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is not contrary to Free Trade principles to buy in the cheapest market. In fact I imagine that if there was one principle which we could take as a prime and paramount principle it would be that. I have dealt with that point but there is one other with which I wish to deal and that is the question 270 of the rise in the shares of Tate and Lyle——[Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMANI hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed without interruption.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am really not anxious to arouse feeling but I would remind hon. Members opposite that a number of offensive charges have been made, I am accused of having concocted a plan to bamboozle the public. If I thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite believed that I am bound to say I should treat it even more seriously than I am doing. Nevertheless it has been said in public and I am determined that it shall be answered as far as I am concerned. As to the rise in shares of Tate and Lyle it has been said by the hon. Gentleman to-day that they rose from 28s. to 44s. at the date of the Budget. They are, I believe, 41s. to-day. I am informed that no purchases of their own shares have been made this year by any member of the firm of Tate and Lyle. I am authorised to make that statement. This great firm we are told amounts to a monopoly. It is one of the principal firms—overwhelmingly the largest firm—in the industry and, as I say, no purchases of their own shares have been made by any member of the firm. The only transaction that has taken place has been the sale by Sir Ernest Tale of some shares belonging to his late mother which he had to realise as a trustee. This transaction took place before the rise in the price of the shares and the price realised was 31s. The shares have now risen to 42s. I think that statement disposes of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the rise which followed on the giving of confidential information had put about £2,500,000 into the pockets of this industry.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI said into the pockets of the shareholders.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have the statement here and it is that £2,500,000 had been added to the ordinary shares of that one particular refining industry. I am really surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his position and experience, should make so misleading a statement. As a matter of fact the market in fate and Lyle's shares is a 271 very narrow one and the price responds to very small purchases and sales. The idea that the value of their property has been increased by £2,500,000 as a result of the marking up of these quotations is entirely illusory. If they were to attempt to realise this £2,500,000, which figured so well on the public platform before an audience of course the very first step taken would destroy the value which has since been reached.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWhat are market values?
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask hon. Members to listen attentively. Nothing would be easier than to interrupt in like manner from the other side.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWhat about the other side when they do the same thing? Be impartial.
§ The CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) to resume his seat.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWhat about what they did to me a fortnight ago?
§ The CHAIRMANI have asked the hon. Member to resume his seat.
§ Mr. SHINWELLMay I say that when those on the other side do this very thing to me there is no protest from the Chair. [Interruption.] An hon. Member sitting near me says that is a lie. Is it a lie?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will please resume his seat when I request him to do so. When he is called upon to speak, he will have exactly the same protection as any other hon. Member.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI rise to a point of Order, Sir. An hon. Member sitting below the Gangway says that the statement I have just made is a lie, and I ask you if that is an expression which should be permitted.
§ The CHAIRMANIf any hon. Member addressed another in those terms, of course it was exceedingly wrong, and, if he does it within my hearing, I should have to ask him to withdraw the words.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have no wish to detain the Committee unduly, but I desire to reply to the statements which have been made from the other side. I 272 was saying that if it were true that we, by our action, put £2,500,000 into the pockets of this industry, or of this particular firm, it would equally be true to say that the policy which we have pursued in regard to beet sugar and in regard to Imperial Preference had, since our tenure of office, taken £3,500,000 out of their pockets, because their shares, which now stand at 41s., stood at 54s. four years ago, and they fell from 54s. to 28s. as a result of the very invidious reactions which followed from measures undertaken by the State for quite different purposes. Therefore, I think that when next the right hon. Gentleman visits his constituents and tells them that the Government have handed over £2,500,000 as a special favour to their particular friends, he might, in fairness, state that even on his own unreal hypothesis, they had previously taken away £3,500,000 from the same favoured trade. So much for this aspect of the proposal.
§ Mr. VARLEYIt is a mere coincidence that the shares may have gone up.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNot at all. I said that the firm in question with whom we were negotiating were not responsible for that. That is all I am saying, but there was knowledge and I have explained how the knowledge got about, and that speculators used it and I have explained the effect on the narrow market for these shares. I am defending those with whom we were in negotiation from very gross and wounding and damaging charges which have been brought against them, and which I sincerely believe are neither just nor true.
