§ Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out"£5 3s. 0d." and to insert instead thereof"£4 0s. 0d."
I desire to offer my sincere apologies to the Committee for daring, at a time when we are about to consider high financial questions which are to be brought before the country, to discuss such a subject as beer. I desire also to apologise to the Committee for the apparent imperfection of the manner in which I happen to pronounce that most delightful name. I will, as far as this afternoon is concerned, attempt to remedy that defect. I also want to apologise to the Committee for introducing a discussion on this great question of beer at a time when hon. Members on that side and on this side are anxious to go and drink some tea. I want also to improve my position with my friends the brewers, for unfortunately, when I was referring to this subject last week, I seem inadvertently to have made enemies of those who I like to be my friends. I trust that when they realise the purpose of the Amendment which I am now moving all enmity will be removed. The object of the Amendment, which stands in my name and in the name of three other hon. Members, is to reduce the taxation on that delightful beverage. Sub-section (1) of the Clause reads:In lieu of the duty of excise payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom there shall, as from the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say):
My Amendment is to remove that sum and to insert £4 0s. 0d. I believe that there is some difficulty among certain hon. Members to appreciate exactly what the word "worts" mean. "Worts" is 1012 not beer. It is a liquid extract from the malt and a mixture of other ingredients prior to the alcoholic fermentation which produces beer. The purpose of my Amendment is to reduce the duty by the sum of £1 3s. 0d. That the Amendment will be favourably received and accepted by all consumers of beer goes without any question at all, and I ask of Members that it should be sympathetically considered by them. This is a reduction of indirect taxation, and, as far as we can see from a reading of the Finance Bill, it appears to be the policy of the party opposite to increase direct taxation and to decrease indirect taxation. The Amendment is a method by which they can decrease indirect taxation, and therefore it should receive the sympathy of every hon. Member sitting opposite. Are we justified in asking for this reduction?
£ s. d. For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees 5 3 0"
It is nearly 12 years since the end of the War. The British public throughout the whole of the country, recognising the high cost of the War, has submitted patriotically to high taxation without grumbling, because it realised that it was essential that the War should be paid for. This submission applies equally to Labour taxpayers as it does to other classes of taxpayers. The British public are now rightly looking for, and expecting, some reduction of taxation. In those circumstances, they have read the Budget statement and the Finance Bill with very great dismay. They are staggered at the information that, instead of what they have a right to expect, namely, a reduction of taxation, the Government are in this Bill actually increasing taxation.
For nearly 12 years the British working man, in whom we are particularly interested in this matter, has submitted without much grumbling to a very high price for the essential commodity which he drinks—beer. In 1913 the Excise Duty upon beer was at the rate of 7s. 6d. per standard barrel of 36 gallons, of a specific gravity of 1,055 degrees. The Excise Duty under this Bill is not 7s. 6d. but £5 3s., for the same 36 gallons with a specific gravity of 1,055 degrees. In 1913 we produced something like 35,000,00 barrels of beer upon which the Excise Duty paid was £13,500,000. To-day we are only producing about 20,000,000 barrels of standard beer of 1,055 specific 1013 gravity, but we are receiving in Excise Duty £75,800,000. Since a barrel of beer of 36 gallons contains 288 pints, the actual Excise Duty paid upon every pint of beer which a man consumes is 2⅝d., and even at the risk of again offending some of my friends, I must point out that beer is sold to the public at 6d. per pint—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must not elaborate on the question of beer on this Amendment which is to make a reduction from one figure to another.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I was only trying to show that owing to the high Excise Duty which is paid there is some justification in asking for a reduction. In asking for a reduction of taxation in the present financial position of the country I quite realise that it must be a reduction on necessities rather than on luxuries. The point we have to decide is whether beer is a necessity or a luxury.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The question whether beer is a necessity or a luxury does not arise. The only question is whether the duty is to be £5 3s. or £4. We cannot spend the whole afternoon discussing the question as to whether beer is a luxury or a necessity.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
Surely that question is very material in considering whether the duty is to be £5 3s. or £4. If it is a luxury it does not matter so much if £5 is the charge, whereas if it is not a luxury but a necessity surely it makes a difference?
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I am asking the Committee to make a reduction in the Excise upon a certain article and I am endeavouring to give the reasons why. If I considered that beer was a luxury I should not make the application, and it is because I consider it to be a necessity to a certain extent that I am moving this reduction. I should like to know whether I can give the reasons why I think beer is a necessity and why, therefore, there should be a reduction in the Excise Duty?
§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not proper to make Second Reading speeches in Committee on a question as to whether a 1014 thing is necessary or unnecessary. The point is whether the duty shall be as stated in the Bill or be reduced.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
Surely we are entitled under the Rules of the House to give reasons for moving a reduction, and I should like to press that point as being most important to the Opposition in regard to moving Amendments to the Finance Bill.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has given his reason; it is because he believes it is a necessity that he is moving this reduction.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
There are, of course, a great many hon. Members who look upon it as a luxury. I look upon it as a stimulant. There are certain schools of thought who look upon all stimulants as harmful and vicious.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not confining himself to his Amendment. We are not discussing the question whether beer is a necessity or a stimulant, but what the taxation shall be in relation to it.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
Is not the hon. Member justified in putting forward reasons why he thinks a certain article should be more lightly taxed than another, according to the degree of necessity of the article?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that is permissible in Committee stage. It has already been discussed in the House. The question as to whether beer is a necessity or a luxury cannot be discussed now.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
Your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, makes it extremely difficult to give reasons why the Committee should accede to my request. All I can do is to baldly say that I desire to reduce the Excise Duty upon beer from £5 3s. to £4. It is rather difficult to see in what way I can give my reasons why the Committee should do so. As 1015 far as I am concerned, I would like to point out that to certain classes of workers, brain workers, tea is a stimulant, and that is why ladies particularly—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must warn the hon. Member that if he does not keep to his Amendment, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS
On a point of Order. If your Ruling, Mr. Young; must be taken quite literally, Debate in Committee would mean a series of assertions without any reason being given for those assertions. I hope that hon. Members will be allowed some latitude, to the extent at least of giving their reasons for an assertion which they make to the Committee; otherwise there can be no debate ever in this House.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not attempting to confine the debate at all. I am pointing out that, upon a simple Amendment of this sort, it is not necessary to enter into the question of whether beer is a necessity or not.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
These duties on spirits, beer and other liquors are higher on those which are considered to be articles of greater luxury, and lower on those which are articles of less luxury, and considerably more in common use. From that point of view, is not the kind of argument used by the hon. Member strictly relevant to the degree of taxation?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must insist upon my Ruling that we cannot widen out this Amendment into a Second Reading debate. I am afraid the tendency to make Second Reading speeches in Committee is growing on the part of some hon. Members. I do not debar the hon. Member from giving reasons for his Amendment.
§ Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE
On that point, there are quite a number of Members on both sides of this Committee who are endeavouring to make up their minds on the merits of this question. My hon. Friend is trying to show 1016 the difference between a necessity and a luxury. If he can convince me and other hon. Members of the Committee that this is a necessity in regard to which my hon. Friend is moving an Amendment, and if I am convinced that it is a necessity, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment. On the other hand, if I am not so convinced, I am bound to hear, and I hope that I shall hear, my hon. Friend's arguments in support of his contention that this is a necessity.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I thought myself that when the hon. Member was addressing the Committee, he was leaving the Amendment and entering into the merits of beer and enlarging the scope of the discussion.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I had no intention of going into the merits or demerits of luxuries or necessities. The sole point of my argument is that to the manual worker beer is a necessity in his life, and he has had to pay, since the War, a heavy rate of taxation. It is in the interests of the manual worker that I want to see some reduction of the tax. I appeal for the workers—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may not believe it, but I myself am not a beer-drinker at all. I say that any man who leads a sedentary occupation would not dare to be a consumer of beer, if he had any thought whatsoever for his own figure. I am pointing out that it is a necessity for the manual worker, and since hon. Members opposite, as students of Karl Marx, hold that it is the manual worker who produces the wealth of the country, I ask them to join with me to see that the manual worker gets fair play in the consumption of his natural and proper beverage, that is, good old English beer.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden)
I shall certainly not incur your displeasure, Mr. Young, by wandering outside the narrow confines of this Amendment. The hon. Member has rightly stated that the purpose of this Amendment is to reduce the Beer Duty to a figure below even what it stood at before it was put up to £5 3s., namely, to £4 per standard barrel. It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that there has been a very high increase in the rate of duty on beer resulting from the need of taxation to meet the expenses of the War. Only one reduction in the 1017 Beer Duty has taken place, and that was made by a Conservative Government in 1923. We have had five Conservative Budgets during the last five years, and in none of those Budgets has any proposal been made for a reduction of what the hon. Member called "this onerous burden" upon the working man, and I have been unable to find any trace of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member or any of his Friends to any one of those five Budgets.
The hon. Member has proposed this Amendment, he tells us, in the interests of the working man beer-drinker, and he said that if his Amendment were carried, it would be welcomed by everybody. I am quite sure that it would not be welcomed by men whose interests the hon. Member says he is advocating, when they discover what the effect of this Amendment would be, because it is quite certain that such an Amendment would not, except in a comparatively small number of cases, be passed on to the working man. The average reduction would be three-farthings a pint. It would vary from a little under a halfpenny to just over a penny according to the strength of the beer. I do not know whether those for whom the hon. Member claims to speak buy it in pints. I think it is much more likely that they buy it in half pints, and, therefore, if it were bought in half pints, it would be quite impossible that such a reduction as this should be passed on to the consumer. Therefore, the effect would be simply an increase in the already high profits made by the brewers.
But there is, of course, one reason which, whatever arguments might be urged in support of this Amendment, would be conclusive from my point of view, and that is the cost of the reduction. The cost would be £20,000,000. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that I could not make such a concession as that. The hon. Member said that certain observations he made upon an Amendment about beer on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution did not meet with the unanimous approval of his political friends in this House, and I doubt very much whether this Amendment will. I remember a speech made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) during the course of the general debate on the Budget in which he 1018 expressed his regret that I had not, indeed, put a figure on beer that would have removed the necessity of increasing the rate of Income Tax. That is all I can say. I said that I should confine myself to the Amendment, and my two main reasons for rejecting it are, that it would not carry out the object which the hon. Member has in view, and the cost of it makes it quite impossible for that concession to be made.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question upon the points he raised? Is it not a fact that in this Amendment I propose to reduce the duty by £1 3s. and is not that 276 pence, and there being 288 pints in a 36-gallon barrel, would not that mean reducing it by 1d. a pint on the lightest kind of beer, and even more than a penny a pint on the stronger beer?
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The hon. Member may rest, assured that the figures I have given are quite correct. The average would be three-farthings a pint. On the stronger beer it would be over a penny a pint, and upon light beers about a half-penny. In the very lightest beers it would be a fraction below that, and I should think—I do not know; I am no authority on this matter—the working man drinks as a rule the lighter beer, and, therefore, he would not get any advantage from the reduced price.
§ Mr. J. JONES
I desire to thank most heartily hon. Members opposite who are so enthusiastic in support of the working classes who drink beer. After 10 years they have opened up. They have discovered that the man who buys beer is buying the Empire—and the Trocadero. If they drink beer themselves as the ordinary working men do, I could understand their sympathy with us. I am a beer drinker, because it is the best drink we have—when it is good. But the people who sell it to us do not make it good. They try to make it pay, which is a different proposition. We are paying for an inferior article to-day more than we ought to be called upon to pay, and, in spite of all the protests of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, people are doing better now out of the sale of bad beer than they used to do by selling decent beer. The profits of the brewer have gone up and the wages of the worker have gone down. Now you want to make beer cheaper. I hope you will.
1019 The only thing that will happen will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to find money from somewhere. Where is he going to find it? I know where it ought to be found. I know where he can find it, and some right hon. and hon. Members opposite know where it is, because they are taking very great care, as far as they possibly can, to transport it to other countries to escape taxation in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It may not be in order, but it is true. I represent a constituency where the dockers, the chemical workers and the general labourers like to have their beer when they can get it, and they will not take any dictation from anybody as to whether they shall or shall not have it. But we are not going to oppose the Budget because we cannot get beer under the conditions laid down by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. That Amendment would mean a loss of revenue at a time when we are not able to find money to run the country as we would like to run it. I would like to see the people who brew beer—and there are some of them opposite—having to pay as much as the workman has to pay.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member at this stage must speak to the text as closely as possible. He is now going into another matter.
§ Mr. JONES
The text is beer and the relationship between the man who makes it and the man who buys it. As one of the buyers of beer I think I have a right to suggest, in this connection, that the taxation on brewers ought to be higher than the taxation upon other people who are not doing so well. All our other industries are supposed to be down and out. Cotton, coal, iron and steel and all the great industries of the country are in a parlous condition.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member that we are not now discussing the question of taxation as between one industry and another or one individual and another. We are confined strictly to the Amendment which is before us.
§ Mr. JONES
I am only pointing out the difference between those other great industries and the particular industry to which this Amendment applies. This 1020 industry is prosperous but it is the first to grumble about taxation, while there are other industries not so well placed, and heavily taxed, who are not in a position to use influence in the House of Commons with the object of getting their own way. I object to paying 4½d. for a half pint of beer as much as any hon. Member opposite. I suppose they do not object at all because they do not drink beer in the majority of cases at all events. I do not care what they drink as long as they drink it quietly; but they have no right to throw bricks at me, and I am going down to my constituents to tell them that although taxation is heavy we are willing to bear our share. I might remind hon. Members opposite that 66 per cent. of the total taxation of this country is paid by the workers on the things they use. [Interruption.] Where do we get it from? Of course you give it to us, but if we did not work for it, you would give us nothing, and you are doing your best to rob us by means of all your new policies. The bait may be hung in front of us butin vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird,and the majority of workers are not going to be "led up the garden" by this policy of reducing the price of beer and increasing the price of everything else. That is what the proposal means and, on behalf of those who drink beer like myself, I enter a caveat against it.
§ Colonel GRETTON
The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), in his references to hon. Members on this side of the Committee was somewhat irrelevant, but, in any case, there is one matter in which the hon. Member can commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Budget, in fact, does increase taxation upon those who brew beer and the hon. Member's wish in that respect is being carried out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going to ask the Committee to listen to any long arguments in favour of this Amendment. We who brew beer would be very glad indeed if the present Government or any Government saw their way to reduce taxation on beer, because it is undoubtedly a very heavy burden on those who are engaged in the trade, but it is quite hopeless, with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the majority behind him to hope for any such concession. The Government are spending 1021 money, and they need money, and under those conditions they will probably increase and not reduce taxation. Therefore, the Amendment is not likely to be accepted, and I rise merely to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the irrelevance of the first reason which he gave for objecting to this reduction.
The right hon. Gentleman said it would not be passed on to the consumer. May I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a previous Chancellor did reduce the taxation upon beer by 20s. per standard barrel, with the result that the price of beer was reduced all round by one penny per pint. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the brewers themselves would absorb all the reduction of taxation and not pass it on to the consumer? If any brewers did so, their business would be ruined. They would have to conform to the general action of the trade, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be a little more careful and a little more serious in the arguments which he uses in regard to that matter. At any rate, his second argument—that the Government which he represents is spending money, and wants more money to be raised instead of less—is one which cannot be gainsaid, and, in view of that fact, this reduction of taxation, desirable as it is in the interests of the consumers of beer, and in the interests also, I venture to think, of the country generally, is quite impassible. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to resist it with all the force behind him.
I am not at all surprised at the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), but he knows perfectly well that, no matter how you try to reduce the price of beer, the brewers' profits grow larger and larger every year. That is one of the problems of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. How can he, even if he wants to do so, reduce the price of beer without giving enormous profits to the brewers who have been gaining steadily in profits ever since before the War. I am disappointed, however, in the reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not accepting the Amendment. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the stalwarts of the temperance movement in this country, and yet his reasons 1022 for rejecting the Amendment are, first, because of the cost to the country and, second, because it would not have the effect of reducing the price of beer. I am beginning to see that no matter what Chancellor of the Exchequer we have, they are all afraid of the drink trade, and that is to me a very disappointing thing. Nor am I surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones). We know that those who have an interest in drink are not confined to any section of the House of Commons, but are to be found in all sections, and we know perfectly well that the reason why this Amendment was put forward was that if the beer duty was reduced more of it would be consumed. How anybody who has an interest in the country at this critical time can desire to see more beer consumed I cannot conceive.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment talked about manual workers and brain workers and production. Every person who is fundamentally interested in production knows that during the War we had to control beer because of production, and the country needs increased production now as much as it did during the War. I am tired of all the nonsense that is talked about beer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and I would ask these Empire-builders who say "hear, hear" to look at what the rest of the Empire are doing about drink. I am disappointed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given a lead to the country on this matter when asked seriously to reduce the price of beer so that more might be consumed. The men may want that, and the hon. Member for Silvertown may want it, but I can guarantee that the women do not want it.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lady made a reference to the hon. Member, but I did not think that it was insulting.
