HC Deb 30 April 1930 vol 238 cc209-79

15. "That where any property which, while enjoyed in kind, is exempt from estate duty by virtue of Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1896, and the Acts amending that Act, is sold, death duties shall become chargeable on the proceeds of sale in respect of the last death on which the property passed and, as respects estate duty, at the rate appropriate to the principal value of the estate passing on that death."

First Resolution read a Second time.


I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "3s. 0d." and to insert instead thereof "2s. 6d."

The history of the Beer Duty is a long one. It was first imposed in 1660, in the reign of Charles II, the rate for strong beer being 4s. 9d. per barrel, and for small, intermediate or table beer 1s. 3d. per barrel. Apparently nothing further was done in the matter until 1697, when a malt tax at the rate of 6¾d. a bushel was levied in addition. In 1711, a hop duty of 1d. per pound was imposed, but this was eventually abolished in 1862. In 1784, a licence duty was imposed on brewers, with a minimum of 20s. for table beer, and for strong beer it ranged from 30s. to £50. In 1800, the Beer Duty, after some minor changes, was raised to 10s. for strong and 3s. for small beer. In 1830, the rates were 9s. to 10s. for strong and 1s. 9½d. to 5s. for small beer. Including the malt tax, the taxation on beer at the end of the reign of George IV was approximately 4½d. per gallon.

In 1850, a sugar duty of 1s. 4d. per hundredweight was imposed. In 1854 it was increased to 6s. 6d., in 1874 to 11s. 6d., and in 1880 it became merged in the Beer Duty. In 1880, Mr. Gladstone repealed the malt and sugar duties and brewers' and maltsters' licence duties, and in their stead a licence duty of £1 was imposed on all brewers for sale, and a duty of 6s. 3d. for every barrel of beer of a specific gravity of 1,057. In 1889, in Mr. Goschen's Budget, the standard of gravity was changed from 1,057 to 1,055, equal to an increased duty of 2½d. In 1890, Mr. Goschen reduced the duty by 3d. per barrel so far as Imperial revenue was concerned, but immediately re-imposed it for local taxation purposes. In 1894, in Sir William Harcourt's Budget, the duty was increased from 6s. 3d. to 6s. 9d. In 1900, the duty was increased by a "temporary" war tax of 1s., which remained permanent. In 1910, the brewers' licence duty was altered from a flat rate of £1, and based on a sliding scale, the effect of which was to increase the duty by about 3d. per barrel. In 1914, the output was 36,165,000 standard barrels, which may be described as the pre-War rate. In 1914, the duty was raised from 7s. 9d. to 23s. per standard barrel. In 1916, it was raised to 24s., in 1917 to 25s., in 1918 to 50s., and in 1919, under the Coalition Government, to 70s. In 1920, in a time of peace, the duty was raised to 100s., or practically 13 times the pre-War rate.

Beer drinkers in this country have not been treated fairly. Every other War tax has been reduced, while the tax on beer was not only increased considerably immediately after the end of the War, but has since been doubled, and to-day beer has reached a price, owing to taxation, at which it is impossible for the ordinary workman to purchase even a small quantity out of his weekly wages without depriving his wife and family of the necessaries of life. Take the case of an agricultural labourer. I am asked and have been asked many times, "When are we going to get cheaper beer and cheaper tobacco?" If an agricultural labourer in Kent, with the standard rate of wages, namely, 32s. a week, purchases a pint of beer for himself and half a pint for his wife—[Interruption.] I do not think that even the most hardened teetotaler in this House would consider that a pint and a half for a family is an excessive quantity. At the price at present charged for beer, that will represent 18½ per cent. of that man's total wages. He is not able to do it; but he has a right to the beer—he has a right to that moderate refreshment—but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to let him have it. In the case of the industrial worker also, his wages are certainly in excess of those of the agricultural worker, but still they are not sufficient to allow him to indulge in the moderate alcoholic refreshment to which he is entitled.

There is a difference between the agricultural worker and the industrial worker. The agricultural worker has not the facilities for amusement which the industrial worker has. In a constituency that is really agricultural, the only amusement that the worker has is generally to have a nice little chat with his pals in the local public house over the work of the day. Fortunately, as a rule, politics do not interest him; his neighbour's cow or his neighbour's pig interests him considerably more than anything which takes place in this House. He cannot go to the cinema; he cannot go to a theatre; and, therefore, when he is seated in his local amusement house, the public house, he is entitled, I think, to have one pint of beer a day, half a pint in the evening and half a pint with his dinner in the middle of the day.

What is the difference between beer, tea and coffee? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wanted to give a free breakfast table. Why not a free dinner table? Why not give the labourer the same advantage that is given to the tea drinker? Surely, we must admit that there is more family disaffection caused through tea than through beer. There is more bad temper created in the women of to-day through the excessive consumption of tea in one month than there is through the excessive consumption of beer by men in 12 months. Tea is only a drink, after all. Beer, in addition to being a drink, is a food. Yet you take the entire duty off tea, and, instead of leaving the Beer Duty as it was originally, every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer adds to it, because he knows that the beer drinker, generally speaking, is a good-tempered individual, contented and wishful always to do his duty to his country. He curses the Chancellor of the Exchequer over his glass of beer, but he goes on his way grumbling and does not voice his complaint through an organised body. It is the usual case of the man in the street having no voice in this House. The country consists in the main of beer drinkers. Beer is our national drink, and will remain so for ever. It has built up our nation. We have not built it up on tea or coffee or slops. I appeal to the Chancellor to agree to this reduction and also to make up his mind, if he has a surplus next year, that it is his duty to beer drinkers to allocate it entirely to the reduction of the present very excessive duty on beer.

Captain BOURNE

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so for a rather different reason from that of my hon. Friend. I agree with him that the present duty constitutes a very heavy and unfair tax, but I am more interested in the Chancellor's statement in his Budget speech that he had an assurance from the brewers to the effect that the duty would not be passed on to the public in the shape of beer of a lower specific gravity. I realise that it is impossible to pass this duty on to the public in the shape of an increased price, as it would amount only to ⅛d. per pint, which is smaller than the smallest coin of the Kingdom. I quite understand that the big brewers can bear this extra taxation without very serious inconvenience, but I want to know what is going to be the position of the smaller breweries, carrying on local businesses, supplying people with the beer to which they are accustomed and which they like, and not finding it too easy to make both ends meet. I feel that this may be the last straw which will drive these smaller businesses to close down and to merge themselves in larger concerns. I do not think it is good for the industrial life of the country that we should so frame our taxation as to encourage and hasten the process of rationalisation or trustification of everything as seems to be the desire of so many people at present.

The big firms can shoulder the extra taxation. They can probably, by means of slight economies and employing slightly leas labour, manage to carry the burden without putting up the price to the consumer or seriously deteriorating the quality of the article. But the bigger the company, the less there is of the human touch between those who are responsible for its conduct and those whom it employs. The big business will have its head office in London and its brewery, or breweries, in other parts of the country, and those who are responsible for its conduct have no knowledge of the employés, no knowledge of their public-houses and no knowledge whatever of the conditions of the population whom they serve. That is not good for the country, for the people employed, nor for anyone. Yet it seems to me that by this system of taxation you are always making it easier for the big business and harder for the small one. We are, in fact, encouraging that very rationalisation of which so many Members opposite complain because of its effect on employment. We should not put our taxation in such a way as to weight the scales unfairly against the small private business. It is because I fear that that I support the Amendment. I should like to know whether the Chancellor has had an assurance from the smaller brewers, or whether he has merely received an assurance from one or two of the bigger companies.


It is unfortunate that, whenever this subject comes up for discussion, it tends to be treated something like a comic strip and to evoke hilarity and amusement. I want to say a word on the principle that is involved in connection with this duty, as representing an agricultural constituency on which this form of taxation bears very heavily. If anyone had the conception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being a public benefactor, whether in fact or in aspiration, I am sure he would have changed his view on listening to the Budget statement. The principle that has been carried through this financial legislation has been very largely, in the wards of the Chancellor himself, to place the fresh burden, which he said he was compelled to place, on broad backs, and I presume he regarded the brewers' backs as being sufficiently broad to bear another straw.

Very often, when you are doing a certain thing, you find that the effects are not exactly what you thought they were going to be, and in this matter there is not only the big dividend distributing, wealth-earning company, but there is also the consuming population, who are the foundation of the existence of the business whose prosperity is subject to taxation. If it were the ambition of the Chancellor and of hon. Members opposite gradually to arrive at the complete elimination, not only of taxation on what is called the breakfast table, but taxation that is widely distributed, we have here a case in which the largest proportion of the beer drinkers are classed among the weekly wage earners and, therefore, in constantly piling the burden of taxation on to this article, he is to that extent piling an unfair proportion on to the consumers of this commodity.

If this were a question of temperance legislation, it would perhaps be an entirely different question as to whether you were going, by regulation or taxation, predatory or otherwise, to try to eliminate what you regarded as a bad habit, but we are not considering that at the moment. We are considering the principle of raising revenue for carrying on the activities of the country. I think anyone who heard the Mover of the Amendment, or who has seen the comparative tables of the general consumption of commodities and the burden of taxation that they bear, must admit that the tax or, beer is out of all proportion to any theory of taxation. The only excuse for it is that you charge all that the traffic will bear, and this traffic has been able to carry all this piling up of taxation. Members who do not live in country districts cannot realise in the way we do what a tremendous difference the heavy taxation of this article has made to the ordinary population of the countryside. It has almost made beer a luxury. I do not pose as a temperance legislator at all, but I believe that, owing to the regulated consumption of that article, the nation gains from every point of view. I wish to take the opportunity of emphasising that the time has about come when it is no longer a broad back on which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer can place additional burdens, because, so far from being the back of the despised brewer, it is the back of the consuming population; it is the back- bone of this country on which the burden is being placed. Therefore, I urge this reduction on the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the principle that his method of taxation is an unfair one in this particular direction and that the time has come to call a halt in constantly adding and adding to the burden of the consumers of the countryside.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I should like to add a few words in support of my hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment on behalf of the agricultural labourer whose needs are never thought of. If nothing else can be done, at least something should be done to cheapen his beer. It would repay this country and enable him to do much more work. Many of us have supported temperance, not from the total abstinence point of view, but from the point of view of better conditions in the public-houses. This, I believe, tends to do more to stop drunkenness than anything else, and it is one of the things which you really penalise by keeping this vicious taxation upon the brewers. I have never had any money in breweries, and I have nothing to do with brewers. It is simply from the point of view of this new movement which started in the Army and which, while in the Army, so many of us supported. It is now developing in civil life, and I fear that this Budget will do something towards checking it. It was started in the Army by General Smith-Dorrien. We had our wet canteen and our dry canteen. The wet canteen was like a prison cell. Anyone who wanted a drink had to go into that cheerless place, and when the men were allowed to have beer with their supper in the dry canteen, it produced a revolution in the Army. The arrangement was continued during the War and certain civilians were very much struck by it.

About a month ago the movement to introduce better conditions in the public-houses in the poorer parts of London was explained to some of us by representatives of the society concerned, and their point was that, if they could get some help from the Government, they knew that the brewers would be able to give some of their spare profits in order to build better houses and make gardens round public-houses and generally improve the conditions, so as to make them places where men could take their wives and children. The movement depended upon the brewers being big subscribers. The society can show you houses which have been developed on these lines by Whitbreads and other brewers, and have proved a great success. It is a great pity that heavy taxation should penalise a movement of this sort which really is going to increase temperance more than any other method and make people more respectable and better. I should be very sorry if this movement were to be deliberately stopped now that the brewers are doing all that they can with spare money to help this movement, which is one of great importance and which this Budget will do much to impede.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

I am sure that the whole House listened with a great deal of interest to the historical sketch that was given by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), who moved this Amendment. When an alteration was proposed in the duty on beer the House would, of course, have been disappointed if we had not had several speeches extolling the value of beer and the importance of it to the people of this country. But when the hon. Member for Canterbury, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), speaking later, described this additional duty as penalising the agricultural labourer and penalising consumers generally, I think they were considerably wide of the mark.


My remark was that it was the total duty at present levied and not this particular 3s.


That may be so, but that surely is not a question for debate on this particular proposal. The proposal which is the subject of discussion is to put on an additional 3s. a barrel, and the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member is to reduce that 3s. to 2s. 6d. I waive aside the fact that he proposes to take off only 6d. because I realise that it is the Parliamentary form of moving to get rid of the whole 3s. The point I am making is that the 3s. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to add to the Beer Duty is not anticipated to have any effect at all on the price of beer to the consumer. It may be that there is a case which the hon. Members would like to make for removing a large part of the Beer Duty, but the question of price to the consumer does not enter into the proposal which we are discussing to-day at all. Therefore, I think that the whole of the case which they endeavoured to make against the proposals of the Resolution put forward by my right hon. Friend entirely falls to the ground.

4.0 p.m.