Let me now explain some of the effects of this step. I am informed that the wages bill of the refiners has been increased by approximately 25 per cent. since the Budget. I do not mean the rate of wages, but the amount of wages paid, and for a full year that means an increase of £300,000 or £400,000. I am informed that the imports of raw sugar during April and May of this year were 116,000 tons greater than in the corresponding period of last year, and that the imports of foreign refined sugar were 46,000 tons less and on the balance 70,000 tons more sugar have been imported into the United Kingdom during those two months. That is a 20 per cent. increase which in a full year would amount to 273 350,000 tons. The refiners melt has increased by more than 25 per cent., and in a full year that means the use of 100,000 tons more coal and 3,000,000 more jute bags together with a correspondingly increased demand in all the allied trades. A large amount of expenditure has been undertaken or is being sanctioned in alterations and additions to the refineries. I believe that the Greenock refineries, which were closed not by foreign competition but by extraneous circumstances, may shortly re-open. As to the reduction in price about which the right hon. Gentleman was sceptical, the prices were reduced by 2s. 4d. per cwt. on the day following the Budget and a further reduction of 9d. per cwt. has since been made. As I say, I give no guarantee as to the effect of movements in the world market, but I am in possession of assurances from refiners that, while their price movements vary with the movements in the world price, full allowance will be made for the remission of taxation which we have made. That we shall be able to test as time goes on. The only cloud that I can see immediately upon the sugar horizon is that certain retailers are, I believe, consulting among themselves upon the propriety of raising the retail price of sugar in order to increase the margin of profit to the retailer. I do not admit for a moment that anything that has taken place in the Budget has created a situation which would justify an alteration to the detriment of the consumer, and I trust—and I say so not unadvisedly—that the hon. Member who has just spoken and the great co-operative institution which he represents will be forward in assisting the public against being defrauded of the remission in the Sugar Duty which, at the cost of nearly £3,000,000 to the revenue, we have endeavoured to convey to the country.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI think the right hon. Gentleman would have served his own interests better if he had permitted this matter to rest where it remained after the Report stage of the Budget Resolution. I am sure no unprejudiced member of the Committee who has heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer would regard his statement as a satisfactory explanation and a satisfactory refutation of the charges made from this side of the Committee. The most audacious of the statements, or excuses, which the 274 right hon. Gentleman has made, has been his attempt to throw off his own responsibility for what took place before the Budget and to put it on to the shoulders of the Board of Customs and Excise. Did the Board of Customs and Excise enter into these negotiations for the purpose of carrying through a Budget proposal without the knoweldge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I am not asking for an answer.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe answer is: Certainly not.
§ Mr. SNOWDENVery well. The Board of Customs and Excise entered upon thesis negotiations with the knowledge and on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman has come down here this afternoon to try to rebut a charge that he himself was responsible for what took place in those few weeks before the proposal was made in his Budget in regard to the Sugar Duty by saddling the responsibility upon the Board of Customs and Excise. If I had not heard the right hon. Gentleman make his confession that he was aware of what the Board of Customs and Excise were doing, that they were doing it with his knowledge and on his instructions, the impression would have been left on my mind that he was entirely ignorant of what the Board of Customs and Excise were doing, until they presented to him their memorandum.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI really must answer that. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I said that I took the very fullest responsibility for what had been done. What I meant was that while I authorised these negotiations, I did not concern myself at all with their details; that I authorised the Board of Customs and Excise to ascertain what form such project would take when it had been thrashed out with the parties concerned; and that I myself reserved my power of final decision upon it. I am not attempting to shelter myself behind the Board of Customs and Excise.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe right hon. Gentleman is not now attempting to shelter himself behind what the Board of Customs and Excise do, but that is certainly the only impression that could 275 have been obtained by listening to the early part of his speech. He began by quoting some remarks which I made in a speech which I delivered to my constituents a few weeks ago, in which I had associated the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself with what took place in regard to the manipulation of sugar prices, anterior to the introduction of the Budget, and then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not he who was responsible, that he had had nothing to do with these negotiations, that, as a matter of fact, he had not met these people during the weeks preceding the introduction of the Budget, that he had met them about 12 months before, and that that was the only direct communication which he had had with them. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to get out of a difficult situation by creating the impression that it was not he but his subordinates who were responsible for what took place.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat is not what I said.