The hon. Member for Silvertown is not the only Member 1023 of the House of Commons who drinks beer, but he said he wanted a reduction in the cost and that means more consumption—
This is a very mischievous Amendment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right in saying that no Conservative Government would accept such an Amendment, because when they tried to reduce the price of beer they found that the advantage all went to the brewers. Hon. Members on this side know that in any case the women of the country would not stand it, and I say, frankly, that it is not only the women of the party opposite, but the women of all parties who take that view. I do not think that hon. Members would dare to propose to reduce the price of beer. We sometimes forget that there is a new electorate and that women, at any rate, do not want an increased consumption of drink. I only wish, as I say, that the Chancellor had given a lead and had told the real reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. It is because the country cannot afford to have a higher consumption of beer at this time, in the interests of production. This question of drink cuts across all parties. I have often been laughed at for belonging to the Conservative party which is said to be in favour of drink, but any party when it is in power has its wet section, just as well as the Conservative party, and the only thing is that the Members of our section are more foolish and bring in these ridiculous Amendments.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I think the Noble Lady and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) would not have made the statements which they did make as to my observations on the passing on of the proposed reduction if they had listened a little more attentively to what I said. I never said that a reduction could not be made upon certain classes of beer. My observations were directed to the lighter beers, and I pointed out that in that case the beer was sold in half-pints, and that it would be quite impossible to pass on the reduction.
What I said was that I was disappointed in the 1024 Chancellor's reasons for rejecting the Amendment, first, that the country could not afford the amount of the reduction, and, second, that it would not reduce the price of beer very much. I expected the right hon. Gentleman to give a real temperance lead to the country.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
In spite of the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the appeal made by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), I think we are fully justified in proceeding with our Amendment. After all, as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) pointed out, this is a matter in which enormous numbers of people throughout the country are concerned, and it is right that the Opposition, when considering the finances of the year, should place definitely before the country and before the House the main incidents in our financial system and should year after year state the case for the reduction of certain taxes which are heavy burdens upon the public. Year by year we have heard the party opposite, in bygone years, discuss the taxation of tea, sugar and other burdens upon public commodities, and I think we should make a mistake if we allowed ourselves to be deterred from discussing freely the question of reduction in the cost of beer to the consumer or moving Amendments which would have the effect of giving expression to that view. I know the Noble Lady's views—we have been made very familiar with them—but what astonishes me is that she should proceed with unabated, and I might almost say unabashed, vigour in the reiteration of those views, in face of the ghastly muddle which has been made in her own country in the treatment of the liquor problem.
This is not a question of Prohibition—I am not a prohibitionist—but a question of the reduction of the Beer Duty, which has nothing to do with Prohibition.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Amendment to discuss the way in which America is dealing with the drink problem? If so, the debate becomes very wide, and there are many sides to this question, and if the whole question of temperance is to be opened up, we shall be debating it all day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not shrink from the issue, but I 1025 submit that this is not a suitable occasion on which to raise the whole question.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
On that point of Order. I submit that I am following the course of the debate. Once the topic had been definitely raised and admitted to the Floor as part of the discussion, it is intolerable that some Members, on one side or the other, should have a right to air their views and that others should be prohibited from making the necessary reply.
§ The CHAIRMAN
At the beginning of the debate I did my best to intimate to Members that Amendments must be dealt with on their merits, and that the debate must not be unduly widened. This is not the occasion for debating temperance or cognate questions in relation to temperance. However, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman came up, and I do not say, if he goes no further than that, that he is out of order.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I shall go no further than that, but, in reply to the speech of the Noble Lady, I must draw your attention to the fact that upon this question she has told us that whenever there is a decrease in the taxation upon beer, the profits are placed in the pockets of the brewers. I think it fair to say two things about that. First of all, it is not true. It certainly was not the case when the present Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1923 made a substantial reduction in the Beer Duty. There the whole cost, and more than the cost, of the remission was passed on to the consumer. The reduction in the cost of beer to the consumer was substantially larger than would have been warranted by the loss to the Exchequer. In fact, the right hon. Member for Bewdley, as is well known, made an arrangement with the brewers—the same kind of friendly arrangement as the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted to us he had made in connection with this Budget—whereby, in consideration of a reduction of the national burden, they made a contribution from their own profits in order to give the maximum relief in the cost of beer to the general consumer. Therefore, the Noble Lady is entirely wrong, absolutely wrong—I mean, as wrong as is the difference between night and day—in her statement of facts; but 1026 even if it were true that the brewers gained the profits by reductions in the charges put upon beer, it is far preferable that they should get the profit than that the profit should be reaped, as it is in another country, to which I have already referred, by the bootleggers.
At any rate, I must say, from whomsoever we take our guidance on this question, I do not think we ought to take it from the Noble Lady. I do not think she represents at all the point of view which is so definitely expressed and held by the people of this island. The Noble Lady tells us that although the men wish to drink beer and would be glad of some relief in the taxation on beer, the women would be against it. I am not at all sure about that, because my experience has been, in what I have seen and noticed—and here I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, who can judge for themselves as well as I can—that the women do not separate themselves by sex into an entirely different camp from the men, that they are glad sometimes to see that their menfolk are gratified in minor ways, and that it is quite possible that a friendly word from a husband to a wife about gratification for some reduction in the Beer Duty would weigh just as much with a woman as the most enthusiastic temperance speech from the Noble Lady herself.
Nothing constitutes a more false view of British society at the present time than the idea that all the women voters are now banded together in order to take up a fundamentally different position on this question from all the men voters. Such an idea is manifestly absurd, and the sooner the Noble Lady clears her mind when she is fundamentally wrong in her conceptions, the sooner will she be able to take not only an engaging but a useful and well-informed part in our debates. On the general question, it has always been considered the right and duty of the Opposition to voice the grievances of the public against—[Interruption]—I am ready to give way, if the Noble Lady wishes to say something.
I want to point out that I was right over the Betting Duty, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong!
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I must, on a point of Order, ask your ruling, Mr. Young, 1027 as to whether I should be permitted to reply to that intervention.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I cannot be responsible for all these interjections. The right hon. Gentleman must not be drawn from the Amendment.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I will forbear. But let me say that it is not only the right, but the duty of the Opposition parties in the House to present to the Government of the day their objections and the grievances which are felt in the country about the burden of taxes of various kinds. This is one which is felt by very large numbers of persons, and we should fail altogether in our duty if we did not join issue upon it. It is not the responsibility of the Opposition to suggest alternative forms of taxation. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day and the majority. The responsibility of the Opposition is to voice public grievances, and there is not the slightest doubt that this is a very great public grievance among great masses of those hard-working, manual labourers upon whose strong sinews and constant, faithful efforts the structure and foundation of this State depend. Those who take the view of the First Commissioner of Works that the first thing anybody ought to do is to run away from manual labour—those who take that sort of view—
§ The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury)
The right hon. Gentleman never did a day's hard manual work for his daily bread in his life, and I have done many a thousand. [Interruption.] I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as distinct from himself, I have worked, and worked very hard, at manual labour, and what I said the other night was that I did not object to rationalisation, because I wanted hard manual labour to be abolished, and that every man who had the chance always left manual labour in order to follow an occupation that did not involve manual labour.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I have the passage in my mind, but be that as it may, we can quite see why he has no sympathy with the Amendment, which does appeal to the people who are engaged in manual labour.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I represent a Division that is made up of manual labourers more than of any other sort of person, and I have never been asked by a manual worker to vote for a reduction in the Beer Duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have never been asked by a workman to vote for a reduction of this Beer Duty. My constituents want less beer drinking, not more, and would be very glad indeed to see this industry taxed off the face of the earth.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting intervention in our discussion, and naturally I shall observe a very reasonable limitation in following him there, but he has endeavoured to justify the doctrine which he put forward the other night, that it was a right and proper thing for a Cabinet Minister to say he ran away from manual labour at the earliest possible moment. [Interruption.] On the contrary, I have earned my living all my life.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Naturally, I am in the fullest accord with all that you say about the unbecoming manner in which the First Commissioner of Works is conducting himself.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
It is not likely to abbreviate our discussions if the First Commissioner of Works imparts so much heat into them.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
If the right hon. Gentleman is so angry, as he clearly is, it is because the remark that he made is one that he knows he ought not to have made.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
In the hope of cooling the right hon. Gentleman, let us get back to the impost upon beer. I was endeavouring to conclude when the right hon. Gentleman fell upon me so fiercely. If he likes to come down to the House to delay the progress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Finance Bill, we cannot be blamed. One of the real and definite grievances of large masses of the people is the way in which the cost of beer has steadily gone up and the quality has steadily declined. It is not true to regard this entirely as a man's question. There are a great many cases where if there were a reduction in the cost of beer no more beer would be drunk by the individual but more money would be taken home and would be available for household expenses. In many cases, that would be so; therefore, the women have an interest as well as the men in this matter.
Moreover, there is an immense improvement towards practical temperance which makes it all the more necessary to reduce the Beer Duty. Anyone who reads the criminal statistics of this country in regard to convictions for drunkenness, fines for drunkenness, crimes resulting from drunkenness and diseases arising from drunkenness, and compares them with the statistics of another country, to which I do not intend further to refer, they will see how thoroughly justified we have been and why there is a steady movement towards the practice of temperance throughout these islands. The cases of drunkenness have been halved since before the War. [Interruption.] I do not agree that it is only lack of money that prevents the working class from getting drunk twice as often as they would do otherwise. I think that is a very wrong reflection upon the character of our work- 1030 ing-class population. I agree that the cost of beer and the regulations have something to do with the reduction of consumption, but in the main it is the new interest, the better outlook upon life, the improving education, and the general change in the habits of the community that has had this effect. We have achieved this very important result by departing entirely from the kind of policy of which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division is so keen an advocate. Now that there is this great improvement in the general habits of the people we have an additional reason why the burden upon beer should be reduced as far as possible. I do not believe that any eloquent arguments which the right hon. Member far Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) is likely to use about the cold water cure will alter the facts of the situation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite wrong in his suggestion. If I cannot plume myself upon having reduced the burden upon beer by the reduction of the brewers' credit, on the contrary I recovered £10,000,000, which has been a complete withdrawal from the profits of the brewers.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
She is pleased at that. I think she also ought to pay some tribute of gratitude to the brewers who co-operated with the late Government—
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I beg your pardon. I was saying that the Noble Lady might pay some tribute of gratitude to the brewers who co-operated with the late Administration in paying this heavy additional sum into the Exchequer. It was very convenient when it came in. [Interruption.] I raised £10,000,000 in two years. It did not come from the consumer; it was not passed on, because there was no increase in the price. It did not come from heaven; that is quite clear. Where did it come from? It clearly came from the brewing trade, just in the same way that the right hon. Gentleman is now obtaining a large concession from them in the increased tax that he is putting on. 1031 Where does he suggest that the money comes from? If you are a brewer and you are going to get something in a particular year to which you have long looked forward, and it is taken away from you by a change in the law, and you have to make good the deficit to yourself, surely that is just as much taxation as an addition to the Income Tax. There is a fundamental vice among many Socialists regarding finance. The right hon Gentleman, apparently, believes that he is going to get this money from nowhere; something for nothing.
As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has entered into an arrangement with the brewers, very rightly and very properly, following the example of preceding Conservative and capitalist Governments. He has entered into an arrangement with the trade, and is securing from them a contribution in duty towards his Budget, unaccompanied by any passing on of the charge to the public to effect either quantity, quality or price. Thereby, he has established another point of resemblance in method and in outlook which one Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy bears to another. I shall give my vote in favour of the reduction in the price of beer. This is one of the objectives which should be held out in front of the people of this country—a reduction in the price of beer. I would not be afraid to say that on any platform, anywhere, except before some highly selected body of extreme temperance advocates. Reduction in the price of beer is a perfectly legitimate aim and object, and when that reduction is compared with some of the other reductions which the right hon. Gentleman has in view our Amendment is all the more justified, because not only are we proposing something which is greatly desired by very large numbers of people, but we are proposing to give relief to a commodity already far too highly taxed, and we are proposing a relief which, apart from its merits, should be given priority over the £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 of reduction in taxation which the right hon Gentleman has already promised to remit.
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I do not rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman in his general remarks upon the temperance question, nor to discuss with him the general aspects of the case, 1032 although I remember well that when the right hon. Gentleman stood upon our alliance platform some years ago he did not advocate cheap beer. I rise to deal with the Amendment. The question whether beer is the foundation of the British State is one upon which the right hon. Gentleman has had different opinions at different stages of his career. He professed to tell the Committee the exact truth about what happened in 1923, when the taxation was taken off beer and the price of beer was reduced to the consumer, but he did not tell the whole truth, because although beer was somewhat cheapened to the consumer the brewers saw to it that their profits increased. I do not blame them for it. I am not complaining that the brewers are making their profit, but I suggest to the people of this country that they are unwise to make these large profits for the brewers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is considering how to raise his revenue, is well entitled to take into consideration the fact that, no matter how high the taxation has been upon beer, the profits of the brewers have been steadily increasing in the post-War years. At the present time, while other trades are notoriously not increasing their profits the brewers, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do, very consistently make larger and larger profits. This Amendment is definitely to increase the profits of the brewers. I understand that something like an agreement has been reached that the increased Duty is to come out of the profits made by the brewers, and is not to be passed on to the consumers. Therefore, if the increased charge is not to be passed on to the consumers the Amendment seems to me to be unnecessary, and it would serve simply to relieve the brewers. In the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment there was the usual nonsense about beer and the working man. When serious men consider that problem they realise that that is not the sort of talk that the people of this country ought to take into account. The effect and the purpose of the Amendment is to relieve the brewers, and it would have that effect.
I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer on temperance and financial questions. He is unwavering in his views upon this subject, and there is no 1033 need for him in every speech that he makes to repeat the whole of his reasons for his attitude towards the liquor traffic. He gave us to-day the financial reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford to do without the £20,000,000 that he expects to get from this source. Indeed, the criticism I would address to the Chancellor is that he has not increased the tax more. I think he might very well have put it back to where it was before 1923. The revenue did not suffer, the drinkers did not suffer, and the brewers profits were steadily enlarged.
I am a little surprised at the attitude taken by the Opposition, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman who has changed the views he held in 1908 when he spoke from the Alliance platform. I rejoice with him at the growing sobriety of the country, and I should have thought he would have recognised it was not only the right and the sensible course, but even the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the tax on these intoxicating liquors as high as he can without injuring the revenge. I suggest this was the attitude Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past took in regard to drink. It is tremendously heavy taxation, but why is it tolerated? [Interruption.] I do not pay this tax. I grow rich by saving up and paying Income Tax. It is because the general sense of the country recognises it is desirable to limit as far as you can the consumption of these liquors. That has been the policy of the country through generations and even centuries, and this high taxation on spirits and liquors is only tolerated, because the general sense of the community recognises you are doing no harm to anybody by these high taxes.
I am bound to regret this discussion this afternoon. When it is made the subject of mirth and laughter it is very painful to us who have faced this problem for a long time and who know the bad part drink plays in the social life of the country. I do ask the House of Commons to treat the matter seriously and to realise that this Amendment is not seriously facing the problem. I do not want to get money out of drink, but it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this tax as high as he can without injuring his revenue, and I think he might have gone even further. 1034 I hope there will be no doubt that the Committee will support the Chancellor.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I will not enter into the merits of beer drinking, but I support this Amendment. I cannot drink beer, I am not a brewer, and I have no brewery shares. I support the Amendment, which theoretically should commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it upholds a sound principle of taxation, with which I think the Chancellor would agree, that it is desirable to raise as much money as possible with as little hardship as possible to the general populace. The right hon. Gentleman who last sat down mentioned the possibility that the tax might be so high that the revenue would suffer. I suggest to the Chancellor that that is already the case. He may well take a leaf out of the book of industry and realise that profits are got out of a large turnover. In this case, he gets his revenue out of a large output, or should I say input, and should apply the well-known motto of "reduction on taking a quantity." As a financial purist, the Chancellor should have no concern in using taxation as a measure of social reform. He has told us it is his business to provide money for the objects which Parliament has outlined, and for no other purpose. If so, I suggest that this Amendment is worthy of a good deal more consideration than he has given to it, because it is highly probable that far more money would be obtained in revenue were the price of beer cheaper than can possibly be obtained when the price is so high that consumption declines.