The case which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) made was a different one. He said, "I admit that this tax will fall upon the brewers and will not be passed on to the consumer, and that it may be that the larger brewer will be prepared to carry this burden without taking it out of the quality of beer or out of the consumer. But what is the position to be with regard to the smaller brewers?" When my right hon. Friend said that he had had an assurance from the brewers, he was not speaking of the well-to-do brewers only but of the brewers as a whole. In so far as the brewers are represented by the Brewers Society—and I understand that it is a society which includes the big and the small brewers and is thoroughly representative of the trade generally—it was that Brewers Society which gave the assurance to which my right hon. Friend referred. It was not until they had a meeting, at which 50 different representatives of the trade were present, that they gave the assurance to which my right hon. Friend referred. That assurance was that they would not attempt to pass the additional duty in the price to the consumer and that they would not alter the gravity of the beer; that they were in a position to bear the burden of the duty without passing it on to anyone else. In these circumstances, it seems to me that there is very little case for the Amendment, and, of course, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to sacrifice the loss of revenue involved. The actual Amendment would mean a loss of something like £500,000, but if the Amendment is merely a means of negativing the whole increase of 3s., of course, that would mean a loss to the Revenue of £3,000,000 which we hope to get from this addition to the duty. Therefore, I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment.


The point that I want to put to the House is a different one from the points that have been put so far. I am not bringing it forward on behalf of either the brewers or the beer consumers, but on behalf of the growers of malting barley. I understand that this addition to the duty will not be passed on to the consumer by the brewer, and that the brewer will not reduce the specific gravity of the beer; but I have very grave fears that he will try to get as much as he can out of the grower of malting barley, for the production of which very large tracts of land in the eastern counties are used. A few years ago it was the practice to use good malting barley in beer, and to pay high prices for the barley. In recent years there has been a tendency on the part of travellers for the merchants in the market to say they will not buy any more malting barley but only feeding stuff, at a very much lower price, and it has been found that this has been sold to the brewers for malting. I am afraid that there will be an attempt to knock down the price of malting barley, low as it is in the eastern counties, and try to get this tax out of the very hard-pressed farmers in those counties.


I should like to take a rather more general aspect on this Amendment, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £3,000,000 which, I understand, is to be raised by this duty, will be counted in the national statistics upon the direct or the indirect side of our ratio of taxation? It seems to me very important that that ratio between direct and indirect taxation, which has for so many years been followed as an index of the political character of Governments, should be based on sound and true foundations. During the last few years many taxes have been added which are of a different character altogether from those which formerly constituted the basis of indirect taxation. In the old days it was said that indirect taxation is the fund mainly contributed by the mass of the people, and direct taxation is the fund mainly contributed by the well-to-do, and, as far as you are dealing with great articles of popular consumption, tea, sugar, beer, no doubt there is a great deal of truth in that. The index is sound, and that is why it was always the subject of such careful scrutiny from year to year in all the great Budgets at the end of the last century and the beginning of this.

But when you introduce taxes of a sumptuary kind on luxuries—silk, motor cars, musical instruments, and all sorts of matters which are not amongst the staple articles of popular consumption—obviously, you are introducing into the ratio new factors, and in this case the right hon. Gentleman is not really levying an indirect tax at all. It is his boast—one made not for the first time by a Chancellor of the Exchequer—that by private discussions with the leaders of a great trade, by putting pressure upon them, by coming to an arrangement with them—I am not at all criticising this—he has secured from them a, yielding up of some of their profits in the farm or a direct tax, that being included in the total of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation is paid by the consumer. Here is a tax, the very essence of which is that it is not to be paid by the consumer. Why vitiate the figures by introducing a factor which is obviously entirely contrary to the very purpose for which the ratio of indirect taxation is always quoted? No doubt if the right hon. Gentleman has taken this £3,000,000 by direct taxation from one particular class of producers, he will still emphasise how in his Budget he has carried the ratio of direct taxation much higher than it has ever been carried before, and has lowered that of indirect taxation. But these will be figures produced on an altogether unsound basis, and it seems to me that we require a new classification. I am all for the ratio being strictly followed from year to year as it should be followed, on a strictly comparable basis, and for that purpose sumptuary taxation on articles ought not to be included among indirect taxation. They ought to be in a separate category, and certainly taxes like these, the whole yield of which is to be paid, not by the consumers but by a limited class, ought to be withdrawn from any fair computation of statistics

of the ratio between direct and indirect taxation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden)

I am afraid that I could not see very much relevance in the right hon. Gentleman's observations. The question which is now before the House is whether the proposed increase of the Beer Duty should be reduced by 6d. I am concerned with the amount of revenue I shall receive under this proposal, and I leave it to statisticians to decide the question as to whether they will include this increase under direct or indirect taxation. I think it is rather unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have raised this question. His memory has failed him on this occasion. He was out of the House of Commons at the time, but the Leader of the Opposition reduced the Beer Duty in 1923, and he did it under an arrangement similar to the one I have made now. Then, the brewers undertook to bear something like £4,000,000 of the cost of the reduction. I suppose that since 1923 up to the present time, the whole receipts from the Beer Duty have been classed as indirect taxation, and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman has on more than one occasion presented to the House figures in regard to the proportions of direct and indirect taxation over a series of years, and no doubt they include the revenue from this duty. As I said, however, I am more concerned with the question of getting revenue, and, for the time being, I am not very much concerned whether in future it will be classed as direct or indirect taxation. Of course, it is perfectly true that this duty will be paid by the brewer, and, therefore, in that sense it might not strictly come under the category of indirect taxation.

Question put, "That '3s. 0d.' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 112.

Division No. 260.] AYES. [4.9 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Bellamy, Albert Brothers, M.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Benson, G. Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Alpass, J. H. Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Ammon, Charles George Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Burgess, F. G.
Arnott, John Bowen, J. W. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Ayles, Walter Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Broad, Francis Alfred Caine, Derwent Hall-
Barnes, Alfred John Brockway, A. Fenner Cape, Thomas
Barr, James Bromfield, William Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Brooke, W. Charleton, H. C.
Clarke, J. S. Kinley, J. Romeril, H. G.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kirkwood, D. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Knight, Holford Rowson, Guy
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Cove, William G. Lathan, G. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George Law, Albert (Bolton) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dallas, George Law, A. (Rosendale) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrence, Susan Sanders, W. S.
Day, Harry Lawson, John James Sandham, E.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Sawyer, G. F.
Dickson, T. Leach, W. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Duncan, Charles Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Ede, James Chuter Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Edmunds, J. E. Lees, J. Shield, George William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lindley, Fred W. Shillaker, J. F.
Egan, W. H. Lloyd, C. Ellis Shinwell, E.
Elmley, Viscount Logan, David Gilbert Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
England, Colonel A. Longbottom, A. W. Simmons, C. J.
Foot, Isaac Longden, F. Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Forgan, Dr. Robert Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Sinkinson, George
Freeman, Peter Lowth, Thomas Sitch, Charles H.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lunn, William Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gibbins, Joseph McElwee, A. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Mackinder, W. Snell, Harry
Gill, T. H. McKinlay, A. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gillett, George M. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Glassey, A. E. McShane, John James Sorensen, R.
Gossling, A. G. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Stamford, Thomas W.
Gould, F. Mansfield, W. Stephen, Campbell
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) March, S. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Marcus, M. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Granville, E. Marshall, Fred Strauss, G. R.
Gray, Milner Mathers, George Sullivan, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Matters, L. W. Sutton, J. E.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Middleton, G. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Montague, Frederick Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Morley, Ralph Thurtle, Ernest
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morris, Rhys Hopkins Tinker, John Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Tout, W. J.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mort, D. L. Turner, B.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Moses, J. J. H. Walker, J.
Hardie, George D. Muggeridge, H. T. Wallace, H. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Murnin, Hugh Wallhead, Richard C.
Haycock. A. W. Oldfield, J. R. Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Watkins, F. C.
Herriotts, J. Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Palin, John Henry Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Paling, Wilfrid Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Hoffman, P. C. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wellock, Wilfred
Hollins, A. Perry, S. F. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Hopkin, Daniel Peters, Dr. Sidney John West, F. R.
Horrabin, J. F. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Westwood, Joseph
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Phillips, Dr. Marion White, H. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph Picton-Turbervill, Edith Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Pole, Major D. G. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Isaacs, George Potts, John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Price, M. P. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Johnston, Thomas Quibell, D. F. K. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Rathbone, Eleanor Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Raynes, W. R. Wise, E. F.
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Kennedy, Thomas Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Briscoe, Richard George Colman, N. C. D.
Albery, Irving James Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Colville, Major D. J.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Buchan, John Cranborne, Viscount
Atkinson, C. Bullock, Captain Malcolm Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Butler, R. A. Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Beaumont, M. W. Carver, Major W. H. Davies, Dr. Vernon
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Castle Stewart, Earl of Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Bird, Ernest Roy Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Edmondson, Major A. J.
Boyce, H. L. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Elliot, Major Walter E.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Fermoy, Lord Leighton, Major B. E. P. Skelton, A. N.
Fison, F. G. Clavering Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Long, Major Eric Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lymington, Viscount Smithers, Waldron
Ganzonl, Sir John Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Makins, Brigadier-General E. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Margesson, Captain H. D. Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Marjoribanks. E. C. Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Thomson, Sir F.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Turton, Robert Hugh
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Haslam, Henry C. Muirhead, A. J. Wardlaw-Milne. J. S.
Henderson, Capt. H. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Wayland, Sir William A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. O'Neill, Sir H. Wells, Sydney R.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Penny, Sir George Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Pilditch, Sir Philip Womersley, W. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Preston, Sir Walter Rueben Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Hurd, Percy A. Purbrick, R. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Knox, Sir Alfred Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Major the Marquess of Titchfield
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart and Captain Wallace.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Savery, S. S.

I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any beer brewed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is brewed solely from malt and hops of Home production there shall be allowed a rebate of two shillings for every thirty-six gallons of worts, and for the purposes of this Resolution beer shall be deemed to be brewed from Home-produced malt only when the proportion of sugar and malt does not exceed fifteen per centum. If we pass this Amendment it will certainly have an effect for good on agriculture in this country. I am not criticising the brewer—I am not a brewer nor do I own a single brewery share—but we know perfectly well that if an inducement were held out to the brewing industry, by means of this Amendment, that they are more likely to make a bigger effort from the business point of view to use more English barley than they are doing at the present time. The barley industry, like every other branch of agriculture, is in a very bad state. When we look at the figures of years ago and compare them with the figures of to-day we can appreciate, with the increased costs of to-day, what a tremendous difference the price of barley has made to the farmer of 1930 compared with the farmer of 1870. In 1870, the average price of barley was 34s. 7d. per quarter, and in 1880 the price was 33s. 1d. In 1929, although the cost of living was nearly double that of 1880, the price of barley was down to 29s. 9d. The farmer has to pay 70 per cent. more on his labour bill and everything that he buys, his concentrates, his cake, his tools, his machinery, has increased in price, but for the article that he produces he is receiving less than in 1880, although in 1880 he, or his father, was able to purchase the machines and other things necessary to carry on his industry at half the figure that has to be paid to-day.

In 1929, we imported 12,975,345 quarters of barley, of which 2,726,585 quarters were imported from the Empire and 10,248,760 quarters from foreign sources. Farmers in this country would grow more barley if there was an incentive for them to do so. The greater the demand for brewing barley the higher the price would be. Barley may be divided into three classes. The best barley produced in this country is purchased by the brewers; the second quality goes to the domestic consumer, generally speaking, and the third quality is used for poultry food and for fattening stock. The brewer wants the best article that he can procure and for that article he is naturally going to pay a better price. The farmer is not always able on the same land to produce a good barley crop sufficient to offer to the brewer, but, taking the country as a whole, every farmer from year to year or every year or two is able to offer to the brewer, if the season has been favourable, barley for the purpose of being made into beer. If we could induce the brewer to purchase a larger percentage of British barley we should have gone some way towards relieving the present depressing barley situation. I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In my constituency, a considerable quantity of hops are produced. The hop industry is in a very depressed condition, owing to the fact that there has been over-production, due to the reduced consumption of beer, in part, and due also to the excessive price of beer and excessive taxation. If it were not for the £4 Duty, which protects to a certain extent the hop growers, the industry would be in a very much worse position than it is. If we could pass this Amendment and a greater percentage of home-produced barley were used by the brewers, the brewers would naturally require a larger percentage of English hops. Therefore, it would not only do one industry good but would have a good effect on both industries.


I beg to second the Amendment. I, like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), can say that I am not in the least interested in the brewing industry. I am to a certain extent interested in the question of beer, slightly as a consumer but more as a producer of those articles that should enter into the manufacture of beer—malt and hops. The Amendment proposes that there should be a rebate to a small extent upon beer brewed of British malt and hops and that that rebate should be enforced only when there is a limited percentage of other ingredients brewed in the beer, such as sugar. I regard this Amendment as a small step towards the ideal which I have always desired to attain, and that is pure beer for the British consumer, beer made of malt and hops, both of which should be grown in this country.

This is not the first time that I have spoken on this very controversial subject. The last time that I had the privilege and honour of discussing the matter was at 2 o'clock in the morning, when the subject of beer was possibly more congenial to the House that at the present time, 4.30 p.m., when we are thinking more of tea than of beer. I am in the possibly enviable position of knowing something about the subject of beer. Beer is defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a beverage manufactured from malt and hops. The beer consumed to-day, is not manufactured to a large extent from malt and hops, it is brewed from waste products of sugar manufacture, and possibly other chemicals enter into its composition.