§ Mr. SNOWDENWe will let the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech settle that to-morrow. I am quite sure that what I am saying is what the right hon. Gentleman said, or that at any rate it is the only possible impression that could have been conveyed to his hearers by what he was saying. What is the charge of the right hon. Gentleman? His charge is that I said that the negotiations which had taken place in the weeks which preceded the introduction of the Budget had bamboozled the public.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. SNOWDENWill the right hon. Gentleman read the words?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI will read the words:
This plan between Mr. Churchill and the sugar refiners has been concocted during the past few months and preparations made for it in order to bamboozle the public.That is the report of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I am taking objection.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI quite admit that the language might have been a little less Churchillian, but every word I said 276 then I stand by. I say that there were negotiations, the main purpose of which was to enable the sugar refiners to make a pretence of reducing the price of sugar by a farthing per pound in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of saying that he had done something, by reducing the duty on sugar, to bring about a reduction in the price of it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken this afternoon from a brief which it is quite evident has been prepared for him by the sugar refiners. There are two or three outstanding facts in connection with this matter, and it is those facts that will settle whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or whether I and my friends are right. What are those facts? The right hon. Gentleman announced in his Budget speech that this remission of duty upon foreign imported sugar would enable the retail price of sugar to be reduced by a farthing per pound, and he told us that he had an assurance from the sugar refiners that such a reduction in the retail price of sugar would take place. What I had in my mind when I was making that speech, and I think that other parts of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has not quoted would have made that quite clear, was that preparations had been made some weeks before to concoct a plan between the revenue authorities, for whom the right hon. Gentleman takes the responsibility, and the sugar refiners. They had, in other words, been manipulating the sugar market, so that they would be able, without any loss to themselves, to reduce the retail price of sugar by a farthing per pound as soon as the Budget announcement was made.
About the facts of that there can be no dispute whatever. The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that in October of last year certain sugar refiners made quite unusually large purchases of Cuban raws at a very low price. The right hon. Gentleman admits that several months ago, probably over 12 months ago, he had an interview with the sugar refiners: I think it was in October of the previous year, but, at any rate, about 12 months before the introduction of the last Budget. Now that is when the conspiracy began. It was as a result of the right hon. Gentleman hearing the pitiable case presented by the sugar refiners that, no doubt, instructions were given to the Board of Customs and 277 Excise that they should go into the matter and that they should prepare a memorandum for the right hon. Gentleman, Therefore it had been known for nearly 12 months that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was likely to do what he actually did. That is why these exceptionally large purchases of sugar were made at such a low price. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make a very cheap debating point by insinuating that we had complained about these business firms buying in a favourable market at a cheap price. Did my hon. Friend say that? Not at all; he said the very opposite. He said that that was good business, and that they had a perfect right to take advantage of the state of the world market in sugar, just as every other trader, if he has any sense, takes advantage of a favourable market and buys on the cheapest possible terms. It is perfectly clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us this afternoon that for 12 months the sugar refiners have been manipulating the sugar market in view of what was likely to take place in the Budget of this year. The whole thing hinges upon that.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWhat do you mean by "manipulating"?
§ Mr. SNOWDENBy "manipulating" I mean manipulating. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at a dictionary he will find that "manipulating" means working circumstances and opportunities in order to bring about a desired result.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe word "manipulating," used as the right hon. Gentleman used it, means something improper. If he says that the sugar refiners were carrying on their business in a proper manner, I certainly do not differ from him; if that is manipulating the sugar market, they did it; but, if he says that there was an improper conspiracy and that unworthy methods were employed, then I say that that is not the case.