It is a point of principle in taxation that the Chancellor should avoid as far as possible hardship to the people. I remember in his Budget speech he said, "I look first to beer." After a hard day's work, there are quite a number of people, very decent citizens, who look first to beer. Last year £76,000,000 was raised from beer. I imagine the number of beer drinkers is about 20,000,000, and they probably pay nearly £4 a year each in duty on beer, which is very excessive from the paint of view of the low-paid workers. I would remind the Chancellor that in the case of an agricultural community where there are no amusements, no cinemas, no relaxation, it is hard luck on a man when he goes down to what is his club in the evening to find that his 1035 wages allow him perhaps no more than two pints of beer a week. An hon. Friend of mine said in a previous debate that beer was made up of three things, tax, science, and water, and the greatest of these was tax. I believe it would be worth while the Chancellor making investigations in order to find out whether the revenue would not benefit far more by lowering the price of beer and by allowing people to have what is a harm-lees beverage at a, reasonable price instead of endeavouring by a side-wind to produce what is little less than Prohibition. I want to refer the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the opinions of some of his own friends. This Amendment was raised in practically the same form in the 1922 Budget when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that case, the hon. Gentleman who sits close behind the Chancellor, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), in supporting practically the same Amendment as is now being moved, said:In 1914 the standard barrel of beer was subject to a duty of 7s. 9d. per barrel; to-day, because of the War, that has been raised to £5 per standard barrel. In the ordinary finance of the working-man that means that the tax on a pint of beer has been raised frfom 0.72d. to no less than 4.16d., and let the Committee reflect what that means. It means that the man who consumes only one pint of beer per day will at the end of the year have paid a tax on it to the sum of no less than £1 13s., and surely, in view of the unemployment and dire distress that are obtaining throughout the country, some relief ought to be given him. This is the workers' Income Tax, and, if relief can be given in respect Of the Income Tax of one class of the community, surely something ought to be done for the working people.At the end of his speech, in a pathetic note, he said:If one man meets another and says, 'Are you going to have a glass of beer?' the other has to say, 'I will have one, but I cannot afford to pay for two,' and consequently I must go by myself.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1922; cols. 1996–1998, Vol. 155.]The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), in the same debate, said:The most important statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was that if this reduction of 1d. per pint, which the Amendment seeks to bring about, took place, the consumption of beer would only go up 10 per cent. This means that you 1036 are going to relieve the beer drinkers of this country, who are, after all, in the great majority manual labourers, of a taxation of nearly nine-tenths of £22,000,000 a year. Where is the mony going to which will be lost to the Exchequer in taxation on beer? It is going to be spent by them more largely on their families."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 2022, Vol. 155.]Another Member of the Socialist party who then sat for Norwich and had been Minister of Labour during the War (Mr. G. Roberts), made this point:While serving as Minister of Labour, it was frequently represented to me by both employers and trade union leaders that one of the great causes of industrial unrest was the high cost of beer in the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 2007, Vol. 155.]I will trouble the Chancellor with one more quotation from his friends, a quotation from the speech of the hon. Member who sits for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday). He said:Most of us here perform sedentary duties, but I would ask the Committee to remember the case of the men engaged in the heavy and hot trades of the country. They have been subject to the greatest reductions in wages. In the iron and steel industry, men working about the furnaces have had their wages reduced to almost pre-War level. It is not a sin for a man to confess that three pints of beer a day, according to his inclination, are not more than is sufficient to enable him to get through a day's hard, heavy work in front of the furnaces or down the mine. When, as a reasonable man, that citizen finds himself confronted with the almost impossible price of beer, his discontent does begin to show itself, whether it be in the home circle or at work."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 2015, Vol. 155.]Those are speeches from hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not from Members on this side. In the present state of embarrassment in his party, I should have thought that he could ill afford to have made any more malcontents. I therefore suggest to him that a reduction of this tax will be far more likely to bring him an increase of the revenue he wants than an increase and making the price of beer so high. For these reasons, I suggest that he should accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
This reduction is calculated on a figure that will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer. It goes to the consumer, every penny of it; and the consumer in the main is the hard manual labourer. It is a curious thing in this country that the wealthy 1037 classes who have sedentary occupations can in the main, without feeling any hardship, be total abstainers. Very few of them are. But the man who is perspiring at his job sweats out certain essential salts which require replacing, and that is why, when a man comes off the ship or from the pit, he wants normally a glass of beer. It is no use saying this would add to the profits of the brewers, because they make very small profits. It is one of the strange things that high taxation seems to add to profits of manufacture. It was not until prohibitive taxation came that brewers made large profits. The same thing happened to the tobacco manufacturers, which illustrates what the Chancellor said, that high taxation stimulates business. It does certainly stimulate profits in excisable liquors. But there was one respect in which that did not happen. That was in the Spirits Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer lost a great deal of money because he came up against the Scots, who were so thrifty that they drank less. The real trouble of high taxation is that it falls so inequitably.
The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) has really no interest in this matter. In legal circles, if a man raises an action and has no interest in the cause of action, he is thrown out. In the same way, the arguments of the right hon. Member for Camborne should have
§ no bearing, as he has no interest in the question because he does not drink beer. He frankly confesses that he gets rich by drinking none, and pays Income Tax instead; I should have thought that he ought to pay Super-Tax as well. It is an unjust tax if a man, by taking no drink, should be in a position to amass wealth; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should seriously consider whether those gentlemen who evade the burden that falls on the poorest classes should be called upon to pay some form of abstention tax. Everyone who does not drink should have to pay £7 or £8 a year for the virtue upon which they pride themselves so much. Then the Chancellor would probably be able to give the unfortunate labouring man who likes his pint of beer some reduction in price. This is a tax which is obviously directed to the consumer, and it is a great hardship. Possibly the Chancellor's arrangements will not allow him to make the reduction this year, but it should be kept in mind, so that the labouring man should be allowed to have this thoroughly sound refreshment.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 169.1041
|Division No. 304.]||AYES.||[5.18 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Buchanan, G.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Burgess, F. G.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Egan, W. H.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Foot, Isaac|
|Alpass, J. H.||Caine, Derwent Hall-||Forgan, Dr. Robert|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cameron, A. G.||Freeman, Peter|
|Arnott, John||Cape, Thomas||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Charieton, H. C.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Chater, Daniel||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Ayles, Walter||Church, Major A. G.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Clarke, J. S.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Cluse, W. S.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Gill, T. H.|
|Barr, James||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Gillett, George M.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Glassey, A. E.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Compton, Joseph||Gossling, A. G.|
|Benson, G.||Cove, William G.||Gould, F.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Cowan, D. M.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Blindell, James||Daggar, George||Gray, Milner|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Dalton, Hugh||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Bowarmah, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Day, Harry||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Dickson, T.||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Bromfield, William||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Brooke, W.||Dukes, C.||Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Brothers, M.||Duncan, Charles||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Ede, James Chuter||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Edge, Sir William||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Edmunds, J. E.||Hardie, George D.|
|Harris, Percy A.||McShane, John James||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Shield, George William|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mansfield, W.||Shield, Dr. Drummond|
|Haycock, A. W.||March, S.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Marcus, M.||Shinwell, E.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Markham, S. F.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Marley, J.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Marshall, Fred||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Mathers, George||Sinkinson, George|
|Herriotts, J.||Maxton, James||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Melville, Sir James||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Messer, Fred||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Middleton, G.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Hollins, A.||Mills, J. E.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Montague, Frederick||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Morley, Ralph||Snell, Harry|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Isaacs, George||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Sorensen, R.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Johnston, Thomas||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)||Mort, D. L.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Moses, J. J. H.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)||Maylor, T. E.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Oldfield, J. R.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Toole, Joseph|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Townend, A. E.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Kinley, J.||Palin, John Henry.||Turner, B.|
|Kirkwood, D.||Paling, Wilfrid||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Knight, Holford||Palmer, E. T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Walker, J.|
|Lang, Gordon||Perry, S. F.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Lathan, G.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Law, A (Rossendale)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Pole, Major D. G.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Lawson, John James||Potts, John S.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Price, M. P.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Leach, W.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Rathbone, Eleanor||West, F. R.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Richards, R.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Lees, J.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Ritson, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Romeril, H. G.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Longden, F.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Rowson, Guy||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Lunn, William||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wise, E. F.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|McElwee, A.||Sanders, W. S.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Sandham, E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Sawyer, G. F.||Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. T.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Scurr, John||Henderson.|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Sexton, James|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Boyce, H. L.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Albery, Irving James||Bracken, B.||Colfox, Major William Philip|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Colman, N. C. D.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Brass, Captain Sir William||Colville, Major D. J.|
|Atkinson, C.||Briscoe, Richard George||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.|
|Balniel, Lord||Buchan, John||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Beaumont M. W.||Butler, R. A.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.|
|Berry, Sir George||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holbern)||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston)||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croff||Chapman, Sir S.||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Christie, J. A.||Duckworth, G. A. V.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Erakine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Savery, S. S.|
|Fermay, Lord||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hoe. Godfrey||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Fielden, E. B.||Long, Major Eric||Skelton, A. N.|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Lymington, Viscount||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis, E.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Macquisten, F. A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Mailtland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Grace, John||Mond, Hon. Henry||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Sueter Rear-Admiral M. P.|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Muirhead, A. J.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||O'Neill, Sir H.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hanbury, C.||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur B.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Withers, Sir John James|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter||Purbrick, R.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ramsbotham, H.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Remer, John R.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Sir George Penny and Captain|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennall||Wallace.|
|King, Commedore, Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Ress, Major Ronald D.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That '£5 3s. 0d.' stand part of the Clause."1042
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 175.1045
|Division No. 305.]||AYES.||[5.28 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gillett, George M.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Charieton, H. C.||Glassey, A. E.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Chater, Daniel||Gossling, A. G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Church, Major A. G.||Gould, F.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Clarke, J. S.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Capt.)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cluss, W. S.||Gray, Milner|
|Arnott, John||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Asks, Sir Robert||Cocks, Frederick Seymous||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Astor, Viscountees||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenook)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Compton, Joseph||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Ayles, Walter||Cove, William G.||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Cowan, D. M.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Daggar, George||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Dalton, Hugh||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Barr, James||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Day, Harry||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)|
|Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hardie, George D.|
|Benson, G.||Dickson, T.||Harris, Percy A.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Blindell, James||Dukes, C.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Duncan, Charles||Haycock, A. W.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Ede, James Chuter||Hayday, Arthur|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Edge, Sir William||Hayes, John Henry|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Edmunds, J. E.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Bromfield, William||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Brooke, W.||Egan, W. H.||Herriotts, J.|
|Brothers, M.||Foot, Isaac||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Freeman, Peter||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)||Hollins, A.|
|Buchanan, G.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Burgess, F. G.||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Gibbins, Joseph||Isaacs, George|
|Cameron, A. G.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Cape, Thomas||Gill, T. H.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)||Mills, J. E.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Montague, Frederick||Simmons, C. J.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Morley, Ralph||Sinkinson, George|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Mort, D. L.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Moses, J. J. H.||Smith, Tom (pontefract)|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Kinley, J.||Naylor, T. E.||Snell, Harry|
|Kirkwood, D.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Knight, Holford||Noel Baker, P. J.||Sorensen, R.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Oldfield, J. R.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lang, Gordon||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Lathan, G.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Palin, John Henry||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Paling, Wilfrid||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Palmer, E. T.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lawson, John James||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Perry, S. F.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Leach, W.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Toole, Joseph|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Townend, A. E.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Lees, J.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Turner, B.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Pole, Major D. G.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Potts, John S.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Price, M. P.||Walker, J.|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Pybus, Percy John||Wallace, H. W.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Longden, F.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Watkins, F. C.|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Richards, R.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).|
|Lowth, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Lunn, William||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Ritson, J.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|McElwee, A.||Romeril, H. G.||West, F. R.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Westwood, Joseph|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Rowson, Guy||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|McShane, John James||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Mansfield, W.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|March, S.||Sanders, W. S.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Marcus, M.||Sandham, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Markham, S. F.||Sawyer, G. F.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Marley, J.||Scurr, John||Wise, E. F.|
|Marshall, Fred||Sexton, James||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Mathers, George||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Maxton, James||Shield, George William|
|Melville, Sir James||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Messer, Fred||Shillaker, J. F.||Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.|
|Middleton, G.||Shinwell, E.||T. Henderson.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Albery, Irving James||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Buchan, John||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Butler, R. A.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Atkinson, C.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Duckworth, G. A. V.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Berry, Sir George||Chapman, Sir S.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Christie, J. A.||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Fermoy, Lord|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Colfox, Major William Philip||Fielden, E. B.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Colman, N. C. D.||Fison, F. G. Clavering|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Colville, Major D. J.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Cranborne, Viscount||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Boyce, H. L.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Bracken, B.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Grace, John|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Savery, S. S.|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Meller, R. J.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Hanbury, C.||Muirhead, A. J.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nleid, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||O'Neill, Sir H.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Penny, Sir George||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Power, Sir John Cecil||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Purbrick, R.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Ramsbotham, H.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Lamb, Sir J. O.||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Remer, John R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Llewellin, Major J. J.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Long, Major Eric||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Lymington, Viscount||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Salmon, Major I.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Captain Wallace and Sir Victor|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Warrender.|
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir E. SHEPPBRSON:
In page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that a rebate of 10 per cent. is allowed when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue that only British-grown malt and hops were used.
§ Mr. ALBERY
May I ask whether it is your intention to call a later Amendment on almost similar lines?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am calling the next Amendment, and then selecting one standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul).
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
My Amendment brings us back directly and at once to our old friend, pure beer. I wish to know whether I have the permission of the Chair to make a slight alteration in the wording of the Amendment. I wish to alter it, so that it would read:Provided that a rebate of 10 per cent. is allowed when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue that only malt and hops grown, made and produced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were used.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Would it be in order if the hon. Member proceeded with his original Amendment and at a later stage were to move an Amendment to the Amendment making the alteration which he has suggested?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have no objection to allowing the alteration. But the Amendment, as the hon. Member read it out, is not quite in the same form in which it has been handed to me. If he will hand me a corrected copy, I will consider it.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that a rebate of ten per cent. is allowed when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue that only malt and hops grown, made and produced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were used.This Amendment brings us back to the great question of pure beer. The purpose of it is to give a 10 per cent. rebate of duty on all beer manufactured from British-grown malt and hops. As the Committee knows, this is the third time on which I have made this appeal on behalf of the great beverage which we 1047 hope to obtain, pure beer. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting very weary of my repeated requests, but I have to assure him that I have no intention of ceasing them, because I have always understood that you only obtain what you want in this life by importunity. Therefore I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall continue my efforts. Like the boy in the soap advertisement, I shall not be happy till I get it. My object is the establishment of a pure beer industry in this country, and the method I have always adopted is that of appealing to the Chancellor to give a slight discount, a slight financial stimulus, to brewers to manufacture beer from these ingredients. The last Amendment was lost, as I expected it would be lost, because its acceptance would have cost the Exchequer a great deal of money. Here I am asking for only a 10 per cent. discount to be allowed on a very small quantity, possibly, that will be brewed in this manner, and therefore the financial consideration to the Exchequer is not very great. By giving this financial advantage to the brewers we are peacefully persuading them to manufacture this beer.
This is not the establishment of a new industry; I am moving this Amendment with the object of reviving an old British industry, the making of pure beer from malt and hops. My friends in this House who are brewers, and I have several of them, say to me, "Your scheme is no good. The public would not drink the beer if it were made." My reply to them is, "Just give the public the chance." The reason why it cannot be applied is that in olden times they made beer from malt and hops only, and that was the time when we had pure beer. My reply to that argument is that as far as my experience goes beer is stuff which is made to drink and not to look at. If the brewers are right in their contention that the public do not want pure beer, then I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no harm would be done, because, if the people would not drink it, the brewers would not brew it, and there would be no loss to the revenue. We have been told that an Amendment of this kind would cost something like £20,000,000 to the revenue, but I do not think it would cost anything like that 1048 amount. It seems to me rather strange that whenever we advocate doing something that will give an advantage to British agriculture we are always up against the argument that this cannot be done on account of our foreign trade agreements, which always seem to be made against the interests of this country. I think the Government ought to make a point of studying British industries more closely when making these trade agreements.