My ideal is to obtain for the consumer that for which he pays his money—beer! I submit that the attainment of that ideal should receive and will receive, the sympathetic consideration not only of the hon. Members on this side of the House but also of hon. Members opposite. When beer is offered to a man for sale and he accepts the offer and pays his money, he expects to get beer, the product of malt and hops; but to-day he is not getting that product by any means. I know that in this argument I shall receive the sympathetic support of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), because my proposal would enable him to get that for which he pays. I am sorry that he is not present. I feel confident that I should also get the sympathetic support of the Noble Lady the Member of the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), because even she would expect that when a man paid for beer he would get it.

I am also a producer of milk. Hon. Members opposite are anxious to make sure that the milk put on the market is pure milk. If I attempted to make my milk of starch and water and sugar and fat I should, quite rightly, be immediately prosecuted for attempting to defraud the public. To some people milk is a beverage; to others beer is a beverage. Beer may not be as suitable as milk as a beverage for babies, but there is a class in the community which considers beer as essential as milk, and if it is necessary that the milk put on the market should be pure I suggest that it is equally essential in the interests of the community that the beer put on the market should be pure. I desire, as I have said, to protect the interest of the consumer, but my main desire in seconding this Amendment is to help that great industry of ours, British agriculture. As the mover of the Amendment has very clearly stated, the industry, particularly the arable side of it, is in a very precarious condition at the present time.

There is no part of the industry which has suffered recently to the extent that the barley grower has suffered. My hon. Friend has pointed out how a few years ago barley was fetching something like 40s. to 50s. per quarter. To-day, with the costs in the agricultural industry up 100 per cent., barley is selling for 25s. a quarter, some 5s. or 6s. below the pre-War price. That is pounds per acre below the cost of production. That is the position of the barley growers in a large part of the Eastern Counties of England. The farmer, I contend, has a great grievance when he sees brewers making beer out of foreign material. Beer is not a luxury, but a necessity, for the man who has to do hard physical work in the open air. There is no greater necessity for such a man than a good glass of beer. The farmer sees his men drinking beer made out of imported foreign barley while the barley that he is producing is unsaleable. The farmer has a definite grievance in the fact that his market is being destroyed by the foreign article.

I am aware that this Amendment may not receive the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The last time I moved an Amendment of this description the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of replying to me. He said that he could not accept the Amendment for financial reasons. I hope, however, that the Amendment to-day, which mentions a very small figure, will receive the right hon. Gentleman's approval. I am sure that it will have the approval of his colleague the Minister of Agriculture. The present Government have been in power nearly a year. In my constituency during the General Election supporters of the Government said: "Send us back to the House of Commons and we will make farming pay." I ask the House what single act has been done by the Government so far to help the farming industry? We were told to wait and see until a certain conference had made a report. We have waited patiently. That conference has not yet reported, and I understand that it is adjourned indefinitely.

I am sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to the advice of the Minister of Agriculture he would accept the Amendment, because the Minister of Agriculture is looking to discover in what way he may bring forward something this Session to help the agricultural industry. This Amendment is a small thing, but it would be a step in the right direction and would help the industry. The Minister of Agriculture is a representative of a Norfolk constituency, and a large proportion of the barley used in brewing is grown in Norfolk. I know that the Minister's constituents are urging him keenly to do something that will help the industry on the lines of having beer made as far as possible of British barley. I end with an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Two-and-sixpence a barrel is a little thing, but the rebate would be a slight enticement to the brewers to use British barley. It would provide a slight financial stimulus. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to the advice of the Minister of Agriculture and accept the Amendment.


I think I can congratulate my hon. Friends on introducing a subject which provokes hilarity in the House. Whenever the subject of beer is mentioned I notice that the spirits of hon. Members rise, and I think that that may be taken as a tribute to the good qualities of beer in the abstract. We are anxious to improve the quality of that beer, and so increase hilarity and enable this country to get through some of its political difficulties with far less trouble than is necessary to-day. Anyone who knows village life knows what a great social factor beer is. You have only to go into the village centre of social activity to realise that there is a certain assuaging of difficulties and differences of opinion round the little table and the beer pot. Unquestionably in my own constituency, where there are so many of these villages—about 120 of them—it would be an enormous aid in assuaging political difficulties if we were able to say in our public houses, "This beer is all-English beer." I put that point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wishes, as we all wish, to see a merry England again.

We have heard of the difficulties with which the Minister of Agriculture is faced. We have had in the country big conferences of farmers and farm-workers, assisted by hon. Members opposite, to try to make the Government and the country realise in what a really dangerous position agricultural production is, and how precarious is becoming the position of the agricultural worker. Moreover, as has been said, we have had an agricultural conference at which the three sections of agriculture have been trying to find a solution of present difficulties. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should come to the help of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We are told that the Minister of Agriculture will very shortly issue a White Paper in which he will set forth the means by which the Government propose to carry out their election pledge to the agricultural community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be giving material support to his right hon. Friend if he would accept the principle of this Amendment, though perhaps some of its details might have to be altered. No one can visit East Anglia, to say nothing of my own constituency, without realising what a desperate position has been reached by the arable agriculturists. Barley production is especially in peril, for reasons with which the House is familiar, and the position of the worker on the land is also imperilled.

If we could only get well established in this country the consumption of real beer, of English beer, an enormous boon would be conferred on the agricultural industry and on the consumers of beer. In the late Parliament I had the temerity to induce an East Anglian firm which produces all-English beer to send to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day a good specimen of its products, and the right hon. Gentleman accepted the gift. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is out of the House for the moment. If he were present I have no doubt that he would tell the House what a very fine product the beer was, and what a great benefit would be conferred on the community if we were able to provide them with a similar all-English product. Perhaps I am not too sanguine in saying that but for the little mishap of last May we might have had in this year's Budget the concession that we are now seeking in this Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may say, "But this cannot be done." He may say that investigations have shown that certain commercial treaties stand in the way of carrying out the suggestion contained in the Amendment. In reply to that argument, I submit that the word "cannot" is quite inapplicable when dealing with commercial treaties. We are such a large importing nation and other nations are so largely dependent on our market that, if we are only fair in our dealings, we can do practically what we like in the matter of commercial arrangements. I venture to say that a strong Government here, talking to Governments oversea which impose special burdens on our products, has only to speak to them in a language which they can understand, in order to get fair play for the products of this country and fair treatment as regards excise duties. We, on this side, have our own methods and we have our own suggestions to make. We know that if we regained our bargaining power we should have no difficulty in securing fair treatment in this matter as in all other matters.

I suggest to the House that the time has come when in this and in other matters we ought to look after our own people and follow the principle of "home first." My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) has reminded the House that one of the phrases used in the election addresses of the party opposite was "make farming pay." This Amendment provides one of the minor means by which the Government can redeem that pledge. If the spokesman of the Government were able to say that although, at the moment, certain difficulties existed, the Government were determined to put this proposal before the oversea, countries concerned and announce their intention to give this measure of fair play to British producers, I have no doubt that they would experience no difficulty in securing this great boon for British agriculture.


I rise to support this Amendment which follows closely the lines of a Bill introduced by me during this Session. We may take it that Socialist extravagance has made it necessary to increase the total volume of taxation and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his wisdom, has decided that he must have £2,750,000 from the brewers this year—rising afterwards, as I think it does, to something over £3,000,000 a year. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has calculated that there are few brewers concerned and that the consumers will be largely propitiated by the assurance that the retail cost of beer will not be increased. I feel a little uncertain, however, as to whether the quality of the beer will be improved as a result. One tax after another has been piled on beer by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer during recent decades. Beer has been taxed until it has very little body, soul or spirit left in it, and I am not sure that this little additional impost will not produce a struggle between the chemist and the Surtax which will probably end in our getting one stage nearer to synthetic beer. That, in itself, is not a cheerful outlook, but what I am chiefly concerned with in connection with this matter, is the position of the barley grower and the agricultural industry in general.

A great deal of barley is grown in our Eastern counties. It is all very well to ask, "Why do they not grow something else?" but that is not possible. There are thousands of acres in the Eastern counties on which barley is the only cereal crop that can be grown in the rotation. If barley ceased to be grown on that land, it would fall back into its natural state of heath or moorland. It is a very serious matter when we find that not only barley, but many other crops now grown upon this land are being grown at a loss, and when we find that costs all round in the agricultural industry are mounting up, while the prices of its products are constantly falling, we can only view with grave alarm any further prospect of a diminution in arable land, whether it is brought about by such a tax as this, or in any other way. One of the effects of such a tax will be that brewers will have to look round to see where they can effect a saving. They, of course, will want to get it back; and one of their resources in that respect will be to buy more foreign barley than they do at the present time.

The last season has been a particularly depressing one, because, while we have had magnificent barley crops, there have been heavier losses than in almost any previous year. These losses have been very largely due to large imports of barley, which have not only brought down the price, but have resulted in the better barley being taken out of the category of malting barley and depressed to the category of feeding barley because there was no market for it. The purpose of this Amendment is to encourage the brewer to buy British. We have the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board calling on the people to buy British. Why should not the legislature come in and help a little by making it worth while for the brewer to buy British instead of buying foreign, especially if it can be done without very much cost? It could be done by merely altering the tax, and personally I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some alteration in this flat rate of 3s. If he must have his total of £3,000,000 a year, let him make the tax higher for those who do not qualify and lower for those who do. Let us have some graduation of the tax in that way so as to give some encouragement and some inducement to the brewer, and make it better worth his while to buy British than to buy foreign.

In reference to the question of ingredients grown solely in the United Kingdom, if the word "solely" implies cent per cent, I question if that requirement is quite advisable. We have, I regret to say, become so much used to a large admixture of foreign barley in beer, that public taste—so my brewer friends inform me—now prefers a beer which can only be obtained with the partial use of foreign barley. I am not dogmatising upon this point, but if that statement be true, it might be wiser to insert some qualification and make the requirement a little lower than cent per cent. Personally, I look forward to the day when we shall revise the whole system of the taxation of beer and base it not solely upon gravities, but upon gravities graded according to the proportions of British ingredients which figure in the beer. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can in this matter to help the great industry of agriculture.


I need not remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of the peculiarly important problem which the fall in barley prices and the general lack of trade in barley have brought about in that great agricultural district of Scotland—the most northerly of our great arable districts—on the shores of the Moray Firth. In that area there is highly developed arable farming, the basis of which is barley and not wheat, as in the case of certain Southern districts; and it is a vital matter there that this prime crop should get the price which comes from a large consumption of malting barley and should not fall into the lower category—which its quality does not deserve—of a mere feeding stuff in the manned indicated by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington). I am aware of the argument with regard to commercial treaties which, I gather, applies to this and similar subjects, and this seems a suitable opportunity to emphasise a point which has been made on previous occasions, when we have been faced with the recurrent argument that steps in favour of British agriculture are impracticable owing to commercial treaties. That is the point that these commercial treaties should be reviewed, revised and, if necessary, withdrawn.

I do not pretend to be an expert in the matter of commercial treaties, but no one will, I think, deny that there is not a single commercial treaty in which we are concerned, the effect of which is not to assist our urban industries at the expense of our rural industries. It seems as if those who framed our commercial treaties entirely neglected the effectiveness of that weapon for the assistance of agriculture. That is only another example of the mental condition of this country—the almost complete urbanisation of the national mind and the complete neglect of all the deeper rural considerations. Looking broadly over the major questions arising in our national life, I am satisfied that there is none more important than that this over urbanisation of the British mind should be corrected and that the public men of this country, in every way and in every department of public life and legislation, should do their best to bring the rural side of British life into the position which it deserves to occupy and which indeed it must occupy if this country is to progress. If this Amendment could be introduced by a readjustment of commercial treaties, or if it were found on a close examination—which perhaps the topic has never received—that this Amendment could be introduced without interfering with any commercial treaty, then it might be a small step, but it would be a real step towards emphasing the necessity for developing the rural life in this country.

5.0 p.m.

Within the orbit of the Budget and the Budget Resolutions, I doubt whether any single alteration could be made which would more effectively, more rapidly and more directly assist arable agriculture in this country, than to give the home growers of barley an advantage in the malting barley market. That is a practical way in which agriculture can be assisted. We are led to believe that the Government have a profoundly thought-out scheme of agricultural reorganisation, and an agricultural policy on the widest possible scale. If it ever existed it must have been overlooked and lost. If at present we must content ourselves with making narrower suggestions, then there is none which would have a more valuable result than that the producers of malting barley should have this assistance and the brewer this incentive to use a national instead of a foreign product. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it be impossible for him at this stage to agree to the Amendment, to consider his great financial task in a closer relation to the rural necessities of the country. It will not do, looking at the life of this country in its broadest aspect, to continue to have the urban aspect always taking first place. It is a tendency of recent growth. We have only had some 70 years or so of Free Trade. If you consider the result on the life of this country of another 100 years, with this class of thought of always putting the town first and the countryside second, how can anyone face with equanimity the effect that this is likely to have on the national well-being.