§ Mr. SNOWDENNo, I say that it is quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us this afternoon that it was known for 12 months, or that at any rate it was expected, or hoped—I will make the right hon. Gentleman every possible concession; I will say that it was hoped for 12 months—that something was going to happen, and that 278 something did happen in the Budget. Therefore, in anticipation of that, they had been preparing the market in order that they might, without any loss to themselves, be able to make a reduction in the price of sugar equal to the amount of the remission of duty. In February, about two months before the introduction of the Budget, the price of sugar was raised. In the course of a few weeks it had risen by about a farthing a pound. Then, two months later, when this reduction was made, they took off that farthing per pound; but that is no loss to the refiners. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had largely exhausted the stocks of cheap sugar which they held, but that purchase of sugar in October of last year to which so much attention has been drawn was not the only large purchase which they had made. The price of Cuban raws, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, rose in the course of a few months by about 2s. per cwt. and they had in the interval been buying at intermediate prices, and undoubtedly they had been refining sugar from raws which had been purchased at the lowest price at which they had bought. They had therefore been manipulating. I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is good business. I do not know that there is anything immoral about it, and I am not complaining about it, but what we are saying is that this had been done not merely to make profits but to put themselves into a position to make that concession which they knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would insist upon when he made that reduction in the Sugar Duty.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI thank the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry-Deans) for that interjection. He asks "Why not?" In February, they had raised the price of sugar by a farthing per pound; they took it off after the Budget was introduced. The claim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the claim of the Tory party is, and will be at the next Election, that the alteration in the Sugar Duty made by the right hon. Gentleman has benefited the consumers of sugar by a farthing per pound. Now we have got this point, and it is the crux of the matter, and that is why we say that it was a manipulation, and 279 that it was bamboozling the public. Knowing that this was to be done, they raised the price two months before without any need, because they were making very big profits at that time, and they could have afforded to reduce the price rather than to raise it, but, in anticipation of what they would be required to do to serve the political interests of the Tory party two months later, they raised the price of sugar by a farthing per pound. Therefore, there was no reduction in April when the farthing was taken off. What they simply did was to restore the retail price of sugar to the figure at which it stood in February.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWill the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point that the ratio between the price of Cuban raw and the British selling price had not been altered during these price changes, and that the margin has been reduced since the tax has been levied?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThat has nothing to do with it, because the whole point is not how the world sugar prices have changed since April, but the ratio between the prices for the raw sugar which was refined and the English sugar which was retailed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he was afraid that there was a movement on foot by the Retail Grocers' Association to raise the price of sugar, and the right hon. Gentleman insinuated that that would mean so much more profit for the retailers of sugar. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman spoke from a brief prepared by the Customs authorities, shall I say, on information supplied to them very largely by the sugar refiners. I happen to know how these things are done. The right hon. Gentleman insinuated that if the retail grocers succeeded in raising the price of sugar by a farthing, that would mean so much more profit to them. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, his advisers know quite well that the retailers of sugar have been selling sugar at a loss during the last few months.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAre you in favour of it?
§ Mr. SNOWDENWe are not in favour of the right hon. Gentleman claiming credit for having reduced the price of sugar, when he has taken it out of the 280 pockets of the sugar retailers of the country in the first instance, and later out of the pockets of the consumers. Probably the right hon. Gentleman has not time to read the trade papers. If he had, he would have known that for weeks the "Grocer," the organ of the grocery trade, has been full of letters on this subject from retailers. Every letter is like this one:
I would like to ask the Secretary of the Refiners' Association where we can purchase sugar to retail at 3d. per lb. at a profit. On the wholesale price I pay I lose 9d. a bag. I would advise my grocer friends to give up selling sugar and invest their money in sugar refining companies and get 15 per cent.I have disposed of every one of the attempts at explanation which were made by the, right hon. Gentleman. For 12 or 18 months the sugar refiners of the country had known what was likely to happen. They had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he banded the matter over to the Customs officials. They entered into negotiations—conversations, shall I say—with the sugar refiners, and by February the thing had become so settled that it leaked out. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it leaked out. About that time the sugar refiners regarded the matter as settled, and knowing that they would have to reduce the price of sugar by a farthing, they raised it by a farthing a pound. That is the bamboozling to which I referred. The preparations that were carried on for more than 12 months are the manipulations to which I referred. No amount of figures read from briefs—which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understood for a moment—will alter these bald facts. The bald facts are that there has been no real reduction in the price of sugar, that the temporary reduction of the retail price was simply going back to the price that obtained two months before. Just a word or two about the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Tate and Lyle's shares. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny the fact that the shares rose between February and the introduction of the Budget by 50 per cent.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI stated the figures.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe right hon. Gentleman would never have called attention to that fact if we had not done so. The information leaked out. The right hon. 281 Gentleman admits it. I always said, in referring to the rise in the price of these shares in the few weeks previous to the introduction of the Budget, that it added £2,600,000 to their nominal capital value; at any rate, it added that to the Stock Exchange value of these shares. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a limited market in these shares, and therefore prices fluctuated.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLSmall transactions.