My first object in moving this Amendment is to secure a good beverage for the consumer. I want to secure what the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) desires, and that is a better beer. My main consideration, in moving the Amendment, is to help British agriculture. When we are consuming a luxury like this so largely, surely we should arrange to do it in such a way as will do as much good as possible to the industries of the country. If a larger quantity of beer were made from British malt and hops, I am sure that it would be a very great help to the agricultural industry, and more especially to arable farming. Since I spoke on this matter last week, I have received a letter from a well-known brewer saying that, if the British farmer would only produce a better quality of barley, he would have no difficulty in selling it to the brewer. I want to increase the demand for the barley which is grown in this country, because it is admitted that so long as we are manufacturing our beer mainly from imported barley and hops we are doing no good whatever to our own people.
I contend that the adoption of my Amendment would give a stimulus to British-grown barley and hops. It is deplorable to read of the state of things in the Eastern Counties where arable land is going out of cultivation because barley cannot be sold at a profit. I think the people in our agricultural areas have a distinct grievance against the Government for not taking some steps to deal with this matter. In the interests of the consumers of beer and agriculture generally, I desire to see this Amendment accepted. My proposal simply allows a 10 per cent. discount in order to stimulate the manufacture of beer from British-grown malt and hops. If it turns out that my Amendment would not have the effect which I claim for it, then it will not cost the Chan- 1049 cellor of the Exchequer anything. For these reasons, I have great pleasure in asking the Committee to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
We had a long debate upon this question on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and, on that occasion, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied at considerable length to the arguments that were put forward. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) says that one of the objects which he has in view in submitting this Amendment is to stimulate British agriculture in the production of barley and hops. May I point out that that is not a revenue reason. I have been criticised during the past two weeks from the other side of the House for imposing taxation with other purposes in mind than purely revenue ones. I think the hon. Member for Leominster rather exaggerates what might be the effect of the adoption of his Amendment in stimulating British industry. There are reasons, though I cannot speak of my own knowledge, which would in any case prevent the brewers using a much larger proportion of British malt and hops than they do at the present time. I understand that there is more sweetness in malt which has been malted from imported barley, and, in order to get the flavour to which beer drinkers are accustomed, it is necessary to use a certain proportion of foreign hops. But, quite apart from that, there is an insuperable obstacle in the way of the adoption of this Amendment, and that is the existence of commercial treaties which in a previous discussion were dealt with at length by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the existence of those commercial treaties makes it impossible for such a proposal as that which is contained in this Amendment to be adopted.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he not enlarge a little upon those commercial treaties? Will he tell us with what countries the Government have made those treaties, and what provisions do they contain which restrict our freedom in this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what steps would be necessary in order to terminate those treaties if we so desire?
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
As I have already stated, that matter was debated at very great length when this subject was before the House during the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, on which occasion my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave a very full account of the special provisions which prevented the adoption of such an Amendment as that which is now before the Committee. I am anxious to oblige the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) as far as possible, and to give all the information which is in our possession on this point. Perhaps I might illustrate my argument by quoting the clause from our treaty with Germany which I believe is a model of similar clauses in treaties with other countries where the same matter is dealt with. It is Article 14 of the German Treaty which 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.It is quite evident that the suggestion contained in the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Leominster would be contrary to the terms of the Clause which I have just, read. The hon. Member for Leominster has said more than once that his Amendment would not cost anything to the revenue, but he is quite wrong in that argument, because a very substantial amount of revenue would be involved. The same hon. Member made a speech on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution in support of a proposal to make a reduction of 3s. per barrel where British hops were used in the manufacture of beer and an estimate of the cost was given on that occasion. This Amendment would of course cost more and the best calculation we can make is that the cost to the revenue of this Amendment would be about £5,000,000. Of course, that makes the Amendment quite prohibitive from my point of view.
§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
Is that estimate of £5,000,000 based on the assumption that the whole of the beer would be made from British malt and hops? I suggest that in the experimental stages at this proposal only a very small propor- 1051 tion of the beer would be made from British malt and hops and, therefore, the cost would not be very much.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Naturally, the amount would depend on the quantity of British malting barley and hops that was used. If the hon. Member's Amendment effected the object at which it aims, it would, I suppose, apply to practically all the beer brewed.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
That would mean that nothing but beer made from British materials would be tolerated.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Of course, it is extremely difficult, as the hon. Member knows, to make an exact calculation, because you can take many different bases for the calculation. The maximum cost would probably be about £5,000,000.
There is another very great difficulty in the way, and that is the administrative difficulty. I am advised that it would be quite impossible to carry out this proposal in practice. When the matter was raised in the debate to which I have already alluded, there were Members on the other side who made very light of the administrative difficulties, but I think that on reflection they will agree as to the impossibility of tracing the malt back. It would have to be traced back from the brewer to the maltster, and then from the maltster to the farmer, and probably it would also have passed through the hands of a considerable number of agents and others. I am advised by the Customs and Excise, who, as hon. Members know, have great experience in these matters, that the administrative difficulties would make the working of the proposal impossible. The three reasons why the hon. Member's Amendment cannot be accepted are, first of all, its prohibition by our obligations under commercial treaties; secondly, the cost—and even if it only cost £1,000,000, that is a sum that I could not possibly afford to give up; and, thirdly, the administrative difficulties. For all these reasons I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment.
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT
I think the Committee must have been very interested in the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this 1052 Amendment. I may say quite frankly that, if we were going to help the agricultural industry in this country in regard to barley and hops, I would prefer another method. That, however, is not possible, because, under our system, we are not permitted to make any fresh charges, and this is one of the few methods by which His Majesty's Government, with the assent of Parliament, could give assistance to British agriculture. For that reason, even though it may only be a small help, I think it is desirable that we should consider it.
The chief point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really on the question of commercial treaties, and I think that Members of the Committee must be very much impressed by the fact that apparently, under those treaties, we can give no rebate to any goods or commodities made in this country. That appears to me to be an extraordinary position, deserving the consideration of Parliament as to whether such a state of affairs should not be altered at the earliest possible moment, especially when we see the culminating effect of all our Continental competitors in the matter of cereals, and especially of malting barley. We have seen export subsidies on cereals from different countries, and I believe I am right in saying that at this very moment the Parliament of Czechoslovakia is bringing in an export subsidy on barley, which is going to be still another great competitor with the growing of barley in this country. For that reason I suggest that we should consider the alteration of the whole basis of these treaties.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it would be very difficult to carry out any proposal of this kind, and we have heard that argument, not only from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but from his predecessors in other Governments. I do hope that the Committee will get rid of this idea of administrative difficulties. The whole number of people concerned in the industry of brewing and malting in this country is very small. I have heard this argument so often in the past that I want the Committee to realise that it is grotesque. If it were decided that it was advisable, for some reason or other, to stimulate the percentage of British material used in the brewing industry, 1053 the administrative difficulties would not be very great, because the whole of the barley and hops used is bought through, comparatively speaking, very few channels. There may be possibly 1,000 altogether, though I think the number is not nearly so many, but more like 200, while the total number of consumers of these goods, namely the breweries, is also comparatively small. If you can trust the whole of the Income Tax payers of this country to give returns, and when you know that you can check any materials going into the breweries through the limited number of maltsters and hop merchants in this country, I submit that it is really no argument to say that there would be any grave administrative difficulty, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell his advisers that really there is not any. I think that the difficulty has been gravely exaggerated.
With regard to the amount of revenue that the right hon. Gentleman might lose, I personally think it is very doubtful, at any rate for some considerable period, whether any large section of the trade would be got to adopt this policy. It would be gradual. In the first place, it would help certain small breweries away in the country, which do not go in for the bottling trade and so on, and which are directly in touch with agriculturists. A few of these would make this attempt for the sake of the advantage that it would bring them. A figure of £5,000,000 is one which we cannot possibly contemplate at the present moment, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly pointed out, most modern brewers find it essential to use a proportion of the sun-dried stuff which comes from hot climates. On the other hand, the new burden imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be a very serious one for the small breweries scattered about the country. We have heard this afternoon the profits of some of these concerns, but I think that perhaps it may have been forgotten that there have been enormous amalgamations going on, and that these profits are the combined profits of many breweries which have been brought together in this way. It is the rationalisation of which the right hon. Gentleman would approve, and it accounts for a large part of these profits. The share capital of some of these 1054 concerns is very similar to what it was at the end of the long period of depression just before the War.
Surely, if we can do anything to, shall I say, transfer from the foreigner the custom of the British trade to British agriculturists—barley growers and hop growers—it must assist this country, and ultimately assist the revenue, about which the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned. Agriculture is suffering at the present moment, and, as we learned last week, the Government have no other proposals, so far as I can understand, to deal with the tragic situation of the industry. I urge that this small advantage should be given to British agriculture. If the smaller scattered breweries in the country find that it is successful, it might lead to a great movement for an increased consumption of British products.
§ Viscount LYMINGTON
I rise to support this Amendment in its appeal to the, one might almost say, iron ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for help for agriculture, since any efforts from this side to spur on his colleague the Minister of Agriculture have fallen on barren, stony and absolutely unfertile ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has envisaged the possibility of this 10 per cent. remission of duty costing £5,000,000, but, if that be so, surely there can be no better argument for passing this Amendment as it stands, because there could be no better proof of the good that it would do to the British agricultural position in regard to malting barley and hops, and it would probably be far cheaper than any subsidy of another sort. If the right hon. Gentleman's calculations are correct, no matter how small the extra benefit to agriculture might be, the loss falling on the Exchequer might easily be made up in increased returns from taxes on agricultural land. I am not at all certain that, if this 10 per cent. were remitted in the case of beer, and put instead on to a tax on the entertainment value which debates on beer in this House appear to afford, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not do equally well.
I cannot help feeling that anything which will help the worker on the land, which will give some chance of the thin end of the wedge in helping to encourage a real effort to brew British beer, is well worth doing. We see the decline in the 1055 acreage under wheat, and, while that decline is going on, the acreage under barley is declining also. That shows the depth of the depression. It seems to me to be a very poor argument continually to sit down behind foreign treaties when any effort is made in this direction. I cannot help feeling that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to accede to a memorandum put forward by his colleagues, and to thaw the frozen credits of hon. Members whom we see sitting in serried ranks below the Gangway, he might at least gain by throwing liquid assets to the land.
§ Mr. BUTLER
I rise because we on these benches are dissatisfied with the treaty position which is so holding back the future advance of British agriculture. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is here this afternoon, and we appreciate his presence, because I am sure it foreshadows his taking part in this debate. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will rise and, in his usual lucid way, will give us an interesting account of the international legal position in connection with these treaties, quoting eminent jurists and international lawyers, and telling us the occasions in the history of jurisprudence in the international sphere when—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)
I am afraid I do not see any connection between the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. BUTLER
I was attempting to point out that, on every occasion on which we ask for something for British agriculture, we are informed from the benches opposite that there is some treaty which stops it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer adduced, as his principal reason for his inability to accept this Amendment, the fact that there were international treaties and conventions which stopped us from achieving our objective, and I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would be the first to agree with that, because he must be painfully aware that our position is hedged around against our own producers by international conventions and treaties. I think that this is a very suitable occasion, if I may say so, to 1056 appeal to the benches opposite for some definite pronouncement as to the occasions on which treaties have been abrogated in the past by foreign nations as between one and another, as I believe, from my studies of international law, that it is possible, if necessary, to revise the treaty position of any particular country with a view to improving the position of the producer at home.
I do not remember since I have been in the House a single occasion when a really comprehensive account has been given of the possibility of the repeal of a Convention, or a Treaty. This is a peculiarly good opportunity for doing so, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will avail himself of it. The other reason adduced for not accepting the Amendment was that the taste of the British beer drinker did not like beer made entirely from British malt and hops. The right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, not the best person to judge what is the taste of the British beer drinker. I do not think we can look on information coming from that source as reliable. If he would refer to those who are accustomed to drink beer brewed from British malt and hops, he would realise not only that their outlook on the world is healthier but their general complacency is even greater. Those were the reasons adduced by the Chancellor for his inability to accede to our request.
I want to bring forward one or two rather important reasons why I think it is essential that something should be done under this head for the producer. The producer on agricultural land has not benefited at all from the Budget, and this is a unique opportunity to introduce a small piece of legislation to assist him. One thing has been brought forward in the monthly notes of the Temperance League, which the right hon. Gentleman is probably in the habit of perusing every month. They refer to the fact that many maltsters are now saying that the effect of this extra taxation upon beer will be that they will have to pay. I have heard from many farmers in the country that the effect of this extra tax will be passed on in reduced prices to the producers, and the producers on arable land are going to suffer by getting an even lower price for their barley. The average price of barley this year was 9s. 11d. a cwt. as against 11s last year, and the average 1057 price in November was 8s. 8d., as against 10s. 2d. the year before. There has actually been a drop of 5.5 per cent. in the acreage of 65,000 acres and one can see that the situation is extremely serious. It is the lowest acreage for barley this century with the exception of 1927, which was practically the same. These are extremely serious facts. They would not be so serious if we were offered a policy for wheat growing, but we are not and, therefore, we are obliged to take every opportunity to ask for some slight encouragement. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this very important Amendment.
§ Captain CAZALET
In supporting the Amendment, I disagree strongly with some remarks of my hon. Friend. I do not think I, as a teetotaller, could admit that those who do not indulge in any liquor take a less cheerful and less tranquil view of life. I understand that the consumption of beer is rapidly declining, and the revenue is going down each year. I am very glad. I believe, if there were no liquor or spirits of any kind drunk, we should be a happier, a richer, and a more prosperous nation. In spite of that, I desire to support the Amendment. One remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it necessary for me to intervene in the debate. Whenever we ask for any slight concession to an industry we are told we cannot be met because of some foreign treaty. We are tired of that argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that the President of the Board of Trade was more conversant with the details of those treaties than he was, and we naturally thought the right hon. Gentleman was not answering the point because he was relying on the President of the Board of Trade to do it. The question we want to ask is, how are we benefited by these trade agreements? In every debate that arises on this question we are told that it would act to the disadvantage of trade and industry, and we should very much like to know how any of these trade agreements that tie our hands act for the benefit of trade and industry.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I was not in when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech, but we certainly cannot discuss the relative merits of the treaties referred to. If the right hon. Gentleman adduces as a reason for not doing certain 1058 things, the existence of treaties, there it must be left. We cannot discuss the merits of the treaties.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that this branch of his reply dealing with commercial treaties was one that lay within the province of the President of the Board of Trade. We were very pleased to see him in his place, and the impression was universal that we should have an explanation, no doubt very brief, of the difficulties, if any, which would obstruct denunciation of the treaties. I hope we are not going to be disappointed in receiving that statement after our expectations were aroused.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I cannot hold myself responsible for any expectations that the right hon. Gentleman entertains. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly entitled to give the existence of treaties as a reason for not making a concession, but it would obviously be out of order to discuss the merits of the treaties in a debate of this kind.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
We are not seeking to discuss the merits of the treaties. We were going to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the steps it would be possible to take, and the difficulties that would have to be surmounted if we were to sweep away any obstacle imposed by the treaties. That was the point on which we hoped we should get enlightenment from the President of the Board of Trade.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I shall have to watch that very carefully and prevent the right hon. Gentleman if he responds from trespassing too far. I must adhere to my ruling that the merits of the treaty and other things pertaining to it are not in order on this Amendment.
§ Captain CAZALET
I intervened only to support my hon. Friend's plea that the President of the Board of Trade would meet the general wish. I am sure hon. Members opposite are as eager to hear him as we are. We are entitled to ask for a little further explanation of the manner in which the clauses in the commercial Treaty work, and, if possible, what arrangements could be come to, and how long it would take, to break 1059 the Treaties so as to enable us to put ourselves in the position of asking the Chancellor to do something which was possible and which would not run counter to any clause in any commercial Treaty.
§ Mr. ALBERY
I, also, wish to support the Amendment, chiefly with the view to according some help to agriculture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave three reasons against accepting it. The first had to deal with the question of flavour. I certainly cannot feel convinced by that argument. I believe there is nothing produced for consumption which you cannot find some way of flavouring to suit the taste of the public. I would also suggest, as I know the Chancellor is not in favour of any large measure of beer drinking, that, if they are unable to flavour the beer in a sufficiently attractive manner to cause its consumption to be continued, at any rate, he will have the consolation of seeing a very rapid decline of beer-drinking. His second argument had to do with trade Treaties. I can only hope that someone who is versed in the subject will have something to say and, if it is a fact that present-day Treaties prevent the Amendment being accepted, I still hope there may be some other way of conferring the advantage that is sought upon the agricultural industry. I should like to ask where the £3,000,000 which the Chancellor is getting from the brewers comes from. Directly, he gets it from the brewers, but where does he get it from indirectly—I was going to say in reality? It really comes from the agricultural industry. The reason the brewers are able to hand over this large sum of money is that the agricultural industry in this and other countries has been going through such a bad time, and getting such low prices for their produce, that the brewers have been able to make an increased profit.