It may be said that in an Amendment to the Budget Resolution it is asking the Government to go too far afield to have consideration as to what is likely to happen 100 years ahead, but, if you are to arrest these deep-seated tendencies, you cannot begin too soon. You must use the small weapons that are available, and I would urge upon the House that the smallest weapon should not be overlooked. The interests of barley growers should not be subordinated to any commercial treaty. I would ask the Financial Secretary, when he replies, to make it clear, if he cannot accept this Amendment, as to how existing commercial treaties of this country make its acceptance impossible, for I believe that in many cases these commercial treaties are merely a screen and a camouflage which is used not by any one Front Bench or any one Government alone, but by Governments generally, in order to save the trouble of facing up to all the difficulties of rural life and rural industry.

There is this other consideration: We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tests the whole national life by the question of whether it is being conducted on the principles of Free Trade. It is not prosperity, but it is purity that he is after, Free Trade purity. That seems to me, speaking as one who has always believed that economists are as bad constructors as are architects, to be a fatuous outlook on national life. To let Britain die rather than save her by other than Free Trade methods is folly. But I will not attempt the impossible task of converting the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I would say, however, that such a rebate as is here suggested is in no real sense an attack upon Free Trade principles. The Free Trade principle is that you should put no artificial barriers on the carrying on of international trade. True Free Trade does not prevent the giving of a better opportunity for our own industries so long as you do not do this by raising artificial barriers to international trade. That is not proposed in this Amendment. All it says is that home-grown barley is more likely to be used than barley grown abroad. That is a hideous proposition, perhaps, to certain Free Trade minds, but it does not controvert true Free Trade. This is the last Free Trade Government this country will ever see. Everyone knows that and is making ready for it. But I would venture to ask, dealing with this topic on the strictest principles of Free Trade, where is the damage in this Amendment; where does it controvert this fancy economic idea? There is no such opposition to Free Trade; and in this Free Trade Budget it would at least be an advantage that one industry should get assistance, and that our agriculture, which has been so damaged by 70 years of Free Trade, should, from a Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, get at least one crumb of comfort.


There are several reasons for supporting this Amendment. Living as I do in the midst of an arable district in East Anglia, I have been impressed by the fact that there have been only two occasions for discussing this subject. I have on both occasions spoken and dealt with the dumping of German wheat and the beet-sugar subsidy, giving a picture of what is happening, particularly in East Anglia. Living as I do in the midst of a district so closely affected, it would be impossible for me not to rise upon this occasion to attempt to convert the inconvertible, or rather impress, the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the necessity of giving this small rebate to the home grower of malting barley. There is more malting barley grown in my district than in others. It is suitable for wheat or malting barley, and, if we are not to have from the present Government any policy for dealing with the trouble of wheat growers, then I wish to have some assurance of assistance for barley growers. I listened to Dr. Schindler, who talked recently to the Commercial Committee of the House of Commons. The conditions are bad abroad, but I know that they are not so bad as they are in arable districts here. One way of proving this is by looking at the condition of the agricultural buildings which have not been repaired for a long time. What is more important is that the cottages, which should have been repaired from the proceeds of farming, are in a terrible condition. Agricultural cottage dwellers suffered more than the fishermen in the recent gale.

The economic conditions in the arable districts are deplorable, and I regret that no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture is here to listen to the conditions which prevail. I should have thought that this was one of the occasions for the Minister himself to be here to hear about this matter, and to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant this important though very slight assistance to the barley grower in England, and in East Anglia in particular. It would also help the small brewer, who will feel the new proposals in the Budget more than the large brewer. Personally, I prefer the products of the small brewer. In my division, there is beer produced—there are two places where it is produced—from pure British malt. In one district, it is sold at 4d. to the working man so that he may drink in the hours of his recreation what he has produced by the honest toil of his hands. I say, therefore, that the small brewer who does this should be compensated by the State, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give suitable attention to the Amendment for that reason.

It is often said that the home product is not so good as other beers; that it has not that bright and lustrous sheen associated with the bulldog strain, or that it is lacking in certain qualities which might improve the health or the happiness of the consumer. I would say, having consumed both in my Division, and in the House of Commons, that the home product is extremely good for health and for the palate. It would not be amiss of me to point out that the workers' sole recreations in the district where I live are his tobacco and his beer. He has not the facilities for going to picture houses or public libraries, and these two, his tobacco and his beer, form his only recreations. He simply cannot afford to over-indulge at the miserable wage that he now gets, and, therefore, there can be no possible argument as to an extension of drinking as a result of this rebate. As I have said, it would be welcomed by the small brewer, who will feel the taxation more than the large brewer, and it would be appreciated by the working man. We are told that if you provide a market for wheat or barley you would improve the position of agriculture, and I say that this Amendment would go a small way to improve the position.

There are one or two facts which some say constitute difficulties. First, that it cannot be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise without undue cost to the State, I say that it could. I have discussed it with the people in the trade in my Division, and they say that it should constitute no serious difficulty. On the question of purity, I believe that the effect of the Amendment would be good and would bring us nearer to getting good, digestible and better beer. I am sure it would reduce the number of teetotallers in this country, which would be a very good thing. There is another point which arises. When the hops meet the barley in the mash tun, the hops are now able to say to the barley, "We are protected," and the barley has to reply, "We are not protected, but are in a very much worse position than you are." I do not see that it is equity in the mash tun that barley should not have any form of attention and that the hops should be protected.

With regard to treaties, I am sure that I speak for a great many people in the agricultural districts when I say that it is about time our international obligations were not directed against the most oppressed section of the community. We have asked the Government to make representations to foreign administrations on this question. We asked them in the Debate on German wheat, and we ask them now, to let us manage our own Excise without asking the foreigner. The men of old, who presumably made this country what it is by their own enterprise and initiative—the working men of old and their employers—drank beer made of home barley and home hops, because very often they could get no other, and that is what has made England what it is. I therefore support this Amendment.


I should like, as the representative of an agricultural constituency from East Anglia, to say one or two plain words in relation to this Amendment. I very much enjoyed hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who has just sat down, but his optimism in regard to what Protection may possibly do for barley, combined with his detrimental remarks as to what has made old England what she is, leave me guessing as to what would happen in regard to the brewing interests if we could only get them to face the position in the same spirit as that in which the Opposition is facing the problem to-day. It seems to me that we are looking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what the brewing interest itself should long since have undertaken, and that is to supply a pure article made from British malt, British barley, and British hops; and when one considers the remarkable amount of profit secured from the aeroplane price and the submarine quality of the article. One must suggest that the remedy lies, not in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising the price of the article by putting on an additional tax, but rather by insisting that the brewers shall present an article that is worthy of the reputation suggested by the last speaker.

The position, from the British barley growers' point of view, is this, that both the politician and the brewer have played far too long with this subject, and that either of them, from the standpoint of real practical legislation, leaves us in the soup in rural Britain in relation to the growing of cereals. I simply rise to associate myself with a very earnest appeal to men of all parties in this House really to get down to the problem, apart from these petty tactics of making party capital out of small things that will not affect the price of barley one iota when it comes to the real value of the thing.


I rise to support the Amendment, because it seems to me that it would be the logical form of Preference where it is most needed. If there is one thing in the British Empire which really needs Preference, it is British agriculture. We should begin at home. It may be that that Preference will not appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, but I cannot help feeling that it will appeal to the Lord Privy Seal, or would, if he had any inkling of the fillip which it might give to agricultural employment. The barley districts of the country are the most hard-hit. The soil that can grow barley most profitably is light, shallow soil, for which barley is most eminently suited, and there is no question that help to barley would mean a great difference to the harvest in arable areas like those in a great part of my own constituency. I am an interested speaker in the sense that every year I produce a considerable quantity of malting barley, or barley that is fit for malting, which is very often not sold as such, but is fed to pigs. Barley taken by itself is, in the rotation of crops, one of the few paying crops, besides wheat, when it can be made to pay, which you can put into rotation in the spring. Much of the land that is prepared for wheat in the autumn cannot be put in, owing to weather and feeding off by sheep during the winter, but spring barley is the one paying crop on which you can get some hope of a return by using your best land for it. This Amendment should prove a real fillip for that crop.

It is true that the hop is protected to-day, but it does not make it much easier for the hop grower. I know a Kentish farmer who is farming 159 acres, of which a great proportion is in hop gardens, and this year his accounted loss is over £2,000. I have been told by many brewers that the British public has been gradually educated away from a taste for British beer. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) has indicated that there is in his constituency a brewery producing an all-British beer, and in the process of that education for which he is so zealous a proselytiser he has introduced into this House this all-British beer, which I would advise any hon. Member to taste, for it is excellent. It is becoming gradually a most expensive introduction for himself, because all his friends ask to taste it, and if it is an expensive matter to educate Members of this House up to a taste for British beer, it is also going to be an expensive job for the brewer, no matter what his motives are, to re-educate the British public up to a taste for British beer.

Through taxation and through disregard of one of our great national industries, beer has got more and more synthetic as time has gone on, and something must be done to make it worth while for the brewer really to get a chance of going back to what we were weaned on, namely, beer made from British malt and British barley in the old days. I personally would prefer to have seen the rebate proposed in the Amendment far bigger than it is, but I realise that it is almost beyond practical politics, even if we had the Chancellor's consent, with the state of the Exchequer as it is to-day. At the same time, I should like to say that beer, which can be grown in this country, and tobacco, which can be grown only in certain places adjoining my own constituency, are almost the only consolations of the agricultural labourer throughout the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to a very great extent. There is no greater richness, no greater geniality, no greater kindliness or companionship to be found than in the village "pub." Nobody who has any feeling for the British labourer will deride the fact that beer is a very good, simple, and friendly enjoyment of his leisure. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer very seriously to consider going back and giving the brewer this particular inducement to brew British, to de-synthetise our beer and to re-naturalise it, and, by doing so, above all to give the hardest hit of the arable portions of our country great assistance.


I approach this Amendment from a rather different angle than that from which it was approached by several of those who have spoken on this subject. I am a teetotaller, and I believe I share that distinction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, but where I think we part company—I am not sure—is that I have no desire to impose my particular predilections on my fellow citizens. I am afraid I do not know whether some would consider it a boast or whether it is a confession, but I have never drunk a glass of beer in my life. Nevertheless, I can whole-heartedly support this Amendment. It is evident, from the speeches to which we have listened, that there are beers and beers. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) gave us such a graphic description of the in gredients of modern beer that it surprises me that any hon. Member of this House could drink that concoction, but we have also had an equally graphic description, in the very eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), of the merits of pure beer.

I approach this question, in the desire to support the Amendment, from two points of view. I recognise, first of all, that even in spite of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), there will be a considerable number of people in this country who, for a considerable number of years more, will continue to drink beer, and my contention is that, if you insist on drinking this, to my palate, offensive beverage—[An HON. MEMBER: "You said you were a teetotaller!"]. I have tasted a glass of beer, but I have not consumed a whole glass of beer; and as no doubt, in spite of my personal dislike of this beverage, a large number of people in this country will continue to drink it, I think, in the interests of the health of the nation, they should drink and consume beer as pure as it is possible to make it. I believe this Amendment will, to a very limited degree, increase the supply and therefore the consumption of pure beer in this country.

The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor), who spoke from the other side, made an interesting contribution to the Debate, but it was rather difficult for us, on these benches, to understand quite clearly whether he supported this Amendment or not. He misinterpreted it. He said that this is a puny, miserable little sum, which would raise the price of beer. He said that it is no good trying to get pure beer by raising the price of beer, but he could not have read the Amendment, for the price of beer can hardly be raised by giving a rebate. We could not follow him in his statement on that point, but the whole of his arguments seemed to be not so much against the Amendment, as that the Amendment did not go far enough. He said that this miserable sum of 2s. 6d. will not do anything. Presumably, he would like an Amendment to substitute 10s. instead of 2s. 6d. It would be interesting if we could get some elucidation of his views on this matter, but, judging from what he said, we are led to hope that he will support us in the Division Lobby.

The other aspect from which I view this Amendment is that of agriculture. I happen to live in Kent, where acres are devoted to growing hops, and I also represent an agricultural constituency. I do not think that even the most sympathetic and warmest supporters of the present Government will contend that, while they have been in office during the past 10 months, they have by a single word or action done anything to assist in any manner those who depend for their livelihood on agriculture. From the very day that they took office, when they refused to carry out the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Army, Air Force and Navy should be fed upon British meat and upon a certain quantity of British-produced wheat, they have done nothing to bring hope to the hearts of those who live in agricultural districts.

This is a small matter, and I admit that it would not go far, but it would at least he a step in the right direction. It would not cost the Treasury much. We have been used in the last few months, while the Socialist Government have been in office, not to consider a few thousands of pounds; we have got used to talking of millions, and I cannot feel that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this small Amendment, it would make much difference to the Budget next year. I hope that he will not ignore it merely because it is a very small matter, because I believe that in the interests of pure beer and in the interests of the agricultural community it is a step in the right direction.


