§ Mr. JAMES HUDSONI beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the word "sixpence," and to insert instead thereof the word "threepence."
I should mention that, in association with this Amendment, I have a further Amendment on the Paper which applies the same reduction from 6d. to 3d. to imported lighters, in order that the question of Free Trade and Protection shall not come in. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be hoping that I shall be involved in difficulties in regard to the question of 293 Protection, but he will realise that I have taken care at once to keep out of that trouble.
This duty upon mechanical lighters has been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he states, in order to counteract their use in substitution for matches, which he taxed on an earlier occasion. He seemed to regain some enthusiasm for his old Free Trade faith a little while ago in the matter of sugar, when he talked about the right of the people to buy in the cheapest market, but, when it comes to the right of the people to buy their lighters in the cheapest market, and even to avoid, perhaps, some of the taxation that he has imposed in other directions, he loses his earlier faith and brings in these qualifications. The difficulty about this matter is that substitutes for matches are not necessarily confined to mechanical lighters. Humanity has discovered many means of lighting fires for itself, apart from the flint which was originally used or the matches which were introduced later. Households are now equipped with paper spills and other things, which enable them very largely to avoid using matches, and it has become the practice among the working classes to save a good deal on their match bill, which is now so much increased by the Chancellor's tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had bean trying to be really scientific in his proposals, he would have endeavoured to place a tax, not only on the mechanical lighter, but on all substitutes that are likely to be used for matches. Instead of that, however, he confines his attention to the simple contraptions that have been so largely introduced during the last few years. As I said on the last occasion when this matter came up for our attention, you would rarely find any working-class household, certainly in the North of England, that has not one of these little instruments, sometimes using a flint, sometimes using a piece of steel with a small revolving cogwheel, ready for use at any convenient moment as a substitute for matches, and it seems to me to be very foolish and unfair to try to place a burden upon this perfectly legitimate instrument for the assistance of very elementary domestic processes.
In the long run it does not follow at all that this expedient will save the right hon. Gentleman's Match Duty by excluding 294 all the substitutes that might be used in place of matches. All that will happen will be that the inconvenience to working-class households will be increased, and that a good deal more time will be spent in inventing domestic substitutes, like spills and so on, and, in the long run, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will neither gain from the point of view of the Match Duty nor even from the point of view of the tax upon domestic lighters. I suggest in my Amendment that the tax should be reduced from 6d. to 3d., and in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still have, in the tax of 3d., some safeguard in the matter of substitution. I hope that he will consider favourably the proposal that we are making. It is not, I agree, a matter of very high politics, but it is a matter that concerns a large number of working-class households, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could meet us in regard to it, it would strike the imagination of the people and bring him back some little of the reputation that he so largely lost this afternoon on another matter. I am here to salve the wounds from which he has been suffering in the last few minutes, and to give him a chance to retrieve himself. I am sure that, if he can meet us on this proposal, his name will be blessed, at any rate in small matters, by a large number of working-class families in the country.
Mr. SAMUELThe facts of this matter are very simple. Though the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. H. Hudson) has made his speech in a very friendly manner, I am afraid that we shall not be able to meet him. This duty is introduced for the purpose of defending the revenue derived from the Match Duty. If we agreed to this Amendment, we should lose a considerable sum of money. If we agreed to abandon the duty entirely, we should probably lose more than £50,000 a year, while if we agreed to any such reduction in the duty as is proposed in the Amendment it would reduce the ability of the Match Duty to produce as much as it ought to produce, and as much as we hope it will produce. We must look at these matters from the point of view of the figures that we have. There were, in 1924, retained imports of mechanical lighters to the number of 1¾ million. In 1927, that number had jumped to nearly 4,000,000. I do not want to worry the Committee with almost 295 elementary figures in arithmetic, but a duty of 6d. upon a mechanical lighter means the equivalent of the duty on 900 matches. I do not suppose that any manufacturer of these lighters would admit that any one of them produces so small a number of sparks as 1,000. It is, I believe, claimed that some of these lighters produce as many as 100,000, and that their life runs into a period1 of several years. If only 900 sparks were emitted from one lighter, it would, unless there were a duty upon them, deprive the Match Duty revenue of 6d., but the likelihood is that the use of a lighter in substitution for matches represents many thousands of matches, and, in fact, a mechanical lighter might very well deprive the revenue of 30s. or £2.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDWill the hon. Gentleman, in order to complete the story that he is telling, give us the corresponding figures for the years he has mentioned, for lighters and for the Match Duty revenue?
Mr. SAMUELThe Match Duty revenue in 1923 was £3,083,000, while the retained imports of lighters were 1,850,000 in number. In 1926, the Match Duty revenue was roughly £3,500,000, and the retained imports of lighters were 2,500,000. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1927 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the Match Duty by 20 per cent., and we estimated that there might be a revenue of £4,150,000, we did not get that amount in 1927, but only £3,877,000, while the retained imports of lighters jumped from 2,500,000 to nearly 4,000,000. We can therefore say that there is no doubt, speaking broadly, that these imports of mechanical lighters have greatly affected the Match Duty revenue, so that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. HARRISThe inevitable doctrine has now been put forward that the putting on of a tax leads to substitution. It is one of the canons of sound finance that, as soon as you add to the cost of an article, it leads to decreased consumption or the use of substitutes. The policy of the Government, during the last four years, of adding to the number of taxable articles, has led to the natural corollary that more and more members of the community are forced to use less convenient 296 substitutes. I accept the figures given by the Financial Secretary, showing a drop in the use of matches. Now, as the next step, these lighters are to be taxed. That is not going to force people to use matches. There are still many substitutes possible. People need not carry a lighter; there are lighters attached to the wall. The hon. Gentleman, when he goes out of the House this evening by the Members' door, will find attached to the wall a lighter containing petrol, with a gas jet attached, and on inquiry I find that that kind of lighter is not taxable.
If this tax be persisted in, the community will get round it in some way or other. All that they have to do is to buy a new kind of instrument which they will attach to the wall, and in every house and in every kitchen there will be a fixed lighter instead of a lighter which can be carried in the pocket. What I wish to impress upon the Committee is that it is time we protested against the Government's policy of increasing taxation and constantly adding to the number of taxable articles. Sir Robert Peel became famous in this country because he reduced considerably the number of articles subject to duty. Mr. Gladstone completed his work. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer will go down to posterity as famous for the number of new articles that he has added to the taxable list. It has been estimated that at least 4,000 extra articles are now subject to duty as a result, not only of his policy, but of the policy of his colleague the President of the Board of Trade. The Chancellor, however, is putting them in his Budget, and he, therefore, is equally responsible.
This afternoon three or four more articles are going to be taxed. Now we are asked, in order to prevent the public evading the tax, as they inevitably will, to include gas lighters. The only industries, I am told, which have really prospered under the Government policy are the Customs House officials and the smugglers. I am informed that there has been a large increase of smuggling. Certainly, if we can be guided by the number of cases brought before the Courts there has been a constant increase, and the constant addition of duties of this character is going to stimulate the revival of the old industry of smuggling. I hope the Committee will throw out this 297 duty. It is foolish, it will not do anyone any good, and it is very unfair in its incidence, because the same duty is going to be levied on the lighter bought by the poor man, which will last for a few weeks or months, as on the expensive lighter costing £2 or £3.