Therefore, this already depressed industry is really providing the wherewithal of the Chancellor's Budget, and I submit that it is a very cogent reason why he should view this Amendment in a more favourable light. I am sure that hon. Members who sit behind him, some of whom represent agricultural constituencies, will not like to go back to their constituencies and have it explained that £3,000,000, or a considerable proportion of it, comes not out of 1060 the brewers' pockets, except indirectly, but out of the pockets of the depressed industry which has been going through bad times for many years. All that the Amendment really asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do is to put back a little of that money indirectly—as it has been taken indirectly—into the agricultural industry. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the matter in that light, and perhaps he will tell us that the matter will be further considered and that he will find whether there is any other way, if he cannot do this, of returning to the agricultural industry this money which has, in fact, been wrung from them.
§ Mr. HASLAM
I desire to support this Amendment. The situation of agriculture is serious, and of all the branches of agriculture, the situation of the arable side is the most serious. Indeed, it might be described as becoming desperate. This Amendment would give some small help. The farmer is coming to the end of his resources. Unemployment is increasing very considerably in agricultural districts. There are villages in Lincolnshire and other counties where unemployment has been unknown for years but is now appearing. Therefore, I urge that anything that this Committee can do in order to be of some assistance to the arable districts of agriculture should be done. I should like to add my protest to the protests which have been made by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee in regard to the Treaties. Time and again we come forward with most reasonable proposals which would do a little to help on the industry and we are met by the fact that a Treaty makes it impossible. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be carried, and then we shall be able to realise what the word "impossible" really means. I cannot help feeling that if that were the case, things which we are told are impossible could really be accomplished.
Another reason why I support this Amendment is that it might, in the rural districts, cause a certain reduction in the price of beer. In considering the duty on beer, I have on more than one occasion drawn the attention of the House to the fact that it is a duty which falls with unequal effect on those who have to pay it. It is a tax which falls on all alike whether their earnings are large or 1061 whether they are small. It is the way, combined with the Tobacco Duty, in which the working classes make their contributions to the revenue. If you take the case of a man who is earning £4 a week and the case of a man who is earning £2 a week, it is obvious that if they consume the same quantities of beer one will be paying proportionately very considerably more than the other. It is not a fair way of taxing, if one considers the variation in incomes of the working classes. The class on whom it falls most severely are the agricultural labourers in the country districts. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that it would, in particular, affect the small country brewery, who would be much more likely to take advantage of the concession than the larger brewers who brew for the general taste and who have asserted that it would not make the slightest difference. If we look at it from the point of view of these small country breweries it might result in the agricultural worker—the man who is receiving, perhaps, 32s. or 35s. a week—getting a healthier and a slightly cheaper form of beer. That agricultural labourer is at the moment being unfairly taxed in comparison with the working classes in the towns. A slight cheapening of the price of beer would help to remedy that injustice, and I desire very strongly to support this Amendment.
§ Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND
I wish to support the Amendment from two or three points of view. I want to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer first in regard to the cost. One appreciates the fact that, like all Chancellors of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman must look at the question of cost. We are told that it would cost £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year, and I would suggest that the beer drinkers of this country are grossly overtaxed. The tax on beer to-day is ten times what it was in 1914. He should look around and see what tax he could place upon the non-beer drinkers in order to balance that account.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the Amendment. This Amendment is both clear and specific. It is whether or not there should be an exemption or a rebate upon home-grown malt and hops, and we must keep to that particular phase.
§ Sir W. WAYLAND
I accept your ruling, Mr. Dunnico. I will now refer to the question of administration. I believe every brewer has a book in which he enters the different materials he uses in brewing, and, therefore, I presume, he would have to enter different classes of malt. If he did that he would have no difficulty in being able to give a reduction upon the amount of English barley or malt used in the brewing. I am very much interested in hops, the reason being that I represent a constituency where a large quantity of hops is grown. I am interested naturally in the fact that we should like to see much more beer drunk than at the present time.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If we are going to get this Bill through Committee we must keep ourselves to the specific Amendments before the Committee at any given time. The issue is a very simple one, whether there is to be a rebate upon home-grown malt and hops or not.
§ Sir W. WAYLAND
I will obey your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico. I should like to take a further point with regard to the effect of the duty upon agriculture. It has been expressed in this Committee to-day that barley growing has decreased because it does not pay, just as in the case of wheat. Barley for brewing has a special claim, because it is necessary that it should be of the very first quality. Ordinary feeding barley which farmers employ for poultry feeding is not suitable for brewing. If a reduction of 10 per cent. is given to the brewers who use English barley, it will be bound to affect the barley growers in this country. I agree that it is necessary, in order to produce the present light ales, to use a certain quantity of foreign malt. One brewer informed me that if the foreign barley was three times the price of English barley, he would have to use it in order to get the proper drainage and character of his beer. At the same time, it is possible to use more English barley if the quality grown is sufficiently good for the purposes of the brewers. Although 10 per cent. may appear to be 1063 a very small amount—our ultimate object being a reduction of at least 75 per cent.—it is an instalment which, I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give to us. I am confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very easily make up the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of which he will be short if this Amendment is passed.
§ Mr. CHRISTIE
Whenever any question of barley is debated in this House, we are always told that the position of the barley grower would be very much better if something was done for wheat. It has been said in this debate that the acreage under barley has gone down very considerably of late years, but it is rather a significant fact that in the county from which I come and have the honour to represent here—Norfolk—our barley acreage has hardly gone down at all. I will explain to the Committee the reason for it still retaining its former acreage. It is a very simple one. There is a great deal of land there which is incapable of growing wheat and it can only successfully grow, among the more valuable cereals, a crop of barley. Therefore, this Amendment to assist the barley grower is of great importance indeed to the Norfolk farmer. All these objections, such as the Treaties and the administrative difficulties, seem to be so petty when one considers the case of the Norfolk farmer. I have lived in Norfolk all my life, and when I go home every week-end I hear that some other good man has gone down and is going bankrupt. It is the most pitiful tale that one can imagine. I come back here and hear speeches from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which suggest that these ills can be cured by canning plums or something of that sort. This is all very well. There is going to be a most serious state of affairs. Here is a chance where the right hon. Gentleman can do a little to show his sympathy for a very small and tried body of men. I hope that he will get away from this question of putting it off because of Treaties and of administrative difficulties, and will really show the country that he sympathises with these poor farmers by making this small concession.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must admit, has dealt with this Amendment in a calm and 1064 courteous manner, which gave pleasure to those who heard him and is an encouragement to us from the point of view of our relations during the discussion of this lengthy and complicated Bill. I hope that he will persist in this great improvement on previous examples which he has given. But if the right hon. Gentleman's speech was an improvement in manner, he fell into errors of logic which were really quite painful. First of all, he fell a victim to the desire to use all the arguments on all sides of a subject at once. What were the two main arguments he put forward against this proposal? The first argument was that the flavour of the beer would be so prejudicially affected, although in this matter he was careful to tell us that he could only speak from hearsay evidence, that it would not be consumed to any extent and that the brewers, consequently, would not avail themselves of the facilities given by the Amendment.
That was his first argument, a perfectly solid argument. But the next moment he told us that the total cost of this concession to the revenue would be no less than £5,000,000 a year, so that apparently a change of which very few people would take advantage would inflict this enormous injury to the revenue. We, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the basis of his estimate of £5,000,000, and he proceeded to say that he was taking the entire consumption of beer at its present rate of consumption, which was being manufactured from purely British materials, and that then the loss would be £5,000,000. A few sentences before he told us that owing to the deterioration in the flavour the concession would hardly be utilised at all. Really, the right hon. Gentleman must not lose hold of the firm foothold of logical argument at this early stage in our discussions and attempt to use two contradictory arguments at once. However benevolently represented in his speech it does not lead to clarity in our debates.
The other argument he used against this Amendment left me comparatively calm. He spoke of the administrative difficulties. We have heard of these administrative difficulties until we are sick and tired of them. I remember the days, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman does also, when first I came into this House that it was the custom of 1065 the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it was administratively impossible to graduate the Income Tax. I remember well how I was shown sure and definite reasons, statements and arguments of the highest authority to prove that it had been found impossible to impose a duty on silk. Events have shown by actual experience and practice that when these difficulties are boldly faced and vigorously tackled, the administrative obstacles are often surmounted. The flexibility and experience of the Customs Department is extraordinary. I do not know any branch in which the officials are more capable of addressing themselves to new situations and assisting their political chiefs in finding a solution. I cannot for a moment accept the theory that the administrative difficulties are in themselves sufficient to turn down this proposal, even if it were desirable upon other grounds. At any rate, I am quite sure that the administrative difficulties which stand in the path of this Amendment are incomparably less than the administrative difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to face in the land legislation he proposes to introduce.
What is the remaining argument of the right hon. Gentleman? It is the old argument of the Treaties. That argument may perfectly well be adduced by the Government for not accepting the Amendment, but it cannot be adduced as any reason why we should not move the Amendment, and our moving this Amendment implies that we desire the Government to take all the necessary steps to give effect to it, including, as a sequence, an alteration or modification of such Treaties as exist. The right hon. Gentleman read a Clause from the Anglo-German Treaty. I presume it was the Treaty for which we were responsible. It was framed by the last Labour Government, which we took up and carried through the moment we accepted office five years ago. On the face of it, that Clause would seem very sweeping, but it may well be found that it does not cover all the points. At any rate, we discriminated against the foreigner in respect of home-grown sugar, and we discriminated against the foreigner in regard to home-grown tobacco, to Empire-grown tobacco and to Irish tobacco; and very great benefits have followed from it. The consumption of this cheaper Colonial 1066 tobacco has enabled poorer people who never smoked them before to smoke cigarettes, and it may turn out that British beer produced from British materials, if given the advantage of this rebate, would be cheaper than any other beer brewed in this country, and that, in consequence, some of the poorest people who now buy a glass of beer would be able to obtain it for a lesser sum and have a larger proportion of their weekly wage to take home. It has worked out in regard to Empire tobacco, and I do not see why the same principle should not be applied to beer produced from home-grown materials.
The President of the Board of Trade is in his place at the moment, and I trust that he will explain why it is that if we are able to make this discrimination in respect of tobacco and sugar we are not able to make a similar discrimination in the case of the materials for home grown beer? This is just the occasion for the President of the Board of Trade to make one of those excellent speeches, very long, very careful and very lucid speeches, delivered without a note and often without a point. His talents could not be better employed than in illuminating this matter. This is a modest proposal but, nevertheless, a serious one, and I cannot see why it should be brushed aside. Unquestionably, the barley growers would gain a benefit. It would not be large, and would not cost the revenue very much, but they would gain a benefit. It would also be an encouragement to a large number of agriculturists, for the Government would thus take their first step, a small one, towards showing that they recognise that an agricultural problem exists in this country and that they are well disposed towards the rural community. The only conceivable sufferers would be the revenue in the event of it succeeding, but, as has been pointed out already, in proportion as the policy of the Amendment succeeded in that very proportion there would be a revival of barley growing which would more than compensate for any loss to the Exchequer. I will not stand any longer between the Committee and the President of the Board of Trade, whom, I am sure, we are all desirous of hearing.
I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted by the Committee. It is not designed to help 1067 the barley growers. Hon. Members who have supported it are much more concerned about the beer interest. If they really thought about agriculture they would tell the farmers in which way they can really make money, that is by going in for dairy farming and fruit farming. I know something about dairy farming, perhaps rather more than some hon. Members in the Committee who are interrupting—
And I am interested in a dairy farm which is second in the production of Grade A milk in England. If hon. Members had any real interest in agriculture they would encourage farmers to go in for dairy farming and fruit farming on a larger scale. In going through Kent I have noticed how many hop fields are being turned into fruit-growing fields. Hon. Members are not thinking about agriculture, but about beer, more beer, and cheap beer. I shall vote against the Amendment. I do not think it is an honest attempt to help the farming industry, but an attempt to get more beer and cheap beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "And British beer!"]
§ We should do everything we can to encourage farming which will help the country as a whole, and not one particular section of the industry. The Amendment asks the Government to encourage the one thing upon which it has to pass restrictive legislation.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We cannot discuss that aspect of the question at this moment on this Amendment.