§ Mr. SNOWDENBut is the statement correct? Did not the shares rise from 28s. to 44s., the figure at which they stood just after the introduction of the Budget? Was not that just the opportunity for that number of people who were able to take advantage of the Stock Exchange movement? There are quite a number of other points which the right hon. Gentleman raised in his speech, about which I might say something, but I have confined myself to dealing with the attempt that was made to discredit some remarks which I made. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the last occasion on which I shall make a similar statement. What I said was perfectly true. May I say, in conclusion, that I do not, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I do, impute anything discreditable to him—not for a single moment. He was playing the political game, and he might have played it successfully if the truth had not leaked out. That was one of the spectacular things of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget; it was the first act in the preparation for the Tory election programme 12 months hence—a reduction of a farthing a pound in sugar! There has been, I repeat, no reduction in the price of sugar. That is the whole point of my observations; it is the whole point of our criticism.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLSince when has there been no reduction in the price of sugar?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI will try to put it in words of one syllable, if I can, in order to bring it within the comprehension of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap!"]. Well, I have said it half a dozen times. There was an increase, I said, in February, an increase which was put on in anticipation of the reduction which the refiners knew they 282 would have to make in April, and if the right hon. Gentleman calls that a reduction, he is perfectly welcome to it. At any rate, we shall miss no opportunity of telling She electors of this country that that part of the Budget was the result of the manipulations which took place for 12 months previously, and that it was nothing but an attempt to bamboozle the public for political advantage.
Mr. TINNEMay we come for a moment from the sugar refiners to see how these duties affect the Colonial producers? The Colonial producers are those who are not, like South Africa and Australia, protected in their own home market. Large Dominion producers of sugar who are contributing to the British market, are substantially protected in their own home markets, Australia by the absolute prohibition of imports and South Africa by a duty of 9s. 6d. per cwt. on refined, and 8s. on other grades, so that their producers have not to look to this market in the same way as the Colonial producer has The Colonies have to export the whole of their production, and they can only look to Canada or She United Kingdom for their markets. The effect of the present preference is as follows. In Canada, the full rate of duty per 100 lbs. is 1.28 dollars. Preferentia duty on Colonial sugar is 28½ cents., that is to say, a preference per 100 lbs. of sugar of one dollar, which, at the exchange rate of 4.88, is 4s. 7d. per cwt. In the United Kingdom the duty per cwt. is 8s. 2d. and the duty on Empire sugar is 4s. 5d. The result of that is that there is preference in favour of Canada at the moment of 10¼d. per cwt. It is that preference which I wish to eliminate, the difference between the preferences in the United Kingdom and Canada, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot do it in this Budget, and presumably that is impossible now, to allow me to stake out a claim for future years that that difference shall be removed and the preferences in Canada and this country made the same.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSThe Committee have listened with intense interest to the duel between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that post. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt at 283 length with the statements which have been made in the public Press regarding information which leaked out before the Budget, and I was glad to hear from his lips that he had completely satisfied himself that the information did not leak out from the British refinery industry. The Chancellor took full responsibility for his action, however, and I am bound to add that wherever a Chancellor of the Exchequer, no matter to what party he belongs, operates a tariff, he sets at work all sorts of forces. The Chancellor is directly responsible for this Debate this afternoon. It was he who initiated the policy of subsidies four years ago. This Clause is brought forward solely because the Chancellor started four years ago the costly policy of a subsidy. He seems enamoured of the policy of subsidies. He tried it four years ago with beet sugar, and it has cost many millions of pounds. The public has suffered and he has admitted this afternoon that the refining industry has suffered gravely as the result of his policy.
Two or three years ago he tried a coal subsidy, and this year he is trying a further policy of subsidy. The circle, so far as concerns the subsidy to sugar beet, is now complete, and it has taken three forms, if I may use that term. First, the
§ expenditure of large sums of public money, with no direct and lasting benefit to the public; secondly, grave hardships to the refining industry of this country; and, thirdly, the present duties which we are discussing. This afternoon he made great play with the fact that as a result of his Budget proposals some £300,000 extra is going to be paid in wages. I have always had an intense admiration for the Parliamentary gifts and the extraordinary audacity of the Chancellor, but he surpassed himself this afternoon, for, having first created this unemployment, he now takes credit for abolishing it. We are indeed glad to see that he has realised the hardships which his policy has created. I fear that on several occasions I have wearied the House by dealing with the position in the town of Greenock brought about by his policy. Greenock has undoubtedly suffered, and although this policy is not the one which I have advocated in the past yet, considering the circumstances, and considering the hardships and the injustices which his policy has created, I welcome it this afternoon.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 126.