This Amendment has been put forward and supported from a considerable number of different points of view, but I do not imagine that the most sanguine of its supporters, even the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) will expect that it will be accepted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It really is hardly necessary for me to make any reply at all. Though hon. Members opposite have quoted in support the silent witness of the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal, and assured us that they must have made many representations to my right hon. Friend in its favour, that assertion is entirely without foundation. Hon. Members opposite have themselves given the reasons why this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted. They have reminded us perfectly correctly that it is debarred at the outset by commercial treaties, and one hon. Member asked me to specify exactly what it was in the commercial treaties that rendered the Amendment unacceptable. I will read a section from Article 14 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Germany. It provides that: No internal duties shall be levied within the territories of either of the two contracting parties…on goods the produce or manufacture of the territories of the other party which are other or greater than the duties levied in similar circumstances on the like goods of national origin. A rebate such as is proposed in this Amendment would run directly counter to that Article. One hon. Member said quite calmly that he thought that a treaty of this kind ought to be no bar, and that there are ways in which we could ride through the Treaty and get what we want in spite of it. I should have thought that that somewhat doubtful attitude was something like treating the Treaty as a scrap of paper, and it would be exceedingly unwise, even if it were not immoral, for us to treat an article of a Treaty in that way, because articles of that kind have a mutual reason for their existence, and, if we were to tear up and disregard the provisions of a treaty made in our in- terest, those with whom we made the treaty could tear it up from their point of view.

It may be suggested that this Treaty is one which accords with the principles and methods of the party which is at present in power, but, as a matter of fact, it was signed and the final negotiations were carried out, not by this Government, but by the late Government. It was signed in December, 1924, and my information is that its final provisions were agreed and negotiated by the late Government. Under those circumstances, when hon. Members talk about disregarding the provisions of this Treaty, they are really objecting to provision of an article which was made by their own Government. From the point of view of the Treaty, therefore, this Amendment is impossible, and could not in any case be accepted.

Apart from that, there are many other reasons why my right hon. Friend could not consider this Amendment. They were also mentioned in the speeches which we have already heard. In the first place, there is the loss of revenue. It is not possible to say exactly what the loss would be, because it is doubtful how far the brewers would think it worth while to take advantage of this provision; but, if they did go to the trouble to take advantage of it, it would probably involve a loss to the revenue of no less than £1,000,000. Quite obviously, my right hon. Friend could not face that loss. There are also administrative difficulties. One hon. Member attempted to make light of this, but it must be perfectly clear that, if we were to differentiate in the materials which are used by brewers, and to trace them back to their origin, it would involve a new system of machinery which would cause a great deal of trouble to set up and to carry through. One hon. Member attempted to argue that this Amendment was in strict accord with Free Trade principles, while the Noble Lord, the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) made the claim that it was a splendid illustration of preference—not Imperial Preference, but a preference protecting the goods produced in this country from the goods produced not only in foreign countries but in Canada and elsewhere.

Finally, an attempt was made to defend the Amendment on the ground that it was the only safeguard for getting pure beer. To allege that the beer at the present time is manufactured from impure articles, or from articles of chemical production, instead of from genuinely grown materials, is a very dangerous argument to pursue, and one which cannot be substantiated by the facts. Owing to the particular methods required in examining the brewers' accounts, we have full knowledge of the materials from which beer is made, and it would be a very unwise and unsound thing to have it stated, and to have it allowed to get abroad, that our beer is at present of an impure kind. These arguments show that this Amendment cannot possibly succeed. It would be at the present time contrary to a treaty, and it would be necessary to abrogate all the treaties with which it came into conflict before it could really be considered; but, quite apart from that, on its merits, my right hon. Friend could not see his way to accept the Amendment.


The Financial Secretary has given us a series of objections to this Amendment which are doubtless very satisfying to him, but which will not be at all satisfying to come of us who are taking a great interest in the principle behind it. We were prepared for some of the objections which the hon. Gentleman has raised, particularly the objection about the commercial treaties, but he has shown less than his usual fairness in the way in which he dealt with that objection, because no one, and least of all those on this side of the House, suggests that such matters of obligation should be treated as scraps of paper and torn up.

The criticism which we have to make is that apparently there is a readiness to stand behind the provisions of these treaties, which prevent action of this sort being taken, rather than an anxiety to see how the treaties may be got round. It leaves me perfectly cold to be told that these treaties were put into operation by the Government which I supported. I am a good party Member of the House, but I am not going to have it suggested that all the perfections are to be found on our Front Bench, or on any Front Bench, and, if the conditions were such as to justify a treaty like this being entered into at the time—and I do not think that the conditions did justify it—there is no reason why in a constant change for the worse such as we see in the agricultural industry, it should not be competent for the Government to see whether more would not be gained by a reconstruction of these treaties even if we were to lose what is supposed to be a mutual advantage with the other countries concerned.

This Amendment gives us the opportunity of voicing something that strikes everyone who has had time to study the Budget as a whole in regard not so much to its sins of commission as to its sins of omission. It would be out of order for me to dwell on the fact that in the introduction of the Budget the Chancellor has been supremely unconscious of the fact that we have industrial depression in this country and huge figures of unemployment, and that there exists an agricultural industry. It is on the third omission that I wish to say a word. From the purely financial point of view, it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when faced with certain liabilities, to produce the necessary revenue to meet them, but his possibilities for good or evil are not confined to that, because Budget provisions can offer encouragement or discouragement to industry. Take, for example, the basis of taxation on motor vehicles. Everybody knows that by our system of taxation we have compelled motor manufacturers to build particular types of engines in order to bring their vehicles under the lowest rate of horse-power duty imposed. The same considerations apply to the subject now under consideration, the encouragement of the production of a certain type of "liquid food," may I say. What disappoints us is not that the amount is refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary, because both of them know perfectly well that the rules of procedure confine us to such an Amendment as this; but though the proposal is small in itself, it does enable us to ventilate the question.

What disappoints us is their lack of apparent willingness to offer any encouragement to those engaged in agriculture. We are not interested in the position of the brewers. One after another of my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment has stated that he has no connection with the brewing industry, and that is my position also; I have not a single share in breweries, nor any kind of interest in brewing. However, I am not like unto my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke a short time ago from the bench below me and confessed that he had never drunk a glass of beer in his life. The picture he drew was too horrible! He told us that he took one mouthful of beer, but failed to swallow it. There are only two alternatives when you take a mouthful of beer, and I do not propose to pursue the point further, except to say that I think he is misguided in his taste in liquid refreshment.

As I have said, it is not a question of helping or hindering brewing, but whether the Government have not here an opportunity of fulfilling a millionth part of the pledges they gave at the time of the General Election that they were really interested in assisting agriculture. We have had no evidence of it up to now. It is true that the Minister of Agriculture goes about saying, "Look what I am doing under the Merchandise Marks Act!" carefully glossing over the fact that that was passed by us in the teeth of his opposition, although it has now become his great slogan—coupled with the provision of village halls, which is the other side of his policy. The Minister of Agriculture is working overtime, breaking his trade union regulations in doing so, in going about the country trying to induce people unofficially and in his private capacity to consume British goods; but the moment it is suggested that there should be legislation providing that the Defence Forces should consume home-killed meat or have a certain amount of home-grown flour in their wheat, he says, "We cannot do that, because the principal result would be that it might raise the cost to the consumer." I am with him in his action in preaching the doctrine which he is disseminating throughout the country, but I must say he is inconsistent in urging people unofficially to do a certain thing while at the same time pleading, when the Government are asked to take action themselves, that what is desired would raise the cost of living and therefore must not be encouraged.

Here is an opportunity for the Government to offer definite testimony that they want to assist agriculture, but we are told that what we ask cannot be done. Various reasons have been set forth by the Financial Secretary, but not one of them is sufficient answer to the charge we make. Hon. Members opposite seek to indicate by their words that at last they realise that all is not well with agriculture, realise that it is not the case that agriculture is being carried on by a lot of incapable and wealthy farmers who are burdened by a lot of equally incapable and uninterested landowners. They show that they realise that there is a problem—that the dwellers in the urban districts are sweating the dwellers in the countryside in order to enjoy the privilege of a low cost of living. No hon. Member opposite, most of whom represent industrial centres, would get up and defend the position of things existing to-day, which is that the men in my constituency, most of them agricultural workers, are getting the magnificent wage of 32s. a week to enable the constituents of hon. Members opposite to have a better standard of living. That lop-sided state of affairs in the body politic cannot be adjusted by merely passing legislation compelling the farmer to pay 45s. or 50s. a week instead of 32s., because the farmer would say, "How am I going to do it, while you are sweating me in the price you pay for the food I grow?"

That is the wide issue that is raised by this Amendment. The Financial Secretary could have told us that, though there were difficulties about these commercial treaties and the predecessors of this Government had failed, they were determined to try what could be done; but he said nothing of the kind. The impression left on us by him was this: "I am so glad that I can get under this umbrella and so obtain protection from the criticisms of hon. Members opposite." He gave us not one sentence of sympathy, not one glint of light in regard to the Government's slogan, "Make farming pay." We deplore this absence of all desire to help on the part of the Government, though it is all part of the whole attitude displayed by the Government towards agriculture since they secured office by the promises they made to agricultural voters. I cannot say that we had any expectation that this Amendment would be accepted, but, the whole countryside must deplore the fact that the party opposite have thrown away this chance to help agriculture.


The whole House must be disappointed with the non possumus attitude adopted by the Financial Secretary in reply to my hon. Friends who are responsible for this Amendment. The reasons he put forward showing how impossible it was to accept the Amendment were these: First of all, he referred to the commercial treaties, and, after quoting an extract, said it was quite obvious that these treaties could not be fulfilled if the Amendment were passed. He even suggested that we on this side were asking him to tear up the treaties, or to deal with them in some other cavalier manner. No such suggestion was made with regard to any treaty. If one considers the extract which he read from the treaty with Germany, it will be seen that, obviously, the intention was to ensure that neither of the contracting parties would by governmental action place the produce of the other at a disadvantage, in competition, in the other's country.

That is the spirit of the Clause; let us ask ourselves how it has been fulfilled by Germany. We have had a Debate on the so-called dumping of German cereals into this country, and I do not wish to travel that weary ground again, but it is perfectly obvious that by an intricate fiscal device the German Government have, in effect, enabled their agriculturists to trade here under terms which are unfair, because uneconomic, to the British farmer. If we regard the spirit of the treaty rather than its letter, it must be quite obvious that there was an opportunity here for His Majesty's Government to approach the German Government and say: "We understood the treaty to be one to secure fair play in these matters, and that no governmental action would be taken to give advantage to the traders or exporters of either nation. You, in effect, though your practice may be ingeniously kept within the terms of the treaty, are using the power of your administration and your fiscal system in order to strike a very heavy blow at certain sections of our agricultural industry." With the German Government seized of the irritation which their practice is causing amongst our agriculturists, I am certain it would be easy, after a little negotiation, to get through the German Chancellery the proposal now before us to allow us to give a little assistance to our own farmers.

With every project for assistance there are bound to be some practical difficulties, but I am sure the administrative difficulties associated with this Amendment are in no way insuperable or even formidable. If there were a will to do it, the Government would be perfectly able to find the way. They have erected complicated machinery in order to juggle with the price of coal, and this proposal of ours would require much less complicated machinery to carry it out. After all, what is our proposal? We ask that the brewer who makes his beer from British malt and hops shall get a certain rebate on the additional duty which the Chancellor is imposing for the first time. It is perfectly easy to ascertain from each brewer how much British malt and hops he has bought during the year. He could produce to the Inland Revenue authorities the invoices of his purchases, and on those they would be able to assess him correctly for duty. I cannot agree that the acceptance of this proposal would mean any great loss of revenue, at any rate in this year.

It is the fact that the British public have been, to a very great extent, educated to drinking beer made from a peculiar variety of malt which comes from abroad, and it would take a little time before the inducement of this rebate enabled brewers to re-educate their customers into drinking beer made from British materials, so, though the immediate encouragement to agriculture would be very considerable, the loss to the Exchequer would not be in any way formidable. For the reasons I have given, I respectfully suggest that neither the treaties, nor the administrative difficulties, nor the loss to the revenue would be sufficient to deter the Government from accepting the proposal if they really had the will to do so.

6.0 p.m.

My hon. Friends, in putting forward this Amendment dealing with beer, must have been aware that they were putting forward something in regard to which they could not be very confident of receiving a favourable reception. Judging from the statement made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), it appears that there is a certain affinity amongst certain persons for different beverages, but none of us has credited the Chancellor of the Exchequer with possessing any particular affinity for the beverage known as beer. If the right hon. Gentleman has an affinity for any particular beverage, one would be inclined to say, from the asperity of his remarks, that it would be a beverage more acid than beer, or of a more aerated character.

I do not approach this question from the point of view of beer at all, because it is really a question of agriculture and not beer. It is the effect of this proposal on agriculture that this House ought to consider. The question of distress in agriculture has been touched upon quite sufficiently and adequately by my hon. Friends, but the position which this House will have to face, sooner or later, is that we have, by successive legislation, imposed upon agriculturists, whether they happen to be large or small farmers, the absolute duty, by law, of carrying on the operation of their production under certain definite legal disabilities. In other words, the farmers of this country are bound to produce their products under a system which this House has created for them. The farmers have to pay wages of a certain sort—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—every farmer would rejoice if he had the opportunity of paying his men more wages—the farmers are bound to pay contributions to National Health Insurance and unemployment, and they have to observe a multitude of rules and regulations, all of which add to their difficulties and to their cost of production.