§ Major HILLSI hope I can convince the Committee that this duty is justifiable. Until 1916 matches were untaxed. In that year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, imposed a tax on matches and a duty on mechanical lighters', because be recognised, as all economists must, that on all principles of taxation, certainly on Free Trade principles, if you tax one article you must tax the alternative article, or else you give it a very heavy protection. That tax remained on for four years. In 1921 it was found, owing to the disturbed condition of Europe—for nearly all these lighters were then imported—very few were coming here and the tax was taken off, because it was expensive in collection and did not produce any revenue. The industrial council of the match industry, which is composed of both workmen and employers, protested a couple of years later against the tax on mechanical lighters being taken off, but the matter was then regarded as of no importance. Now the imports of mechanical lighters have gone up enormously. There were very nearly 4,000,000 last year, and I see for the first quarter in 1928 they are 1,131,000, against under 800,000 for the first quarter of 1927, so that the case for some taxation by Customs and Excise is clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is quite unfair to tax one article and to leave the competing article untaxed, for by that means you give very great and unfair protection to the untaxed article. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), who always argues a case most reasonably, suggested a reduction from 6d. to 3d., but a duty of 6d. is very low. That is about the amount of the duty on 16 boxes of matches. A claim of 10,000 lights is very commonly made when a lighter is sold. 10,000 matches pay 6s. in duty, so that for each one of these lighters the Revenue will lose 6s. But a lighter can be recharged, so that the loss to the Revenue is far more than the actual loss corresponding to the duty on the matches. The match industry has never asked for 298 protection, and has never had it. It also employs a large amount of labour. I hope, therefore, the Committee will reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONAlthough the Debate has been very short, a very significant thing appears to have happened. About a month ago an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member who is sitting strangely quietly to reduce the rate of duty from 6d. to 3d. on mechanical lighters manufactured at home. He pressed his Amendment so eloquently and was so enthusiastically supported by many Members on his own side that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury accepted it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert)The hon. Member must remember the Amendment to which he is speaking. The question of the Excise Duty comes on later.
§ Mr. MORRISONI took it there would be a general discussion. If it is intended to have a separate discussion on the matter with which I am dealing I will reserve my remarks.
§ Mr. J. HUDSONWhen I moved my Amendment I mentioned that it was associates with a later Amendment. I suggested that the two matters should be taken together and your predecessor in the Chair seemed to accept that.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf it is understood that there will be no further discussion on the subsequent Amendment there is no objection to a general discussion.
§ Mr. MORRISONI think the Committee is certainly entitled to some explanation either from the Chancellor, who was a way when the incident to which I refer took place, or from the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member pressed his Amendment with so much eloquence that the hon. Gentleman decided to accept it.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GADIETo whom does the hon. Member refer? He keeps pointing to this side.
§ Mr. MORRISONIt was the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) who moved the Amendment and got it accepted. Complications and difficulties arose and a search party was sent out to find the hon. Member and bring 299 him back to the House. He offered to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter would be further considered. I, naturally, thought the Financial Secretary was going to clear up the mystery as to why the Amendment was accepted in the first place, and then pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Member not to persist with it, and whether any consideration has since been given to the point. I think the Government will realise that the matter cannot be left in the unsatisfactory condition it is in at present, without any attempt being made by anyone on their behalf to explain these mysterious happenings.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI do not think anyone on this side of the Committee complains of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), because we recognise the earnestness with which he always speaks, but the considerations he has advanced bring us face to face with a matter which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take into account. If you persist in the imposition of this kind of tax, another set of considerations comes into play, and that is the competing interests of people who are interested financially in one or other of the particular articles. It seems to me to be a most undesirable thing. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the doctrine which has been advanced by the Financial Secretary and backed up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I should like to know from him whether he really accepts the doctrine that if you tax one article and people try to economise—the word "evade" has been used—by using another article it is sound financial doctrine that you must tax it in order, if possible, to make them use the particular article from which you mainly hope to get your revenue. The figures given by the Financial Secretary show two things conclusively. They show, first of all, that the increased number of mechanical lighters in use has not caused a diminution of the revenue derived from the match duty, and they show that the revenue in certain years did not come up to the estimate. In 1927 the figure was £3,800,000 odd as against an estimate of £4,250,000. That does not seem to be a very serious loss of revenue. Even if you accept that it is a serious loss of revenue, 300 does the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague mean to tell us that in place of a loss of revenue of that kind they are going to look round and try to tax every possible article used by people on whom taxation presses hard? If that is so, it seems to me that it is the most powerful argument against the imposition of taxes on a larger and an ever-increasing number of articles.
I want to say again with reference to this duty, as I have said before when referring to a good many of the safeguarding duties, that it is a very curious thing that if you go into the homes of poor people you will find that practically every tax that has been imposed during this Parliament bears not only hardly upon them, and in many cases solely upon them, but in every case bears more hardly upon them than it does upon any other member of the community. As a parallel to the present case, you have only to go back to the right hon. Gentleman's first great discovery, which, he will remember, he introduced with such pleasure, namely, the Silk Duties. The Silk Duties were so arranged that the cheaper the article, the more heavily in proportion people had to pay in taxation. In the case of the duty on mechanical lighters the cheaper the article, the more heavily one pays in proportion. This duty has this in common with some of the safeguarding duties. In the case of some of the articles of cutlery, the imported articles were so cheap that a 331 per cent. duty could not possibly give protection to the British articles. Here, again, the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon prove, if they prove anything at all, that although this duty will impose a burden upon the poorest class of people who use mechanical lighters, the duty cannot possibly have the effect for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman hopes. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the figures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who says that a mechanical lighter of an efficient type is capable of giving 10,000 lights.
§ Major HILLSClaimed to be capable.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman accepts the claim or not, but in order to make the argument quite clear and get 301 agreement, let us say that the claim of 10,000 represents, say, 5,000. That, I think, is a moderate estimate. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon says that upon 10,000 matches there will be a duty of 6s. If we assume that the number of lights obtained from the lighter is not 10,000 but 5,000, then on that basis the duty on 5,000 matches will be 3s. But the right hon. Gentleman is going to impose a duty of 6d. If the figures of the hon. and gallant Member are correct, this duty does not do more than 12½ per cent. of what the right hon. Gentleman claims that it is going to do. I think that that is perfectly clear to the Committee. The duty as it stands is useless for that purpose, but it will be a burden upon poor people.
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another consideration? He, unluckily, was not here on the last occasion when we debated this question. His temperature was high; he was not well. But on that occasion I took the opportunity of reading a letter to the House which I had received from a firm of British people who make these mechanical lighters. The statement in that letter was to the effect that three people who happened to be ex-service men, though I do not stress that point, and had put the whole of their savings into the production of a mechanical lighter, deliberately intended to compete with the imported mechanical lighter, and in their view able to do so, obtained on the day before the Budget statement their first order for 100,000 of their mechanical lighters. That was on 23rd April. On 24th April the right hon. Gentleman made his Budget speech, and on the evening of that day they were practically ruined. It is not a big affair, I agree. It was not a very big firm, and there was not a large amount of capital involved. But there was a small industry. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, when discussing the duty upon buttons, and by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), that even if an industry were small the question of principle as between helping the small industry and helping the large industry did not arise, and that a small industry was as much entitled to help as a large industry. Since the memorable day, of which the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. 302 R. Morrison) has reminded us all, I have received another letter from that particular firm, and they reinforce what they said on the last occasion. They state that they set out to establish a British article in competition with this foreign imported lighter. They succeeded after months of work in producing an article at a price which, they think, will command a large sale. They got their initial order for 100,000 of these lighters, and they say, "Even now we do not ask for Protection. All we ask is for a free chance to put this mechanical lighter on the market."
§ Mr. RADFORDHow does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the case which he has laid before the Committee with his statement a few minutes ago that a sixpenny tax was not sufficient to effect the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because it shows that I have not made clear to him that the expressed intention of the Government in imposing this duty is to protect the match revenue. All I am saying is, that if you impose a sixpenny tax, in view of the figures which have been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon, you are not going to protect the revenue; all you are going to do is to make it more expensive for these poor people to buy lighters. It is entirely a separate point. I hope the hon. Member sees that. Without wandering too far from the matter under discussion, I should again like to quote the case of some of the cheaper forms of cutlery. Where you have an article produced in a foreign country costing perhaps 1s. 6c, say, a cheap knife, and a corresponding article produced in this country costing 7s. 6d., you do not, by putting on a 33⅓ per cent. duty, stop the foreign article from coming into this country. You do not help the British article, but you do make it more expensive for people to buy the foreign article. Here you are not going to protect your match industry, but you are going to make it difficult for those who buy mechanical lighters. It may be that a 6d. duty will not entirely destroy the market for the mechanical lighter manufactured by the company to which I have called attention, but it will make 303 the article more expensive to the people who buy it.