287| Division No. 185.] | AYES. | [5.37 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Buchan, John | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Albery, Irving James | Buckingham, Sir H. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bullock, Captain M. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Amory, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Campbell, E. T. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Carver, Major W. H. | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Astor, Viscountess | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Atholl Duchess of | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Atkinson, C. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Ellis, R. G. |
| Balniel, Lord | Chapman, Sir S. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) |
| Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H. | Christie. J. A. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. |
| Berry, Sir George | Cohen, Major J. Brunei | Fermoy, Lord |
| Bethel, A. | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Fielden, E. B. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Ford, Sir P. J. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Cooper, A. Duff | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Cope, Major Sir William | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cooper, J. B. | Fraser, Captain tan |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Frece, Sir Walter do |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Galbraith, J. F. W. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Gates, Percy |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Goff, Sir Park |
| Grace, John | Lumley, L. R. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Grant. Sir J. A. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Sandon, Lord |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Macintyre, Ian | Savery, S. S. |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | McLean, Major A. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Hamilton, Sir George | Macmillan, Captain H. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Hanbury, C. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Macquisten, F. A. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Harland, A. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins, C.) |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Styles, Captain H. W. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hilton, Cecil | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Holt, Capt. H. P. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Oakley, T. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Penny, Frederick George | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wells, S. R. |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Nortbern) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Philipson, Mabel | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Pilcher, G. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Power, Sir John Cecil | Withers, John James |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Preston, William | Womersley, W. J. |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Radford, E. A. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Raine, Sir Walter | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Ramsden, E. | Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Long, Major Eric | Remer, J. R. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Looker, Herbert William | Rentoul, G. S. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Lougher, Lewis | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Captain Margesson and Major the |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Marguess of Titchfield. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gibbins, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gillett, George M. | Lawson, John James |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Gosling, Harry | Livingstone, A. M. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Greenall, T. | Lowth, T. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Baker, Walter | Griffith, F. Kingsley | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Groves, T. | Mackinder, W. |
| Barr, J. | Grundy, T. W. | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Briant, Frank | Hardle, George D. | March, S. |
| Bromfield, William | Harris, Percy A. | Morris, R. H. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hayes, John Henry | Mosley, Oswald |
| Buchanan, G. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Murnin, H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hirst, G. H. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Compton, Joseph | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Owen, Major G. |
| Cove, W. G. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Palin, John Henry |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Paling, W. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Dennison, R. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Dunnico, H. | Jonas, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Potts, John S. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Kelly, W. T. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| England, Colonel A. | Kennedy, T. | Riley, Ben |
| Fenby, T. D. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Ritson, J. |
| Forrest, W. | Kirkwood, D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Lansbury, George | Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives) |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Saklatvala, Shapurji | Stamford, T. W. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Strauss, E. A. | Westwood, J. |
| Scurr, John | Sutton, J. E. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Sexton, James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thurtle, Ernest | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Shinwell, E. | Tomlinson, R. P. | Windsor, Walter |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Townend, A. E. | Wright, W. |
| Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Varley, Frank B. | |
| Smillie, Robert | Viant, S. P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Snell, Harry | Watson, W. M. (Dumfermline) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson. |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. MACLEANDo I understand that you are not taking the Amendment which stands in my name—In page 4, to leave out from the word "shall" in line 35 to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "be at the rate of one farthing per ton"—I think it is customary when Amendments have not been selected for some reason to be given why they have been passed over.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think it is the custom for the Chairman to give reasons. I think the Committee will have no difficulty in appreciating why the hon. Member's Amendment has been passed over.
§ Mr. MACLEANI think it is courteous to give the reason why an Amendment which has been put down in all sincerity is not selected. It is an Amendment of some substance.