Our farmers have to produce under a national system which this House has created for them, but when it comes to selling what they have produced, and getting some return for their labours they have to sell their produce in an international market which is perfectly free and open, and it is an international market in competition with nations which have not those burdens placed upon them which are placed upon British farmers. That is one of the causes of agricultural depression, and this Amendment is a small attempt to give to British agriculturists some recognition and some message that this House is mindful of their difficulties and troubles. We are trying to give the British farmer a fair share of our patronage and favour, and besides imposing burdens on his back we all wish to help him. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept this Amendment, it would be taken by the agricultural community as a whole as a sign of the continued interest and support of this House, and it would do much to dissipate the feeling of despair which is making itself felt inside the agricultural industry.

We ought to look at this question in relation to our food supply. This question has been discussed very largely from the point of view that barley is used mainly for brewing beer. I would like to point out that in my own county barley was, and is still, used as human food, and if by any means we could put a greater area of our land under barley we should be doing something to conserve the food supplies of this country, and this source of supply would be very useful in times of panic and food scarcity. At the present moment we are all looking forward to effecting some reduction in our Naval armaments. In the past our forefathers thought it was necessary to maintain an adequate Navy which was a kind of insurance premium, because we all realise the terrific calamity which would befall this nation if there were any serious interruption of our food supplies. If savings are effected in the premiums which we have hitherto paid for the protection of our food supply, then I think that a certain proportion of the money which will be saved in that way should be devoted to some measures to create an alternative food supply in this country to enable us to tide over any severe crisis. Measures of this kind would enable the nation to reorganise itself until we were able to get our food supplies from abroad as before. With this question of disarmament in mind, I think this is a favourable opportunity for the Government to consider the acceptance of an Amendment of this description, which, at any rate, does something to give a message of hope to agriculture, and will tend to stop this wasteful process of turning arable land to grass.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) said that the growing of barley ought to be encouraged, and ought to occupy a greater proportion of the soil of this country than wheat or any other crop. In this Amendment, which we are urging the Government to accept, we are looking at this problem from a national point of view. We are suggesting measures of a practical kind designed to promote the growing of barley, and the cultivation of a larger proportion of the arable land which is most useful in this country. There can be no doubt that if we weigh up this matter from all points of view we shall come to the conclusion that the Government ought to try to do something in order to show agriculturists, who depend upon arable farming to a very great extent, that the Government are not unmindful of their difficulties, and are willing to do something to assist them. Hon. Members opposite have been reminded of their statements made at the last election in which they told the electors that they were going to make farming pay. May I be allowed to say that farming to-day is as far from paying as it has ever been before? Every Motion put forward in this House in order to

achieve the end which hon. Members put forth at the last election has been met by the same negative non possumus attitude. The question of feeding the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force with British produce was turned down with a blank "No," and the proposal which was made for dealing with the dumping of German cereals was treated in the same way. This Amendment is an attempt to recall to the House its duty to our oldest and greatest industry, and I think it ought to receive favourable consideration.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 141.

Division No. 261.] AYES. [6.9 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hoffman, P. C.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Day, Harry Hollins, A.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Denman, Hon. R. D. Hopkin, Daniel
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Dickson, T. Horrabin, J. F.
Ammon, Charles George Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfleld)
Arnott, John Dukes, C. Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Aske, Sir Robert Duncan, Charles Isaacs, George
Attlee, Clement Richard Ede, James Chuter Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ayles, Walter Edmunds, J. E. John, William (Rhondda, West)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Johnston, Thomas
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Barnes, Alfred John Egan, W. H. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Barr, James Elmley, Viscount Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Batey, Joseph Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Foot, Isaac Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bellamy, Albert Freeman, Peter Kennedy, Thomas
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Gardnor, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Kinley, J.
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) Kirkwood, D.
Benson, G. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Knight, Holford
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Gibbins, Joseph Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Birkett, W. Norman Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Lathan, G.
Bowen, J. W. Gill, T. H. Law, Albert (Bolton)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gillett, George M. Law, A. (Rosendale)
Broad, Francis Alfred Gossling, A. G. Lawrence, Susan
Brockway, A. Fenner Gould, F. Lawson, John James
Bromfield, William Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lawther, W. (Sarnard Castle)
Bromley, J. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Leach, W.
Brooke, W. Gray, Milner Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Brothers, M. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lees, J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lindley, Fred W.
Burgess, F. G. Groves, Thomas E. Lloyd, C. Ellis
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Logan, David Gilbert
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Longbottom, A. W.
Caine, Derwent Hall- Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Longden, F.
Cameron, A. G. Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Cape, Thomas Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Lowth, Thomas
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hardie, George D. Lunn, William
Charleton, H. C. Harris, Percy A. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Chater, Daniel Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Church, Major A. G. Hastings, Dr. Somerville MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Clarke, J. S. Haycock, A. W. McElwee, A.
Cluse, W. S. Hayday, Arthur McEntee, V. L.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hayes, John Henry Mackinder, W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) McKinlay, A.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) MacLaren, Andrew
Compton, Joseph Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Cove, William G. Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Daggar, George Herriotts, J. McShane, John James
Dallas, George Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Dalton, Hugh Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Mansfield, W.
March, S. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Sullivan, J.
Marcus, M. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Sutton, J. E.
Marshall, Fred Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Mathers, George Ritson, J. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Matters, L. W. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Melville, Sir James Romeril, H. G. Thurtle, Ernest
Messer, Fred Rosbotham, D. S. T. Tinker, John Joseph
Milner, Major J. Rowson, Guy Tout, W. J.
Montague, Frederick Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Morley, Ralph Salter, Dr. Alfred Turner, B.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Carwen) Vauqhan, D. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Viant, S. P.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Sanders, W. S. Walker, J.
Mort, D. L. Sandham, E. Wallace, H. W.
Moses, J. J. H. Sawyer, G. F. Wallhead, Richard C.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Scurr, John Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Muggeridge, H. T. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Watkins, F. C.
Murnin, Hugh Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Naylor, T. E. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Oldfield, J. R. Sherwood, G. H. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Shield, George William Wellock, Wilfred
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Welsh, James (Paisley)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Shillaker, I. F. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Palin, John Henry Shinwell, E. West, F. R.
Paling, Wilfrid Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Westwood, Joseph
Palmer, E. T. Simmons, C. J. White, H. G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter. Withington) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Perry, S. F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John Sinkinson, George Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Sitch, Charles H. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Phillips, Dr. Marion Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Wise, E. F.
Pole, Major D. G. Snell, Harry Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Potts, John S. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Price, M. P. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Quibell, D. F. K. Stamford, Thomas W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Stephen, Campbell Mr. B. Smith and Mr. William
Rathbone, Eleanor Stewart J. (St. Rollox) Whiteley.
Raynes, W. R. Strauss, G. R.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Major Walter E. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Albery, Irving James Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Fermoy, Lord Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Atkinson, C. Fison, F. G. Clavering Marjoribanks. E. C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Ford, Sir P. J. Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Balfour, George (Hampstcad) Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Meller, R. J.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Balniel, Lord Galbraith, J. F. W. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Ganzoni, Sir John Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Beaumont, M. W. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Muirhead, A. J.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Glyn, Major R. G. C. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Grace, John Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Bird, Ernest Roy Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) O'Neill, Sir H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Peake, Capt. Osbert
Boyce, H. L. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Penny, Sir George
Brass, Captain Sir William Gunston, Captain D. W. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Briscoe, Richard George Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Pilditch, Sir Philip
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Buchan, John Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Purbrick, R.
Butler, R. A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Remer, John R.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Carver, Major W. H. Haslam, Henry C. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Castle Stewart, Earl of Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henl'y) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Ross, Major Ronald D.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Salmon, Major I.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Colville, Major D. J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hurd, Percy A. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Cranborne, Viscount Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Savery, S. S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Kindersley, Major G. M. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Croom-Johnson, R. P. King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Skelton, A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Knox, Sir Alfred Smith Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Lamb, Sir J. O. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Leighton, Major B. E. P. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Llewellin, Major J. J. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Long, Major Eric Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lymington, Viscount Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Turton, Robert Hugh Waterhouse, Captain Charles Womersley, W. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon Wayland, Sir William A. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) Wells, Sydney R. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Warrender, Sir Victor Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

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

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes. 275.

Division No. 262.] AYES. [6.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ganzoni, Sir John Peake, Capt. Osbert
Albery, Irving James Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Pilditch, Sir Philip
Atkinson, C. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Grace, John Purbrick, R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Remer, John R.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Balniel, Lord Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Gunston, Captain D. W. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Beaumont, M. W. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Ross, Major Ronald D.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Rothschild, J. de
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Bird, Ernest Roy Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Salmon, Major I.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Haslam, Henry C. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Boyce, H. L. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brass, Captain Sir William Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Briscoe, Richard George Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Savery, S. S.
Buchan, John Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Butler, R. A. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Skelton, A. N.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Carver, Major W. H. Hurd, Percy A. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Kindersley, Major G. M. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Knox, Sir Alfred Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Lamb, Sir J. O. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Colville, Major D. J. Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Ccurtauld, Major J. S. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Turton, Robert Hugh
Cranborne, Viscount Llewellin, Major J. J. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Long, Major Eric Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Lymington, Viscount Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Warrender, Sir Victor
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Dr. Vernon Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Wayland, Sir William A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Margesson, Captain H. D. Wells, Sydney R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Marjoribanks, E. C. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Meller, R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Elliot, Major Walter E. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Womersley, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Fermoy, Lord Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Fison, F. G. Clavering Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ford, Sir P. J. Muirhead, A. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) George Penny.
Galbraith, J. F. W. O'Neill, Sir H.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Benson, G. Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Birkett, W. Norman Caine, Derwent Hall-
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Bowen, J. W. Cameron, A. G.
Ammon, Charles George Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Cape, Thomas
Arnott, John Broad, Francis Alfred Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Aske, Sir Robert Brockway, A. Fenner Charleton, H. C.
Attlee, Clement Richard Bromfield, William Chater, Daniel
Ayles, Walter Bromley, J. Church, Major A. G.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Brooke, W. Clarke, J. S.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Brothers, M. Cluse, W. S.
Barnes, Alfred John Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Barr, James Brown, Ernest (Leith) Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Batey, Joseph Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Bellamy, Albert Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Compton, Joseph
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Buchanan, G. Cove, William G.
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Burgess, F. G. Daggar, George
Dallas, George Law, Albert (Bolton) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Dalton, Hugh Law, A. (Rossendale) Rowson, Guy
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawrence, Susan Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Day, Harry Lawson, John James Salter, Dr. Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dickson, T. Leach, W. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Sanders, W. S.
Dukes, C. Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sandham, E.
Duncan, Charles Lees, J. Sawyer, G. F.
Ede, James Chuter Lewis, T. (Southampton) Scurr, John
Edmunds, J. E. Lindley, Fred W. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lloyd, C. Ellis Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Logan, David Gilbert Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Egan, W. H. Longbottom, A. W. Sherwood, G. H.
Elmley, Viscount Longden, F. Shield, George William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Foot, Isaac Lowth, Thomas Shillaker, J. F.
Freeman, Peter Lunn, William Shinwell, E.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Simmons, C. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wellington)
Gibbins, Joseph McElwee, A. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) McEntee, V. L. Sinkinson, George
Gill, T. H. Mackinder, W. Sitch, Charles H.
Gillett, George M. McKinlay, A. Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Glassey, A. E. MacLaren, Andrew Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gossling, A. G. Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gould, F. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) McShane, John James Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snell, Harry
Gray, Milner Mansfield, W. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) March, S. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Marcus, M. Stamford, Thomas W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Marshall, Fred Stephen, Campbell
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Mathers, George Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Groves, Thomas E. Matters, L. W. Strauss, G. R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Melville, Sir James Sullivan, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Messer, Fred Sutton, J. E.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Milner, Major J. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Montague, Frederick Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Morley, Ralph Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hardie, George D. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Thurtle, Ernest
Harris, Percy A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Tinker, John Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Tout, W. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Mort, D. L. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Haycock, A. W. Moses, J. J. H. Turner, B.
Hayday, Arthur Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Vauqhan, D. J.
Hayes, John Henry Muggeridge, H. T. Viant, S. P.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Murnin, Hugh Walker, J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Naylor, T. E. Wallace, H. W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Oldfield, J. R. Wallhead, Richard C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Herriotts, J. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Watkins. F. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Palin, John Henry Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hoffman, P. C. Paling, Wilfrid Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Hollins, A. Palmer, E. T. Wellock, Wilfred
Hopkin, Daniel Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Welsh, James (Paisley)
Horrabin, J. F. Perry, S. F. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Peters, Dr. Sidney John West, F. R.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Westwood, Joseph
Isaacs, George Phillips, Dr. Marion White, H. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
John, William (Rhondda, West) Pole, Major D. G. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Johnston, Thomas Potts, John S. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Price, M. P. Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Quibell, D. F. K. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Rathbone, Eleanor Wise, E. F.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Raynes, W. R. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Kennedy, Thomas Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Kinley, J. Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Kirkwood, D. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Knight, Holford Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Mr. B. Smith and Mr. William
Lathan, G. Romeril, H. G. Whiteley.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.