It seems to me that this is a very good example of very bad finance. The total amount of revenue to be collected is small, and if the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon had any moral at all, it was not that there was no justice or any sense in this duty; it was a very strong speech against the duty on matches. Certainly we on these benches, and I hope very much that hon. Members above the Gangway, will not only object to this particular tax for the reason I have given, but will object to it because it is an example of the vicious system followed by the right hon. Gentleman of extending taxation over a large number of articles instead of concentrating upon a small channel of direct taxation.
§ Mr. MACLEANThis Amendment is not one with which I altogether agree, because it does not go as far as I should like it to go. The questions that have been raised during the course of this Debate have shown that the real purpose of this duty, both the Excise Duty and the Customs Duty, is not so much a question of raising revenue as an effort to protect the match industry. The match industry is paying a duty, and it is naturally thought that by imposing a duty upon mechanical lighters, the match industry is going to receive some form of protection. I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is one of those instances where we find protection being given to an industry that is doing very well. Even if you try to protect the home industry, you are in reality putting money into the pockets of a body of international financiers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. He ought to have had his Customs or Excise officers at that Box providing him with a few examples of the manner in which the boards of directors of the respective match companies overlap each other, and in which you find shareholders or directors in one particular match company actually sitting upon the board of another match company which is supposed to be in direct conflict and competition with it. For example, we find the Managing Director of the Swedish Match Company sitting on the board of directors of the British Match Company. 304 We find that the same individual is also President of the International Match Corporation. If we go through the lists of these three bodies, we shall find the respective directors going backwards and forwards. We find, as a matter of fact, that Members of this House are on these particular boards of directors in these match companies.
This duty which has been put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not introduced with the object of getting revenue at all. It is as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has already stated, one of those processes of manipulation and bamboozling which seems to have been adopted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is another case of manipulation; another case of bamboozling. It is another case in which the people of this country are going to be robbed through taxation in the interests of a gang of international financiers. That is all. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the knowledge he is bound to possess and the information he is entitled to obtain and can get from his expert advisers in his own Department, could at least have understood what this really meant. A duty upon lighters, as has been said by an hon. Member below the Gangway would not be a fair tax apart altogether from the question of assisting the industry. If you go to Charing Cross Road and look into any of those cheap jack establishments you will see mechanical lighters for sale there at 6d. The duty upon mechanical lighters is going to be 6d.—a 100 per cent. tax. Next door you may see a jeweller's or a tobacconist's shop where lighters are displayed for sale at 15s. or 20s. each, and the tax upon those mechanical lighters is also 6d.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThey do not compete with matches.
§ Mr. MACLEANUndoubtedly they do, according to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). The right hon. Gentleman has again been badly informed by his advisers. We have been informed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon that you get 10,000 sparks from a mechanical lighter. That means that you can have a light 10,000 times; you can have 10,000 305 lights for your pipe or cigarette, and if you light three cigarettes with the same light, you will have 30,000 lights. It is very absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make such an interjection. Evidently, what has transpired earlier in the day has affected his judgment and he cannot get to grips with this particular matter. The tax of itself is not a fair tax. It represents a tax of 100 per cent. in the case of the 6d. lighter. I am told that there are mechanical lighters which cost 25s. to 30s., and those lighters will only be taxed 6d., whereas the poor man who buys a 6d. lighter will have to pay the 6d. tax, or 100 per cent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get working class votes at the next general election, he is very optimistic, except perhaps in Epping Forest where the babes in the wood come from.
I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to the question which was put by the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison), with respect to the rather serious happening in this House during the previous discussion. It was understood by the House at that time that after a certain statement had been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who had accepted an Amendment, something would happen. The Government have not accepted that Amendment, although the House was led to believe, if not by a definite statement at least by inference, that the Treasury would do something to meet the Amendment that had been moved by the hon. Member for North Bradford, by bringing in a proper form of wording at the appropriate time. Surely the House is entitled to an explanation of what has transpired in the interval. No explanation has been given and the Duty upon mechanical lighters, the Customs Duty and the Excise Duty, appear in the Finance Bill as they appeared when it was brought originally before the House. What has happened in the interval? Has the Treasury decided to drop the pledge that was given to hon. Members below the Gangway and behind them who are insisting upon the acceptance of that particular Amendment, seeing that the Financial Secretary agreed to accept it? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer gone back to his old faith in Free Trade and converted the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has the Financial Secretary converted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 306 or have the expert advisers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed him that it is impossible to carry out the pledge given by the Financial Secretary?
One would have imagined that when we came to this particular Clause, some statement would be made on behalf of the Treasury, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Financial Secretary. The House is entitled to some explanation as to what has happened in the interval that has meant the dropping by the Financial Secretary of the pledge given to hon. Members behind him, and the, bringing into this House of the Finance Bill drafted upon the original proposals which were in the Bill before the Financial Secretary agreed to accept the Amendment. I hope that we shall have an explanation either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Colonial Secretary!"] The Colonial Secretary is not here and he has nothing to do with this matter now. It is the Members of the Government who are dealing with the financial matters whom we are pressing for an answer. Cannot they individually or, if not individually, have not they the combined wisdom that will elucidate the problem as to why that particular pledge has been a lowed to go by the board, and why we are discussing the original question?
§ Mr. GROVESWhen we discussed the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, standing at the Treasury Box, persuaded the House to come to an end of the discussion, because he said the House would prefer to discuss the details in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the first occasion on which we heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unwell. The House brought the discussion on the Amendment to an end because they were painfully interested in the illness of the right hon. Gentleman, and because they felt that the right hon. Gentleman might come along eventually and get the House out of the difficulty in regard to the proposed Amendment. I am interested to know what the proposals of the Government are in regard to this matter 307 and whether they propose to drop the protectionist aspect of it. I hope that they do, but I do not suppose that they will. Therefore, we have no right to come to a decision on this particular Amendment before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives us his opinion. When we left the discussion on the previous occasion we did so on the perfect understanding that negotiations and conversations were to take place between the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That being so, I hope that we shall not come to a Division before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives his point of view.
With respect to the proposed taxation of mechanical lighters, it is strange that anything that contributes to general cleanliness in working-class homes and to tidiness is at once attacked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and money is to be obtained from that particular article in the form of taxation. These little instruments came into existence during the War and were made in very peculiar ways in workshops—I made some myself—because matches were then so scarce. These mechanical lighters, which became a perfect boon to the housewives, have now become a necessity, and we have now made them so effective that instead of sticking them away in our waistcoat pocket, we are not ashamed to put them on the mantelpiece of our front room. It must be admitted that with the development of gas fires in the homes, it is not only more tidy, but safer for people to use a mechanical lighter to ignite the gas fire than having to use matches. That point has been overlooked. It is a contribution to personal and domestic tidiness and to safety that mechanical lighters can be procured for 6d.