I accept your ruling, but I am a little disappointed that hon. Members who know a great deal about agriculture should bring forward an Amendment like this which has really nothing to do with agriculture and is solely in the interest of the brewing industry.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided Ayes, 292; Noes, 166.1071
|Division No. 306.]||AYES.||[7.0 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Foot, Isaac|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Forgan, Dr. Robert|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Caine, Derwent Hall-||Freeman, Peter|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Cameron, A. G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cape, Thomas||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)|
|Arnott, John||Charieton, H. C.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Chater, Daniel||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Church, Major A. G.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Ayles, Walter||Clarke, J. S.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Cluse, W. S.||Gill, T. H.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Gillett, George M.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Glassey, A. E.|
|Barr, James||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Gossling, A. G.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Compton, Joseph||Gould, F.|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Cowan, D. M.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Benson, G.||Daggar, George||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Dalton, Hugh||Granville, E.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Gray, Milner|
|Blindell, James||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Day, Harry||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dickson, T.||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Dukes, C.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Bromfield, William||Duncan, Charles||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Bromley, J.||Ede, James Chuter||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Brooke, W.||Edge, Sir William||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Brothers, M.||Edmunds, J. E.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Badwellty)||Harbord, A.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hardie, George D.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Egan, W. H.||Harris, Percy A.|
|Buchanan, G.||Elmley, Viscount||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Burgess, F. G.||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Haycock, A. W.||March, S.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Marcus, M.||Shinwell, E.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Markham, S. F.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Marley, J.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Marshall, Fred||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Mathers, George||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Matters, L. W.||Sinkinson, George|
|Herriotts, J.||Maxton, James||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Melville, Sir James||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Messer, Fred||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Millar, J. D.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Hollins, A.||Montague, Frederick||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Morley, Ralph||Snell, Harry|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Sorensen, R.|
|Isaacs, George||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Stephen, Campbell|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Molt, D. L.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Moses, J. J. H.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Muff, G.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Naylor, T. E.||Sullivan, J.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Oldfield, J. R.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Athford)||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Palin, John Henry||Toole, Joseph|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Palmer, E. T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Kinley, J.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Kirkwood, D.||Perry, S. F.||Turner, B.|
|Knight, Holford||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Lang, Gordon||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Walkden, A. G.|
|Lathan, G.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Walker, J.|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Pole, Major D. G.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Potts, John S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Price, M. P.||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Lawson, John James||Pybus, Percy John||Watkins, F. C.|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Leach, W.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Richards, R.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lees, J.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Ritson, J.||West, F. R.|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Romeril, H. G.||White, H. G.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Longden, F.||Rowson, Guy||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Lowth, Thomas||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Lunn, William||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Sanders, W. S.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Sandham, E.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|McElwee, A.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Scurr, John||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Sexton, James|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Shield, George William||Paling.|
|Mansfield, W.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Brass, Captain Sir William||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Albery, Irving James||Briscoe, Richard George||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Atkinson, C.||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Colfox, Major William Philip|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Buchan, John||Colman, N. C. D.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Buckingham, Sir H.||Colville, Major D. J.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Balniel, Lord||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Butler, R. A.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cazalet, Captain victor A.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey|
|Boyce, H. L.||Chapman, Sir S.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)|
|Bracken, B.||Christie, J. A.||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hurd, Percy A.||Savery, S. S.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Lamb, Sir J. O.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Somerset, Thomas|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Long, Major Eric||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Lymington, Viscount||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Mond, Hon. Henry||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Muirhead, A. J.||Train, J.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Grace, John||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'tld)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Purbrick, R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Ramsbotham, H.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Withers, Sir John James|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Remer, John R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ross, Major Ronald D.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Sir George Penny and Sir Victor|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Warrender.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."1072
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes 285.1075
|Division No. 307.]||AYES.||[7.10 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Albery, Irving James||Colfox, Major William Philip||Grace, John|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Colman, N. C. D.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Atkinson, C.||Colville, Major D. J.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cranborne, Viscount||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Balniel, Lord||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Dalkeith, Earl of||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)|
|Boyce, H. L.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Bracken, B.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Buchan, John||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Elliot, Major Walter E.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Lamb, Sir J. O.|
|Butler, R. A.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Lambert, Rt. Hen. George (S. Molton)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Fielden, E. B.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Long, Major Eric|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Lymington, Viscount|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Christie, J. A.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Marjoribanks, E. C.||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Rothschild, J. de||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Mond, Hon. Henry||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Train, J.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Savery, S. S.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Skelton, A. N.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Peake, Capt. Osbert||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Penny, Sir George||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Smithers, Waldron||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Somerset, Thomas||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Purbrick, R.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Pybus, Percy John||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Remer, John R.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Captain Margesson and Captain|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Wallace.|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Duncan, Charles||Isaacs, George|
|Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Ede, James Chuter||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Edge, Sir William||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Edmunds, J. E.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Arnott, John||Egan, W. H.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Elmley, Viscount||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Ayles, Walter||Foot, Isaac||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Freeman, Peter||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Barr, James||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Kinley, J.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Kirkwood, D.|
|Bellamy, Albert||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Knight, Holford|
|Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lang, Gordon|
|Benson, G.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Gibbins, Joseph||Lathan, G.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Blindell, James||Gill, T. H.||Law, A. (Rossendale)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Gillett, George M.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bowen, J. W.||Glassey, A. E.||Lawson, John James|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Gossling, A. G.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gould, F.||Leach, W.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Bromfield, William||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Bromley, J.||Gray, Milner||Lees, J.|
|Brooke, W.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Brothers, M.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Groves, Thomas E.||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Longden, F.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Lunn, William|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Harbord, A.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hardie, George D.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Harris, Percy A.||McElwee, A.|
|Charieton, H. C.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||McEntee, V. L.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Church, Major A. G.||Haycock, A. W.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hayday, Arthur||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hayes, John Henry||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Mansfield, W.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)||March, S.|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Marcus, M.|
|Cowan, D. M.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Markham, S. F.|
|Daggar, George||Herriotts, J.||Marley, J.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Marshall, Fred|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Mathers, George|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hoffman, P. C.||Matters, L. W.|
|Day, Harry||Hollins, A.||Maxton, James|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hopkin, Daniel||Melville, Sir James|
|Dickson, T.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Messer, Fred|
|Dukes, C.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Montague, Frederick|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Morley, Ralph||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Toole, Joseph|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sanders, W. S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sandham, E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Mort, D. L.||Sawyer, G. F.||Turner, B.|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Scurr, John||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Muff, G.||Sexton, James||Viant, S. P.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Walker, J.|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Sherwood, G. H.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Shield, George William||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Watkins, F. C.|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Shillaker, J. F.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).|
|Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Shinwell, E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Palin, John Henry||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Palmer, E. T.||Simmons, C. J.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Perry, S. F.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Sinkinson, George||West, F. R.|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Phillips, Dr. Marion||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||White, H. G.|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Price, M. P.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Snell, Harry||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Richards, R.||Sorensen, R.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Stamford, Thomas W.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Stephen, Campbell||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Ritson, J.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Romeril, H. G.||Sullivan, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Sutton, J. E.||Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.|
|Rowson, Guy||Taylor, H. A. (Lincoln)||Paling.|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, amicably but pointedly, does he really suppose that he will facilitate and abbreviate the passage of this Bill by moving the Closure, as he has moved it, at a time when we were expecting to hear from the President of the Board of Trade a statement on the matter under discussion, when we had every reason to believe that the President of the Board of Trade was willing to take part in the discussion, and when my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Labour, who had not taken part in the discussion, had risen for the purpose of addressing the Committee? It would not be in order to say anything which would reflect upon the decision to which the Committee came, or to which you, Mr. Dunnico, came, but it is distinctly in order for me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does he really imagine that he can succeed by these methods with this enormous Bill, with its 50 or 60 complicated Clauses, presenting hundreds of opportunities on which the opinion of the Committee may be obtained by Division and may be compelled to be obtained only 1076 by Division? Does he really imagine that he can get this Measure through by proceeding, from the very beginning, with fixed bayonets against its opponents? I paid the right hon. Gentleman a compliment but, I fear, I was precipitate, because he very rapidly, after some smooth words, relapsed to the roughest manner of treatment and he has carried his programme, so far, by means of the Closure.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that even at this stage it would be well to realise that patience and tact are indispensable qualities in a Minister when debating great legislative proposals. I have always held that no man can be responsible for the conduct of a great legislative Measure through the House of Commons, without revealing to Parliament his strength and his weakness, his character and his limitations. The right hon. Gentleman is now at the beginning of one of the most controversial Budgets ever introduced in this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, because class legislation and vote-catching opportunism of the most flagrant character represent the spirit of this legislation. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to help himself by this 1077 display of petulance and impatience which leads him to intervene with the brute force of a majority? Anyone who possesses a majority can use it against their political opponents. That is quite true, but never do I remember an occasion when I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in charge of a debate of this kind, practically snubbed and brushed aside my own colleague the President of the Board of Trade and prevented him from addressing the Committee on a point on which the Committee were most anxious to hear his views. It is as a protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in preventing us from hearing the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade, and in closuring my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), that I move this Motion.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair whether to accept such a Motion or not. I propose to put the Question because it may be conducive to good feeling, and promote a friendly understanding, as far as possible, between all sections of the Committee. But I must in the interests of the Chair make it plain that the Closure can be moved by any Member of the Committee, but the acceptance of the Closure is exclusively the responsibility of the Chair. Therefore, while I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to say what he has said because I take it that no reflection was intended or cast upon the Chair, I desire to have a proper understanding, and to make it perfectly clear that the sole responsibility for the acceptance of the Closure in these debates rests with the Chair.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has taken a most unprecedented course. He must, indeed, have a very short memory if he thinks that the action taken by me this afternoon is something unprecedented, in view of the tyranny which we had to suffer under from 1924 onwards. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I value his commendation and his compliments, just as much as I regard and value his criticism. I attach just as much importance to the one as to the other. The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of 1078 Trade had not responded to his request that he should explain the full operation and the provisions and conditions attaching to certain Duties. I gave all the explanation that was necessary in regard to that matter, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not called upon to intervene in the debate.
In regard to the question of moving the Closure, may I remind the Committee that we have now been sitting for nearly four hours, and we have discussed only two Amendments, both of which were repetitions of Amendments debated at great length and decided by the Whole House during the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions of the Budget. I am anxious to carry with me at all times the good will of the Committee, but I am obliged to use the resources that are available to me for making progress with the Bill. The Committee knows that the time that we can give to a Finance Bill on the Floor of the House is very limited, and that certain stages must be passed by prescribed dates under Act of Parliament, and we have always to bear that important consideration in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that I moved the Closure when the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was upon his feet. The hon. Member who had just sat down rose, with only one other speaker, and it had become quite evident that the debate was coming to a conclusion. As a matter of fact, I did not see the right hon. Member for Tamworth rise to speak. I do not know that I can say anything more in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to use the Closure more than is necessary, but I must say, with regard to the rate of progress this afternoon upon two Amendments, which had been discussed previously for hours, that if we are not going to make better progress than that, I do not see how I shall be able to get my Bill through before the statutory time elapses.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the discussions on the Resolutions on which the Finance Bill or any other Bill is founded are to limit the discussions in Committee on that Bill. The Resolutions are intended to limit the scope of the Bill, to fix a limit beyond which it cannot go in the 1079 expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, but they were never intended, and never has it been pleaded before, that they should be used as a reason for burking proper and full discussion of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is equally mistaken in supposing that he is following a normal course or that he can cite precedents. I doubt if he can cite a single precedent for his conduct on this Bill this afternoon. Of all Bills before the House, responsible Ministers have been most reluctant to closure Budget Bills, for the obvious reasons that they impose charges and that it is the right and the duty of this House to examine fully and carefully the incidence of such charges.
It is, of course, true that in spite of that reluctance the Closure has often been moved, that Ministers have found it necessary, or have thought it necessary, to move the Closure on a particular Amendment, but can the right hon. Gentleman find any one of his predecessors who has celebrated the first day's discussion in Committee by moving the Closure on the first two Amendments? If that be taken as a sample of the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has for the rights of this Committee and of the temper in which he is going to conduct this lengthy and intricate Bill, I think my right hon. Friend beside me was speaking sound doctrine and giving, if I may say so, good and even friendly advice to the Chancellor when he appealed to him to be a little more patient and not so hasty to have recourse to the club with which to beat us over our heads.
He complains that this tyranny—I use his own word—has been used before. We shall know that it is in further pursuance of the same tyranny, and that it is in pursuance of a policy of tyranny, if the right hon. Gentleman rises to move the Closure again. He admits that it is tyranny—it is his own word—but he pleads that the time necessitates its use. He says that certain dates are fixed by Statute for the Budget, but that has
§ applied to all Budgets for many years past, and not one of his predecessors has thought it necessary to open the discussion as he has done to-day; and they have not been sufferers on that account. The right hon. Gentleman is under no greater necessity than they were.
§ It has been the custom, with a reasonable limit of time after the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to take the Committee stage de die in diem, generally three, at least two or three, days a week. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to put it down for one day, and then to adjourn further discussions till the next week or for a fortnight, he can plead the dates of the Statute with greater force still, and if he delays discussions until immediately before the first of those dates, he can then appeal to the necessities of the Statute, say that he must have the whole Budget that night, and proceed to move the Closure without limit and without discussion. Really, that is not a wise way of proceeding. It is not the way which promotes or preserves good feeling in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all men, having regard to what has passed, needs to show some consideration for his opponents if he hopes for a smooth or reasonable passage for his Bill. If he sets out at the very opening of the discussion to prove that he intends to ride roughshod over the feelings of the minority, that minority will take the course which is open to them to resist the tyranny which it is the avowed purpose of the right hon. Gentleman to practise. I call the attention of the Committee again to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately set out on a policy which he himself describes as tyranny, and I say that that is an abuse of the forms of the House.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 280.1083
|Division No. 308.]||AYES.||[7.40 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.||Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Betterton, Sir Henry B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Boothby, R. J. G.|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Balniel, Lord||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft|
|Astor, Viscountess||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart|
|Atkinson, C.||Beaumont, M. W.||Boyce, H. L.|
|Bracken, B.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Purbrick, R.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Han. Sir John||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gower, Sir Robert||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Grace, John||Remer, John R.|
|Buchan, John||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Butler, R. A.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cattle Stewart, Earl of||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Haslam, Henry C.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Smithers, Waldron|
|Christie, J. A.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hurd, Percy A.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Train, J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Long, Major Eric||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Macquisten, F. A.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Making, Brigadier-General E.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Wintorton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Muirhead, A. J.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Womersley, W. J.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Captain Margesson and Captain|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Caine, Derwent Hall-||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Cameron, A. G.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Cape, Thomas||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Gill, T. H.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Charieton, H. C.||Gillett, George M.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Chater, Daniel||Glassey, A. E.|
|Arnott, John||Clarke, J. S.||Gossling, A. G.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Cluse, W. S.||Gould, F.|
|Ayles, Walter||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley||Compton, Joseph||Granville, E.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Cowan, D. M.||Gray, Milner|
|Barr, James||Daggar, George||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Dalton, Hugh||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Day, Harry||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Blindell, James||Dickson, T.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Dukes, C.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Duncan, Charles||Harbord, A.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Ede, James Chuter||Hardie, George D.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Edge, Sir William||Harris, Percy A.|
|Bromfield, William||Edmunds, J. E.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Bromley, J.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Brooke, W.||Egan, W. H.||Haycock, A. W.|
|Brothers, M.||Elmley, Viscount||Hayday, Arthur|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Foot, Isaac||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Buchanan, G.||Freeman, Peter||Herriotts, J.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Hollins, A.||Matters, L. W.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Maxton, James||Sinkinson, George|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Melville, Sir James||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Messer, Fred||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Montague, Frederick||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Isaacs, George||Morley, Ralph||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Snell, Harry|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sorensen, R.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Mort, D. L.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Moses, J. J. H.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Muff, G.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Oldfield, J. R.||Sullivan, J.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Kinley, J.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Kirkwood, D.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Knight, Holford||Palin, John Henry||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Paling, Wilfrid||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)|
|Lang, Gordon||Perry, S. F.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lathan, G.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Toole, Joseph|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Townend, A. E.|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Lawrence, Susan||Pole, Major D. G.||Turner, B.|
|Lawson, John James||Potts, John S.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Price, M. P.||Viant, S. P.|
|Leach, W.||Pybus, Percy John||Walkden, A. G.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Walker, J.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Richards, R.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Lees, J.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wellhead, Richard C.|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Ritson, J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Romeril, H. G.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Longden, F.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Rothschild, J. de||West, F. R.|
|Lowth, Thomas||Rowson, Guy||Westwood, Joseph|
|Lunn, William||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||White, H. G.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Sanders, W. S.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|McElwee, A.||Sandham, E.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|McEntee, V. L.||Sawyer, G. F.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Scurr, John||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Sexton, James||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Mansfield, W.||Sherwood, G. H.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|March, S.||Shield, George William||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Marcus, M.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Markham, S. F.||Shillaker, J. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Marley, J.||Shinwell, E.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles|
|Marshall, Fred||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Edwards.|
|Mathers, George||Simmons, C. J.|
§ Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL
I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
I cannot pretend that this Amendment is likely to give rise to any of the interesting and exciting topics for discussion which arose on the previous Amendments. Nevertheless, it deals with a matter of considerable substance and importance. I frankly confess that I move the omission of this Sub-section primarily for the purpose of getting a detailed explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Sub-section is necessary. It depends on whether that explanation is forthcoming and is satisfactory whether it will be 1084 necessary to press the Amendment to a Division. I want to utter a protest, not for the first time, against the increasing practice of legislation by reference. We have in this Sub-section a somewhat glaring example of legislation by reference, because it reads as follows:Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section seven of the Finance Act, 1925, with respect to the additional excise drawback to be allowed in respect of beer under the said section.On turning to Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1925, I find that it is a very long and complicated Section, occupying the best part of two pages in the Statute. It is a very technical and complicated 1085 Section in many respects. Surely, it is not suggested that the whole of Section 7 of the Act of 1925 is applicable to this particular Sub-section in the present Finance Bill. If it is only certain parts of Section 7 which it is desired to incorporate in the Finance Bill, I submit that it is an outstanding example of very loose and careless drafting that the particular portions of Section 7 should not be set out in this Bill, in order that we may know what it is proposed to incorporate. This Sub-section is only a single reference, but in other Clauses of the Bill there are many instances of similar legislation by reference. In some instances there are two references in the same Clause. I would call the attention of the Financial Secretary to Clause 10, which begins:Section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (which relates to relief from tax in respect of life insurance premiums), shall, as amended by the Finance Act, 1920, have effect, etc.There, we have a double reference. In the present case it is undesirable that a long and complicated Section, which was passed several years ago, should be incorporated without giving any indication as to the particular point which it is desired to bring in. All my colleagues who happen to belong to the legal profession, no matter on which side of the House they sit, will deprecate this growing practice of legislation by reference, however profitable it may be to individual lawyers in their professional capacity. Four lines of this Sub-section brings in a Section of the Act of 1925 which covers over 1½ pages of the Statute. Would it not be possible to consider the advisability of issuing a White Paper setting out in some details the position in regard to this Clause in the Bill, where there is a desire to bring in parts of a previous Act of Parliament, in order that we may know the exact necessity for it and be able to study the matter more at our leisure? This Subsection deals with the additional excise drawbacks to be allowed in respect of beer, while Section 7—the entire purpose of the Sub-section is to bring in Section 7—does not deal with excise drawbacks in respect of beer but with Customs Duty on imported hops and consequential modifications of the Beer Duty and drawbacks.