I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I make this Motion in order to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement as to the Government's intentions in regard to the general progress of business this evening. The right hon. Gentleman is now at the opening stages of what are undoubtedly going to be very prolonged discussions upon a highly controversial and weighty subject, and it seems to me of the utmost importance that we should endeavour as much as possible to spare the House unnecessary labours and to avoid needless controversy. We were not only willing but anxious to reach, through the usual channels, some arrangement in order to parcel out our time between the important topics which have to be discussed, and to divide our Debates in such a way as to secure the discussion of the most important matters in the full light of day, when they can be reported by the newspapers and read by the country, and generally to endeavour to proceed in what, I imagine, is the most convenient and rational manner. We really hoped, as the result of communications that passed, that the Government would adopt some course of this kind, but all that we have received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is his laconic intervention into the discussion on the last Amendment to which, of course, I am not permitted to refer retrospectively. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, what his views are as to the progress that he thinks we ought to make to-night. That is a matter upon which he will no doubt be able to give us full information.

I would also ask him very seriously at the outset of these discussions, is he wise in assuming that only harsh procedure will suit his interests and facilitate his business? Is he wise at the very outset in assuming that the course of Parliamentary proceedings will be smoother and more rapid because he chooses to resent any discussion that may be offered on subjects on which a very large number of Members are interested as they represent the interests of their constituents? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will facilitate progress if he tries to conduct the Budget in something like the spirit in which it has always been the tradition of this House to conduct the Finance Bill and the financial Resolutions of the year. I have sat in the House since 1900, with some brief intervals, and I have seen some famous Chancellors of the Exchequer—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and others—who conducted very lengthy Budgets through the House. On occasion they were forced to use whatever powers are at the disposition of the majority, but never did I see these Chancellors of the Exchequer at the very beginning assume that their only method of dealing with the Opposition was to endeavour to trample down all opposition by the use of a Parliamentary majority. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, so far from intimidating the Opposition by such procedure, he will only gradually raise against himself a feeling which at present has not been excited. We are prepared to discuss the grave issues of the Budget, to which we take the greatest exception, in a cool, temperate and patient spirit. If to the injury which, in our judgment, it inflicts upon the country are added also those created by the personal methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—his rasping procedure—then I warn him that he will encounter an ever-growing resentment, and that we shall certainly use those forms of the House which are provided for the protection of Oppositions and minorities.


I think that I should be justified in ignoring the right hon. Gentleman's intervention in this Debate altogether. He spoke of his long experience in the House. Mine is not quite as long as his, but I think in all my Parliamentary experience I never heard a more unprovoked attack than that which he has just made. What grounds can there be for the tone of his speech? I moved the Closure upon a Debate on a not very important point which had extended for something like two hours, and at least half the speeches were a repetition of statements—


The right hon. Gentleman must not discuss the question of the Closure.


With all respect, I had not the Closure in my mind in making those remarks. I was saying I could find no justification for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention except my action in moving the Closure. He spoke about my rasping methods. I have taken little or no part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech and I at once rose and replied courteously to what he had said. This is the first afternoon of detailed discussions on the Report of the Budget Resolutions, and it is very early to ask what our ideas are in regard to the allocation of time to the respective proposals. I do not know how long the Debate will last on the private Bill, and therefore I cannot say yet how far we can go to-night. Of course, it would make all the difference in that respect whether the Debate on the Cardiff Bill concluded early or went on until 11 o'clock. I assure the House that I have no desire at all either to curtail discussion or to compel the House to sit late. I cannot say more than that.

I should be prepared to consider some arrangement by which we might allot time to the different Resolutions in order that the more important parts might be given longer time and taken at a time when the public would be able to follow our Debates. I want to consider the convenience of the House at all times. I do not want to act as a slave-driver in the House of Commons—far from it. Therefore, all I can say is that I shall be prepared, at the conclusion of the discussion on the private Bill, to say how far we propose to go to-night, and to-morrow I shall probably make a further statement as to the programme upon the Report stage of these Resolutions. If, as the result of conversations through the usual channels, we could arrive at something like a programme of the further stages of the Resolutions and the Finance Bill, I should be most happy.


I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot meet my right hon. Friend's suggestion. He merely says my right hon. Friend has made an unprovoked attack upon him. I cannot discuss the right hon. Gentleman's action just now in moving the Closure, because I should be out of order, but those who have taken part in the Debate cannot help feeling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an endeavour to cut short a reasonable discussion. As a matter of fact, I myself was going to speak, but the right hon. Gentleman's action has deprived me—


The right hon. Gentleman is now doing what he himself said would be out of order.


I regret that I was carried away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the latter part of his speech seemed to be melting

somewhat. He seemed to suggest that he would welcome some sort of arrangement so that time should not be wasted, but should be devoted to the most important part of these Resolutions. But he says he cannot even now make any arrangement for to-day. Surely that is very unreasonable. He must know that the private Bill which is coming on at half-past seven will be discussed at very considerable length and will probably last the rest of the evening. If he will look at the Resolutions again, he will see that they divide themselves. The first three deal with beer and licence duties, and then we get on to a totally separate class of Resolutions—Income Tax, Super-tax and so on. Surely, if he looked at it again and was inclined to be reasonable, we should, on our side, be extremely reasonable if he agreed to take Income Tax on the next day that this House sits for the purpose of discussing these Resolutions. I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider whether he could not make some offer on those lines to facilitate business and save time. If he will not do anything of the sort, time will be spent on some of these other Resolutions, and perhaps Resolution No. 2 and Resolution No. 3 may take even longer. [Interruption.] I am speaking with a desire that the House should not have to spend too long upon these Resolutions and that the time should not be wasted. We ought to come to Income Tax, not in the middle of the night, but in the early part of the afternoon. There are some extremely important questions which arise both on Income Tax and on Surtax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must remember that he is making a very large increase in both these taxes, and it is reasonable that those who represent the taxpayers should be able to discuss the matter. I hope that even now the Chancellor of the Exchequer may feel, if he does intend really to be reasonable, that he should make some such offer as I have indicated.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 277.

Division No. 263.] AYES. [6.45 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Balfour, George (Hampstead) Beaumont, M. W.
Albery, Irving James Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Atkinson, C. Balniel, Lord Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Bird, Ernest Roy Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Purbrick, R.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Gunston, Captain D. W. Remer, John R.
Boyce, H. L. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Bracken, B. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Briscoe, Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Buchan, John Haslam, Henry C. Ross, Major Ronald D.
Butler, R. A. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Salmon, Major I.
Carver, Major W. H. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Savery, S. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Hurd, Percy A. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Skelton, A. N.
Colville, Major D. J. Kindersley, Major G. M. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Courtauld, Major J. S. King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cranborne, Viscount Knox, Sir Alfred Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Lamb, Sir J. O. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Leighton, Major B. E. P. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Llewellin, Major J. J. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Davies, Dr. Vernon Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Turton, Robert Hugh
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Long, Major Eric Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Edmondson, Major A. J. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Marjoribanks, E. C. Warrender, Sir Victor
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Fermoy, Lord Meller, R. J. Wayland, Sir William A.
Fison, F. G. Clavering Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wells, Sydney R.
Ford, Sir P. J. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georga
Galbraith, J. F. W. Muirhead, A. J. Womersley, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John O'Neill, Sir H.
Grace, John Peake, Capt. Osbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sir Frederick Thomson and
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Preston, Sir Walter Rueben Captain Margesson.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Cape, Thomas Glassey, A. E.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Gossling, A. G.
Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Charleton, H. C. Gould, F.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Chater, Daniel Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ammon, Charles George Church, Major A. G. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Arnott, John Clarke, J. S. Granville, E.
Aske, Sir Robert Cluse, W. S. Gray, Milner
Attlee, Clement Richard Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Ayles, Walter Cocks, Frederick Seymour Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Silston) Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Compton, Joseph Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Barnes, Alfred John Cove, William G. Groves, Thomas E.
Barr, James Daggar, George Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Batey, Joseph Dallas, George Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bellamy, Albert Dalton, Hugh Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Day, Harry Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Benson, G. Denman, Hon. R. D. Hardie, George D.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Dickson, T. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Birkett, W. Norman Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Bowen, J. W. Dukes, C. Haycock, A. W.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Duncan, Charles Hayday, Arthur
Broad, Francis Alfred Ede, James Chuter Hayes, John Henry
Brockway, A. Fenner Edmunds, J. E. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Bromfield, William Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Bromley, J. Egan, W. H. Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Brooke, W. Elmley, Viscount Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Brothers, M. England, Colonel A. Herriotts, J.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Foot, Isaac Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Freeman, Peter Hoffman, P. C.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Hollins, A.
Buchanan, G. George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) Hopkin, Daniel
Burgess, F. G. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Horrabin, J. F.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Gibbins, Joseph Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Caine, Derwent Hall- Gill, T. H. Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Cameron, A. G. Gillett, George M. Isaacs, George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Sinkinson, George
John, William (Rhondda, West) Morley, Ralph Sitch, Charles H.
Johnston, Thomas Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Mort, D. L. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Moses, J. J. H. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Muggeridge, H. T. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Kennedy, Thomas Murnin, Hugh Snell, Harry
Kinley, J. Naylor, T. E. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Kirkwood, D. Oldfield, J. R. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Stamford, Thomas W.
Lathan, G. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Stephen, Campbell
Law, Albert (Bolton) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Law, A. (Rossendale) Palin, John Henry Strauss, G. R.
Lawrence, Susan Paling, Wilfrid Sullivan, J.
Lawson, John James Palmer, E. T. Sutton, J. E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Leach, W. Perry, S. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Phillips, Dr. Marion Thurtle, Ernest
Lees, J. Picton-Turbervill, Edith Tinker, John Joseph
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Pole, Major D. G. Toole, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Potts, John S. Tout, W. J.
Lindley, Fred W. Price, M. P. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis Quibell, D. F. K. Turner, B.
Logan, David Gilbert Ramsav, T. B. Wilson Vaughan, D. J.
Longbottom, A. W. Rathbone, Eleanor Viant, S. P.
Longden, F. Raynes, W. R. Walker, J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wallace, H. W.
Lowth, Thomas Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Wallhead, Richard C.
Lunn, William Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Watkins, F. C.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Ritson, J. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Romeril, H. G. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Rosbotham, D. S. T. Wellock, Wilfred
McElwee, A. Rothschild, J. de Welsh, James (Paisley)
McEntee, V. L. Rowson, Guy Welsh, James C. (Coalbridge)
Mackinder, W. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter West, F. R.
McKinlay, A. Salter, Dr. Alfred Westwood, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) White, H. G.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Sanders, W. S. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
McShane, John James Sawyer, G. F. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Scurr, John Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mansfield, W. Sexton, James Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
March, S. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Marcus, M. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Marshall, Fred Sherwood, G. H. Wise, E. F.
Mathers, George Shield, George William Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Matters, L. W. Shillaker, J. F. Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Melville, Sir James Shinwell, E. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Messer, Fred Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Millar, J. D. Simmons, C. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Milner, Major J. Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.
Montague, Frederick Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Smith.

Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


Before the House agrees or disagrees with this. Resolution, it is as well to point out one or two things with regard to it. The object of this Resolution, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Speech, is to raise in this year a sum of £2,750,000, rising in a full year to £3,100,000 which, of course, is a very appreciable sum. The way he has devised to do this is by raising the Beer Duty by 3s., leaving the rebate unaltered. The result of this is apparently, that there is to be an actual increase of one penny per gallon, which is too small to be passed on. He told us in his Budget Speech—and it is one of the points on which, possibly, he might like to give the House some elucidation—that he had received assurances from the brewers on that point. It is a very curious thing to find a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer hobnobbing with brewers and receiving and accepting their assurances, considering the general attitude of his party in regard to these very inestimable persons. It would be very interesting if he would let us know what is the kind of assurances. In so far as the duty can be raised without the price being passed on, as, apparently, has been found possible through these assurances. I do not suppose that there are many Members in this House who would he prepared or anxious to say very much against the Resolution.

7.0 p.m.

But there is one wider aspect of it which it is just as well to point out, and that is, that by this system the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have missed a great opportunity of doing something to assist British agriculture. I do not see why that should not be stressed once again. An opportunity naturally arises every year in every Budget, but it arises with even more than usual strength in a year when the duty is being raised. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to raise the duty by 3s. He will, therefore, have an additional and unexpected opportunity coming his way to see whether some rebate might be arranged for the benefit of the agriculture of this country. I do not suppose agriculture expects much of him, because on a great occasion he called it the "pampered darling of the Tory party." Although at the Election he and his friends went about saying agriculture must be made to pay, the wiser people in the agricultural districts remembered his earlier statement, and did not believe the promises of the Socialists. They had every reason, because here the Government had the opportunity of assisting agriculture and yet did nothing. While, on the first ground that it raises revenue without affecting the general body of the taxpayers, one might feel inclined to support the Resolution, yet, on the other hand, because the Government have failed to assist agriculture when a heaven-sent oportunity arose, there are many who will wish to oppose the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have given his mind unduly to the problem of British agriculture. When the matter came up no one was on the Front Bench who had anything to do with that department nor is there now.