By the imposition of a duty of 6d. on these lighters, which are so popular in working-class homes for lighting the gas fire or the gas stove, we are increasing the taxation in the homes of the workers to an undue extent, and my feeling is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well review the general position when it is proven to him that his proposals will actually increase the burdens on working-class homes. He must feel that every increased burden means a diminution of wage. That being 308 so, quite apart from mere party propaganda, if you are going to defend the new tax on the ground of expediency as a protection for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's revenue from matches, and he taxes available alternatives presented to the working people to avoid the increased taxation, will he not drive them to measures which will cheat the Budget proposal? I have stated in this House, and experience has borne out the truth of the statement, that the strength of the opposition here was responsible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrawing the proposed tax on paraffin.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer persists in the proposal to tax mechanical lighters, the housewife will have a very easy way of evading the tax because in thousands and tens of thousands of homes in this country she will get a little paraffin oil lamp, costing 1d., and use that for her purpose. She will be able to have spills, which are made out of thin pieces of wood, and by keeping the small penny paraffin oil lamp burning, she will be able to use a hundred spills without putting out the light. Paraffin is not to be subject to any additional tax, and I hope that the method which I have mentioned will be adopted by the housewives getting a small paraffin oil lamp and using paraffin, which is not to be subject to the tax, thereby defeating the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by not using mechanical lighters in the domestic way. We protest against the proposed increase in the taxation of the utilities and commodities of the people. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has made the point that on a 6d. mechanical lighter, there is to be a tax of 6d. and that on the costly mechanical lighters, which cost anything up to two guineas, there will only be the 6d. tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that these costly lighters did not compete with matches. I would remind him that at the big parties, where they have very beautiful and highly priced mechanical lighters, he will find that the people will be using these costly lighters in order to light their cigarettes or cigars. These mechanical lighters will be used in high circles, because there is no greater patriotism in the ranks of the middle class or the higher class as compared with the working class. The Chancellor 309 of the Exchequer will find that the people who play bridge and move in society circles and use these costly lighters will be prone to use them for lighting their cigarettes and cigars in order to avoid using matches. People who stay at hotels will adopt the same course. In the assembly rooms where cards are enjoyed the people there, who are as much concerned for tidiness as we are in our homes, will prefer the mechanical lighter, and in the ordinary refreshment houses where they are going in for tidiness will use the lighters as against the indiscriminate use and throwing away of used matches. He will find that the people who use the costly lighters will use them to the same degree as the working people use the cheaper lighter, and in that way he will find his proposed duty will be defeated. I hope that before we come to a decision, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer the point with which the House was dealing when he was taken unwell and that he will tell us whether he has put on the shelf the Protectionist proposal in regard to mechanical lighters, and, further, whether he will reconsider the matter and withdraw the proposal altogether?
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. GILLETTThere is one point in connection with this proposed duty to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee, because it brings up a rather interesting question of finance as well as a principle which is involved in connection with the desirability of imposing this duty on lighters. When the Chancellor introduced the proposal, he said that he was making it in order to protect his revenue from matches. I want to point out, in connection with that, the extraordinary position in which taxes of this kind place the Government. The Chancellor noticed what is obvious, that the match industry in this country was meeting a severe competitor in the production of the lighters which are becoming increasingly used. But, when we come to the consideration of the match industry, we find that the match industry in Europe and the world is one of the most interesting and almost one of the most successful examples of the great combine in existence in this country and other countries.
310 Some Members may have seen the article that appeared giving a list of the varied connections of the Swedish Match Company and the different countries with which that combine is connected. In this country it is connected with Bryant and May. There has recently been a new move in this country, and a report appeared only a few days ago of the meeting of the British Match Corporation, a new corporation which has amalgamated the interests of Bryant and May, Masters and Company, and another company in this country under the control of one concern. The chairman at the meeting specially pointed out to the shareholders of this corporation, I suppose as an indication of the usefulness of it, that another similar combination of companies has taken place recently in Canada, and the president, as he is called, of this corporation is also the president of the Canadian Corporation. So, in the first place, you have an amalgamation of the match industry of this country under the British Match Corporation, and you have it closely linked up with the various concerns in Canada. When we look at the connection of the Swedish Match Company, which was interested in Bryant and May, and so becomes interested in the new corporation over here, we find that this wonderful organisation has connections in many of the other countries in Europe. It controls two mills in Denmark. In Esthonia the match monopoly was acquired from the State. In Lettland and Lithuania the company has acquired certain match factories. In Poland the match monopoly was obtained from the State in 1926. In Germany a partial match monopoly was acquired.
§ Major HILLSThe hon. Member does not mean that the British Match Corporation owns all these bodies?
§ Mr. GILLETTNo. I referred to what had taken place in this country recently, but I was referring originally to the Swedish Match Company. We all know perfectly well that the hon. Member is a director of the British Match Corporation. I am not in any way imputing anything to the hon. Member. My belief in these matters is that, in industry at the present time, you have to choose between two things. Either all industry is to be controlled by great combines, or, on the other hand, by some measure of what is called Socialism. I believe that the 311 ideals of the benches below me are entirely out-of-date and that we have to choose either between the views of hon. Members opposite, who support organisations of this kind, or the views represented upon these benches. It is no reflection on anybody as to which belief they have, and I do not throw any reflection whatever upon those who take part in these great combines. As a matter of interest, I was pointing out how successful this great combine was, and I should like to finish in order to complete the picture, because it is one of the most extraordinary combines we have at the present time. We find that in Italy the company has factories of its own, but the State has a selling monopoly. In Greece the State monopoly was acquired in 1926. In Austria the company has interests. In France the company in 1927 entered into a long-term agreement with the State. I have given a sufficiently clear picture of the size of the great monopoly that is practically controlling the match industry in this and other countries. That is what I want to impress upon Members.
What happens? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his scheme of taxation has imposed, a Customs and Excise Duty, simply as a means of raising revenue, because it does not seem to have any protective effect, as both duties are the same. Then he finds that this new system of lighters is beginning to interfere with the match industry. Therefore what he says is, "In order to protect my receipts from the Match Duty, I must put some similar duty upon lighters in order that the matches may be protected." To my mind, the first and most serious thing is that the Chancellor is really forced by this process of arguing into practically supporting this great industry. He is preventing competition coming into the field against the great match combine, not necessarily from any desire to support or help them in any way, but simply because of his interest through taxation in their industry. Supposing something else is invented that would compete with matches. The Chancellor would then have to institute a tax to bring them in. If something else was invented a fourth time, the Chancellor would have to institute another tax in order again to protect the match industry. So we arrive at this extraordinary 312 position, that the Chancellor by his system of taxation is indirectly—it may be against his will—but really supporting and protecting this great combine which is dominating the match world in practically the whole of the countries in Europe. It is one of the most extraordinary proceedings that we have seen, and one that should make us consider very carefully in this Committee the system of taxation we have, which compels the Chancellor in his own interests to come into the field as the protector of one of the great combines in Europe to-day.
§ Mr. RILEYI want to emphasise the point just put by my hon. Friend. The only defence for this duty is that it is necessary in order to protect the receipts at present derived from matches. From that point of view the evil results, in the first place, from the vicious system of taxing matches. If no commencement had been made in taxing articles of universal convenience such as matches, then the second vicious step would not have to be taken. Because that step has been taken we are now told that something further must be done to protect the revenue from the Match Duty. The whole of this duty will inevitably fall upon people least able to bear it, people who can only use the cheaper article. We have heard from the Financial Secretary that last year 4,000,000 of these lighters were imported. That indicates obviously a very considerable use. Why is there that use? It is because the price of the mechanical lighters ranges from 2s. 6d. to 12s. a dozen, or from 2½d. to 1s. each. This proposal means that a duty of over 100 per cent. in many cases will be imposed on the lighters which are now used. That class of lighter is the lighter that is being used by the general body of working people. In order to protect the fiscal policy of imposing duties upon matches, you make by this duty 3,000,000 working people forego the use of an article they find convenient. Their convenience and interest have to be sacrificed to this policy. That is not a sound way of carrying on public policy, and from that point of view there is a very strong ground why the Amendment should be accepted.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSSurely the right hon. Gentleman will explain exactly the position at the moment arising out of the 313 situation which developed a few weeks ago. Surely he is not going to allow the Debate to be closed without making some reply. The Financial Secretary in his reply to the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) said that he could not possibly accept the Amendment because it would create some international complications. There were certain treaties which made it impossible. It was said in more or less of an undertone, but later, to everybody's amazement, he conceded the point because, as he said, it was such a small matter that he did not mind giving way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell the Committee whether the financial complications referred to by the Financial Secretary arise out of any Treaty with other nations and whether they affect this huge match combine. Are these treaties designed to preserve the interests of this international match combine or are they the ordinary commercial treaties entered into with other nations? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain the matter.