1086 The primary purpose of Section 7 is in regard to Customs Duties on hops whereas this Sub-section deals with respect to the Excise Duties in respect of beer. That seems to me to be a totally different matter, and I cannot understand the necessity for this rather complicated reference to a previous Act. Why should not the particular part of the Section in the Act of 1925 be specified and set out? I agree that hops and beer are, or ought to be, inseparable. Here, I should like to ask whether the Hop Duties are still in operation and what is the position in regard to them? They are brought in by the four lines of this Sub-section. I would call the attention of the Financial Secretary to Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1925, which says:During a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall be charged, levied and paid on the following goods, &c.That four years period expired on the 16th August, 1929. Have those duties been revived, renewed or reimposed in some way, and what is the exact position between the 16th August last year, with the automatic expiration of the particular Sub-section to which I just referred, and the present day? The Committee will be interested to know whether these Hop Duties are imposed for revenue or protective purposes. If they are imposed for the latter purpose it is a little difficult to reconcile them with the well known views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we delve further into this complicated Section 7 we find, in Subsection (3) another anomaly:During a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall, in addition to the Excise drawback payable at the commencement of this Act, be allowed and paid—Will the Financial Secretary explain why in the first Sub-section the period is four years from 16th August, 1925, and in Sub-section (3) the period is four years beginning on 16th November, 1925? Subsection (3) proceeds:in respect of beer exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland as merchandise or shipped for use as stores, an additional dawback.…The Committee would be interested to know what these terms imply. What is the definition or limitation that is placed 1087 upon the words "merchandise" or "shipped for use as stores." Section 7 (4) says:In the case of beer which is not of the gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, the duty or the drawback under this section, as the case may be, shall be varied proportionately.How is that varied proportion determined? It must be an extremely difficult matter, and it is surely laid down somewhere as to what principles are to be applied. I venture to put these points, which are, I think, of some importance, for information and for elucidation, and it is really for that reason and to persuade the Financial Secretary to give us a full explanation with regard to the various questions I have raised that I am moving the Amendment to omit the Sub-section.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)
I gladly respond to the invitation of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment to give an explanation regarding the purpose and results of this Subsection. First of all, if I may trespass beyond the strict bounds of order so as to answer a question, I was asked whether so far as the various points in the Finance Bill were concerned, we would issue an explanatory memorandum to enable the House to be seized of all questions involved. I would point out to the hon. Member that at Question Time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) with regard to certain particular Clauses, and the answer of my right hon. Friend was that so far as the particular Clauses to which the hon. Member for Farnham referred were concerned a Paper would be issued which would explain them in detail and that, if hon. Members felt any special difficulty about other Clauses and sent in a desire forthwith that there should be explanations, my right hon. Friend would see what he could do to explain anything about which there was obscurity.
§ Sir G. RENTOUL
Might I ask that wherever there is in the Finance Bill a reference to some previous Act of Parliament a short explanation should be given as to why that is necessary and desirable. I should like that to be considered.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he referred to the matter, said that he could not undertake to do that in every case, but where there were special reasons he would endeavour to meet the wishes of the House in the matter. I believe a White Paper of some sort is to be published, and, if that should prove to be inadequate, Members may make further representations.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul)—I do not know whether it was with a view to drawing me in the explanation—seemed to me to get near to appreciating the real point involved in this Sub-section and yet never quite to do so. He seemed to have found all the essential points, but did not integrate them in a way that would enable him to understand. There would have been a great deal of unnecessary verbiage if we had to repeat in the present Finance Act all the points summed up by reference in the short Sub-section with which we are dealing. What are the facts? In the Finance Act of 1925 this duty on imported hops was imposed. That is in the first Sub-section of Clause 7 of the Finance Act of that year. If that had stood alone, the British brewer who wanted to export his beer would have been subjected to an injury, because he would have to pay more for the imported hops, and he would have got no greater drawback than before.
Therefore, owing to the fact that duty had been put on some of the ingredients which the brewer uses, an additional drawback was allowed to him in respect of beer he exported so that he should not be at a disadvantage. As my right hon. Friend pointed out earlier, brewers use a certain amount of British hops and a certain proportion of foreign hops and in order to arrive at a suitable addition to the drawback the average amount of foreign hops employed in brewing beer in this country was taken into account. The amount of 10d. was decided upon as being a suitable drawback to give, and that is the amount allowed in Subsection (3) to which the hon. Member has referred. There were two points with regard to that that troubled him. One was that the date for the drawback was not precisely coterminous with the date for the duty. I understand that the date of the drawback was fixed later because it takes time to brew beer, 1089 and therefore hops imported on one date became exported beer some months later. That is the explanation. The hon. Member seemed to be troubled about the phrase "merchandise shipped or used for stores." That is all embracing. Those are the purposes for which beer would be exported. Exported as merchandise or consumed on the ship.
Sub-section (4) is merely the usual rule with regard to duties on beer. Beer has different gravities, and the duty is imposed as on beer of a certain gravity 1,055 degrees. Lighter beer pays a smaller duty and heavier beer a heavier duty, and in the same way the drawback has to be lighter or heavier according to gravity, but it is all worked out to be fair to all parties concerned. That was all done in 1925, and these drawback duties were put on for four years in the Finance Act of 1925. They were extended for a further period of four years, and therefore the duties on imported hops and the drawbacks which correspond to them are continuing at the present time. The object of this Sub-section is that the earlier part of Clause 1 should not have the effect of terminating drawback conferred originally by the Finance Act of 1925 and continued by the Finance Act of 1929.
Having now given an explanation regarding this Sub-section, I feel that my hon. Friend would not wish to press his Amendment, for to do so, were it carried, would have this effect. It would impose an hindrance to British manufactured beer for export, it would injure British beer, it would be a kind of inverted protection, it would penalise not merely the brewer who used foreign but the brewer who did not use foreign hops but used British hops, for when he came to export his beer he would suffer by not securing the drawback he had hitherto obtained. Therefore, I am sure that it would be an effect which the hon. Member would not wish to bring about. In the circumstances, I anticipate that the Amendment will be withdrawn. If it is not, we shall vote against it.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
I have listened to the explanation with interest, but I am bound to say that what has happened reinforces strongly the point we put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question Time to-day. 1090 There was not only the request for an explanation of certain specific Clauses, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked if we might have a White Paper giving us Clauses to which references were made and also giving a short explanation of what was being done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been) pressed for more than he was willing to give. He said he understood that legislation by reference was a most undesirable thing where it could be avoided, and he indicated that he would give help where required, but when it came to the fact then, apparently, all he was willing to give was not the quotation of the Clauses wanted, but an explanation of the three or four specific Clauses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). What has happened on this Clause shows conclusively how necessary it is to give it and give it with regard to the Bill as a whole rather than merely with regard to these Clauses mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnham.
I am sure that what the Financial Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) was not meant to reflect on his powers of mental analysis. The Financial Secretary would be the last person to make such a reflection, but what he said was that the hon. Member had got all the points but had failed to integrate them. I am not sure what he meant by that, but really what it amounts to, I think, is that my hon. Friend who is accustomed by reason of his profession to know the law and consider Acts of Parliament, not having all the apparatus and conveniences at the disposal of the Government, had not completely gathered what was meant by this point in Clause 7. It is obvious that anybody does find it extraordinarily difficult. The Financial Secretary himself had occasion in the course of my hon. Friend's speech to refresh his own acquaintance with the Clause.
I want to ask now whether we cannot have a White Paper giving us the information for which we ask. I was a sinner, as the Secretary of State for War knows well. We were both sinners in our time in introducing legislation by reference in regard to another subject. We were then convicted of sin, and said that we were forced to do it, but, when I was 1091 asked, I issued a White Paper quoting the actual Clauses for guidance, so that people might be able to understand them quickly. That is what we ask the hon. Gentleman to do. It is too late as regards Clause 7, but when we take important Clauses like Clause 10 and subsequent Clauses, it would be for the good of everybody because we should be able to understand better the results of the Measures which we are asked to pass.
There are two points that I should like to ask the Financial Secretary in regard to this Clause. If it is clear that to omit this Sub-section will remove the compensation that is given to any exporter, and will institute a kind of inverted protection, and be to the disadvantage of our own traders and to the advantage of their competitors in any other country then obviously we do not propose to press it. The hon. Gentleman said that the Hop Duty was continued by that Clause for four years from 1925.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I said that it was put on in the Act of 1925 for four years, and it was repeated in the Act of 1929 and continued for a further four years. All that this particular Subsection does is to say that, so far as the rest of Clause 1 is concerned, it does not do anything to stop it.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
It was probably a slip of the Financial Secretary. I listened carefully, and I thought that I heard him say that it was continued by the Act of 1925—
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I quite agree. I realise that it had not been instituted before 1925; it was instituted then, and continued in 1929. I think that I am right that in that Clause there is an extra drawback of 10d.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Precisely, it is the 10d. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if this 10d. is on the basis of the taxation that existed. When you have an addition of 3s. to the Excise Duty on beer, as under the earlier lines of this same Clause—
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I understand that, but the hon. Gentleman has not let me finish my point. It is compensation for the Hop Duty; it is 10d., but has that 10d. any relation to the rest of the taxation on beer, or only on the computed extra cost of hops owing to the Hop Duty?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I understand that it has no relation to the rest of the Duty. That is all I wish to ask, but I would sincerely impress on the hon. Gentleman that we would like to have a good deal more information than was promised this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We would press to have what is very easy for him to give us, a quotation of the Clauses or parts of Clauses to which reference is made, because when we come to the House in order to look them up in the Library, there is naturally a run on Acts of Parliament, and it is often impossible to get from the Library just those Acts to which reference is made.
§ Colonel GRETTON
This is really one of the very worst instances of legislation by reference, and the marginal note is not intelligible. There is one matter which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not notice. There is a Customs charge on imported beer of 10d. per gallon in order to put imported beer on the same footing as beer made in this country which has used imported hops, and the drawback is the same in the case of imported beer which is re-exported and in the case of beer which is brewed in this country and exported. The matter is very complicated, and I doubt if more than two or three Members know anything about it. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be prevailed upon to look at the drafting of this Subsection, and to make an intelligible marginal note.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
This is the first time in this Bill that legislation by reference occurs, and I am glad that this point has been raised at this stage. Legislation by reference has always been undesirable, and it is more than usually 1093 undesirable in this Budget because of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the first time in the history of this country, has over-stepped the line which divides taxation from confiscation. Therefore it is very necessary for the Committee which has to decide—
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to use the word "confiscation" in the sense in which he is using it?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member would be in order to expressing an opinion on the Budget, but he is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
On that point of Order. We are asking on this Sub-section for more information to be given by the Treasury, and is not my hon. Friend right, in pointing out the reason that makes him desirous of information in order that he may not assent to proposals being passed in silence to which he may abject, or in order that he may assent to proposals which he may not wish to delay?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the general principle of the Budget on a particular Amendment. There will be other opportunities on which that can be done. If it were permitted on every Amendment, then there would be a deadlock in the Committee's work.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
As I have pointed out, this is the first time that legislation by reference occurs in this Bill and I was trying to show why, in my opinion, it was more important than ever that we should find out what legislation is being referred to, because of the presence of a Socialist Government. I would draw attention to the fact that Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 and Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 are really the same except, that one refers to the Excise and one to the Customs, and so if I may I will let my remark apply to both those Clauses. I have spoken about it to you, Mr. Dunnico, privately, and you said you did not propose to call the second Amendment.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Amendment now before the Committee deals with Clause 1 and it does not deal with Clause 2.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
But the arguments for and against are exactly the same, the only difference being that one deals with the Excise and the other with the Customs.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must not try to get round the Rules of Procedure. I told the hon. Member that I did not propose to call the Amendment on Clause 2. But it is not in order to discuss Clause 2 on an Amendment dealing with Clause 1.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I wish to point out that they are the same arguments. May I call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the fact that the drafting of the Clause gives no indication of what part of the Sub-clause of Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1925 is applicable? Does it apply to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 7? That deals with hops, and I represent a constituency where they grow hops, and it is most important that we should know whether this legislation proposes to diminish or add anything to the hop duties.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Captain BOURNE
Before we part with this Clause there is one matter I wish to raise which has considerable bearing on the amount of revenue derived from the Beer Duties. The matter was touched on lightly in the earlier part of the debate by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson). He pointed out that before the War something like 36,000,000 standard barrels of beer were brewed every year. The present figure is in the neighbourhood of 20,000,000 standard barrels. What my hon. Friend did not point out was that the pre-War total number of bulk barrels was somewhere in the neighbourhood—I am speaking from memory—of 37,500,000 or 38,000,000, which is an increase of about 8 per cent. on the number of standard barrels. The standard barrel of beer is one of 36 gallons, with beer of a specific gravity of 1,055. The lighter beers, the lager beers and beers of that sort, actually bulk more than the standard barrel, and therefore two 1095 barrels of a lager beer will represent, perhaps,1¼ barrels of standard beer and pay a lighter duty. Before the War the difference between the number of standard barrels brewed and the number of bulk barrels brewed was very small—a difference, I think, of about 8 or 9 per cent. At present we brew something like 20,000,000 barrels and we sell in this country rather more than 25,000,000 bulk barrels. Whereas before the War there was a difference of about 8 per cent. between the number of standard barrels brewed and the number of barrels of beer sold, we now find the difference amounts to about 25 per cent. To my mind this must affect the revenue and affect it seriously.
It is difficult to make an exact comparison between the pre-War and the present figures, because in the interval the Irish Free State has ceased to be part of the United Kingdom and has its own arrangements in regard to Customs and Excise. Guinness's brewery is in the Irish Free State and its output, which used to be reckoned amongst the beer brewed in this country, is now included in the beer imported. Nevertheless the discrepancy between the bulk barrels and the standard barrels has tended rather to increase ever since the War. One of the serious effects from the point of view of home production is that the watering down of the beer necessitates the use of more foreign materials to produce a brighter beer; and, secondly, the revenue loses, obviously a certain amount of money.
I believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a small reduction, or even a larger reduction, in the Beer Duty, if it were coupled with an undertaking from the brewers that they would give back the benefit to the public in the shape of beer with an increased specific gravity, the revenue would in the end gain rather than lose and consumers as a whole would be very much more content. The pre-War difference was almost exclusively accounted for by the importation, and also the manufacture in this country, of certain lager beers. They are beers which are brewed on a different principle from the ordinary beers brewed here. One requires bottom instead of top fermentation. I suggest that the ordinary beer, the beer to which 1096 we are accustomed in this country and which we have had in this country for many hundreds of years, should be brought back to a specific gravity which would ensure that it was bright and clear and palatable. The heavy taxation which has resulted in a large increase in the discrepancy between the standard and the bulk barrels is not doing good to anybody, and I think the change I have suggested is one which might well be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I wish to ask one question of the Financial Secretary. He will probably reply that I ought to know, but I can assure him that I do not. In line 6, on page 2, it is stated that the duty on every standard barrel is £5 3s., and the drawback is £5 3s. 3d., which is 3d. more than the duty. Would he kindly explain that difference of 3d.?
§ Sir ASSHETON POWNALL
There is one rather important point which I do not think has been mentioned in these debates, and that has reference to the incidence of the extra £3,000,000 which is to come from the Beer Duty. In opening his Budget on the 14th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the increase would prove ineffective as a revenue instrument if it led to a drop in gravities, and he also said that the increase was too small to justify any alteration in retail prices. He said he had received assurances from the brewers and did not anticipate either reduced gravities or increased prices. What I wish to know is whether he got an assurance from the brewers that, while they would not pass the increase on to the public, they themselves were going to pay it, or is it the case that they are going to ask their customers, the tied houses and the licensed grocers, to pay part of this £3,000,000? That is a very important point.
It is common knowledge in this House that, many of the big firms of brewers have been doing very well in recent years. That fact is borne out by their balance-sheets, but I have always understood that the country brewers have not done anything like so well as the big firms. I know a good deal about the details of this trade, and, owing to the decrease in the consumption of beer, the retail dealers in beer have not been in 1097 such a good position as the large brewers since the War. I want to know whether the £3,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to raise by this proposal is going to be borne by the brewers, or is it going to be borne in part by the retailers of beer, who, I understand, will not be allowed to pass on an extra charge to the public. What proportion of the £3,000,000 is going to be borne by the brewers, and what proportion by the retailers, who may have to pay an increased wholesale price to the brewer for their beer and who will be debarred from charging the duty by means of raising the price of beer? Before we pass this Clause, I ask the Financial Secretary to enlighten the Committee with more details about the assurances given by the brewers with regard to this particular Measure.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
We have heard a good many arguments as to the various effects of this duty. We have heard arguments as to its effect from the agricultural standpoint and in other directions. May I remind the Committee of a statement once made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if one-tenth of the money spent on beer was spent on cotton goods, there would not be a single spindle idle to-day in Lancashire. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer could easily find other plans of raising the revenue if he could only get rid of this particular trouble which now affects the country. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) has admitted that the large brewers have been making very large profits. As against that, I am sure the hon. Member is ready to acknowledge, as the Committee must acknowledge, that our legitimate industries are lying paralysed.