The excuse of the Financial Secretary why nothing should be done to help agriculture in the way suggested was that there were certain commercial treaties, and the proposals made went against them. I wanted to deal with this at an earlier stage, though I did not have the opportunity. What is the good of the Foreign Office unless, if you find that through a treaty you are up against some difficulty when you wish to help your own country, you are able to raise the matter? Why should not the diplomats ask for some conference between the Government here and the German Ambassador, or between the German Government and our Ambassador in Berlin? Why not point out to them that some time after the treaty was signed—after all the commercial treaty with Germany is not the law of the Medes and Persians, but can be modified or added to—we found that our agriculture was going from bad to worse, and that it had been helped on its downward course by the attitude of the German Government in subsidising their cereals on our market? That is one of the things from which British agriculture has been suffering in the last few months. We pressed the Government to do something about it and they refused. They could quite well say to the Germans, "In view of this action on your part, which is having such a deleterious effect upon our agriculture, we propose to take steps to help our own agriculture. We find that one of the ways in which the House of Commons would like to do it comes against a sub-clause of the treaty and we would like conversations on the subject." That is the kind of action the right hon. Gentleman should have taken, and I should like to hear some reason from the Front Bench why conversations did not take place. Let the Government negotiate with the German Government on this question.

We do not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree with our thesis, but we put it forward as one of the possible ways of helping British agriculture. It may not be a good way, but the House must remember—as the country remembers perfectly well—that so far the Government have indicated no way at all. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. Taylor) said, when the suggestion was made, that it was only a small thing, and not worth considering. It is a small thing, but it is better than nothing, and the Government have so far offered nothing to agriculture. There is not a suggestion of any kind in this Budget dealing with the agricultural industry. We came along with this suggestion, and there was an opportunity to do something even in a small way to help our growers, but the Government turned it down. The Financial Secretary raised the old bogy of commercial treaties. The Minister of Agriculture was not even here to listen. He may be trying to evolve a policy, but he might, at any rate, consider the suggestions made to him from this side of the House.

There is not, I think, very much to be said for this Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] As hon. Members agree with me, it looks as if the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in getting through. It is not a question of whether people like beer or not. The question we have been trying to impress upon the Government is that, whether the Government like beer or not, the country as a whole does, and for that reason the country would like to have the best possible beer and, if it considers the best possible beer is British beer, it would like the Government and the House to do something to facilitate getting it. Everybody wants pure beer. The point is that the Resolution gave the Government an opportunity. If there had been no question of touching the Beer Duty at all, it would have been difficult to raise the question, but the Chancellor went out of his way to bring in the Beer Duty in order to raise a small amount of money. I thought there was some other reason for it, but it was only to raise this £2,750,000 and not to help British agriculture at all. While he is going to get some money out of the brewers—and we must stress the fact that he is satisfied with their assurances—at the same time he does nothing at all to assist the unfortunate growers in our countryside. I hope that he enjoys that reflection more than I and those who sit for agricultural constituencies enjoy it.


I do not take the view of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I am not interested in the same deep and wholehearted way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, this Resolution does not affect me personally in any way. I am not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a lover of queer beverages. I have no particular interest in this beverage either from the point of view of finance or of taste, and I doubt whether I shall contribute much to this extra revenue which he hopes to raise. I take an entirely different point of view. This particular duty is one of the worst ways of indirect taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have used for the purpose of raising money. There is a good old doctrine about indirect taxation, with which many Liberals and Socialists agree, that you should not put burdens on the food of the people. I am not going to lay down whether beer is or is not part of the food of the people. I am not going to argue about that, although some of those who are opposed to that view, like the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), are not present at the moment. Many people think it is one of the most health-giving of all beverages.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had guarantees that this particular duty will never actually get to the consumer in any way. By that I conclude there will be no rise in price, and that there will be at least as good an article given to the consumer as at present. It would be interesting to the house to be enlightened as to precisely what guarantees he got on that occasion that this sum of money would not be passed on. We shall have to explain these things later and point out clearly how it was accomplished. It would be most interesting if the right hon. Gentleman told us plainly how he conducted the negotiations with such success that in this particular instance the consumer would never feel the tax at all. In involves a broader issue, with which I shall not attempt to deal now. It would be a matter of immense interest to the country as a whole if he could explain how you can place a tax on an article so that the consumer does not pay anything.

If I had been called earlier, I would have said something about this particular duty on another point. I would like now some definite figures before me to show that there will be no difference in proportion or in gravity. That is a phrase which has not been explained. Hon. Members opposite must understand the difficulties which they will be required to explain, and I would suggest, in a friendly way, that they had better have their explanation ready, because they will get it pretty hot if the prophecy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the duty will not be passed on to the consumer, does not come true. In levying a direct duty of 3s., the Chancellor of the Exchequer is missing a very great opportunity in a number of ways. I will mention one or two ways. In the first place, if you are going to interfere with this duty, it would have been an admirable opportunity to use it in some way to improve the beverage known as beer. We want the pure article. Instead of putting on a flat rate duty of 3s., it would have been well if it could have been levied in such a way as to tax the bad varieties of beer or the varieties which may have in their composition something not particularly valuable for human health. That would have been doing something of immense value which, surely, would have commended itself to those who are interested in temperance, as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, and would have been doing a great service to mankind.

It is almost essential in these modern times that we should get not only purity in an article, but that we should do everything possible—here, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will sympathise with me—to see that in levying a duty of this kind it should be done in such a way as to get the best possible article for the consumer. It would be advisable so to readjust the duty as to get that better article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been laying up for himself a series of troubles in the last few weeks. Before we vote in favour of this new duty, we must know that it is being used in the best possible way. In bringing in the duty in this way, the right hon. Gentleman has missed an unexampled chance of doing something for one of the greatest of British industries. I do not propose to enlarge upon that point, because I am convinced that it is hopeless asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help British industry. This burden has been deliberately put on in such a way as to try to encourage people to buy the foreign, bad, indifferent barley and to cut out British barley. That is the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this duty, and the sooner that object is realised by the community as a whole, the better it will be. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had not such a cast-iron majority at his back and that we had some reasonable chance of defeating him on this iniquitous proposal.


The House has had an opportunity of discussing at some length the main question that is about to be put, and I hope that it will be possible to come to a decision now. I am sorry that a certain amount of heat was generated earlier in the Debate, but the agricultural Members, who have only occasional chances of putting their case before the House and the country, have been stirred by the success of hon. Members from the mining constituencies, who put their case in season and out of season and have succeeded, as the President of the Board of Trade will agree, in extracting very great concessions from the Government. Hon. Members from agricultural constituencies feel that that is an example which they could not do better than repeat.

The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are for the purpose of extracting a considerable sum of money from the brewers. He says that it will be possible to extract that money without passing the duty on to the consumer. This will minimise the possibility of getting access to the profits of the brewers to help the barley-growing districts. Those who come into contact with agriculturists, particularly the agricultural deputations which have come up recently, know that the agriculturists have placed very strongly before Members of this House and Members of the Government the desirability of doing something, through the medium of malting barley, to help the consumption of their staple product. If we are defeated on this point, we do not intend to pursue the matter further.


At this stage.


At this stage. Preference is given for wines produced within the Empire, and the use of home products is stimulated and fostered by the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board. It would cause great indignation in certain sections of the House if the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board were devoted towards the stimulation of the consumption of beer, whether brewed from British malt or foreign malt. That advantage is withdrawn from the home producer of malt. The argument in favour of a differential duty has been withdrawn from the home producer of malt, and he feels that as it is a home product he is entitled to the consideration which might be given in favour of the home producer. He feels that it is an unreasonable contention that because of certain treaties the difficulties of the arable farmer in this country should not be met. The loss of revenue of £1,000,000 by the granting of this preference would not be much as a step to deal with the position of the home producer of cereals. On these grounds, we were well justified in bringing forward this case, and we were also justified in our protest against the undue attempt to override the House at an earlier stage. We have been willing to deal with the Debate in a reasonable way and to parcel out our time to the best advantage of the House. For these reasons, I would appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House to allow us to come to a decision.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this duty will not be passed on to the consumer, but I have proof of a definite

case that this duty is being passed on to the consumer and to the public houses which are not tied. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into that matter. The barley growers are hard hit, and this Budget means another burden placed upon them. Since the present Government have been in office, they have done nothing but pile burdens upon agriculture. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whatever happens, the agricultural Members on this side of the House intend to give him a very rough passage in all his Measures if he does not mend his ways.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 120.

Division No. 264.] AYES. [7.26 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Denman, Hon. R. D. Herriotts, J.
Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Dickson, T. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ammon, Charles George Dukes, C. Hoffman, P. C.
Arnott, John Duncan, Charles Hollins, A.
Aske, Sir Robert Ede, James Chuter Hopkin, Daniel
Attlee, Clement Richard Edmunds, J. E. Horrabin, J. F.
Ayles, Walter Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Egan, W. R. Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Barr, James Elmley, Viscount Isaacs, George
Batey, Joseph England, Colonel A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Bellamy, Albert Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) John, William (Rhondda, West)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Foot, Isaac Johnston, Thomas
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Freeman, Peter Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Benson, G. Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Birkett, W. Norman George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Bowen, J. W. Gibbins, Joseph Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Broad, Francis Alfred Gill, T. H. Kennedy, Thomas
Brockway, A. Fenner Gillett, George M. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Bromfield, William Gossling, A. G. Kinley, J.
Bromley, J. Gould, F. Kirkwood, D.
Brooke, W. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Brothers, M. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Lathan, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Granville, E. Law, Albert (Bolton)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gray, Milner Law, A. (Rossendale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Lawrence, Susan
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lawson, John Jamer
Buchanan, G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Burgess, F. G. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Leach, W.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Groves, Thomas E. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Caine, Derwent Hall- Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Cameron, A. G. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lees, J.
Cape, Thomas Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Lindley, Fred W.
Charleton, H. C. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Lloyd, C. Ellis
Church, Major A. G. Hardie, George D. Logan, David Gilbert
Clarke, J. S. Harris, Percy A. Longbottom, A. W.
Cluse, W. S. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Longden, F.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Lovat-Fraser. J. A.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Haycock, A. W. Lowth, Thomas
Compton, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Lunn, William
Cove, William G. Hayes, John Henry Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Daggar, George Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Dallas, George Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) MacDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Dalton, Hugh Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
McElwee, A. Price, M. P. Sorensen, R.
McEntee, V. L. Quibell, D. J. K. Stamford, Thomas W.
Mackinder, W. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Stephen, Campbell
McKinlay, A. Rathbone, Eleanor Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Raynes, W. R. Strauss, G. R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring. Sullivan, J.
McShane, John James Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Sutton, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Mansfield, W. Ritson, J. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
March, S. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Marcus, M. Romeril, H. G. Thurtle, Ernest
Marley, J. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Tillett, Ben
Marshall, Fred Rothschild, J. de Tinker, John Joseph
Mathers, George Rowson, Guy Toole, Joseph
Melville, Sir Jamas Salter, Dr. Alfred Tout, W. J.
Messer, Fred Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Turner, B.
Middleton, G. Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) Vauqhan, D. J.
Millar, J. D. Sanders, W. S. Viant, S. P.
Milner, Major J. Sandham, E. Walker, J.
Montague, Frederick Sawyer, G. F. Wallace, H. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Scurr, John Wallhead, Richard C.
Morley, Ralph Sexton, James Watkins, F. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Sherwood, G. H. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Mort, D. L. Shield, George William Wellock, Wilfred
Moses, J. J. H. Shillaker, J. F. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Shinwell, E. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Muggeridge, H. T. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) West, F. R.
Murnin, Hugh Simmons, C. J. Westwood, Joseph
Naylor, T. E. Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) White, H. G.
Oldfield, J. R. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Sinkinson, George Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Sitch, Charles H. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Palin, John Henry Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Palmer, E. T. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Wise, E. F.
Perry, S. F. Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Young, R. S. (Islington. North)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith Snell, Harry
Pole, Major D. G. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Potts, John S. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Woston S. M.) Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Albery, Irving James Fison, P. G. Clavering Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Atkinson, C. Ford, Sir P. J. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Balniel, Lord Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Muirhead, A. J.
Beaumont, M. W. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. O'Neill, Sir H.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Peake, Capt. Osbert
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Penny, Sir George
Boyce, H. L. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Poto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bracken, B. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Remer, John R.
Briscoe, Richard George Haslam, Henry C. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Butler, R. A. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Ross, Major Ronald D.
Carver, Major W. H. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Salmon, Major I.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hurd, Percy A. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Kindersley, Major G. M. Savery, S. S.
Colville, Major D. J. King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Skelton, A. N.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Knox, Sir Alfred Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Leighton, Major B. E. P. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Llewellin, Major J. J. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Thomson, Sir F.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Long, Major Eric Turton, Robert Hugh
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Edmondson, Major A. J. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Marjoribanks, E. C. Warrender, Sir Victor
Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Wayland, Sir William A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wells, Sydney R. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Womerslay, W. J. Captain Margesson and Captain

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

It being after Half past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.