Appeals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the point of view of the multitude of wage earners of this country, appear from our experience during the last four years to be futile. The right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary have always submitted one argument in favour of the taxation of mechanical lighters, which are used by the poorer people of the country—namely, that they are obliged to impose this duty for the purpose of preserving the income from matches. This year the right hon. Gentleman is imposing a tax on petrol. We are becoming too independent of imported oil and too little dependent on home-produced coal. If on a future occasion he happens, unfortunately, to be in his present position and pulverised fuel begins to take the place of petrol, will he impose a tax on pulverised fuel in order to preserve his income from the Petrol Duty? Is that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? If it is, and it is pressed to its logical conclusion, there is no possible end to this kind of finance. The workers of the country are taxed upon almost everything they touch, taste or handle, cups and saucers, crockery, gloves, stockings, cotton, paper bags, all of which have been taxed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, 314 and now on a miserable article worth 2½d. he is imposing a duty of 6d. in order to preserve his revenue from the Match Duty. We are entitled to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what these international obligations are, whether this method of taxation is going to be continuous, and whether the justification for a new tax is that it is going to preserve the income from some existing tax.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI hope the Committee will he ready to dispense with further discussions on this matter and allow us to make a little progress. We have greet and important business still before us and it certainly seems to me that we shall be continuing the Debate into the small hours of the morning, which I hope will not be necessary, if we do not make more rapid progress than we are making at the moment. This is an extremely small point and should not detain the Committee for any length of time. I have the duty of raising the re venue in one way or another for the year. In 1916 a duty on matches was imposed by the Government of that day, and at the same time a duty on mechanical lighters was imposed as well. The two were treated as absolutely complementary, and I notice that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley in one of the Debates said that so long as there was a duty on matches there was a prima facie case for imposing a duty on mechanical lighters. At any rate, nothing could be more absurd than to impose this burden on the match industry without any sort of equalising protection from this rapidly growing competitor to the match industry.
There is no question at all of favouring the match industry, not in the slightest. They are subjected to what is nothing less than an unwise bounty fed competition. Since 1922 we have given the strongest possible preferential bounties to the mechanical lighter substitute, and to take this duty off altogether and allow a trade to be ruined year after year, and the revenue on which we are depending reduced effectively year after year, would be an unwise procedure. What we have to do is to protect our revenue and give fair play to the match trade. Instead or talking about international combines and world finance, hon. Members opposite should come down to the simple 315 point of the workpeople who are engaged in this match industry. I have not the actual figures of the number of people employed in England in making matches, but we are not hounding ahead so rapidly that we can say we are approaching a stage when we are holding our own in the supply of matches. There is absolutely no question of giving any favour to the match industry. The Joint Industrial Board of the match industry on which employees as well as proprietors are represented made a strong appeal some years ago that they should be free from the unfairly stimulated competition of the mechanical lighter and pointed out that the match industry was heavily taxed whilst this new development was not. Why should it be an improper thing for us if we put a tax on matches to make sure that the tax is effective. I am informed that on the last occasion this matter was debated it was asked that there should be a reduction on the countervailing excise duty and on behalf of the Government it was stated this matter would be considered before the Committee stage. I have given careful consideration to the matter and while there are arguments on both sides and very strong arguments too for a duty which favours the home produced article I think in all the circumstances it would be better to adhere to the original form in which the duty was imposed and that is what we propose to do. It is not necessary to go into the question of the international treaties but as the hon. Member has put the question I will tell him that the Treaty referred to is the Anglo-German treaty. The great majority of these mechanical lighters come from Germany and by this treaty it was understood that both countries would do their best not to penalise or injure each other's special forms of exportation. It was a thoroughly friendly agreement. There is no question of our being entitled to do what we are doing so far as the imposition of this duty is concerned. It certainly would create a more invidious aspect if we were to differentiate against the foreign importation.
I am endeavouring to protect the revenue from matches not indeed to free but to reduce the pressure and the 316 burden which a heavy tax on matches would create having regard to this hitherto untaxed importation and I do not think anything less than 6d. would be effective. I am not at all sure that more would not have to be imposed. If the Customs and Excise Duties were higher there might possibly be room for some differentiation, and possibly in future years the question of the Anglo-German Treaty will have undergone some revision, but at present the Duty is so low, and only barely sufficient to protect the match revenue from serious inroads, that I think, after weighing the matter very carefully and consulting the Financial Secretary, it would be better to leave it in the form in which it was introduced.
§ Mr. KELLYI cannot allow the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go unchallenged. I refer to the statement that people in the industry have been consulted and have expressed themselves on this matter. It may be so with regard to the directors of the Swedish Match Company, but so far as the Joint Industrial Council of that particular industry is concerned, its members have not been asked to express themselves. I noticed that the Chancellor's statement was contrary to the statement that he made 12 months ago. He stated this evening that some years ago the two sides of that Council expressed themselves. Last year he told us that the Council had at that moment expressed themselves in favour of the imposition of this duty. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the industry not developing. It is evident that he has been very badly advised, as the industry has within recent years been developing in all parts of the country. It is of no use talking of the number of companies existing in this country. They are all under the one umbrella, and the one who carries that umbrella is the one who prevailed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to impose this taxation, because it would be an advantage to the owners of that particular concern. Then the Chancellor comes forward this evening and says that in order to protect that trade and to assist the people engaged in the match industry he must impose a tax upon mechanical lighters. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but 317 have not heard one argument that would warrant anyone going into the Lobby in favour of the Clause.
§ Question put, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 120.
319| Division No. 187.] | AYES. | [7.34 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Ellis, R. G. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | England, Colonel A. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Albery, Irving James | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | McLean, Major A. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Fermoy, Lord | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W | Fielden, E. B. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Finburgh, S. | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Ford, Sir P. J. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Atkinson, C. | Forrest, W. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fraser, Captain Ian | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Frece, Sir Walter de | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Balniel, Lord | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Ganzoni, Sir John | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Gates, Percy | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Grace, John | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Berry, Sir George | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Bethel, A. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Oakley, T. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hamilton, Sir George | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hammersley, S. S. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hanbury, C. | Perring, Sir William George |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Harland, A. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pilcher, G. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Harrison, G. J. C. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Buchan, John | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Preston, William |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Haslam, Henry C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Burman, J. S. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ramsden, E. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Held, D. D. (County Down) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Remer, J. R. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hills, Major John Waller | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Hilton, Cecil | Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Ropner, Major L. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Holt, Captain H. P. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rye, F. G. |
| Chitcott, Sir Warden | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Christie, J. A. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sandon, Lord |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunei | Hurd, Percy A. | Savery, S. S. |
| Colfox, Major William Phillips | Hurst, Gerald B. | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Cope, Major Sir William | Iveagh, Countess of | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Couper, J. B | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Jephcott, A. R. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Cheater, Crewe) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Sprat, Sir Alexander |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lamb, J. Q. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Loder, J. de V. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Long, Major Eric | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Looker, Herbert William | Tinne, J. A. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Lougher, Lewis | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Drewe, C. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lynn, Sir Robert J. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Warrender, Sir Victor | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Winby, Colonel L. P. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Watts, Sir Thomas | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Wells, S. R. | Withers, John James | |
| Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Wolmer, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) | Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny. |
| Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hayday, Arthur | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sexton, James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, G. H. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Baker, Walter | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Shinwell, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barr, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Batey, Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smillie, Robert |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kennedy, T. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kirkwood, D. | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Lansbury, George | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawrence, Susan | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lee, F. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lowth, T. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Lunn, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Mackinder, W. | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Townend, A. E. |
| Day, Harry | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dunnico, H. | Morris, R. H. | Viant, S. P. |
| Edge, Sir William | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Murnin, H. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Oliver, George Harold | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Owen, Major G. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Palm, John Henry | Westwood, J. |
| Gillett, George M. | Paling, W. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gosling, Harry | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Greenall, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Potts, John S. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Riley, Ben | Wright, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ritson, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | |
| Hardie, George D. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Harris, Percy A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley. |
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNI beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "Kingdom" in line 37, to the word "other" in line 39.