§ The CHAIRMANI think it would be contrary to precedent for the Chairman to commit himself by giving the reasons why Amendments are not selected.
§ Mr. MACLEANI must take exception to that statement. [HON. MEMBERS; "Order, order!"] On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman——
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of Order I will
§ hear him, but so far he has not raised a point of Order.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am putting a point which I think has some substance in it. I have drafted an Amendment, and I have placed it on the Order Paper, and now, Mr. Chairman, you decline to call it on for discussion. Surely it is only courteous that some explanation should be given as to why the Amendment has not been called on to be debated.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not in any way the duty of the Chairman to give reasons for his selection of Amendments, and on this occasion I think the Committee will be able to appreciate the probable reason. I do not want to establish a precedent whereby the Chairman will be bound to give reasons.
§ Mr. MACLEANI quite agree that the Chairman can pass over or jump Amendments, and, if the hon. Members concerned do not raise any objection, then no explanation is required. But surely when an hon. Member does ask for a reason some explanation might be given as to why his Amendment has been passed over.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that I cannot admit that proposition.
§ Mr. MACLEANWhy?
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 124.
291| Division No. 186.] | AYES. | [5.49 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. |
| Albery, Irving James | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Braithwaite, Major A. N. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bellaire, Commander Canyon | Brass, Captain W. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Bennett, A. J. | Brassey, Sir Leonard |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Briggs, J. Harold |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Berry, Sir George | Brocklebank, C. E. R. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Bethel, A. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Buchan, John |
| Astor, Viscountess | Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Buckingham, Sir H. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Bullock, Captain M. |
| Atkinson, C. | Blundell, F. N. | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. |
| Balniel, Lord | Boothby, R. J. G. | Burton, Colonel H. W. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hanbury, C. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Harnon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Harland, A. | Oakley, T. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Haslam, Henry C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Philipson, Mabel |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Pilcher, G. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Christie, J. A. | Hills, Major John Waller | Preston, William |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hilton, Cecil | Radford, E. A. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Ramsden, E. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Holt, Captain H. P. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Remer, J. R. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Cope, Major Sir William | Hume, Sir G. H. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Couper, J. B. | Hurd, Percy A. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Iveagh, Countess of | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sandon, Lord |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Jephcott, A. R. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Savery, S. S. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | King, Commodore Henry Doug as | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lamb, J. O. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Loder, J. de V. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Long, Major Eric | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Locker, Herbert William | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lougher, Lewis | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Ellis, R. G. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Storry-Deans, R. |
| England, Colonel A. | Lumley, L. R. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | MacIntyre, Ian | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McLean, Major A. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Macquisten, F. A. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Forrest, W. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Malone, Major P. B. | Wells, S. R. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Gates, Percy | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Withers, John Jamie |
| Goff, Sir Park | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Grace, John | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Nelson, Sir Frank | |
| Hamilton, Sir George | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Captain Wallace and Major the |
| Marquess of Titchfield. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Brown, Ernest (Leith) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Barr, J. | Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Batey, Joseph | Buchanan, G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Charleton, H. C. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Briant, Frank | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. |
| Baker, Walter | Bromfield, William | Compton, Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | Ken worthy, Lt.-Cora. Hon. Joseph M. | Sexton, James |
| Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Kirkwood, D. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lansbury, George | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawrence, Susan | Shinwell, E. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawson, John James | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Dennison, R. | Lee, F. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Dunnico, H. | Livingstone, A. M. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Edward, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lowth, T. | Smillie, Robert |
| Fenby, T. D. | Lunn, William | Snell, Harry |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Mackinder, W. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Gillett, George M. | MacLaren, Andrew | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Gosling, Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Greenall, T. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | March, S. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Morris, R. H. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Groves, T. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Grundy, T. W. | Mosley, Oswald | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Murnin, H. | Townend, A. E. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Naylor, T. E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Hardie, George D. | Oliver, George Harold | Varley, Frank B. |
| Harris, Percy A. | Owen, Major G. | Viant, S. P. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Palin, John Henry | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Paling, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Hirst, G. H. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Westwood, J. |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Potts, John S. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Riley, Ben | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Ritson, J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Windsor, Walter |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Saklatvala, Shapurji | Wright, W. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Kelly, W. T. | Scrymgeour, E. | |
| Kennedy, T. | Scurr, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson |
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.