How does that come about? Reference has been made to the fact that the working classes, who happen to indulge in this habit of consuming beer, are being taxed too heavily. I agree with that argument when you are dealing with a legitimate commodity. I agree that, if we were dealing with a legitimate commodity, Chancellors of the Exchequer would be doing a gross injustice to the great body of the people who consider this to be a reasonable refreshment. If, on the other hand, it is not a legitimate commodity—a statement which the right hon. Gentleman supported by his deli- 1098 verance at Cambridge in January, 1928—then unquestionably we are wrong in exacting this revenue from such a source, and we are proceeding upon wrong lines. Appeals are being made very strongly with regard to unemployment, and the Board of Trade figures show that unemployment is getting worse. It is rather remarkable that, at a time when legitimate industry is so severely hampered, we are persisting in a course of supporting in other ways an industry which makes the poorest demand upon the unemployment element of the country.
Our Employment Exchanges are unable to find work for those on the register, and the Government, from that standpoint, are finding great difficulty in meeting the unemployment question; but here is something which all parties understand perfectly well, and there is no dubiety at all about it. The facts are strongly against any other conception, and yet the Government and various parties are persisting in sustaining a method of obtaining revenue, which can only be defended on the ground that it is a dangerous business. If we are dealing with a legitimate business, then it ought to be perfectly open and free, and I ought to be free to open a public house if I desired to do so. Any man or woman ought to be able to do so, but there is a barrier set up against any one of us doing that, unless we first of all go through the procedure of getting a licence, which, under the present system, enables a very small number to exercise the power of a monopoly backed up by the Government.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is widening out the discussion very considerably. We are dealing with a Clause which deals with the increased excise duties. The hon. Member is in order in speaking against the Clause, but he must confine himself to what is in the Clause.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I realise the difficulty when we are dealing with specific Amendments, but, when we are dealing with the Clause as a whole, I think that involves the question of the exaction of the duty—
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I have not said that. What I say is that you cannot 1099 supply the beer upon which the duty is being exacted unless you have a licence. That is the only point that I was making, and it is to that point that I am directing the attention of the Committee. I know that it is only taxation with which we are dealing now. By this system of drawing revenue from this production, we are sustaining a force which we find from the Board of Trade figures to be one of the direct explanations of the unemployment which prevails. It makes the poorest demand upon the employment market in the numbers required in relation to the very large profits that are being made. I want to urge that those who, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, take up on other platforms a very definite position of criticism, when they come to the House of Commons and become Chancellors of the Exchequer or Members of a Government, at once completely surrender the principles upon which they have been making their deliverances on our platforms. If this thing is wrong from the standpoint of affecting unemployment in the country, then we are decidedly on immoral lines in taking revenue into the National Exchequer from this source. I simply wanted to make clear my own position, and my refusal to vote upon any such proposal.
§ Mr. CADOGAN
I have listened very closely to this discussion up to about an hour ago, and there was one point which seemed to me particularly to need elucidating, but the discussion has become so discursive that it even included a heated debate as to whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had ever been an agricultural labourer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) raised a point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not properly answered, and it has now again been raised by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). I want to substantiate an observation which the hon. Member for East Lewisham made just now, and I can do so if I can get the leave of the Committee to read a very short letter which was written to a retailer by a very well known firm of brewers. It is to this effect:With regard to the increased Duty imposed by the Budget, our object has been to supply to the public with beers, brewed from 1100 the finest qualities of malt and hops, at a reasonable price. In order, therefore, to maintain these high qualities of beers as supplied hitherto, it will not be possible for us to bear the whole of the additional burden imposed by the Budget. We therefore regret that we must revise our prices charged to you as from Monday, 12th May, and trust that the moderate difference proposed will not interfere with the good relations which have existed between us.I think that that brewer must be rather optimistic—
§ Mr. CADOGAN
No. I think that this brewer must be rather optimistic, as I imagine that the good relations that have hitherto existed will not continue. After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the effect that the increase of 1d. per gallon was too small to justify any alteration in retail prices—in other words, that the increase in price was not going to be passed on to the consumer—I should like to know exactly who is going to pay the increase. That is the point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton, and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered it satisfactorily. I am in no way connected with the trade, either as brewer or retailer, and I am so moderate a consumer that I think I can call myself a perfectly impartial critic. As a matter of justice we are entitled to know what is the answer to that point, and I think the Financial Secretary should enlighten us. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am not putting up any factious opposition. The point is one of some substance, and the Committee is entitled to an answer upon it.
§ Mr. BUTLER
Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I also have listened to the majority of the arguments on this Clause, and, before we part with the Clause, I wish to raise two points which have been mentioned before. The first is as to who is going to pay for this rise in the Excise Duty. I should very much like to hear from the Financial Secretary whether it is the producer who is going to pay. I mentioned once before that, in the Report of the Temperance League, which may be well known, as I said before, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is in the Monthly 1101 Notes a reference to the effect that it is quite likely that maltsters will pay, and, had I the opportunity, I could read letters from producers of barley and maltsters in exactly the same terms as the one which my hon. Friend has already read. There is a very great apprehension among barley growers in the depressed districts that they are going to have the increase passed on to them, and that this money is to come from the producer.
In order to show that I am not obstructing in any way, I will leave on one side any question of whether we are going to get a rebate on home-brewed beer, because we have voted on the subject and we have been informed that nothing is coming from the Government in that direction. I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether he can give an assurance to the producers of home-grown barley that they are not going to have to pay this increase. There is a very great apprehension on that subject in East Anglia in particular, and I have received many communications in regard to it. It is a subject upon which we should like an assurance from those responsible in the Government that the producers are not going to have to pay this amount. That is the least that the Government can do. They are not paying the slightest attention to our request for a rebate, and, in fact, there has been a feeling that we have been merely obstructing; but many of us who represent probably the most depressed sections of the population of England have specially come down to press this point. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear that we on this side and those whom we represent will be extremely disappointed if we do not get an assurance that this increase is not going to be put on the producer, especially after the Government have failed to give any assurance that they will help the producer by a rebate on home-brewed beer.
I was the Member who raised the point that the President of the Board of Trade should make a comprehensive speech on the treaty position. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the House with a large file, and I feel convinced that it is the preface to an epoch-making speech on this extremely difficult position. I see that he is studying the file, and I hope that he is going to introduced a new precedent, and will this 1102 time speak to us with notes. I am sure that, if he reads his brief, he will be able to give us a comprehensive reply on the treaty position as regards home-brewed beer. The other point I consider to be extremely important, and I hope that we shall receive from the Treasury Bench an assurance that the producer will not have to suffer. Now that we have had no assurance that the producer will get a little benefit, we want an assurance that he will not suffer, and I think that that is a very legitimate request.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I think the time has come when I should endeavour to reply to the points which have been put in the debate, and to the questions which have been definitely addressed to me. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) made several points, one of which was with regard to the producer. There has been no suggestion that the brewers will put this increase back on to the producer. Barley is a commodity which has many uses, and the idea that the brewers can force down the price of barley because a particular tax has been put on by the Government seems to me to be entirely without foundation. The hon. Member also appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to make clear the position with regard to these commercial treaties. There is, however, no need to do that at all, because the position has already been made perfectly clear, both during the present debate and on the earlier occasion when this matter came before the House on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution. It was then, and has been again to-day, made perfectly clear that there are Clauses in several commercial treaties—the one with Germany is a particular instance, and the important Clause has been read out, both to-day and on the previous occasion—in which it is set out that goods used in manufacture in the country cannot be differentiated against because they are imported goods. It has been agreed between certain nations and ourselves that, when we employ goods in manufactures, there shall not be a discrimination, as far as the manufactured article is concerned, as to whether the goods were originally of home or foreign origin, and it was pointed out that we should lose very seriously if we were to abrogate those treaties because, if foreign nations 1103 were to disregard the corresponding obligation on them, in many cases we should suffer very heavily. The point is shown by the fact that, not only the present Government when in office before, but the late Government saw the great advantage of these treaties and both took part in bringing them into effect.
The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) and the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) dealt with the question of the brewers passing the tax on to any houses for which they are responsible. Free houses, of course, can buy their beer anywhere and, therefore, if a brewer chooses to try to extort additional money from them they have the remedy of going to another brewer, and we can leave them to look after them-selves. The tied houses have no such remedy. If it were true that the brewers were to pass the tax on to the tied houses in the shape of price, that would be a very serious breach of the proposals that the Chancellor adumbrated. In regard to that, we have his letter, which has been read out already, which was received from the Brewers' Society, signed by the chairman:I am pleased to be able to give the assurance that the society will use all its influence to prevent any drop in the existing gravities and any rise in retail prices. It is also the intention that there should be no increase in the price to the brewery tenants.That applies to the tied tenants. Further, I understand that the particular firm to which the hon. Member for Finchley referred is not in the Brewers' Society which, generally speaking, embraces the great bulk of the brewery trade and, therefore, in the main, in so far as its extent goes, the point my right hon. Friend refers to is assured. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) asked why there was the additional 3d. drawback as against the Excise Duty. The reason is to cover the brewers' licence. That is the equivalent of the additional 3d. A rather vague point was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I am not quite sure what it was. The reason why the bulk barrels are larger in number than the standard barrels is that the beer is not brewed universally at the standard gravity. In 1104 fact it is on the average of a lighter gravity than the standard. I suppose, if the price has gone up, the tendency has been since pre-War to reduce the gravity of the beer sold. That is the only fair way of dealing with it.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HASLAM
The Financial Secretary dealt with the case of those treaties to which we on this side of the Committee take objection as bearing very hardly—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The effect of the treaties was explained in answer to a question in connection with this Clause. We cannot discuss the treaties at this stage.
§ Mr. HASLAM
The treaties have played quite a large part in this debate, and I would submit that a reply to the brief remarks that have been made by the Government would seem to be in order.
§ The CHAIRMAN
As far as I heard it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked a question about the treaties to show how they were affecting the Clause. He pointed out exactly how they would affect it, but we cannot discuss the treaties. He gave the explanation in response to a query.
§ Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL
On a point of Order. We cannot go into the treaties, it is true, but they have been referred to on one or two occasions and the Financial Secretary has told us that, if we abrogate them, the effect would be very harmful to us. We do not want to go into the matter of any particular treaty but, as the President of the Board of Trade is here, it would be helpful and perhaps you could see your way, Sir, to allow him to explain—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion explained what the treaties meant, and today he has replied to a question seeking information in relation to the Amendment. He did not enter into the pros and cons, neither would it be in order to do so.
§ Mr. HASLAM
In that case, I will recur to a point which I raised earlier in the evening. I believe these taxes on beer to be an essentially unfair way of raising money from the working classes. They are at a flat rate. Every one who consumes beer pays in accordance with the quantity he consumes. That is very unfair, and it presses unduly on the lower-paid workers. The worker who has a wage of from 30s. to 40s. pays precisely the same tax, provided he consumes the same amount, as a man who earns double or treble that wage. That is the point I desire to bring before this Committee, because it is most unfair. In regard to Income Tax, this House has been engaged for the last quarter of a century in graduating the tax in order to make its incidence fair between one individual and another. The Beer Duty and the Tobacco Duty are the two main ways in which taxation is levied upon the working classes of this country.
I submit that it is a fair argument against this duty to say that it cannot be graduated properly. It is graduated simply in accordance with the amount an individual consumes, and not in accordance with his income. It presses with undue harshness on the lower-paid workers, and more particularly upon the lower-paid workers in the agricultural districts. It is generally agreed that the workers who are engaged in heavy manual labour require beer to a greater extent than those who are engaged in light occupations. This is especially true of those engaged in agriculture. The working man in the town with an income of three, four or even five pounds a week is only paying identically the same duty as the agricultural worker earning 32s. a week. It has been calculated by an hon. Friend of mine that this duty might amount, if the worker consumes a moderate amount, to something like 18 per cent. of the worker's income. If a man consumes a pint of beer a day—this is not a great deal for an agricultural worker engaged in heavy manual labour—it will amount to something like 12 per cent. of his income. That is a very heavy burden for such a man to bear. It is an unfair burden. A worker in the town who may be engaged in a sedentary occupation may not find that this liquid is in any way necessary to his 1106 health, or he may not desire it, and he will, therefore, escape the duty altogether. If we look on this duty from a revenue producing point of view, and as a duty placed upon the working people of this country, I submit that it is an unfair duty, that it should be reduced, and that a better way should be found of causing the working class to make their fair contribution to the revenue. I have raised this subject on previous occasions, and I make no apology whatever for raising it on this occasion. I hope that the Committee will take that point of view into consideration.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
While the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was dealing with the commercial Treaty with Germany and the impossibility of denouncing that Treaty, I wished to put a simple question to him which he could have answered in two words, but he did not give way to me. I should like to know whether I can put that question to him now. Is that Treaty for a term of years, and, if so, when does that term expire?
§ Mr. ATKINSON
There is only one thing I want to point out. When we first heard about this increased duty we were told that it was a duty which would fall upon the brewers. It is now as plain as daylight that there was no justification for that statement. There is not a word in the Bill to secure that the incidence of this duty shall fall upon the brewers. We now know that nothing has been said or done in any way to attempt to tie their hands as to reducing the price of the raw materials which they use in the manufacture of their beers. They are absolutely free. Whatever undertaking they give as to retail prices will be worth nothing, because they do not sell retail. There is no undertaking of any kind as to the prices which they charge to tied tenants or to free tenants. There was an expression in a letter as to their intention, but it was not even a promise. As far as this Bill and the duty are concerned, there is nothing in the wide world to prevent any brewer raising the price of the beer he sells to the tied or to the free tenant, and there is nothing to prevent the retailer from raising the price, if he can get it, and nothing to prevent the brewers combining as a whole to reduce the prices of the raw materials they buy. The fiction 1107 that this is a duty which falls upon the brewers ought to be exploded and cleared out of the way as soon as possible.
§ Question put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 143.1109
|Division No. 309.]||AYES.||[9.12 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Gossling, A. G.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gould, F.||Mansfield, W.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||March, S.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Marcus, M.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gray, Milner||Markham, S. F.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Marley, J.|
|Arnott, John||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Marshall, Fred|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mathers, George|
|Ayles, Walter||Groves, Thomas E.||Matters, L. W.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Melville, Sir James|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Messer, Fred|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Middleton, G.|
|Barr, James||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Montague, Frederick|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Morley, Ralph|
|Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Harbord, A.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Benson, G.||Hardie, George D.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Harris, Percy A.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Haycock, A. W.||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hayday, Arthur||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)||Muff, G.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Bromfield, William||Herriotts, J.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Bromley, J.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Brooke, W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Brothers, M.||Hoffman, P. C.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hollins, A.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hopkin, Daniel||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Horrabin, J. F.||Palin, John Henry|
|Buchanan, G.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Perry, S. F.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Isaacs, George||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Potts, John S.|
|Cape, Thomas||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Price, M. P.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Charieton, H. C.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Chater, Daniel||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Richards, R.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Compton, Joseph||Kennedy, Thomas||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Ritson, J.|
|Daggar, George||Kinley, J.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kirkwood, D.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Knight, Holford||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lang, Gordon||Rowson, Guy|
|Day, Harry||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lathan, G.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Dickson, T.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Dukes, C.||Lawrence, Susan||Sanders, W. S.|
|Duncan, Charles||Lawson, John James||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Scurr, John|
|Edge, Sir William||Leach, W.||Sexton, James|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lees, J.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Egan, W. H.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shield, George William|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lindley, Fred W.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Foot, Isaac||Logan, David Gilbert||Shinwell, E.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Longbottom, A. W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Freeman, Peter||Longden, F.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Lowth, Thomas||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lunn, William||Sinkinson, George|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||McElwee, A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Gill, T. H.||McEntee, V. L.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Gillett, George M.||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Glassey, A. E.||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Smith, W. H. (Norwich)||Townend, A. E.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Snell, Harry||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||White, H. G.|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Turner, B.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Stamford, Thomas W.||Vaughan, D. J.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Stephen, Campbell||Viant, S. P.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Walkden, A. G.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Sullivan, J.||Walker, J.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Sutton, J. E.||Wallace, H. W.||Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Wallhead, Richard C.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Watkins, F. C.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Thurtle, Ernest||Wellock, Wilfred||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Tillett, Ben||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Tinker, John Joseph||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Toole, Joseph||West, F. R.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fielden, E. B.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Albery, Irving James||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Ford, Sir P. J.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Purbrick, R.|
|Atkinson, C.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Balniel, Lord||Gower, Sir Robert||Remer, John R.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Grace, John||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Greene, W. P. Crawlord||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Boyce, H. L.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bracken, B.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hammersley, S. S.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Butler, R. A.||Haslam, Henry C.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Castle Stewart, Earl of||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Christie, J. A.||Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hurd, Percy A.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Train, J.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Long, Major Eric||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Lymington, Viscount||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Macquisten, F. A.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Sir Frederick Thomson and Major|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||O'Neill, Sir H.||The Marquess of Titchfield,|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.