There are four Amendments standing in my name, and they all relate to the same issue. The Clause as drawn not merely taxes the mechanical lighter, but the component parts of it. On the main question, the Financial Secretary just now referred to this as a simple matter, but it is not as simple as he would have it seem to be. I have here not a very cheap lighter and not a very expensive one, but one which before the tax was sold at 3s. 6d. and now is sold at 4s. 6d. This lighter, including a cover, is composed of 15 separate parts. It is an article imported from Switzerland. The point raised in the four Amendments is this. As I understand an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a 320 question, if an importer desires to import the whole of the parts for assembling in a lighter of this character, a tax of 6d. is paid on the whole lighter or on the whole of the 14 component parts; but if the importer merely lacks one of these 14 component parts, the 6d. tax is applicable to one of the parts equally with the 14 in toto. That is absurd—to take 14 sixpences for 14 separate parts or sixpence for the whole 14 together. It is a ridiculous position that the Treasury would desire to alter.
I have here a card on which all the various parts are displayed. The Committee will have noticed that in the series of four Amendments we propose to omit certain words and to insert the words "a cover spring, a striking wheel, a striking wheel arm, and a stopper." Those four particular parts are chosen because they are all standardised parts, 321 and are more liable to fracture than others. The four parts which I have selected are the four most liable to breakage in the course of use and therefore the four which are most likely to call for replacement. The parts include a press lever, press button and screw, chimney cover, lever rivet, press lever spring, cover spring—an important part which is easily broken—striking wheel, striking wheel arm, cover rivet and screw, stopper, chimney top and wick. The Committee will find that the Amendment next on the Paper in my name would exclude the four parts most liable to breakage and a further Amendment would exclude wicks, which are necessary for the continued use of the lighter. [Laughter.] I notice an hon. Member above the Gangway smiles at that remark, but it is a statement of fact and, possibly, hon. Members are not accustomed to statements of fact.
§ Mr. B. SMITHNot from the Liberal party.
§ Mr. BROWNIt is by the discussion of Amendments brought forward by Members of the Liberal party that the hon. Member can learn the facts. If the Financial Secretary is going to meet us on this very important point, the last Amendment is intended to deal with all parts intended to be used for replacement or repair. Shortly, the effect of the series of Amendments would be this. We desire to see that separate component parts should not be liable to the full rate of duty of 6d. on each part and we desire, if possible, to exclude all the component parts including the flint. I think the Committee will recognise that the proposal in the Finance Bill as it stands would be ridiculous applied to a small lighter of the kind I have produced—that is to levy a duty of sixpence on each of its component parts.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELIn order to be quite certain that I am dealing with the points which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) desires to bring before the Committee, may I go through the Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper referring to this matter. I take it that the Amendment which he is now moving is that in line 37 to leave out from the word "Kingdom" to the word "other" in line 39. As I understand this Amendment it means that we should delete the words "and on any component 322 part of a mechanical lighter." The effect of that would be to exempt imported component parts intended for assembly or replacement in this country. To do that would be to defeat the duty on the complete article. The imposition of a duty on component parts is not a new method. It is already applied to the imported component parts of motors and musical instruments and watches. On the grounds I have just given, I am not able to accept the Amendment which the hon. Member is now moving. He has referred to the three other Amendments on the Paper which relate to the same subject. As regards that Amendment which proposes to insert "a cover spring, a striking wheel, a striking wheel arm, and a stopper" I suggest that that would only aggravate the difficulty which I have pointed out as existing in connection with the first Amendment now under discussion. As for the Amendment which follows on the Paper to insert "or wicks." the hon. Member has already got that which he asks for in this Amendment. Wicks are fuel and are not regarded as component parts of mechanical lighters and, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary. As to the last Amendment to insert the words "or parts intended to be used for replacement or repair," I can only say that the first argument which I used about defeating the duty on the complete article applies also to this Amendment and I am therefore unable to accept it.
§ Mr. HARRISThis seems an unreasonable way of meeting a practical suggestion. What is being done in this case is not what is done in the case of the component parts of motor cars on which an ad valorem, duty is charged. Here you are taxing each part at the same rate as the complete article. We realise the difficulty of altering the duty at this stage, but if the Financial Secretary gives an undertaking to reconsider the whole matter before the Report stage, no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) would not press the Amendment. A way out of the difficulty would be to tax each component part at the rate, say, of one half-penny which would give an advantage to the completed article. You would then have 7d. on the component parts separately. Obviously this duty is going to be a very serious thing. If a man buys an expensive mechanical 323 lighter and one part is damaged he will have to pay a duty of sixpence for the replacement of that one part. I suggest that this is really a helpful and constructive Amendment and is not put forward in any hostile or unfriendly way.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must ask hon. Members not to engage in any practical demonstrations of this contrivance.
§ Mr. HARRISThis Amendment has been put forward by those who realise the difficulties in this matter. English manufacturers have to go to Switzerland and the Continent for certain component parts and if you are going to tax each important component part you are going to put the English manufacturers at a serious disadvantage compared with the foreign manufacturer. Some of these pans cannot be made except in
§ Switzerland and they are made on the same kind of machines as those which turn out the component parts of watches. I am sure that the Financial Secretary does not desire to put English producers of these mechanical lighters at any disadvantage. When we last discussed the subject it was proposed to have a differential duty and to give a preference. We uphold that suggestion but we do not want the English manufacturer to be placed at a disadvantage. That would be a tremendous reversal of what hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to be their policy; and, therefore, I hope, now that his attention has been called to the effects of this proposal, that the Financial Secretary will reconsider the matter.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 115.
325| Division No. 188.] | AYES. | [7.53 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Couper, J. B. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Harland, A. |
| Albery, Irving James | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Balniel, Lord | Davies Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hilton, Cecil |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Dixey, A. C. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Drewe, C. | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) |
| Berry, Sir George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Bethel, A. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Ellis, R. G. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Fermoy, Lord | Iveagh, Countess of |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fielden, E. B. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Finburgh, S. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
| Buchan, John | Fraser, Captain Ian | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Kindersley, Major Guy M. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | King, Commodore Henry Doughs |
| Burman, J. B. | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gates, Percy | Loder, J. de V. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Looker, Herbert William |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lougher, Lewis |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Grace, John | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Christie, J. A. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunei | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hamilton, Sir George | McLean, Major A. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hammersley, S. S. | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Cope, Major Sir William | Hanbury, C. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steal | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Remer, J. R. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Rentoul, G. S. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Ropner, Major L. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Meyer, Sir Frank | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Rye, F. G. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Sandon, Lord | Wells, S. R. |
| Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Savory, S. S. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Nuttall, Ellis | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Oakley, T. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Shepperson, E. W. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Perring, Sir William George | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Pilcher, G. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wragg Herbert |
| Pilditch, Sir Philip | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Preston, William | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Radford, E. A. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | |
| Ramsden, E. | Storry-Deans, R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. P. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley | Sexton, James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, G. H. | Shinwell, E. |
| Baker, Walter | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smillie, Robert |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bromfield, William | Kelly, W. T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Kennedy, T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kirkwood, D. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lansbury, George | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Lawrence, Susan | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, F. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, C.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Livingstone, A. M. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lowth, T. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Lunn, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Mackinder, W. | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Townend, A. E. |
| Day, Harry | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Viant, S. P. |
| Dunnico, H. | Morris, R. H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Edge, Sir William | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Murnin, H. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Naylor, T. E. | Westwood, J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gillett, George M. | Palin, John Henry | Whiteley, W. |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling, W. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Greenall, T. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Potts, John S. | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Richardson R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wright, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. | |
| Hardie, George D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Fenby and Major Owen. |
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) move the other Amendments standing in his name?
§ Mr. E. BROWNNo, I think that disposes of them.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the 326 word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
I move this Amendment formally in order to make certain that the concession which the Government have already kindly given us in respect of devices upon miners' safety lamps shall become compulsory.
§ Mr. SAMUELThis Amendment is rendered unnecessary by the concession which I have made already with regard to miners' lamps. There can be no point in altering the wording for the exemption of mechanical lighters on miners' lamps if they do not come under this Act. The Amendment is therefore quite unnecessary. The undertaking which I have given to make this concession will be carried out, and therefore I do not think it is necessary on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite to move this Amendment.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERIs there any real reason why we should not have it made quite plain that the Government Amendment shall be compulsory? The Clause of course provides for the making of reasonable regulations and for instructions to manufacturers, and we have no objection to that.
§ Mr. SAMUELIt would be a breach of faith if the Government went back on the promise, and therefore I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Amendment. I do not think it is at all necessary for him to press it, and I hope he will not press it.
§ Mr. POTTSMay I ask a question of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury arising out of what occurred on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, and having regard to the fact that Mr. Speaker on that particular date undertook, and in addition to that told me personally, that he would see that an opportunity was given for words to be inserted to safeguard the mining industry of the country? Will the Financial Secretary undertake to introduce an Amendment—he can do it if he likes—to make the Sub-section read:
Provided that the Commissioners shall exempt from duty,and strike out the other words? He has told us again that he is prepared to see that the concession is carried out. If that be so, why not strike out the words and make it quite definite that the tax will not under any conditions whatever be applicable to miners, so as to safeguard their position.
§ Mr. SAMUELIf the hon. Gentleman presses me, I will undertake to look into the point and see if I can meet his suggestion. As I say, it is our intention to 328 carry out what is implied in this Clause. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman might take that assurance as we give it at the Box here.
§ Mr. POTTSMay I further ask whether, if we withdraw the Amendment, that undertaking will become applicable to inserting the word "shall" instead of the word "may"; or is the Financial Secretary prepared to consider the wording as I read it out, to leave out those words, and after the word "shall" to continue with the word "exempt" in the following line? If he will do that, we will withdraw the Amendment. It comes to the same thing as he is promising to do.
§ Mr. SAMUELNo, I was dealing with the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). I think it might be left at that.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWe are satisfied with the bonâ fides of the Government in the matter, and we are obliged for the concession which they have made to us on the Budget Resolution, but I shall be glad if the Financial Secretary will, between now and the Report stage, substitute the word "shall" for the word "may." Upon that understanding, I will withdraw it.
§ Mr. SAMUELI will consider it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
§ In page 6, to leave out from the word "flame" in line 14, to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. Crawfurd.]
§ In page 6, line 16, to leave out Subsection (3).—[Mr. Wiggins.]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Crawfurd) is covered, I understand, by an earlier discussion and the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins) is not one which I select.
§ Mr. HARRISI beg to move in page 7, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (5).
I move this Amendment because I think some explanation is required as to why it is considered necessary to have such 329 a very severe penal Clause, inflicting a fine of £50 on any offending manufacturer of mechanical lighters. Is it because the Government have taken note of events abroad? Is it because they feel that it will be very difficult to enforce the provisions of this Clause? As far as I know and can ascertain, if the law is evaded, offenders will obviously be subject to the ordinary law of the land and will be liable to a fine or other punishment. It seems to me rather a remarkable thing to put into this Clause a special penal provision for a very severe punishment, and I think we ought to have some explanation.
§ Mr. SAMUELI will endeavour to explain this matter to hon. Members opposite. The Sub-section to which the hon. Member draws attention appears on page 7, and is Sub-section (5) of Clause 6, beginning with the line "If any person." Is not that so?
§ Mr. HARRISYes.
§ Mr. SAMUELThis Clauses fixes the penalty for offences. They should be provided by the Act and not by departmental regulations. We provide the penalty by the Act and do not leave it to departmental action. Under Sub-section (4) provision may be made for applying enactments to the Duty on mechanical lighters but no regulation under Subsection (4) can put a penalty on Subsection (5) (a) and (b). Sub-section (5) provides for the penalty for contravention of the Act. In a word, this Clause puts the regulation of the penalty in the Act instead of conferring upon a Government Department the right to fix the penalty.
§ Mr. HARRISBut, with respect, why put such a severe penalty for this particular offence?
§ Mr SAMUELThat is the penalty which was thought to be appropriate to the purpose. Does the hon. Member wish it to be £49 or £51?
§ Mr. HARRIS£5.
§ Mr. LEEMay I ask for an explanation with regard to Sub-section (5) (a). It seems to me to read rather queerly, and appears to mean that a manufacturer has no right to manufacture until the duty has been paid. Are manufacturers 330 to pay before they start to manufacture at all?
§ Mr. CRAWFURDMay I put to the Committee a point which seems to me to be of very great importance? If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will look at lines 14 and 15, he will see that a person who commits one of these offences, is to be
liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds.It is the words "Excise penalty" to which I want to draw attention. May I by way of illustration of what I mean quote something which has happened within my knowledge in the last few weeks. I want to draw the very serious attention of the Committee to this point. Here you lave, it is true, a very well known article, but, regarded as a matter of definition, there must very often be some doubt about whether a particular article is a mechanical lighter or not. Under a section of a previous Finance Act—and it may very well happen under this provision—an importer of an article into this country, a merchant who supplies agriculturists with implements which they desire, has imported several consignments of a particular object. Those objects are allowed freely into the country, and the Customs officials take no action about them. They are passed on, they are sold, and they are used; and then, when the fourth or fifth consignment comes, suddenly the Customs officers in the Docks—and of course Excise is exactly the same—say "This article is dutiable," and not only do they impose the particular duty but they demand from the merchant concerned the sum of £50, which they hold over his head, and they tell him that they may fine him or they may not. I drew the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to this particular case, and I am bound to say that I am profoundly dissatisfied with his reply to my letter and with the inaction of which he has been guilty.The point is this: Here is the industry of this country left entirely at the mercy of the arbitrary ipse dixit of some official as to whether it shall be fined or not, simply on a matter of definition as to what does or what does not come into a particular class of a particular taxation. I do not propose to go in detail into the case which I have quoted, 331 because I think that I should be ruled out of order in relation to this Clause. In my view, and in the view of two lawyers to whom I have submitted the case, the article which has been subjected to duty, and on which this threatened fine is levied, is as remote in kind and character from the article which was described in the particular Clause of the Finance Bill as any article could possibly be. It was an exact opposite. Whether that is so or not, there may have been very grave doubts whether an article does or does not come within a particular category which has passed through this House for taxation. When Members of the Government confess their impotence to deal with these things, when we have a Government which gives every evidence of being desirous of grabbing revenue from any quarter, it is a very bad thing for the trade and industry of this country to be placed in the position that, by the ipse dixit of some official from whom there is no appeal, they may be subjected not only to duties which they are not entitled to pay, but also threatened with a fine. I want to take this opportunity of raising my protest against the Government in a case of that kind, not accepting responsibility for the action which they take.
§ Major HILLSI want to point out what would be the effect of accepting this Amendment. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not the case of an Import Duty, but of an Excise Duty.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI agree, and I said so in my remarks, but in the question whether an article does or does not come within the category on which the duty is to be levied, the principle is exactly the same in the case of an Excise Duty.
§ Major HILLSUnless a penalty of this sort is imposed, all that the Clause says is that there should be payable a duty of 6d., and I know of no law that could impose a penalty; all that the Revenue could do would fee to sue for the 6d. All the Revenue Acts and Acts which impose an Excise or Customs Duty, provide for a penalty. Although we say that a man is liable to a penalty of £50, the actual penalty is in the discretion of the magistrate, and he can make any fine up to £50. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes 332 he can, and the Clause provides that persons shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty of £50, and that any article in respect of which the offence was committed shall be forfeited.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI do not know the answer to the question I am asking, but is it the fact, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that the offender is convicted by a magistrate?
§ Major HILLSCertainly.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDOr is the fine inflicted by the Customs authorities?
§ Major HILLSNo penal authority is given to them.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI think that there is. In the case which I was quoting, which is a real case, a particular firm of merchants in this country were asked, not by a magistrate, but by the Customs officer, to send a cheque for £50 in case the Customs were prepared to inflict the penalty.
§ Major HILLSHere you have a Clause that puts the penalty up to £50——
§ Mr. CRAWFURDNo.
§ Major HILLSLet us be clear about this. For certain crimes like burglary a man may get up to seven years' penal servitude. A burglar is liable, to that, but that does not mean that every burglar gets seven years' penal servitude; and unless you put some such Clause as this in the Act, the Revenue would look ridiculous and the manufacturers would snap their fingers at it.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDWill the Financial Secretary insert the word "maximum"?
§ Mr. SAMUELAs there appears to be some doubt about it, between now and Report stage I will look into it.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDWill the Financial Secretary agree to consider the procedure in these cases?
§ Mr. SAMUELI will look into the whole matter, and carefully bear in mind what has been said in the Debate.
§ Mr. HARRISIn these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANIs it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
§ Mr. BUCHANANNo. I want to raise one or two points. With all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), he is not in charge of the Bill, and I want to know from the Financial Secretary an answer to a specific point. What does this Bill mean by this £50? Does it mean, what those of us sitting on these benches think that it means, an arbitrary fine of £50? Are we not entitled to get from the Government an answer, not on some day in the future, but now? We are passing an Act, and it is the duty of the House not to squeal after Acts are passed, but to see that the wording of the Acts are properly set out. It is no use blaming some civil servant for doing wrong afterwards; we should make the thing clear now, and we think that this means that a highly placed civil servant Has a right to say to a manufacturer who makes lighters that he is committing one of the crimes set out in the Clause, and that he would be fined £50. There is no procedure to enable the offence to be proved or any provision for defence. We may be right, or we may be wrong, but we are entitled to get from the Government who is right, and I ask that we shall be told now, and not on some other day. My constituency is vitally interested, and I want to appear—although Members of Parliament are not always given credit for being sensible—I want to appear sensible on this subject when I go there.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERIt is very desirable that, in dealing with a penalty Clause like this, we should follow the usual statutory form of words. If the case is one which is to be tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the Government ought to see that the wording is in accordance with the usual form. In the first Act which I look up, the Cinematograph Films Act, it is provided that an offender will be liable, on summary conviction, to a term of imprisonment or "a fine not exceeding fifty pounds." I think that the case would be met now if the Financial Secretary would allow the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, and if he moved a manuscript Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that it is too late to do that. The Committee has refused leave to withdraw the Amendment. This particular matter, therefore, must wait until the next stage.
§ Mr. WESTWOODI think we are entitled to an explanation on this point.
§ Mr. WESTWOODThe Financial Secretary had no intention of getting up to answer until we rose on this side of the House I have not obtruded in these Debates, and I am not going to take very much time now but at least I am entitled to an explanation of these proposals. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"] If the hon. Member who has suggested that I should sit down will go out we shall get on. What I say is that here we have an instance of plain English of which there may be two interpretations. None of us can read into the wording of this particular Sub-section the definite statement that it is a maximum penalty. That point has been stressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). We want to know and surely the Financial Secretary ought to know what was in the minds of the Treasury officials when the Finance Bill was being prepared.
§ Mr. SAMUELThe question put by the last speaker and the other speakers is quite a reasonable one, and I am willing to give an answer. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) put a specific question as to what was in the minds of the Treasury when this Clause was drafted. What is in my own mind, and I say this merely as a man of the world and not as a. Minister, is that this penalty can only be inflicted by one of His Majesty's Courts of Justice, and that the penalty might be anything up to but not exceeding £50. My view is that it will not be an absolutely fixed penalty of £50 in every case, but that it may be up to £50. They are my private views, as I see the position. I am not a Law Officer, and therefore I may be wrong on the point of law, but if hon. Members opposite are not willing to accept my way of looting at it I am perfectly willing, if they will withdraw this Amendment or have it negatived, to have the matter looked into and regularised if and where necessary.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONWill the hon. Member give particular attention to the point that whatever penalty is going to be imposed can only be inflicted after police court proceedings?
§ Mr. SAMUELI will look into the matter when this Debate comes before me in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
§ I will go into the question that has just been raised.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 116.
337| Division No. 189.] | AYES. | [8.30 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Fairlax, Captain J. G. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McLean, Major A. |
| Albery, Irving James | Fermoy, Lord | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Fielden, E. B. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l) | Finburgh, S. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Forrest, W. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Frece, Sir Walter de | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gadie. Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Gates, Percy. | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Bennett, A. J. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Berry, Sir George | Grace, John | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Bethel, A. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, w.) | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Oakley, T. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hamilton, Sir George | Penny, Frederick George |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hammersley, S. S. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hanbury, C. | Perring, Sir William George |
| Brass, Captain W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Harland, A. | Philipson, Mabel |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Pilcher, G. |
| Buchan, John | Harrison, G. J. C. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Preston, William |
| Burman, J. B. | Haslam, Henry C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ramsden, E. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cassels, J. D. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Remer, J. R. |
| Christie, J. A. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hills, Major John Waller | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hilton, Cecil | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Cope, Major Sir William | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Rye, F. G. |
| Couper, J. B. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hume, Sir G. H | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hurd, Percy A. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Hurst, Gerald B. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Sandon, Lord |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Iveagh, Countess of | Savery, S. S. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jephcott, A. R. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lamb, J. Q. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Drewe, C. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Duckworth, John | Loder, J. de V. | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Looker, Herbert William | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lougher, Lewis | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Tinne, J. A. |
| England, Colonel A. | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Winby, Colonel L. P. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Watts, Sir Thomas | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl | |
| Wells, S. R. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley | Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Scurr, John |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sexton, James |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hirst, G. H. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Shinwell, E. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Baker, Walter | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smillie, Robert |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bromfield, William | Kelly, W. T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Kennedy, T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kirkwood, D | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lansbury, George | Strauss, E. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Lawson, John James | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Livingstone, A. M. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lowth, T. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lunn, William | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove. W. G. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dalton, Hugh | Mackinder, W. | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Day, Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Townend, A. E. |
| Dennison, R. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dunnico, H. | March, S. | Viant, S. P. |
| Edge, Sir William | Morris, R. H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Murnin, H. | Westwood, J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Naylor, T. E. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Whiteley, W. |
| Gosling, Harry | Owen, Major G. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Greenall, T. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | Wright, W. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Riley, Ben | |
| Hardie, George D. | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Harris, Percy A. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Mr. Alter Parkinson and Mr. Charles |
| Hayday, Arthur | Scrymgeour, E. | Edwards. |
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.